Improving HIV Care After Incarceration

People incarcerated in state and federal prisons are disproportionately affected by HIV, with case rates three times higher than the general population. This disparity highlights a critical gap in our healthcare system—continuity of care post-release. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) has recognized this urgent issue through Policy Clarification Notice 18-02 (PCN 18-02). This policy, alongside insights from the Technical Expert Panel (TEP) Executive Summary, seeks to bridge the care gap by enhancing service linkage and reducing barriers for people living with HIV (PLWH) as they reintegrate into society.

Understanding PCN 18-02: Enhancements to Transitional HIV Care

HRSA’s Policy Clarification Notice 18-02 (PCN 18-02) represents a significant shift in the approach to HIV care for people transitioning from incarceration to community reintegration. Recognizing the unique challenges faced during this critical period, PCN 18-02 enables the Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program to fund a broader array of services, thereby facilitating a more seamless transition and reducing the risk of healthcare discontinuation. This policy not only expands the scope of support prior to release but also ensures that patients have the necessary healthcare connections immediately upon re-entering society.

Overview of PCN 18-02's Changes and Their Impact:

• Expanded Funding: Utilization of Ryan White funds has been broadened to cover extensive care starting within correctional facilities and continuing into community reintegration.

• Pre-release Services: Enhanced eligibility for support services before release, such as healthcare enrollment and medication access, ensures no interruption in care.

• Broader Eligibility: Services now extend beyond state and federal prisons to include those exiting local and county jails.

• Holistic Support: A comprehensive approach now integrates direct medical care with essential services that address key social determinants like housing and employment, crucial for effective reintegration.

Impact of These Changes:

• Continuity of Care: These measures ensure seamless care continuity, essential for maintaining health and preventing HIV progression or transmission.

• Comprehensive Support: By addressing medical needs and social determinants, the policy supports people in stabilizing their lives post-release, potentially reducing recidivism and enhancing public health outcomes.

• Inclusivity and Reach: Extending care to a broader demographic within the carceral system allows a larger number of affected people to receive the necessary support for a successful transition back into society.

The approach promoted by PCN 18-02 is poised to significantly improve the outcomes for people living with HIV as they navigate the complex process of reintegration into society, aiming not just at immediate medical needs but also at long-term well-being and stability.

Challenges in Implementing Continuous HIV Care

The implementation of HRSA's Policy Clarification Notice 18-02, while a significant advancement, faces considerable hurdles that underscore the need for an integrated and responsive healthcare approach. These challenges include systemic fragmentation, unpredictable release times, and enduring stigma, each of which can severely hinder the continuity of HIV care from incarceration to community reintegration.

• Systemic Fragmentation: Effective implementation requires coordinated collaboration across diverse sectors—correctional facilities, healthcare providers, and community organizations. Current systems often operate in silos, which can delay or disrupt essential healthcare services during the transition period.

• Unpredictability of Release Times: The often erratic nature of release schedules complicates the delivery of continuous care. This unpredictability makes it challenging to ensure that patients receive timely medical treatment and linkage to support services immediately upon release.

• Persistent Stigma: Stigma within healthcare settings and the broader community continues to be a significant barrier. It discourages people from seeking necessary care, fueled by fears of discrimination and breaches of confidentiality—issues that are particularly acute for those living with HIV and are amplified by the stigma associated with incarceration.

Strategic Responses to Address Challenges

• Enhanced Coordination: Developing integrated care pathways that involve all relevant stakeholders can streamline the transition process. Patient navigation programs have proven particularly effective by guiding patients through the healthcare system, ensuring they receive necessary services promptly upon release. This aligns with findings that patient navigators improve linkage to care and adherence to treatment.

• Flexible Healthcare Systems: Adapting health services to the unpredictability of release schedules involves flexible scheduling and maintaining open lines of communication between correctional facilities and healthcare providers. Furthermore, incorporating technology-supported interventions, such as telehealth services and mobile health applications, can enhance engagement and continuity of care. These tools have been underutilized but offer significant potential to reach people in remote or underserved areas.

• Combating Stigma and Integrating Substance Use Treatment: In addition to education and training programs aimed at reducing stigma, integrating substance use treatment into HIV care plans is essential. Effective management of substance use disorders, including the provision of medication-assisted treatment within carceral settings, significantly improves HIV care outcomes by maintaining or achieving viral suppression.

By tackling these challenges with proactive and coordinated strategies, the healthcare community can significantly enhance support for people living with HIV as they navigate the transition from incarceration back into society, thereby improving outcomes and promoting overall public health.

TEP Insights: Why This Guidance Matters

The Technical Expert Panel (TEP) convened by HRSA's HIV/AIDS Bureau provides essential context that deepens our understanding of the systemic and societal challenges in improving HIV care for justice-involved populations. The TEP's insights reinforce the importance of HRSA's Policy Clarification Notice 18-02 (PCN 18-02) and highlight specific areas where integrated strategies can make a significant impact.

• Stigma and Discrimination: TEP findings reveal that stigma, particularly within correctional settings, exacerbates challenges in HIV care, leading to confidentiality breaches and discriminatory practices such as segregation. This calls for enhanced training programs for correctional and healthcare staff that emphasize the rights and needs of PLWH, aligning with strategies to combat stigma and foster a more inclusive care environment.

• Comorbidities and Holistic Care: Acknowledging the prevalence of comorbid conditions such as substance use disorders and mental health issues among the incarcerated population with HIV, the TEP emphasizes the need for integrated care that addresses these complex health needs. This supports the strategic response of forming multidisciplinary care teams and enhancing services that tackle these social determinants of health.

• Peer Support and Multidisciplinary Care: The TEP advocates for the use of peer support specialists, who with their lived experiences, can bridge the gap between incarceration and community re-entry. This insight underpins the importance of strengthening peer involvement, ensuring continuous support and relatability, which are key during the transition phase.

• Transitional Challenges: Highlighting the barriers during the transition from correctional facilities to the community, such as unpredictable release dates and access to healthcare, the TEP reinforces the necessity for flexible healthcare systems and enhanced coordination as previously discussed. These strategies are essential to mitigate the risks associated with interrupted care and to facilitate smoother reintegration.

Enhancing the Guidance with TEP Insights

Integrating these TEP insights into HRSA’s guidance through PCN 18-02 requires a commitment to holistic and collaborative approaches. By focusing on education, strengthening peer support, and addressing social determinants of health, the implementation of PCN 18-02 can be significantly fortified. The comprehensive review by the TEP not only underscores the critical need for these policy changes but also highlights the integrated approach needed to ensure successful reintegration and improved health outcomes for people living with HIV during and after their transition out of incarceration.

Adapting Models of Success

To ensure continuity of care for people living with HIV during their transition out of incarceration, it's beneficial to look at established, successful models. These models provide effective frameworks that can be adapted to various settings and illustrate how to overcome the systemic challenges of reintegration.

• The Care Coach Model: This approach involves dedicated care coaches who provide personalized, holistic support to patients. Care coaches help with healthcare navigation, medication management, and the coordination of social services like housing and employment. This direct support helps bridge the gap between the structured environment of incarceration and the complexities of community reintegration, ensuring that people do not lose access to necessary healthcare services during this vulnerable transition period.

• The Change Team Model: Developed to enhance communication and workflows within and between correctional facilities and community health services, this model involves stakeholders from various sectors coming together to identify and address systemic barriers. It utilizes a collaborative approach where correctional health staff, community healthcare providers, and social workers coordinate to prepare for a person’s release, streamlining processes such as medical record transfers, appointment scheduling, and immediate post-release support.

Strategic Implementation of Successful Models:

Adopting these models involves creating partnerships that extend beyond traditional healthcare settings to include correctional facilities and community organizations. Such collaborations are vital for addressing the fragmentation typically seen in the current systems and for adapting the flexibility needed in healthcare provision, especially given the unpredictability of release times.

By integrating elements from both the Care Coach and Change Team Models, health services can ensure more reliable and effective care transitions for people living with HIV. These models serve not only as blueprints for delivering comprehensive care tailored to the unique challenges faced by formerly incarcerated persons but also stress the importance of continuity in care, which is essential for improving health outcomes and supporting successful community reintegration.

Addressing Needs of Marginalized Populations

While adapting models of success, it's imperative to focus on interventions that specifically address the needs of marginalized populations, including cisgender and transgender women, who often face unique barriers to accessing HIV care. This involves designing interventions that tackle these barriers directly, such as gender-specific patient navigation systems, and peer support programs that address intersectional stigma and discrimination.

A Pathway to Transformation

The HRSA's Policy Clarification Notice 18-02 is a landmark step towards improving HIV care for incarcerated populations, addressing continuity of care from incarceration to community reintegration. By expanding eligibility and enhancing services, PCN 18-02 aims to ensure a smooth transition for those reintegrating into society. Despite its potential, the policy faces significant challenges like systemic fragmentation, unpredictability of release, and stigma, which require coordinated efforts across multiple sectors to overcome.

We must embrace a holistic approach that goes beyond immediate medical needs, addressing long-term well-being and stability to transform the landscape of HIV care for formerly incarcerated people. This transformation can lead to improved health outcomes, reduced recidivism, and a more equitable society.

As stakeholders from various sectors, it is imperative we collaborate to implement these changes effectively, ensuring that those affected by HIV receive the comprehensive support they need to lead healthier, more stable lives post-incarceration.

