ReportWire

Tag: Health care costs

  • Trump’s State of the Union seeks to calm economic jitters

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump declared during the State of the Union on Tuesday that “we’re winning so much,” saying he sparked a jobs and manufacturing boom at home while imposing a new world order abroad — hoping that offering a long list of his accomplishments can counter approval ratings that have been falling.

    This page requires Javascript.

    Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.

    kAm%CF>A EC:65 62C=J @? E@ 2AA62= E@ 3:A2CE:D2? A2EC:@E:4 D6?E:>6?ED[ 5C2>2E:42==J :?G:E:?8 E96 ~=J>A:4 8@=5>652=H:??:?8 &]$] >6?’D 9@4<6J E62> :?E@ E96 w@FD6 492>36C E@ 2AA=2FD6] %96 E62> 42>6 E@ E96 r2A:E@= 27E6C 2? 27E6C?@@? G:D:E E@ E96 (9:E6 w@FD6]k^Am

    kAm“~FC 4@F?ECJ 😀 H:??:?8 282:?] x? 724E[ H6’C6 H:??:?8 D@ >F49 E92E H6 C62==J 5@?’E 6[ V!=62D6[ A=62D6[ A=62D6[ |:DE6C !C6D:56?E[ H6’C6 H:??:?8 E@@ >F49] (6 42?’E E2<6 :E 2?J>@C6[VQ %CF>A D2:5 367@C6 :?EC@5F4:?8 E96 E62>] “V(6’C6 ?@E FD65 E@ H:??:?8 😕 @FC 4@F?ECJ F?E:= J@F 42>6 2=@?8]V”k^Am

    kAm%96 9@4<6J A=2J6CD[ H62C:?8 E96:C >652=D 2?5 DH62E6CD E92E D2:5 “&$p” 😕 =2C86 =6EE6CD[ 5C6H 2 3:A2CE:D2? DE2?5:?8 @G2E:@?] %CF>A A@:?E65 E@ E96 s6>@4C2E:4 D:56 @7 E96 492>36C 2?5 BF:AA65[ “%92E’D E96 7:CDE E:>6 x 6G6C x’G6 6G6C D66? E96> 86E FA]”k^Am

    kAmx? 2?@E96C >2567@C%’ >@>6?E[ %CF>A 2??@F?465 96 H@F=5 36 2H2C5:?8 E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^5@?2=5ECF>A2AE@A?6HDE2=<C25:@A@=:E:4D6?E6CE2:?>6?E5fh2f6625eg5e2b_c5bg3eed6e7gh4a2Qm!C6D:56?E:2= |652= @7 uC665@>k^2m[ p>6C:42’D 9:896DE 4:G:=:2? 9@?@C[ E@ E96 9@4<6J E62>’D 8@2=E6?56C[ r@??@C w6==63FJ4<] %CF>A >256 2 D:>:=2C DFCAC:D6 2??@F?46>6?E 😕 a_a_[ 36DE@H:?8 E96 2H2C5 @? 4@?D6CG2E:G6 C25:@ 9@DE #FD9 {:>32F89 5FC:?8 E96 DA6649]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 492>A:@?65 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^:462CC6DEDH2CC2?ED>:??62A@=:DECF>A__5_23_bbg6gabc`75h`3`e_fdg263a5Qm9:D :>>:8C2E:@? 4C24<5@H?Dk^2m 2?5 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^6=@?>FD<5@865@?2=5ECF>Adf6_dhd`2_`77h6eb3b2234ab574a633QmD=2D9:?8 @7 E96 7656C2= 8@G6C?>6?Ek^2m[ 2D H6== 2D 9:D AFD9 E@ AC6D6CG6 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>AE2C:77D64@?@>J=:36C2E:@?52J5bcdg52aad4`757256hf65chc3ab6gegQmH:56DAC625 E2C:77Dk^2m E92E E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^DFAC6>64@FCEE2C:77DECF>A_cgd7452b_2fb`_d_“ab6chb`532b7hQm$FAC6>6 r@FCE ;FDE DECF4< 5@H?k^2m] pD 96 92D 😕 E96 A2DE[ 96 564C:65 DE2E6D =2C86=J CF? 3J s6>@4C2ED[ D:?8=:?8 @FE |:??6D@E2]k^Am

    kAm%96 AC6D:56?E 2=D@ 2??@F?465 E92E E649 4@>A2?:6D :?G@=G65 😕 2CE:7:4:2= :?E6==:86?46 2C6 28C66:?8 E@ A2J 9:896C 6=64EC:4:EJ C2E6D 😕 2C62D H96C6 E96:C 52E2 46?E6CD 2C6 =@42E65] s2E2 46?E6CD E6?5 E@ FD6 =2C86 G@=F>6D @7 6=64EC:4:EJ[ A@E6?E:2==J :?4C62D:?8 E96 4@DE @7 A@H6C E@ @E96C 4@?DF>6CD 😕 E96 2C62]k^Am

    kAmw6 5C6H 2AA=2FD6 @?=J 7C@> s6>@4C2ED H9:=6 56D4C:3:?8 E96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE’D CF=:?8 =2DE H66< DEC:<:?8 5@H? >2?J @7 9:D k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>AE2C:77DDFAC6>64@FCEH92ED?6IE3g3e5d5cc633bec_2gg7fa_afdc43be`QmD:8?2EFC6 E2C:77 A@=:4:6Dk^2m] %96 AC6D:56?E 42==65 :E “2? F?7@CEF?2E6 CF=:?8” 2?5 D2:5 “6G6CJE9:?8 H2D H@C<:?8 H6==” 367@C6 E96 4@FCE’D 564:D:@?]k^Am

    kAmqFE %CF>A D2:5 96 H@F=5 A=@H 29625[ FD:?8 “2=E6C?2E:G6” =2HD E@ :>A@D6 E96 E2I6D @? :>A@CED 2?5 E6==:?8 =2H>2<6CD[ “r@?8C6DD:@?2= 24E:@? H:== ?@E 36 ?646DD2CJ]”k^Am

    kAmw6 2=D@ >256 2 3@=5 AC65:4E:@?[ DF886DE:?8 E92E D@>6 52J E2C:77D H@F=5 “DF3DE2?E:2==J C6A=246” E96 >@56C? :?4@>6 E2I DJDE6>] w6 4=2:>65 E96 E2C:77D 2C6 A2:5 3J 7@C6:8? 4@F?EC:6D 56DA:E6 6G:56?46 E92E E96 4@DED 2C6 3@C?6 3J p>6C:42? 4@?DF>6CD 2?5 3FD:?6DD6D]k^Am

    kAm“xEVD D2G:?8 @FC 4@F?ECJ[” %CF>A D2:5 @7 E2C:77D[ 255:?8 E92E E96J H6C6 “A6246 AC@E64E:?8]Qk^Am

    kAm%96 $FAC6>6 r@FCE ;FDE:46D 😕 2EE6?52?46 H6C6 E96 D2>6 H9@ 42>6 E@ %CF>A’D 255C6DD E@ 2 ;@:?E D6DD:@? @7 r@?8C6DD 😕 |2C49i r9:67 yFDE:46 y@9? #@36CED[ 2D H6== 2D yFDE:46D qC6EE z2G2?2F89[ p>J r@?6J q2CC6EE 2?5 t=6?2 z282?] %CF>A 8C66E65 E96 ;FDE:46D 2?5 6G6? D9@@< 92?5D H:E9 r@?6J q2CC6EE[ 27E6C AC6G:@FD=J D=2>>:?8 96C 7@C D:5:?8 H:E9 E96 >2;@C:EJ 282:?DE %CF>AVD E2C:77D — 56DA:E6 9:> 2AA@:?E:?8 96C E@ E96 9:89 4@FCE 😕 9:D 7:CDE E6C>]k^Am

    kAms6>@4C2ED 2=D@ DE@@5 7@C %CF>A G@H:?8 E@ 4C24<5@H? @? :?D:56C EC25:?8 3J =2H>2<6CD[ AC@>AE:?8 %CF>A E@ @776C[ “x’> G6CJ :>AC6DD65]”k^Am

    kAm}@E 6G6CJ3@5J 2AA=2F565[ E9@F89] #6A] |2C< %2<2?@[ 2 r2=:7@C?:2 s6>@4C2E J6==65[ “w@H 23@FE J@F 7:CDEP” #6A] #2D9:52 %=2:3[ 2 |:49:82? s6>@4C2E[ 42==65 @FE[ “*@F’C6 E96 >@DE 4@CCFAE AC6D:56?EP”k^Am

    kAm(96? D@>6 964<=:?8 4@?E:?F65[ %CF>A AC@4=2:>65[ “*@F D9@F=5 36 2D92>65 @7 J@FCD6=G6D]Q {2E6C 96 A@:?E65 2E s6>@4C2ED 2?5 AC@4=2:>65[ “%96D6 A6@A=6 2C6 4C2KJ[Q 255:?8[ “s6>@4C2ED 2C6 56DEC@J:?8 @FC 4@F?ECJ]”k^Am

    kAms6>@4C2E:4 #6A] p= vC66? H2D 6D4@CE65 7C@> E96 492>36C 27E6C 96 F?7FC=65 2 D:8? @7 AC@E6DE E92E C625 “q=24< !6@A=6 pC6?’E pA6DP” %96 D:8? 2AA62C65 E@ 36 2 C676C6?46 E@ 2 C24:DE G:56@ E96 AC6D:56?E A@DE65 E92E 56A:4E65 7@C>6C !C6D:56?E q2C24< ~32>2 2?5 u:CDE {25J |:496==6 ~32>2 56A:4E65 2D AC:>2E6D 😕 2 ;F?8=6] vC66? H2D 2=D@ C6>@G65 5FC:?8 %CF>AVD 255C6DD E@ 2 ;@:?E D6DD:@? @7 r@?8C6DD =2DE J62C]k^Am

    kAmq67@C6 96 3682? DA62<:?8[ $6?2E6 s6>@4C2ED 3=@4<65 2 3:== E@ C6DE@C6 7F?5:?8 E@ E96 s6A2CE>6?E @7 w@>6=2?5 $64FC:EJ[ AC6DD:?8 7@C ?6H =:>:ED @? :>>:8C2E:@? 6?7@C46>6?E E92E #6AF3=:42?D 92G6 @AA@D65]k^Am

