The chairman of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee has called on the largest health care system in Memphis, Tennessee, to explain its debt collection, charity care and billing practices after an investigation by MLK50 and ProPublica found that it was aggressively suing poor patients, including its own employees.
In a letter sent last week, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, who has been a leading critic of nonprofit hospitals that misuse their tax-exempt status, asked Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare how it intended to carry out promised reforms of its financial assistance system.
Tax-exempt hospitals are required by the IRS to provide charity care to patients who cannot afford their hospital bills and to avoid what's called "extraordinary collection actions," such as suing a patient or seeking to garnish a patient's wages.
"Unfortunately, I have seen a variety of news reports lately discussing what appear to be relentless debt-collection efforts by various tax-exempt hospitals, including Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare," Grassley wrote in the Dec. 3 letter.
"These efforts raise questions about how Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare, and other tax-exempt hospitals, are complying" with requirements by the IRS to fulfill charitable obligations.
In June, MLK50 and ProPublica reported that Methodist, a religious nonprofit, sued more than 8,300 patients in five years, many of whom are low-income and could not afford their doctors bills. After winning a judgment, Methodist would then seek to seize part of the defendant's paycheck, even when the defendant made very little money and even when the defendant was one of its employees.
A Methodist spokesperson said the hospital had received the letter and "will work with Sen. Charles Grassley to address his concerns."
In response to the MLK50-ProPublica articles, Methodist dropped hundreds of lawsuits against patients and has not filed additional lawsuits for unpaid hospital bills. It reduced the bills for about 2,200 patients and erased the balance owed for more than 5,100 patients who had judgments against them.
In addition, Methodist expanded the threshold for financial assistance to uninsured patients whose household incomes fall below 250% of the federal poverty guidelines, up from 125% previously. The new threshold equates to just over $64,300 for a family of four. The hospital also will not pursue legal action against any patient in households that earn less than 250% of the federal poverty guidelines, regardless of their insurance status.
Grassley acknowledged the change in his letter, but asked questions about how it would be implemented.
"How will Methodist Le Bonheur Healthcare's new financial assistance policy better serve low-income patients compared to its old policy beyond including more people in it?"
Grassley's letter at one point mischaracterized the findings of the MLK50-ProPublica stories as saying Methodist "does not offer free or highly discounted care." Methodist does offer discounts for uninsured patients, but not for insured ones. (A spokesman for Grassley did not have an immediate comment on that point.)
Grassley's nine-page letter to Methodist is similar to a 2015 letter he sent to Heartland Regional Medical Center, a nonprofit hospital in Missouri that was the subject of a 2014 ProPublica-NPR investigation into its debt collection practices.
"The practices appear to be extremely punitive and unfair to both low income patients and taxpayers who subsidize charitable hospitals' tax breaks," he wrote to Heartland, which had been rebranded as Mosaic. Afterward, Mosaic implemented a three-month debt forgiveness program during which more than 5,000 applications for financial assistance were approved and more than $16 million in debt, legal fees and interest was forgiven.
The MLH Associate Advancement Program is intended to help its employees "create greater economic security for themselves and their families so more Memphians can truly escape the cycle of poverty," the hospital said in a press release.
Methodist will cover the costs for employees to enroll in a specialized course at the University of Memphis to become a certified nursing assistant or surgical technologist. The median annual pay for certified nursing assistants is around $27,000 and for surgical technologists is $47,300.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
The medical center's transplant director instructed staff to keep a vegetative patient alive, and not to discuss options such as hospice care with his family, until the one-year anniversary of his surgery.
This story was first published by ProPublica on November 29, 2019.
The FBI is investigating the organ transplant program at Newark Beth Israel Medical Center, according to people contacted by the bureau.
The bureau is looking into whether the program, which kept a vegetative patient on life support for the sake of boosting its survival rate, attempted to defraud federal insurers Medicare and Medicaid, said one person familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. FBI spokeswoman Patty Hartman said that the agency could neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation.
Andrea Young, the sister of the Newark Beth Israel patient at the center of the case, said that the bureau is seeking to interview her. ProPublica reported in October that Newark Beth Israel's transplant director, Dr. Mark Zucker, instructed his staff to keep Darryl Young alive, and not to discuss options such as hospice care with his family, until the one-year anniversary of his surgery. Federal regulators relied on the one-year survival rate to evaluate—and sometimes penalize—transplant programs.
Young, who is covered by Medicare and Medicaid, suffered brain damage during heart transplant surgery in September 2018 and never woke up. He remains hospitalized at Newark Beth Israel. The bureau launched its investigation within days after the article was published.
Besides the FBI, the New Jersey State Board of Medical Examiners has also started an investigation. The board, which oversees physician licensing, declined to comment on which doctors it is looking at. Andrea Young said that a board investigator interviewed her. Also investigating are the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the New Jersey Department of Health.
Linda Kamateh, a spokeswoman for the hospital, did not respond to questions about the FBI or state board probes. "Newark Beth Israel Medical Center is fully cooperating with all regulatory agencies and investigative bodies," she said in an email. The hospital "bills the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services in accordance with approved billing guidelines," she added. Newark Beth Israel has hired a private law firm and a consultant to conduct an internal review of its transplant program, and it has placed Zucker on leave.
Newark Beth Israel's heart transplant program is one of the top 20 in the country by volume, and it has performed 1,096 heart transplants over the past three decades, according to the hospital. It also has a lung transplant program.
The hospital typically only bills insurers when the patient is released. Young was discharged twice and moved to long-term care facilities, but he returned to the hospital in early 2019 after developing infections. Even if Newark Beth Israel hasn't yet billed the government insurance programs for Young's care, the FBI could be considering a number of potential criminal charges related to defrauding Medicare and Medicaid, said Michael Elliott, a defense lawyer in Dallas who was previously the lead attorney for the federal government's Medicare Fraud Strike Force in North Texas.
ProPublica reported that the transplant team appeared to tailor medical decisions for at least three other patients because of concerns about its survival rate. The FBI is likely looking for other instances similar to the Young scenario in which federal insurance was already billed, Elliott said, adding that the investigation could take months or even years.
"If medical records were being falsified to keep him on a service, each false statement is a criminal charge," Elliott said. Audio recordings published by ProPublica, in which doctors discussed the need to keep Young alive for the sake of survival statistics, could be evidence of "some kind of conspiracy to commit health care fraud, because they would be charging Medicare for his care, and there appears to be some agreement among the people who are taped," he said.
ProPublica's investigation found that Newark Beth Israel's transplant team was worried about the possibility of being disciplined by CMS, after six out of 38 patients who received heart transplants in 2018 died before their one-year anniversary. That translated into an 84.2% one-year survival rate, considerably worse than the 91.5% national probability of surviving a year for heart transplant patients, according to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which tracks and analyzes outcomes for the government.
The transplant program has touted a higher success rate. In a July 29 letter to New Jersey cardiologists, Zucker and Dr. Margarita Camacho, a heart surgeon, wrote, "Outcomes remain excellent at 98% survival rate for the past 48 transplants."