Dire Consequences of the Change Healthcare Cyberattack

On February 21, 2024, the healthcare sector faced a seismic disruption when Change Healthcare, a cornerstone in the healthcare data exchange ecosystem, fell victim to a sophisticated cyberattack. Orchestrated by the notorious ransomware group known as ALPHV/Blackcat, this attack not only compromised the integrity of Change Healthcare's systems but also sent shockwaves across the entire healthcare landscape, affecting providers, insurers, and patients alike. Change Healthcare, now part of Optum under the umbrella of UnitedHealth Group thanks to a controversial $13 billon dollar acquisition, plays a central role in processing medical claims, verifying insurance eligibility, and facilitating electronic prescriptions for as many as half of all claims processed in the U.S. The immediate fallout from this cyberattack has spotlighted the fragility of our interconnected healthcare infrastructure and raised urgent questions about cybersecurity, patient care continuity, and the broader implications of healthcare consolidation.

As of March 6, 2024, the situation surrounding the Change Healthcare cyberattack remains critical. UnitedHealth Group has made strides in implementing workarounds and temporary solutions to restore some level of functionality to pharmacy, claims, and payment systems. While progress in providing temporary solutions is a positive development, the absence of a definitive timetable for fully restoring all affected services continues to pose significant challenges for providers, independent pharmacies, and patients alike. The financial strain on these entities persists, compounded by UnitedHealth Group's continued collection of patient premiums amidst the outage. With UnitedHealth Group's net worth standing at $433,790,000,000, the contrast between the corporation's financial standing and the ongoing struggles within the healthcare sector is stark, underscoring the urgent need for a comprehensive resolution to this unprecedented crisis.

Direct Impact on Patient Access and Care

The cyberattack on Change Healthcare has not only disrupted the healthcare data exchange ecosystem but has also led to significant patient distress and financial uncertainty. This crisis has been further compounded by the emergence of potential litigation from patients left to grapple with whether insurance will cover their treatments or medications. Patients, regardless of their plan type, are finding themselves at a heightened risk of incurring unexpected bills, exacerbating the already dire situation.

Take, for instance, the experience of Mara Furlich. Battling escalating Covid-19 symptoms and unable to get her claim processed due to the cyberattack, Furlich was forced to pay $1,600 out of pocket for Paxlovid. Similarly, one of the Community Access National Network’s (CANN) very own board members was confronted with a balance bill of over $2,000 from CVS Specialty Pharmacy for HIV medication when their Patient Assistance Program benefits were unable to be processed, illustrating the financial and access barriers erected by the cyberattack. This scenario, emblematic of the difficulties in processing Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs), underscores the significant disruptions to medication access, especially critical for managing chronic conditions.

Jen Laws, President & CEO of CANN, articulates the broader ramifications for people living with HIV (PLWH). "We've been in contact with our partners, including funders, to raise the concern around maintaining continuous access to care for PLWH, regardless of their payor," Jen states. "The reality is patients need to be aware their pharmacies, providers, and labs may be struggling to communicate and deliver timely service because of the sheer breadth of Change's reach."

This incident, alongside the litigation threats reported by Axios, underscores the acute disruptions to medication access and the financial jeopardy faced by patients. Kathy Oubre, CEO of Pontchartrain Cancer Center in Louisiana, shares similar concerns, noting the center has had to dispense drugs at risk due to the benefits verification process being down, leaving providers and patients "flying blind."

These developments signal a critical juncture in the healthcare sector's response to the cyberattack, highlighting the urgent need for systemic solutions to restore patient access to care and address the financial uncertainties exacerbated by this crisis.

The Role and Response of UnitedHealth Group

UnitedHealth Group found itself at the heart of this crisis. The conglomerate's response has been a blend of damage control and strategic measures aimed at mitigating the fallout. UnitedHealth Group's acknowledgment of the cyberattack was swift, with public assurances of their commitment to rectify the situation and restore full services. Part of their response has been the launch of a temporary financial assistance program, as outlined on UnitedHealth Group's website. This program, offering interest-free loans to affected healthcare providers, has been promoted as a means to ease the financial burden wrought by the cyberattack, facilitating the recovery of disrupted cash flows and delayed payments.

Yet, this initiative has not been universally welcomed. Criticism from the American Hospital Association (AHA) and other healthcare stakeholders has been vocal, with many decrying the financial assistance terms as burdensome, highlighting the disconnect between UnitedHealth's proposed solutions and the actual needs of the healthcare providers struggling in the cyberattack's aftermath.

The plight of Dr. Christine Meyer's primary care practice in Exton, PA, as reported by The New York Times, exemplifies the dire straits many healthcare providers find themselves in due to the cyberattack on Change Healthcare. Dr. Meyer's account of resorting to mailing "hundreds and hundreds" of pages of Medicare claims highlights the drastic measures providers are forced to take to navigate the bureaucratic maze in the absence of functional digital systems. The stark reality of having to consider cuts to essential services, like vaccine supplies, to conserve cash underscores the severity of the situation. Through Optum’s temporary funding assistance program, Dr. Meyer said she received a loan of $4,000, compared with the roughly half-million dollars she typically submits through Change. “That is less than 1 percent of my monthly claims and, adding insult to injury, the notice came with this big red font that said, you have to pay all of this back when this is resolved,” Dr. Meyer said. “It is all a joke.”

Moreover, UnitedHealth Group's continued collection of patient premiums amidst this turmoil has sparked further controversy, raising ethical questions about corporate responsibility versus profitability during a healthcare crisis. UnitedHealth Group's role in this crisis and its response to the cyberattack highlight the complex interplay between healthcare infrastructure, corporate governance, and patient care. As the healthcare sector navigates the aftermath of the cyberattack, the actions taken by UnitedHealth Group will likely continue to be a focal point for analysis and discussion, underscoring the need for robust, patient-centered solutions in the face of unprecedented challenges.

ADAPs and PAPs: Navigating the Cyberattack Crisis

The cyberattack has exposed the vulnerabilities of essential healthcare support systems, notably AIDS Drug Assistance Programs (ADAPs) and Patient Assistance Programs (PAPs). These programs, a critical safety net for providing vulnerable populations with access to necessary medications, have faced significant challenges in maintaining their operations amidst the cyberattack's disruptions.

In response, NASTAD issued guidance to ADAP administrators in an email, indicating that, due to delays in prescription fills caused by the outage, programs might need to temporarily cover medication costs directly, later seeking reimbursement from pharmacies. This measure, while ensuring that ADAP remains the 'payer of last resort,' highlights the operational and financial complexities these programs are navigating to keep access to care uninterrupted.

The repercussions of the cyberattack go beyond operational disruptions, threatening the very fabric of the healthcare safety net. The interim 'full pay' solution underscores the delicate balance between ensuring immediate access to medications and the long-term sustainability of these programs.

Amidst this crisis, the collective action of healthcare stakeholders is imperative. The NASTAD memo not only outlines immediate actions for ADAP administrators but also calls for widespread support to uphold these critical programs, encouraging ready communication to case managers and patients regarding the situation, status updates, and navigating alternative access to care as needed. As the sector continues to address the fallout from the cyberattack, the adaptability and resilience of ADAPs and PAPs are paramount in ensuring continuous care for those who depend on them most.

Reassessing Healthcare's "Too Big to Fail" Doctrine

This unprecedented disruption of critical services has exposed serious vulnerabilities associated with the healthcare sector's consolidation, particularly following UnitedHealth Group's acquisition of Change Healthcare. This event has reignited the debate over the "too big to fail" concept within healthcare, a concern that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had previously filed suit over due to potential risks of market dominance and a centralized point of failure.

The FTC's apprehensions about the merger highlighted fears of creating an overly centralized healthcare data exchange ecosystem, susceptible to significant disruptions from single points of failure. These theoretical concerns have been realized in the wake of the cyberattack, illustrating the tangible systemic risks of such consolidation. The incident underscores the precarious balance between efficiency gains through consolidation and the increased risk of widespread service disruptions. It should also seriously call into question prioritizing corporate profits and shareholder value over patient care and access.

The U.S. Department of Justice's recent launch of an antitrust investigation into UnitedHealth Group, as reported by The Wall Street Journal, adds a new layer to the ongoing debate. This investigation, focusing on UnitedHealth's expansive reach across the healthcare sector and its potential effects on competition and consumer choice, signals a critical moment in the U.S. government's efforts to address monopolistic consolidation practices within the healthcare industry.

Furthermore, the disproportionate impact on smaller entities, such as independent pharmacies and patient assistance programs, underlines the broader implications of healthcare consolidation. These challenges highlight the need for a healthcare infrastructure that values diversity and decentralization, fostering resilience against such cyber threats.

In light of the antitrust investigation and the fallout from the cyberattack, there's a pressing need for a comprehensive reassessment of healthcare consolidation trends. Strategic regulatory oversight, significant investments in cybersecurity, and comprehensive contingency planning are essential to mitigate the "too big to fail" risks. The healthcare system's integrity, resilience, and commitment to patient care in an increasingly digital age demand a vigilant approach to ensuring that consolidation does not compromise the sector's ability to serve the public effectively.

Call for Policy Intervention and Sector-wide Reforms

The cyberattack on Change Healthcare has catalyzed a unified call for urgent policy interventions and comprehensive sector-wide reforms from leading healthcare organizations, including the American Hospital Association (AHA) and the Medical Group Management Association (MGMA). These calls to action emphasize the critical need to fortify cybersecurity defenses, guarantee equitable patient access to care, and critically evaluate the prevailing trends of healthcare consolidation that have left the sector vulnerable.

The AHA has been at the forefront, advocating for robust support to help healthcare providers weather the storm caused by the cyberattack. Their public statement underscores the profound operational and financial challenges healthcare providers are facing, urging for greater flexibility from payers and governmental intervention to alleviate the crisis's immediate impacts.

Echoing this sentiment, the MGMA has highlighted the dire circumstances medical groups are navigating, as detailed in their communication to HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. The association's plea for comprehensive support from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) reflects the broader necessity for guidance, financial aid, and regulatory leniency to ensure the sustainability of medical practices during these turbulent times.

