People feeling sticker shock over high ambulance fees
People are feeling the pain of sticker shock over large ambulance bills.
Kathleen Knotek lives in Whitehall with her cat, which inadvertently caused an expensive fall.
"I just sat down on the floor and called the ambulance service, and unfortunately, it wasn't the same group that usually comes here," Knotek said.
She pays a subscription to Medical Rescue Team South Authority, but Baldwin EMS answered her 911 call that day.
"When they came in, they asked me a bunch of questions about what happened, took my blood pressure," Knotek said.
She did not need to race off to the hospital, and first responders got her back on her feet after evaluating her. But the $891 bill shocked her. Her niece, Martha Brahm, called Baldwin EMS and negotiated a discount. Since Knotek pays a yearly subscription to a neighboring ambulance service, Baldwin EMS agreed to honor that.
"Since the insurance didn't pay anything, then they said the charge would be 50 percent of the $891, so $445," Brahm said.
KDKA Investigates learned that in Pennsylvania, the average ambulance ride costs $1,442 for basic life support and $1,580 for advanced life support. Some charge a flat $200 fee for what are called "lifts," but not all do that.
Baldwin EMS Chief Todd Plunkett said, despite his $6.5 million budget, he is still $400,000 to $500,000 in the red every year.
"Usually, the insurance companies do not pay us the full amount for the care and the transportation to the hospital," the chief said. "On a $1,000 bill, we might get $300. We might get $200."
He said insurance companies Monday-morning quarterback every call after the fact.
"No other business or profession would come to your home, come to your place of business, provide a service expecting no pay at the end or partial pay or percentage pay without some type of agreement," Plunkett said.
Because there's no blanket agreement in the industry, every ambulance company is trying different things to stay afloat.
"A lot of the charges vary from community to community, and it's not very transparent," said Patricia Kelmar, senior director of healthcare campaigns for Public Interest Research Group.
Kelmar said people are now protected from surprise medical bills thanks to Congress' No Surprises Act, but no one is protected from surprise ambulance bills. She said the issue came up, but Congress chose not to include those protections for now, and instead created a committee to look deeper into it.
"The committee was appointed, and I served as the consumer patient representative on the committee," Kelmar said. "We put together recommendations that were sent to Congress in September of 2024, and we have yet to see action by Congress."
For Kelmar, until Pennsylvania can come up with a consistent pricing system, she suggests reading the language closely before paying for a subscription to any local ambulance fleet.
"It's a buyer-beware situation," Kelmar said. "We don't really recommend them because they are so minimally useful."
However, she said subscriptions could help some people looking for regular transportation back and forth to somewhere other than a hospital, like a nursing home.
Chief Plukett said his ambulance company cannot provide those types of rides, but does cover 100 percent of the bills for subscription members.
"If you're a subscriber, you're a subscriber," he said. "Our subscription rates sometimes go up to $95, $105 a year. You divide that over 12 months, I think that's a fair amount."
Knotek fears her sticker shock could cause her to hesitate next time she needs help.
"That's kind of asking a lot from a senior citizen on a fixed income," Knotek said.
"This is a public health emergency," Kelmar said. "People are making unwise medical decisions because of the cost."
