logo
‘Not accountable to anyone': As insurers issue denials, some patients run out of options

‘Not accountable to anyone': As insurers issue denials, some patients run out of options

Miami Herald01-07-2025
BRIDGEPORT, W.Va. - By the time Eric Tennant was diagnosed in 2023 with a rare cancer of the bile ducts, the disease had spread to his bones. He weighed 97 pounds and wasn't expected to survive a year with stage 4 cancer.
Two years later, grueling rounds of chemotherapy have slowed the cancer's progress, even as it has continued to spread. But chemotherapy has also ravaged Tennant's body and his quality of life.
Recently, however, the 58-year-old had reason to hope things would improve. Last fall, his wife, Rebecca, learned of a relatively new, noninvasive procedure called histotripsy, which uses targeted ultrasound waves to destroy tumors in the liver. The treatment could extend his life and buy him more downtime between rounds of chemotherapy.
Early this year, Tennant's oncologist agreed he was a good candidate since the largest tumor in his body is in his liver. But that's when his family began fighting another adversary: their health insurer, which decided the treatment was "not medically necessary," according to insurance paperwork.
Health insurers issue millions of denials every year. And like the Tennants, many patients find themselves stuck in a convoluted appeals process marked by long wait times, frustrating customer service encounters, and decisions by medical professionals they've never met who may lack relevant training.
Recent federal and state efforts, as well as changes undertaken by insurance companies themselves, have attempted to improve a 50-year-old system that disproportionately burdens some of the sickest patients at the worst times. And yet many doctors complain that insurance denials are worse than ever as the use of prior authorization has ramped up in recent years, reporting by KFF Health News and NBC News found.
When the Tennant family was told histotripsy would cost $50,000 and insurance wouldn't cover it, they appealed the denial four times.
"It's a big mess," said Rebecca Tennant, who described feeling like a pingpong ball, bouncing between the insurer and various health care companies involved in the appeals process.
"There's literally nothing we can do to get them to change," she said in an April interview with KFF Health News. "They're, like, not accountable to anyone."
While the killing of UnitedHealthcare chief executive Brian Thompson in December incited a fresh wave of public fury about denials, there is almost no hope of meaningful change on the horizon, said Jay Pickern, an assistant professor of health services administration at Auburn University.
"You would think the murder of a major health insurance CEO on the streets of New York in broad daylight would be a major watershed moment," Pickern said. Yet, once the news cycle died down, "everything went back to the status quo."
An Unintended Consequence of Health Reform?
Prior authorization varies by plan but often requires patients or their providers to get permission (also called precertification, preauthorization, or preapproval) before filling prescriptions, scheduling imaging, surgery, or an inpatient hospital stay, among other expenses.
The practice isn't new. Insurers have used prior authorization for decades to limit fraud, prevent patient harm, and control costs. In some cases, it is used to intentionally generate profits for health insurers, according to a 2024 U.S. Senate report. By denying costly care, companies pay less for health care expenses while still collecting premiums.
"At the end of the day, they're a business and they exist to make money," said Pickern, who wrote about the negative impacts of prior authorization on patient care for The American Journal of Managed Care.
For most patients, though, the process works seamlessly. Prior authorization mostly happens behind the scenes, almost always electronically, and nearly all requests are quickly, or even instantly, approved.
But the use of prior authorization has also increased in recent years. That's partly due to the growth of enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans, which rely heavily on prior authorization compared with original Medicare. Some health policy experts also point to the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010, which prohibited health insurers from denying coverage to patients with preexisting conditions, prompting companies to find other ways to control costs.
