Abortion Is on the Ballot Again as Post-Roe Policies Continue To Evolve

MAPLEWOOD, Mo. — After Missouri voters added abortion protections to the state constitution in 2024, Kelly McCoomb decided to keep her yard sign supporting the measure in the basement of her suburban St. Louis home.

Abortion access is important to McCoomb. She wants her daughter to grow up in a state where the option is available if needed, and the sign was a keepsake from the day Missourians voted to reverse the state’s near-total ban. McCoomb also couldn’t shake the feeling that she’d need to display the sign in her yard again soon.

“I have little faith in our Missouri government,” McCoomb said, sitting on her front porch.

Sure enough, just two years later, the state’s Republican-dominated legislature is asking Missouri voters to overturn the abortion protections they recently supported. The conflicting measures even have the same title: Amendment 3. But while a “yes” vote in 2024 supported adding protections to the state constitution, a “no” vote in 2026 would keep them. McCoomb covered the “YES” on her yard sign with a “NO” made from black duct tape before placing the sign back in her yard.

Voters will weigh in on abortion in Missouri, and three other states, in the November general election. Missouri is also one of two states voting on it for the second time since 2024. Nevada will vote again, too.

The spate of referenda comes after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections with its 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, leaving each state to make its own abortion policy. The result has been a patchwork of state rules with varying degrees of bans or limitations, and even a series of “shield laws” in states where abortion remains legal that aim to protect providers from prosecution in states where it’s not.

“I just think there’s a constitutional crisis that’s coming,” said Kristi Hamrick, vice president of media and policy for the anti-abortion organization Students for Life Action.

“Can you have 50 state standards on whether or not a human being is a human being? Can you have 50 state standards on whether human beings have legal protection?” Hamrick said.

Advocacy Groups Work To Clarify Ballot Measures

That patchwork of abortion protections is the reason Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom introduced the 2024 ballot measure to enshrine the state’s law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks after conception into the state constitution, said Denise Lopez, president of the coalition.

The measure received strong support two years ago, with 64% of voters in favor. Nevada law requires two majority votes to enshrine constitutional amendments, so voters will need to support the expanded protection again in November for it to be enacted.

The Nevada ballot measure wouldn’t change the state’s existing law allowing abortions up to 24 weeks after conception. But the proposal would make it more difficult to overturn abortion access, requiring voter approval of any new ban in two elections.

Lopez said Nevadans for Reproductive Freedom has been campaigning to ensure voters are still mobilized.

“Folks care about it,” she said. “They’re seeing what’s happening at the national level, and they want to make sure that whatever’s happening in our neighboring states, like Idaho and Utah, doesn’t happen here in Nevada.”

Idaho, where a ballot measure establishing abortion rights recently qualified to go before voters in November, has one of the strictest abortion bans in the country. Voters will decide whether state statute should allow abortion through fetal viability, the point when a fetus can survive after birth, which is generally considered to be around 24 weeks.

In Utah, abortion is allowed up to 18 weeks while legal challenges to the state’s ban continue.

In Virginia, where abortion is already allowed through two trimesters of pregnancy, until 28 weeks, voters will decide whether to amend their state constitution to codify those rights.

Missouri is the only state voting this year on removing abortion protections already on the books. The measure would repeal the 2024 amendment that guaranteed abortion access through fetal viability in the state and replace it with a ban on abortions with exceptions for medical emergencies, fetal anomalies, and pregnancies resulting from rape or incest. Abortions for rape and incest would have to occur before 12 weeks of pregnancy.

Missouri was the first state to ban abortion after the Dobbs decision in 2022. At that time, abortions had already mostly ceased in the state after three decades of state regulations targeting the practice, including a 72-hour waiting period, minimum dimensions for procedure rooms and hallways in clinics that provide abortions, and a mandate that the clinicians have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, among others. Only 150 abortions were performed in Missouri in 2021, down from 5,772 in 2011, state records show.

Even though Missouri voters backed the abortion amendment in 2024, it took nearly two years for medication abortions to resume in the state.

A Second Vote Causes Confusion

Margot Riphagen-Dunn, CEO of St. Louis-based Planned Parenthood Great Rivers, said the whiplash of a second statewide vote on abortion mirrors the confusion that patients have experienced about whether abortion is available in the state.

“Chaos is kind of the point here,” Riphagen-Dunn said, “and it is absolutely a tactic that gets in the way of being able to provide.”

The confusion has presented problems for abortion opponents in the state as well.

“I think it’s unfortunate,” said Reagan Barklage, who is a vice president of Students for Life of America and the treasurer of the Missouri Students for Life Ballot Committee. “People need to be very clear on what they’re voting for.”

Barklage said she has had to correct anti-abortion voters while out canvassing to remind them that they are voting “yes” on Amendment 3 this year even though they voted “no” on Amendment 3 last time.

“It is crazy that it ended up being even the same number. I do not think that was intentional, but we’ve got to deal with what we’ve got,” Barklage said, adding, “I hope the pro-choicers kept their yard signs from last time.”

In Maplewood, Missouri, McCoomb said she was happy that her repurposed sign supporting abortion access had been noticed.

“I hope lots of people see and remember to revote,” McCoomb said.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/f8W4Udj

Read More

Battle of Hospital A.I. vs. Insurer A.I. Is Pushing Medical Costs Higher

The use of artificial intelligence by hospitals and health insurers is escalating their longstanding feud over paying for medical care.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/H9pQhLN

Read More

Violinist Jennifer Koh on Her Decade-Long Struggle With a Rare Neurological Disorder

For 10 years Jennifer Koh struggled to understand and treat a rare neurological disorder, while trying to maintain a full calendar onstage.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/gYyUK4n

Read More

Black Lung Disease Remains a Threat, but Federal Officials Delay Effort To Address It

OAK HILL, W.Va. — Each day at New River Health in Oak Hill, Lisa Emery finds disheartening signs of what she describes as a slow-motion repeat of the Hawks Nest Tunnel disaster.

Emery is director of New River’s Breathing Center and chair of the National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory Disease Clinics.

The disaster she’s reminded of started in 1930, when construction began on a 3-mile tunnel through Gauley Mountain in West Virginia. Over the course of 18 months, some 3,000 miners, most of them Black, spent long hours drilling through sandstone, engulfed in a cloud of its toxic byproduct, silica dust. More than 750 men died from that exposure.

The risk still exists, and advocates for workers say the government should do more to rein it in.

In April of last year, the Trump administration paused the enforcement of a rule designed to help protect coal miners from an aggressive form of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, commonly known as black lung disease, the primary cause of which is exposure to silica dust.

(Other occupations at high risk of exposure to silica dust include construction, countertop fabrication, and oil and gas work. The new rule would reduce the permissible limit of exposure in coal mining to the existing level in other industries.)

This April, the Labor Department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration announced an indefinite delay in enforcement of the rule.

Gary Hairston sits on New River Health’s board. For decades, Hairston, a retired coal miner and president of the national Black Lung Association, has been an advocate for miners struggling with the debilitating effects of black lung, including extreme fatigue, an incessant cough, and a sensation of drowning. He regularly lobbies legislators for improved working conditions and black lung benefits. His entreaties, he said, seem to fall on deaf ears. He rarely gets an audience with the legislators themselves.

“I’d just like them to look me in the face,” Hairston said.