Kelmar says the good news is that there are laws on the books in other states, so Pennsylvania could look at the best laws and implement those.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 hours ago
- Yahoo
Advocates optimistic that Congress could renew downwinder compensation in budget bill
One year to the day since federal lawmakers let compensation for downwinders expire, advocates say they feel more optimistic than they have in months about getting an expansion of the program through Congress. Although a majority of senators voted to renew and expand the program last year, the bill was never considered in the House of Representatives. But some now see President Donald Trump's 'big, beautiful' budget bill as a potential vehicle and are urging lawmakers to include compensation in the Senate version of the bill. 'As we know, fallout knows no boundaries,' said Steve Erickson, a longtime volunteer with Downwinders Inc, during a press conference outside the Wallace F. Bennett Federal Building Tuesday. 'There's plenty of evidence — it's overwhelming, in fact — that hundreds of thousands of cancers were caused by atomic fallout, and so it's time that — past time now for some years — that RECA be expanded to cover far more of those who suffered from those unwitting exposures.' Erickson was referring to the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act of 1990, which provided some restitution to people with illnesses linked to exposure to nuclear fallout from tests conducted by the U.S. government at the Nevada Test Site and others. Downwinders from 10 counties in southern Utah were covered under the act, along with people who lived in northern Arizona and Nevada at the time of the tests. The act was renewed for two years in 2022, but advocates have sought to have the pool of eligible applicants be expanded to cover downwinders across several Western states – including all of Utah — and miners exposed to uranium in Missouri. Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, sponsored the Senate expansion bill last year and is said to be working on reintroducing some version of the legislation as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Utah downwinders say they've been in touch with Hawley's office and that the senator is optimistic about the progress being made behind the scenes. They praised Utah's congressional delegation for working toward a solution — Sen. Mike Lee and Rep. Celeste Maloy in particular, who sponsored a two-year extension of the program last year — but urged Utah's elected officials to support something similar to the expanded bill Hawley pushed last year. Lee gave a statement to advocates, saying, 'I am proud to work toward RECA reauthorization and to ensure that the Americans who rely upon it continue to receive the care they need.' The first nuclear test was conducted 80 years ago next month, and downwinders are urging Congress to act quickly to preserve compensation for aging Americans who are suffering from illnesses likely caused by exposure to radiation. They say the federal government has a responsibility to help those who were exposed to radiation from tests without knowledge of the long-term effects. 'I've watched families, friends, colleagues and neighbors suffer from the consequences of the decisions that were made. Those people had no say in any of those decisions,' Claudia Peterson, a downwinder from St. George, said in a statement. 'Tomorrow, I will be sitting at the bedside of my childhood friend as she goes through another surgery related to another cancer, and she is scared to death. There are no words to say what it takes to watch the heartache, to paint a true picture of watching a loved one suffer.' 'And the legacy is what has been left by decisions made by our government,' she added. A bipartisan group of 41 state lawmakers wrote to Congress urging the extension and expansion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act in April, but Erickson said he hasn't heard a response from Washington. Although the program has expired, the Justice Department has continued to process claims that were submitted prior to its sunset, but those are dwindling, and the program will soon be shuttered. 'Those few claims that are left are still being settled, and when they are done, the program is done, the doors will close, and it will shut down,' Erickson said. 'It'll be harder and more expensive to restart the Justice Department compensation program under RECA if it isn't renewed soon, so it's imperative that Congress act now.'
Miami Herald
8 hours ago
- Miami Herald
24 million Americans hit by harsh health insurance reality
The Affordable Care Act's (ACA) Marketplace has quietly become one of the federal government's biggest success stories, providing health insurance to more than 24 million Americans in 2025 – a doubling since 2021. But that success now stands on a knife's edge. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter Unless Congress acts, enhanced premium tax credits that helped fuel this growth will expire at year-end. The result? Higher premiums, fewer enrollees, and more uninsured Americans, especially among older, near-retirement millions, expanding advanced premium tax credits (APTCs) in 2021 was a game-changer. By lowering out-of-pocket premiums through subsidies tied to income, the ACA became accessible to people who previously found it unaffordable. The Inflation Reduction Act extended these credits, but only temporarily. Related: Social Security income tax cuts may include a huge new deduction for retirees Under current rules, these credits are available to individuals and families earning up to 400% of the Federal Poverty Level (roughly $58,320 for an individual or $120,000 for a family of four in 2025). However, absent Congressional reauthorization, the clock runs out this December. The numbers are stark. A new analysis from the Commonwealth Fund projects that 4 million people will lose coverage outright if the enhanced tax credits vanish. Other proposed changes to marketplaces could further harm enrollment: an additional 4 million people could lose coverage by 2034 if the House-passed budget bill (H.R. 1) is enacted. In Texas, over 1 million could become uninsured, with premiums up by $400+ California, 174,000 could lose coverage, facing $700+ West Virginia, nearly every Marketplace enrollee -- 98% -- would see increases, with 16,000 losing coverage. Older adults not yet eligible for Medicare are particularly vulnerable. Consider these examples from KFF: A 40-year-old individual could see $1,000 more per year for the same coverage.A 60-year-old