In an email, Kamateh said the rate was based on transplants from May 2018 to May 2019. She did not respond to questions about how the 98% rate was calculated and how long patients had to live after their operation to qualify as survivors. The rate does not match up with any official statistics.
ProPublica is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative newsroom. Sign up for The Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox.
The Trump administration redesigned the online Medicare Cost Finder for seniors to compare complex health insurance options. But consumer advocates have identified instances when the tool has malfunctioned and given inaccurate plan and price data.
This article was first published on Monday, November 25, 2019 in ProPublica.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they're published.
The federal government recently redesigned a digital tool that helps seniors navigate complicated Medicare choices, but consumer advocates say it's malfunctioning with alarming frequency, offering inaccurate cost estimates and creating chaos in some states during the open enrollment period.
Diane Omdahl, a Medicare consultant in Wisconsin, said she used the tool Friday to research three prescription drug plans for a client. The comparison page, which summarizes total costs, showed all but one of her client's medications would be covered. When Omdahl clicked on "plan details" to find out which medicine was left out, the plan finder then said all of them were covered.
So she started checking the plans' websites, and it turns out there are two versions of the same high blood pressure medication. One is covered. The other is not. The difference in price: $2,700 a month.
In Nebraska, miscalculations offered through the new Medicare Plan Finder were so worrisome that the state in late October temporarily shut down a network of about 350 volunteer Medicare advisers for a day because without the tool, narrowing the numerous choices — more than 4,000 Medicare plans are available nationwide — down to three top selections would be nearly impossible.
Days later, EnvisionRxPlus, a prescription drug plan, sent an email to independent insurance brokers nationwide recommending they not use the Medicare Plan Finder because of incorrect estimates on drug prices and patient deductibles. (It's a warning they had yet to retract some two weeks later.)
Minnesota's Association of Area Agencies on Aging said in a news release on Nov. 14 that the Medicare Plan Finder "continues to produce flawed results," including inaccurate premium estimates, incorrect prescription drug costs and inaccurate costs with extra help subsidies.
More than 60 million people use Medicare, which covers those over 65 and the disabled. Users have to pick their plans annually. The current open enrollment period ends Dec. 7. Medicare advisers — as well as advocates for seniors — worry that the full weight of the tool's inaccuracies will not be felt until the 2020 coverage year begins and seniors head to pharmacies to fill prescriptions or show up for medical appointments. For many Medicare participants, selections made during open enrollment are irreversible.
"Millions of people are going to be absolutely affected," said Ann Kayrish, senior program manager for Medicare at the National Council on Aging. "And you hate to think about millions of people having the wrong plan. That's kind of crazy."
"It's not like there's one consistent problem that you can fix and then be addressed," said David Lipschutz, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. "It's really like a game of whack-a-mole."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the government agency that administers federal health programs, acknowledged in a statement that some problems have been reported but said development of the redesigned tool, which cost about $11 million, was an "iterative" process. The statement said CMS did "extensive consumer testing … to ensure that the information that is displayed is complete, streamlined, understandable, and is in plain language."
CMS said it previewed the new plan finder in June and began "road-testing" it in July, saying "stakeholder feedback led to enhancements" that were implemented before a public launch on Aug. 27. Updates have continued as users report issues, according to the statement.
CMS said this is the first time since the Medicare Plan Finder was developed in 2005 that the tool has been redesigned. The complete rebuild was necessary, it said, because legacy technology and "proprietary software" couldn't keep pace with "the needs of today's digital audience" and because the explosion in options available to seniors under various plans.
Millions of Medicare beneficiaries use the plan finder to reevaluate their insurance choices during open enrollment. The tool drives traffic to Medicare.gov, where users may filter, sort and compare choices. A recent Kaiser Family Foundation analysis found that beneficiaries will have an average of 28 Medicare Advantage plans and 28 prescription drug plans to choose from in 2020. As of Friday, there was no alert on the federal website warning of possible inaccuracies because of the redesign.
Choosing from myriad options can be so befuddling to the typical Medicare participant that states offer help through the federally supported Senior Health Insurance Program, which offers free one-on-one counseling to those eligible for Medicare, their families and caregivers. In Nebraska, for example, seniors choose from 30 Medicare Advantage and 29 Part D prescription drug plans, and the plan finder tool offers a way to quickly sort through dense information.
"You put in the drugs and you put in the pharmacies they want to go to, and it prices them all out," said Alicia Jones, administrator of the Senior Health Insurance Information Program in the Nebraska Department of Insurance and chair of the national SHIP Steering Committee. Without the plan finder, she said, "the only way to do that is go to 29 different websites and do them individually."
Jones said she has flagged about 100 errors with the new tool since Oct. 1, some small but others more significant. She noticed it wasn't importing the correct quantity of drugs, specifically with tubes of medication. It was, she said, giving people way more medicine than needed, "so if you didn't look at it close, it would give very high prices."
One day, she said, the numbers for someone she was helping enroll in a prescription drug plan were off by $2,000. The inconsistencies grew so worrisome that Jones said they "just completely stopped" on Oct. 28 to better assess the situation.
Omdahl, the Medicare consultant in Wisconsin, said it recently took her 32 clicks — she counted — to return to the main page after trying to figure out what limits apply for a specific Medicare Advantage plan's referral and prior authorization requirements.
Every day, each of the 21 Senior LinkAge Line specialists working with Metropolitan Area Agency on Aging, serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul area, have come across at least one error, said Hannah Fox, a Senior LinkAge Line specialist.
"The inaccuracies we're seeing and are concerned about have to do with the medication copays," Fox said. "The plan finder is telling us that a medication is on a plan formulary — or not on the plan formulary — and, again, we're contacting the plan and getting the reverse."
Julie Roles, spokeswoman for the Minnesota agency, said "specialists know what to be looking for, so they can ID something that might be wrong. But an ordinary person who is just looking by themselves really won't be alerted to an issue."
The agency advised beneficiaries who have already enrolled in a plan to verify pricing and other details with the plan provider. It's also asking CMS "to immediately remedy this situation and to extend the open enrollment period for at least three months once the Plan Finder tool is fixed."
In New York, Judith Esterquest said she had previously grown so frustrated using the tool to reevaluate her Medicare options that she gave up. This year, she tried again, finding a prescription drug plan that would save her money. Then she decided to double-check with a friend who also happens to be a SHIP adviser, asking, "Am I reading this right?"
"I'm an educated person. I have a PhD. I should be able to figure it out," she said, adding that she spent "an enormous amount of time" on the National Institutes of Health's website looking at research protocols when her husband was diagnosed with a rare form of leukemia. "I am comfortable with technology, and I had trouble with the Medicare website."
According to federal documents used during a national Medicare education meeting, more than 20 million users visited Medicare.gov to use the plan finder in 2017, accounting for about a third of all traffic to the site.