Gary Hairston, president of the Black Lung Association, says his lobbying of legislators for improved working conditions and black lung benefits for coal miners seems to fall on deaf ears. (Taylor Sisk for KFF Health News)

Evidence from just-released research underscores the urgency of his appeals for a safer work environment.

In August, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, an agency within the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, released a report on the results of testing conducted over the past five years on miners in central Appalachia — eastern Kentucky, southwestern Virginia, and West Virginia — with 25 or more years underground. Almost 1 in 3 tested positive for black lung disease, the highest rate in nearly 50 years.

The rate in 2018, the last time the agency reported results, was 1 in 5. The lowest reported rate, in 1999, was less than 1 in 10.

“We knew this would happen,” said Sam Petsonk, a West Virginia attorney who has represented thousands of miners in the region. “It’s surprising to me that they only found one in three.”

Silica Dangers

Exposure to silica has increased as more-accessible coal seams are depleted, requiring mining operations to probe deeper, often through sandstone. The stone breaks into sharp particles that are 100 times smaller than a grain of sand and, according to National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health research, are some 20 times more toxic than coal dust. Trapped in lung tissue, those particles can cause a debilitating, sometimes fatal condition.

Kenny Thompson, a retired West Virginia miner who now lives in Richmond, Kentucky, was employed in the mines for 22 years. He would sometimes cut into four feet of sandstone to reach a coal seam.

“You ate a lot of dust,” Thompson recalled. It induced nausea. It took a toll.

In October 2025, he had his left lung removed. Post-surgery, he was in a coma for three months; he flatlined three times, he said. “They were about to really give up on me.”

He had to relearn to walk and to talk. Trekking to the mailbox still leaves him winded, lightheaded, and blurry-eyed.

The new silica rule would cut the allowable level of silica dust in half, thereby meeting the standard of other industries. Miner advocates laud the fact that it would require operators to deploy engineering controls, such as improved ventilation systems and water sprays.

But the National Mining Association and other industry trade groups argue that reaching and maintaining compliance would also require supplementing those controls with workforce measures, such as requiring personal protection equipment and rotating miners from particularly dusty areas. Many miners, and their advocates, say such measures are impractical — because respirators can impede breathing, can limit vision, and often malfunction, and because smaller mines don’t have enough workers to support rotating schedules.

In April 2025, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals granted an emergency stay of the rule to give operators more time to comply.

In May of this year, the Labor Department sent the White House Office of Management and Budget a request to gather information on the proposed rule. And in July, the department’s regulatory agenda included a new notice of proposed rulemaking, indicating its intent to amend the rule.

The department’s Mine Safety and Health Administration “recognizes it has a clear duty under the law to impose stricter silica standards,” said Petsonk, the attorney representing coal miners. “They’re failing to provide that measure of protection to American coal miners, so they’re going through bureaucratic motions to make it seem like they’re doing something, when, in fact, they’re just perpetuating an illegal and lethal status quo.”

The Labor Department declined to comment on ongoing rulemaking or litigation.

“We knew this would happen,” West Virginia attorney Sam Petsonk says of a recently released report showing that the black lung rate for coal miners in central Appalachia is at a nearly 50-year high. (Taylor Sisk for KFF Health News)

‘It’s On the Books’

The rule is, in fact, in effect, said Chris Williamson, head of the Mine Safety and Health Administration in the Biden administration — it’s just not being enforced. He and his team filed a legal brief in the closing days of the administration defending the rule.

“It’s on the books,” Williamson said, adding that the Mine Safety and Health Act prohibits weakening existing protections for miners. “I’m just genuinely curious,” he said. “I want to know how they can address the issues that the industry’s raised without weakening protections for miners.”

Meanwhile, younger miners, with a decade or less in the mines, are being diagnosed with advanced stages of black lung. New River Health’s Emery said the youngest person her clinic had diagnosed with complicated black lung was 30. He’d worked underground for 10 years.

This is no longer just your “papaw’s disease,” she said. “It’s your husband’s disease. It’s your son’s disease.” (More than 90% of coal miners are men.)

With families to support, Emery said, “what do these guys do when they’re disabled in their 30s?”

Lisa Emery is director of the New River Health Breathing Center in West Virginia and chair of the National Coalition of Black Lung and Respiratory Disease Clinics. She says the youngest person her clinic has diagnosed with complicated black lung was 30. (Taylor Sisk for KFF Health News)

She told of a man who sat in her office with his wife, describing his symptoms. As he spoke, he began to cry. His wife was taken aback. “‘I didn’t know it was that bad,’” Emery recalled her saying. “And he said: ‘That’s why I haven’t fixed the deck. I haven’t fixed the deck because I can’t breathe, and I’m just so tired.’”

Thompson can relate. “For 22 years, you’re used to getting up, putting your boots on every day, and going to work,” he said. “I’d been in great health shape and 160 pounds. And here I am now, I don’t work at all and I’m 115 pounds.”

Still, he recognizes what the job afforded.

“You know, it put my girls through college,” he said. “And to me, as a dad, that was the best reward that I can give them, to move forward in life, to be successful at what they chose to be and not work like a dog like I had to.”

President Donald Trump said in an April 2025 executive order: “Our Nation’s beautiful clean coal resources will be critical to meeting the rise in electricity demand due to the resurgence of domestic manufacturing and the construction of artificial intelligence data processing centers.”

Six months later, the Energy Department announced a $625 million investment to “expand and reinvigorate America’s coal industry.”

Should the administration announce a weaker rule, it would be “an unconscionable crime against American coal miners,” Petsonk said. “But I fear that’s going to happen.”

In June, Hairston spoke at a reception for a photo exhibit titled “Entirely Preventable: The Toxic Legacy of Silica Dust From Hawks Nest to Black Lung.”

“It seems like coal miners, we’re just a number,” he said. “Just a number.”

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/GLops6J

Read More

Trump Officials May Undo Nursing Home Mandates for Reporting Covid

The agency led by Dr. Mehmet Oz is proposing an end to weekly tracking of respiratory infections at the facilities where thousands of elderly residents died in the pandemic.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/DNOWkQw

Read More

Hospitals Shut Youth Gender Clinics in Deal with Trump Administration

At least six hospitals have struck agreements with the Trump administration to pay fines and stop providing gender-transition treatments to minors.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/OJhswxX

Read More

Economic Frustration Tests Trump’s Standing With Rural Voters, New KFF-AP Poll Finds

About half of rural American voters believe the economy is worse off now than when President Donald Trump returned to office, according to a new survey that points to economic frustration among a key group that has backed Trump and other Republicans in recent elections.

The poll of more than 2,000 rural registered voters by The Associated Press in partnership with KFF found broadly negative views on the national and local economies, including from many Republicans. The costs of groceries, gas, and healthcare rank as top pain points for the rural voters, who were surveyed over two weeks starting in mid-August. And a larger share than among voters overall say they are worried about being able to afford groceries or gas.

At the same time, about half of rural voters approve of Trump’s job performance, more than among U.S. adults overall in separate AP-NORC polling.

The findings suggest that many rural voters haven’t turned on Trump but that they also largely don’t think he has delivered the economic renaissance he promised on the campaign trail.

Ed Westrick, a registered Republican and veteran, rates Trump’s job performance as “mediocre, middle-of-the-road.” Westrick, who lives in rural Texas, isn’t sure he will cast a midterm ballot, a troubling sign for Republicans in a key state in their fight to keep control of Congress.

