Ohio Archives - ��ϳԹ�� News

Farm Bureau Health Plans Beat the ACA on Prices With an Age-Old Tactic: Rejecting Sick People

Michelle Andrews — Thu, 09 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Robin Carlton pays about $650 a month for a plan on the Missouri health insurance exchange that covers him and his two teenage kids.

That monthly total is $200 higher than what he paid last year, due in part to the expiration in December of covid pandemic-era premium tax credits. But the self-employed St. Louis property manager isn’t in any hurry to investigate a new type of coverage that might be cheaper than his marketplace plan: farm bureau health plans.

“Although I’m not a fan of rising costs, I’m not going to sacrifice coverage for my kids to save a buck,” Carlton said.

Carlton finds himself among a growing number of Americans who have confronted difficult choices because of rising Affordable Care Act premiums and other affordability issues. For instance, a found that many returning marketplace enrollees reported higher costs this year.

In addition, most expressed worry about affording routine and unexpected medical care, as well as the cost of prescription drugs. Worries were greater among those with lower incomes and chronic health conditions. And about 5% of respondents said they had switched to some type of non-ACA coverage.

Health policy experts say such concerns are giving new legs to alternative forms of coverage — for instance, farm bureau plans.

As of this year, that allow health coverage through state farm bureaus, grassroots membership organizations that advocate for the agricultural industry and rural interests. An annual membership in the bureau typically costs $30 to $50, and in many of the states anyone can join. With membership comes the option of buying into the health plan.

Plan details vary by state, but they typically share many features of marketplace plans, including coverage of a wide range of services, a broad practitioner network, and a way to file complaints.

But because states have passed laws exempting from health insurance requirements, they don’t offer many of the coverage protections provided by insurance. That means their benefits and coverage rules may be less generous or predictable than Obamacare plans.

Crucially, farm bureau plans don’t have to accept everyone who applies for coverage. People must pass underwriting first, a process in which plans evaluate applicants’ medical history and health conditions and decide whether to offer them coverage. This practice was routine before the ACA passed, and people were often rejected due to preexisting medical conditions.

Because farm bureau plans can turn down people with expensive chronic conditions or a history of cancer or other medical issues, farm bureau plans may be than unsubsidized marketplace plans, plan managers say.

As people struggle to keep family farms afloat, they may face Obamacare premiums totaling thousands of dollars a month, leading some to forgo coverage, said Missouri Farm Bureau president Garrett Hawkins.

“We’re trying to present another option,” he said.

Sowing Choices

In 2026, with the expiration of enhanced premium tax credits, average ACA premium payments were estimated to for subsidized enrollees who retained their marketplace plan, according to KFF.

Last year, was one of four states that passed laws permitting farm bureau health plans. The others were , , and .

Although the number of states offering them has ticked up in recent years, farm bureau health plans aren’t new. Tennessee has been offering the coverage . Tennessee’s Farm Bureau Health Plans administers the plans in 10 of the 14 states that permit them.

In Missouri, the farm bureau offers with varying deductibles, copayments, and annual limits on out-of-pocket spending. Many of the benefits and cost-sharing amounts look like the coverage someone might get on the state health insurance exchanges or through an employer. They include emergency care and hospitalization, physician office visits, prescription drugs, free preventive care, and dental and vision services. Members have access to providers through the UnitedHealthcare Choice Plus national network.

Hawkins said he’s pleased with the interest the plans are generating. People could apply for coverage through the website starting Jan. 1, and by mid-March, 520 people had submitted applications, he said.

It’s uncertain how many of those people will clear the underwriting hurdle and buy a farm bureau plan, however. Farm bureau health plans can deny coverage for any reason. Even if coverage is offered, plans in Missouri don’t cover any for at least six or 12 months. In addition, plans may exclude coverage of any benefits related to a “known risk” for two to seven years, depending on the issue. So people with a range of conditions, such as diabetes, high cholesterol, heart problems, or successfully treated cancer, may be turned down or have to pay out-of-pocket for any related care for at least a year and possibly as long as seven years.

“People don’t like that we underwrite, but if we did everything like the ACA, we’d be just like an ACA plan,” said , general counsel and chief compliance and privacy officer at Tennessee’s Farm Bureau Health Plans. “We’re trying to be an option for folks that would otherwise not have coverage.”

Staying Rooted in Coverage

Under the Missouri law, once someone is covered by a farm bureau plan, they can’t be kicked off or charged a higher rate if they get sick. That’s also true for the nine other states where Tennessee administers the plans, Beard said.

“We do not contractually have the right to raise premiums or cancel plans based on [an individual’s] health experience,” he said.

And yet, “it can be really confusing to people” because the plans look like insurance products, but they don’t have the same protections, said , principal for policy development, access to, and quality of care at the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.

Someone with a history of cancer would be unlikely to get approved for a farm bureau plan in the first place, Howard said. If they were accepted, the services they might need would likely be excluded from coverage, she said.

“We’re just concerned that there’s going to be more people enrolled in these plans now because there’s so many more states that are allowing them,” Howard said.

Carlton, the self-employed property manager, knows firsthand how underwriting can limit coverage options. Before the Affordable Care Act required that anyone be accepted regardless of health status, Carlton, who has diabetes, had to buy coverage through his state’s high-risk pool, which was often the only option for people with preexisting conditions.

Meanwhile, policy experts share Howard’s concerns.

Insurance companies in the ACA marketplaces “have to offer maternity coverage, and they have to give you benefits on day one for a preexisting condition, and they can’t charge you more because you have that condition,” said , vice president for health policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. This creates an uneven playing field for insurers and drives up premiums for the people who can’t get into farm bureau plans.

Farm bureau plans “get to use, you know, the standard market as a high-risk pool, essentially, if they want to,” Lueck said.

Still, with the huge jump in premiums that many people are facing for ACA coverage, it’s easy to understand the appeal of farm bureau plans.

“I’m not saying it’s a good thing that states have abdicated their regulatory responsibility here,” said , co-director of the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University. “I’m just saying that there are a lot of people out there who are struggling, who need health care, and simply can’t afford the premiums in these ACA marketplaces anymore.”

Are you struggling to afford your health insurance? Have you decided to forgo coverage? to contact ��ϳԹ�� News and share your story.

��ϳԹ�� 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/health-care-costs/farm-bureau-plans-less-pricey-alternative-aca-coverage-tradeoffs/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2174986&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Can I Opt Out of Having My Doctor Take Notes With AI?

Katherine Ruppelt, Nashville Public Radio — Tue, 07 Apr 2026 09:00:00 +0000

LISTEN: AI scribes are changing medical care. Here’s what to know if the technology shows up at your next doctor’s appointment.

Family physician Eric Boose has been using an artificial intelligence tool to get back to what he calls “old-fashioned medicine” — talking with patients face-to-face, without having to type into a computer at the same time.

“I can really just sit there and engage and just focus on them and listen,” said Boose, who .

Roughly two years ago, he started using an AI notetaker app during patient visits. The tool listens while he talks with patients and then automatically generates a visit summary based on the conversation. The summary is usually ready within seconds after the appointment ends.

“It’s taking care of all that tedious work of charting and taking notes during the visit,” he said. “It’s just freeing up a lot more time to get that done, and I can get home to my family earlier.”

Nearly a third of physician practices are using AI scribes and others are working to add the tool, in an effort to cut down on administrative work.

If your practitioner suggests using an AI scribe at your next appointment, here are three things to keep in mind:

1. Clinicians should ask for your permission.

At the start of an appointment, your doctor might ask something like, “Are you OK if I use an AI scribe to help me take notes during this appointment?” A common practice is to accept verbal, not written, consent from patients before turning the tool on. However, the legal requirements for getting permission to record a patient conversation vary by state.

