Latest news with #SouthCarolinians'
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
About 1,100 South Carolinians reported being victims of illegal health plan swapping last year
Director of Insurance Michael Wise testified in front of a House subcommittee on Tuesday, May 27, 2025, that cases where people's health insurance changed made up 22% of all fraud complaints last year. (Screenshot of SCETV legislative livestream) Insurance middlemen who switched South Carolinians' health care plans without telling them accounted for 22% of fraud cases reported to the state Department of Insurance last year, the agency director told legislators Tuesday. Of the 5,000 complaints of fraud reported throughout 2024, 1,100 came from people who signed up for insurance through the online marketplace — created by the Affordable Health Care Act also known as Obamacare — and said their health care plan was changed without permission. That's illegal, but the scam is relatively easy. All it takes is for a licensed broker to have the insured's name, date of birth and home state, said Michael Wise, director of the state Department of Insurance since 2023. The agent pockets the commission, while patients usually have no idea they've been had until they try to use their insurance card at a doctor's office or pharmacy, Wise told a House oversight panel. 'They might switch these policy orders a good many times. And so that has become a trend that we're looking out for,' he said, adding he's heard of plans being switched up to 16 times. It's a national problem, with agents often scamming people from multiple states. The Center for Medicare Services and Medicaid Services, the federal agency that oversees the online marketplace, received 73,884 complaints of unauthorized policy switching in the first six months of last year. That led to the agency announcing last July that it would no longer authorize changes from agents or brokers unless they were already associated with the person's enrollment. Any unassociated or new broker now has to do a three-way call with the customer and a federal call center. 'That has become a trend that we're looking out for. The federal government is too, and some things have been put in place to try to curb that,' Wise told the House subcommittee. In April 2024, KFF Health News reported that CMS emailed a plan to industry representatives to handle complaints from people who'd had their insurance switched. The scam became common enough to get its own acronym: UPS, for unauthorized plan switch. The slideshow says CMS found a 'large number of 2024 UPS cases' involving plans that were auto-renewed because the person was unaware. In South Carolina, cases are under investigation, but no one has been charged yet with a crime related to the scam, said Jason Spencer, a prosecutor for the Department of Insurance. He did not specify how many cases remain open. Spencer added that Florida seems to be a hotbed for agents doing this and he's in regular contact with that state's Department of Insurance. The scam involving health plans subsidized through the federal marketplace started popping up in 2022 and were initially sparse, Spencer told the SC Daily Gazette. By 2023, it had become a trend. Then in 2024, the complaints skyrocketed, he said, though he didn't have the exact numbers. 'It took a steep jump very quickly,' he said. Brokers typically make $20 to $25 for every person they enroll and can make that commission multiple times from the same person, according to KFF Health News. 'They could sign that same person up for another plan again, and that was how they were just continuing to churn commissions,' Spencer said. He explained that the scammer and victim often never talk to each other. A licensed broker can get information from the federal database. But sometimes the rogue agents will call their victims, claiming they're signing people up for a survey, saying they could win a potential prize, when they are actually gathering potential information to switch their insurance policies. 'They would be in contact with somebody that's advertising discount cards or gift cards — 'Oh, just sign up for this survey' — and they don't really pay attention to what they are signing up for,' Spencer said. 'The person who's actually supposed to be insured doesn't have any idea any of this is going on until they go to their doctor, and their doctor's like, 'Oh, well, where's your copay?'' Spencer said. Spencer's recommendation for avoiding the surprise: Read your mail, especially if it's from an insurance company. 'If you get something in the mail that looks like it's from some insurance company that you're like 'Oh, I don't have any business with them,' don't just assume it's junk mail and throw it away,' he said. 'Read that and make sure that you didn't accidentally get signed up for something.'