"But we can't really prove this," said Kaye Pestaina, director of the Program on Patient and Consumer Protection at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. Health insurers haven't been historically transparent about which services require prior authorization, she said, making it difficult to draw comparisons before and after the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
Meanwhile, many states are looking to overhaul the prior authorization process.
In March, Virginia passed a law that will require health insurers to publicly post a list of health care services and codes for which prior authorization is required. A North Carolina bill would require doctors who review patient appeals to have practiced medicine in the same specialty as the patient's provider. The West Virginia Legislature passed bills in both 2019 and 2023 requiring insurers to respond to nonurgent authorization requests within five days and more urgent requests within two days, among other mandates.
And in 2014, the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services temporarily lifted all prior authorization requirements for Medicaid beneficiaries seeking rehabilitative behavioral health services.
Federal rules to modify prior authorization that were introduced by the first Trump administration and finalized by the Biden administration are set to take effect next year, with the aim of streamlining the process, reducing wait times, and improving transparency.
These changes were supported by AHIP, a trade group that represents health insurers.
'Sick With Little Recourse'
But the new federal rules won't prevent insurance companies from denying payment for doctor-recommended treatment, and they apply only to some categories of health insurance, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid. Nearly half the U.S. population is covered by employer-sponsored plans, which remain untouched by the new rules.
For some patients, the stakes couldn't be higher.
On May 12, Alexander Schrift, 35, died at home in San Antonio, Florida, less than two months after his insurance company refused to cover the cancer drug ribociclib. It's used to treat breast cancer but has shown promise in treating the same type of brain tumor Schrift was diagnosed with in 2022, according to researchers at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in Boston and the Institute of Cancer Research in London.
But Schrift's insurance company refused to pay. The Right to Try Act, signed by President Donald Trump in 2018, entitles patients with terminal illnesses to try experimental drugs, but it does not obligate insurance companies to pay for them.
In May, Sheldon Ekirch, 30, of Henrico, Virginia, said her parents withdrew money from their retirement savings to pay for treatment denied by her health insurance company.
Ekirch, who was diagnosed with small fiber neuropathy in 2023, was recommended by her doctor to try an expensive blood plasma treatment called intravenous immunoglobulin to ease her near-constant pain. In April, a state agency charged with reviewing insurance denials upheld her insurer's decision. Out-of-pocket, the treatment may cost her parents tens of thousands of dollars.
"Never in a million years did I think I'd end up here," Ekirch said, "sick with little recourse."
Earlier this year, New Jersey congressman Jefferson Van Drew, a Republican, introduced a bill that would eliminate prior authorization altogether. But history suggests that would create new problems.
When South Carolina Medicaid lifted prior authorization for rehabilitative behavioral health services in 2014, the department's costs for those services skyrocketed from $300,000 to $2 million per week, creating a $54 million budget shortfall after new providers flooded the market. Some providers were eventually referred to the South Carolina Attorney General's Office for Medicaid fraud investigation. The state Medicaid agency eventually reinstated prior authorization for specific services, spokesperson Jeff Leieritz said.
What happened in South Carolina illustrates a common argument made by insurers: Prior authorization prevents fraud, reduces overspending, and guards against potential harm to patients.
On the other hand, many doctors and patients claim that cost-containment strategies, including prior authorization, do more harm than good.