Boose said you can ask to pause the AI scribe at any point, especially to discuss something sensitive. And if you decline altogether, your practitioner will likely return to taking manual notes on a computer.

2. AI scribes make mistakes too, so check their work.

Like other AI tools, medical scribes can “hallucinate,” or spontaneously add errors into a record. AI scribes can also omit important information or miss context clues within a conversation.

Clinicians are supposed to review and edit the AI-generated visit summaries before adding them to a patient’s record. As a patient, it’s a good practice to carefully review your visit summary and contact your health provider if you notice errors.

3. Yes, the AI company could use your data, with limitations.

Companies and health systems that offer AI scribe tools have access to medical data and are subject to federal standards about how they use and store patient data, under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, more commonly known as HIPAA.

They may use data from your appointment to help improve their software without informing you, said Darius Tahir, who reports on health technology for ��ϳԹ�� News. “ If information is ‘de-identified,’ which can mean stripping it of identifiers [and] making sure it’s not personally traceable back to people, then it is more free to be used in more ways,” he said. “There are way fewer regulatory requirements.”

If you want to know how your data is being used, ask either your practitioner or medical system for more information. But you might not get a clear answer, Tahir said.

People and Policy

The U.S. health care system will likely continue to integrate AI technology into patient care. The Trump administration strongly supports the development and use of AI, especially in health care. In early 2025, President Donald Trump issued reducing existing regulations on AI to help the U.S. “retain global leadership of artificial intelligence.” In December, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released an stating that the department supports “integrating AI to modernize care and public health infrastructure to improve health at the individual and population levels.”

Emily Siner at Nashville Public Radio contributed to this report.

HealthQ is a health series from reporters Cara Anthony and Blake Farmer, approachable guides to an unapproachable health care system. It’s a collaboration between Nashville Public Radio and ��ϳԹ�� News.

This article/health-industry/healthq-ai-scribes-notetaker-doctor-visit-data-privacy/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2173301&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Trump’s Hunt for Undocumented Medicaid Enrollees Yields Few Violators

Phil Galewitz — Tue, 31 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Last August, as part of the federal government’s crackdown on people in the country illegally, the Trump administration of hundreds of thousands of Medicaid enrollees with orders to determine whether they were ineligible based on immigration status.

But seven months later, findings from five states shared with ��ϳԹ�� News show that the reviews have uncovered little evidence of a widespread problem.

Only U.S. citizens and some lawfully present immigrants are eligible for Medicaid, which covers health care costs for people with low incomes and disabilities, and the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program. Both programs are administered by states.

Spokespeople from Pennsylvania’s and Colorado’s Medicaid agencies said, as of March, the states had found no one who needed to be terminated from Medicaid. That was after checking a combined 79,000 names.

Texas has reviewed records of more than 28,000 Medicaid enrollees at the Trump administration’s request and terminated coverage for 77 of them, according to Jennifer Ruffcorn, a spokesperson for the Texas Department of Human Services.

Ohio has checked 65,000 Medicaid enrollees, of which 260 people were disenrolled from the program, said Stephanie O’Grady, a spokesperson for the Ohio Department of Medicaid.

In Utah, 42 of the 8,000 enrollees identified by the Trump administration had their Medicaid coverage terminated, said Becky Wickstrom, a spokesperson for the state’s Department of Workforce Services.

In announcing the reviews, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said: “We are tightening oversight of enrollment to safeguard taxpayer dollars and guarantee that these vital programs serve only those who are truly eligible under the law.”

Leonardo Cuello, a research professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, said the reviews ordered by the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services were unneeded because states check immigration status when people sign up.

“It is entirely predictable that all of these burdensome reviews that the federal government is forcing upon states would yield no pay dirt,” Cuello said. “The states had already done the reviews once, and CMS was just making them reverify the same information they had already checked. Making states go through the same bureaucratic process twice is incredibly wasteful and inefficient.”

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich said in a statement to ��ϳԹ�� News that the ongoing checks are verifying eligibility “for certain enrollees whose status could not be confirmed through federal data sources.”

“CMS provides states with regular reports for follow-up review, and states are responsible for independently verifying eligibility and taking appropriate action consistent with federal requirements,” he said.

But the findings shared with ��ϳԹ�� News also suggest that many of the enrollees whose eligibility the Trump administration said it could not confirm are indeed U.S. citizens. O’Grady said Ohio found that, of the 65,000 names referred by the federal government, the state already had information on 53,000 confirming them as citizens and an additional 11,000 showing appropriate immigration status for Medicaid.

Caseworkers then worked on the remaining 1,000 names to review their information or reach out for more details, she said.

CMS did not answer questions about the findings from the states sampled by ��ϳԹ�� News or provide information about responses it received from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, which were instructed to perform verification checks.

The agency also did not respond to a question about whether it’s forwarding the names of those whose Medicaid coverage was terminated to federal immigration officials.

In June, advisers to Kennedy ordered CMS to share information about Medicaid enrollees with the Department of Homeland Security, prompting a lawsuit by some states alarmed that the administration would use the information for its deportation campaign against residents living in the U.S. without authorization.

A federal judge that Immigration and Customs Enforcement workers could access information only about people in the country unlawfully in the Medicaid databases of the states that sued.

CMS continues to send states lists of names at least every few months, though state officials say the numbers have declined since the first batch last summer.

People without legal status are ineligible for federally funded health coverage, including Medicaid, Medicare, and plans through the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. Medicaid does reimburse hospitals for providing emergency care to people without legal status if they meet income and other program requirements.

Seven states and the District of Columbia provide health coverage regardless of immigration status, funding the programs with their own money.

In March 2025, CMS began financial reviews of those programs. “CMS has identified over $1.8 billion in federal funds that are being recouped through voluntary returns and deferrals of future federal Medicaid payments,” Krepich said. He did not answer how much has been collected so far or from which states.

Medicaid’s overall spending topped $900 billion in fiscal year 2024.

This article/insurance/medicaid-undocumented-enrollees-review-few-violators/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2174376&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Oz Says California’s Not Fighting Health Care Fraud, but Data Shows It’s Part of a Larger Battle

Don Thompson — Thu, 19 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — For weeks, Mehmet Oz has been waging a public feud with California leaders over health care fraud, accusing the blue state of failing to adequately combat such abuse.

Oz, who heads the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there was approximately $3.5 billion of fraud in the hospice and home health care industry in Los Angeles County alone. “This administration under President [Donald] Trump is not going to tolerate taxpayer dollars being stolen because people aren’t paying attention anymore. We’re focused on this,” . He claimed the fraud was largely orchestrated by the “Russian, Armenian mafia” and said that most of the money spent on home and community-based services across California “might be fraudulent.”

However, CMS clarified that not all billing activities referenced by Oz were presumed to be improper. And a review of the most recent available data shows that there are hotbeds of health care fraud across the country and across practice areas, most of them allegedly perpetrated by health insurers and other domestic actors, and that California outperforms most other states in recovering fraud dollars.

As the temperature heats up in the conflict between the Trump administration and California, a handful of Republican state lawmakers have entered the fray, accusing Gov. Gavin Newsom in of allowing “rampant fraud.” Democratic state officials insist they aggressively combat fraud, and Newsom has filed a against Oz, calling language in the allegations “baseless and racially charged.”

“The Trump Administration is attempting to take the issue of fraud — a very real, and national issue — and weaponize it against Democratic states,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in an early February statement.

Oz said that he would halt “hundreds of millions of dollars” in payments to California if he didn’t get satisfactory answers from state officials. He and Vice President JD Vance announced in late February that they would delay about $260 million in Medicaid payments , another Democratic-led state, over fraud allegations there, and the state is now suing.