Yahoo
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
How South Carolinians feel about Trump nearly 100 days in, according to new poll
CHARLESTON, S.C. (WCBD) – South Carolinians are split on how President Donald Trump is handling his job as he nears the 100-day mark, according to a new poll. A Winthrop University poll released Monday found Trump's approval rating among the general population of South Carolina is 44 percent, while 45 percent of respondents said they disapprove of the president's job performance. Looking only at those who expressed any opinion at all, the approval rating for Trump's presidency so far jumps to nearly 50 percent. When broken down by party, however, a deeper divide emerges. Among those who self-identify as Republicans, 80 percent approve of Trump. As for self-identifying Democrats, 85 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the job. 'We are seeing increased polarization, certainly in South Carolina, as well as around the nation, and that, of course, is stark in opinions about many things related to the Trump presidency but certainly Trump himself,' said Dr. Scott Huffmon, the Winthrop Poll director. Still, the poll shows little change in South Carolinians' attitudes toward the president as his term has gone on. A February general population poll put Trump's approval rating at 45 percent among all respondents and 53 percent among those who gave an opinion. 'Their attitudes over the past couple of months have remained consistent because it's based entirely on Trump and his persona,' Huffmon posited. 'The people who voted for him generally didn't do a deep dive into the economic policies that he was putting forward. It was far more about culture, and he was a culture warrior for people like them, and that's the main reason they supported him, and the people who opposed him pretty much felt the exact opposite.' 'So the reason we see a continuity in attitude is those feelings haven't changed, and this flurry of policies that he's enacted over the 100 days, most of them haven't been felt by the average citizen,' he continued. Tuesday will mark the 100th day of Trump's second term, a benchmark typically used to measure the early progress of a new administration. Most national polling on Trump's first 100 days shows his approval rating hovering in the mid-to-low 40s – slighter higher than his first term but still lower than where previous presidents were at similar points. 'That's because we are so polarized,' Huffmon said. 'It's also because he was president before, so the grace period that a new president might get, he's really not having the chance to take advantage of that.' The weeks since Trump returned to office have been a whirlwind of activity to show Americans that his administration is relentlessly pursuing his promises. Trump's first 100 days: Steamrolling government, strong-arming allies and igniting trade wars Among those promises was Trump's pledge to root out what he called waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal government. That effort, led by billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, has become one of the most polarizing and consequential pieces of Trump's first months in the Oval Office. Musk said last week that he plans to take a step back from DOGE starting in May. His company, Tesla, has seen profits plunge since January, and its dealerships and charging stations have become targets for vandalism as people protest Musk's effort to slash government funding and drastically cut the size of the federal workforce. 35 percent of all respondents said they have a very positive or somewhat positive view of Musk, while 45 percent said they had a very or somewhat negative view. His favorability numbers among South Carolinians have dropped since February, a sign Huffmon said of Musk's increasing divisiveness. 'In February, a lot of people really weren't sure of why he was so involved with Trump, what he was going to do with the administration,' Huffmon noted. 'As that has become more clear, we've seen polarization increase, and the people that like it liking it more, the people that don't like it disliking it more.' That divide is illustrated through people's feelings toward DOGE, specifically. While nearly two-thirds of Republicans expressed positive feelings toward the initiative, more than half of Democrats said the opposite. But, more Democrats (13 percent) indicated they did not know well enough or were unsure of their opinion than Republicans (7 percent). 'DOGE still isn't clear, except among the strongest partisans, the people who are paying most attention to the news,' Huffmon said. 'But the average citizen, it's not real clear, and it won't be until it affects their lives directly that their opinions will begin to solidify.' The poll surveyed 1,546 adult residents of South Carolina online and by telephone, with a margin of error of plus or minus 2.49 percent. The results were weighted on sex, race, and age based on U.S. Census data. It offers a snapshot of where South Carolinians as a whole stand on a range of issues, from their attitudes on transgender issues to diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to illegal immigration. The results can be useful in understanding what all people in the Palmetto State care about, not just those who are consistent or likely voters, Huffmon argued. 'Just because South Carolina is ruby red in elections, that's really a reflection of who turns out in elections,' he said. 'When we take a look at what all residents of South Carolina, it's a lot more evenly split than we would realize just looking at the partisan politics that go on.' The Associated Press contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
The Guardian
02-04-2025
- Health
- The Guardian
US supreme court weighs restricting Medicaid payments to ‘defund' Planned Parenthood
