‘That's a risk for me': Health system woes force a R.I. hospital to cancel routine women's care for hundreds of patients
These cancellations are part of a wider problem within Rhode Island's health care system, where a primary care shortage is
Get Rhode Island News Alerts
Sign up to get breaking news and interesting stories from Rhode Island in your inbox each weekday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Spurgas is one of at least 300 women with annual OB-GYN appointments scheduled at the Newport Women's Health Services at
Newport Hospital is owned and operated by the largest health care system in the state —
Advertisement
The exterior of Newport hospital where hundreds of women have had their OB/GYN appointments cancelled.
Suzanne Kreiter/Globe Staff
Brown Health spokeswoman Jessica Wharton told the Globe that Newport Women's Health Services was down to just two practitioners, and a new gynecologist wasn't expected to begin working until October.
'We made the difficult decision to temporarily reschedule annual OB-GYN wellness visits originally scheduled for July through September to ensure that we can continue to provide timely and essential care to those with urgent, complex, or high-risk medical needs, including pregnant patients and those with active or serious gynecological concerns,' Wharton said
in a statement.
Related
:
Spurgas said she was told that she would be placed on a waitlist in October. But she may seek out care sooner, by finding a new provider in Massachusetts.
'I was in shock. They wouldn't explain at all what was going on,' said Spurgas. 'They just kept saying that it was because of Rhode Island's health care crisis. It was very vague.'
Earlier this year, Brown Health's executives were considering closing down a dental center, halting major facility projects at Rhode Island Hospital, and discontinuing labor and delivery services at Newport Hospital in order to save money, according to an email sent by top Brown Health leaders to its managers in May that was obtained by the Globe.
Related
:
The budget problems are not unique to Rhode Island's hospitals, and could become more critical in the coming months. Healthcare providers throughout New England will be affected by impending cuts to Medicaid through the '
Advertisement
Many women who do not have an OB-GYN, or cannot afford one, seek reproductive care at Planned Parenthood clinics. But
Related
:
'Defunding is an attempt by lawmakers to make Planned Parenthood stop caring for patients and stop caring about reproductive freedom,' said Gretchen Raffa, chief policy and advocacy office of Planned Parenthood of Southern New England, during a virtual press conference on Monday. 'Make no mistake, this is a covert attack.'
At Newport Women's Health Services, visits for new and existing prenatal patients, as well as those with high-risk pregnancies or other medical concerns, are unaffected. Experts say those whose routine checkups were postponed should not be worried about the delayed appointments, but should make sure to reschedule them.
Advertisement
'Anyone who has an appointment for a Pap or HPV test that is cancelled should just be clear on what the follow-up plan might be, in terms of why it was taken off the books and if they should reschedule, either with their current provider or someone else,' said Fred Wyand, a senior advisor for the American Sexual Health Association/National Cervical Cancer Coalition.
Cervical cancer tends to develop over a number of years, and not all women need to be screened annually, he said. 'If you have a Pap scheduled for Tuesday and for whatever reason you can't receive it, you won't develop cancer on Wednesday, but you don't want to fall out of the system.'
'That's what can happen, we lose the consistency and the regular screenings, and that's really when it can become risky,' he added.
Alexa Gagosz can be reached at
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
3 hours ago
- The Hill
Memo pushes back on bill's impact to rural hospitals
A new memo shared first with The Hill argues the law 'contains unprecedented levels of federal assistance to rural and other vulnerable hospitals' through its five-year, $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program. The administration notes that Medicaid has historically invested very little in rural hospitals. According to figures from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), Medicaid spent just $19 billion on rural hospitals in 2024. The rural health fund will provide an additional $10 billion each year from 2026 through 2030. But it ends after 2030, with no phaseout period. The memo argues the fund is a 'flexible' source of investment because it's not tied directly to reimbursement for services. Indeed, as experts have noted, the fund will not make direct payments to rural hospitals. Instead, the money will go to states, which will need to first file detailed 'rural health transformation plans' and get approval from CMS Administrator Mehmet Oz. The law gives Oz broad discretion on what he can approve, and there is no specific requirement for states to direct funds to rural hospitals or CMS to approve only funding for rural districts. States also need to make funding decisions quickly, as the federal government can claw back unobligated money before the program ends. The new law cuts about $1 trillion from Medicaid, primarily through stringent work requirements as well as reductions to how states can fund their Medicaid programs through provider taxes and state-directed payments. Rural hospitals rely heavily on Medicaid funding because many of the patients they care for are low income. But the administration noted that rural hospitals only account for 7 percent of overall Medicaid spending. According to a KFF analysis, federal Medicaid spending in rural areas is estimated to decline by $155 billion over a decade because of the law.