    kAmx? C6DA@?D6[ %CF>A :?G:E65 =2H>2<6CD 7C@> 3@E9 A2CE:6D E@ “AC@E64E p>6C:42? 4:E:K6?D[ ?@E :==682= 2=:6?D” 2?5 492>A:@?65 AC@A@D2=D E@ =:>:E >2:=:? 32==@ED 2?5 E:89E6? G@E6C :56?E:7:42E:@? CF=6D]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 56G@E65 C6=2E:G6=J =:EE=6 E:>6 😕 9:D DA6649 E@ 677@CED E@ 3C:?8 5@H? E96 4@DE @7 =:G:?8 — 56DA:E6 A@==:?8 D9@H:?8 E92E 9:D 92?5=:?8 @7 E96 64@?@>J 2?5 <:E496? E23=6 :DDF6D 92D D=:AA65] x?5665[ 4@?46C?D 23@FE E96 9:89 4@DED @7 =:G:?8 96=A65 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^G:C8:?:2?6H;6CD6JECF>A6=64E:@?56>@4C2EC6AF3=:42?725`_hghb475c36d3ch2d33`3_`bg5g5QmAC@A6= s6>@4C2E:4 H:?D 2C@F?5 E96 4@F?ECJ @? t=64E:@? s2J 😕 }@G6>36Ck^2m]k^Am

    kAm~? %F6D52J[ 96 3=2>65 9:D AC65646DD@C[ 7@C>6C !C6D:56?E y@6 q:56?[ 2=@?8 H:E9 s6>@4C2E:4 =2H>2<6CD 😕 E96 492>36C[ D2J:?8 E96J H6C6 C6DA@?D:3=6 7@C C:D:?8 AC:46D 2?5 962=E9 42C6 4@DED[ EH@ :DDF6D 9:D A@=:E:42= @AA@?6?ED 92G6 C6A62E65=J C2:D65 282:?DE 9:>]k^Am

    kAm“*@F 42FD65 E92E AC@3=6>[” %CF>A D2:5 @7 277@C523:=:EJ 4@?46C?D] w6 25565 2 >@>6?E =2E6C[ “%96J 6?ED H6C6 2 5:CEJ[ C@EE6? =:6]”k^Am

    kAmpD 😀 EJA:42=[ %CF>A 2=D@ 925 D@>6 ?@E23=6 @77D4C:AE >@>6?ED] #676C6?4:?8 AC6D4C:AE:@? 5CF8 AC:46D[ %CF>A D2:5[ “$@ 😕 >J 7:CDE J62C @7 E96 D64@?5 E6C> — D9@F=5 36 >J E9:C5 E6C> — 3FE DEC2?86 E9:?8D 92AA6?[” AC@>AE:?8 2E =62DE @?6 492?E 😕 E96 492>36C @7 “u@FC >@C6 J62CDP”k^Am

    kAm%CF>A 5:5 ?@E @776C 56E2:=D 23@FE 9@H 96 H@F=5 AFE E96 AC@8C2> 😕 A=246 2?5 5:5 ?@E :?5:42E6 :7 96 H@F=5 2D< r@?8C6DD E@ A2DD E96 AC@8C2> 2?5 7F?5 :E]k^Am

    kAm%96 AC6D:56?E 3@2DE65 @7 92G:?8 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^:?7=2E:@?ECF>A64@?@>JAC:46D5cgh472c3cg6baaba7`begb_bbb5`53_QmE2>65 :?7=2E:@?k^2m 2?5 D2:5 96 92D E96 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A64@?@>J:?7=2E:@?E2C:77D85A724E4964<74c`d6gfhd`h7`c62da`h7__2hfhhc7cQm64@?@>J 9F>>:?8[k^2m 8:G6? E92E E96 s@H y@?6D x?5FDEC:2= pG6C286 C646?E=J k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^DE@42C<6EDECF>A8@=5E649`hh5c5ed3fdhe5f4bc7b2d5h2ff4abaeQm6I466565 d_[___ A@:?EDk^2m 7@C E96 7:CDE E:>6]k^Am

    kAm$F49 82:?D 5@?VE 766= E2?8:3=6 E@ E9@D6 H:E9@FE DE@4< A@CE7@=:@D[ 9@H6G6C] %96C6 2=D@ 2C6 A6CD:DE6?E 762CD E92E E2C:77D DE@<65 k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>AE2C:77D9@FD69@=54@DED:?7=2E:@?bhg6_427hdbe56e4eb7_5“he4dc7cdbQm9:896C AC:46Dk^2m[ H9:49 4@F=5 6G6?EF2==J 9FCE E96 64@?@>J 2?5 ;@3 4C62E:@?] k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^85A64@?@>J4@?DF>6CD9FE5@H?:>>:8C2E:@?_6d4242fgb3hb627aab`che6b6_7dc7bQmt4@?@>:4 8C@HE9 D=@H65k^2m 😕 E96 =2DE E9C66 >@?E9D @7 =2DE J62C]k^Am

    kAmxE 😀 A@E6?E:2==J A@=:E:42==J A6C:=@FD 29625 @7 }@G6>36C 6=64E:@?D E92E 4@F=5 56=:G6C 4@?8C6DD:@?2= H:?D E@ s6>@4C2ED[ ;FDE 2D k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^dghfb_5c3egbc2_53_3dgg7adbde7bb2Qma_`g’D 3=F6 H2G6k^2m 4C62E65 2 DEC@?8 4964< E@ 9:D 25>:?:DEC2E:@? 5FC:?8 9:D 7:CDE E6C>]k^Am

    kAm%CF>A DA6?E C6=2E:G6=J =:EE=6 E:>6 @? 7@C6:8? A@=:4J[ 56DA:E6 9:D 255C6DD 4@>:?8 2D k2 9C67lQ9EEADi^^2A?6HD]4@>^2CE:4=6^ECF>A:C2?2:C4C27E42CC:6C>:=:E2CJg53b723`_cfehch2452g3hfb36c`ea_cQmEH@ &]$] 2:C4C27E 42CC:6CD 92G6 366? 5:DA2E4965 E@ E96 |:55=6 t2DEk^2m 2>:5 E6?D:@?D H:E9 xC2?]k^Am

    Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

    [ad_2]

    By WILL WEISSERT and MICHELLE L. PRICE – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Health subsidies expire, launching millions of Americans into 2026 with steep insurance hikes

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — NEW YORK (AP) — Enhanced tax credits that have helped reduce the cost of health insurance for the vast majority of Affordable Care Act enrollees expired overnight, cementing higher health costs for millions of Americans at the start of the new year.

    Democrats forced a 43-day government shutdown over the issue. Moderate Republicans called for a solution to save their 2026 political aspirations. President Donald Trump floated a way out, only to back off after conservative backlash.

    In the end, no one’s efforts were enough to save the subsidies before their expiration date. A House vote expected in January could offer another chance, but success is far from guaranteed.

    The change affects a diverse cross-section of Americans who don’t get their health insurance from an employer and don’t qualify for Medicaid or Medicare — a group that includes many self-employed workers, small business owners, farmers and ranchers.

    It comes at the start of a high-stakes midterm election year, with affordability — including the cost of health care — topping the list of voters’ concerns.

    “It really bothers me that the middle class has moved from a squeeze to a full suffocation, and they continue to just pile on and leave it up to us,” said 37-year-old single mom Katelin Provost, whose health care costs are set to jump. “I’m incredibly disappointed that there hasn’t been more action.”

    The expired subsidies were first given to Affordable Care Act enrollees in 2021 as a temporary measure to help Americans get through the COVID-19 pandemic. Democrats in power at the time extended them, moving the expiration date to the start of 2026.

    With the expanded subsidies, some lower-income enrollees received health care with no premiums, and high earners paid no more than 8.5% of their income. Eligibility for middle-class earners was also expanded.

    On average, the more than 20 million subsidized enrollees in the Affordable Care Act program are seeing their premium costs rise by 114% in 2026, according to an analysis by the health care research nonprofit KFF.

    Those surging prices come alongside an overall increase in health costs in the U.S., which are further driving up out-of-pocket costs in many plans.

    Some enrollees, like Salt Lake City freelance filmmaker and adjunct professor Stan Clawson, have absorbed the extra expense. Clawson said he was paying just under $350 a month for his premiums last year, a number that will jump to nearly $500 a month this year. It’s a strain for the 49-year-old but one he’s willing to take on because he needs health insurance as someone who lives with paralysis from a spinal cord injury.

    Others, like Provost, are dealing with steeper hikes. The social worker’s monthly premium payment is increasing from $85 a month to nearly $750.

    Health analysts have predicted the expiration of the subsidies will drive many of the 24 million total Affordable Care Act enrollees — especially younger and healthier Americans — to forgo health insurance coverage altogether.

    Over time, that could make the program more expensive for the older, sicker population that remains.

    An analysis conducted last September by the Urban Institute and Commonwealth Fund projected the higher premiums from expiring subsidies would prompt some 4.8 million Americans to drop coverage in 2026.

    But with the window to select and change plans still ongoing until Jan. 15 in most states, the final effect on enrollment is yet to be determined.

    Provost, the single mother, said she is holding out hope that Congress finds a way to revive the subsidies early in the year — but if not, she’ll drop herself off the insurance and keep it only for her four-year-old daughter. She can’t afford to pay for both of their coverage at the current price.

    Last year, after Republicans cut more than $1 trillion in federal health care and food assistance with Trump’s big tax and spending cuts bill, Democrats repeatedly called for the subsidies to be extended. But while some Republicans in power acknowledged the issue needed to be addressed, they refused to put it to a vote until late in the year.

    In December, the Senate rejected two partisan health care bills — a Democratic pitch to extend the subsidies for three more years and a Republican alternative that would instead provide Americans with health savings accounts.

    In the House, four centrist Republicans broke with GOP leadership and joined forces with Democrats to force a vote that could come as soon as January on a three-year extension of the tax credits. But with the Senate already having rejected such a plan, it’s unclear whether it could get enough momentum to pass.

    Meanwhile, Americans whose premiums are skyrocketing say lawmakers don’t understand what it’s really like to struggle to get by as health costs ratchet up with no relief.

    Many say they want the subsidies restored alongside broader reforms to make health care more affordable for all Americans.

    “Both Republicans and Democrats have been saying for years, oh, we need to fix it. Then do it,” said Chad Bruns, a 58-year-old Affordable Care Act enrollee in Wisconsin. “They need to get to the root cause, and no political party ever does that.”

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Merry Christmas, America! The Checks Are in the Mail!

    [ad_1]

    Many times in the past decade, Donald Trump’s public addresses have reminded me of old TV commercials for the electronics chain Crazy Eddie that I used to watch as a kid in suburban New Jersey—the rat-a-tat delivery, the breathless hype, the memorably absurdist slogans. (“His prices are INSAAAANE!”) But somehow this was never more the case than on Wednesday night, when the President spoke to the nation from the Diplomatic Reception Room of the White House, flanked by the soft glow of two Christmas trees and a portrait of George Washington.