"Plan Finder users often find the process daunting," the documents said. "Research has shown that users want Plan Finder to provide the following: Simpler results - only information they really need to make a good decision; Personalized information - based on their individual situation. Clarity on out-of-pocket costs."
The U.S. Government Accountability Office laid out a number of issues with the old plan finder in a July report, including "cumbersome" navigation, confusing instructions, difficult filter and sort functions, and incomplete cost estimates for traditional Medicare that makes it difficult to compare with Medicare Advantage.
"So many of these systems are held together by baling wire and chewing gum," said Lisa Bari, an independent consultant who previously worked on health IT, interoperability and artificial intelligence at CMS' innovation center.
The contract for completely redesigning the Medicare Plan Finder was awarded to the software design and engineering company Ad Hoc, which describes itself as being born from "the successful effort to rescue HealthCare.gov after its disastrous initial launch." The federal online insurance marketplace, a major component of the Affordable Care Act, crashed within hours of launching in 2013, and additional technical problems kept it from functioning properly for weeks.
In a July 2018 blog post, Greg Gershman, Ad Hoc's chief executive officer and co-founder, announced that his company had won the contract for developing a replacement plan finder as part of the Medicare Coverage Tools initiative. He said "Ad Hoc proposed a product development process that centers around understanding beneficiaries desires when trying to make care decisions, tests our understanding early and often via a minimum viable product, and adds value to the experience with iterative product enhancements."
Gershman did not respond to requests for comment.
Bari, who did not work on the project, said the issues described to her suggest logic, calculation and coding errors that stem from poor user acceptance testing. That kind of testing, typically the final phase before new software is released, ensures the software can handle real-world tasks and perform up to development specifications. It can be difficult, she said, to find enough people with the necessary skills to do appropriate testing with something as complex as drug coverage.
With a large-scale project that will be used by millions, such as the Medicare Plan Finder, there should be about a month of testing to identify problems, fix them and get everything signed off on, Bari said. Each cohort of features, she added, should go through this process.
"It sounds like they're just patching stuff now," she said, "trying to catch the holes that weren't caught or specified."
OxyContin's makers delayed the reckoning for their role in the opioid crisis by funding think tanks, placing friendly experts on leading outlets, and deterring or challenging negative coverage.
This article was first published on Tuesday, November 19, 2019 in ProPublica.
ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up for ProPublica's Big Story newsletter to receive stories like this one in your inbox as soon as they are published.
This story is a collaboration between ProPublica and STAT.
In 2004, Purdue Pharma was facing a threat to sales of its blockbuster opioid painkiller OxyContin, which were approaching $2 billion a year. With abuse of the drug on the rise, prosecutors were bringing criminal charges against some doctors for prescribing massive amounts of OxyContin.
That October, an essay ran across the top of The New York Times' health section under the headline "Doctors Behind Bars: Treating Pain is Now Risky Business." Its author, Sally Satel, a psychiatrist, argued that law enforcement was overzealous, and that some patients needed large doses of opioids to relieve pain. She described an unnamed colleague who had run a pain service at a university medical center and had a patient who could only get out of bed by taking "staggering" levels of oxycodone, the active ingredient in OxyContin. She also cited a study published in a medical journal showing that OxyContin is rarely the only drug found in autopsies of oxycodone-related deaths.
"When you scratch the surface of someone who is addicted to painkillers, you usually find a seasoned drug abuser with a previous habit involving pills, alcohol, heroin or cocaine," Satel wrote. "Contrary to media portrayals, the typical OxyContin addict does not start out as a pain patient who fell unwittingly into a drug habit."
The Times identified Satel as "a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and an unpaid advisory board member for the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration." But readers weren't told about her involvement, and the American Enterprise Institute's, with Purdue.
Among the connections revealed by emails and documents obtained by ProPublica: Purdue donated $50,000 annually to the institute, which is commonly known as AEI, from 2003 through this year, plus contributions for special events, for a total of more than $800,000. The unnamed doctor in Satel's article was an employee of Purdue, according to an unpublished draft of the story. The study Satel cited was funded by Purdue and written by Purdue employees and consultants. And, a month before the piece was published, Satel sent a draft to Burt Rosen, Purdue's Washington lobbyist and vice president of federal policy and legislative affairs, asking him if it "seems imbalanced."
On the day of publication, Jason Bertsch, AEI's vice president of development, alerted Rosen to "Sally's very good piece."
"Great piece," Rosen responded.
Purdue's hidden relationships with Satel and AEI illustrate how the company and its public relations consultants aggressively countered criticism that its prized painkiller helped cause the opioid epidemic. Since 1999, more than 200,000 people have died from overdoses related to prescription opioids. For almost two decades, and continuing as recently as a piece published last year in Slate, Satel has pushed back against restrictions on opioid prescribing in more than a dozen articles and radio and television appearances, without disclosing any connections to Purdue, according to a ProPublica review. Over the same period, Purdue was represented by Dezenhall Resources, a PR firm known for its pugnacious defense of beleaguered corporations. Purdue was paying Dezenhall this summer, and still owes it money, according to bankruptcy filings.
Purdue funded think tanks tapped by the media for expert commentary, facilitated publication of sympathetic articles in leading outlets where its role wasn't disclosed, and deterred or challenged negative coverage, according to the documents and emails. Its efforts to influence public perception of the opioid crisis provide an inside look at how corporations blunt criticism of alleged wrongdoing. Purdue's tactics are reminiscent of the oil and gas industry, which has been accused of promoting misleading science that downplays its impact on climate change, and of big tobacco, which sought to undermine evidence that nicotine is addictive and secondhand smoke is dangerous.
Media spinning was just one prong of Purdue's strategy to fend off limits on opioid prescribing. It contested hundreds of lawsuits, winning dismissals or settling the cases with a provision that documents remain secret. The company paid leading doctors in the pain field to assure patients that OxyContin was safe. It also funded groups, like the American Pain Foundation, that described themselves as advocates for pain patients. Several of those groups minimized the risk of addiction and fought against efforts to curb opioid use for chronic pain patients.
Purdue's campaign may have helped thwart more vigorous regulation of opioid prescribing, especially in the decade after the first widespread reports of OxyContin abuse and addiction began appearing in 2001. It may also have succeeded in delaying the eventual reckoning for Purdue and the billionaire Sackler family that owns the company. Although Purdue pleaded guilty in 2007 to a federal charge of understating the risk of addiction, and agreed to pay $600 million in fines and penalties, the Sacklers' role in the opioid epidemic didn't receive widespread coverage for another decade. As backlash against the family swelled, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in September.
"Efforts to reverse the epidemic have had to counter widespread narratives that opioids are generally safe and that it is people who abuse them that are the problem," said Caleb Alexander, co-director of the Center for Drug Safety and Effectiveness at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, who has served as a paid expert witness in litigation alleging that Purdue's marketing of OxyContin misled doctors and the public. "These are very important narratives, and they have become the lens through which people view and understand the epidemic. They have proven to be potent means of hampering interventions to reduce the continued oversupply of opioids."