Oz has also launched social media campaigns alleging high-dollar public benefit fraud in Democratic-led Maine and New York. On March 17, he added a Republican-led state to his target list: Florida.

Georgetown University professor Andy Schneider, who served as a senior adviser primarily on Medicaid integrity issues during the Obama administration, said fraud has always been an issue across states, dating back decades. About $3.4 billion in Medicare and Medicaid fraud across the country was , according to the most recent report available. Insurers have paid the highest settlements in alleged health care fraud schemes.

“Bad actors trying to steal public health care funds have been around for a long time,” Schneider said.

How California Stacks Up

The federal government is responsible for Medicare, which primarily benefits older people, while Medicaid, which primarily serves people with lower incomes, is a joint federal-state program. Melissa Rumley, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of Inspector General, said the office could not make state-by-state data on Medicare fraud available because the federal probes often cross jurisdictions.

States file annual reports on actions by Medicaid anti-fraud units that are jointly funded with the federal government and run by state attorneys general. They investigate fraud as well as abuse and neglect of Medicaid patients.

These reports provide a sense of the scale of Medicaid fraud across states. In fiscal 2024, states recovered , compared with $949 billion in total Medicaid spending, according to from the HHS Office of Inspector General. California recouped an outsize share, recovering more than 50% of all the criminal recoveries made by the anti-fraud units nationwide in fiscal 2024 even though the state made up only about 17% of enrollment.

California ranked fourth in the U.S. in 2024 in dollars recovered per Medicaid enrollee across civil and criminal investigations, behind the District of Columbia, Montana, and Delaware. It led all the most populous states, followed in order by Texas, Florida, and New York. (California and federal officials noted that state recovery data varies significantly year to year, often because of the length of investigations.)

Vulnerability of Hospice Care

One aspect of health care fraud that has been at the center of Oz’s attack on California is hospice fraud, which has plagued Republican and Democratic administrations.

The use of hospice, intended to provide care to patients expected to die within six months, increased by over 8% from fiscal 2020 to 2024, to about 1.84 million Medicare beneficiaries, significantly.

To combat fraud, the Biden administration in 2023 of hospices in California, Arizona, Nevada, and Texas. The Trump administration Ohio and Georgia.

CMS spokesperson Chris Krepich did not say specifically what criteria were used to choose which states to monitor, only that the decision was based on “activity typically indicative of hospice-related fraud.” As of June, the agency had revoked the Medicare enrollment of 122 hospices in the original four states, but Krepich said a breakdown by state was not available.

While Oz stated there was some $3.5 billion of fraud in the hospice and home health care industry in Los Angeles County alone, his agency clarified that the number is for overall Medicare billing related to hospice and home health services. Krepich said that “not all billing activity referenced in the remarks is presumed to be improper” and added that the agency could not identify the amount of fraudulent activity until an “evidence-based” investigation was completed.

That’s not to say there is no truth to allegations of hospice fraud.

A published in 2022 found “numerous indicators” of large-scale fraud in Los Angeles County, and a highlighted nearly 500 hospices within a 3-mile radius, including 89 companies registered to a single building in Van Nuys. that “hospice fraud has become an epidemic in California.” He noted that state officials have been aggressively combating it for years, including with .

In January, the state in Monterey County with hospice fraud. That follows hospice scam cases in and .

However, California public health officials are overdue in adopting that were supposed to be . The state’s Department of Public Health is currently revising the regulations, according to spokesperson Mark Smith.

In the interim, the state has revoked the licenses of more than 280 hospices over the past two years and is evaluating an additional 300 hospices, . California had licensed hospice agencies as of 2022, according to the state audit.

Civil Rights Complaint

Meanwhile, Newsom is pushing back on Oz. The governor filed his discrimination complaint with the at HHS, which oversees CMS. The office said it will first decide whether it has the authority to investigate, then, if so, will gather information through interviews and documents. However, the process seems designed to aid individuals who have lost a job to discrimination, or to correct a specific policy, and it is unclear whether there could be any real-world consequences.

The governor wants the agency to address “systematic bias from their leadership,” said Newsom spokesperson Marissa Saldivar.

Krepich said CMS “does not target communities, ethnic groups, or states” and bases its decisions on “confirmed investigative findings.” The allegations of organized fraud refer to “documented criminal cases,” Krepich said, providing a link to in which California residents were convicted of using the identities of foreign nationals to steal almost $16 million from Medicare.

It’s unclear what cases Oz was referring to when he spoke of the Russian and Armenian mafia.

Ciaran McEvoy, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney’s office for the Central District of California, which includes Los Angeles County, said it doesn’t track whether hospice fraud defendants are alleged to be foreign nationals, but he pointed to the office’s online prosecution announcements. None alleged involvement by foreign influences or organized crime.

The state audit references by the U.S. Justice Department under President Barack Obama that an “Armenian-American organized crime enterprise” was behind a nationwide health care scam.

Federal officials at the time described an “international organized crime enterprise” based in Los Angeles and New York but with roots in Russia and Armenia. The scheme involved billing for unneeded medical treatments, not hospice fraud.

A revealed fraud schemes in which hospice operators recruited patients who were not actually terminally ill, then paid kickbacks to doctors who falsely certified these patients as dying so the hospices could bill Medicare. There was no mention of foreign involvement.

This article/health-industry/hospice-fraud-medicaid-mehmet-oz-cms-california/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2166080&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Families Scramble To Pay Five-Figure Bills as Clock Ticks on Promised Preauthorization Reforms

Lauren Sausser — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Sheldon Ekirch is used to being disappointed by her health insurance company.

That’s why Ekirch, 31, of Henrico, Virginia, was stunned when she learned Anthem would finally have to pay for life-changing medical treatment.

For two years, she had battled the company to cover blood plasma infusions called intravenous immunoglobulin, or IVIG. The treatment has been shown, in some cases, to improve symptoms associated with small-fiber neuropathy, a condition that makes Ekirch’s limbs feel like they’re on fire.

But Anthem had repeatedly denied coverage for IVIG, which costs about $10,000 per infusion. Then, in February, an external review of her case conducted for the Virginia Bureau of Insurance overturned Anthem’s denial. It meant her parents would no longer need to withdraw money from her father’s retirement savings to pay out-of-pocket. Already, they’d spent about $90,000.

“My mom was sobbing. My dad was on his knees, sobbing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen him cry like that,” said Ekirch, describing her parents’ reaction to the reversal.

“I think I’m in shock from it all,” she said.

In a prepared statement, Stephanie DuBois, a spokesperson for Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield, said IVIG did not “align with our evidence-based standards.” But she said the company respects “the external reviewer’s decision” to overturn the denial.

Meanwhile, each year millions of patients like Ekirch continue to face denials through the prior authorization process, which requires many patients or their doctors to seek preapproval from health insurers before proceeding with medical care. And despite promises of reform from insurance companies, denials remain a frustrating hallmark of the American health care system.

Last June, Trump administration officials announced in a press conference that health insurance leaders had pledged to simplify prior authorization by taking steps such as “” subject to preapproval. The insurers also promised faster turnaround times and “clear, easy-to-understand explanations” of their decisions.

Yet in February, when ��ϳԹ�� News contacted more than a dozen major insurers that signed the pledge, half of them failed to provide specifics about health care services for which they no longer require prior authorization.

A said the industry remains committed to the effort. But physicians, consumers, and patient advocates are pessimistic about the insurers’ willingness to follow through with these voluntary changes.

“They have no desire to do what’s in the best interest of the patient if it’s going to hurt their pockets,” said Matt Toresco, CEO of Archo Advocacy, a patient advocacy and consulting company.

