Cass County warns residents of Medicare scam
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — The Cass County Health Department is warning residents about a scam targeting Medicare recipients.
Scammers posing as health department employees are attempting to steal personal information by claiming that they need Medicare details for verification or updated records, county officials said. These scammers are using phone calls to trick victims into providing sensitive information, which can then be used for fraudulent purposes – including identity theft and unauthorized Medicare claims.
The Cass County Health Department said it will never call to request Medicare numbers without a scheduled appointment with a patient.
Residents are advised to be careful with their information and take the following precautions to protect themselves from scams:
Do not share personal information: Never provide your Medicare number, SocialSecurity number or banking details to unsolicited callers.
Verify the source: If someone claims to be from the Cass County Health Department,hang up and call the official number (816-380-8429) to verify the authenticity of therequest.
Beware of pressure tactics: Scammers often create urgency or threats to manipulateindividuals into sharing their information.
Report suspicious activity: If you receive a call or visit from someone claiming to befrom the health department requesting Medicare details, report it immediately to theFederal Trade Commission (FTC) at 1-877-382-4357 or visit ReportFraud.ftc.gov.
The Cass County Health Department is encouraging all Medicare recipients and their caregivers to remain vigilant and spread awareness about these fraudulent activities. For more information, you can contact 816-380-8425.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
US health care is rife with high costs and deep inequities, and that's no accident – a public health historian explains how the system was shaped to serve profit and politicians
A few years ago, a student in my history of public health course asked why her mother couldn't afford insulin without insurance, despite having a full-time job. I told her what I've come to believe: The U.S. health care system was deliberately built this way. People often hear that health care in America is dysfunctional – too expensive, too complex and too inequitable. But dysfunction implies failure. What if the real problem is that the system is functioning exactly as it was designed to? Understanding this legacy is key to explaining not only why reform has failed repeatedly, but why change remains so difficult. I am a historian of public health with experience researching oral health access and health care disparities in the Deep South. My work focuses on how historical policy choices continue to shape the systems we rely on today. By tracing the roots of today's system and all its problems, it's easier to understand why American health care looks the way it does and what it will take to reform it into a system that provides high-quality, affordable care for all. Only by confronting how profit, politics and prejudice have shaped the current system can Americans imagine and demand something different. My research and that of many others show that today's high costs, deep inequities and fragmented care are predictable features developed from decades of policy choices that prioritized profit over people, entrenched racial and regional hierarchies, and treated health care as a commodity rather than a public good. Over the past century, U.S. health care developed not from a shared vision of universal care, but from compromises that prioritized private markets, protected racial hierarchies and elevated individual responsibility over collective well-being. Employer-based insurance emerged in the 1940s, not from a commitment to worker health but from a tax policy workaround during wartime wage freezes. The federal government allowed employers to offer health benefits tax-free, incentivizing coverage while sidestepping nationalized care. This decision bound health access to employment status, a structure that is still dominant today. In contrast, many other countries with employer-provided insurance pair it with robust public options, ensuring that access is not tied solely to a job. In 1965, Medicare and Medicaid programs greatly expanded public health infrastructure. Unfortunately, they also reinforced and deepened existing inequalities. Medicare, a federally administered program for people over 64, primarily benefited wealthier Americans who had access to stable, formal employment and employer-based insurance during their working years. Medicaid, designed by Congress as a joint federal-state program, is aimed at the poor, including many people with disabilities. The combination of federal and state oversight resulted in 50 different programs with widely variable eligibility, coverage and quality. Southern lawmakers, in particular, fought for this decentralization. Fearing federal oversight of public health spending and civil rights enforcement, they sought to maintain control over who received benefits. Historians have shown that these efforts were primarily designed to restrict access to health care benefits along racial lines during the Jim Crow period of time. Today, that legacy is painfully visible. States that chose not to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act are overwhelmingly located in the South and include several with large Black populations. Nearly 1 in 4 uninsured Black adults are uninsured because they fall into the coverage gap – unable to access affordable health insurance – they earn too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to receive subsidies through the Affordable Care Act's marketplace. The system's architecture also discourages care aimed at prevention. Because Medicaid's scope is limited and inconsistent, preventive care screenings, dental cleanings and chronic disease management often fall through the cracks. That leads to costlier, later-stage care that further burdens hospitals and patients alike. Meanwhile, cultural attitudes around concepts like 'rugged individualism' and 'freedom of choice' have long