Satel, in an email to ProPublica, said that she reached her conclusions independently. "I do not accept payment from industry for my work (articles, presentations, etc)," she wrote. "And I am open to meeting with anyone if they have a potentially interesting topic to tell me about. If I decide I am intrigued, I do my own research."
As for Purdue's funding of AEI, Satel said in an interview that she "had no idea" that the company was paying her employer and that she walls herself off from information regarding institute funders. "I never want to know," she said. She didn't disclose that the study she referred to was also funded by Purdue, she said, because "I cite peer-reviewed papers by title as they appear in the journal of publication."
The sharing of drafts before publication with subjects of stories or other interested parties is prohibited or discouraged by many media outlets. Satel said she didn't remember sharing the draft with Rosen and it was not her usual practice. "That's very atypical," she said. However, Satel shared a draft of another story with Purdue officials in 2016, according to emails she sent. In that case, Satel said, she was checking facts.
Satel said she didn't remember why the doctor with a patient on high doses of painkillers wasn't named in the Times story. The draft she sent to Purdue identified him as Sidney Schnoll, then the company's executive medical director, who defended OxyContin at public meetings and in media stories. In an interview, Schnoll described Satel as an old friend and said her description of his patient was accurate. He left Purdue in 2005 and now works for a consulting company that has Purdue as a client, he said.
Purdue, in a statement, said it has held memberships in several Washington think tanks over the years. "These dues-paying memberships help the company better understand key issues affecting its business in a complex policy and regulatory environment," it said. "Purdue has been contacted over the years by policy experts at a variety of think tanks who are seeking additional context on industry issues for their work. Our engagement has always been appropriate and aimed at providing a science-based perspective that the company felt was often overlooked in the larger policy conversation." The company declined to discuss specific questions about internal documents and emails reviewed by ProPublica.
A spokeswoman for the Times, Danielle Rhoades Ha, said in an email that the company doesn't know the details of how the Satel story was handled because the editors who worked on it are no longer employed there. She noted that the Times labeled the article as an "Essay" and cited Satel's connection to AEI. Currently, she said, Times editors "generally advise reporters not to share full drafts of stories with sources in the course of fact-checking," but there is no formal rule.
Purdue launched OxyContin in 1996, and it soon became one of the most widely prescribed opioid painkillers. By 2001, it was generating both enormous profits as well as growing concern about overdoses and addiction. That August, a column in the New York Post opinion section criticized media reports that OxyContin was being abused. The piece — headlined "Heroic Dopeheads?" — mocked a "new species of 'victim,' the 'hillbilly heroin' addict." The real victims, the article contended, were pain patients who may lose access to a "prescription wonder drug."
At 5:17 a.m. on the day the article was published, Eric Dezenhall, the founder of Washington, D.C., crisis management firm Dezenhall Resources, sent an email to Purdue executives, according to documents filed by the Oklahoma attorney general in a lawsuit against opioid makers.
"See today's New York Post on OxyContin," he wrote. "The anti-story begins."
Purdue had hired Dezenhall Resources that summer. Dezenhall's hard-nosed reputation fit the blame-the-victim strategy advocated by Purdue's then-president, Richard Sackler. "We have to hammer on the abusers in every way possible," Sackler wrote in a 2001 email quoted in a complaint by the state of Massachusetts against the company. "They are the culprits and the problem. They are reckless criminals."
Purdue later followed this approach to fend off a New Jersey mother who was urging federal regulators to investigate the marketing of OxyContin. Her daughter had died while taking the drug for back pain. "We think she abused drugs," a Purdue spokesman said without offering evidence. Purdue later apologized for the comment.
However, pain patients with legitimate prescriptions for OxyContin and similar painkillers can and do become addicted to the drugs. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention warnsthat "anyone who takes prescription opioids can become addicted to them," and that "as many as one in four patients receiving long-term opioid therapy in a primary care setting struggles with opioid addiction." A review article in The New England Journal of Medicine reported rates of "carefully diagnosed addiction" in pain patients averaged just under 8% in studies, while misuse, abuse and addiction-related aberrant behaviors ranged from 15% to 26% of pain patients.
Although Dezenhall Resources was working for Purdue until recently, it rarely has been linked publicly to the company. Purdue paid Dezenhall a total of $309,272 in July and August of this year and owes it an additional $186,575, according to bankruptcy court filings. The total amount paid to Dezenhall since 2001 was not disclosed in records reviewed by ProPublica.
Dezenhall Resources has also defended Exxon Mobil against criticisms from environmental groups and former Enron CEO Jeffrey Skilling as he fought against fraud charges, according to a 2006 BusinessWeek profile of Eric Dezenhall that called him "The Pitbull of Public Relations." (Skilling was later convicted.) It reported that Dezenhall arranged a pro-Exxon demonstration on Capitol Hill to distract attention from a nearby environmental protest, and that the company discussed a plan to pay newspaper op-ed writers to question the motives of an Enron whistleblower. "We believe a winning outcome can only be achieved by directly stopping your attackers," Dezenhall Resources states on its website.
ProPublica reviewed emails to Purdue officials in which Dezenhall and his employees took credit for dissuading a national television news program from pursuing a story about OxyContin; helping to quash a documentary project on OxyContin abuse at a major cable network; forcing multiple outlets to issue corrections related to OxyContin coverage; and gaining coverage of sympathetic pain patients on a television news program and in newspaper columns.
"Dezenhall has been instrumental in helping with the placement of pain patient advocacy stories over the last several years," Dezenhall Executive Vice President Sheila Hershow wrote in a 2006 email.
Eric Dezenhall told ProPublica that he does not confirm or deny the identity of clients. While declining to answer questions about Purdue, or comment on the BusinessWeek article about him, he said that his company acts appropriately and seeks fair and truthful coverage.
"We regularly work with experts and journalists, including Pro Publica, to ensure accuracy in reporting and persuade and dissuade them regarding various storylines with facts and research," he wrote. "Ultimately, these journalists and experts decide how to use the information provided."
One of Dezenhall Resources' first moves, after being hired by Purdue, was to cultivate Satel. In July 2001, Hershow reported to Purdue officials that she and Eric Dezenhall had lunch with Satel and the doctor was "eager to get started." Hershow said Satel had read a "debunking package" and was "interested in doing an opinion piece on the medical needs of patients being sacrificed to protect drug abusers."
Satel said that the meeting with Dezenhall was not unusual, and that "I often talk to people who have interesting stories."
Satel was raised in Queens and has an Ivy League pedigree. She attended Cornell University as an undergraduate before going to medical school at Brown University. She was a psychiatry professor at Yale University for several years and then moved to Washington. For a little over a decade beginning in 1997, she was a staff psychiatrist at a methadone clinic in the city.