In its first abortion-related case since Donald Trump retook control of the White House, the US supreme court will hear oral arguments on Wednesday morning in a case challenging South Carolina's attempt to effectively 'defund' Planned Parenthood because the reproductive health giant performs abortions. The case, Medina v Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, deals with a 2018 executive order from the South Carolina governor Henry McMaster that blocked clinics that provide abortions from receiving reimbursements via Medicaid, the US government's healthcare program for low-income people, despite the fact that those reimbursements don't actually cover abortions. 'Payment of taxpayer funds to abortion clinics, for any purpose, results in the subsidy of abortion and the denial of the right to life,' McMaster said at the time. However, federal law bans Medicaid from covering the vast majority of abortions, which only comprised about 4% of Planned Parenthood's activities in fiscal year 2022. Instead, people use Medicaid to cover Planned Parenthood's other services. In the same year, the organization performed nearly half a million Pap tests and breast exams as well as 4.6m STI tests and treatments. It also provided birth control services to more than 2.2 million people. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, a Planned Parenthood affiliate that operates two clinics in South Carolina, teamed up with a patient who sought birth control, Julie Edwards, to sue over McMaster's order. Lower courts have since kept the order from going into effect. If South Carolina wins, it could pave the way for other states to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs as well as devastate South Carolinians' ability to access reproductive healthcare and family planning services. Of the 2.4 million people treated at Planned Parenthood nationwide each year, nearly half are on Medicaid. About four in 10 women who have sought care at family-planning clinics say those clinics are their only recent source of healthcare. At the heart of the case is a federal provision that guarantees that people insured by Medicaid can freely choose their own providers as long as they accept the program and are qualified to provide care. The case hinges on a technical argument: South Carolina – which is being represented by the powerhouse Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom – says Medicaid beneficiaries have no right to sue if they believe that guarantee has been violated, in part because Congress never intended for beneficiaries to have that right. But that argument, legal experts warn, conceals the broader consequences of the case. If organizations like Planned Parenthood can't sue when they believe that a state is violating Medicaid, then it will become far more difficult to keep states from discriminating against certain kinds of care, said Nicole Huberfeld, a health law professor at Boston University's School of Public Health. 'Even though the state is trying to claim that it has sole authority to decide who's a qualified provider, this isn't really about whether Planned Parenthood is a qualified provider. It's about a political calculation on abortion,' Huberfeld said. 'Really, what's happening here is states making politically driven decisions about access to medical care.' More than 1 million people in South Carolina use Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program (Chip) – which is closely linked to Medicaid – for their insurance. Almost 40% of South Carolina counties are believed to be 'contraceptive deserts', where there are not enough providers to meet the needs of the people who live there. South Carolina bans abortion past six weeks of pregnancy. Because Texas terminated Planned Parenthood from its state Medicaid program in 2021, it offers a window into what happens when people lose access to Planned Parenthood. The termination affected the healthcare of some 8,000 Texans. 'Planned Parenthood, we heard again and again, was a medical home for people with very few options for providers,' said Anna Chatillon, a research scientist at Resound Research for Reproductive Health, who led a study that interviewed Texans about how the termination affected their lives. 'In several different interviews, we heard people talking about showing up for an appointment, finding out that they couldn't use Medicaid any longer, not having any idea where else to go, and experiencing real disruptions to their care based on that very quickly, but also serious emotional ramifications.' The case is part of a broader, longstanding anti-abortion campaign against Planned Parenthood, which includes an ongoing lawsuit that could bankrupt the organization over allegations that it defrauded Medicaid. On Tuesday, Planned Parenthood announced that the Trump administration – which is set to help South Carolina make its case in oral arguments – had notified nine of its affiliates that they would lose funding from Title X, the nation's oldest and largest family-planning program. Politico reported the funds were being withheld as punishment for the organization's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Trump wants to ‘defund' Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court will hear a case aimed at that.
In its first abortion case since President Donald Trump's reelection, the Supreme Court will hear arguments next week about whether states can bar Planned Parenthood from receiving Medicaid funds — which could further the administration's goal of 'defunding' the nation's largest family planning provider. Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic concerns an order from South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who in 2018 said any clinic that provided abortions could not participate in the state's Medicaid program. Lower courts have blocked McMaster's order from taking effect. But if implemented, the state policy could seriously undercut South Carolinians' access to reproductive health care and create a template for other states to emulate. Medicaid, the health insurance program for low-income Americans disproportionately serves Black and Latinx people. It does not cover abortions in most states, including in South Carolina, where just under 60 percent of beneficiaries are not White. Federal law dictates that people who receive Medicaid — more than a million in South Carolina, and about 400,000 of whom are women between the ages of 15 and 44 — are allowed to use it at any qualified health care provider that accepts the insurance plan. Cutting Planned Parenthood from Medicaid could have big impacts: Planned Parenthood clinics provide other forms of medical care, such as testing for sexually transmitted infections, cancer screenings and birth control services, all of which Medicaid is supposed to cover. Medicaid