Both organizations also spotlight the broader issue of healthcare consolidation, critiquing the increased centralization of healthcare services as a significant factor exacerbating the cyberattack's impact. This consolidation not only poses heightened cybersecurity risks but also threatens the diversity and resilience of the healthcare ecosystem. In response, there's a pressing demand for policy reforms that address both the immediate cybersecurity vulnerabilities and the long-term implications of healthcare consolidation, aiming to cultivate a more robust, diverse, and equitable healthcare system.

Urgent Calls to Action:

1. UnitedHealth Group must significantly expand its financial assistance program to offer real relief to the affected healthcare providers, pharmacies, and patients, ensuring the aid is substantial and derived from its vast resources, not at the expense of American taxpayers.

2. Regulatory bodies, including the FTC, must critically assess healthcare consolidation's impact, implementing measures to mitigate the risks of such centralization and prevent future vulnerabilities.

3. A united front of healthcare providers, associations, and advocacy groups is essential to demand accountability and transparency from UnitedHealth Group and similar entities, ensuring commitments to cybersecurity and continuity of care are upheld.

4. Legislators and policymakers are called upon to enact stringent cybersecurity regulations for the healthcare sector, emphasizing the need for comprehensive security protocols, consistent audits, and effective contingency planning.

5. A broader dialogue on healthcare consolidation's future is necessary, advocating for a healthcare model that prioritizes patient welfare, system resilience, and equitable access above corporate profitability.

In the wake of the Change Healthcare cyberattack, the path forward requires not just immediate remedial actions but also a deep, systemic reevaluation of the healthcare sector's structure and policies. It's time for decisive action and meaningful reform to ensure a secure, resilient healthcare system that serves the needs of all patients, safeguarding against future crises and fostering a healthcare environment where patient care is paramount.

Transgender Community's Fight Against Systemic Discrimination

Transgender people grapple with profound healthcare barriers, intensified by systemic discrimination including a recent surge in legislative actions aimed at curtailing their rights. The National Center for Transgender Equality's (NCTE) 2022 U.S. Trans Survey (USTS) - the largest of its kind - highlights these impediments, demonstrating how discrimination not only obstructs access to general healthcare but also critically undermines HIV prevention and treatment efforts. This situation is compounded by healthcare providers' lack of familiarity with transgender health issues and the absence of supportive policies, exacerbating health disparities among transgender people. In the face of an unprecedented wave of anti-trans legislation in the last several years, the imperative for swift, decisive action to safeguard equitable healthcare access has never been more urgent.

Navigating the Healthcare Landscape for Transgender Communities

The 2022 USTS Early Insights Report underscores the significant healthcare barriers transgender folks face, characterized by systemic discrimination and economic challenges. This comprehensive survey, gathering insights from over 92,000 respondents, sheds light on the challenges confronting both binary and nonbinary transgender people.

Challenges in Healthcare Access and Provider Education

A notable 42% of USTS respondents have found themselves in the position of educating their healthcare providers about transgender care, underscoring a critical gap in medical education. This necessity not only burdens transgender people but also reflects wider issues of healthcare accessibility and inclusivity. Additionally, prohibitive costs deter 25% of the community from seeking necessary medical care, highlighting the financial barriers obstructing access to essential services.

The pervasive lack of provider education on transgender health issues is further critiqued in an American Medical Association’s Journal of Ethics article, emphasizing the negative impact of this educational deficiency on care quality and accessibility. Addressing this gap is essential for creating a healthcare environment that respects and adequately serves transgender people.

Socioeconomic Impact on Healthcare Access

Economic instability exacerbates healthcare disparities for transgender communities. The USTS reveals that 34% of respondents live in poverty, and 18% are unemployed, significantly diverging from national averages. This financial precarity, compounded by a 30% homelessness rate among respondents which is associated with experiences of housing and employment discrimination as well as experiences of domestic or intimate partner violence, severely limits healthcare access.

Insurance coverage disparities are stark, with 15% of transgender respondents uninsured, nearly triple the rate of the general U.S. population. Additionally, 29% experienced insurance lapses in the year before the survey, jeopardizing access to critical healthcare services, including HIV prevention and treatment.

A Center for American Progress report further highlights the economic barriers that disproportionately affect transgender people's healthcare access, emphasizing the need for policy interventions to mitigate these disparities.

The Toll of Harassment and Violence

Harassment and violence are prevalent issues within transgender communities, with 30% reporting verbal harassment and 39% facing online harassment due to their gender identity over the past year. This hostile environment not only impacts mental and physical health but also deters many from accessing healthcare services for fear of discrimination.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) research reveals that nearly 70% of transgender women experience discrimination, particularly in employment, directly affecting healthcare access and utilization. This discrimination creates significant barriers to health insurance, medical care due to cost, and access to transgender-specific and gender-affirming procedures.

The mental health crisis among transgender people, defined by discrimination, violence, and systemic barriers, is highlighted in a Washington Post feature on transgender healthcare. Nearly half of transgender adults report encountering healthcare providers lacking knowledge in transgender care, contributing to a crisis of depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation. Addressing this crisis requires systemic changes in healthcare delivery and education to ensure comprehensive healthcare services are inclusive, accessible, and culturally competent.

Addressing Discrimination's Impact on HIV Risk in Transgender Communities

Discrimination against transgender people is a profound social injustice, critically escalating HIV risk. The CDC's report on the Prevalence of Discrimination reveals that nearly 70% of transgender women face discrimination that acutely affects employment, housing, and access to healthcare opportunities. These obstacles represent an incredible public health challenge, directly undermining efforts to combat HIV.

Discrimination leads to a marked hesitancy among transgender people to seek healthcare, including essential HIV testing and treatment. This hesitancy is intensified by a lack of culturally competent healthcare providers who understand the specific health needs of transgender people. The CDC highlights the critical role of HIV testing as the cornerstone of treatment and prevention, pointing out a significant diagnostic gap among transgender women living with HIV. This underscores the pressing need for healthcare environments that are both accessible and affirming.

Transgender women, especially those of color, face a myriad of societal challenges that increase their risk of HIV. The CDC's report on Syndemics outlines how factors like condomless anal intercourse, homelessness, incarceration, and substance use, compounded by discrimination, heighten this risk. A comprehensive approach that includes social support, housing stability, and anti-discrimination initiatives is essential to address these interconnected challenges. Despite the critical role of social support, the CDC also notes the limitations of support networks in mitigating the HIV risk associated with violence and harassment. This calls for a broader, systemic strategy to address the root causes of discrimination and violence against transgender people.

In addressing HIV risk, it's crucial to recognize the specific challenges faced by transgender men, highlighting the need for prevention strategies tailored to their experiences. Misunderstandings about the HIV risk for transgender men, particularly those engaging in sexual activities with cisgender men, overlook the reality that a segment of this community is involved in behaviors that increase their HIV and STI exposure. This issue is exacerbated by the insufficient HIV prevention resources tailored to transmen and their underrepresentation in health research. The dynamics of power within their sexual relationships can complicate safe sex practices. Factors like the heightened libido from testosterone therapy may lead to riskier sexual choices, further influenced by societal discrimination. Effective interventions must therefore embrace inclusive healthcare and societal support, promoting environments where transgender men can confidently express their sexuality while ensuring their health and well-being.

PrEP and Hormone Therapy: Navigating Concerns

Pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is a key strategy in preventing HIV among transgender people at risk. Despite its proven effectiveness, the adoption of PrEP by transgender women is disproportionately low, impeded by systemic obstacles and concerns about interactions with hormone therapy. The CDC has confirmed that there are no adverse interactions between PrEP medications and feminizing hormones, emphasizing the need to debunk myths and promote PrEP as a cornerstone of HIV prevention.

Echoing these concerns, a MedPage Today article delves into how homelessness, employment discrimination, and violence not only compound the HIV risk but also significantly obstruct access to crucial prevention tools like PrEP. Despite widespread awareness, the translation into action—PrEP uptake—remains alarmingly low among transgender women, spotlighting the chasm between knowledge and accessible, actionable health interventions, widened by entrenched systemic inequalities.

Navigating Legislative Barriers and Societal Challenges

The need for legislative action and provider education to improve healthcare accessibility are illustrated in the story of Robert Eads, a tragic example of the dire consequences of healthcare related discrimination. Eads, a transgender man from Georgia, encountered significant barriers to receiving treatment for ovarian cancer, with numerous doctors refusing care due to his gender identity and ultimately leading to his death. His experience underscores the critical need for healthcare systems that are accessible and inclusive, ensuring that transgender people receive the care they need without discrimination.

Unfortunately, the landscape of transgender rights and healthcare access in the United States is moving in the opposite direction thanks to a surge in anti-trans legislation, marking a concerning trend toward restricting the freedoms and healthcare access of transgender folks. A 2024 report from USA Today highlights this alarming escalation, noting that as of February 14th 130 bills targeting transgender rights had been filed nationwide. This legislative push not only seeks to limit access to gender-affirming care but also poses a broader threat to the visibility and rights of transgender people in public life.

The American College of Physicians (ACP) has voiced concern over the growing number of states implementing bans on gender-affirming healthcare. Following Arkansas's 2021 ban on such care for transgender minors, at least 12 other states have enacted similar restrictions, contributing to a hostile legislative environment that has put over 146,300 transgender youth and young adults at risk of being denied access to vital medical care known to mitigate risks of depression and suicide.