She has become an influential voice on opioids, addiction and pain treatment. Her writings have been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Atlantic, Slate, Health Affairs, Forbes, Politico and elsewhere. She frequently appears on panels, television shows and in newspaper articles as an expert on the opioid crisis and pain prescribing guidelines. "We've entered a new era of opiophobia," she recently told The Washington Post.
Satel has been a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute since 2000. Among the notable figures who have spent time at AEI are the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and former Trump national security adviser John Bolton. Current fellow Scott Gottlieb returned to AEI this year after serving as commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which approves and regulates prescription drugs like OxyContin.
Purdue said its annual payments of $50,000 to AEI were part of the institute's corporate program. That program offers corporations the opportunity to "gain access to the leading scholars in the most important policy areas for executive briefings and knowledge sharing," according to the institute's website. Corporations can choose between three levels of donations: At $50,000 a year, Purdue was in the middle level, the "Executive Circle." Besides the annual payments, Purdue has also paid a total of $24,000 to attend two special events hosted by the institute, according to a company spokesman.
Internal emails show the main Purdue contact with AEI was Rosen, the drugmaker's in-house lobbyist based in Washington. In one email, Rosen described the leaders of the think tank as "very good friends" and also noted that former FDA Commissioner Mark McClellan ascended to that job after a stint at AEI as a scholar. Rosen also organized a group of pain reliever manufacturers and industry funded groups into an organization called the Pain Care Forum. It met to share information on government efforts to restrict opioid prescribing, according to records produced in litigation against Purdue.
Veronique Rodman, a spokeswoman for AEI, said the institute does not publicly discuss donors. She said that the institute does not accept research contracts, and that its researchers come to their own conclusions. "It makes sense" that Satel would be unaware of AEI funders, she said.
Dezenhall's courting of Satel soon paid off. A month after the lunch with Dezenhall and Hershow, Satel defended Purdue's flagship drug in an article for the opinion page of The Boston Globe.
"Something must be done to keep OxyContin out of the wrong hands, but the true public health tragedy will be depriving patients who need it to survive in relative comfort day to day," she wrote.
In February 2002, AEI held a panel discussion at its headquarters to answer the question, "Who is responsible for the abuse of OxyContin?" The panel of experts included Satel, a Purdue executive and a Purdue lawyer. Covering the event, Reuters Health reported that the panel "mostly agreed that Purdue Pharma should not be viewed as the culprit in the problem of the abuse of its long-acting painkiller OxyContin."
Two months later, Purdue approved spending $2,000 to pay for Satel to speak to the staff of a New Orleans hospital about addiction, according to internal company records. Satel said she had "absolutely no memory of speaking at a hospital in New Orleans." The physician who organized the planned event said he doesn't recall if it took place, and the hospital no longer has records of medical staff talks from that period.
In 2003, a Dezenhall staffer recommended Satel as a guest to a producer for "The Diane Rehm Show" on NPR. The firm and Purdue executives, including Vice President David Haddox, helped prep Satel for the appearance. Haddox passed along what he called "interesting intel for Sally" that Rehm's mother suffered from chronic headaches. "Thanks for helping us get her up to speed for the show," Hershow replied.
A spokeswoman for WAMU, the NPR station in Washington that produced the Rehm show, said there was no policy to ask guests about funding of their organizations, or if there was a financial connection to the show's topic. "For most segments, the producers would try to bring as many perspectives to the table as possible so that listeners would be better able to make their own informed judgment of the topic at hand," wrote the spokeswoman, Julia Slattery.
ProPublica was unable to reach Haddox for comment.
Also that year, when conservative radio commentator Rush Limbaugh revealed that he was addicted to prescription painkillers, Purdue declined a request from CNN for a company representative to discuss the news on the air. Instead, Purdue recommended Satel, who assured viewers that OxyContin was a "very effective and actually safe drug, if taken as prescribed." Dezenhall's Hershow told Purdue executives in an email that she was "very glad Sally went on." Hershow, a former investigative producer at ABC News, declined comment for this article.
In September 2004, Forbes magazine published a Satel article under the headline, "OxyContin doesn't cause addiction. Its abusers are already addicts."
"I am happy this morning!" Purdue's then general counsel, Howard Udell, emailed other company executives and Eric Dezenhall with the subject line "RE: Forbes Article." Three years later, Udell and two other Purdue executives would plead guilty in federal court to a misdemeanor criminal charge related to misleading patients and doctors about the addictive nature of OxyContin.
As part of that 2007 settlement, Purdue admitted to acting "with the intent to defraud or mislead" when it promoted OxyContin as less addictive and less subject to abuse than other painkillers. In an article for The Wall Street Journal headlined "Oxy Morons," Satel defended the company. "The real public-health damage here comes from the pitched campaign conducted by zealous prosecutors and public-interest advocates to demonize the drug itself," she wrote.
After Purdue and Dezenhall launched their "anti-story," media reports of OxyContin addiction and abuse declined for several years. In 2001, there were 1,204 stories that included the words "OxyContin," "abuse" and "Purdue" published in media outlets archived on the Nexis database. The number plummeted to 361 in 2002 and to 150 in 2006.
Purdue's counterattack against an ambitious investigative series about OxyContin abuse may have contributed to that drop. An October 2003 series in the Orlando Sentinel, "OxyContin Under Fire," found that Purdue's aggressive marketing combined with weak regulation had contributed to "a wave of death and destruction."
The series, however, was marred by several errors that were detailed in a front-page correction nearly four months later. The reporter resigned, and two editors on the series were reassigned. While acknowledging the mistakes, the newspaper did not retract the series, and its review upheld the conclusion that oxycodone was involved in a large number of the overdoses in Florida.
Dezenhall Resources, in an email, took credit for forcing the newspaper to issue the corrections. "Dezenhall's efforts resulted in a complete front-page retraction of the erroneous 5-day, 19-part, front-page Orlando Sentinel series," Hershow wrote in a 2006 email summarizing Dezenhall's work for Purdue under the subject line "Success in Fighting Negative Coverage."
Purdue officials and the company's public relations agencies came up with a 13-point plan to generate media coverage of the errors. It included getting a doctor to talk about how the series "frightened and mislead (sic) the people of Florida" and having a pain patient write a newspaper opinion column on the subject. The Sentinel series, one Purdue official wrote to other company executives and Dezenhall's Hershow, was an opportunity to let the country know about "all of the sensational reporting on OxyContin abuse over the past 4 years. The conclusion: this is the most overblown health story in the last decade!"
In the six years after Purdue challenged the Sentinel's findings, the death rate from prescription drugs increased 84.2% in Florida. The biggest rise, 264.6%, came from deaths involving oxycodone. The state became a hotbed for inappropriate opioid prescribing as unscrupulous pain clinics attracted out of state drug seekers. The route traveled by many from small towns in Appalachia to the Florida clinics was nicknamed the "Oxycontin Express."
In 2017, 14 years after the Sentinel series was published, the Columbia Journalism Review described it as "right too soon" and said it "eerily prefigured today's opioid epidemic."