been deployed to resist public solutions. In the postwar decades, while European nations built national health care systems, the U.S. reinforced a market-driven approach. Publicly funded systems were increasingly portrayed by American politicians and industry leaders as threats to individual freedom – often dismissed as 'socialized medicine' or signs of creeping socialism. In 1961, for example, Ronald Reagan recorded a 10-minute LP titled 'Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine,' which was distributed by the American Medical Association as part of a national effort to block Medicare. The health care system's administrative complexity ballooned beginning in the 1960s, driven by the rise of state-run Medicaid programs, private insurers and increasingly fragmented billing systems. Patients were expected to navigate opaque billing codes, networks and formularies, all while trying to treat, manage and prevent illness. In my view, and that of other scholars, this isn't accidental but rather a form of profitable confusion built into the system to benefit insurers and intermediaries. Even well-meaning reforms have been built atop this structure. The Affordable Care Act, passed in 2010, expanded access to health insurance but preserved many of the system's underlying inequities. And by subsidizing private insurers rather than creating a public option, the law reinforced the central role of private companies in the health care system. The public option – a government-run insurance plan intended to compete with private insurers and expand coverage – was ultimately stripped from the Affordable Care Act during negotiations due to political opposition from both Republicans and moderate Democrats. When the U.S. Supreme Court made it optional in 2012 for states to offer expanded Medicaid coverage to low-income adults earning up to 138% of the federal poverty level, it amplified the very inequalities that the ACA sought to reduce. These decisions have consequences. In states like Alabama, an estimated 220,000 adults remain uninsured due to the Medicaid coverage gap – the most recent year for which reliable data is available – highlighting the ongoing impact of the state's refusal to expand Medicaid. In addition, rural hospitals have closed, patients forgo care, and entire counties lack practicing OB/GYNs or dentists. And when people do get care – especially in states where many remain uninsured – they can amass medical debt that can upend their lives. All of this is compounded by chronic disinvestment in public health. Federal funding for emergency preparedness has declined for years, and local health departments are underfunded and understaffed. The COVID-19 pandemic revealed just how brittle the infrastructure is – especially in low-income and rural communities, where overwhelmed clinics, delayed testing, limited hospital capacity, and higher mortality rates exposed the deadly consequences of neglect. Change is hard not because reformers haven't tried before, but because the system serves the very interests it was designed to serve. Insurers profit from obscurity – networks that shift, formularies that confuse, billing codes that few can decipher. Providers profit from a fee-for-service model that rewards quantity over quality, procedure over prevention. Politicians reap campaign contributions and avoid blame through delegation, diffusion and plausible deniability. This is not an accidental web of dysfunction. It is a system that transforms complexity into capital, bureaucracy into barriers. Patients – especially the uninsured and underinsured – are left to make impossible choices: delay treatment or take on debt, ration medication or skip checkups, trust the health care system or go without. Meanwhile, I believe the rhetoric of choice and freedom disguises how constrained most people's options really are. Other countries show us that alternatives are possible. Systems in Germany, France and Canada vary widely in structure, but all prioritize universal access and transparency. Understanding what the U.S. health care system is designed to do – rather than assuming it is failing unintentionally – is a necessary first step toward considering meaningful change. This article is republished from The Conversation, a nonprofit, independent news organization bringing you facts and trustworthy analysis to help you make sense of our complex world. It was written by: Zachary W. Schulz, Auburn University Read more: Buyouts can bring relief from medical debt, but they're far from a cure Public health and private equity: What the Walgreens buyout could mean for the future of pharmacy care Migrants often can't access US health care until they are critically ill – here are some of the barriers they face Zachary W. Schulz does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
WHO sounds the alarm as US measles cases mount
Presented by Driving The Day WHO SPEAKS UP ON MEASLES — President Donald Trump might not care for the World Health Organization's advice, but that isn't stopping one of its top officials from warning his administration about what's at stake as measles cases accumulate in the U.S. Dr. Katherine O'Brien, the WHO's vaccines director, told POLITICO's Carmen Paun that U.S. political leaders should clearly endorse and promote measles vaccination to prevent the country from losing its disease-elimination status — and become a location that gives rise to future outbreaks that can easily spread domestically and abroad among travelers. If the disease spreads continuously for a year, it would be considered endemic for the first time in 25 years. 