The burgeoning wave of anti-trans legislation casts a long shadow over the lives of transgender people, creating an atmosphere rife with fear and exclusion. The narrative shared by Ashley Andreou in Scientific American brings to light the chilling effect these laws have on both the mental and physical well-being of transgender people and the medical professionals dedicated to their care. Andreou's personal connection to the issue, through the loss of a family member to the mental trauma of transgender discrimination, underscores the profound human cost of these legislative actions. The laws, fueled by deliberate misinformation and detached from evidence-based medical practice, not only threaten the rights and dignity of transgender people but also jeopardize the very essence of patient-centered care.

Critically, the most recent wave of anti-trans legislation specifically targets access to care and even weaponizes accessing care for transgender patients, in and of itself. With some states adopting laws or administrative policies to pursue the medical records of transgender patients, even outside of those particular states, and the refusal of those medical institutions to protect patient privacy at the risk of facing state-sponsored legal challenges.

In the face of such legislative adversity, the call for advocacy and legal resistance becomes ever more critical. The experiences detailed by Andreou, from the criminalization of physicians providing gender-affirming care to the forced closure of clinics like Texas's GENECIS, highlight the urgent need for policies that protect the healthcare rights of transgender people. This legislative hostility not only undermines the autonomy of transgender people but also places an undue burden on healthcare providers, stifling their ability to offer essential care.

Empowering Transgender Health: Education, Advocacy, and Policy Reform

Equitable healthcare for transgender communities hinges on a unified strategy encompassing education, advocacy, and public policy. At the core of this strategy are the CDC's Transforming Health guidelines, which equip healthcare providers with a framework for delivering care that respects the unique needs of transgender people. These guidelines underscore the necessity of a well-informed healthcare team to create an environment that is affirming and respectful for all patients.

The Biden Administration's initiative to fund sex education for trans boys marks a critical step in addressing the educational gaps in sexual health for transgender and non-binary youth. This move fills a crucial need and sets a precedent for future policies aimed at improving health outcomes for transgender youth. It also specifically speaks to a significant gap in even existing outreach to transgender people. Transgender women are over-represented in many studies and programming due to the heightened violence this community faces. Transgender men on the other hand have often been left behind in programming and research - the Biden Administration’s move is unique in its effort to meet the needs of young transgender men.

However, the potential for a rollback of protections under administrations like the previous one's underscores the fragile nature of transgender rights. The ease with which previous gains can be reversed highlights the need for continuous advocacy and vigilance. Advocates must remain prepared to counter any attempts to diminish protections for transgender people, employing a combination of legal, policy, and grassroots strategies to safeguard the rights and health of transgender communities.

Amid systemic barriers and discrimination, advocacy is crucial in securing the rights of transgender people to access gender-affirming care and protection from healthcare discrimination. Key actions include:

• Strengthen Legal and Policy Advocacy: Monitoring policy changes affecting transgender rights, challenging discriminatory policies through legal avenues, and collaborating with policymakers to advocate for inclusive laws.

• Enhance Public Education and Awareness: Leveraging research and reports to educate the public, healthcare providers, and policymakers about the challenges faced by transgender people.

• Mobilize Community and Allies: Organizing community support and direct actions to advocate for inclusive policies at institutional and governmental levels.

• Invest in Research and Documentation: Continuing to document health disparities and experiences of discrimination to support advocacy and policy reform.

• Pursue Strategic Litigation: Using the courts to challenge discriminatory practices and secure legal protections for transgender people. This would be particularly notable if initiated or otherwise supported by executive agencies of the federal government.

Achieving healthcare equity for transgender communities demands:

• Comprehensive training on transgender health issues for healthcare providers to ensure empathetic, respectful care.

• Advocacy for inclusive policies that protect transgender people from discrimination in healthcare institutions.

• Support for gender-affirming care to be included in health insurance coverage and made accessible for all transgender people.

• Development and funding of mental health services tailored to the needs of transgender communities.

• Building supportive community environments that empower transgender people and provide essential resources for their well-being.

By adopting these strategies, we move closer to a future where healthcare equity for transgender people is a reality, reflecting a commitment to human rights and dignity. We can create a healthcare system that recognizes and meets the needs of every person, regardless of gender identity, and moves us closer to Ending the HIV Epidemic with comprehensive and collaborative efforts between allies.

The Prescription for Curing Stigma

The prescription for curing HIV-related stigma begins with acknowledging a critical disconnect: over four decades into the HIV epidemic, medicine has advanced, yet societal attitudes remain anchored in the past. This enduring stigma casts a long shadow over those living with HIV, affecting mental health and quality of life, and fueling the virus's persistence. A recent UK survey highlights this stark reality, illustrating the urgent need to address stigma as a critical part of our HIV response.

As we aim for the 2030 goal of halting new HIV transmissions, it's clear that our approach must evolve. Curing stigma involves more than just medical breakthroughs; it requires a transformative shift in societal attitudes. This shift entails challenging deep-rooted misconceptions, prioritizing science over politics, and amplifying the voices of those living with HIV to educate our communities toward empathy and healing for all.

The Nature and Impact of HIV-Related Stigma

Manifestations in Healthcare Settings

HIV-related stigma in healthcare settings significantly undermines the quality of care and dignity of patients. This stigma manifests in various forms, from overt discrimination to subtle biases in patient-provider interactions. The American Medical Association's Journal of Ethics notes, "Despite legal protections...health care personnel have been known to stigmatize patients with HIV, in some cases refusing to treat them or providing substandard care." This highlights the ethical challenges and the need for empathy in healthcare.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) advocates for a status-neutral approach in healthcare, focusing on high-quality, culturally sensitive care. This approach is vital in HIV care, where financial and insurance barriers often limit access to services. The CDC's framework aims to normalize HIV treatment and prevention, helping to reduce stigma.

Stigma in healthcare affects individuals' mental well-being and their willingness to seek care, adhere to treatment, and disclose their status. Furthermore, fear of judgment and discrimination can delay diagnosis and treatment, complicating HIV management.

Addressing healthcare providers' stigmatizing attitudes is a critical step in addressing stigma. It requires policy intervention, training, and sensitization to ensure all healthcare providers offer compassionate, stigma-free care to everyone, regardless of HIV status. This is essential for advancing public health and respecting the dignity of those affected by HIV.

Stigma in the Workplace and Society

HIV-related stigma transcends healthcare, significantly impacting workplaces and our broader society. In professional settings, people living with HIV face bias and misunderstanding. The International Labour Organization (ILO) reveals that workplace stigma threatens job security and mental well-being for people living with HIV.

Alarmingly, the ILO found that nearly 40% of respondents believe people living with HIV should not work in close contact with others. This misconception fosters a hostile work environment, leading to isolation and discrimination. Chidi King from the ILO states, “It is shocking that...myths and misconceptions are still so widespread... This survey is a wake-up call to reinvigorate HIV prevention and education programmes.”

Workplace stigma has extensive repercussions, violating workers' rights and hindering inclusive workplace efforts. The ILO advocates for dismantling stigma through education, policy reform, and promoting an empathetic work culture.

Beyond the workplace, societal stigma manifests in social ostracization and stereotypes, affecting daily life and influencing public opinion and policy. This stigma creates barriers to open HIV discussions, testing, and treatment.

Mental Health Implications

HIV-related stigma has a profound impact on the mental health of those living with the virus. Internalized stigma often leads to feelings of shame and guilt, heightening the risk of depression and anxiety. A significant study in AIDS Journal underscores the link between mental health disorders and HIV, revealing that in the U.S., HIV prevalence is notably higher among adults with serious mental illness (SMI), and among people living with HIV (PLWH), rates of major depression and generalized anxiety disorder are substantially higher than in the general population.

The study points out, "Mental health problems can increase the risk of HIV acquisition... Screening and treatment for mental health problems are essential to preventing vulnerable populations from acquiring HIV."

Stigma-induced isolation exacerbates mental health issues and impedes effective HIV management. Societal stigma, driven largely by misconceptions held over from the early days of the epidemic, inhibits open discussions about HIV, testing, and status disclosure, limiting access to tailored mental health resources.

Addressing these challenges requires integrating mental health services into HIV care, public education to counter stigma, and supportive environments in healthcare and communities. By taking a holistic approach to care and community, we can enhance the quality of life of people living with and affected by HIV and bolster the overall response to the epidemic.

The Role of Education in Shaping Attitudes

Comprehensive Sex Education

The fight against HIV-related stigma isn't confined to healthcare facilities or policy discussions; it begins in the classroom with comprehensive sex education, which is key to fostering the understanding and empathy required to eliminate stigma. Leading this educational charge are organizations like the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) and Planned Parenthood Action, advocating for an educational approach that goes beyond traditional biology lessons.

Comprehensive sex education includes a wide range of topics such as sexual orientation, gender identity, relationships, consent, and crucially, HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). This type of education challenges myths and fears with factual, medically accurate information, fostering a more informed and empathetic understanding among young people.

However, the implementation of comprehensive sex education faces significant challenges, particularly due to the prevalence of abstinence-only programs. The Guttmacher Institute reports that the U.S. federal government spends $110 million annually on these programs, which are proven to be ineffective. Data shows that abstinence-only programs do not effectively prevent STIs or reduce sexual activity or pregnancy among teens. In fact, these programs often deny young people essential, life-saving information about their bodies, reproductive health, and sexuality. Consequently, fewer than half of high schools and only a fifth of middle schools in the U.S. teach the sexual health topics that the CDC considers essential for healthy young people.

The lack of comprehensive and accurate sex education perpetuates HIV stigma. Misconceptions about HIV transmission and the experiences of those living with the virus continue unchallenged, leading to fear and discrimination. This gap in knowledge isolates individuals living with HIV and hinders efforts to end the epidemic.

Navigating the Roadblocks to Inclusive Sex Education

Campaigns documented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) reveal a troubling trend towards abstinence-only education in public schools. This approach omits critically information about HIV, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and broader sexual health topics. Notably, such curricula frequently overlook the experiences and needs of LGBTQ+ students, contributing to their marginalization and perpetuating HIV-related stigma.