Purdue couldn't hold off restrictions on opioid prescribing forever. Since 2011, a growing number of states, insurers and federal health agencies have adopted policies that have led to annual declines in prescribing. Advocates for pain treatment have complained that this turnabout has gone too far, and the CDC recently advised doctors against suddenly discontinuing opioids. Still, the U.S. remains far and away the world leader in per capita opioid prescriptions.
Under increasing pressure, Purdue enlisted other public relations firms known for aggressively helping corporations in crisis. Burson-Marsteller, which after a merger last year is now known as BCW, signed an agreement in 2011 to provide Purdue "strategic counsel." Burson-Marsteller represented Johnson & Johnson as it responded to the Tylenol poisoning case and Union Carbide after the deadly Bhopal explosion in India.
According to documents, it helped Purdue identify and counter "potential threats," such as congressional investigators and the group Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing. A 2013 proposed work plan between the companies called on Burson to perform as much as $2.7 million of work for Purdue. BCW did not respond to requests for comment.
Purdue also employed the services of Purple Strategies, a Washington-area firm that reportedly represented BP after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. Purdue paid $621,653 to Purple Strategies in the 90 days prior to the drugmaker's Sept. 15 bankruptcy filing and owes it an additional $207,625, according to court filings. Purple Strategies did not respond to requests for comment.
Purdue also added Stu Loeser to its stable. The head of an eponymous media strategy company, Loeser was press secretary for Michael Bloomberg when he was mayor of New York City, and he is now a spokesman for Bloomberg's possible presidential bid.
Soon after Loeser began representing Purdue, Satel wrote in a 2018 piece for Politico headlined, "The Myth of What's Driving the Opioid Crisis," about "a false narrative" that the opioid epidemic "is driven by patients becoming addicted to doctor-prescribed opioids."
Loeser told Purdue executives in an email that "we are going to work with AEI to 'promote' this so it comes across as what it is: their thoughtful response to other writing." His team was working to target the Satel story "to land in social media feeds of people who have searched for opioid issues and potentially even people who have read specific stories online," he added.
Loeser said in an interview that he didn't end up working with AEI to promote the story. He said Purdue is no longer a client.
Dignity Health said its employee, an ER nurse, failed to meet the deadline to add her premature newborn to its health plan, so she was responsible for the medical bills. It rejected her appeals for a year until ProPublica called.
This article was first published on Monday, November 4, 2019 in ProPublica.
Lauren Bard opened the hospital bill this month and her body went numb. In bold block letters it said, "AMOUNT DUE: $898,984.57."
Last fall, Bard's daughter, Sadie, had arrived about three months prematurely; and as a nurse herself, Bard knew the costs for Sadie's care would be high. But she'd assumed the bulk would be covered by the organization that owned the hospital where she worked: Dignity Health, whose marketing motto is "Hello humankindness."
She would be wrong.
Bard, 30, had been caught up in an unforgiving trend. As health care costs continue to rise, employers are shifting the expense to their workers — cutting back on what they'll cover or pumping up premiums and out-of-pocket costs. But a premature baby, delivered with gaspingly high medical claims, creates a sort of benefits bomb, the kind an employer — especially one funding its own benefits — might look for a way to dodge altogether.
Bard, distracted by her daughter's precarious health and her own hospitalization for serious pregnancy-related conditions, found this out the hard way. Her battle against her own employer is a cautionary tale for every expectant parent.
Bard's saga began, traumatically, when she gave birth to Sadie at just 26 weeks on Sept. 21, 2018, at the University of California, Irvine Medical Center in Southern California. Weighing less than a pound and a half, tiny enough to fit into Bard's cupped hands, Sadie was rushed to the neonatal intensive care unit. Three days after her birth, Bard called Anthem Blue Cross, which administers her health plan, to start coverage. Anthem and UC Irvine's billing department assured her that Sadie was covered, Bard said.
But Dignity's plan, like many, requires employees to enroll newborns within 31 days through its website, or they won't be covered — something Bard said she didn't know at the time.
Meanwhile, believing that everything with her health benefits was on track, Bard spent nine of those first 31 days recovering in her own hospital bed and then had to return to the emergency room because of a subsequent infection. She spent as much time as she could in the neonatal intensive care unit, where Sadie, in an incubator, attached to tubes and wires, battled a host of critical ailments related to extremely premature birth. At times, doctors gave her a 50-50 chance of survival.
"Right from birth she was a fighter," Bard said.
Then, eight days past the 31-day deadline, UC Irvine's billing department alerted Bard to a problem with Sadie's coverage. Anthem was saying it could not process the claims for the baby, who was still in the NICU.
Bard, an emergency room nurse at St. Bernardine Medical Center in San Bernardino, called Dignity's benefits department and made a sickening discovery. Sadie wasn't enrolled in its health plan. It was too late, she was told, she could no longer add her baby.
Dignity bills itself as the fifth-largest health system in the country, with services in 21 states. The massive nonprofit self-funds its benefits, meaning it bears the cost of bills like Sadie's. And it doesn't appear to be short on cash. In 2018, the organization reported $6.6 billion in net assets and paid its CEO $11.9 million in reportable compensation, according to tax filings. That same year, more than two dozen Dignity executives earned more than $1 million in compensation, records show.
Dignity is also a religious organization that says its mission is to further "the healing ministry of Jesus." Surely, Bard remembering thinking, they would show her compassion.
With the specter of the bills hanging over her, Bard said she literally begged Dignity to change its mind in multiple phone calls, working her way up to supervisors. She thought she'd enrolled Sadie by calling Anthem she told them. It was an innocent mistake.
The benefits representatives told her information about the 31-day rule was in the documents she received when she was hired. It didn't matter that it was six years earlier, long before she dreamed of having Sadie, she said. The representative also told her it wasn't just Dignity's decision, the Internal Revenue Service wouldn't allow them to add the baby to the plan.
Under Dignity's plan, Bard could have two written appeals. She got nowhere with either of them. "IRS regulations and plan provisions preclude us from making an enrollment exception," Dignity wrote in its Nov. 30, 2018, response to her first appeal.
IRS officials said they can't talk about specific cases because of privacy issues and could not comment in general in time to meet ProPublica's deadline.
Dignity rejected Bard's second written appeal in a July 8 letter, saying the deadline was included in a packet sent nine days before Sadie's birth. But at that time, Bard had already been admitted to the hospital because of complications. Dignity's letter said it "cannot make an exception to plan provisions."
But the federal regulator of Dignity's plan said such plans can, in fact, make exceptions. An official with the federal Labor Department, which regulates self-funded health benefits, told ProPublica that plans can make concessions as long as they apply them equally to participants. Plus, federal law allows plans to treat people with "adverse health factors" more favorably, the official said.
Bard scrambled, futilely, to see if any publicly funded insurance plan would be able to cover the costs. Meanwhile, the bills began arriving: $206 in November, $1,033 in January, $523 in February and $69,362 in April, with the biggest yet to come. Sadie had spent 105 days in the hospital and had several surgeries — and the bills would be Bard's alone.