'It's really a sign of a country going backwards in terms of their ability to protect people,' O'Brien said. Why it matters: O'Brien said 'leadership voices really matter' when people consider medical interventions for their children. If one family is influenced enough to decline the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine for their child, that's 'one child too many,' she said, given how highly contagious the virus is. Measles is 'not just a fever and a rash that people get over,' O'Brien said. So far this year, three unvaccinated people — including two young girls — have died from the disease in the U.S. Before the most recent outbreak, the last U.S. measles death occurred in 2015. Background: HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has couched his promotion of the MMR shot with statements emphasizing that vaccination is a personal choice. Before he ran for president and then entered government, Kennedy founded Children's Health Defense, an anti-vaccine nonprofit that suggests shots cause a slew of pediatric medical problems such as autism, asthma and developmental delays. Kennedy has also inaccurately asserted that the MMR vaccine contains cells from aborted fetuses and has touted supplements like vitamin A as a disease treatment. HHS has defended the secretary's measles response, calling 'claims' that he's 'spreading misinformation or undermining vaccine confidence … flat-out false.' WELCOME TO FRIDAY PULSE. I'm FDA reporter Lauren Gardner, filling in for Kelly today. Pass along your tips, scoops and feedback to lgardner@ and khooper@ and follow along @Gardner_LM or @Kelhoops. POLITICO PRO SPACE — Need an insider's guide to the politics behind the new space race? From battles over sending astronauts to Mars to the ways space companies are vying to influence regulators, this weekly newsletter decodes the personalities, policy and power shaping the final frontier. Find out more. In Congress THIRD RAIL NO MORE? Senate Republicans are considering ways to incorporate Medicare cuts into their domestic spending package to help offset its cost — a move that could divide a party that can't afford many defections to pass the president's signature legislation, POLITICO's Jordain Carney, Meredith Lee Hill and Robert King report. The House version of President Donald Trump's big beautiful bill includes cuts to Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income people and those with disabilities. But cuts to Medicare — which insures those 65 and older — are widely seen as politically dangerous. The idea percolated in private meetings this week as GOP leaders try to placate budget hardliners who want more spending cuts in the package ahead of a self-imposed July 4 deadline for passage. And some Republicans believe Trump supports Medicare cuts — provided they're limited to targeting 'waste, fraud and abuse' — despite the potential for backlash from rank-and-file senators and House moderates who already sank efforts to touch the program. HEADING TO THE HUMPHREY BUILDING — The Senate confirmed Jim O'Neill on Thursday in a 52-43 vote to be HHS's deputy secretary, your morning host writes. O'Neill, a George W. Bush-era HHS official who's close with early Trump supporter and tech billionaire Peter Thiel, will be the department's No. 2 official charged with managing operations. AROUND THE AGENCIES FDA'S RARE DISEASE DRUG APPROACH — The FDA's leading biologics regulator said Thursday that he was open to using alternative measurement methods when evaluating rare-disease therapies, combining what he called 'gold-standard science and common sense' in the approval process. 'We will rapidly make available therapies at the first sign or promise of biomedical success or action, but we're also going to follow up overall survival and quality of life on the back end,' Dr. Vinay Prasad, director of the FDA's Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said during an agency roundtable on cell and gene therapies. The remarks were notable given Prasad's history of criticizing past FDA approvals of certain treatments, including a controversial Duchenne muscular dystrophy gene therapy and certain cancer drugs, using surrogate markers. Prasad added he's often asked whether he's 'solely' interested in randomized controlled trials and said he's open to a variety of methodologies demonstrating a drug's benefit. Background: His remarks come weeks after he and Commissioner Marty Makary unveiled a new Covid-19 vaccine framework that limits approvals of future formulation changes to people 65 and older and younger individuals with an underlying condition — and requiring new RCTs to prove the shots are safe and effective for young, healthy people. Cell and gene therapies are often discussed in the context of rare diseases as the technologies can address root causes instead of solely managing symptoms. But a condition's rarity hinders a company's ability to conduct a large-scale trial for a drug candidate, an issue with which regulators and industry have long struggled. The FDA launched a rare disease 'hub' last year to better align its drug and biologics regulators in their approach to considering those therapies for the market. NIH LOOKS TO AI — The National Institutes of Health is building an AI strategy to help HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. target chronic disease, POLITICO's Ruth Reader reports. Principal Deputy Director Matthew Memoli announced the plan Thursday, asking the public to weigh in at the Coalition for Health AI's Innovation Summit at Stanford University. NIH wants industry to comment on both the broad approach and the specific actions the administration should take in developing the strategy. The agency plans to create a new website to highlight its AI work. 'Addressing this crisis is going to require large-scale efforts — research that's going to generate large amounts of data — and we are going to need all the tools available to us in order to try to address this,' Memoli said. Names in the News Courtney Rhodes is now head of news and media relations at the U.S. Travel Association. She was previously a spokesperson at the FDA. The Health Resources and Services Administration announced its new 34-member board of directors for the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network. WHAT WE'RE READING House FDA appropriators advanced their fiscal 2026 spending measure Thursday for the agency and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, POLITICO's David Lim reports. Infectious disease and other medical experts fear HHS's changes to Covid-19 vaccine recommendations will make it more difficult to immunize people by complicating discussions with providers and likely leading to fewer places stocking them, Stat's Helen Branswell writes.