    The comparison isn’t exact, to be fair. Crazy Eddie’s legendary pitchman, Jerry Carroll, actually dressed up as Santa Claus for the chain’s famous holiday ads, for which Crazy Eddie presumably had to pay. Trump, in contrast, got free airtime from all of America’s major television networks for his Christmas commercial, which was delivered in the form of an eighteen-minute-and-thirty-three-second run-on sentence. That’s an awful lot of words to string together without much in the way of periods or common sense, though, by now, we all know there’s only one form of punctuation that Trump has truly embraced: the exclamation point. “I am bringing those high prices down and bringing them down very fast!” he declared on Wednesday night. “Boy, are we making progress!” “There’s never been anything like it!”

    The centerpiece of the President’s speech was his announcement of a no-strings-attached deal for 1.4 million members of the U.S. military to receive year-end bonus checks of $1,776 each, in honor of next year’s celebration of the two-hundred-and-fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence. “And the checks,” he said, “are already on the way!” More financial presents were promised by Santa Trump in the New Year: a great new housing policy, a great new health-care plan. As the President put it, “You the people are going to be getting great health care at a lower cost!” I, for one, can’t wait, having recently received a three-dollar-and-eighty-six-cent reimbursement check from our health-insurance company for my son’s thousand-dollar-plus annual checkup.

    If only Trump were actually selling discount electronics. Suffice it to say, there were never any examples of Crazy Eddie trying to sell new color televisions by claiming that Somali immigrants stole the old ones. When the website Defense One revealed overnight that the money for Trump’s so-called warrior dividend was being diverted from a $2.9-billion fund for military housing allowances set up by Congress, it was not so much surprising as predictable. Santa has to get the money for all those presents from somewhere, right?

    But, as an advertisement for Trump’s year-end accomplishments, the speech had a whiff of desperation about it. Can it be that the Presidential huckster, with his approval ratings sunk down in the thirties, secretly knows that America isn’t buying what he’s selling? Why else was he talking so fast? A few hours before the speech, even a few Republicans on Capitol Hill had started to rebel, demanding a floor vote to extend the Affordable Care Act subsidies that are about to expire, which would send health-care prices skyrocketing for millions of people. In his address, Trump made no mention of this, instead blaming the coming price increases on Democrats, though they have spent the past few months fighting Trump to prevent them. That level of gaslighting, it seems, can take a lot out of a man. When his speech was over, according to a White House pool report, Trump turned to the press and said, “You think that’s easy?” then took a swig of Diet Coke. The sense that he was just going through the motions was only reinforced by what came next: “Susie told me I have to give an address to the nation,” he said, or, per the pool report, something closely approximating it.

    Susie, of course, is Susie Wiles, Trump’s chief of staff, and part of the point of Trump’s comment was no doubt to remind the reporters that she is still calling the shots in his White House. Wiles, who is famously low-profile, found herself facing a rare bout of bad publicity this week, when her lacerating comments about the President and much of his inner circle to the author Chris Whipple, in eleven taped interviews in the course of the past year, were published in Vanity Fair.

    Among the choicest bits: Wiles said that Trump, like her father, the late football commentator Pat Summerall, “has an alcoholic’s personality,” that Vice-President J. D. Vance has been “a conspiracy theorist for a decade,” and that Elon Musk was a drug-microdosing “odd, odd duck.” She also revealed herself to be a doubter when it came to many of the most famous outrages of Trump’s return to office, questioning everything from Musk’s destruction of the United States Agency for International Development—“no rational person” could be in favor of how it was handled, she told Whipple—to the Presidential pardons for violent pro-Trump rioters who stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

    [ad_2]

    Susan B. Glasser

    Source link

  • Trump administration says lower prices for 15 Medicare drugs will save taxpayers billions

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — Pharmaceutical companies have agreed to slash the Medicare prices for 15 prescription drugs after months of negotiations, reductions that are expected to produce billions in savings for taxpayers and older adults, the Trump administration said.

    But the net prices it unveiled for a 30-day supply of each drug are not what Medicare recipients will pay at their pharmacy counters, since those final amounts will depend on each individual’s plan and how much they spend on prescriptions in a given year.

    Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. touted the deals as part of the administration’s efforts to address affordability concerns among Americans. The Medicare drug negotiation program that made them possible is mandated by law and began under President Joe Biden’s administration.

    “President Trump directed us to stop at nothing to lower health care costs for the American people,” Kennedy said in a statement Tuesday evening. “As we work to Make America Healthy Again, we will use every tool at our disposal to deliver affordable health care to seniors.”

    The announcement marks the completion of a second round of negotiations under a 2022 law that allows Medicare to haggle over the price it pays on the most popular and expensive prescription drugs used by older Americans, bringing the total number of negotiated drug prices to 25. The new round of negotiated prices will go into effect in 2027. Reduced prices for the inaugural round of 10 drugs negotiated by the Biden administration last year will go into effect in January.

    The latest negotiated prices apply to some of the prescription medications on which Medicare spends the most money, including the massively popular GLP-1 weight-loss and diabetes drugs Ozempic, Rybelsus and Wegovy. Some of the other drugs involved in the negotiations include Trelegy Ellipta, which treats asthma; Otezla, a psoriatic arthritis drug; and various drugs that treat diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome and different forms of cancer.

    Dr. Mehmet Oz, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services administrator, said the administration delivered “substantially better outcomes for taxpayers and seniors in the Medicare Part D program” than the previous year’s deals.

    Under the first round of Medicare price negotiations, the Biden administration said the program would have saved about $6 billion on net covered prescription drug costs, or about 22%, if it had been in effect the previous year. The Trump administration said its latest round would have saved the government about $8.5 billion in net spending, or 36%, if it had been in effect last year.

    It’s unclear exactly how much money the newly announced deals could save Medicare beneficiaries when they are buying prescription drugs at the pharmacy because those costs are determined by various individual factors.

    A new rule that kicked off this year also caps out-of-pocket drug costs for Medicare beneficiaries at $2,000, giving some relief to older adults affected by high-cost prescriptions. The administration said estimated out-of-pocket savings for Medicare beneficiaries with drug plans is about $685 million.

    Spencer Perlman, director of health care research at Veda Partners, said the Trump administration’s improved outcomes probably resulted from the mix of drugs being negotiated and lessons learned from the first year of negotiations.

    Net drug prices are proprietary, he said, but “if we take the administration at their word, I think it demonstrates that they have secured meaningful price concessions for seniors, meaning the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program is working as intended.”

    The GLP-1 weight-loss drugs that were part of the negotiations have been especially scrutinized for their high out-of-pocket costs. Yet it’s still unclear to what extent Medicare beneficiaries who want to use the drugs to treat obesity will be able to do so.

    Medicare has long been prohibited from paying for weight-loss treatments, but a separate deal recently announced between the Trump administration and two pharmaceutical companies included plans for a pilot program that will expand coverage for the drugs to additional high-risk obese and overweight people.

    The Trump administration this year has also negotiated several unrelated deals with drug companies to lower the cost of their products for the wider population.

    Pharmaceutical companies, meanwhile, have sued over the Medicare drug negotiations enabled by the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act and remain opposed to them.

    “Whether it is the IRA or MFN, government price setting for medicines is the wrong policy for America,” Alex Schriver, senior vice president of public affairs at the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, or PhRMA, said in a statement. “These flawed policies also threaten future medical innovation by siphoning $300 billion from biopharmaceutical research, undermining the American economy and our ability to compete globally.”

    Next year, Medicare will negotiate prices for another round of 15 drugs, including physician-administered drugs for the first time.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Novo cuts Wegovy prices, but doctors still see cost challenges for patients

    [ad_1]

    Novo Nordisk is chopping prices again for Wegovy, but doctors say the expense will remain challenging for patients without insurance.

    The drugmaker said Monday that it has started selling higher doses of the injectable obesity treatment for $349 a month to patients paying the full bill. That’s down from $499, and in line with terms of a drug pricing agreement outlined earlier this month by President Donald Trump’s administration.

    Novo also started a temporary offer of $199 a month for the first two months of low doses of Wegovy and the drug’s counterpart for diabetes, Ozempic. The new pricing will be available at pharmacies nationwide, through home delivery and from some telemedicine providers.

    Rival Eli Lilly also plans price breaks for its weight-loss drug Zepbound once it gets a new, multi-dose pen on the market. Lilly has said it will sell a starter dose of Zepbound for $299 a month and additional doses at up to $449. Both represent $50 reductions from current prices for sales directly to patients.

    Obesity treatments like Zepbound and Wegovy have soared in popularity in recent years. Known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, the drugs work by targeting hormones in the gut and brain that affect appetite and feelings of fullness.

    In clinical trials, they helped people shed 15% to 22% of their body weight — up to 50 pounds or more in many cases. But affordability has been a persistent challenge for patients.

    A recent poll by the nonprofit KFF found that about half of the people who take the treatments say it was hard to afford them.

    Both Lilly and Novo announced price cuts earlier this year that brought the cost of higher doses of their treatments down to around $500 a month.

    Previous research has shown that people have difficulty paying for a medication when the cost rises above $100 per month, said Stacie Dusetzina, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor and prescription drug pricing expert.

    She said Novo’s new prices are “not going to really move the needle for a person who doesn’t have a pretty reasonable amount of disposable income.”

    Dr. Laura Davisson said the medication would still be unaffordable for patients on Medicaid in states where the government-funded program for people with low incomes doesn’t cover the drug.

    The bigger issue is expanding coverage of the treatments, said Davisson, a West Virginia University obesity specialist.

    “We’ve had hundreds of people lose coverage over the last couple of years, and we keep seeing more and more insurers drop coverage,” she said, adding that her practice has started a group support program to help those who have lost coverage.

    Coverage is slated to improve starting next year for at least one big payer under a deal announced by the Trump administration. The federally funded Medicare program, mainly for people ages 65 and older, will begin covering the treatments for people who have severe obesity and others who are overweight or obese and have serious health problems.

    Those who qualify will pay $50 copays for the medicine.

    Administration officials also said lower prices for the drugs that they negotiated for Medicare also will be provided for Medicaid programs.

    That will help expand coverage, according to Dave Moore, Novo’s executive vice president for U.S. operations. He said Medicaid programs in 20 states cover the drug for obesity.

    Novo officials expect around 40 million more Americans will gain access to their drug through coverage expansions for Medicaid and Medicare.

    Neither Moore nor representatives for Eli Lilly would say whether they plan additional price cuts. Both companies also are seeking approval of pill versions of the drugs, which would come with new prices.