Sadie's total hospital tab was nearing $1 million and climbing when ProPublica first spoke to Bard. "I'll either work the rest of my life or file for bankruptcy," she said.
Bard said she and her fiancé — Sadie's father, Nathan Benton — considered delaying their wedding so he wouldn't be legally saddled with the bills as well.
The looming debt, and her employer's rejection, sent Bard reeling when she was already suffering from postpartum depression. She went back to her job while worrying that she might lose her home in Norco. She wept and beat herself up again and again about missing the deadline: How could she not think of something like that? She should've known. She should've been on top of it more.
Anthem declined to comment for this story. UC Irvine, where Bard said the care was excellent, said that cases like Bard's are unusual but may happen in 1% to 2% of births. The hospital tries to work with patients when they get stuck with the bills, a UC Irvine spokesman said.
With the appeals exhausted, the $898,000 bill landed. Bard could see right away that handling it the typical way, with a payment plan, was not going to work. If she chipped away at it at $100 a month, settling the obligation would take more than 748 years. "It would take so long I'd be dead," Bard said.
Bard could see no way out. On Oct. 7, she posted a photograph of the $898,000 bill on Facebook. "When Dignity Health (the company I work for) screws you out of your daughter's insurance…" she wrote.
A week later, ProPublica, which had been flagged to Bard's case while reporting about health insurance excesses, contacted a Dignity media representative.
The next day, Bard got a call from the senior vice president of operations for Dignity Southern California, who apologized and said she'd heard about the situation from the organization's media team and would help. Two days later, Dignity added Sadie to the plan, retroactive to her birth date. It would cover the bills.
Dignity officials told ProPublica that they'd learned about Bard through her Facebook post. Bard said she doubts Dignity would have reversed course without the questions from ProPublica.
Dignity said in a statement that it would review how it could better educate new parents about the enrollment requirement. But Bard still wants to know why her employer would make her suffer through such an ordeal. In a letter Bard received last week, the Dignity benefits department said it had received additional information that caused it to reverse course, but it appears to be the same information that Bard had been telling it all along.
"We based this new decision on certain extenuating and compelling circumstances, which, in all likelihood prohibited you from enrolling your newborn daughter within the Plan's required 31-day enrollment period," the letter said.
Bard recognizes a dark irony in her Christian employer's behavior, and it's made her skeptical. She urged the benefits department to change its process so other employees don't also have their benefits denied. Dignity needs to put its own ideals into practice, she told ProPublica. "You can't put on this facade," Bard said. "You have to live it. You have to walk the walk."
Bard said she and Benton still don't know the final total for Sadie's care. But they sometimes call the sassy and dimpled 1-year-old, who is healthy and reaching developmental milestones, their "million-dollar baby."
Has your employer wrongly denied your health benefits? Please share your story with reporter Marshall Allen at marshall.allen@propublica.org. Have you worked in health insurance or employer-sponsored health benefits? ProPublica is investigating the industry and wants to hear from you. Please complete our brief questionnaire.
New York state has laws governing what healthcare providers are obligated to provide to patients and families facing end-of-life decisions. It's hard to say how well they are being enforced.
This article was first published on Thursday, October 31, 2019 in ProPublica.
The case of the wrong person being taken off life support at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx in 2018 is in many ways an aberration, a mix of bad luck, missed opportunities and unlikely coincidences.
It thus only touched in a limited way on the complex, emotional and legally fraught issues surrounding end-of-life care — what patients are entitled to, what doctors are obligated to do and who is responsible for making sure everything is done appropriately.
Until relatively recently, not much existed to protect the rights of the terminally ill in New York state. Doctors were trained to treat and treat and treat some more. Except in a very limited number of cases, families were not legally authorized to make decisions about end-of-life care for those patients who had lost the ability to decide for themselves. Across many years, needless suffering was common.
A decade ago, however, New York enacted a series of laws meant to improve how people died.
The legislation had two major components: First, health care providers treating the terminally ill are now required to offer to inform patients or those lawfully entitled to make decisions for them of the full range of options for navigating their final days, including the right to "comprehensive pain management" and the right to decline any or all care. Second, under the Family Health Care Decisions Act of 2010, families were empowered to make choices about care for an incapacitated loved one, including to end life-sustaining treatment if certan conditions are met. The legislation, dealing with people who did not have a designated health care proxy or a set of what are known as advanced directives, created a hierarchy of who got to make those decisions — a spouse or child or legal guardian, even what the law listed as a "good friend."
"A huge, huge victory," said David Hoffman, a lawyer, clinical ethicist and lecturer at Columbia University.
Ten years on, though, there are many who worry that the legislation has had less of an impact than hoped.
"We're certainly in a better place now with regard to the end of life and how people die than we were," said David Leven, executive director emeritus for End of Life Choices New York, an advocacy organization. "But we're not in a good place."
Leven, a lawyer who spent much of his early career representing the indigent, has been as involved as anyone in New York in the public policy debates surrounding end-of-life care. He has met and worked with lawmakers, families, doctors, scholars and lawyers. Today, he said, just about 30% of those who are eligible — people 18 or older and capable of making their own decisions — have designated a health care agent or completed legal documents making clear their wishes for end-of-life care. Too many health care providers remain uninformed, he said, and do not properly communicate with patients and families, and thus their wishes too often get ignored. Leven said he faults both the medical establishment and the state regulators meant to oversee the implementation and enforcement of the legislation.
"I think we can attribute the lack of compliance, if you will, to a lack of good continuing education of health care professionals — doctors, nurses, social workers, etc. — in hospitals, nursing homes and assisted living facility settings," Leven said.
Roughly a decade after the state adopted legislation, he said, "I know that there is widespread noncompliance with it throughout the health care community, in part because so many health care professionals still don't even know of its existence."
Thaddeus Pope, a law professor and the director of the Health Law Institute, has studied the kinds of failings still being made involving end-of-life legal requirements. In New York and other states, he said, those missteps fall into several consistent categories:
Doctors often turn to family members to make decisions when the patient actually still has the capacity to decide about care. The rules about who should make treatment decisions for the incapacitated are often not followed. Even if the rules are followed, nobody checks to see if the person is who they represent themselves to be. Sometimes, the family member who claims to be the health care proxy, he said, turns out to have forged the relevant documents.
Asked how prevalent the problems are, Pope said, "That's a great question."
Jonah Bruno, a spokesman for the New York State Department of Health, said the department does conduct regular checks on whether health care providers, such as hospitals and nursing homes, are abiding by the laws governing end-of-life care. He said the department provides "surveyors" with guides for conducting those checks — sample interview questions, lists of documents to review and observations they should make to determine whether the hospital is complying with regulations. He said the department was also obligated to investigate specific complaints made by patients or their families.
Bruno said the state had cited a variety of providers over the years for violating aspects of end-of-life care legislation. But the state has never cited a provider for violating the regulations involving end-of-life care for incapacitated patients without designated health care agents.