is the most common source of insurance for patients who seek health care at Planned Parenthood clinics. Without Medicaid reimbursement, the clinics — which operate with thin financial margins — would likely either have to turn patients away or charge them. The oral arguments — in which the federal government has joined the case as a friend of the court to argue alongside the state in defense of the policy — in this case come at a complex moment for the future of reproductive health care more broadly. Backed by anti-abortion activists, Trump has pushed an agenda of ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood, the vast majority of which comes from Medicaid. Abortion opponents have called this policy 'defunding,' even though it would not affect private money given to Planned Parenthood, and it would cut revenue sources that don't actually pay for abortion. Still, it could inject new financial instability for Planned Parenthood and other similar health centers. A report this week from The Wall Street Journal suggested that the Trump administration is considering freezing all funding to Title X, another federal program that supports family planning clinics services for low-income people. Planned Parenthood is the largest single Title X provider. With the exception of medical emergencies, health facilities aren't required to accept Medicaid, meaning that people covered through the program can struggle to find health care providers who take their insurance. Research from George Washington University suggests that almost 40 percent of all counties in South Carolina are 'contraceptive deserts' where there aren't enough providers to serve all people in need. But the impact would likely extend even beyond areas where reproductive health care is hard to attain, denying people in all parts of the country the right to choose who provides an intimate, essential form of health care, said Sara Rosenbaum, a professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University who co-authored a brief arguing that the Supreme Court should reject South Carolina's policy. 'I don't care if you're in rural South Carolina or downtown St. Louis, Missouri. There are certain services where if it's a good quality provider, and this is the provider you prefer, it's very important to be able to see a trusted provider,' she said. Public health professionals have warned that upholding South Carolina's policy could open the door to states discriminating against other qualified medical providers, deciding arbitrarily that patients cannot use their Medicaid coverage at certain health clinics. That could include refusing to let Medicaid cover a certain home care provider because of its stance on unionization, Rosenbaum suggested, or because of employees participating in protests. And it could influence other states with anti-abortion government leaders. Already, three other states — Arkansas, Missouri and Texas — are enforcing laws that disqualify Planned Parenthood from participating in Medicaid, even though abortion is illegal in two of those. 'If the Supreme Court decides that Medicaid recipients cannot fight back in court when the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services prevents them from freely choosing their health care provider, the effects could ripple far beyond South Carolina,' said Amy Friedrich-Karnik, director of federal policy for the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights but whose research is cited across the political spectrum. A 2015 analysis from the Congressional Budget Office estimated that eliminating all federal funding for Planned Parenthood would mean fewer Americans receiving family planning care — and more people having unplanned pregnancies — even if other health care providers tried to step in. The government analysis, conducted before the overturning of Roe v. Wade allowed states to ban abortion, found that eliminating federal funding would increase federal spending by $130 million over nine years. 'If you pull back Medicaid funding… then they become nonviable, which is the whole point,' Rosenbaum said. 'The public health effects of all this are horrendous.' The post Trump wants to 'defund' Planned Parenthood. The Supreme Court will hear a case aimed at that. appeared first on The 19th. News that represents you, in your inbox every weekday. Subscribe to our free, daily newsletter.
Yahoo
20-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
‘Outrageously false': Nominated SC health director defends COVID response over opponents' claims
Edward Simmer, the governor's choice to lead the state health agency, told the Senate Medical Affairs Committee that claims about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic were false on Thursday, March 20, 2025. (Screenshot of SCETV legislative livestream) COLUMBIA — The governor's pick to lead South Carolina's public health agency told senators Thursday that people have threatened him while making 'outrageously false allegations' about his response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Gov. Henry McMaster nominated Dr. Edward Simmer, the previous head of the Department of Health and Environmental Control, to run the state's newly created Department of Public Health. Simmer ran DHEC for three years before legislators split the agency into separate departments. Since being nominated as head of the 2,000-person health agency, which he leads on an interim basis, Simmer has been called an 'enemy of medical freedom,' a 'health czar,' 'not a real doctor' and 'evil,' he told the 17-person committee Thursday during a lengthy opening statement. The committee did not take a vote on whether to advance his confirmation. Complaints about Simmer have centered around the state's response to COVID-19. Opponents have claimed Simmer pushed shutdowns, even though he still lived in Virginia until December 2020, when he retired after three decades in the Navy. He didn't take the helm of DHEC until February 2021, nearly a year into the pandemic. Senators voted 40-1 to confirm him as the agency was rolling out vaccines. 'Dr. Edward Simmer's track record during the pandemic demonstrated a clear disregard for South Carolinians' values and freedoms, prioritizing mandates and divisive policies over individual rights,' Sen. Tom Fernandez, a Summerville Republican who sits on the committee, wrote on Facebook in a post Simmer specifically addressed Thursday. That was 'completely false,' Simmer said. Even if he had been in the state when the pandemic began in 2020, he wouldn't have recommended closing schools or businesses, he said. 