Rural Americans skew Republican and historically have been an instrumental group of voters for Trump. The survey reveals that while rural voters seem unlikely to support Democrats on a large scale, Trump and the Republican Party could face challenges with them in November.

Deep Unhappiness About the Economy

As the election approaches, only about 4 in 10 rural voters approve of Trump’s performance on the economy. They rate him similarly on his handling of the Iran war, an entanglement that has proved expensive for the U.S. and increased oil and gas prices. And rural voters rank pocketbook concerns and fraud in government programs higher among the things they want to hear about from politicians than other perennial issues, such as gun policy and abortion.

Westrick, 59, is a technical trainer in the electronics industry and has seen an increase in business in part because he works with defense contractors, but he said he’s concerned about the cost of living.

“I hear the politicians talk about making groceries more affordable and making healthcare more affordable but yet none of them are addressing the issues,” Westrick said.

Westrick adjusts a roof on a small building at his home in rural Texas. (LM Otero/AP)

In the poll, about three-quarters of rural voters rated the cost of living in their communities as “only fair” or “poor” — up from about half in a KFF-Washington Post survey in 2017. Rural Americans, who have consistently lower wages than those who live in suburban and metro areas, have been hurting economically for decades, according to Tim Slack, a professor of sociology at Louisiana State University and co-author of the book Rural and Small-Town America.

“Many folks are connecting the cost-of-living crisis to many of the Trump administration’s policy choices: the war in Iran, tariffs, trade wars,” Slack said. “None of those things are going to bring down prices at the pump or the local Walmart.”

“Trump promised to lower prices on Day 1, and instead the cost of living’s continued to climb. And that’s especially painful in rural America,” Slack said, adding that he expects many working-class Republicans to skip voting in November.

Rural Republicans do have a brighter economic perspective than rural Democrats or independents, particularly about the U.S. as a whole, according to the survey. About 6 in 10 rural Republican voters say Trump has improved the national economy, compared with only about 2 in 10 independents and fewer than 1 in 10 Democrats.

But only 45% of rural Republican voters say Trump has made their local economies better off. About 1 in 4 said there are fewer good-paying jobs where they live than five years ago.

In Michigan, 37-year-old independent voter Brittainy Sosebee said she isn’t sure if she will vote in the state’s midterm election, which includes a tight Senate race seen as crucial to the Democratic Party’s push to win back a majority. Sosebee voted for Trump in 2016 and Democratic candidate Joe Biden in 2020; she didn’t vote in 2024.

Sosebee, who lives in St. Johns, a small town just north of Lansing, said she used to have extra money to take a vacation or buy a new pair of jeans without worrying. Now, she scrutinizes every expense, cringing at the rising cost of fresh produce when she shops for her three children.

“We hunt, so we have a lot of venison and things like that, so we don’t have to buy meat from the grocery store, but it’s still crippling,” she said.

Healthcare Policies Go Unnoticed

The KFF-AP poll found that rural voters overall don’t perceive much positive impact from the Trump administration’s healthcare policies even as they have been a top priority for Republican leaders, who have promoted efforts to lower drug costs and touted a $50 billion rural health program.

Only 17% of the voters said the Trump administration’s healthcare policies have had a “positive impact” on their healthcare costs, while 41% said they’ve had “no impact” and another 41% said they’ve had a “negative impact.”

Sitting on her front porch in Woolwich, Maine, 71-year-old Democrat Kathleen Hanning sipped a chai tea latte in the sun and recalled how she stopped voting for Republican Sen. Susan Collins in 2020.

Collins and Trump are “intertwined,” Hanning said. “She is not independently voting on what’s best for Maine.”

Hanning, a retired federal worker, said she hadn’t paid much attention to the health policies in Trump’s signature tax-break-and-spending-cut bill passed last year. The law reduces federal Medicaid spending by roughly $900 billion over a decade but also includes the billions of dollars for the Rural Health Transformation Program, which it created.

A year after the law’s passage, more than 8 in 10 rural voters said they’d heard either “a little” or “nothing at all” about the health fund. About 60% said they had heard nothing, according to the survey.

Rather than transforming, Hanning said, “hospitals up here in Maine are consolidating.” She travels an hour to see a specialist and noted that mothers will now have to drive farther for care because the hospital in nearby Damariscotta announced it would soon close its labor and delivery center.

Nine in 10 rural voters said it was “extremely” or “very” important for candidates to talk about healthcare costs, with more than half saying it’s “extremely important.” Mirroring the general population, rural voters ranked healthcare costs and gas prices as top economic worries.

Rural Republican Voters Still Trust GOP More

When asked which political party they trusted to do a better job handling issues such as the cost of healthcare or the cost of living, rural voters tended to side with their own party. The finding signals that Democratic candidates are more likely to benefit from rural Republicans’ staying home this November than from their voting across party lines in large numbers.

Republicans are more ambivalent about their party’s ability to handle key healthcare issues, compared with Democrats. About 8 in 10 Democratic voters say they trust the Democrats to address healthcare costs, while closer to 6 in 10 Republican voters say the same of the Republicans.

In Manassas, Georgia, a tiny town about an hour’s drive inland from Savannah, Republican voter Wanda Rogers feels the Trump administration is doing the best it can to clean up what she sees as an economic mess that Democrats left behind when they lost power.

“I kind of think people think like I do, that he knows what needs to be done,” she said. “It’s just taking them a while to get it there.”

Still, the 66-year-old said, “gas prices, they’re eating me alive right now.” She said she has stopped traveling to the beach because it has become too expensive.

Pamela Shaw, an independent voter who lives in a rural area near Asheville, North Carolina, said she sees the impact of rising costs in her community.

“When hamburger is over $7 a pound and steak is $15 or more a pound, a lot of people are not able to buy some of the things that they are used to buying,” the 59-year-old said in an interview.

Trump’s Rural Standing Has Slipped

Trump remains relatively popular among rural voters in the KFF-AP poll, with 48% approval — substantially higher than in a July AP-NORC poll of U.S. adults overall, in which only a third approved of his performance. But he’s also down slightly, from 56% approval, among rural voters, based on a similar question asked in the earlier KFF-Washington Post survey.

This year’s competitive elections feature key Senate races in states including Ohio, Michigan, and Maine, all of which have large rural populations. In close races, Democrats may have a chance to “show up and give a message that rural people might find appealing,” said Nicholas Jacobs, a political scientist at Colby College and co-author of the book The Rural Voter.

“But it’s nothing more and it’s nothing less than that — an opportunity,” Jacobs said. “And time and time again, Democrats have shown a certain proclivity for not seizing that opportunity.”

Many rural voters don’t think the major parties or the president respect people like them. About half, 48%, of rural voters say the GOP respects people like them “a lot” or “some,” while 45% of rural voters say this about Trump and 37% say this about the Democratic Party.

On a recent Thursday, registered Republican Nate Lawrence answered his phone after paying $57 to fill up his Chevy Equinox in New Concord, Ohio, a village of fewer than 3,000 people about an hour’s drive east of Columbus.

Lawrence, a middle school English teacher, said the candidates should be talking about spending power: “I need to be able to go to the store and feed my family on what I make as a teacher,” Lawrence said. “I should be able to pay for a house on a teacher’s salary.”