The landscape of sex education across the United States is inconsistent, as highlighted by the National Conference of State Legislatures. While 19 states mandate sexuality education and 34 require HIV/AIDS instruction, the depth and breadth of these programs vary widely. In some regions, educators face restrictions on discussing topics like intercourse, contraception, and diverse sexual orientations, leaving a significant gap in students' sexual health knowledge.

Resistance from certain community groups and parents, often based on cultural or religious beliefs, adds another layer of complexity to the implementation of inclusive sex education. This opposition can sway local school boards and state legislatures, rendering the content and quality of sex education curricula largely ineffective and quite frankly, useless.

A critical shortfall in trained educators capable of delivering comprehensive, inclusive sex education exacerbates these challenges. Educators require proper training and resources to effectively navigate sensitive topics, including HIV. Without this support, the opportunity to dispel stigma and misinformation is lost.

Addressing these barriers necessitates a concerted effort to advocate for policies supporting comprehensive, inclusive, and medically accurate sex education. Engaging communities and parents in meaningful dialogue about the importance of such education is crucial for fostering a generation well-equipped to understand, empathize with, and support people living with HIV. This approach not only contributes to reducing HIV stigma but also aligns with broader public health goals.

Strategies for Dismantling Stigma

Policy and Community Initiatives

To dismantle the pervasive stigma surrounding HIV, a comprehensive strategy encompassing policy reform and community engagement is required. This approach should involve several key elements:

1. Policy Reform:

• Comprehensive Sex Education: Policies should mandate comprehensive sex education in schools. This education must be medically accurate, culturally appropriate, and inclusive of all sexual orientations and gender identities.

• Workplace Policies: Public and private sector policies should be implemented to protect people living with HIV from discrimination in the workplace. This includes creating supportive work environments and providing education about HIV to dispel myths and fears.

• Healthcare Reforms: Healthcare policies should promote a status neutral approach, ensuring that people living with HIV receive stigma-free, high-quality care. Training healthcare providers to address their biases and provide empathetic care is crucial.

2. Community Engagement:

• Public Awareness Campaigns: Utilizing platforms for public education to challenge misconceptions about HIV. Campaigns should focus on normalizing conversations about HIV, promoting understanding, and reducing fear.

• Empowering Voices of People Living with HIV: Encouraging people living with HIV to share their stories and experiences can humanize the condition and challenge stigma. This aligns with the broader public health goals of organizations like the White House's National HIV/AIDS Strategy.

• Community-Based Programs: Implementing community-based programs that focus on resilience and support for people living with HIV. These programs can provide a platform for education, advocacy, and peer support.

3. Legal Advocacy Against Discriminatory Laws

• Addressing Criminalization: Modernizing laws that criminalize HIV exposure and transmission is vital. In the U.S., 32 states and two territories still have such laws, impacting 68% of people living with HIV. These laws often result in severe penalties, including extended prison terms and mandatory sex offender registration.

• Reform and Impact: Efforts to reform these laws have seen progress, with several states repealing or modernizing HIV-specific laws and removing sex offender registration for revised law convictions. This legal advocacy is key to reducing stigma and supporting the rights of marginalized communities affected by HIV.

4. Global Perspective: Learning from International Success

• Australia's Model: Australia's success in reducing HIV rates highlights the effectiveness of community-led initiatives and government collaboration. Their approach emphasizes peer support and progressive policies.

• Stigma Reduction and Policy Change: Australia's commitment to reducing stigma and removing non-evidence-based laws criminalizing HIV transmission is a key part of their HIV prevention strategy. This approach is seen as a pathway to virtually eliminate HIV transmission by 2025.

• Adopting Global Lessons: Embracing Australia's strategies, which combine policy reform, community engagement, and education, can guide other nations in transforming their HIV response from stigma to understanding and support.

In our journey to eradicate the shadows of HIV stigma, the path forward is clear and urgent. We stand at a pivotal moment where collective will and action can transform the landscape of HIV understanding and care. The Prescription for Curing Stigma is not just a metaphor—it's a call to action, a blueprint for change.

This change demands more than passive acknowledgment; it requires active engagement from every corner of society. Policymakers, healthcare providers, educators, business leaders, and community members must unite in this cause. We need policies that are inclusive and empathetic, healthcare that is stigma-free and compassionate, education that is comprehensive and enlightening, and community support that is unwavering and inclusive.

The voices of those living with HIV are not just stories; they are powerful testimonies that can shatter misconceptions and humanize the epidemic. Their experiences and insights are the most potent weapons in our arsenal against stigma. By amplifying these voices, we not only challenge outdated beliefs but also pave the way for a future where HIV is met with understanding, not fear; with support, not judgment.

As we look towards a future where HIV infections are prevented and every person with HIV lives a life free from stigma and discrimination, let's remember that the power to effect this change lies within each of us. It's time to move beyond awareness to action, beyond empathy to advocacy. Together, we can dismantle the barriers of stigma and fear, creating a world where every person affected by HIV can achieve their full potential for health and well-being.

The Prescription for Curing Stigma is more than a concept—it's a commitment to action, a promise for a better tomorrow. Let's embrace this challenge with determination and hope, knowing that our united efforts will lead us to a stigma-free future and ending the HIV epidemic once and for all.

The Growing Burden of Medical Debt for Insured Americans

Health insurance, designed as a financial safeguard against illness and chronic conditions, presents a paradox in America: many insured individuals are burdened by substantial medical debt. This contradiction highlights systemic flaws in our healthcare system, where high out-of-pocket costs, aggressive debt collection by hospitals, and policy gaps create a crisis impacting financial stability, equitable healthcare access, economic mobility, and both financial and health disparities.

The Rising Tide of Medical Debt Among the Insured

Penelope Wingard's experience, a 58-year-old black woman from Charlotte, North Carolina, starkly illustrates the human cost of medical debt for the insured. After her breast cancer treatment in 2014, she faced a new challenge: escalating medical bills. Despite Medicaid coverage during treatment, she found herself uninsured and overwhelmed by costs for follow-up care. "My hair hadn’t even grown back from chemo, and I couldn’t see my oncologist," she recalls, underscoring the immediate financial burden of her illness.

Her financial woes deepened with subsequent medical issues, including an aneurysm and vision problems, leading to tens of thousands of dollars in debt. "It’s like you’re being punished for being sick," Wingard's experience reflects a broader trend affecting many insured Americans - not just the uninsured.

This trend is echoed in recent reporting by The Guardian, showing most hospital debt in the U.S. now involves insured patients, rather than uninsured patients, often due to high deductibles and unexpected out-of-pocket costs. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2023 Employer Health Benefits Survey further highlights it, noting a rise in high-deductible health plans, which, despite lower premiums, can lead to significant financial strain during medical emergencies. This change also represents employers selecting benefit designs that shift costs to employees or, more directly, a lower overall value of compensation packages.

Wingard's ordeal and these findings paint a concerning picture of U.S. healthcare, where insurance all too frequently fails to provide adequate financial protection, underscoring the need for a critical reevaluation of insurance structures and policies.

The Role of Hospitals and Aggressive Collection Practices

The medical debt crisis in the U.S. is worsened by many hospital systems, particularly so-called nonprofit hospitals, adopting aggressive debt collection tactics. A Nonprofit Quarterly article highlights that these hospitals, despite tax exemptions, often pursue lawsuits, wage garnishments, and home liens, exacerbating patients' financial woes.

The Human Rights Watch report, "In Sheep’s Clothing," reveals that about 60% of U.S. community hospitals are tax-exempt nonprofits, yet they spend significantly less on charity care than they receive in tax benefits, raising questions about their commitment to community service.

Additionally, the decline in charity care, vital for both uninsured and insured patients facing high out-of-pocket costs, is alarming. Hospitals' aggressive pursuit of unpaid bills, including legal actions and debt sales, seemingly contradicts their community-serving role and intensifies the medical debt crisis.

In response, legislative measures like New York State's Fair Medical Debt Reporting Act are emerging. This law, preventing hospitals from reporting unpaid medical debts to credit agencies, marks progress towards protecting patients and signals a shift towards more ethical debt management practices in healthcare.

Policy Gaps and the Need for Reform

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) and Medicaid Expansion stand as monumental efforts to increase coverage. Yet, the persistence of medical debt among the insured underscores a critical disconnect between policy intentions and real-world outcomes.

The ACA and Medicaid Expansion: Coverage vs. Cost

While the ACA and Medicaid Expansion have expanded healthcare access, they often fail to protect individuals from medical debt due to rising out-of-pocket costs. The Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker Brief indicates that the ACA’s maximum out-of-pocket limit is increasing faster than wages, burdening insured individuals with escalating healthcare expenses.

High-deductible health plans (HDHPs) exacerbate this affordability crisis. These plans, with lower premiums but higher initial costs, are increasingly common. The Kaiser Family Foundation’s 2023 Employer Health Benefits Survey shows a rise in HDHP enrollment, leading to significant debt for families as they pay more out-of-pocket before insurance coverage starts.

Coverage limitations under the ACA also contribute to this issue. Essential health benefits vary by state and plan, often leaving gaps in coverage for critical services like mental health or certain prescriptions. This variability, coupled with high deductibles, results in insured individuals facing substantial medical debt, contradicting the purpose of insurance.

Addressing this requires reevaluating health insurance structures and regulatory frameworks to balance affordable premiums with comprehensive, consistent coverage, reducing the risk of overwhelming medical debt for insured individuals.

Commonwealth Fund's 2023 Health Care Affordability Survey: Key Insights

The Commonwealth Fund's 2023 Health Care Affordability Survey reveals more than statistics; it highlights the real struggles of Americans with healthcare costs. The survey underscores the healthcare affordability crisis, showing that insurance doesn't always shield from financial burdens.