married couple could be looking at $20,000+ increases, depending on the state. As Jae Oh, CFP, author of Maximize Your Medicare, explains: "Twenty thousand dollars does not matter what your net worth is. That's a heck of a lot of money." Oh emphasizes that individuals must now start budgeting for higher premiums, even if policy outcomes remain uncertain. "Some people just stick with the same plan out of habit," he notes, "but not at every price point. That needs to change." Related: Medicare recipients face a growing problem Among his key recommendations: Re-evaluate plan tiering: "If you're in a gold plan, look at their silver plan. If you're in a silver, look at a bronze plan." Review COBRA carefully: While often seen as too costly, COBRA could become a better value if premium tax credits disappear. It offers continuity of care, retention of deductibles already met, and coverage for dependents, including adult children. "If your cost advantage dissipates, maybe COBRA was best all along." Control income to manage subsidy eligibility: Strategies like Roth conversions, Roth contributions, and deferring income could help lower modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) and retain eligibility for reduced premiums. "Anything to defray or to try to limit your modified adjust gross income next year may be very valuable." Plan around uncertainty: "We do not know at all what 2026 individual health insurance plans under the ACA look like. We will not know that until the very, very late fall this year." On the broader economic context, Oh adds: "That white-collar recession -- anything that looks or sounds or feels like it -- is real. People are on the bench, if you will, looking for employment." And for those relying on the ACA to maintain coverage between jobs: "This is that instance when the headlines will affect every aspect for those types of people… meaning that people who have accessed the APTC can be affected going into next year." Michael Gusmano, professor of health policy at Lehigh University, puts the risk into stark terms: "The Commonwealth Fund's analysis is depressing, but accurate and important. The temporary increase in subsidies that were adopted after the 2020 election had no chance of surviving if President Trump won re-election-and may have been difficult to extend even with Biden or Harris in the White House. Getting an extension of these subsidies through Congress would have been a challenge regardless of who is president." More personal finance: Social Security student loan garnishment sparks alarmThe most tax-friendly states for your retirement incomeSALT income tax deduction takes critical step forward He continues: "Beyond the expiration of the subsidies and loss of insurance through the ACA -- and the millions who lost insurance coverage during Medicaid's 'great unwinding' following the end of the public health emergency -- the budget bill that was adopted by the U.S. House and is currently being debated in the U.S. Senate would increase the number of uninsured by several million more. Together, these policy changes would substantially erode health insurance coverage in the U.S. and move us in the direction of the situation in the U.S. before the full implementation of the ACA in 2014." The likely fallout? "This will increase premature death, deteriorate public health, increase avoidable hospitalizations, and place enormous strain on the health care safety-net-including many rural hospitals that are already on the brink of disaster." Anne Montgomery, a health systems researcher focused on older adults, underscores the policy's real-world harm: "Not surprising to see the largest states would get hammered by these provisions. They are very harmful to individuals who won't find it possible to buy private health insurance and who might, but for the massive Medicaid reductions in funding, wind up in Medicaid." "Millions will be stranded," she said. "Dual eligibles will struggle to access Medicare if they fall through the cracks and don't get Medicaid supplemental coverage help." "Then there is the fact that the health care system doesn't operate for free -- there are operations, services and wages to be paid," Montgomery noted." And there is no magic way that states have to replace the lost revenue, so many providers will stagger and increasingly fail." Related: Medicare Advantage plans come under fire from DOGE The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Yahoo
Most oppose GOP policy bill: Survey
More than half of voters oppose the domestic policy bill that President Trump has pushed Republicans in Congress to pass by July 4, according to a poll released Wednesday. Quinnipiac University's national survey found less than a third of registered voters surveyed support Trump's agenda-setting One Big Beautiful Bill Act, while 53 percent oppose the legislation. Twenty percent have no opinion on the megabill. The bill was overwhelmingly opposed by Democrats (89 percent) and independents (57 percent), while two-thirds of Republicans said they support the bill. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act includes major cost-cutting reforms to Medicaid that experts say will lead to millions of people losing coverage by 2034. It would force states to implement new work requirements for Medicaid recipients, but supporters of the bill say that will mostly affect people who entered the U.S. illegally and 'able-bodied' adults who should be working. The Quinnipiac poll found overwhelming support for Medicaid, though, as 87 percent of respondents said they oppose cuts to the health care program. Just 10 percent said federal Medicaid spending should be cut, while 47 percent said funding should be increased and 40 percent said it should stay the same. 'With Medicaid's future as a health care safety net for millions suddenly uncertain, voters make it clear they want the 60-year-old program for those in need to be handled with care,' Quinnipiac polling analyst Tim Malloy said. Twenty-one percent of Republicans surveyed said they think federal funding for Medicaid should increase, 56 percent said it should stay about the same, and 18 percent said it should be cut. Nearly 70 percent of Democrats and 47 percent of independents surveyed think federal funding for Medicaid should increase, while 2 percent of Democrats and 11 percent of independents think it should decrease. The Big Beautiful Bill ACT narrowly passed the House last month and is under review in the Senate, where some Republicans have argued that it doesn't cut federal spending enough. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