Lawrence has voted for Trump in the past but didn’t in 2024. For Ohio’s Senate race, Lawrence said he is torn and not sure whether to pick Democrat Sherrod Brown or Republican Jon Husted.

Still, even if the politicians say they will lower prices, Lawrence said, he won’t believe them.

“Trump said that, and it didn’t happen,” he said.

About the Poll

The KFF-AP Rural Voters Survey was conducted online and by telephone Aug. 12-24, 2026, among 2,241 registered voters living in rural areas, defined as census tracts that fall within codes 5-10 of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s 2020 Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes. Voters were reached through a combination of the probability-based SSRS Opinion Panel and a registration-based sample from the L2 voter file. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, including design effects due to weighting. Error margins are larger for subgroups. In collaboration with the AP, KFF researchers worked to design the survey sample and questionnaire and analyze and report findings.

This report is from a collaboration between KFF Health News and The Associated Press.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/lHBg0tT

Read More

Trump Officials Eject 750,000 From Obamacare Markets, Claiming Fraud

Vice President JD Vance said the measure would save the government $2.2 billion.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/CnOUIcw

Read More

New Hope for Diagnosing C.T.E. in Brain Injured Patients

Scientists are developing imaging techniques and blood tests that one day may enable doctors to identify the disease definitively in living patients.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/gvLb0Xu

Read More

As Health Insurance Costs Soar, Healthcare Workers Also Feel the Pinch

BOISE, Idaho — Joshua and Ashley Durham run a family medicine practice, and for the first time in their lives, they have no health insurance.

When the Durhams began their practice at the end of 2023 — he as a primary care physician and she as a pharmacist who handles the billing — the couple bought coverage for themselves and their two kids on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. But they said their monthly premiums for a similar health plan for this year rose several hundred dollars to nearly $1,600.

They decided to pay out-of-pocket for their medical expenses instead, leaning on $50,000 they had set aside in a health savings account over several years.

“It’s nerve-racking,” said Joshua Durham, 47. “It just takes, you know, one little accident, and then you got a big fat bill.”

The healthcare industry traditionally has more of its workforce on medical insurance than many other fields. Nationwide, 7% of all healthcare workers were uninsured in 2024, compared with 11% of all adults under 65, according to a KFF analysis of the most recent American Community Survey data. And doctors were especially unlikely to forgo health insurance, with just 2% uninsured.

But even healthcare workers are feeling the pinch as health insurance costs rise each year, with employers expecting that costs will jump an additional 8.2% for 2027.

The Republican-led Congress also opted last year not to renew Affordable Care Act marketplace credits enacted during the covid pandemic. While subsidies remain in place for people with low incomes, the pandemic-era credits helped reduce many consumers’ premium payments, especially those working in small businesses such as independent medical practices. Nearly half of marketplace enrollees worked for small businesses or were self-employed in 2024; some of the most common occupations included chiropractic care and dentistry.

Jack Dillon, executive director of the Association for Independent Medicine, which represents 4,000 physician-led practices, said premium increases have become untenable for small businesses, whether employers seek coverage through the marketplace or directly from insurers.

“The cost has become so astronomical,” Dillon said. “You’re looking at it and saying, ‘What’s the value?’”

As health insurance continues to become less affordable, Dillon said, more healthcare employers may seek alternatives to their standard coverage, such as providing higher hourly wages or providing only minimal plans.

The number of people without insurance in the U.S. is expected to increase by roughly 15 million over 10 years because of the expiration of the expanded ACA subsidies and $1.1 trillion in estimated cuts resulting from President Donald Trump’s signature One Big Beautiful Bill Act, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Healthier people are the most likely to opt out of insurance. That leaves insurance covering a smaller pool of people who tend to be sicker and need more expensive care. So insurers raise prices to cover the remaining enrollees, which fuels even higher premium costs.

‘Healthcare Is a Business’

Samantha LeGault, a nurse practitioner at a health clinic in Boise, said her employer-offered plan’s premium payment rose from $700 to $1,500 a month this year to insure herself, her husband, and four of their kids. LeGault has Crohn’s disease and two of their daughters also have medical conditions, so she said her family has no choice but to continue to pay for that health coverage.

But she decided to skip dental insurance to save money, and she prioritizes dental visits for her children over herself.

She had already struggled to set aside retirement savings and had switched her children from a private school they liked to public school to cut down on costs. Then the new health insurance costs tightened her budget even more. She estimated that about one-fifth of her income now goes toward her monthly premium payments.

“I know how the clinics work, that I am an expensive patient,” LeGault said. “At the end of the day, healthcare is a business in the United States.”

Samantha LeGault, a nurse practitioner for a health clinic in Boise, says her medical insurance premium costs rose from $700 to $1,500 a month this year to cover her, her husband, and four of their kids. She has Crohn’s disease, and two of her daughters also have medical conditions. She continues to pay for health coverage but opted to skip dental insurance to reduce their monthly expenses. (Hayat Norimine/KFF Health News)

The Durhams have three other employees in their practice. Two of them receive health insurance through their spouses, Ashley Durham said. The Durhams said they pay $420 monthly toward their physician assistant’s premiums.

As a primary care physician, Joshua Durham said he doesn’t need regular doctor visits, because he can diagnose and treat himself — and, if needed, the rest of his family, though he acknowledged that’s frowned upon. The American Medical Association’s code of ethics generally discourages doctors from treating themselves or relatives but makes exceptions for emergency situations or short-term, minor problems. Ashley Durham said she’s filled prescriptions for her family.

Arthur Caplan, a bioethicist and professor emeritus at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine, said that as more people are “turning toward relatives because they can’t access or easily see a regular doctor,” it may make sense to revisit that aspect of the code of ethics.

Out-of-Pocket Expenses

Healthcare workers with less advanced medical certifications than the Durhams often don’t have the option of treating themselves or family members — or don’t have savings to fall back on for healthcare expenses. And many healthcare professionals, such as Jill Kordick, a 64-year-old retired healthcare executive in Norwalk, Iowa, aren’t willing to go without the safety net of insurance.

In her work, Kordick saw hospitalizations become financially devastating for patients, so she said she would never opt out of health insurance — even for just the 16 months before she’d become eligible for Medicare at age 65.

Last year, she qualified for the enhanced Affordable Care Act tax credits, allowing her to pay $75 a month for health coverage. Her premiums rose to $800 a month this year when those subsidies expired.

Because she has a $10,000 deductible, she put off going to the doctor for weeks when she had a sinus infection this year, until it ultimately evolved into an ear infection. She said she regularly rethinks, and sometimes returns, nonessential groceries in her shopping cart. And she keeps her house’s thermostat at 80 degrees in the summer to cut down on air conditioning costs.

Kordick said healthcare is a universal struggle in this country, regardless of how familiar patients are with the industry. “It’s disheartening that it’s as broken and fragmented as it is,” she said.

The Durhams have seen the impact of unaffordable healthcare on their patients. They said they try to lend some leeway to patients when they can — a luxury they have, operating their own practice. In one case, Ashley Durham said, she wrote off $1,160 in bills for a single father whose son didn’t have health insurance rather than send their bills to a collection agency.

“It’s hard, because as a human I want to help them out,” she said. “At the same time, we need revenue for our office.”