“In the insurance world, the fiduciary responsibility is not to the patient,” he said. “It’s to the Street,” he said, referring to Wall Street.

Meaningful Change?

The Department of Health and Human Services did not respond to questions for this article. The few updates the federal government has issued since June on prior authorization reform include a about ensuring clinicians can submit requests electronically.

AHIP, the health insurer trade group that issued the January press release, did not provide information about specific treatments, codes, medications, or procedures that its members have released from prior authorization since signing the pledge.

“We will have additional progress updates coming out later this spring,” said Kelly Parsons, a spokesperson for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which represents 33 independent Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies. She also offered no specifics.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield companies that cover patients in Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, Michigan, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, and Tennessee either did not respond to questions for this article or deferred to the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association.

By contrast, other insurers cited specific examples of change.

Aetna CVS Health began “bundling” prior authorizations for musculoskeletal procedures, as well as for lung, breast, and prostate cancer patients, spokesperson Phil Blando said. This practice allows providers to file one authorization request for a patient’s treatment instead of several.

And Humana removed prior authorization requirements for “diagnostic services across colonoscopies,” among other changes, spokesperson Mark Taylor said.

UnitedHealthcare, which came under intense scrutiny for its use of prior authorization following the of one of its executives in late 2024, removed prior authorization requirements on Jan. 1 for “certain nuclear imaging, obstetrical ultrasound and echocardiogram procedures,” among other changes, spokesperson Matthew Rodriguez said.

Yet some health care insiders doubt these changes will amount to much.

“Insurers have made similar promises before and failed to deliver meaningful change,” said Bobby Mukkamala, president of the American Medical Association, which represents U.S. physicians and medical students.

In 2018, , including AHIP and the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, announced a partnership “to identify opportunities to improve the prior authorization process.” Yet, in response to the June pledge, the process remains “costly, inefficient, opaque, and too often hazardous for patients.”

“Transparency is essential so everyone can see whether real reforms are happening,” he told ��ϳԹ�� News.

Curbed Enthusiasm

Prior authorization may be getting more political attention, but data shows patients — particularly those with chronic conditions that require ongoing medical treatment — continue to face barriers to doctor-recommended care.

Among patients in that group, 39% said prior authorization is “the single biggest burden” in receiving care, according to a by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes ��ϳԹ�� News.

I was fighting to survive, and then I was fighting to convince someone that I deserved to survive.
Anna Hocum

That’s true for Payton Herres, 25, of Dayton, Ohio, who in 2012 received a heart transplant, which requires her to take an antirejection prescription medication for the rest of her life.

But last year, she said, Anthem denied coverage for the expensive drug. She’d been taking it for more than 10 years.

“I’ve been with Anthem my entire life, and then, all of a sudden — I don’t know what happened — they just started denying me over and over,” she said. “I almost ran out of medication.”

DuBois, the Anthem spokesperson, confirmed the company has approved the medication. It had not taken Herres’ treatment history into account when it denied coverage for the drug, DuBois said.

But Herres said the company will require her to obtain a new authorization for the medication in September.

“Are they going to deny other things, too?” she asked. “I hope I don’t have to keep fighting like this for the rest of my life.”

Anna Hocum, 25, is preparing for a similar fight. In 2024 and 2025, her insurer repeatedly denied coverage for expensive treatment used to slow the progression of a rare genetic condition that destroys her lung function.

“I just thought I was going to die,” said Hocum, of Milwaukee. “I was fighting to survive, and then I was fighting to convince someone that I deserved to survive.”

Like with Ekirch, Hocum’s parents paid while they waited for her insurance company to overturn the initial denials. Friends and family donated more than $30,000 through a GoFundMe campaign to help defray the costs.

Then last spring, Hocum said, her insurer reversed the denial without an apparent explanation. But the approval is valid for only 12 months, so she will need another prior authorization approval this year.

“It is scary,” she said. “It’s not guaranteed that it’ll be accepted.”

They fought me tooth and nail every step of the way, to the point that they made my life a living hell.
Sheldon Ekirch

Even though it’s a “huge relief” that Anthem is now obligated to cover Ekirch’s treatment, her mother doesn’t know if or how the family will recoup the money it has already paid.

In a letter to Ekirch confirming the external reviewer’s decision, Anthem explained that the authorization would be valid for a year beginning on Sept. 25, 2025. “We are pleased we can provide a favorable response in this case,” a grievance and appeals analyst for Anthem wrote.

Ekirch said the letter highlighted the company’s hypocrisy.

“They act as though they are a benevolent organization doing me a favor.” In reality, she said, “they fought me tooth and nail every step of the way, to the point that they made my life a living hell.”

Now, Ekirch’s access to IVIG may be in jeopardy again. Her COBRA coverage through Anthem expires in late March. In April, she will need to transition to a new insurance plan — and she’s bracing herself for another round of prior authorization.

“I just am so afraid that I don’t have the strength to go through and do what it takes,” Ekirch said, “to fight this battle again.”

Do you have an experience with prior authorization you’d like to share? to tell ��ϳԹ�� News your story.

This article/health-care-costs/prior-authorization-insurer-pledge-awaiting-reforms-patients-families-bills/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2166041&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Medicare Advantage ‘Dark Money’ Group Attempts To Win Higher Payments for Insurance Companies

Fred Schulte — Fri, 13 Mar 2026 09:00:00 +0000

Judging by more than 16,400 comments recently posted on a federal government website, you’d think there was a groundswell of older Americans demanding that federal officials hike payments to their Medicare Advantage health insurance plans.

Yet about 82% of the comments are identical to a letter that appeared on the website of a secretive advocacy group called Medicare Advantage Majority, a data analysis by ��ϳԹ�� News has found.

The “” group does not reveal its funders or much else — other than to say it is “dedicated to protecting and strengthening Medicare Advantage” and is “powered by hundreds of thousands of local advocates nationwide.”

“Our campaign provides information and offers tools for concerned Americans to use to reach decision makers,” spokesperson Darren Grubb said in an email. The group has spent more than $3.1 million on hundreds of Facebook ads since September 2024, according to , a database of the social media company’s online ads.

There’s no doubt health insurers are unhappy with a from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, or CMS, to keep Medicare Advantage reimbursement rates essentially flat in 2027 — far less than they expected from the Trump administration.

Medicare Advantage plans differ from traditional Medicare because private insurance companies administer them. The insurance plans enroll about members, more than half the people eligible for Medicare. The plans offer things like vision and drug coverage, but Medicare Advantage insurers restrict the hospitals and doctors that patients can use and require prior approval for various procedures.

CMS is set to announce a final decision by early next month on the rate proposal. The agency solicited on the proposal from Jan. 26 through Feb. 25 to give interested parties and the public a chance to air their views.

Medicare Advantage Majority, which says the rate proposal amounts to a “cut” in services and warns of dire consequences for seniors should it go through, accounted for at least 13,522 of the 16,422 comments published as of March 12.

The proposed rate plan “puts my access to care at risk,” the group’s template letter to policymakers reads in part. “If the investment made by Washington in the Medicare Advantage program is nearly flat year-over-year, I could lose benefits I rely on every day, including affordable prescriptions, capped out of pocket costs, and access to trusted doctors and specialists.”

“Medicare Advantage is not optional for me. The cost protections alone have saved me thousands of dollars and made my health care manageable. Without this program, I would face higher costs, fewer providers, and fewer benefits at a time when I can least afford it,” the letter states.

Critics warn that these sorts of campaigns may create a misleading impression of grassroots support, especially when it’s not clear who is financing them.

“It puts a different spin on a massive groundswell of comments to know all are being driven by one specific organization,” said Michael Beckel, director of money in politics reform for Issue One, a group that seeks to limit the influence of money on government policy and legislation.