On Feb. 3, 2024, Jeff Hall of Estero, Florida, became paralyzed from the neck down and spent weeks in a coma after he suddenly developed Guillain-Barré Syndrome. The cause of his illness remains unknown.
Hall, now 51, argued that the Florida Blue health insurance plan he purchased on the federal marketplace hindered his recovery by capping the number of days he was allowed to remain in an acute rehabilitation hospital last year.
Hall said that after he was forced to "step down" to a lower-level nursing facility, his health deteriorated so rapidly within six days that he was sent to the emergency room, placed on a ventilator, and required a second tracheostomy. Hall believes the insurance company's coverage limits set his recovery back by months - and, ironically, cost the insurer more. His wife, Julie, estimated Jeff's medical bills have exceeded $5 million, and most of his care has been covered by his insurer.
"Getting better is not always the goal of an insurance company. It's a business," Jeff Hall said. "They don't care."
In a prepared statement, Florida Blue spokesperson Jose Cano said the company understands "it can be a challenge when a member reaches the limit of their coverage for a specific service or treatment." He encouraged members affected by coverage limits to contact their health care providers to "explore service and treatment options."
A 'Rare and Exceptional' Reversal
Back in West Virginia, Eric and Rebecca Tennant say they are realistic about Eric's prognosis.
They never expected histotripsy to cure his cancer. At best, the procedure could buy him more time and might allow him to take an extended break from chemotherapy. That makes it worth trying, they said.
As a safety instructor with the West Virginia Office of Miners' Health Safety and Training, Eric Tennant is a state employee and is insured by West Virginia's Public Employees Insurance Agency.
As the Tennants pleaded with the state insurance agency to cover histotripsy, they faced a list of other companies involved in the decision, including UMR, a UnitedHealthcare subsidiary that contracts with West Virginia to manage the public employee plans, and MES Peer Review Services, a Massachusetts company that upheld the insurer's decision in March, citing that histotripsy is "unproven in this case and is not medically necessary."
None of their appeals worked. After KFF Health News and NBC News reached out to West Virginia's Public Employees Insurance Agency with questions for this article, the agency changed its mind, explaining the insurer had consulted with medical experts to further evaluate the case.
"This decision reflects a rare and exceptional situation" and does not represent a change in the Public Employees Insurance Agency's overall coverage policies," Director Brent Wolfingbarger said in a prepared statement to KFF Health News.
In a separate prepared statement, UnitedHealthcare spokesperson Eric Hausman said the company sympathizes with "anyone navigating through life-threatening care decisions."
"Currently, there is no evidence that histotripsy is as effective as alternative treatment options available," he said in late May, after the earlier insurance denials were reversed, "and its impact on survival or cancer recurrence is unknown."
MES Peer Review Services did not respond to a request for an interview.
Meanwhile, Rebecca Tennant worries it might be too late. She said her husband was first evaluated for histotripsy in February. But his health has recently taken a turn for the worse. In late May and early June, she said, he spent five days in the hospital after developing heart and lung complications.
Eric Tennant is no longer considered a viable candidate for histotripsy, his wife said, although the Tennants are hopeful that will change if his health improves. Scans scheduled for July will determine whether his cancer has continued to progress. Rebecca Tennant blames her husband's insurance plan for wasting months of their time.
"Time is precious," she said. "They know he has stage 4 cancer, and it's almost like they don't care if he lives or dies."
____
NBC News health and medical unit producer Jason Kane and correspondent Erin McLaughlin contributed to this report.
Copyright (C) 2025, Tribune Content Agency, LLC. Portions copyrighted by the respective providers.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Heartflow Plaque Analysis to be Covered by UnitedHealthcare Plans Nationwide
Heartflow Plaque Analysis to be Covered by UnitedHealthcare Plans Nationwide