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
Is UnitedHealth a Millionaire Maker?
The stock's sharp decline, past returns, and competitive advantages make it a tempting buy-the-dip stock idea. Investors should exercise caution when basing their opinions on the past, given the numerous issues that have come to light. UnitedHealth's numerous headaches and massive size signal a difficult path forward for investors seeking life-changing investment returns. 10 stocks we like better than UnitedHealth Group › There is a ton of money in America's healthcare system. The country's annual healthcare expenditures push $5 trillion, representing nearly a fifth of the world's largest economy. UnitedHealth (NYSE: UNH) has generated life-changing returns as one of the industry's most powerful companies. At its peak in late 2024, the stock had returned over 60,000% since 1990. That turns each invested dollar into over $600. But as you may know, the company and stock have plunged into uncertainty after the high-profile slaying of the CEO of the company's insurance and managed care arm, UnitedHealthcare, in December, and numerous setbacks since then, some potentially criminal. It's a conundrum for investors deciding whether UnitedHealth can replicate its past success once the dust settles, or if this is a broken business to avoid. I looked under the hood to gauge whether UnitedHealth can still make investors rich. UnitedHealth operates the largest health insurer in the United States, UnitedHealthcare. While the stock has shed over half its value since the tragic death of UnitedHealthcare's CEO, the parent company's troubles stretch far beyond. Patients enrolled in UnitedHealth's Medicare Advantage plans are seeking more care than UnitedHealth had forecasted, unexpectedly raising costs. Management revised its 2025 guidance in first-quarter earnings in April, then withdrew guidance altogether in May after these trends continued. Additionally, UnitedHealth is facing some serious allegations of unethical business practices. Reports emerged that the U.S. Department of Justice is investigating the company for possible Medicare fraud. Another report alleged that UnitedHealth secretly paid care facilities to deny hospital transfers and other services to patients it covered. It creates a complicated situation for investors, who must try to piece together answers for questions like: Are there any other allegations, investigations, or other controversies that aren't public yet? Is the company guilty of these existing allegations? If so, how much can investors trust the company's past business performance? The logical investment thesis for UnitedHealth is that it remains one of the most powerful players in a multitrillion-dollar healthcare system. It boasts unmatched size, with over $410 billion in annual revenue, and owns multiple components of the healthcare system. For example, it serves as both an insurer and a pharmacy benefits manager (PBM), affording it tremendous leverage over suppliers, providers, and patients. UnitedHealth could face substantial fines, and some employees may even face imprisonment if investigations find that criminal activity occurred in the company's dealings. However, barring the government stepping in and forcing UnitedHealth to break apart, its core competitive advantages (size and vertical integration) are likely to remain intact. Approaching with caution is wise in such a situation where it's unclear to what degree, or for how long, all of UnitedHealth's issues may impact the business and stock. Analysts have dramatically lowered their long-term growth expectations, while the sliding share price has dropped the price-to-earnings ratio to under 13. At the moment, it's hard to envision UnitedHealth returning to business as usual anytime soon. Even if all the controversy goes away overnight, its medical costs are still surging. If UnitedHealth grows its earnings at a 7% annualized rate going forward, the stock's current P/E ratio appears to be a solid value, assuming no serious outcomes from any investigations or allegations. But even if UnitedHealth returns to form, it remains a behemoth of a company with over $400 billion in annual revenue. It will be much harder to generate enough growth from its current size to turn any realistic sum for most individual investors into a fortune. Given the entire picture here, it becomes increasingly clear that UnitedHealth's millionaire-making years are likely in the past. Before you buy stock in UnitedHealth Group, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and UnitedHealth Group wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $668,538!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $869,841!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 789% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 172% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join . See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of June 2, 2025 Justin Pope has no position in any of the stocks mentioned. The Motley Fool recommends UnitedHealth Group. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. Is UnitedHealth a Millionaire Maker? was originally published by The Motley Fool