“There’s no way for the public to know what wealthy donors or special interests are funding dark money groups like this,” he said. “That means there’s no scrutiny of who’s really calling the shots.”

Some health care policy experts, who have long argued that the government overpays Medicare Advantage plans by tens of billions of dollars every year, believe industry groups or their surrogates routinely overstate possible negative impacts of rate decisions they don’t like.

“The plans always say that the sky is falling,” said Matthew Fiedler, a health care policy expert with the Brookings Institution. “The industry has a lot of money at stake here. They try to exert pressure on policymakers any way they can.”

At the same time, even critics concede that some of the millions of people enrolled in Medicare Advantage plans could face service cuts if insurance companies are not satisfied with government payments.

“It is legitimate for people to be worried,” said Julie Carter, counsel for federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, a group that advocates for older adults and people with disabilities.

Her group argues that Medicare Advantage plans have never attained expected cost savings and instead have been overpaid for years at least partly due to “actions to maximize profits.” She said the health plans “are supposed to be saving money, not taking extra.”

People struggling to pay health care bills may have little use for the policy debate in Washington.

“If it wasn’t for being able to have this program, I really wouldn’t be able to afford any kind of medical services, to be honest,” said EsterAlicia Rose, 75, who works at the front desk of a hotel in Pagosa Springs, Colorado. She said she signed the Medicare Advantage Majority form letter to reach policymakers.

Kathy Lovely-Marshall, 66, a retired nurse who lives in Brookville, Ohio, did too. She said she receives “a lot of perks” from her plan, such as dental care, eyeglasses, and prescriptions.

“All those things are a big plus as far as I am concerned,” she said. “I’m very happy with the plan I have.”

But Corenia Branham, 90, a widow and cancer survivor who lives in Alum Creek, West Virginia, said she wants nothing to do with Medicare Advantage plans run by private health insurance companies. She said she didn’t turn in any of the four form letters under her name, which were posted online by CMS on Feb. 23 and signed, “Miss Corenia Branham Branham.” It’s not clear why her last name is signed twice.

Branham said she’s not on Medicare Advantage and doubts she could count on it for needed care.

“I wouldn’t recommend it to nobody,” she said. “I sure don’t want anything to do with it.”

Grubb, the Medicare Advantage Majority spokesperson, disputed that account. He said Branham responded to an ad on Facebook. On Feb. 6, she “completed the form with her information and chose to send her comment to CMS as well as to her representatives in Congress and the White House,” he said.

Other Medicare Advantage advocacy groups have stepped up ad campaigns as the rate decision looms.

The Better Medicare Alliance, whose “allies” include a range of health insurers, health care providers, and consumers, is urging seniors to “Tell Washington to Stand Up for Medicare Advantage.”

“We’ve mobilized beneficiaries to write letters and make phone calls, and we’ve run digital ads on streaming platforms,” spokesperson Susan Reilly said.

Reilly said that this year roughly 3 million seniors “were forced to find new coverage” because plans either shuttered operations or left some areas.

She also said Medicare Advantage plans have “scaled back” benefits such as offering transportation to medical appointments, nutrition support, and dental and vision coverage, while over the past two years beneficiaries have faced an average $900 increase in out-of-pocket maximums.

“We do view this as especially serious,” Reilly said. “This isn’t a single bad year; it’s the cumulative effect of years of underfunding and policy disruption from the previous administration that has left the program increasingly vulnerable.”

As of March 12, CMS said it had received 46,884 comments but had posted only 16,422 online.

CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden said the agency would make more comments public “as soon as practicable.”

“The agency focuses on reviewing the substance of timely submissions and does not speculate on volume, sentiment, or potential impact of comments while the comment period is open/under review,” she said in a statement.

This article/aging/medicare-advantage-rates-public-comments-industry-ads-facebook-dark-money/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2166409&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Lawmakers, Health Groups Resist Their States’ Rural Health Fund Plans

Arielle Zionts — Wed, 04 Mar 2026 10:00:00 +0000

In the final days of 2025, governors around the country trumpeted the hundreds of millions of federal dollars they won from a new, $50 billion rural health fund.

But plans to spend those nine-digit awards aren’t all warmly received.

At least one group of Republican state lawmakers appears to have scuttled an initiative preapproved by federal officials. And at least one hospital association persuaded its state health leaders to alter who greenlights spending. Other critics are taking a more cautious approach.

That’s because the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which manages the five-year Rural Health Transformation Program, says states could lose money if they make major changes to the plans approved in their applications. Changes could also delay states’ ability to get projects rolling in time to show the agency that they’re meeting progress deadlines.

“During the application period, states were advised to only propose initiatives and state policy actions that the state deemed feasible,” said CMS spokesperson Catherine Howden, who noted that the agency will work with states case by case.

The recent pushback reflects “tension” over state plans — which were approved by the federal government — from state lawmakers and health leaders who want more input amid tight deadlines, said Carrie Cochran-McClain, chief policy officer of the National Rural Health Association, the largest organization representing rural hospitals and clinics.

Cochran-McClain said many states must pass a bill to allow federal dollars to be spent and added that because the program rolled out so quickly “there’s important work that still needs to be done in some states between the legislatures and the governors.”

State lawmakers want to have a say, she said, in “how the funding is being allocated — how the implementation will go.”

Congressional Republicans created the program as a last-minute sweetener to include in their One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law last summer. The funding was intended to offset concerns about the anticipated in rural communities from the law, which is expected to slash Medicaid spending by nearly $1 trillion over a decade.

CMS officials announced first-year funding — ranging from $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas — on Dec. 29, after scoring applications. Federal officials will begin evaluating progress in late summer and announce 2027 allocations at the end of October.

A chorus of critics say the program won’t make up for harm caused by Medicaid cuts.

The program is “a complete sham,” Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said at a rural policy conference in February.

Medicaid, a joint federal-state program for low-income and disabled Americans, serves nearly , and many rural hospitals depend on it to stay afloat.

But the rural health program tilts toward seeding innovative projects and technologies, not shoring up rural hospital finances. States can use only up to 15% of their funding to pay providers for patient care.

That hasn’t stopped some federal officials and lawmakers from framing the program as a rural hospital rescue.

For example, the White House , “President Trump secured $50 billion in funding for rural hospitals.”

Now that applications have been approved, some state Republican lawmakers — who are than Democrats are — and hospital associations are upset that the political rhetoric doesn’t match what they see.

They’re also lobbing criticisms at specific aspects of their states’ plans, including the proposed projects, what’s not included, and the spending approval process.

In Wyoming, lawmakers didn’t just criticize an initiative from their state’s application. They moved to kill it.

State Rep. John Bear, a Republican, said he and other lawmakers declined to fund “BearCare,” a proposed state-sponsored health insurance plan that patients could use only after medical emergencies. But they did approve other aspects of the rural health program.

The Wyoming Department of Health won’t “proceed with BearCare without express legislative authority to do so,” said spokesperson Lindsay Mills.

While Wyoming lawmakers removed an initiative from their state’s rural health plan, a group in Ohio wants to add something.

Ohio Rep. Kellie Deeter and other Republican lawmakers to use the maximum allowed funding for provider payments — 15% — to support 13 independent, rural hospitals.

“We understand that the rural transformation fund is not designed to be given directly to prop up hospitals,” Deeter said. “We just want to capitalize on the mechanism of the fund that can be utilized for that purpose.”

Those hospitals “operate with very, very narrow margins, and it’s just difficult and, frankly, unsustainable,” she added.

Ken Gordon, a press secretary responding for the governor’s office and the state health department, said, “It’s still very early in this process, and many details are being worked out.”

