Pritzker signs executive order to protect privacy of autistic residents
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy floated the idea of creating an autism database. This prompted immediate concern from many people.
'Their information should be theirs to share how they decide it should be shared,' said Holly Swearingian, manager of OSF Healthcare's Autism Pathways. 'So that was very concerning for a lot of our individuals and families is not knowing where their information might be going.'
Autism Pathways helps to provide support for people of all ages with an autism diagnosis, or for anyone pursuing a diagnosis.
'With the safeguard in place, we'll continue to educate families on their privacy rights and their rights to their health care information privacy,' said Swearingian. 'But also, the importance of pursuing some of those state-based resources or other local agency resources that exist to support them and to help their loved ones live fulfilling lives in whatever way they can.'
US Health department will analyze data from autistic Medicare, Medicaid enrollees, RFK Jr. says
In a statement, Pritzker followed up his order with his reasoning: to keep in place the privacy that autistic residents are owed.
'Every Illinoisan deserves dignity, privacy, and the freedom to live without fear of surveillance or discrimination,' Pritzker said. 'As Donald Trump and DOGE threaten these freedoms, we are taking steps to ensure that our state remains a leader in protecting the rights of individuals with autism and all people with disabilities.'
To learn about how to get involved with Autism Pathways, click here.
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 This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.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
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Ready to enroll in Medicare? Here's why you may want to wait on Social Security.
Sitting tight a little longer could work to your benefit. Many Americans get health insurance through their employers. So when they retire, they're forced to find another solution. And for a lot of older Americans, that solution is Medicare. Medicare eligibility typically begins at 65. You can actually enroll a few months ahead of your 65th birthday to ensure that you have coverage in place at that point. You may be aware that if you're old enough to get Medicare, it means you're also old enough to sign up for Social Security. But here's why you may want to wait on Social Security if you're signing up for Medicare at 65. You don't want to slash your monthly benefits Many people end up kicking off retirement with limited savings. If that's you, you may end up pretty reliant on Social Security to cover your expenses. And even if you have decent savings, your money could run out. So it's important to try to get as much Social Security as you can. To that end, you may not want to claim Social Security at 65 if you're signing up for Medicare at that point. If you were born in 1960 or later, your full retirement age for Social Security purposes is 67. Claiming benefits ahead of full retirement age will reduce them permanently, leaving you with less retirement income for life. The earliest you can file for Social Security is at age 62. In that case, you're looking at about a 30% reduction in your monthly checks compared to waiting until full retirement age. If you file for Social Security at 65 in conjunction with your Medicare enrollment, you're looking at a smaller reduction -- about 13.34%. But remember, that's a reduction you'll face every single month you collect Social Security. So you may be better off enrolling in Medicare at 65 but waiting at least a bit longer before filing for Social Security. You don't need Social Security to get Medicare One big misconception about Medicare is that you have to be enrolled in Social Security to get that health coverage. If you're getting Social Security, you'll have your monthly premiums for Medicare Part B paid directly out of your benefits. But that doesn't mean you must be on Social Security to get Medicare. If you're not collecting monthly benefits, all it means is that you'll have to pay your Medicare premiums another way. And you can set up automatic payments so you don't have to think about them. You may even want to claim Social Security past full retirement age Not only might 65 be premature to claim Social Security, but you should also know that delaying your filing beyond full retirement age could result in a huge reward. For each year you hold off on Social Security past that point, up until age 70, your benefits get an 8% boost. That boost is a permanent one. And the extra money could do you a world of good once you're no longer actively earning an income. All told, it's important to understand how Medicare and Social Security work together before signing up for either. But you should know that being on Social Security is not a requirement for Medicare enrollment. And if you're signing up for Medicare at 65, waiting on Social Security could mean setting yourself up for less financial stress throughout your retirement. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. The Motley Fool is a USA TODAY content partner offering financial news, analysis and commentary designed to help people take control of their financial lives. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY. The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook Offer from the Motley Fool: If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets"could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. One easy trick could pay you as much as $23,760 more... each year! Once you learn how to maximize your Social Security benefits, we think you could retire confidently with the peace of mind we're all after. JoinStock Advisorto learn more about these strategies. View the "Social Security secrets" »
NBC News
an hour ago
- NBC News
Medicare Part D premiums are likely to go up next year. Here's why.