A major finding is the impact of high deductibles and copayments, which consume a significant part of many people's incomes, forcing tough choices like delaying medical care or incurring debt. Particularly affected are lower-income families, those with chronic conditions, and older adults, who often face a cycle of debt and deferred care, worsening health disparities.

The survey also points to a trend of underinsurance, especially in employer-sponsored plans with high deductibles, leaving many at financial risk. These insights call for urgent policy reforms to make healthcare truly affordable, focusing on reducing out-of-pocket costs, restructuring insurance plans, and enhancing subsidies for those in need.

State-Level Initiatives: Pioneering Change

States are at the forefront of combating medical debt with innovative solutions. The Commonwealth Fund State Protections report highlights diverse strategies to mitigate medical debt's impact.

Key initiatives include laws to limit aggressive hospital debt collection practices, crucial for protecting vulnerable groups like low-income families and those with chronic conditions. Some states have set legal boundaries on pursuing unpaid medical bills and capped interest rates on medical debt.

Expanding eligibility for charity care and financial assistance is another significant move. This broadening ensures more people, particularly those with limited resources, can access medical care without the fear of crippling debt, thereby improving community health outcomes.

States are also focusing on enhancing transparency in medical billing and insurance coverage, ensuring patients have clear information about service costs and their financial obligations. This clarity is essential for informed healthcare decisions and avoiding unexpected bills.

Furthermore, states are strengthening consumer protection laws to defend against unfair medical billing practices, holding providers and insurers accountable for billing errors and offering patients better dispute resolution options.

These state-level actions, varying in scope but united in purpose, demonstrate encouraging progress toward a more equitable healthcare system. They address not only the symptoms of medical debt but also several of the root causes, paving the way for broader healthcare reforms. These initiatives, alongside federal efforts, are shaping a future where healthcare affordability is accessible to all, not a privilege for a few. State governments' role in this fight is pivotal, with their policies and programs serving as models for national reform and effective strategies to alleviate medical debt.

Federal Actions: A Unified Approach with Enhanced Consumer Protection

Federally, initiatives like the White House Convening on Medical Debt and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's (CFPB) plan are key in combating medical debt. These efforts merge federal oversight with state innovation, addressing medical debt's complexities.

The White House Convening united federal and state policymakers, healthcare experts, and advocates to strategize on reducing medical debt and improving healthcare policies. This meeting was pivotal for sharing insights and identifying best practices for nationwide implementation, recognizing medical debt as a multifaceted issue.

Additionally, the CFPB's plan, noted in a National Consumer Law Center (NCLC) announcement, marks a significant move towards consumer protection. It proposes prohibiting medical debts from being reported on credit reports, a major relief for those burdened by medical debt. This initiative is widely supported by consumer groups and reflects an understanding of the disproportionate impact of medical debt on financial stability.

The collaboration of federal agencies like the Department of Health and Human Services, the CFPB, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services is crucial in formulating effective healthcare policies. Their joint efforts are expected to lead to comprehensive strategies that significantly alleviate the burden of medical debt.

This federal approach, emphasizing interagency cooperation and stakeholder engagement, is helping to create policies and practices that effectively reduce medical debt, integrating federal oversight with state-level innovation and consumer protection measures like the CFPB's plan. This integrated strategy is essential for relieving American families of medical debt and advancing towards a more equitable healthcare system.

The Blind Spot: Medical Credit Cards

Despite the good intentions of these proposals, a “blind spot” persists and more and more hospital systems are taking advantage of it by pressuring patients to agree to take on “medical credit” debt, prior to providing services - even in emergency departments. The most popular of these programs is known as “Care Credit” and the American public assumed some $23 billion in medical credit card debt across- more than 11 million users from 2018 through 2020. Unlike traditional medical debt, these medical credit programs accrue interest and do not qualify for financial assistance or charity care. They result in as much if not more damage to patient-consumer credit reports as traditional medical debt.

Once primarily limited to dental costs, which are not a required covered benefit for adults, the company that owns Care Credit says it believes patients typically generate this debt through “elective procedures”. However, patients urged to accept credit based medical debt in an emergency room or when facing cancer care or even in seeking dental care for an infected tooth may not feel these procedures are “elective” and the financial institution is not necessarily going to operate with the same definitions the general public would. Indeed, it does not serve Synchony’s interests to do so. In fact, Synchrony partners with multiple provider associations and as of 2023 with at least 17 hospital systems or about 300 hospitals but, when interviewed, refused to provide details because those agreements likely include “sponsorships” or what would otherwise be called a kick back scheme. That scheme structure is very likely prohibited by federal law protecting patients of public health programs like Medicare from providers and their affiliates that would take advantage of needy or elderly patients.

Once assumed as a means of paying for medical care, medical credit card debt reports just like traditional credit card debt and patient-consumers are no longer protected from those specific protections policymakers are considering now.

Conclusion and Call to Action

It's evident that this crisis is not just financial but a moral and systemic failure. The experiences of individuals like Penelope Wingard and findings from the Commonwealth Fund's 2023 Health Care Affordability Survey underscore the need for compassionate healthcare reform.

Policymakers, healthcare providers, patient advocates, and citizens must unite to address this crisis's root causes and reshape our healthcare system.

For Policymakers:

• Implement policies that go beyond expanding coverage to ensure affordability and accessibility.

• Reassess high-deductible health plans and their impact on families.

• Mandate comprehensive coverage in health plans, including closing the essential benefits loophole and ensuring network parity for services like mental health and chronic disease management.

• Enforce regulations ensuring hospitals commit to community-serving mandates, particularly in providing sufficient levels of charity care to justify nonprofit status. This can be implemented on both the state and federal levels.

For Healthcare Providers and Institutions:

• Prioritize ethical patient care over financial gains.

• Establish transparent billing practices and expand charity care programs.

• Collaborate with community organizations to identify and support vulnerable patients.

• Train staff in empathy and patient advocacy, focusing on the human aspect of healthcare.

For Patient Advocates and Community Members:

• Support legislation that protects patients from aggressive debt collection and unfair billing.

• Educate communities about their rights and resources regarding medical debt.

• Partner with local health systems to develop patient-centered care models.

For All Stakeholders:

• Collaborate to create a healthcare system that balances efficiency with empathy, justice, and accessibility.

• Strive to make medical debt a rarity, ensuring healthcare access for all, regardless of insurance status.

• Remember the human element in healthcare.

We possess the knowledge and resources to drive change. Let's collectively push for policies that safeguard the vulnerable and work towards a healthcare system where access is a right, not a privilege. The time to act is now and it is past time that our state and federal policymakers evaluate their allegiance to hospitals systems abusing government programs, the dollars that support those programs, and the patients those dollars are meant to benefit.

Health Inequity: Barriers Caused by Abusive Payer Practices

On February 2, 2023, ProPublica, the publication with a mission to “expose abuses of power” and particularly known for their extraordinary thoroughness of investigation, published a piece exposing United Healthcare’s practices denying medically necessary care for one patient, Christopher McNaughton, who is diagnosed with ulcerative colitis. The barriers caused by abusive payer practices is nothing new to patients living with chronic health conditions, including HIV and viral hepatitis.

McNaughton’s disease state is particularly challenging and his treatment was costing United Healthcare about $2 million per year. McNaughton, after receiving repeated coverage denials of live-improving and life-saving medication from United Healthcare, many appeals, conflicting results from “third-party” medical reviewers, and an insistence from United Healthcare that McNaughton’s care was not “medically necessary”, McNaughton’s family sued. What that lawsuit uncovered was a trove of data, recordings, emails, reports, and more that showed distain for McNaughton’s family seeking the care he needs, a cover up of a review which properly identified the medical necessity for McNaughton’s treatment in alignment with his provider’s recommendations, and even more grossly abusive legal tricks to disrupt and complicate the lawsuit process.

McNaughton receives his insurance coverage through Penn State University, where he goes to school and his parents work. Amid all of the turmoil of navigating denials, McNaughton and his family had reached out to the sponsor of his health cover only to find an extraordinary lack of help. The curious detail there is the university’s “health insurance coordinator” turns out to be a full-time employee of United Healthcare, despite no disclosure of that fact on Penn State’s webpages and the coordinator being assigned both a Penn State email address and phone number. Arguably, as the sponsor of the plan, Penn State has a role to play here, too, much like large employers and even the government in public payer programs.

Similarly, the New York Times covered the issue of payers refusing to cover the cost of high-cost, life-saving care, especially when that care includes newer medications. All the advancements in the world can’t change the course of a person’s life, if they can’t afford those advancements or the cost of those advancements might bankrupt a patient. While some public payer programs help to protect patients from these burdens, with complex regulatory requirements, even those are often farmed out to the same private payer entities responsible for McNaughton’s experiences, or those described by the numerous patients included in New York Times’ piece. For Medicaid, these entities are called managed care organizations (MCOs) and in Medicare they can been under the Medicare Advantage program. For many patients in private plans, formulary restrictions are quite common. This is still also true in Medicaid and Medicare Advantage plans, in which a patient and/or their provider has to chase after a series of costly administrative barriers in order to get an exception, which may or may not be denied at the end of the day. Indeed, MCOs and private payers have a history of refusing to add new medications to formularies, arguing “cost-effectiveness”, despite U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals and study designs showing greater efficacy, curative potential, or meeting a unique need. We won’t argue how placing greater value on “cost-savings” in the short-term in the face of more efficacious medication for patients is both morally and ethically abominable. Ultimately, these types of moves just shift cost-burdens to patients, namely in the expense of their health and even their lives. Similarly, newer medications may be placed on higher tiers, requiring higher co-pays or step-therapy (failing a different medication before having access to a newer one). Program designs with high deductibles and copay schemes (sometimes called co-insurance) are leaving more and more patients behind, as evidenced by work from Dr. Jalpa Doshi, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, which showed rates of medication abandonment increase dramatically as co-pays rise.