    Lilly spokesperson Courtney Kasinger said the company believes obesity treatments should be covered just like those for any other chronic condition.

    “We’re going to continue to work to improve coverage as much as we can across all channels, all stakeholders,” she said.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Novo chops Wegovy prices, but doctors still see affordability challenges for patients

    [ad_1]

    Novo Nordisk is chopping prices again for its popular obesity treatment Wegovy, but doctors say the expense will remain challenging for patients without insurance.

    The drugmaker said Monday that it has started selling higher doses of the injectable treatment for $349 a month to patients paying the full bill. That’s down from $499 and in line with terms of a drug pricing agreement outlined earlier this month by President Donald Trump’s administration.

    Novo also has started a temporary offer of $199 a month for the first two months of low doses of Wegovy and the drug’s counterpart for diabetes, Ozempic. The new pricing will be available at pharmacies nationwide through home delivery and from some telemedicine providers.

    Rival Eli Lilly also plans price breaks for its weight-loss drug Zepbound once it gets a new, multi-dose pen on the market.

    Obesity treatments like Zepbound and Wegovy have soared in popularity in recent years. Known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, the drugs work by targeting hormones in the gut and brain that affect appetite and feelings of fullness.

    In clinical trials, they helped people shed 15% to 22% of their body weight — up to 50 pounds or more in many cases. But affordability has been a persistent challenge for patients.

    A recent poll by the nonprofit KFF found that about half of the people who take the treatments say it was hard to afford them.

    Previous research has shown that people have difficulty paying for a medication when the cost rises above $100 per month for a prescription or refill, said Stacie Dusetzina, a Vanderbilt University Medical Center professor and prescription drug pricing expert.

    She said new prices like those outlined by Novo are “not going to really move the needle for a person who doesn’t have a pretty reasonable amount of disposable income.”

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump unveils deal to expand coverage and lower costs on obesity drugs

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump unveiled a deal Thursday with drugmakers Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to expand coverage and reduce prices for the popular obesity treatments Zepbound and Wegovy.

    Known as GLP-1 receptor agonists, the drugs have soared in popularity in recent years, but patient access has been a consistent problem because of their cost — around $500 a month for higher doses — and insurance coverage has been spotty. More than 100 million American adults are obese, according to federal estimates.

    Coverage of the drugs for obesity will expand to Medicare patients starting next year, according to the administration, which said some lower prices also will be phased in for patients without coverage. Starting doses of new, pill versions of the treatments also will cost $149 a month if they are approved.

    “(It) will save lives, improve the health of millions and millions of Americans,” said Trump, in an Oval Office announcement in which he referred to GLP-1s as a “fat drug.”

    Thursday’s announcement is the latest attempt by the Trump administration to rein in soaring drug prices in its efforts to address cost-of-living concerns among voters. Pfizer and AstraZeneca recently agreed to lower the cost of prescription drugs for Medicaid after an executive order in May set a deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices or face new limits on what the government will pay.

    As with the other deals, it’s not clear how much the price drop will be felt by consumers. Drug prices can vary based on the competition for treatments and insurance coverage.

    Obesity drugs are popular, but costly

    The obesity drugs work by targeting hormones in the gut and brain that affect appetite and feelings of fullness. In clinical trials, they helped people shed 15% to 22% of their body weight — up to 50 pounds or more in many cases.

    Patients usually start on smaller doses and then work up to larger amounts, depending on their needs. They need to stay on the the treatments indefinitely or risk regaining weight, experts say.

    The medications have proven especially lucrative for Lilly and Novo. Lilly said recently that sales of Zepbound have tripled so far this year to more than $9 billion.

    But for many Americans, their cost has made them out of reach.

    Medicare, the federally funded coverage program mainly for people ages 65 and over, now covers the cost of the drugs for conditions such as type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease, but not for weight loss alone. Trump’s predecessor, Joe Biden, proposed a rule last November that would have changed that, but the Trump administration nixed it.

    Few state and federally funded Medicaid programs, for people with low incomes, offer coverage. And employers and insurers that provide commercial coverage are wary of paying for these drugs in part because so many people might use them.

    The $500 monthly price for higher doses of the treatments also makes them unaffordable for those without insurance, doctors say.

    Trump tries to show he is in touch with cost-of-living concerns

    Thursday’s announcement comes as the White House is looking to demonstrate that Trump is in touch with Americans’ frustrations with rising costs for food, housing, health care and other necessities.

    “Trump is the friend of the forgotten American,” said Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. at Thursday’s announcement. “Obesity is a disease of poverty. And overwhelmingly, these drugs have only been available for people who have wealth.”

    (Obesity rates actually are slightly higher for middle-income Americans than they are for those with the lowest and highest incomes, according to 2017-2020 data collected by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.)

    Kennedy had previously expressed skepticism about GLP-1s, but he was full of praise for Trump for pushing to help a broader segment of Americans have access to the drug.

    Trump, who has a history of commenting on people’s appearance, asked the officials who joined him in the Oval Office whether they had used the weight-loss medications.

    “Do you take any of this stuff, Howard?” Trump asked Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. “Not yet,” Lutnick replied. “He’s taking it,” the president said of Steven Cheung, who is the White House director of communications.

    The drug-pricing announcement came days after Democrats swept elections in races across the country. Economic worries were the dominant concern for those casting their ballots, according to findings from the AP voter poll.

    Plan calls for phased-in price reductions

    The White House sought to diminish price-reduction efforts by the previous Democratic administration as a gift to the pharmaceutical industry.

    Trump, instead, consummated a deal that ensures Americans aren’t unfairly financing the pharmaceutical industry’s innovation, claimed a senior administration official, who briefed reporters ahead of Thursday’s Oval Office announcement.

    Another senior administration official said coverage of the drugs will expand to Medicare patients starting next year. The program will start covering the treatments for people who have severe obesity and others who are overweight or obese and have serious health problems, the official said. Those who qualify will pay $50 copays for the medicine.

    Lower prices also will be phased in for people without coverage through the administration’s TrumpRx program, which will allow people to buy drugs directly from manufacturers, starting in January.

    Administration officials said the average price of the drugs sold on TrumpRx will start at around $350 and then drop to $245 over the next two years.

    A Novo Nordisk spokesperson declined to provide details on their pricing changes.

    Lilly said it will sell a starter dose of Zepbound for $299 a month and additional doses at up to $449. Both represent $50 reductions from current prices for doses it sells directly to patients.

    Administration officials said lower prices also will be provided for state and federally funded Medicaid programs. And starting doses of new, pill versions of the obesity treatments will cost $149 a month if they are approved.

    U.S. health regulators on Thursday separately agreed to dramatically expedite review of Lilly’s obesity pill, orforglipron. An FDA decision on Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy pill is expected later this year.

    Doctors who treat patients for obesity say help is needed to improve access. Dr. Leslie Golden says she has roughly 600 patients taking one of these treatments, and at least 75% struggle to afford them. Even with coverage, some face $150 copayments for refills.

    “Every visit it’s, ‘How long can we continue to do this? What’s the plan if I can’t continue?’” said Golden, an obesity medicine specialist in Watertown, Wisconsin. “Some of them are working additional jobs or delaying retirement so they can continue to pay for it.”

    ___

    AP Health Writer Matthew Perrone contributed to this report.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • How Americans are feeling about their chances on the job market, according to an AP-NORC poll

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are growing increasingly concerned about their ability to find a good job under President Donald Trump, an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research poll finds, in what is a potential warning sign for Republicans as a promised economic boom has given way to hiring freezes and elevated inflation.

    High prices for groceries, housing and health care persist as a fear for many households, while rising electricity bills and the cost of gas at the pump are also sources of anxiety, according to the survey.

    Some 47% of U.S. adults are “not very” or “not at all confident” they could find a good job if they wanted to, an increase from 37% when the question was last asked in October 2023.

    Electricity bills are a “major” source of stress for 36% of U.S. adults at a time when the expected build-out of data centers for artificial intelligence could further tax the power grid. Just more than one-half said the cost of groceries are a “major” source of financial stress, about 4 in 10 said the cost of housing and health care were a serious strain and about one-third said they were feeling high stress about gasoline prices.

    The survey suggests an ongoing vulnerability for Trump, who returned to the White House in January with claims he could quickly tame the inflation that surged after the pandemic during Democratic President Joe Biden’s term. Instead, Trump’s popularity on the economy has remained low amid a mix of tariffs, federal worker layoffs and partisan sniping that has culminated in a government shutdown.

    Linda Weavil, 76, voted for Trump last year because he “seems like a smart businessman.” But she said in an interview that the Republican’s tariffs have worsened inflation, citing the chocolate-covered pecans sold for her church group fundraiser that now cost more.

    “I think he’s doing a great job on a lot of things, but I’m afraid our coffee and chocolate prices have gone up because of tariffs,” the retiree from Greensboro, North Carolina, said. “That’s a kick in the back of the American people.”

    Ioan Barsan a recruiter with the Miami Dade School Police Dept. talks to a a job seeker during a job fair Wednesday, Oct. 1, 2025, in Miami. (AP Photo/Marta Lavandier)

    Voters changed presidents, but they’re not feeling better about Trump’s economy

    The poll found that 36% of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling the economy, a figure that has held steady this year after he imposed tariffs that caused broad economic uncertainty. Among Republicans, 71% feel positive about his economic leadership. Yet that approval within Trump’s own party is relatively low in ways that could be problematic for Republicans in next month’s races for governor in New Jersey and Virginia, and perhaps even in the 2026 midterm elections.

    At roughly the same point in Biden’s term, in October 2021, an AP-NORC poll found that 41% of U.S. adults approved of how he was handling the economy, including about 73% of Democrats. That overall number was a little higher than Trump’s, primarily because of independents — 29% approved of how Biden was handling the economy, compared with the 18% who currently support Trump’s approach.

    The job market was meaningfully stronger in terms of hiring during Biden’s presidency as the United States was recovering from pandemic-related lockdowns. But hiring has slowed sharply under Trump with monthly job gains averaging less than 27,000 after the April tariff announcements.

    People see that difference.

    Four years ago, 36% of those in the survey were “extremely” or “very” confident in their ability to get a good job, but that has fallen to 21% now.

    Biden’s approval on the economy steadily deteriorated through the middle of 2022 when inflation hit a four-decade high, creating an opening for Trump’s political comeback.