Medicare enrollees who buy the optional Part D drug benefit may see substantial premium price hikes — potentially up to $50 a month — when they shop for next year's coverage. Such drug plans are used by millions of people who enroll in what is called original Medicare, the classic federal government program that began in 1965 and added a drug benefit only in 2006. The drug plans are offered through private insurers, and enrollees must pay monthly premiums. It's not known whether insurers will pursue the maximum increase allowed, as premium prices for next year won't be revealed until closer to open enrollment, which starts Oct. 15. Increases are expected to mainly affect stand-alone Part D plans, not the drug coverage offered as part of Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative to original Medicare. More on that later. Policy experts say premiums are likely to go up for several reasons, including increased use of some higher-cost prescription drugs; a law that capped out-of-pocket spending for enrollees; and changes in a program aimed at stabilizing price increases that the Trump administration has continued but made less generous. One thing is surer than ever, say many policy experts: Beneficiaries should not simply roll over their existing stand-alone Medicare drug plans. 'Everyone should shop plans in open enrollment,' said Stacie Dusetzina, a professor of health policy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Here are three reasons prices would rise. 1. It's the spending! Every year, insurers keep an eye on what they're spending on drugs so they can build that into their premium estimates. Spending covers both the prices charged by drugmakers and volume, meaning how many people take the medications and how often. And it's up. Spending by insurers and government programs for prescription drugs in 2024 across the market grew more than 10%, which is slightly greater than in recent years, according to a research report published last month in the American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy. Estimates are not yet available for this year's trends. Still, in 2024, researchers found that drug prices overall decreased slightly. Spending rose because of drugs coming on the market and increased utilization, especially for pricey weight loss drugs and another category of medications that treat various autoimmune conditions, such as rheumatoid arthritis. Such increased use is evident in Medicare. Many beneficiaries, for example, are treated for autoimmune conditions. And even though Medicare doesn't cover treatment for weight loss, many members have diabetes or other conditions that the new weight loss drugs can treat. The Trump administration, according to The Washington Post, is considering a five-year pilot program in which Medicare Part D plans could voluntarily expand access to the drugs, which can cost more than $1,000 a month without insurance. Details have not yet been provided, but the pilot program would not begin in Medicare until 2027. Another wild card for insurers is the Trump administration's tariffs on businesses that purchase products made overseas, which could boost drug prices because the U.S. imports a lot of its pharmaceuticals. Much, however, remains unknown about whether drugmakers will pass along any additional tariff costs to consumers. So, while rising spending is one factor, it isn't the only reason next year's premium prices are expected to go up. 2. New out-of-pocket caps for consumers Changes made to Medicare aimed at helping people with high out-of-pocket costs for expensive medications may be a bigger factor. Here's why: Starting this year, Medicare enrollees have a limit on how much they must pay out-of-pocket for prescription drugs. It's capped at $2,000, a threshold that will rise each year to cover inflation. Lawmakers in Congress set those changes in the Inflation Reduction Act under President Joe Biden. The law also shifted a larger share of the cost of drugs used by Medicare beneficiaries from the federal program to insurers. That $2,000 cap is a big change from previous years, when people taking expensive drugs had a higher threshold to meet annually and were on the hook to pay 5% of the drug's cost even after meeting that amount. Those additional 5% payments ended last year under the provisions of the IRA. Before that law passed, 'people would spend $10,000 or $15,000 out-of-pocket each year just for a single drug,' Dusetzina said. 'The Inflation Reduction Act was necessary to make Part D proper health insurance, but there's a cost to do so.' While the cap is a big help for affected consumers, the reduced amounts paid by some beneficiaries — coupled with the cost shift to insurers — could lead plans to spread their increased expenses across all policyholders through higher premiums. A growing number of health plans have also begun to require enrollees to pay a percentage of a drug's cost, rather than a flat-dollar copay, which can lead to larger-than-expected costs at the pharmacy counter, Dusetzina said. While consumers not currently taking high-cost specialty drugs may not see a benefit in the $2,000 cap initially, they might one day, say policy experts, who note that drugmaker prices continue to rise and that enrollees could fall ill with a condition like cancer or multiple sclerosis for which they need a very high-priced drug. 