Business Upturn

time9 hours ago

  • Business Upturn

Heartflow Plaque Analysis to be Covered by UnitedHealthcare Plans Nationwide

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif., July 22, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) — Heartflow, Inc. , the leader in AI technology for coronary artery disease (CAD), today announced Heartflow Plaque Analysis will be covered by UnitedHealthcare across all lines of business, including Commercial, Medicare Advantage, and Community plans. UnitedHealthcare is the first insurer to update its policies to cover Heartflow Plaque Analysis to fully align with the guidelines recently issued by radiology benefit manager EviCore. 'UnitedHealthcare's decision to cover Heartflow Plaque Analysis nationwide is a tremendous step in advancing patient access to our proven AI-driven plaque technology,' said John Farquhar, President and CEO of Heartflow. 'We are pleased that this major commercial payer recognizes the innovation and value that Heartflow's technology can provide to its members and healthcare providers in diagnosing and managing coronary artery disease. This decision will increase access for early detection and quantification of plaque using our precision Plaque Analysis tool, setting a new standard for cardiovascular care coverage.' The updated coverage will become effective October 1, 2025 for patients with acute or stable chest pain and mild-to-moderate narrowing of coronary arteries (1-70% stenosis) found on coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA). Expanded access will allow for greater adoption of Heartflow Plaque Analysis for clinicians to incorporate into their diagnostic and patient management protocols, delivering more personalized treatment. Heartflow Plaque Analysis is the only FDA-cleared, AI-enabled, noninvasive plaque quantification tool with a reported 95% agreement with the gold standard, IVUS, in a prospective, global trial using blinded core lab adjudication.1 It is proven to change medical management in over half of patients beyond CCTA alone, helping physicians to improve outcomes.2 This coverage milestone follows the recent presentation of clinical outcomes from the DECIDE registry, which found management changes informed by Heartflow Plaque Analysis led to an average LDL cholesterol decrease of 18.7mg/dL.3 This clinically significant reduction is associated with an estimated 15% decrease in the risk of a cardiac event, highlighting the potential of Heartflow Plaque Analysis to improve patient outcomes by guiding more effective medical therapy and interventions.4 Heartflow is dedicated to transforming CAD from the leading cause of death to a disease that can be proactively managed for life. In the United States, CAD is estimated to be responsible for one heart attack every 40 seconds and one out of every five deaths.5 Heartflow has been adopted by more than 1,400 institutions globally and continues to strengthen its commercial presence to make this cutting-edge solution more widely available to an increasingly diverse patient population worldwide. About Heartflow, Inc. Heartflow is advancing coronary care by transforming coronary artery disease into a screenable, diagnosable, and manageable condition. Heartflow One is the only complete, non-invasive, precision coronary care platform providing patient insights throughout the guideline-directed CCTA pathway. The AI-driven platform — including Roadmap™ Analysis , FFR CT Analysis and Plaque Analysis — is supported by the ACC/AHA Chest Pain Guideline and backed by more than 600 peer-reviewed publications. Heartflow has helped clinicians manage over 400,000 patients worldwide. Discover how we're shaping the future of cardiovascular care at . Media Contact Elliot Levy [email protected]

HIV prevention drugs are effective, but many who need them are left out
HIV prevention drugs are effective, but many who need them are left out

Yahoo

timea day ago

  • Yahoo

HIV prevention drugs are effective, but many who need them are left out

Despite highly effective HIV prevention drugs on the market, only a fraction of those at risk in the U.S. are taking them — or even know they're an option. It's called pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, and it is about 99% effective to prevent HIV infection through sexual contact when taken as prescribed. But only about one-third of the 1.2 million Americans who could benefit from the medication are taking it, according to an estimate from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. LaTonia Wilkins told CBS News she never knew PrEP was for people like her, even after she had an HIV scare. "I was dating a guy, and while we were dating, he found out that he was living with HIV," she said, adding that no one talked to her about the medication when she went to get tested. "At the time, I never even heard of PrEP," she said. She didn't start taking it until years later. "I thought PrEP was for gay men or trans women. I didn't know I could take PrEP." Who's at risk for HIV? More than 30,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with HIV — the virus that causes AIDS — every year in the U.S., according to the CDC, and a total of about 1.2 million are living with the infection. And it is not just a problem for any single community — almost a quarter of those infected get it through intimate heterosexual contact, the health agency estimates. Dr. Céline Gounder, a CBS News medical contributor and editor-at-large for public health at KFF Health News, says those considered to be at risk for HIV and who may want to get on PrEP include: People who are having unprotected sex AND who have a partner who has HIV;OR who have multiple sexual partners who have not been tested for HIV;OR who have had an STD in the last six among HIV prevention CDC data also shows a stunning disparity among people considered at risk for HIV. While 94% of White people who doctors say could benefit from it are now on PrEP, less than 13% of Black people and 24% of Hispanic/Latino people who could benefit are receiving it, and less than 15% of women at risk are getting the drug. Dázon Dixon Diallo founded a women's health advocacy group in Atlanta some 40 years ago because she saw Black women were being left behind in the fight against HIV. "I started Sister Love out of anger. Out of anger and frustration that nothing was happening," she told CBS News. Dixon Diallo and her team also stressed the need to normalize conversations about sex and HIV. "We want to acknowledge that people have sex, and that just like anything else that we engage in, there are risks," she says. PrEP prices and accessibility issues The cost of the PrEP medication, clinic visit and lab tests averages more than $5,000 a year, Gounder says. This creates accessibility challenges for people like Wilkins. "If my insurance provider decides, I don't want to cover this anymore, I really don't know what I would do because PrEP costs more than my rent right now," she says. "I have a lot of anxiety about that." A federal appeals court case could also limit insurance for PrEP, with some employers arguing they shouldn't have to pay for drugs that "facilitate behaviors ... contrary to" the employer's "sincere religious beliefs." "This federal court case could end insurance coverage or not require employers to provide insurance coverage for this. You also have Gilead — that's a company that makes these combination pills for PrEP — they're looking to narrow their patient assistance program by the end of 2024. And then on top of that, you have congressional Republicans who have proposed really deep cuts to funding for the CDC's HIV prevention program," Gounder explained on "CBS Mornings." What shocked "Matlock" star Kathy Bates? A new you: The science of redesigning your personality "Somebody Somewhere" star Bridget Everett Solve the daily Crossword