Joshua Durham is more nervous about going uninsured than his wife. As a child, he witnessed his parents struggling to pay medical bills for their family of nine in south-central Idaho. Durham recalled that his dad, who was a carpenter, helped build a surgeon’s house to pay for an operation.

Today, Durham also sometimes exchanges work for care. He said he gets free eye exams from an uninsured optometrist and offers him free primary care.

He worries about a worst-case scenario: a car crash, a sports injury, a serious diagnosis.

“Do I have pancreatic cancer today?” Durham said wryly.

So far, the couple has paid around $9,000 total for expenses out of their health savings account this year, including physical therapy to help with the thoracic outlet syndrome that affects Durham’s neck and shoulder, mental health appointments, and contact lenses. The expenses were higher than the Durhams anticipated. But it was still less than what their monthly premiums would have cost them.

Their decision has paid off, Joshua Durham said. At least for now.

The Durhams used the Affordable Care Act marketplace for health insurance for their family of four last year. This year, they chose to pay out-of-pocket for care instead when the cost of their premium payments jumped. (Hayat Norimine/KFF Health News)

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

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/dkt9XFj

Read More

It’s Hard To Predict Who Will Be Suicidal. It’s Easier To Ensure People Can’t Shoot Themselves.

Paul Nestadt is about as steeped in suicide prevention as a person can be.

He treats suicidal patients as a psychiatrist, has co-authored scores of research papers on how and why people kill themselves, and teaches graduate courses on the subject.

But he’ll be the first to admit: “I can’t tell you which of my patients is likely to die by suicide in the next six months.”

Almost nobody can.

Research shows predictions of who will be suicidal are only slightly better than a coin toss. And they haven’t improved over 50 years.

But that doesn’t make Nestadt hopeless. Instead, it pushes him to pursue interventions that don’t require pinpointing people at risk.

Chief among them: making it harder for people to carry out the act of killing themselves.

“Instead of asking every doctor to figure out which patient will die by suicide and locking that patient up, it might be that we need to make sure there aren’t loaded guns available,” Nestadt said.

In an ongoing series, KFF Health News is examining approaches to suicide prevention that expand beyond providing people at risk with medication and therapy. Although those are lifesaving measures, many clinicians, researchers, and people who have lost loved ones to suicide agree that more is needed. The challenge is that when it comes to firearms, broad policy approaches quickly become constitutionally complicated and politically polarizing.

Research shows that limiting access to lethal means is one of the most promising approaches to save lives. It can involve erecting barriers on buildings and bridges to prevent people from jumping, as well as decreasing the number of pills someone can buy or be prescribed at once.

And reducing access to guns.

“That’s the one that will save the most lives,” said Nestadt, medical director at the Johns Hopkins Center for Suicide Prevention.

It may also be the most difficult to achieve.

More than 28,000 people killed themselves with a gun last year, representing more than half of all suicide deaths in the U.S., according to preliminary federal data. Even as overall suicide rates have dipped recently, gun suicides have hit record highs for five years in a row.

Most Gun Deaths in the U.S. Are Suicides

From 2021 to 2025, suicide deaths by gun hit record highs each year, even as homicides by gun decreased.

Source: <a href="https://wonder.cdc.gov/&quot; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">CDC WONDER</a> <br> Note: 2025 data is provisional. The following ICD-10 codes identify firearm death types: X93-95 (homicide), X72-X74 (suicide), W32-34, Y22-24, and Y35.0 (other, which includes accident, legal intervention, and undetermined). <br> Credit: Aneri Pattani/KFF Health News

Many of the deaths are among middle-aged white men and veterans, two groups that have had high suicide rates for years. But more recently, gun suicides have risen among women and among some Black and Latino men. Researchers say a surge in first-time gun buyers during the covid pandemic underscores the need for prevention efforts that can be applied widely.

Some people assume it’s futile to restrict access to bridges, pills, or guns. The thinking goes: Those who want to kill themselves will simply find another way.

But research refutes that. Creating barriers for one method doesn’t typically push people to another.

Suicide risk can surge quickly, with people spending less than an hour or even five minutes between deciding to die and acting on it. Anything that delays such action — for example, having to unlock a safe to access a gun — gives them time to reconsider or for someone to intervene.

A Sharp Rise in Gun Suicides Among Black Women

White women had the highest rates of gun suicides by women in 2015 and 2024, but among women of other races and ethnicities, the increase was faster and steeper over that time.

Source: <a href="https://publichealth.jhu.edu/sites/default/files/2026-07/2024-CGVS-gun-violence-in-the-united-states.pdf?nvep=&hmac=&emci=8288e977-1e8c-f111-b337-000d3a1558ce&emdi=ea000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000001&ceid=&quot; style="color:#0071ce">The Firearm Mortality Epidemic: Examining the U.S. Data From 2024, Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions</a> <br> Note: Rates represent gun suicide deaths per 100,000 people. <br> Credit: Aneri Pattani/KFF Health News

However, in the U.S., discussion around guns — even in the context of a traditionally bipartisan topic such as suicide prevention — is a political lightning rod. Mentions of background checks, waiting periods, or red flag laws often send people running to their respective corners. Gun owners and the firearm industry say many of the policies suicide prevention advocates seek threaten their Second Amendment rights, and many policymakers see the topic as a nonstarter.

President Donald Trump has been a strong ally of gun owners. His administration has rolled back dozens of firearms regulations and rescinded a previous surgeon general’s warning that called gun violence a public health crisis. It has also revoked grants focused on addressing community gun violence and cut federal staff working on the issue.

The White House did not respond to specific questions about how these actions may affect the nation’s high rate of gun suicides or what it’s doing to prevent such deaths. But spokesperson Lauren Bis said in a statement that “President Trump is committed to Making America Healthy Again and that includes mental health.” She pointed to the administration’s support for developing psychedelic treatments for mental illness and an announcement of $52.5 million in grants for veteran suicide prevention.

The Limits of Red Flag Laws

One gun policy that has gained some traction, despite pushback, is the extreme risk protection order, more commonly known as a red flag law.

Adopted in some form in 22 states and the District of Columbia, these laws allow judges to temporarily remove a person’s guns when evidence suggests they pose a danger to themself or others.

Although such laws are often passed in the wake of mass shootings, research suggests they’re more effective at preventing suicide.

Still, they require identifying someone at risk.

Someone like Dorothy Paugh’s dad.

In 1965, when Paugh was a young girl, her dad lost his job. He was distressed, not knowing how he’d support his wife and five children, Paugh said. He reviewed his life insurance policy, told his wife where he kept important documents, and bought a handgun.

“If my mom had been able to get an extreme risk protection order or if Dad’s best friend had asked to hold his gun for a while, maybe my dad would not have shot himself. He might have lived,” Paugh said.

Decades later, Paugh advocated for a red flag law in Maryland and sat in the legislative gallery when the measure was passed.

She believes the law is saving lives.

Studies across other states show that for every 10 to 20 guns removed under red flag laws, one suicide is averted, saving a life.

But Paugh also recognizes the law’s limitations.

“It wouldn’t have saved my son,” she said.