    President Donald Trump walks with Air Force Col. Christopher M. Robinson, Commander of the 89th Airlift Wing, from Marine One to board Air Force One, Friday, Oct. 17, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Md., for a trip to Florida. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

    President Donald Trump walks with Air Force Col. Christopher M. Robinson, Commander of the 89th Airlift Wing, from Marine One to board Air Force One, Friday, Oct. 17, 2025, at Joint Base Andrews, Md., for a trip to Florida. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein)

    Electricity costs are an emerging worry

    In some ways, Trump has made the inflation problems harder by choosing to cancel funding for renewable energy projects and imposing tariffs on the equipment needed for factories and power plants. Those added costs are coming before the anticipated construction of data centers for AI that could further push up prices without more construction.

    Even though 36% see electricity as a major concern, there are some who have yet to feel a serious financial squeeze. In the survey, 40% identified electricity costs as a “minor” stress, while 23% said their utility bills are “not a source” of stress.

    Kevin Halsey, 58, of Normal, Illinois, said his monthly electricity bills used to be $90 during the summer because he had solar panels, but have since jumped to $300. Halsey, who works in telecommunications, voted Democratic in last year’s presidential election and described the economy right now as “crap.”

    “I’ve got to be pessimistic,” he said. “I don’t see this as getting better.”

    At a fundamental level, Trump finds himself in the same economic dilemma that bedeviled Biden. There are signs the economy remains relatively solid with a low unemployment rate, stock market gains and decent economic growth, yet the public continues to be skeptical about the economy’s health.

    Some 68% of U.S. adults describe the U.S. economy these days as “poor,” while 32% say it’s “good.” That’s largely consistent with assessments of the economy over the past year.

    In addition, 59%, say their family finances are “holding steady.” But only 12% say they’re “getting ahead,” and 28% say they are “falling behind.”

    People see plenty of expenses but few opportunities

    The sense of economic precarity is coming from many different directions, with indications that many think middle-class stability is falling out of reach.

    The vast majority of U.S. adults feel at least “minor” stress about the cost of groceries, health care, housing, the amount they pay in taxes, what they are paid at work and the cost of gas for their cars.

    In the survey, 47%, say they are “not very” or “not at all” confident they could pay an unexpected medical expense while 52% have low confidence they will have enough saved for their retirement. Also, 63%, are “not very” or “not at all” confident they could buy a new home if they wanted to.

    Young adults are much less confident about their ability to buy a house, though confidence is not especially high across the board. About 8 in 10 U.S. adults under age 30 say they are “not very confident” or “not at all confident” they would be able to buy a house, compared with about 6 in 10 adults 60 and older.

    For 54% of U.S. adults, the cost of groceries is a “major source” of stress in their life right now.

    Unique Hopkins, 36, of Youngstown, Ohio, said she is now working two jobs after her teenage daughter had a baby, leaving Hopkins with a sense that she can barely tread water as part of the “working poor.” She voted for Trump in 2016, only to switch to Democrats after she felt his ego kept him from uniting the country and solving problems.

    “It’s his way or no way,” she said. “Nobody is going to unite with Trump if it’s all about you, you, you.”

    ___

    The AP-NORC poll of 1,289 adults was conducted Oct. 9-13, using a sample drawn from NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for adults overall is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points.

    ___

    This story has been corrected to reflect that the name of the NORC Center is NORC Center for Public Research, not Public Affairs.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Lawmakers grasping for ways to end government shutdown

    [ad_1]

    Certain senators know it’s time for the government shutdown to come to an end. So does House Speaker Mike Johnson. And with President Donald Trump arriving back in Washington from his overseas trip, perhaps the White House knows it, too.…

    [ad_2]

    By LISA MASCARO – AP Congressional Correspondent

    Source link

  • Trump administration moves to overrule state laws protecting credit reports from medical debt

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — The Trump administration is moving to overrule any state laws that may protect consumers’ credit reports from medical debt and other debt issues.

    The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has drafted what’s known as an interpretative rule related to the Fair Credit Reporting Act, interpreting the law in a way that says the FCRA should preempt any state laws or regulations when it comes to how debt should be reported to the credit bureaus like Experian, Equifax and Trans Union.

    This repeals previous Biden-era rules and regulations that allowed states to implement their own credit reporting bans. More than a dozen states like New York and Delaware prohibit the reporting of medical debt on a consumers’ credit report.

    Medical debt is often the most disputed part of a consumer’s credit report, because insurance payments can take time, and oftentimes patients do not have the means to fully pay a medical bill if insurance is not covering a procedure that has already taken place.

    The three credit bureaus jointly announced in 2023 they would no longer track any medical debts below $500, which at the time the bureaus said would eliminate 70% of all medical debts reported on consumers’ credit files. But some states have gone further than that. New York, Delaware and others passed laws where medical debts can no longer be reported to the credit bureaus.

    The CFPB, which is largely not operating at the moment with the exception of actively repealing previous rules written under President Biden or earlier, says in its rule that Congress intended to “create national standards for the credit reporting system” under the FCRA and state laws run afoul of that intention.

    The Kaiser Family Foundation estimates that Americans owe roughly $220 billion in medical debt. In Republican-controlled states like South Dakota, Mississippi, West Virginia and Georgia, roughly one in six Americans have outstanding medical debt, according to the KFF.

    Having outstanding, delinquent medical debt can impact the ability for an individual to apply for a mortgage, a credit card or an auto loan.

    A spokesperson for the Bureau did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Most Americans fear rising health care costs, poll finds | Long Island Business News

    [ad_1]

    Most U.S. adults are worried about care becoming more expensive, according to a new , as they make decisions about next year’s health coverage and a keeps future health costs in limbo for millions.

    About 6 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about their health costs going up in the next year, the survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds — a worry that extends across age groups and includes people with and without .

    Many Americans have other health care anxieties, too. The poll found that about 4 in 10 Americans are “extremely” or “very” concerned about not being able to pay for health care or medications they need, not being able to access health care when they need it, or losing or not having health insurance.

    beneficiaries are already shopping for next year’s coverage, and open enrollment periods for many other health plans are approaching quickly in November. Federal policies have left millions of people at risk of skyrocketing health insurance premiums or of losing their health insurance altogether. The findings show that many Americans are feeling vulnerable to spiking , with some expressing concerns about whether they’ll have coverage at all.

    Latoya Wilson, an independent nurse consultant in Lafayette, Louisiana, currently uses a health insurance plan from the marketplace. But in the past two weeks, the 46-year-old has applied for more jobs than she had previously in her life, largely because she’s concerned about her premiums going up and wants the stability of employer-sponsored insurance.

    “Even before these health care cuts came into play, I was already having a significant issue getting the care that I needed this year,” she said. “Anything worse than what I already have is pretty scary.”
    Health care remains important to Americans when it’s center stage in Washington

    About 8 in 10 U.S. adults say the issue of health care is “extremely” or “very” important to them personally. That includes about 9 in 10 Democrats and three-quarters of Republicans, and it puts health care next to the economy among Americans’ top issue priorities.

    That significant attention on the issue raises the political stakes in what’s already been a crucial moment for federal health policy in the nation’s capital.

    President Donald Trump’s mega-bill passed this summer cuts more than $1 trillion from federal health care and food assistance over a decade, largely by imposing work requirements on those receiving aid and by shifting certain federal costs onto the states. Republicans say the cuts will prevent people who don’t need aid from gaming the system, but the cuts will ultimately result in millions of people losing health insurance coverage, according to projections from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    More urgently, a congressional deadlock over Affordable Care Act subsidies that expire this year has thrown the federal government into a shutdown that’s dragged into a fourth straight week with no end in sight. Democratic lawmakers want any funding bill they sign to extend the subsidies, which have made ACA premiums less expensive for millions of people. Republicans in Congress have expressed willingness to negotiate on the issue, but only after the government is reopened.

    In interviews, some Americans said they doubted government leaders would take the necessary action to address their concerns on health care.

    “It is the federal government’s job to provide a better way of life for its people,” said Caleb Richter, a 30-year-old certified nursing assistant in Belleville, Wisconsin, who identifies as an independent. ”Right now, it just feels like they’re not trying.”

    But the poll reveals a deep ideological divide over what the government’s role should be, with Democrats far more likely than Republicans to say it’s the federal government’s job to make sure all Americans have health coverage. About 8 in 10 Democrats say this, compared with about one-third of Republicans.
    Most US adults disapprove of Trump’s handling of health care, the poll finds

    Health care continues to be a weakness for Trump. Only about 3 in 10 U.S. adults approve of the Republican president’s handling of health care, which hasn’t changed meaningfully since September. Almost all Democrats disapprove of his approach, but so do about 8 in 10 independents and about one-third of Republicans.

    Wilson, a Democrat, said she thinks Trump should be “doing things that affect the good of the group” when it comes to health care, including catering more to working-class Americans.

    But Michelle Truszkowski, a disabled veteran in Sterling Heights, Michigan, who is politically conservative, said she appreciates how Trump is focused on cutting and abuse in the health care system.

    “I like that people who shouldn’t be getting benefits from the government are getting kicked off of them,” the 48-year-old said. “Health care is not a right. It’s a privilege.”
    Democrats trusted more than Republicans on health care, but many trust neither

    About 4 in 10 U.S. adults say they trust the Democrats to do a better job handling health care, compared with about one-quarter who trust the Republicans more. About one-quarter trust neither party, and about 1 in 10 trust both equally.

    Americans are more likely to trust their own party on health care, generally speaking, but 76% of Democrats trust their party more on health care, while only 57% of Republicans have more trust in theirs.

    Independents are especially likely to trust neither party on health care — about half of independents say this. But the remaining independents are more likely to trust the Democrats.

    Richter, in Wisconsin, said he wishes Congress would put more faith and funding into hospital staffers who know how to help patients. He said he’d be fine with paying higher taxes if it meant ensuring health care for people who need it.

    But instead of working toward solutions, he said, federal lawmakers are acting “like a bunch of high school arguing.”

    “My faith that something will get done is very, very low at this point,” Richter said. “It just feels like they don’t really care.”


    [ad_2]

    The Associated Press

    Source link

  • As the shutdown drags on, these people will lose if health care subsidies expire

    [ad_1]

    TYLER, Texas — TYLER, Texas (AP) — Celia Monreal worries every day about the cartilage loss in her husband’s knees. Not just because it’s hard for her to see him in pain but also because she knows soon their health care costs could skyrocket.

    Monreal, 47, and her husband, Jorge, 57, rely on the Affordable Care Act marketplace for health coverage. If Congress doesn’t extend certain ACA tax credits set to expire at the end of the year, their fully subsidized plan will increase in cost, putting it out of reach. Without insurance, they won’t be able to afford his expected knee replacement surgeries, much less the treatment they need for other issues, like her chronic high blood pressure and his high cholesterol.