State lawmakers around the country are also trying to ensure the federal program’s dollars benefit rural areas.

In North Dakota, Rep. Bill Tveit, a Republican who lives in a town with about 2,000 residents, that would have required the state to reserve its funding for programs located more than 35 miles from urban areas and small cities.

During a hearing, lawmakers appeared sympathetic to Tveit’s concerns but quickly shot down his idea.

State Sen. Brad Bekkedahl said the North Dakota health department already committed to prioritizing funding for the most pressing rural health needs. He also said he’s concerned any significant changes could cause the state to lose funding because CMS already reviewed and approved the plan.

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers in Michigan and North Carolina have criticized their states’ definitions of “partially rural” or “rural,” saying that counties that include urban population centers could take money from lower-density counties, according to and .

Lawmakers aren’t the only ones speaking out.

The Colorado Hospital Association to state lawmakers denouncing how the state created its plan and two of its proposed initiatives.

“Not only were Colorado’s rural hospitals’ recommendations disregarded,” president and CEO Jeff Tieman wrote, but the plan includes ideas “they actively oppose and believe will harm the communities they serve.”

The department responded to one of the association’s concerns by adding rural health leaders to the .

Meanwhile, and Nebraska, some health groups are upset that their states’ plans lack specific funding streams for rural hospitals.

Lauren LaPine-Ray, who oversees rural health policy at the Michigan Health & Hospital Association, predicted the state’s rural hospitals will compete with other organizations, such as academic centers and health clinics, for funding. She said about 65% of the group’s rural members have never applied for a state grant before.

“The rural hospitals, the ones that really need the funding the most, will not be well equipped to apply for and pull down these dollars,” LaPine-Ray said.

Jed Hansen, executive director of the Nebraska Rural Health Association, said the federal funding won’t go to “rural hospitals, rural clinics, and rural providers in a meaningful way.”

“Rural Health Transformation will not save a single hospital in our state,” he said. “I don’t think it will save a hospital nationally.”

This article/health-industry/rural-transformation-fund-lawmakers-health-groups-resist-state-spending-plans/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2161929&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

State Lawmakers Seek Restraints on Wage Garnishment for Medical Debt

Rae Ellen Bichell — Fri, 20 Feb 2026 19:35:30 +0000

Lawmakers in at least eight states this year are aiming to reel in wage garnishment for unpaid medical bills.

The legislation introduced in , , , , , , , and builds on efforts made in other states in past years. This latest push for patient protections comes as the Trump administration has backed away from federal debt protections, health care has become , and more people are expected to go without medical coverage or but riskier high-deductible insurance plans that could lead them into debt.

“In the wealthiest country on Earth, people are going bankrupt, suffering wage garnishment, just because they get sick,” said Colorado state Rep. , a Democrat who introduced legislation on Feb. 19 that would, among other measures, ban wage garnishment for medical debt.

That legislation is under consideration after a ��ϳԹ�� News investigation found that courts approved wage garnishment requests in an estimated 14,000 medical debt cases a year in Colorado. The investigation also showed that it isn’t just urban hospitals or big health care chains allowing their patients’ wages to be garnished. It’s also small rural hospitals, physician groups, and public ambulance services, among other medical care providers. And the reporting showed that wage garnishment can erroneously target patients. For example, one family lost wages — and subsequently power to their home, because they couldn’t pay their electric bill — after an ambulance company incorrectly billed the family instead of Medicaid.

Wage garnishment is one tool creditors can use in most states to recoup money from people with unpaid bills. In many states, they can garnish someone’s bank account or put a lien on their home, too. To garnish a person’s wages, a creditor must typically get permission from a court to make the person’s employer hand over a piece of the debtor’s earnings.

“The creditor is taking the money directly out of somebody’s paycheck, and so it doesn’t leave people with any choice to say, ‘I need to prioritize food for my children,’” said , legal and policy director for the National Center for Access to Justice. The center, based at Fordham Law School, and the District of Columbia on how fair their laws are to consumers who get sued over debt.

It is legal to garnish patients’ wages for medical debt in all but a , according to the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit foundation based in New York focused on health care.

Now, lawmakers in additional states seek to ban the practice entirely. Others want to limit it by exempting debtors whose household income falls under a certain threshold or by upping the amount of earnings immune from garnishment.

Such policies on wage garnishment fit into a larger push around the country to address the effect of medical debt on people’s lives and finances. Those efforts include barring medical debt from credit reports, prohibiting liens on people’s homes, capping interest rates, and limiting the ability to file lawsuits against people with low incomes over unpaid medical bills.

Debt collectors have fought against such measures, arguing they don’t solve the problem of health care affordability and hurt the ability of medical providers to continue to provide care.

“The wage garnishment process is already highly regulated at the federal and state level and includes many consumer protection measures,” said Scott Purcell, chief executive of , an association of credit and collection professionals.

Even before the Colorado legislation was introduced, BC Services warning its clients that the legislation “poses an existential threat,” especially to rural health providers. And Bridget Frazier, a spokesperson for the , said Feb. 20 that the bill “could drive up costs and financial risk for health care providers, making it harder to keep hospitals sustainable and ensuring Coloradans have access to care when they need it most.”

The pending Colorado measure would ban wage garnishment for all patients. It also would limit bank garnishments, in which a patient’s financial institution must hand over a chunk of the money in the person’s account. Additionally, among other things, it would prevent payment plans from exceeding 4% of weekly net income, require creditors to check whether uninsured patients are eligible for public health insurance before collecting, bar creditors from collecting on bills that are more than three years old, and leave medical care providers liable to the patient for at least $3,000 if collectors don’t comply.

“No one is saying, ‘Don’t get paid for your services.’ We’re saying getting health care should not lead to financial ruin for people,” said Dana Kennedy, co-executive director at the Denver-based , a health advocacy group that has been working with lawmakers on the Colorado measure.

Kennedy said that ��ϳԹ�� News’ investigation drove home how many kinds of Colorado health care facilities are willing to let this collection practice happen to their patients, and that the people whose wages are being garnished are often working at Family Dollar, Walmart, Amazon, or gas stations and restaurants.

“Medical debt is typically different from other forms of indebtedness,” said Colorado state Sen. , a Democrat co-sponsoring the legislation. “You could choose to keep driving your old car or buy a new one and take on debt for that. You could upgrade your home. You could buy consumer appliances. There’s not usually that voluntary element in a health care context.”

, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, said broad laws that don’t require patients to jump through hoops to access protections are the most likely to be effective. Because of that, she and other consumer advocates prefer state policies that get rid of wage garnishment for all debtors and all types of debt.

“It can be hard to identify medical debt as medical debt,” Carter said. “For example, if you have a medical debt and you put it on your credit card, it’s not going to be easy for a court system to identify that debt as medical debt.”

She said another reason is that complexity is the enemy of effectiveness. Carter pointed to a showing that even though people in the state can keep $10,000 in their bank accounts safe from garnishment, few consumers take advantage of the protection. They must know the protection exists, know where to find the relevant form, get the form notarized, file it, and mail copies to creditors. The same report found that garnishments can also be burdensome for employers, who must process garnishments and can find themselves in court if they make an error.

Jones, at the National Center for Access to Justice, said outlawing wage garnishment fully, rather than limiting it, has other benefits. “It’s also to protect people’s jobs, because in most states, if somebody has two or more orders of garnishment, they can lose their job for it,” she said.

Still, some lawmakers are pushing for the intermediate route. In Washington state, Democratic state Sen. is spearheading legislation to rope off a larger portion of low-wage earnings from garnishment. So, for example, a person making $1,000 a week would be able to keep their whole paycheck, as opposed to the $800 that the law would currently protect.