Dorothy Paugh’s father died by suicide in 1965. She lost her 25-year-old son, Peter, shown in the photo, to suicide in 2012. Both men shot themselves. Paugh has since become an advocate for gun policies that have been shown to reduce suicide deaths, such as red flag laws and mandatory waiting periods before completing a gun purchase. (C. Allen Paugh)

Her 25-year-old son, Peter, fatally shot himself in 2012. He’d recently bought a house with his girlfriend and hosted a birthday celebration for his brother. He’d purchased a gift ahead of Mother’s Day — five novels by Charles Dickens, Paugh’s favorite author — that Paugh received after his death.

Unlike in her father’s case, Paugh said, no one saw warning signs for Peter. “I did not know that my son was suicidal. I didn’t have a clue,” she said. Even if a red flag law existed then, she wouldn’t have thought to use it.

The people most vulnerable to firearm suicide usually aren’t identified as such by family members or clinicians, said Michael Anestis, a clinical psychologist and the executive director of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center.

Studies have shown that among people who die by suicide, those who used guns were less likely to have sought mental health care in the past. And most veterans and service members who die by gun suicide never tell anyone about their suicidal thoughts in the months leading to their death.

That’s why red flag laws are just a first step in suicide prevention, Anestis said. They target specific individuals at high risk — the aspect that makes such laws more politically palatable — but they do not apply to the many other people who are quietly suicidal.

Paugh’s son, Peter, fatally shot himself in 2012. Paugh says she didn’t see warning signs that he was suicidal. Peter is pictured here hiking the Appalachian Trail in 2009. (Dorothy Paugh)

Lessons From Road Safety

Nestadt, the Johns Hopkins psychiatrist, said the nation needs to approach suicide prevention the way it approaches car accidents.

“You’re not trying to figure out who’s at risk of an accident” by testing people’s reaction time or cataloging who gets into fender benders, Nestadt said.

Instead, governments implemented speed limits, passed seat belt laws, and required auto manufacturers to install air bags and shatter-resistant windshields. The crash death rate declined significantly.

Applying a similar strategy to suicide might involve requiring permits and background checks to buy a gun, as well as instituting waiting periods before completing the purchase.

One study found that enacting a permit-to-purchase law in Connecticut was associated with a roughly 15% decrease in gun suicide rates, while repealing such a law in Missouri was linked to a 16% increase in firearm suicide rates.

Most Suicides in America Involve a Gun

Suicide deaths by gun have been increasing for several years, even as suicides by suffocation — the second most common method — have been decreasing.

Source: <a href="https://wonder.cdc.gov/mcd-icd10-provisional.html&quot; target="_blank" style="color:#0071ce">CDC WONDER</a> <br> Note: 2025 data is provisional. "All other methods combined" includes cut/pierce, drowning, fall, fire/flame, other land transport, other, and unspecified. <br> Credit: Aneri Pattani/KFF Health News

About three dozen states have enacted laws requiring owners to lock up their guns in homes where children live, a practice shown to reduce youth suicides. That’s an issue of particular importance, with gun suicide rates increasing 245% among Black youths and 98% among Latino youths since 2014.

Anestis said laws requiring permits and safe storage can also reduce homicides and other gun injuries.

Those types of violence not only hurt people directly but also increase their risk of suicide. Research suggests people who are exposed to gun violence in their community experience trauma and become habituated to the idea of injury or death. That “double whammy” makes them more likely to kill themselves, Anestis said.

Responsibility, Rights, and Saving Lives

Gun owners and firearm trade associations generally oppose universal measures, such as requiring permits and waiting periods. They prefer education campaigns that teach people how to recognize warning signs, talk about mental health, and safely store guns — initiatives that place responsibility on individuals.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, which represents the firearms industry, has partnered with the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention to create flyers and brochures to be posted in gun shops.

“Our purpose is to provide educational materials to the firearm-owning community on how to help prevent suicide and save lives,” Bill Brassard, the NSSF’s senior director of suicide prevention initiatives, said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association said policies focused on guns miss deeper concerns that make someone suicidal, such as mental illness.

“Suicide is a serious issue that deserves serious solutions focused on the underlying causes, not on political efforts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Americans,” NRA spokesperson Justin Davis said in a statement. “A truly dangerous individual needs to be incapacitated, not just deprived of one particular means of harm.”

Some initiatives have managed to bring together unlikely bedfellows — gun store owners, public health experts, and even libraries — to provide free locks to secure firearms at home, identify locations that will temporarily store someone’s guns while they’re in crisis, and educate people on how to avoid selling guns to someone who is suicidal.

Those efforts give Paugh hope and fuel her passion to continue advocating for better mental health care, open conversations about suicide, and policies that decrease access to guns.

“It’s not a cure-all,” Paugh said of those policies. But “it does save lives.”

Having lost a parent and a child, she knows how valuable that can be.

“If you’re that one person or that person’s family, it’s all the difference in the world,” she said.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/vgA4SVc

Read More

‘Way Too Hot’: Britain’s Hospitals Were Not Built for 96-Degree Summers

Patients and workers in one of the country’s largest hospitals sweltered in a heat wave last month. Experts say the whole country must urgently adapt.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/QHCs0fx

Read More

White House Moves to Take Control of N.I.H. Grants

Federal officials are drafting an executive order that would place grants under review by an outside panel, the latest effort to redirect billions of dollars in research spending.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/OqvLRkF

Read More

Nursing Home Beds Are Disappearing. That’s a Problem.

As the oldest baby boomers turn 80, researchers worry there won’t be enough room in nursing facilities for a rapidly graying nation.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/SYRiDtr

Read More

Health Journalists Visit Conservative Georgia District and Weigh AI Bioweapon Threat

Céline Gounder, KFF Health News’ editor-at-large for public health, discussed the findings of a recent cancer report on CBS News 24/7’s Mornings on Sept. 16. Gounder also discussed the potential of artificial intelligence to be used in developing biological weapons on CBS News’ CBS Mornings on Sept. 11.

• Click here to watch Gounder on CBS News 24/7.
• Click here to watch Gounder on CBS Mornings.

---

KFF Health News Georgia correspondent Briah Lumpkins discussed a conservative Georgia congressional district that has remained supportive of President Donald Trump despite rising healthcare costs on WUGA’s The Georgia Health Report on Sept. 11.

• Click here to hear Lumpkins on The Georgia Health Report.
• Read Lumpkins’ “Rising Healthcare Costs Have Hit Georgia’s Most Conservative District. But Its Politics Are Unlikely To Change.”  

---

KFF Health News Florida correspondent Daniel Chang discussed in Spanish how gun violence affects children in Florida on Radio Bilingüe’s Línea Abierta on Sept. 10.

• Click here to hear Chang on Línea Abierta, starting at 47:50.
• Read Chang’s reporting in “Where Florida’s Gun Violence Exacts Its Biggest Toll on Black and Latino Children.”

---

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/ltN09Uv

Read More

Trump Promotes Program to Reduce Medicaid Drug Prices

Ahead of the midterm elections, the president said that all states had opted in to an effort to align Medicaid’s prices for medicines with those in other wealthy countries.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/STiAowG

Read More

Sticker Shock at the Doctor’s Office Could Motivate Midterm Voters

Healthcare prices are likely to keep increasing next year. As midterm elections approach, candidates are laying out their plans to tackle these growing expenses.

KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner joined WAMU’s Health Hub on Sept. 16 to explain how healthcare could play a critical role in the midterm elections. She said similar cost increases in the early 2000s led to the debate that became the Affordable Care Act. 