    “It worries me sometimes, because if you’re not healthy, then you’re not here for your kids,” Monreal said. “It’s a difficult decision, because, OK, do I spend $500 on a doctor’s visit or do I buy groceries?”

    Those are the types of choices facing the millions of Americans whose state or federal marketplace health insurance plans will be up for renewal in November. The enhanced premium tax credits that have made coverage more affordable for low- and middle-income enrollees for the last four years will expire this year if Congress doesn’t extend them. On average, that will more than double what subsidized enrollees currently pay for premiums next year, according to an analysis by health care research nonprofit KFF.

    The tax credits are at the heart of the federal government shutdown, in its third week with no end in sight. Democrats have demanded the subsidies be extended as part of any funding deal they sign, while Republicans say they’ll only negotiate on the issue once the government is funded.

    With Congress deadlocked and the open enrollment period for ACA plans approaching on Nov. 1 in most states, Americans like Monreal are left to navigate the unknown.

    More than 24 million people have ACA health insurance, a group including farmers, ranchers, small business owners and other self-employed people who don’t have other health insurance options through their work.

    The enhanced premium tax credits set to expire this year have made costs far more manageable for many of them, allowing some lower-income enrollees to get health care with no premiums and higher earners to pay no more than 8.5% of their income.

    If the tax credits expire, annual out-of-pocket premiums are estimated to increase by 114% — an average of $1,016 — next year, according to the KFF analysis.

    While some premium tax credits will remain, the level of support will decrease for most enrollees. Anyone earning more than 400% of the poverty level — or around $63,000 per year for a single person — won’t be eligible for the remaining tax credits.

    As a result, especially hard-hit groups will include a small number of higher earners who’ll have to pay a lot more without the extra subsidies and a large number of lower earners who’ll have to pay a small amount more, said Cynthia Cox, a vice president and director of the ACA program at KFF.

    With higher premiums, some people will drop out of health insurance altogether, Cox said. When many younger, healthier people inevitably forgo coverage, insurance companies will increase costs for members of the covered population to account for them being older and sicker.

    The change may also strain hospitals, since more uninsured people will need emergency care they can’t afford. That could lead to hospital closures or cost increases.

    “If you have less subsidies for people getting health insurance, you’re going to have less health coverage and less health care,” said Jason Levitis, a senior fellow in the health policy division at the Urban Institute. “People are going to be sicker and die more.”

    Erin Jackson-Hill has allergies, asthma and searing hip pain she’s managing with prescribed medications until she can get a hip replacement. But even with all those conditions, the 56-year-old in Anchorage, Alaska, doesn’t think she can pay for health insurance next year if the ACA subsidies aren’t extended.

    The executive director of two nonprofits, who also cares for her 89-year-old father full time, already pays nearly $500 a month for her premiums. If the subsidies disappear, she plans to forgo health insurance and pay for her asthma and allergy medications out of pocket.

    Jackson-Hill said she worries about what will happen if her hip worsens and she can’t make it up the stairs in her father’s two-story home without treatment.

    “I will have to go to the emergency room, or I’ll have to go bankrupt in order to pay for it,” she said.

    Another ACA enrollee, Salt Lake City freelance filmmaker and adjunct professor Stan Clawson, said he’ll find a way to pay for health insurance next year — even if it means he must buy cheaper groceries or get a new job that provides it.

    Clawson, 49, has lived with paralysis below his abdomen since falling while rock climbing when he was 20. He’s active and generally healthy, but his spinal cord injury has resulted in tendonitis in his shoulders and frequent urinary tract infections.

    He also has to buy catheters to use every time he urinates — a cost he said would add up to around $1,400 a month without insurance.

    “I don’t think a lot of people realize how expensive it is to have a disability,” Clawson said, adding that trying to live without health insurance would be “financially devastating.”

    Chrissy Meehan, a hair stylist in Upper Chichester, Pennsylvania, has a neck condition that may require surgery. She says if ACA subsidies expire, she’ll further delay the procedure.

    The 51-year-old voted for Republican Donald Trump for president last year, something she said she’s almost embarrassed about now that the Republican-led government hasn’t renewed the subsidies that help her afford her coverage through the state marketplace.

    “I work hard, and I’m trying to survive and do it the right way and pay my way,” Meehan said. “I don’t want free. I just want affordable for my income.”

    Health policy analysts note that even if the subsidies are extended, insurance rate hikes for 2026 are already higher because insurers had to factor in their potential expiration when they set premium prices earlier this year.

    There are also concerns the delay will cause chaos, confusion and stress for Americans, some of whom have already started receiving notices that their premiums will skyrocket next year.

    “Once those people say, ’Oh, wait, forget it, I’m out,’ it’s going to be hard to get a lot of them back,” said the Urban Institute’s Levitis.

    Monreal’s husband will likely need both knees replaced, which will force him to take time off his job filling concrete. On their already tight $45,000 joint annual income, budgeting for themselves and their five children will become that much harder.

    The concern over their budget and the uncertainty over their health care coverage send her thoughts into yet another worrisome spiral with just two weeks until open enrollment begins.

    “They haven’t told us nothing,” she said of her insurance provider. “And you know what? At the end, you end up with no health care.”

    ___

    Swenson reported from New York. Associated Press video journalist Tassanee Vejpongsa contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New Mexico governor signs bills to counter federal cuts

    [ad_1]

    SANTA FE, N.M. (AP) — New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed a package of bills Friday aimed at shoring up food assistance, rural health care and public broadcasting in response to recently enacted federal cuts.

    The new legislation responds to President Donald Trump’s big bill as well as fear that health insurance rates will rise with the expiration of COVID-era subsidies to the Affordable Care Act exchange in New Mexico. Exchange subsidies are a major point of contention in the Washington budget standoff and related federal government shutdown.

    New Mexico would set aside $17 million to backfill the federal credits if they are not renewed, under legislation signed by the governor.

    The Democratic-led Legislature met on Wednesday and Thursday to approved $162 million in state spending on rural health care, food assistance, restocking food banks, public broadcast and more.

    Starting this year, New Mexico expects to lose about $200 million annually because of new federal tax cuts. But the state still has a large budget surplus thanks to booming oil production.

    “When federal support falls short, New Mexico steps up,” Lujan Grisham said in a statement.

    Many federal health care changes under Trump’s big bill don’t kick in until 2027 or later, and Democratic legislators in New Mexico acknowledged that their bills are only a temporary bandage.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Government shutdown begins as nation faces period of uncertainty

    [ad_1]

    The government shutdown has begun. And it’s plunging the U.S. into a fresh cycle of uncertainty. President Donald Trump and Congress failed to strike an agreement to keep government programs and services running by Wednesday’s deadline. Roughly 750,000 federal workers…

    [ad_2]

    By LISA MASCARO, MARY CLARE JALONICK and STEPHEN GROVES – Associated Press

    Source link

  • Pfizer agrees to lower prescription drug costs for Medicaid in a deal with Trump

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Pfizer has agreed to lower drug costs under a deal struck with the Trump administration, President Donald Trump said Tuesday, as he promised similar deals will be struck with other drugmakers facing a threat of tariffs.

    The announcement, which Trump made with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla at the White House, came as the Republican president has for months sought to lower drug costs. It also came as Washington faced a federal government shutdown at midnight amid a standoff between Democrats and Republicans over health care and its costs.

    Under the agreement, New York-based Pfizer will charge most-favored-nation pricing to Medicaid and guarantee that pricing on newly launched drugs, Trump said. That involves matching the lowest price offered in other developed nations.

    “I can’t tell you how big this is,” the president said.

    “I think,” Bourla said, “today we are turning the tide and we are reversing an unfair situation.”

    Trump has been talking for months about the need to lower drug prices. In May, he issued an executive order that gave drugmakers 30 days to electively lower prices or face new limits on what the government will pay.

    To persuade them to strike deals, Trump said he threatened to impose tariffs — a favorite tool of his to use as leverage across all areas of government — but that move could raise drug prices.

    It’s unclear how the new policy will affect patients in Medicaid, the state and federally funded program for people with low incomes. They often pay a nominal co-payment of a few dollars to fill their prescriptions, but lower prices could help state budgets that fund the programs.

    Lower drug prices also will help patients who have no insurance coverage and little leverage to negotiate better deals on what they pay.

    “This is something that most people said was not doable,” Trump said Tuesday.

    One thing that is not doable, however, was Trump’s repeated claim that it would cut drug prices by more than 100%, “14, 15, 1,600% reductions in some cases,” he said.

    A 100% reduction would make the drugs free. Cuts greater than that would essentially mean people are paid to take the drugs.

    Trump said he’s making deals with other drugmakers, and “they’re all coming in over the next week.”

    Besides committing to lowering costs, Trump said, Pfizer agreed to spend $70 billion in domestic manufacturing facilities, becoming the latest in a string of major drugmakers to announce plans to build production in the United States.

    The White House did not immediately release details about the investment, but Trump for months has spoken of a need to boost U.S. drug manufacturing.

    Pfizer Inc. is one of the largest U.S. drugmakers. It produces the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty and the treatment Paxlovid. Its products also include several cancer drugs, the blood thinner Eliquis and the pneumonia vaccine Prevnar.

    Trump sent letters in late July to executives at 17 pharmaceutical companies about changes he would like to see. Copies of the letters posted on social media note that U.S. prices for brand-name drugs can be up to three times higher than averages elsewhere.

    The letters called for drugmakers to commit by Monday to offering what Pfizer agreed to: most-favored-nation pricing to Medicaid and new medications.

    Trump also asked drugmakers to offer the lower pricing levels for drugs sold directly to consumers and businesses.

    Trump has claimed that the U.S., with its higher drug prices, subsidizes care in other countries.

    Drugmakers in the past couple of years have started launching websites to connect customers directly with some products like Lilly’s obesity treatment Zepbound or the blood thinner Eliquis from Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. That comes as patients have grown more comfortable with receiving care virtually after the practice exploded in popularity during the coronavirus pandemic.

    Drug prices for patients in the U.S. can depend on a number of factors, including the competition a treatment faces and insurance coverage. Most people have coverage through work, the individual insurance market or government programs like Medicaid and Medicare that shields them from much of the cost.

    While Trump was focusing on drug costs on Tuesday, Democrats were focused on reversing Medicaid cuts in the sweeping law he signed this summer.

    They were pushing for that reversal to be included in a measure to fund the government in the short term, along with an extension of tax cuts that make health insurance premiums more affordable for people who purchase coverage through Affordable Care Act marketplaces.

    Republicans have said they won’t negotiate.