Mindy Chumbley, owner of a Washington-based collections company and an ACA International board member, testified against the bill on Feb. 2. “Washington has made sweeping changes to medical debt policy year after year without pausing to study the cumulative impact,” she told lawmakers. “Our clients are reporting clinic closures, urgent care centers shutting down, staffing shortages, and rural facilities struggling to stay open.”

The Washington State Hospital Association said it is neutral on the legislation. The American Hospital Association said it does not take positions on state policies.

Liias told ��ϳԹ�� News that lawmakers need to ensure health care providers can recoup their costs while also protecting patients. “We don’t want families either to be driven into bankruptcy or to be driven into under-the-table work to avoid these garnishment thresholds,” he said.

Liias said his measure follows the lead of Arizona, which passed similar consumer protections in 2022. “Obviously, the health care system is still functioning in Arizona, and folks are able to make it work.”

This article/health-care-costs/medical-debt-wage-garnishment-state-legislation-patient-protection/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2154960&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

Louisville Found PFAS in Drinking Water. The Trump Administration Wouldn’t Require Any Action.

Morgan Watkins, Louisville Public Media — Thu, 12 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Every day, the Ohio River sends billions of gallons of water flowing past Louisville’s pumping station, where the Kentucky city’s utility sucks it up to turn it into tap water.

To ensure it tastes good and is safe to drink, a small team of scientists and technicians is constantly testing the water for pH, odors, heavy metals, and microbes.

But unlike many smaller municipal utilities in the U.S., regularly checks for PFAS — per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.

That’s a class of chemicals used by manufacturers for decades to make things like nonstick pans, cosmetics, raincoats, food wrappers, and firefighting foam.

have linked PFAS to like cancer, reduced immune system functioning, high cholesterol, and developmental delays in children.

They’re also known as “forever chemicals” because their strong chemical structures make them degrade incredibly slowly in the environment.

Today, they litter and sources around the world and can be found of almost everyone in the U.S.

One type of PFAS that the Louisville water technicians are tracking is HFPO-DA, also known by a trade name, .

Just over a year ago, workers noticed an unexpected increase in the level of GenX detected in a sample of the raw, untreated water drawn from the Ohio River for filtering and processing.

The GenX levels Louisville found in December 2024 were 15 times the reading from the previous month: 52 parts per trillion versus 3.4 ppt.

“A part per trillion is like one second in 32,800 years. Put your head around that, right?” said , the city utility’s director of water quality and research.

He offered another way to think of it: One part per trillion would be a single drop of water in 20 Olympic swimming pools.

Goodmann told ��ϳԹ�� News and NPR he wasn’t worried about local customers’ safety, because the increased levels were still pretty low.

Risks posed by low PFAS concentrations are measured over a lifetime of exposure, he said. And recent data from Louisville shows the fell back within planned federal safety limits.

Plus, water is just one way people can be exposed to PFAS, Goodmann added. “Because you get a lot more of these pollutants from packaging, from prefixed food, cake mixes, weird things, you know, popcorn boxes,” he said.

Louisville Water’s data showed that the elevated levels of GenX in the water sample drawn in December 2024 fell once the water underwent typical treatment and filtering.

A Louisville Water drinking fountain, near a city pump house. (Morgan Watkins/Louisville Public Media)

Federal Regulation Fight

The federal government has long regulated the levels of in drinking water, such as arsenic, E. coli, and lead.

But the Environmental Protection Agency didn’t issue regulations regarding PFAS until 2024, during the final year of the Biden administration. The new limits applied to in drinking water. Starting in 2029, utilities that exceeded the limits would have been required to treat the water to reduce the contamination.

But after Donald Trump’s reelection, new EPA administrator the agency will keep the rules for only two types of PFAS, called PFOA and PFOS, but drop the restrictions on the other four types, including GenX.

In addition, the EPA announced it will give water utilities two additional years, until 2031, to comply with the remaining rules, attributing the change in part to the financial burden on rural water plants.

Many utilities, large and small, may need to .

A estimated about 45% of U.S. tap water contains at least one type of PFAS.

When it announced the final PFAS limits, the Biden administration anticipated that of the estimated 66,000 U.S. public drinking water systems affected by these regulations might have PFAS levels high enough to require them to take action to reduce the contamination.

Finding the Source

Goodmann’s team traced the increased levels of PFAS up the Ohio River, past Cincinnati, and through Appalachian forests, all the way to a West Virginia factory about 400 miles upstream.

There, the uses GenX , a plastic critical to the semiconductors that power phones.

Its Washington Works facility near Parkersburg, West Virginia, has a .

A lawyer, , fought the plant’s previous owner, , in court, the company knew that a type of PFAS it was using, PFOA, was toxic but didn’t disclose that information.

DuPont went on to that claimed it contaminated local environments with forever chemicals. The company has repeatedly denied wrongdoing.

Chemours was from DuPont in 2015.

The Louisville Water team’s calculations eventually showed that the December 2024 spike in GenX levels corresponded to publicly available data from Chemours about its chemical discharges into the Ohio River.

In Chemours’ responses to filed by a West Virginia environmental group, the company denied its discharges were connected to Louisville’s GenX spike. (Louisville is not a party in the lawsuit.)

The company also contended that sampling data showed levels of GenX in the river and in downstream utilities’ treated drinking water are “indisputably safe.”

PFAS Removal Will Challenge Water Utilities

Under current federal environmental regulations, Chemours can release some chemicals into the Ohio River. But it has exceeded the legal limits repeatedly over several years, according to court filings and .

That’s why the filed its lawsuit in 2024.

The EPA in 2023, when it said it found Chemours’ West Virginia factory had repeatedly exceeded permit limits for two types of forever chemicals, GenX and PFOA.

But the West Virginia Rivers Coalition said in a court filing that the EPA’s consent order for Chemours “is not being diligently prosecuted.”

Chemours declined to answer questions from ��ϳԹ�� News and NPR, citing ongoing litigation, except to point out that Louisville’s “finished drinking water is safe for consumption,” with PFAS levels below the EPA’s regulatory limits, as stated on and in the from Cincinnati, which also draws from the Ohio River.

As research into the health effects of PFAS exposure continues, environmental advocates say it’s imperative for companies to meet the limitations set by government permits.

“Environmental regulatory permitting is a license to pollute,” said , the water policy director for the .

“You’re permitting someone to put something into the atmosphere, into water, into soil that would not be there otherwise. And so when we talk about the safe levels,” he said, “stop using the word ‘safe,’ right? This is the maximum allowable limit.”

It is possible to remove PFAS from drinking water. For example, Louisville’s utility is spending about $23 million to redesign its powdered activated carbon system, which is one method used to take out PFAS.

But PFAS removal can get expensive, especially for small, rural towns, Hart said. Preventing contaminants such as PFAS from getting into a community’s drinking water supply is easier and less costly compared with removing it on the back end, he added.

In Chemours’ responses to the lawsuit, the company acknowledged that its violating its current permit but noted it’s working with government regulators on an eventual fix.

The federal judge in the case, , decided that wasn’t fast enough.

In August, he overpolluting. The company quickly filed an appeal.

The West Virginia Rivers Coalition declined to speak with ��ϳԹ�� News and NPR but did point to its on the judge’s ruling.

“This is a victory for public health and the Ohio River,” Autumn Crowe, the organization’s deputy director, said in the statement. “The Court recognized what communities have known for years: Chemours has been polluting our water and ignoring its legal obligations.”

In a court filing for the case, Goodmann said that elevated levels of GenX could make it more challenging for water utilities such as Louisville’s to comply with federal rules for safe drinking water.