“We’re seeing people have to pay more in their — not just premiums — but their deductibles, how much they pay before their insurance kicks in, and how much they pay when they go to the doctor,” said Rovner, host of the What the Health? From KFF Health News podcast.

In recent years, it’s not uncommon for healthcare providers to ask for payment upfront. 

“Now you get there, and they say, ‘Can we have your credit card?’ before you even get to go in and get your care,” Rovner said.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/UkMOlA6

Read More

3 Common Drugs Older Adults Might Be Overusing

The scenario often unfolds like this: Medical researchers investigate a frequently used drug and report that it’s less effective for older patients than previously thought, or that its risks outweigh its benefits in older adults. More studies follow, confirming those findings.

After a few years, medical associations revise their guidelines, warning that the drug in question should be avoided or at least prescribed more selectively. It might be added to the Beers Criteria, an influential list of potentially inappropriate medications for older patients, published by the American Geriatrics Society.

If the drug’s role is preventive, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent expert panel, may weigh in with cautions. The FDA may issue “black box” warnings about concerning side effects.

After a few more years, researchers look at broad national data to see whether use of this drug declined. Often, the answer is: Yes, but not enough. Sometimes, though, use didn’t decline much at all or actually increased.

“Medications are like barnacles,” said Michael Steinman, a geriatrician at the University of California-San Francisco and co-director of the U.S. Deprescribing Research Network. “They’re easy to start, but they can be hard to stop.”

This medical inertia partly reflects the time lag involved in disseminating findings. “Clinicians have a million things they need to know and attend to, and information may take a while to get to them,” Steinman said.

But it also reflects the way “clinicians and patients get used to treating conditions in certain ways,” he said. “They become ingrained habits.” Finding alternative approaches is challenging, so “it’s easy to go with what you know.”

Recent studies of three medications or classes of drugs widely used among older Americans illustrate the problem.

The Drawbacks of Benzodiazepines

Scientists began raising alarms about benzodiazepines more than 20 years ago. Prescribed for insomnia and anxiety, “they offer prompt relief,” said Mark Olfson, a psychiatrist and epidemiologist at Columbia University.

The problem? Benzodiazepines (including Valium, Xanax, and Ativan) and the related “Z” drugs (Ambien, Lunesta) “may impair balance, coordination, and cognition that can translate into falls and fractures and motor vehicle accidents,” Olfson said. In patients also taking opioids for pain, benzodiazepines can cause overdoses.

Moreover, “once you’ve taken them for a period of time, you develop a dependence,” Olfson added. “When you come off them, you may develop withdrawal symptoms.”

So what’s happened to benzo use among older adults, who are more sensitive to these effects? In a recent examination of prescribing trends, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Olfson and his team reported progress. Among people 65 and older, the rate of patients filling prescriptions for benzos dropped to 11.5% in 2024, from about 14% in 2015.

But that decline has stalled since 2020, perhaps related to the covid-19 pandemic. Moreover, prescribed use actually rose among those over 75, from 12% in 2020 to about 13% four years later. Dispensing through pharmacies in long-term care facilities more than doubled. And about a third of users were taking the drug for longer than six months, increasing the likelihood of dependence. “It’s worrisome,” Olfson said.

But he cautioned that patients shouldn’t stop benzodiazepines suddenly or on their own, which can provoke withdrawal. “It requires supervised tapering” with a medical professional, he said. “It takes many weeks.”

Overprescribing Antibiotics

For years, the standard treatment for diverticulitis, the inflammation or infection of small pouches that form in the colon, was antibiotics, primarily fluoroquinolones (like Cipro and Levaquin) or amoxicillin-clavulanate (Augmentin).

“It was unquestioned,” said Jesse Sutton, a pharmacist and researcher at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs healthcare system. “Antibiotics are safe and effective, great, lifesaving drugs, so the mindset was: When in doubt, use them.”

But in 2015, the American Gastroenterological Association recommended against routinely prescribing antibiotics for “uncomplicated” diverticulitis, which represents a great majority of cases. Other medical groups followed suit.

Clinical trials had shown that, for this condition, antibiotics had little or no effect on mortality, the need for surgery, complications, or recurrences. “They hadn’t improved anything,” Sutton said.

And as with any drug, “there are downsides, unintended consequences,” he said. “Side effects from antibiotics account for a substantial amount of emergency room visits” for symptoms like nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Antibiotics heighten the risk of the virulent C. difficile infection, too.

Plus, “the more you use antibiotics, the less they work in the future,” Sutton said. The World Health Organization has deemed antimicrobial resistance “a major global health threat.”

So Sutton and his colleagues, studying treatment in 70,000 visits to 120 VA facilities, expected to see antibiotic use for uncomplicated diverticulitis decline over 10 years.

Instead, they reported recently in the Annals of Internal Medicine that antibiotic prescriptions remained nearly universal at 97% of visits, guidelines or no guidelines. The patients would most likely have done as well with a few days of Tylenol and a clear liquid diet.

Antibiotic overuse remains common for other conditions of later life, too, including the kind of urinary tract infections that cause no troublesome symptoms and upper respiratory infections that are typically viral, not bacterial.

In such cases, when a doctor prescribes an antibiotic, “I’d encourage patients to say, ‘Please explain the rationale for doing this,’” Sutton said. “If they don’t, it’s OK to press pause.”

When Aspirin Isn’t the Answer

Aspirin is different. Because it’s cheap and sold over the counter, anybody can start taking it on their own — and millions of older Americans do, thinking it will help prevent cardiac problems.

For people who’ve already had a heart attack, stroke, or cardiac intervention like a stent or bypass surgery, daily low-dose aspirin for “secondary prevention” does lower the odds of another event, studies have demonstrated.

But for “primary prevention” in people who haven’t had one, the guidelines changed in 2019, when the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association recommended against aspirin for this purpose in those 70 or older. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force went further, warning against aspirin for primary prevention starting at age 60.

Large clinical trials had shown scant benefit for aspirin as a primary prevention measure, but there were harms, notably gastrointestinal bleeding. “As we age, the risks of bleeding go up,” said Timothy Anderson, an internist at the University of Pittsburgh who co-directs its Prescribing Wisely Lab. More rarely, but more seriously, aspirin can cause bleeding in the brain.

In a JAMA study published last year, Anderson and his co-author found the message was getting through: Aspirin use for primary prevention, as reported in the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, had dropped substantially from 2011 to 2023. But more than a third of those 70 or older were still taking it.

Some caveats: A subgroup of older adults with high risk factors for cardiovascular disease may benefit from aspirin for primary prevention. And, confusingly, some evidence suggests that older patients already taking aspirin face a higher risk of cardiovascular disease if they discontinue it.

“Step 1 is a conversation with your primary care physician” about aspirin, Anderson said. “‘Is this still right for me as I get older?’”

Older patients taking aspirin, many without any medical guidance, “are interested in reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke,” he said. “They’re trying to be proactive and healthy.” But with blood pressure medications and statins for cholesterol, “we have better strategies than aspirin for that.”

The New Old Age is produced through a partnership with The New York Times.