'Let me be perfectly clear, so that everyone on this committee and every citizen of this state can hear it directly from me,' Simmer said. 'I have never prioritized any mandates, and I will continue to preserve and defend South Carolinians' freedoms and individual rights.' Simmer has received threatening letters, in which people have said they want to hurt him because he promoted vaccines they see as 'putting poison in people's arms,' he said. Someone crumpled up his license plate and placed 'a very crude attempt to make something look like a bomb,' composed of wires and a battery pack, under his car, in an apparent attempt to intimidate him, he said. 'No threats, no lies on social media, no smear campaign from cowards, many of whom hide behind anonymous letters and false social media identities, will ever deter me from continuing to serve the people of South Carolina to the very best of my ability,' Simmer told the committee. Whether to wear a mask or get vaccinated is a personal choice people should make alongside their doctor, Simmer said. Demonstrating that personal choice, he wore a mask long after most others in the state had stopped because doctors for his wife, Peggy, recommended it, he said. Peggy Simmer has medical conditions that put her at very high risk for getting COVID-19. The disease would likely be life-threatening for her if she contracted it, Edward Simmer said. People 'expressed outrage and have even mocked me for wearing a mask,' he told the committee. 'But believe me, I will wear a mask again without hesitation if that is what it takes to protect Peggy,' Simmer said. Looking back, Simmer said he did the best with the information he had. If he could do it differently, he would have recommended lighter restrictions. For instance, instead of recommending that schools require students and staff to wear masks indoors, he would suggest schools leave the decision up to students, he said. He lacked the authority to require anything himself. He issued guidance to the state Department of Education that schools require masks, but when McMaster ordered an immediate end in May 2021 to those requirements, he followed the governor's directive to create a parental opt-out form. His repeated, public recommendation three months later came as he asked the Legislature to repeal its ban on mask mandates. He also would have done more to explain why officials were making the decisions they did and what information drove them, he said. 'Indeed, my detractors often overlook that during the COVID-19 response, public health officials simply did not have all the information that we do today,' Simmer said. 'No one did.' Some of the vitriol directed toward Simmer could have been misplaced anger for Anthony Fauci's response to the pandemic, suggested Sen. Josh Kimbrell. As chief medical advisor to the president, Fauci recommended stay-at-home orders, mask mandates and social distancing in order to combat the spread of the virus. 'I think that was a heavy-handed response,' said Kimbrell, R-Boiling Springs. 'Do you believe that your confirmation, your renomination, is colored at least in part by how (Fauci) responded to the national emergency?' 'Unfortunately, it probably is,' Simmer replied, adding that he also disagreed with some of Fauci's decisions. Sen. Tom Corbin questioned Simmer's decision to encourage people to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Repeating debunked claims that the vaccine can alter a person's DNA, Corbin asked if Simmer felt it was responsible for the state health department to push it. 'It is my contention that it is wrong for this state to promote the vaccine as safe and effective when in my opinion it is not,' the Travelers Rest Republican said. Studies have shown this is not true, Simmer said. The vaccine has some rare side effects, so people should consult with a doctor before getting it, but in the vast majority of cases, studies show the vaccine is safe and effective, he said. 'I want to make DPH's public health role crystal clear,' Simmer said. 'We inform. You decide.' McMaster, who is a Republican, has repeatedly defended Simmer as his pick for the job. Before taking over DHEC, Simmer oversaw Tricare Health Plan, the military's massive health system for care outside military hospitals. Before that, he spent 12 years working in various positions as a naval doctor, McMaster said. DHEC had been without a permanent director for eight months when Simmer took over. He was also the first doctor in decades to lead the public health agency. 'He's enormously qualified. He's enormously talented,' McMaster said. 'I don't know why it is that people are criticizing him, because I don't think anybody can put a finger on something he's done that's either unethical or wrong.' The department's work goes far beyond the COVID-19 recommendations that have become a political flashpoint, Simmer said. As DHEC director, Simmer shepherded the agency through the split and a move to a new campus. The agency is building a 'state-of-the-art' laboratory, where researchers will test diseases, including screening newborns for potentially life-threatening but easily treatable genetic diseases, Simmer said. A look at the former utility campus that will be home to SC health agencies Last year, South Carolina ranked 37th in the country for health outcomes, a metric that looks at premature deaths, prevalence of diseases and access to medical care. That's not where the state should be, but it's a big improvement over the many decades in which the Palmetto State consistently ranked in the bottom 10 states, Simmer said. Leading the state Department of Public Health is Simmer's 'dream job,' he told reporters after the meeting. With the threats he has received, there have been days when he has asked himself whether he really wants to continue doing the work, but in every case, he decides that he does, he said. 'I truly believe in our mission,' Simmer said. 'I believe in the great work that we do. I have a wonderful team to work with, and every day I go to work, I can positively impact the lives of 5 million people.'