    ___

    Murphy reported from Indianapolis.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Expect health insurance prices to rise next year, brokers and experts say

    [ad_1]

    Pricey prescriptions and nagging medical costs are swamping some insurers and employers now. Patients may start paying for it next year.

    Health insurance will grow more expensive in many corners of the market in 2026, and coverage may shrink. That could leave patients paying more for doctor visits and dealing with prescription coverage changes.

    Price increases could be especially stark in individual coverage marketplaces, where insurers also are predicting the federal government will end some support that helps people buy coverage.

    “We’re in a period of uncertainty in every health insurance market right now, which is something we haven’t seen in a very long time,” said Larry Levitt, an executive vice president at the nonprofit KFF, which studies health care.

    In conference calls to discuss recent earnings reports, insurers ticked off a list of rising costs: More people are receiving care. Visits to expensive emergency rooms are rising, as are claims for mental health treatments.

    Insurers also say more healthy customers are dropping coverage in the individual market. That leaves a higher concentration of sicker patients who generate claims.

    Enrollment in the Affordable Care Act’s insurance marketplaces swelled the past few years. But a crackdown on fraud and a tightening of eligibility verifications that were loosened during the COVID-19 pandemic makes it harder for some to stay covered, Jefferies analyst David Windley noted.

    People who use little care “are disappearing,” he said.

    Prescription drugs pose another challenge, especially popular and expensive diabetes and obesity treatments sometimes called GLP-1 drugs. Those include Ozempic, Mounjaro, Wegovy and Zepbound.

    “Pharmacy just gives me a headache, no pun intended,” said Vinnie Daboul, Boston-based managing director of the employee benefits consultant RT Consulting.

    New gene therapies that can come with a one-time cost of more than $2 million also are having an impact, insurance brokers say. Those drugs, which target rare diseases, and some newer cancer treatments are part of the reason Sun Life Financial covered 47 claims last year that cost over $3 million.

    The financial services company covers high-cost claims for employers that pay their own medical bills. Sun Life probably had no claims that expensive a decade ago and maybe “a handful at best” five years ago, said Jen Collier, president of health and risk solutions.

    Some of these drugs are rarely used, but they cause overall costs to rise. That raises insurance premiums.

    “It’s adding to medical (cost growth) in a way that we haven’t seen in the past,” Collier said.

    Price hikes will be most apparent on the Affordable Care Act’s individual coverage marketplaces. Insurers there are raising premiums around 20% in 2026, according to KFF, which has been analyzing state regulatory filings.

    But the actual hike consumers see may be much bigger. Enhanced tax credits that help people buy coverage could expire at the end of the year, unless Congress renews them.

    If those go away, customer coverage costs could soar 75% or more, according to KFF.

    Business owner Shirley Modlin worries about marketplace price hikes. She can’t afford to provide coverage for the roughly 20 employees at 3D Design and Manufacturing in Powhatan, Virginia, so she reimburses them $350 a month for coverage they buy.

    Modlin knows her reimbursement only covers a slice of what her workers pay. She worries another price hike might push some to look for work at a bigger company that offers benefits.

    “My employee may not want to go to work for a large corporation, but when they consider how they have to pay their bills, sometimes they have to make sacrifices,” she said.

    Costs also have been growing in the bigger market for employer-sponsored coverage, the benefits consultant Mercer says. Employees may not feel that as much because companies generally pay most of the premium.

    But they may notice coverage changes.

    About half the large employers Mercer surveyed earlier this year said they are likely or very likely to shift more costs to their employees. That may mean higher deductibles or that people have to pay more before they reach the out-of-pocket maximum on their coverage.

    For prescriptions, patients may see caps on those expensive obesity treatments or limits on who can take them.

    Some plans also may start using separate deductibles for their pharmaceutical and medical benefits or having patients pay more for their prescriptions, Daboul said.

    Coverage changes could vary around the country, noted Emily Bremer, president of a St. Louis-based independent insurance agency, The Bremer Group.

    Employers aren’t eager to cut benefits, she said, so people may not see dramatic prescription coverage changes next year. But that may not last.

    “If something doesn’t give with pharmacy costs, it’s going to be coming sooner than we’d like to think,” Bremer said.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • FACT FOCUS: Trump says he’s cut drug prices by up to 1,500%. That’s not possible

    [ad_1]

    Days after he sent letters instructing top pharmaceutical manufacturers to use a “most favored nation” pricing model for prescription drugs, President Donald Trump told reporters on Sunday that he had cut costs by up to 1,500%.

    But Trump’s grandiose claim is mathematically impossible.

    Here’s a closer look at the facts.

    TRUMP: “You know, we’ve cut drug prices by 1,200, 1,300, 1,400, 1,500%. I don’t mean 50%, I mean 14 — 1,500%.”

    THE FACTS: This is false. Cutting drug prices by more than 100% would theoretically mean that people are being paid to take medications. The Trump administration has taken steps to lower prescription drug prices, but experts say there’s no indication costs have seen such a massive drop.

    Geoffrey Joyce, director of health policy at the University of Southern California’s Schaeffer Center, called Trump’s claim “total fiction” made up by the Republican president. He agreed that it would amount to drug companies paying customers, rather than the other way around.

    “I find it really difficult to translate those numbers into some actual estimates that patients would see at the pharmacy counter,” said Mariana Socal, an associate professor of health policy and management at Johns Hopkins University who studies the U.S. pharmaceutical market. She added that Trump’s math is “really hard to follow.”

    Asked what Trump was using to back up his claim, White House spokesman Kush Desai said: “It’s an objective fact that Americans are paying exponentially more for the same exact drugs as people in other developed countries pay, and it’s an objective fact that no other Administration has done more to rectify this unfair burden for the American people.”

    The White House provided a chart of price differentials for drugs in the U.S. and comparable countries, but did not offer any other evidence. On Sunday, Trump also described cuts to drug prices as a future development, not that already happened.

    “So we’ll be dropping drug prices,” he said. “It will start over the next two to three months by 1,200, 1,300 and even 1,400%.”

    Prices for most prescription drugs — unbranded generics are the exception — are higher in the U.S. than they are in other high-income countries. This is in large part due to the way drug prices are negotiated in the United States.

    Trump made his recent appeal in letters to 17 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the White House announced last week. He asked them to reduce costs in the U.S. by matching the lowest prices of prescriptions drugs in other comparably developed countries. Some drugmakers have since indicated that they are open to cutting costs.

    This move follows an executive order Trump signed in May setting a 30-day deadline for drugmakers to electively lower prices in the U.S. or face new limits in the future over what the government will pay.

    The federal government has the most power to shape the price it pays for drugs covered by Medicare and Medicaid. It’s unclear what — if any — impact the Trump administration’s efforts will have on millions of Americans who have private health insurance.

    Socal pointed out that if drug manufacturers had cut costs to the extent Trump claims, they would be shouting it from the rooftops, especially given the heat they’ve taken over the years for their pricing practices.

    “My expectation would be that they would make announcements — public announcements — and that those announcements would come way in advance of the actual effective dates when those price cuts would come into effect,” she said.

    Joyce agreed that there has been no indication of a substantial cut.

    “Not at all, not at all, none whatsoever,” he said. “And let alone 1,500.”

    ___

    Find AP Fact Checks here: https://apnews.com/APFactCheck.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Don’t fall for fake dentists offering veneers and other dental work on social media

    Don’t fall for fake dentists offering veneers and other dental work on social media

    [ad_1]

    WASHINGTON (AP) — If you have stained or chipped teeth, you might be considering veneers, customized teeth coverings that can restore a photogenic smile without more extensive dental work.

    But dentists warn that these pricey cosmetic enhancements are at the center of a worrisome online trend: unlicensed practitioners without proper training or supervision offering low-cost veneers.

    These self-described “veneer techs” often promote themselves on Instagram and TikTok, promising a full set of veneers for less than half of what dentists typically charge. Some also market their own training courses and certifications for people looking to get into the business.

    It’s misleading, health professionals warn — and illegal. All states require dental work, including veneers, to be performed under the supervision of a licensed dentist.

    On Thursday, Georgia law enforcement officials arrested Brandon Diller, who promoted himself to 158,000 Instagram followers as “Atlanta’s top veneer specialist and trainer.” Diller practiced dentistry without a license and sold “training and certificates, which were worthless” and “provided no legitimate or legal credentials,” according to an arrest warrant from Fulton County’s District Attorney’s office.

    Here’s what to know about veneers and how to avoid bogus providers and services:

    What are dental veneers?

    Veneers are thin, custom-made dental coverings used to hide minor imperfections or to fill in gaps between teeth. Unlike crowns or more invasive dental implants, veneers are almost always considered cosmetic dentistry and generally aren’t covered by insurance.

    This article is part of AP’s Be Well coverage, focusing on wellness, fitness, diet and mental health. Read more Be Well.

    Dentists usually charge between $1,000 and $2,000 per tooth for veneers, with higher prices for those made from porcelain compared with lower-grade materials.

    Placing veneers involves stripping some of the natural enamel from the tooth and bonding the new covering into place. Because of that process, getting veneers is considered an irreversible procedure, according to the American Dental Association. They are not permanent, and can be expected to last between 5 to 15 years before they degrade and need to be replaced.

    In recent months the ADA has been stepping up warnings about the risks of veneer procedures done by unlicensed individuals.

    “Quality control is lost without the involvement of a licensed dentist,” said Dr. Ada Cooper, a New York-based dentist and ADA spokesperson. “We undergo years of education and training and need to be licensed by various regulatory bodies before we can practice.”

    What are the risks of getting veneers from someone who isn’t licensed?

    Improper veneer procedures can cause a range of health problems, including severe pain, nerve damage and tooth loss.

    Patients need to be anesthetized before the enamel is removed from their teeth.

    “It could be incredibly painful if they’re not anesthetized correctly,” said Dr. Zach Truman, who runs an orthodontics practice in Las Vegas. “You can also go too deep into the tooth and penetrate what’s called the pulp chamber, which contains blood vessels and nerves.”

    One of the biggest problems Truman sees with unregulated veneer work is that customers aren’t getting screened for existing dental problems, such as gum disease and cavities.

    “If you put a veneer on a tooth that has an active cavity, you’re just going to seal it in there and eventually it’s going to progress to tooth loss,” Truman said.

    Dental veneers aren’t the only option for improving the appearance of teeth. Over-the-counter whitening kits can help with minor stains and discoloration. And dentists can sometimes use composite materials to reshape chipped or uneven teeth. But Truman says those fillings are prone to crack and won’t last as long as veneers.

    How can I spot bogus veneer providers online?

    One clue: Many individuals performing unlicensed dental work promote themselves on social media as “veneer technicians.”