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/mn7JtQ9

Read More

Fiji Declares a National Emergency as H.I.V. Cases Skyrocket

Surging drug use has contributed to an epidemic in the Pacific island nation, where one in 60 adults is estimated to be living with the virus.

from NYT > Health https://ift.tt/4tNYCEv

Read More

Outcome of Suit Against Department of Labor Could Boost Skimpy Employer Health Plans

A long-running lawsuit challenging what it means to be an employee and therefore have access to work-based health plans is being closely watched by health policy analysts. Its outcome could spur the availability of lower-cost but potentially skimpier health coverage that skirts some consumer protections.

Court papers indicate a settlement in the case against the Department of Labor may be in the works, although the parameters of any such deal are unknown.

It would come amid premium surges on Affordable Care Act marketplaces that have led millions to drop coverage this year. The Trump administration has also been sharply focused on expanding access to alternative coverage, such as short-term plans that avoid ACA rules on preexisting conditions and benefit requirements.

“Depending on what happens with the settlement, this could be an even bigger expansion,” said Katie Keith, director of the Center for Health Policy and the Law at the Georgetown University Law Center. “People are worried that it is the opening salvo into promoting junk plans that don’t meet the ACA requirements.”

The plaintiff, Data Marketing Partnership, filed its case against the Department of Labor in 2019, during the first Trump administration. It wants official recognition as an employer so it can continue to allow its limited partners to buy into a type of job-based health insurance that doesn’t have to comply with state insurance rules or offer coverage as robust as required under the ACA.

But to grasp the claim, one also has to understand how the coverage works.

A consumer shopping for health insurance may come across information online or from a marketer about this concept, sometimes called “limited partnership” coverage. The pitch? Buy insurance offered through Data Marketing Partnership and handled by LP Management Services. To qualify, the consumer must download an app that tracks their internet searches. The company could then sell that data.

Some potential consumers may be turned off by the thought of their internet searches being tracked, but others may find it appealing because it allows them to become a limited partner eligible to buy into the company’s employee health insurance plans. But can these partners be considered employees?

The court’s answer has potential implications for regulators and consumers. Some health policy and market experts warn that a green light could lead to a proliferation of aggressively marketed and potentially questionable insurance with limited recourse for consumers because the plans would be exempt from state oversight.

“If this took off, you logically could see the rise of a whole bunch of what, functionally, would be unregulated insurance companies,” said Ali Khawar, who was the principal deputy assistant secretary of the Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration during Joe Biden’s presidency and now runs his own consulting outfit.

No one knows if the department is going to change its long-running stance defending the case. But any settlement could add more uncertainty to insurance markets.

Already insurers are requesting double-digit increases in ACA premiums again next year, partly because declining enrollment often means that the healthiest policyholders are leaving. That trend could accelerate in coming years as more people are drawn into alternatives such as limited-partnership policies.

States Act as Federal Case Plays Out

The Department of Labor defended the case throughout the first Trump administration and the Biden era, issuing a sharply worded advisory opinion in early 2020 stating that people who simply download software to “capture data as they browse the Internet” are not “employees or bona fide partners.”

A district court judge in Texas, who had previously ruled the ACA unconstitutional in a decision ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court, called the advisory opinion “arbitrary and capricious” in a 2020 ruling in favor of the data marketer. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit largely upheld the lower court’s decision but ordered it to reconsider whether someone who downloads software is either a “working owner” or a “bona fide partner.”

The employer-employee relationship is at the heart of the case because of a 1974 federal law designed to help large, self-insured employers offer retirement and health benefits to workers without having to meet varying rules from multiple states.

That law — the Employee Retirement Income Security Act — allows such plans to avoid most rules set by the states, which generally regulate most other types of insurance and assist consumers who report problems with their policies. As self-insured employer plans, the policies also don’t have to comply with some ACA rules, such as the requirement to cover 10 broad categories of “essential health benefits.”

“If the case goes the wrong way, it could impact consumers or hamstring the states,” said Marie Grant, Maryland’s insurance commissioner.

Arguments over what constitutes an employer plan are not new, and other organizations have tried offering such coverage. Some states have taken action against purveyors of limited-partner policies.

Maryland in 2024 fined a company, The Vitamin Patch, for offering limited-partnership insurance after investigating complaints and determining it was not licensed to sell coverage in the state.

Washington in 2021 ordered another company to stop offering its plans in the state and fined it $25,000.

Maine and Connecticut in 2024 warned consumers about this type of coverage.

“These plans do not provide comprehensive medical coverage and can leave consumers with large, unpaid medical bills,” according to Connecticut’s notice.

Maine’s announcement noted that entities offering these types of health insurance included The Vitamin Patch as well as Affiliated Workers Alliance, Consumer Data Partners, Employers Business Alliance, Socios Buenos, and Strategic Limited Partners.

State insurance commissioners filed legal arguments in the Department of Labor case citing their concerns about losing the ability to enforce consumer protections.

“This is not a Republican-Democrat thing,” Khawar said. “It’s really a story about state authority, the way such authority would be significantly undermined in insurance markets.”

What’s the Risk?

Still, these limited-partnership plans are viewed by proponents as a needed additional choice for consumers, at potentially lower cost than ACA plans.

When the case was filed, attorneys general from seven right-leaning states, for example, urged the Department of Labor to back Data Marketing’s request to designate its limited partners as employees. That would provide an option for people who “earn too much to qualify” for ACA subsidies and be an interim solution until the ACA could be repealed and replaced, they wrote. They argued that states would retain some regulatory authority and added that the Department of Labor, which oversees self-insured employer plans, could set requirements to “encourage” stable companies to enter the market.

Critics, the attorneys general wrote, might fear that ACA alternatives will draw away younger or healthier people, thus affecting those who remain, but they argued that had already happened.

Data Marketing’s attorneys emailed KFF Health News that they could not provide a comment for this article because the case is in active litigation. Neither the White House nor the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which oversees the ACA marketplaces, responded to questions from KFF Health News about whether the Department of Labor has changed its stance and how the administration views limited-partnership health plans.

In court filings, however, Data Marketing said that without an employer designation, it would have to end the insurance coverage, affecting about 50,000 policyholders. That would also hurt its ability to generate revenue, it argued, because offering insurance is “a significant attractor” to get people to join its partnership and let it access their electronic data.

Ellen Montz, who helped oversee ACA implementation in the Biden administration and is now a managing director at consultancy Manatt Health, had a different take. “The only reason why these sorts of products exist is because they aren’t beholden to consumer protection rules of the ACA and can essentially make money by attracting good risk, people who are healthy,” she said.

Maryland’s Grant echoed this warning, saying that proliferation of such plans could lead to even higher premiums in the ACA markets, if those who remain are older or sicker than those who leave.

Nineteen patient advocacy groups sent a letter to the Department of Labor Aug. 11 urging it to continue its defense in the case, warning that a settlement that says such arrangements create an employer-employee relationship could “significantly” undermine “both state regulatory authority and decades of bipartisan efforts to promote stable, well-functioning health insurance markets.” Some of those groups had filed a legal brief in support of the department in 2021.

Days after the August letter, U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott (D-Va.), the ranking member of the House education and workforce committee, warned the department against increasing the availability of “questionable employment relationships” and the insurance they offer.

He cited reports of call centers’ misleading consumers “who think they are enrolling in comprehensive health insurance but instead sign up for junk coverage under the guise of creating an employment relationship with what the consumer believed to be a traditional health insurer.”

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

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

from KFF Health News https://ift.tt/RdfnDwH

Read More