Digging into the details of navigation, a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) analysis found Medicare Advantage plans forced patients through the process of securing permission from their payer before getting coverage of care – or as we like to call it, getting care – known as prior authorization. In theory, prior authorizations should align with a patient’s medical necessity as identified by their provider, encourage exploration of less costly treatment courses, and save both the plan and patients some money in the process. In practice, prior authorizations, particularly with regard to medication benefit coverage, is used to delay and deny care very similar to auto insurers looking to get out paying for a claim. KFF’s analysis found that in 2021, Medicare Advantage plans received 35 million prior authorization requests. Medicare Advantage only has 23 million enrollees in the contracts reviewed, thus averaging about 1.5 prior authorization per enrollee. The application of these requests is not uniform. Kaiser Permanente (no affiliation with KFF) had a prior authorization rate of 0.3% per enrollee and Anthem had a rate nearly time times higher at 2.9% per enrollee. To be fair, Kaiser Permanente’s network of providers work at entities Kaiser Permanente owns. The overall denial rate of prior authorizations across Medicare Advantage plans in 2021 was about 5% (or 2 million partial or full denials). Navigating denials, as shown in the ProPublica piece, is more than a little bit challenging when payers are bound and determined to limit their own costs. This is easily displayed in seeing the appeal rate for those 2 million denials of coverage was just 11% (or about 220,000). Of those appeals, a full 82% were overturned (or about 180,400). An Office of the Inspector General (OIG) report found more than 10% of a small sample of denials were “inappropriate” and would have generally been covered by traditional Medicare. It’s safe to say, at least 200,000 patients in Medicare Advantage plans alone have experienced delayed, medically necessary care…just because.

All of this incredibly noteworthy as the Biden Administration works to finalize an audit rule for Medicare Advantage plans which is expected to generate some potential $2 billion dollars returned to the government for overbilling, or claiming patients were sicker than they were. These payers are posed to argue simultaneously that patients don’t need medically necessary care despite being sicker than they actually are. It’s truly a remarkable moment to see predatory practices barrel their ways towards one another in the name of payer profits.

The New York Times piece notably reminds readers, when payers or even government officials argue for “cost savings”, they’re not necessarily talking about cost-savings for patients. The Inflation reduction Act, for example, requires manufacturers to refund the difference of medication’s cost rising higher than inflation to the government, but the government isn’t required to pass those savings make it back to patients. Again, to be fair, it might be particularly challenging for public program administrators to ensure those savings make it back to patients because those administrators are already saving plenty of money into their own pockets through bulk purchasing, already negotiating lower costs, and discount or rebate programs. On the double dipping end of the never-ending double dip, these same payers are fighting back against a series of programs run by medication manufacturers known patient assistance programs. The most common form of patient assistance programs is designed as co-pay assistance, helping patients cover their out-of-pocket costs of a particular medication. Right now, payers are using several dirty tricks to make sure they get the benefit of those billing dollars, rather than patients. The HIV + HepC Institute have joined other advocates in suing the Biden Administration over a rule issued under the previous administration to ensure those assistance programs designed to benefit patients and extend access to care are actually being used that way.

States are taking on efforts to combat abusive prior authorization practices introducing or having already passed “gold card” programs, in which providers with a history of successfully meeting prior authorization requirements in previous years may be exempt from needing to go through those processes for a certain period of time. The Biden Administration, for their part have also introduced a set of rules to streamline prior authorization processes, in an effort to expedite the experiences patients and providers have in navigating payment for care. And Congress is expected to see what was known as the Safe Step Act reintroduced this year, a bi-partisan and exceedingly popular piece of legislation aimed at curbing fail-first practices.

But patients, advocates, and policymakers should be careful about unintended consequences and keep an eye out for payers to adjust their practices. In gold-card programs, payers could just expand their prior authorization requirements, narrow formularies, and increase their rate of denials in order to disqualify providers who were previously qualified for the programs. We should also get creative in seeking to close some of these loopholes in the Affordable Care Act’s promise to bring a more equitable and easier to navigate health care landscape. Introducing parity between medical benefit profit caps (known as medical loss ratio) and pharmacy benefit profit caps might encourage (read: require) pharmacy benefit managers to share the savings, have discounts follow patients, expand formularies, and otherwise ensure their program dollars are being used to the maximum benefit of patients.

Provider Survey: Prior Authorizations Harm Patients

The issue of prior authorizations (PAs) comes across my plate quite frequently. Really, it’s bigger than PAs. PAs are but one of several types of practices known as “utilization management” and it’s also one of the fastest ways to get me hot under the collar in a way reminiscent of the fury and frustration of a poison oak rash. But PAs are particularly notorious because they’re one of the methods of utilization management health care providers have to directly engage with, rather than something saddled in the lap of a pharmacist or patient at the point of sale. If you haven’t run into the issue of prior authorizations, let me back up some and give you a brief explanation.

The health insurance you get when it’s branded with a major corporation’s name (rather than a government program) is either a commercial plan or that of the same entity working as a “managed care organization” on behalf of a government funded program. But that package is generally two different types of benefits packaged as one, medical coverage over the cost of seeing your doctors and getting labs and pharmacy coverage over your prescription medications. Just like when your medical coverage limits the type of provider you can see or the facility “in-network” they’ll pay for you to go to, your pharmacy benefit may include a limit or design to steer you toward a limited network of pharmacies and that benefit decides what types of medications they’ll cover, what they’ll make you pay in cost sharing (co-pays), and what hoops you have to jump through when they don’t want to cover a particular medication because it’s costly. One of the ways both of these types of benefits seek to discourage patients from seeking out expensive care or medications is by making your provider ask them pretty please if you can have a particular treatment. This is a prior authorization.

But who calls the shots when your doctor and the pharmacy benefit manager (PBM) disagree about you needing that specific treatment? That’s a complicated answer and what happens to patients navigating that space of waiting for your doctor and PBM to communicate and figure things out is not well studied in clinical terms. PBMs generally ask a third-party with expertise to make a medical decision on if you really need that particular treatment or if something else might be…ok based on the reasons your provider says you need that specific treatment. The thing is, the PBMs both pick and pay that third-party. There is no truly independent arbiter to navigate a coverage decision. That third-party has a vested interest in maintaining their business model and keeping the folks who write their checks happy. And those folks aren’t you or your doctor. They tend to view the PA under the lens of a singular condition, lacking the whole context of your health needs and history, and while “medical necessity” is the most common claim needed to get around a PA, proving that can often be a onerous and sometimes lengthy process.

None of that addresses that your doctor is your doctor for a reason. They’re intimate with your personal medical situation, co-occurring conditions, things like how big a pill you can swallow without choking, what vitamins you take, and more. There is never a better decision-making process than the one made between patient and provider.

The best way to explain the PA process is calling it “deny and delay”. Deny the claim, delay a patient getting the care they need. There’s a quiet and underlying assumption that patients and providers are picking their care based on what costs the most, which neglects the fact that plan designs already make it ridiculously challenging for the average person to afford even basic care, much less care required to manage chronic conditions. Sky-high premiums and deductibles to tune of thousands of dollars mean most patients simply can’t afford to pursue costly care, even if you need it.

The American Medical Association has sought to measure these experiences and outcomes with a physician survey, asking doctors and their administrative staff to quantify what’s going on for doctors offices and patients when running up against PAs. The survey findings are shocking but not surprising if you, dear reader, can recall any time you’ve already had to navigate a PA. Let’s run down the top line numbers:

- 93% of participants said PAs delay care for patients (up from 92% in 2017)
- 82% of physicians said PAs lead to medication abandonment at least sometimes (24% said “often” and 2% said “always”)
- 91% said PAs have a “somewhat or significant” negative clinical impact on patients
- 51% said their patients had to take time off work in order to navigate a PA
- physicians said they had to manage about 41 prior authorizations a week and have to dedicate about 2 full days a week to navigating PAs with about 40% of their staff solely working to manage the paperwork associated with PAs

Patient outcomes were seriously impacted by PAs with 34% of physicians reporting they had patients experience adverse events as a result of delayed care due to PAs, 24% of physicians said they’ve had patients hospitalized waiting on an approval from their insurer, 18% reported that a PA lead to a life threatening event for a patient, and 8 % of participating physicians said PAs have lead to patients becoming disabled, experiencing cognitive anomaly, permanent bodily damage, birth defects, or even death.

Here’s the kicker, while 98% of providers have found claims by insurers their PA policies are evidenced based, only 30% of physicians agreed those policies in practice were actually evidenced-based.

All of this is to say, providers see payer abuses of utilization management harming patients quite regularly all in the name of profit making for insurers and PBMs. An insurance policy isn’t worth the paper it’s written on much less the money spent if, in the end, patients can’t actually get the care they’re paying for. If a provider’s contentious process of educating a patient about their health, why they need a particular treatment, and monitoring of that health condition to a patient’s benefit is how a consumer would generally define “practicing medicine”, then the denial of that specific care must also be considered “practicing medicine”. We don’t pay insurers to practice medicine, we pay them to cover the costs of our care.