    Instead of working out of a dental office they often perform treatments at beauty salons, hotel rooms or private homes. Some advertise multi-city tours and encourage clients to message them to book an appointment in advance.

    Much of the appeal of the services is in their pricing, with some offering a full set of veneers for a flat fee of $4,000 or $5,000. That’s less than half of what patients can generally expect to pay at a dental office.

    Performing dental work without an appropriate license is illegal, the ADA notes.

    Dentists and hygienists are licensed by state governments, who also define the work dental assistants can perform. But in all cases, veneers and other dental procedures must be supervised by a licensed dentist.

    Earlier this year, Illinois law enforcement officials arrested a woman running a business called the Veneer Experts after she posted videos of herself fitting braces, veneers and other dental products without a license. She was previously arrested in Nevada on similar allegations of practicing dentistry without a license.

    What are the best ways to find legitimate dental providers?

    The ADA maintains a website detailing the training and licensing requirements for dentists across the U.S. Most states also maintain websites where you can lookup and verify licensure information and find any past disciplinary actions for dentists and other health professionals.

    “It’s really critical to understand that dentistry is a regulated health care profession that requires formal educations and licensure,” Cooper said.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Medicare Advantage shopping season arrives with a dose of confusion and some political implications

    Medicare Advantage shopping season arrives with a dose of confusion and some political implications

    [ad_1]

    Thinner benefits and coverage changes await many older Americans shopping for health insurance this fall. That’s if their plan is even still available in 2025.

    More than a million people will probably have to find new coverage as major insurers cut costs and pull back from markets for Medicare Advantage plans, the privately run version of the federal government’s coverage program mostly for people ages 65 and older.

    Industry experts also predict some price increases for Medicare prescription drug plans as required coverage improvements kick in.

    Voters will learn about the insurance changes just weeks before they pick the next president and as Democrat Kamala Harris campaigns on promises to lower health care costs. Early voting has already started in some states.

    “This could be bad news for Vice President Harris. If that premium is going up, that’s a very obvious sign that you’re paying more,” said Massey Whorley, an analyst for health care consulting company Avalere. “That has significant implications for how they’re viewing the performance of the current administration.”

    Insurance agents say the distraction of the election adds another complication to an already challenging annual enrollment window that starts next month.

    Insurers are pulling back from Medicare Advantage

    Medicare Advantage plans will cover more than 35 million people next year, or around half of all people enrolled in Medicare, according to the federal government. Insurance agents say they expect more people than usual will have to find new coverage for 2025 because their insurer has either ended a plan or left their market.

    The health insurer Humana expects more than half a million customers — about 10% of its total — to be affected as it pulls Medicare Advantage plans from places around the country. Many customers will be able to transfer to other Humana plans, but company leaders still anticipate losing a few hundred thousand customers.

    CVS Health’s Aetna projects a similar loss, and other big insurers have said they are leaving several states.

    Insurers say rising costs and care use, along with reimbursement cuts from the government, are forcing them to pull back.

    Some people can expect a tough search

    When insurers leave Medicare Advantage markets, they tend to stop selling plans that have lower quality ratings and those with a higher proportion of Black buyers, said Dr. Amal Trivedi, a Brown University public health researcher.

    He noted that market exits can be particularly hard on people with several doctors and on patients with cognitive trouble like dementia.

    Most markets will still have dozens of plan choices. But finding a new option involves understanding out-of-pocket costs for each choice, plus figuring out how physicians and regular prescriptions are covered.

    “People don’t like change when it comes to health insurance because you don’t know what’s on the other side of the fence,” said Tricia Neuman, a Medicare expert at KFF, a nonprofit that researches health care.

    Plans that don’t leave markets may raise deductibles and trim perks like cards used to pay for utilities or food.

    Those proved popular in recent years as inflation rose, said Danielle Roberts, co-founder of the Fort Worth, Texas, insurance agency Boomer Benefits.

    “It’s really difficult for a person on a fixed income to choose a health plan for the right reasons … when $900 on a flex card in free groceries sounds pretty good,” she said.

    Don’t “sleep” on picking a Medicare plan

    Prices also could rise for some so-called standalone Part D prescription drug plans, which people pair with traditional Medicare coverage. KFF says that population includes more than 13 million people.

    The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Friday that premiums for these plans will decrease about 4% on average to $40 next year.

    But brokers and agents say premiums can vary widely, and they still expect some increases. They also expect fewer plan choices and changes to formularies, or lists of covered drugs. Roberts said she has already seen premium hikes of $30 or more from some plans for next year.

    Any price shift will hit a customer base known to switch plans for premium changes as small as $1, said Fran Soistman, CEO of the online insurance marketplace eHealth.

    The changes come as a congressional-approved coverage overhaul takes hold. Most notably, out-of-pocket drug costs will be capped at $2,000 for those on Medicare, an effort championed by Democrats and President Joe Biden in 2022.

    In the long run, these changes will lead to a “much richer benefit,” Whorley said.

    KFF’s Neuman noted that the cap on drug costs will be especially helpful to cancer patients and others with expensive prescriptions. She estimates about 1.5 million people will benefit.

    To ward off big premium spikes because of the changes, the Biden administration will pull billions of dollars from the Medicare trust fund to pay insurers to keep premium prices down, a move some Republicans have criticized. Insurers will not be allowed to raise premium prices beyond $35 next year.

    People will be able to sign up for 2025 coverage between Oct. 15 and Dec. 7. Experts say all the potential changes make it important for shoppers to study closely any new choices or coverage they expect to renew.

    “This is not a year to sleep on it, just re-enroll in the status quo,” said Whorley, the health care analyst.

    ___

    The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • What is ‘price gouging’ and why is VP Harris proposing to ban it?

    What is ‘price gouging’ and why is VP Harris proposing to ban it?

    [ad_1]

    With inflation and high grocery prices still frustrating many voters, Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday proposed a ban on “price gouging” by food suppliers and grocery stores, as part of a broader agenda aimed at lowering the cost of housing, medicine, and food.

    It’s an attempt to tackle a clear vulnerability of Harris’ head-on: Under the Biden-Harris administration, grocery prices have shot up 21%, part of an inflation surge that has raised overall costs by about 19% and soured many Americans on the economy, even as unemployment fell to historic lows. Wages have also risen sharply since the pandemic, and have outpaced prices for more than a year. Still, surveys find Americans continue to struggle with higher costs.

    “We all know that prices went up during the pandemic when the supply chains shut down and failed,” Harris said Friday in Raleigh, North Carolina. “But our supply chains have now improved and prices are still too high.”

    Will her proposals do much to lower prices? And what even is “price gouging”? The answers to those and other questions are below:

    What is price gouging?

    There is no strict definition that economists would agree on, but it generally refers to spikes in prices that typically follow a disruption in supply, such as after a hurricane or other natural disaster. Consumer advocates charge that gouging occurs when retailers sharply increase prices, particularly for necessities, under such circumstances.

    Is it already illegal?

    Several states already restrict price gouging, but there is no federal-level ban.

    There are federal restrictions on related but different practices, such as price-fixing laws that bar companies from agreeing to not compete against each other and set higher prices.

    Will Harris’ proposal lower grocery prices?

    Most economists would say no, though her plan could have an impact on future crises. For one thing, it’s unclear how much price gouging is going on right now.

    Grocery prices are still painfully high compared to four years ago, but they increased just 1.1% in July compared with a year earlier, according to the most recent inflation report. That is in line with pre-pandemic increases.

    President Joe Biden said Wednesday that inflation has been defeated after Wednesday’s inflation report showed that it fell to 2.9% in July, the smallest increase in three years.

    “There’s some dissonance between claiming victory on the inflation front in one breath and then arguing that there’s all this price gouging happening that is leading consumers to face really high prices in another breath,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute.

    In general, after an inflationary spike, it’s very hard to return prices to where they were. Sustained price declines typically only happen in steep, protracted recessions. Instead, economists generally argue that the better approach is for wages to keep rising enough so that Americans can handle the higher costs.

    So why is Harris talking about this now?

    Probably because inflation remains a highly salient issue politically. And plenty of voters do blame grocery stores, fast food chains, and food and packaged goods makers for the surge of inflation in the past three years. Corporate profits soared in 2021 and 2022.

    “It could be that they’re looking at opinion polls that show that the number one concern facing voters is inflation and that a large number of voters blame corporations for inflation,” Strain said.

    At the same time, even if prices aren’t going up as much, as Harris noted, they remain high, even as supply chain kinks have been resolved.

    Elizabeth Pancotti, a policy analyst at Roosevelt Forward, a progressive advocacy group, points to the wood pulp used in diapers. The price of wood pulp has fallen by half from its post-pandemic peak, yet diaper prices haven’t.

    “So that just increases the (profit) margins for both the manufacturers and the retailers,” she said.

    Did price gouging cause inflation?

    Most economists would say no, that it was a more straightforward case of supply and demand. When the pandemic hit, meat processing plants were occasionally closed after COVID-19 outbreaks, among other disruptions to supply. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine lifted the cost of wheat and other grains on global markets. Auto prices rose as carmakers were unable to get all the semiconductors they needed from Taiwan to manufacture cars, and many car plants shut down temporarily.

    At the same time, several rounds of stimulus checks fattened Americans’ bank accounts, and after hunkering down during the early phase of the pandemic, so-called “revenge spending” took over. The combination of stronger demand and reduced supply was a recipe for rising prices.

    Still, some economists have argued that large food and consumer goods companies took advantage of pandemic-era disruptions. Consumers saw empty store shelves and heard numerous stories about disrupted supply chains, and at least temporarily felt they had little choice but to accept the higher prices.

    Economist Isabella Weber at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, called it “seller’s inflation.” Others referred to it as “greedflation.”

    “What a lot of corporations did was exploit consumers’ willingness” to accept the disruptions from the pandemic, Pancotti said.

    Is banning price gouging like instituting price controls?

    During the last spike of inflation in the 1970s, both Democratic and Republican presidential administrations at times imposed price controls, which specifically limited what companies could charge for goods and services. They were widely blamed for creating shortages and long lines for gas.

    Some economists say Harris’ proposal would have a similar impact.

    “It’s a heavy-handed socialist policy that I don’t think any economist would support,” said Kevin Hassett, a former top economic adviser in the Trump White House.

    But Pancotti disagreed. She argued that it was closer to a consumer protection measure. Under Harris’ proposal, the government wouldn’t specify prices, but the Federal Trade Commission could investigate price spikes.

    “The proposal is really about protecting consumers from unscrupulous corporate actors that are trying to just rip the consumer off because they know they can,” she said.

    [ad_2]

    Source link