In regard to Chemours specifically, Goodmann told ��ϳԹ�� News and NPR that when government regulators issue the company’s next permit, he wants them to take into account the water treatment plants downstream.

“So what we do is manage risk, and we start that at the river,” he said. “It sounds weird, but source water protection — keeping the stuff out of the river — is a big deal.”

This article is from a partnership that includes , , and ��ϳԹ�� News.

This article/public-health/louisville-forever-chemicals-pfas-drinking-water-ohio-river-chemours-trump-epa/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2154214&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">

US Cancer Institute Studying Ivermectin’s ‘Ability To Kill Cancer Cells’

Rachana Pradhan — Tue, 10 Feb 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The National Cancer Institute, the federal research agency charged with leading the war against the nation’s second-largest killer, is studying ivermectin as a potential cancer treatment, according to its top official.

“There are enough reports of it, enough interest in it, that we actually did — ivermectin, in particular — did engage in sort of a better preclinical study of its properties and its ability to kill cancer cells,” said Anthony Letai, a physician the Trump administration appointed as NCI director in September.

Letai did not cite new evidence that might have prompted the institute to research the effectiveness of the antiparasitic drug against cancer. The drug, largely used to treat people or animals for infections caused by parasites, is a popular dewormer for horses.

“We’ll probably have those results in a few months,” Letai said. “So we are taking it seriously.”

He spoke about ivermectin at a Jan. 30 event, “Reclaiming Science: The People’s NIH,” with National Institutes of Health Director Jay Bhattacharya and other senior agency officials at Washington, D.C.’s Willard Hotel. The MAHA Institute hosted the discussion, framed by the “Make America Healthy Again” agenda of Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. The National Cancer Institute is the largest of the NIH’s 27 branches.

During the covid pandemic, ivermectin’s popularity surged as fringe medical groups promoted it as an effective treatment. it isn’t effective against covid.

Ivermectin has become a symbol of resistance against the medical establishment among MAHA adherents and conservatives. Like-minded commentators and wellness and other online influencers have hyped — without evidence — ivermectin as a miracle cure for a host of diseases, including cancer. Trump officials have pointed to research on ivermectin as an example of the administration’s receptiveness to ideas the scientific establishment has rejected.

“If lots of people believe it and it’s moving public health, we as NIH have an obligation, again, to treat it seriously,” Bhattacharya said at the event. at Duke University, Bhattacharya recently said he wants the NIH to be “the research arm of MAHA.”

The decision by the world’s premier cancer research institute to study ivermectin as a cancer treatment has alarmed career scientists at the agency.

“I am shocked and appalled,” one NCI scientist said. “We are moving funds away from so much promising research in order to do a preclinical study based on nonscientific ideas. It’s absurd.”

��ϳԹ�� News granted the scientist and other NCI workers anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press and fear retaliation.

HHS and the National Cancer Institute did not answer ��ϳԹ�� News’ questions on the amount of money the cancer institute is spending on the study, who is carrying it out, and whether there was new evidence that prompted NCI to look into ivermectin as an anticancer therapy. Emily Hilliard, an HHS spokesperson, said NIH is dedicated to “rigorous, gold-standard research,” something the administration has repeatedly professed.

A preclinical study is an early phase of research conducted in a lab to test whether a drug or treatment may be useful and to assess potential harms. These studies take place before human clinical trials.

The scientist questioned whether there is enough initial evidence to warrant NCI’s spending of taxpayer funds to investigate the drug’s potential as a cancer treatment.

The FDA has approved ivermectin for certain uses in humans and animals. Tablets are used to treat conditions caused by parasitic worms, and the FDA has approved ivermectin lotions to treat lice and rosacea. Two scientists involved in its discovery , tied to the drug’s success in treating certain parasitic diseases.

The FDA that large doses of ivermectin can be dangerous. Overdoses can cause seizures, comas, or death.

Kennedy, supporters of the MAHA movement, and some conservative commentators have promoted the idea that the government and pharmaceutical companies quashed ivermectin and other inexpensive, off-patent drugs because they’re not profitable for the drug industry.

“FDA’s war on public health is about to end,” Kennedy wrote in an that has since gone viral. “This includes its aggressive suppression of psychedelics, peptides, stem cells, raw milk, hyperbaric therapies, chelating compounds, ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine, vitamins, clean foods, sunshine, exercise, nutraceuticals and anything else that advances human health and can’t be patented by Pharma.”

Previous laboratory that ivermectin could have anticancer effects because it promotes cell death and inhibits the growth of tumor cells. “It actually has been studied both with NIH funds and outside of NIH funds,” Letai said.

However, there is no evidence that ivermectin is safe and effective in treating cancer in humans. from a small clinical trial that gave ivermectin to patients with one type of metastatic breast cancer, in combination with immunotherapy, found no significant benefit from the addition of ivermectin.

Some physicians are concerned that patients will delay or forgo effective cancer treatments, or be harmed in other ways, if they believe unfounded claims that ivermectin can treat their disease.

“Many, many, many things work in a test tube. Quite a few things work in a mouse or a monkey. It still doesn’t mean it’s going to work in people,” said Jeffery Edenfield, executive medical director of oncology for the South Carolina-based Prisma Health Cancer Institute.

Edenfield said cancer patients ask him about ivermectin “regularly,” mostly because of what they see on social media. He said he persuaded a patient to stop using it, and a colleague recently had a patient who decided “to forgo highly effective standard therapy in favor of ivermectin.”

“People come to the discussion having largely already made up their mind,” Edenfield said.

“We’re in this delicate time when there’s sort of a fundamental mistrust of medicine,” he added. “Some people are just not going to believe me. I just have to keep trying.”

by clinicians at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Ohio detailed how an adolescent patient with metastatic bone cancer started taking ivermectin “after encountering social media posts touting its benefits.” The patient — who hadn’t been given a prescription by a clinician — experienced ivermectin-related neurotoxicity and had to seek emergency care because of nausea, fatigue, and other symptoms.

“We urge the pediatric oncology community to advocate for sensible health policy that prioritizes the well-being of our patients,” the clinicians wrote.

The lack of evidence about ivermectin and cancer hasn’t stopped celebrities and online influencers from promoting the notion that the drug is a cure-all. On a January 2025 episode of Joe Rogan’s podcast, actor Mel Gibson claimed that a combination of drugs that included ivermectin cured three friends with stage 4 cancer. The episode has been viewed more than 12 million times.

Lawmakers in a handful of states have made the drug available over the counter. And Florida — which, under Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, has become a and the spread of public health misinformation — announced last fall that the state plans to fund research .

The Florida Department of Health did not respond to questions about that effort.

Letai, previously a Dana-Farber Cancer Institute oncologist, started at the National Cancer Institute after caused by Trump administration policies.

“What you’re hearing at the NIH now is an openness to ideas — even ideas that scientists would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way it could work’ — but nevertheless applying rigorous scientific methods to those ideas,” Bhattacharya said at the Jan. 30 event.

A second NCI scientist, who was granted anonymity due to fear of retaliation, said the notion that NIH was not open to investigating the value of off-label drugs in cancer is “ridiculous.”

“This is not a new idea they came up with,” the scientist said.

Letai didn’t elaborate on whether NCI scientists are conducting the research or if it has directed funding to an outside institution. Three-quarters of the cancer institute’s research dollars go to outside scientists.

He also aimed to temper expectations.

“At least on a population level,” Letai said, “it’s not going to be a cure-all for cancer.”

This article/health-industry/ivermectin-cancer-treatment-nih-study-dewormer-offlabel-drug/">article; first appeared on KFF" rel="nofollow">">KFF Health News and is republished here under a

/?republication-pixel=true&post=2152756&ga4=G-J74WWTKFM0" style="width:1px;height:1px;">