Affordable Care Act Insurance Could Be 75% More Expensive Next Year
Affordable Care Act Insurance Could Be 75% More Expensive Next Year

Black America Web

time2 days ago

  • Black America Web

Affordable Care Act Insurance Could Be 75% More Expensive Next Year

Source: Fauzi Muda / Getty Americans insured under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are facing a substantial increase in their monthly premiums and out-of-pocket costs next year as a result of the spending bill President Trump signed into law earlier this month. According to NBC News, a study from health policy research group KFF found insurance companies are looking to raise premiums by an average of 15% in 2026 — the largest increase in five years. The findings come from an analysis of filings placed by over 100 insurers across 19 states. Further adding to the price increases is the fact that several ACA subsidies are set to expire at the end of the year. The subsidies were implemented during the pandemic to allow more people to receive affordable healthcare through the ACA. 2022's Inflation Reduction Act extended those subsidies through 2025, but Donald Trump's 'Big, Beautiful Bill,' which he signed into law earlier this month, doesn't continue them. As a result, four million people are expected to be priced out of coverage through the ACA. With fewer people paying for coverage, insurance companies are expected to raise costs to make up the difference. There's also growing concern that Trump will follow through on his threat to place tariffs on pharmaceuticals, which would only further increase healthcare costs. On top of increasing prices, the law adds more paperwork requirements for people looking to renew their existing plans, rather than the automatic renewal process currently in place. Furthermore, the open enrollment window has been shortened to only a month. Basically, the Republican party did everything in its power to wipe away all the healthcare gains the ACA provided over the last 15 years. Source: Djordje Krstic / Getty From NBC News: According to KFF's latest analysis, most ACA insurers are proposing premium increases of 10% to 20% for 2026. More than a quarter, the group said, are proposing premium increases of 20% or more. What people actually end up paying out of pocket for their monthly premiums could increase, on average, by more than 75%, Larry Levitt, the executive vice president for health policy at KFF, said on a call with reporters last week. A family of three earning $110,000 a year and enrolled in a silver ACA plan — which usually comes with moderate monthly premiums — could see their monthly cost jump from $779 this year to $1,446 in 2026 when the enhanced subsidies expire, according to KFF. If insurers raise premiums by 15%, the monthly bill could climb even higher, to $1,662. 'This is not a repeal [of the ACA], but it's certainly an attempt to move in that direction,' Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy, told NBC News. 'It'll be much more costly, so that means it'll be less affordable for you to purchase a plan or renew your coverage.' Ending the ACA has long been a desire for President Trump. Despite these changes potentially harming millions of Americans, including many of his own voters, Trump cares more about destroying the legacy of his predecessors than doing what's best for American citizens. While these moves aren't outright ending the ACA, they're more or less destroying the intent of the program. I mean, for God's sake, it's in the name. The Affordable Care Act is supposed to be affordable. American healthcare is already absurdly expensive, and instead of finding ways to alleviate that, Trump and the GOP have only made the problem worse. These changes will undoubtedly lead to worse healthcare outcomes and place undue financial strain on millions of Americans. Are we feeling great again, yet? SEE ALSO: Trump Still Wants to Repeal Obamacare Trump's Latest Obamacare Threat Puts Lives At Risk SEE ALSO Affordable Care Act Insurance Could Be 75% More Expensive Next Year was originally published on

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store