'It's important to think not just in context of those groups who hit the cap every year, but also people are paying more in premiums to protect their future selves as well,' said Casey Schwarz, the senior counsel for education and federal policy at the Medicare Rights Center, an advocacy group. The new prescription drug cap and other changes apply to both the stand-alone Part D drug plans and Medicare Advantage plans. But those Medicare Advantage plans are not expected to increase the drug portion of their premiums, partly because the private sector plans are paid more per member than what it costs taxpayers for the traditional program. That means Advantage plans have far more money to add benefits, such as vision and dental coverage, which traditional Medicare does not include, or to use them to cushion the impact of rising spending on drug costs, thus limiting premium increases. Those additional benefits are advertised to attract customers to Medicare Advantage, which also sometimes offers plans with minimal or no monthly premium costs. There are other differences between traditional Medicare and private sector plans. For example, Advantage members must stick to doctors and hospitals in the plan's networks, and they may face more prior authorization or other hurdles than in the traditional program. The growing difference between premiums — fueled by the extra rebates flowing to the private sector plans — 'is increasingly tilting coverage toward Medicare Advantage and making traditional Medicare plus a stand-alone PDP [prescription drug plan] unaffordable for many enrollees,' said Juliette Cubanski, deputy director of the program on Medicare policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News. 3. Trump administration reduced funding meant to slow premium growth The final factor in the premium increase equation is a program set up to slow the rise of premiums in stand-alone Part D plans. It began under the Biden administration to offset premium increases tied to changes in the Inflation Reduction Act by temporarily injecting additional federal dollars to help insurers adjust to the new rules. That plan sent just over $6 billion this year to Part D insurers. And it had an effect. The average monthly premium for a stand-alone Part D drug plan dropped 9%, from $43 last year to $39 this year, according to KFF, even when factoring in that some plans raised prices by up to $35 a month, the maximum increase allowed under the stabilization plan for this year. In a memo released in late July, the Trump administration said it would continue the program for next year, while shaving about 40% of the funding. A government official told The Wall Street Journal that the administration felt that keeping the full funding would have mainly benefited the insurers and cost taxpayers an 'enormous, excess amount.' The stabilization effort next year will send $10 a month per enrollee to Part D insurers to help keep premiums in check, down from $15 this year. Among other changes, it allows insurers to raise premiums by as much as $50 a month, up from the $35 allowed this year. That would be a substantial increase, Cubanski noted, although it is not clear just how many insurers would pursue the full amount. 'We did see some plans this year were taking premium increases of that $35 amount in 2025, and I fully expect we will see some plans with increases up to $50 a month' next year, she said. Another reason to take a close look at all the options once open enrollment begins.
Indianapolis Star
12 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
Texas AG sues Eli Lilly for allegedly bribing medical providers to prescribe Lilly drugs
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is suing Eli Lilly, alleging the Indianapolis pharmaceutical company offered kickbacks to medical providers in exchange for prescribing more than a dozen of the company's drugs, including blockbuster GLP-1 weight loss drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound. Eli Lilly offered illegal incentives to Texas medical providers, including a "free nurse" program and reimbursement support services, to steer providers to provide the company's drugs, Paxton alleges in a lawsuit filed August 11 in a Texas district court. Lilly, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies, denied the allegations in an August 12 statement to IndyStar. The Lilly programs mentioned in the suit offered free trainings for nurses and medical providers, which helped Lilly market their drugs when they launched, the suit says. According to Paxton's office, many Texas residents prescribed these drugs were on state Medicaid, so these actions violated the Texas Health Care Program Fraud Prevention Act. 'Big Pharma compromised medical decision-making by engaging in an illegal kickback scheme,' Paxton said in a news release. 'Eli Lilly fraudulently sought to maximize profits at taxpayer expense and put corporate greed over people's health. I will not stand by while corporations unlawfully manipulate our healthcare system to line their own pockets.' A spokesperson for Eli Lilly said the company denies the allegations and plans to defend against them in court. It's not the first time Paxton has taken a stab at Lilly in the courts. In October, Paxton sued insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers, including Lilly, Express Scripts and CVS, for allegedly concocting a conspiracy to increase insulin prices. Health Choice Alliance LLC, a New Jersey based company, joined Texas as a plaintiff. Health Choice has sued Lilly in the past, alleging the company engages in kickbacks. 'Multiple courts and the federal government have rejected claims by this same corporate relator against Lilly as meritless," a Lilly spokesperson said in a statement. "In fact, the United States government determined that 'the relators' allegations lack sufficient factual and legal support' in a prior case, explaining that 'federal healthcare programs have a strong interest in ensuring that, after a physician has appropriately prescribed a medication, patients have access to basic product support relating to their medication.' We intend to vigorously defend against these allegations.' At the heart of the Texas lawsuit is a class of drugs named GLP-1s prescribed for diabetes and weight loss. Named for the gut hormone receptor the drug targets, injectable GLP-1s have exploded in popularity since Zepbound hit the market in late 2023. Weight loss drugs: Eli Lilly closer to breakthrough weight loss drug; shares tumble as some question results The kickback lawsuit against Lilly is one way Paxton is protecting Texas patients "from corporate schemes that undermine the integrity of the healthcare system," according to his office.