For their part, the AMA has also previously suggested 21 principles in the reform of utilization management in order to stop the practice of payers practicing medicine by utilization review. Clearly, more needs to be done on the legislative and regulatory fronts in order to protect patients from these predatory and abusive practices. Insurers and PBMs are excellent at planning ways to punish legislative action and patients if constraints are placed on them. It’s time our law makers and government begin responding to existing abuses of our health care ecosystem and affirmatively anticipate market adjustments favoring profit over patients. It’s beyond time government funded programs require payers to actively engage patients in feedback processes and meet minimum metrics of patient success and satisfaction as the government does with all other stakeholders receiving those dollars. Payers can no longer be exempt from the basic decency required to be a full-fledged player in health care rather than the grifter status they enjoy right now. Patients simply can’t afford it.

Coverages & Pitfalls: Pandemic-Related Health Care Expansion

On September 17th, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) announced its first complete rule on health care marketplaces (federal and state – HealthCare.gov and SBEs), certain expectations of insurers participating in the health care marketplace, and a slate of other issues. This final rule serves as a regulatory tool amid a raft of information the federal government has provided regarding health insurance coverage during the pandemic.

Portions of the rule were fairly well expected (extending the annual open enrollment period from the slimmed down 45 days the previous administration imposed and revamping the “navigators” program), while other portions sought to more narrowly address – read “stop” or “reverse” – changes from the previous administration (specifically those introduced in 2018 and others introduced on January 19, 2021). The rule also aims to address some pressing concerns from legislators and health care access advocates about affordability of insurance as the economic future of the country remains unstable with the COVID-19 pandemic still wreaking havoc on much of the country.

One September 14th and 15th, the Census Bureau and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), respectively, issued data related to insurance coverage among residents of the United States in 2020 and 2021. The Census data diverged slightly from the HHS data in that the Census data did not show an increase in the number of people enrolled in Medicaid from 2018 to 2020, whereas previously released CMS data had shown a substantial increase (15.6% or about 10.5 million people) in Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) enrollment from February 2020 through March 2021. A report from the Urban Institute cites potential for the remainder of 2021 to net an additional 17 million people enrolled into the safety net health insurance programs. All of this coincides with the Census data showing the uninsured rate was near static from 2018 to 2020 (8.6% compared to 8.5%).

This is a pretty remarkable comparison, given the pandemic’s effects on the country’s economy. The Census does cite a reported drop in employment related coverage during 2020, with the highest rate of employer sponsored coverage drop occurring among those employed less than full-time. Indeed, the data shows the largest drop in employer sponsored coverage occurred for those at the lowest end of the compensation scale.

Part of why tying together the employment data of the Census and the Medicaid and CHIP enrollment growth data together is to better understand the severe risks to vulnerable people and families as the seeks to wrap up the public health emergency declarations (likely sometime next year). While the administration’s payment rule highlights efforts to keep afloat lower- and middle-income families afloat and insured, the same can’t be said of the lowest-income earners. While the Biden Administration has extended the period for states to return to enrollment recertifications for Medicaid, federal matching funds (a boosted benefit to states during the pandemic) are expected to end on a similar timeframe, giving states some added financial motivation to move through disenrolling current recipients quickly, rather than in a staggered fashion.

While we outlined steps state Medicaid programs and safety net providers could take at the wrap up of the PHE in a blog earlier this month, the Biden Administration must seek even more moves than currently planned, to ensure “back to normal” doesn’t amount to “back to broke” for low-income families across the country.

Biden Administration’s Healthcare Future is One of Promise & Peril

Last month, the Biden Administration issued a press release outlining a look toward the future of American health care policy. Priorities in the presser include ever elusive efforts around prescription drug pricing and items with steep price tags like expanding Medicare coverage to include dental, hearing, and vision benefits, a federal Medicaid look-alike program to fill the coverage gaps in non-expansion states, and extending Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies enhancements instituted under the American Rescue Plan (ARP) in March. Many of these efforts are tied to the upcoming $3.5 trillion reconciliation package.

President Biden renewed his call in support of the Democrats effort to negotiate Medicare prescription drug costs, enshrined in H.R. 3. Drug pricing reform has been an exceptional challenge despite relatively popular support among the voting public, in particular among seniors. The pharmseutical industry has long touted drug prices set by manufacturers do not represent the largest barriers to care and mandating lower drug costs would harm innovation and development of new products. Indeed, for most Americans, some form of insurance payer, public or private, is the arbiter of end-user costs by way of cost-sharing (co-pays and co-insurance payments). To even get to that point, consumers need to be able to afford monthly premiums which can range from no-cost to the enrollee to hundreds of dollars for those without access to Medicaid or federal subsidies. The argument from the drug-making industry giants is for Congress to focus efforts that more directly impact consumers’ own costs, not health care industry’s costs. Pharmaceutical manufacturers further argue mandated price negotiation proposals would harm the industry’s ability to invest the development of new products. To this end, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) recently released a report giving some credence to this claim. The CBO’s report found immediate drug development would hardly be impacted as those medications currently “in the pipeline” would largely be safe, but a near 10% reduction in new drugs over the next 30 years. While new drug development has largely been focused on “personalized” medicine – or more specific treatments for things like cancer – implementing mRNA technology into vaccines is indeed a matter of innovation (having moved from theoretical to shots-in-arms less than a year ago). With a pandemic still bearing down on the globe, linking the need between development and combating future public health threats should be anticipated.

The administration’s effort to leverage Medicare isn’t limited to drug pricing. Another tectonic plate-sized move would seek to expand “basic” Medicare to include dental, hearing, and vision coverage. Congressional Democrats, while generally open to the idea, are already struggling with timing of such an expansion, angering Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT) by suggesting a delay until 2028. While any patient with any ailments related to their oral health, hearing, and vision will readily tell you these are critical and necessary coverages, even some of the most common of needs, the private health care insurance industry generally requires adult consumers to get these benefits as add-ons and the annual benefit cap is dangerously low (with dental coverage rarely offering more than $500 in benefit and vision coverage capping at one set of frames, both with networks so narrow as to be near meaningless for patients with transportation challenges). While the ACA expanded a mandatory coverage for children to include dental and vision benefits in-line with private adult coverage caps, the legislation did nothing to mandate similar coverages for adults and did not require private payers to make access to these types of care more meaningful (expanded networks and larger program benefits to more accurately match costs of respective care).

The other two massive proposals the Biden Administration is seeking support for, more directly impact American health care consumers than any other effort from the administration: maintaining expanded marketplace subsidies and a federal look-a-like for people living in the 12 states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the ACA’s Medicaid expansion provisions. The administration has decent data to back this idea, as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report showing a drop in the uninsured rate from 2019 to 2020 by 1.9 million people, largely attributed by pandemic-oriented programs requiring states to maintain their Medicaid rolls. The administration and Congressional Democrats are expected to argue subsequently passed legislation allowing for expanded subsidies and maintained Medicaid rolls improved access to and affordability of care for vulnerable Americans during the pandemic. As the nation rides through another surge of illness, hospitalizations, and death from the same pandemic “now isn’t the time to stop”, or some argument along those lines, will likely be the rhetoric driving these initiatives.

Speaking of the pandemic, President Biden outlined his administration’s next steps in combating COVID-19 on Thursday, September 9th. The six-pronged approach, entitled “Path out of the Pandemic”, includes leveraging funding to support mitigation measures in schools (including back-filling salaries for those affected by anti-mask mandates and improving urging the Food and Drug Administration [FDA] to authorize vaccines for children under the age of 12), directing the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) to issue a rule mandating vaccines or routinized testing for employers with more than 100 employees (affecting about 80 million employees) and mandating federally funded health care provider entities to require vaccination of all staff, pushing for booster shots despite the World Health Organization’s call for a moratorium until greater global equity in access can be attained, supporting small businesses through previously used loan schemes, and an effort to expand qualified health care personnel to distribute COVID-19 related care amid a surge threatening the nation’s hospitals ability to provide even basic care. Notably missing from this proposal are infrastructure supports for schools to improve ventilation, individual financial support (extension of pandemic unemployment programs or another round of direct stimulus payments), longer-term disability systems to support “long-COVID” patients and any yet-unknown post-viral syndromes, and housing support – which is desperately needed as the administration’s eviction moratorium has fallen victim to ideological legal fights, states having been slow to distribute rental assistance funds, and landlords are reportedly refusing rental assistance dollars in favor of eviction. While the plan outlines specific “economic recovery”, a great deal is left to be desired to ensure families and individuals succeed in the ongoing pandemic. Focusing on business success has thus far proven a limited benefit to families and more needs to be done to directly benefit patients and families navigating an uncertain future.

President Biden did not address global vaccine equity in his speech, later saying a plan would come “later”. The problem, of course, is in a viral pandemic, variant development has furthered risks to wealthy countries with robust vaccine access and threatened the economic future of the globe.

To top off all of this policy-making news, Judge Reed O’Connor is taking another swing at dismantling some of the most popular provisions of the ACA. Well, rather, yet another plaintiff has come to the sympathetic judge’s court in an effort to gut the legislation’s preventative care provisions by both “morality” and “process” arguments in Kelley v. Becerra. The suit takes exception to a requirement that insurers must cover particular preventative care as prescribed by three entities within the government (the Health Resources Services Administration – HRSA, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices – ACIP, and the Preventative Services Takes Force – PSTF), which require coverage of contraceptives and pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) with no-cost sharing to the patient, among a myriad of other things – including certain vaccine coverage. By now, between O’Connor’s rabid disregard for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Americans and obsessive effort to dismantle the ACA at every chance he can – both to his own humiliation after the Supreme Court finally go their hands on his rulings – Reed O’Connor may finally have his moment to claim a victory – I mean – the plaintiffs in Kelley may well succeed due to the Supreme Court’s most recent makeover.

As elected officials are gearing up for their midterm campaigns, how these next few months play out will be pretty critical in setting the frame for public policy “successes” and “failures”. Journalists would do well to tap into the expertise of patient advocates in contextualizing the real-world application of these policies, both during and after budget-making lights the path to our future – for better or worse.