The Hill
7 hours ago
- The Hill
Missouri AG sues Planned Parenthood for allegedly lying about dangers of abortion drugs
Missouri is suing Planned Parenthood for allegedly lying to patients about the risks of the abortion medication mifepristone. Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey (R) filed a lawsuit Wednesday in Jefferson City arguing that Planned Parenthood's claims that the abortion drug is safer than many other medications including penicillin and Tylenol are untrue and violate the state's consumer-protection law. Bailey claims that the nonprofit organization has lied about the safety of the drug to 'cut costs and boost revenue,' according to the lawsuit. The complaint also requests a court order to stop Planned Parenthood from 'continuing to promote the falsehoods,' in Missouri and for the organization to pay more than $1.8 million in civil penalties. The attorney general's office is also asking for the organization to be fined $1,000 in damages to every woman in the Show-Me State that has received abortion medication through one of is providers in the past five years. On top of this, it asks that the organization reimburse the state for Medicaid and other tax-payer-funded emergency care provided to people who suffered complications after taking mifepristone. 'We are going to hold these charlatans and death dealers accountable,' Bailey wrote in a post on social platform X about the suit. The crux of the lawsuit's argument comes down to a disagreement over how many people suffer adverse health effects after taking mifepristone. On the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) warning label for the drug, it states that between 2.9 percent and 4.6 percent of people who have taken it along with misoprostol report visiting an emergency room afterwards. There are two drugs typically needed for a medication abortion: mifepristone and misoprostol. Mifepristone stops the pregnancy from growing while misoprostol induces cramping and bleeding to empty the uterus. More than 100 scientific studies across decades have looked at the efficacy and safety of the pair and all of them have found the drugs safe for use, according to an analysis from The New York Times. Bailey's lawsuit claims that the FDA's label is inaccurate and that 'recent studies' suggest the complication rate is much higher. The lawsuit does not cite a specific study to back up its claim and a spokesperson for the attorney general's office did not answer questions from The Hill about what data was used to back up its claim. The lawsuit does echo findings outlined in a deeply flawed study published in April by the conservative think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center (EPPC) which states that after analyzing more than 865,000 prescribed mifepristone abortions, it determined that nearly 11 percent of women experienced a 'serious adverse event.' That's nearly 22 times higher than what the FDA reports. Bailey's lawsuit references a 'dataset' of more than 850,000 mifepristone abortions that identified 'serious adverse events' in more than 10 percent of women who took the drug. Medical researchers have criticized the EPPC study for its lack of transparency and for flaws in its methodology. One of the largest hiccups of the study is its inclusion of emergency room visits as one of the 'serious adverse events' that can happen after taking the abortion pill, health experts say. The EPPC study breaks down 'serious adverse events' into categories including hemorrhage, sepsis and emergency room visits. It looks as if emergency room visits were counted as adverse events even if health care workers determined the patient was healthy and released them without treatment. Some people might go to an emergency room after taking the abortion pill to confirm that they are no longer pregnant or to make sure that the bleeding they are experiencing is normal, two principal research scientists at the Guttmacher Institute noted in an op-ed last month. The lawsuit is the latest attack from conservative lawmakers on Planned Parenthood. Under the GOP's new tax and spending bill, the organization would lose its ability to receive Medicaid reimbursements for health services it provides for one year. The nonprofit sued the Trump administration over the provision and a federal judge granted the organization's request for a temporary injunction earlier this week.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
ACA health plan premiums could spike in 2026: report
This story was originally published on Healthcare Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Healthcare Dive newsletter. Dive Brief: Insurers offering Affordable Care Act marketplace plans are proposing the largest premium increases since 2018 amid significant policy uncertainty, according to a preliminary analysis by KFF and the Peterson Center on Healthcare. Across more than 100 marketplace insurers in 20 markets, payers are requesting a median premium increase of 15% for 2026, according to the report published Friday. In comparison, average premiums for marketplace plans have held relatively steady or risen slightly since 2018. Insurers say potential policy changes — like expiring financial assistance for people buying coverage on the exchanges and cost hikes linked to tariffs — are contributing to premium hikes. Dive Insight: Insurers submit rate filings to state regulators each spring and summer to justify their premium changes for the following plan year. Typically, medical costs are the biggest factor behind premium changes — but planning for 2026 also reflects significant policy changes on the horizon, according to KFF and Peterson. The latest analysis, which includes 105 insurers in 19 states and Washington, D.C., found that most payers are requesting premium increases of 10% to 20% for 2026. Additionally, more than one-quarter are proposing premium hikes of 20% or more. That's a divergence from recent years. In 2025, the average benchmark premium was $497, increasing about 4% from $477 the previous year, according to KFF. And so far, no insurers have proposed decreasing their premiums for 2026, while at least some have dropped rates in recent years. Policy uncertainty is changing insurers' premium calculus, according to the report. For example, enhanced premium tax credits — first enacted in 2021 to increase subsidies and eligibility for financial assistance — are set to lapse at the end of 2025, absent intervention from Congress. And if lawmakers don't extend the tax credits, premiums would spike for many ACA enrollees, pushing some to leave the exchanges entirely. Insurers expect those beneficiaries would likely be healthier on average, leaving behind sicker and more expensive enrollees, according to the report. Tariffs could also drive up the cost of drugs, medical equipment and other supplies, increasing costs for insurers. Some payers report the uncertainty surrounding tariff policy is driving rate increases about 3% higher than they would otherwise, according to the report. Some insurers also submitted proposed premiums before President Donald Trump signed a massive tax law with significant healthcare implications in early July. The law is expected to result in nearly 12 million more uninsured people by 2034, due to policies like Medicaid work requirements and other eligibility checks. Additionally, the CMS recently finalized a regulation that would shrink sign-up windows for ACA plans and increase eligibility verification. It's unclear how insurers will respond to these policies, according to the analysis. Finalized rate changes for 2026 are expected to be published in late summer. Recommended Reading Tariffs send healthcare industry into 'unchartered waters'