Half a dozen experts in the legal and medical issues surrounding end-of-life care said New York and other states, faced with making choices about how to spend their resources, had settled on what amounted to a complaint-driven model for oversight and enforcement of end-of-life regulations.
"We are willing to accept an error rate," Pope said.
Leven said New York was one of the relatively few states to have enacted laws governing palliative care. Pope said that almost all states have some form of statute dealing with how surrogates get identified and authorized for incapacitated patients.
Kathryn Tucker, a lawyer, said that in recent years families had become more willing to go to court to hold health care providers accountable for mistakes or misconduct involving end-of-life care. For many years, she said, courts had not looked kindly on what became known as "wrongful life" lawsuits — claims by families that extreme measures had been taken to keep a patient alive even when such measures were not what the patient or family wanted. That is changing, she said, and such lawsuits, should they result in major awards, might be the thing that provokes the health care establishment and its regulators to improve their performance.
This summer in the Bronx, a family sued Montefiore Hospital over allegations that it disregarded legally prepared documents and confused which family member was authorized to make additional health care decisions; as a result, the family claimed, an elderly and hopelessly ill father needlessly endured three weeks of pain and suffering.
Lawyers for Montefiore responded to the lawsuit by denying any wrongdoing and placing blame with the family.
"The cases you hear about," Tucker said, "are rare examples. There's a big iceberg below, but I don't know even how to quantify it."
There's no end of anecdotes, experts say. The former spouse permitted to end life support for their divorced husband or wife just because paperwork hadn't been updated. The patient who received unwanted life-sustaining care from a nurse or doctor because they did not want the added work created by a patient dying on their hospital shift.
"If you are a hospital administrator," said Hoffman, the bioethicist at Columbia, "you know that anything that can happen will happen."
Even when everything goes right at the hospital — the proper family member makes the end-of-life medical call and that wish is honored responsibly and respectfully — no one really knows if the decision to end an incapacitated patient's life is, in truth, what they would have wanted.
Pope said studies in which families are put through hypothetical end-of-life scenarios have consistently shown that the decisions surrogates make for loved ones are mistaken.
One of the more thorough reviews of such experiments, Pope said, was published in 2006 by the American Medical Association. Drawing from a wide variety of work, the authors concluded that people asked to play the role of designated health care surrogate incorrectly predicted the wishes of a loved more than a third of the time.
"Neither patient designation of surrogates nor prior discussion of patients' treatment preferences improved surrogates' predictive accuracy," they wrote.
On the last Tuesday of July, Tres Biggs stepped into the courthouse in Coffeyville, Kansas, for medical debt collection day, a monthly ritual in this quiet city of 9,000, just over the Oklahoma border. He was one of 90 people who had been summoned, sued by the local hospital, or doctors, or an ambulance service over unpaid bills.
Some wore eye patches and bandages; others limped to their seats by the wood-paneled walls. Biggs, who is 41, had to take a day off from work to be there. He knew from experience that if he didn't show up, he could be put in jail.
Before the morning's hearing, he listened as defendants traded stories. One woman recalled how, at four months pregnant, she had reported a money order scam to her local sheriff's office only to discover that she had a warrant; she was arrested on the spot. A radiologist had sued her over a $230 bill, and she'd missed one hearing too many. Another woman said she watched, a decade ago, as a deputy came to the door for her diabetic aunt and took her to jail in her final years of life. Now here she was, dealing with her own debt, trying to head off the same fate.
Biggs, who is tall and broad-shouldered, with sun-scorched skin and bright hazel eyes, looked up as defendants talked, but he was embarrassed to say much. His court dates had begun after his son developed lymphoma, and they'd picked up when his wife started having seizures. He, too, had been arrested because of medical debt. It had happened more than once.
Judge David Casement entered the courtroom, a black robe swaying over his cowboy boots and silversmithed belt buckle. He is a cattle rancher who was appointed a magistrate judge, though he'd never taken a course in law. Judges don't need a law degree in Kansas, or many other states, to preside over cases like these. Casement asked the defendants to take an oath and confirmed that the newcomers confessed to their debt. A key purpose of the hearing, though, was for patients to face debt collectors. "They want to talk to you about trying to set up a payment plan, and after you talk with them, you are free to go," he told the debtors. Then, he left the room.
The first collector of the day was also the most notorious: Michael Hassenplug, a private attorney representing doctors and ambulance services. Every three months, Hassenplug called the same nonpaying defendants to court to list what they earned and what they owned — to testify, quite often, to their poverty. It gave him a sense of his options: to set up a payment plan, to garnish wages or bank accounts, to put a lien on a property. It was called a "debtor's exam."
If a debtor missed an exam, the judge typically issued a citation of contempt, a charge for disobeying an order of the court, which in this case was to appear. If the debtor missed a hearing on contempt, Hassenplug would ask the judge for a bench warrant. As long as the defendant had been properly served, the judge's answer was always yes. In practice, this system has made Hassenplug and other collectors the real arbiters of who gets arrested and who is shown mercy. If debtors can post bail, the judge almost always applies the money to the debt. Hassenplug, like any collector working on commission, gets a cut of the cash he brings in.
Across the country, thousands of people are jailed each year for failing to appear in court for unpaid bills, in arrangements set up much like this one. The practice spread in the wake of the recession as collectors found judges willing to use their broad powers of contempt to wield the threat of arrest. Judges have issued warrants for people who owe money to landlords and payday lenders, who never paid off furniture, or day care fees, or federal student loans. Some debtors who have been arrested owed as little as $28.
More than half of the debt in collections stems from medical care, which, unlike most other debt, is often taken on without a choice or an understanding of the costs. Since the Affordable Care Act of 2010, prices for medical services have ballooned; insurers have nearly tripled deductibles — the amount a person pays before their coverage kicks in — and raised premiums and copays, as well. As a result, tens of millions of people without adequate coverage are expected to pay larger portions of their rising bills.
The sickest patients are often the most indebted, and they're not exempt from arrest. In Indiana, a cancer patient was hauled away from home in her pajamas in front of her three children; too weak to climb the stairs to the women's area of the jail, she spent the night in a men's mental health unit where an inmate smeared feces on the wall. In Utah, a man who had ignored orders to appear over an unpaid ambulance bill told friends he would rather die than go to jail; the day he was arrested, he snuck poison into the cell and ended his life.
In jurisdictions with lax laws and willing judges, jail is the logical endpoint of a system that has automated the steps from high bills to debt to court, and that has given collectors power that is often unchecked. I spent several weeks this summer in Coffeyville, reviewing court files, talking to dozens of patients and interviewing those who had sued them. Though the district does not track how many of these cases end in arrest, I found more than 30 warrants issued against medical debt defendants. At least 11 people were jailed in the past year alone.
With hardly any oversight, even by the presiding judge, collection attorneys have turned this courtroom into a government-sanctioned shakedown of the uninsured and underinsured, where the leverage is the debtors' liberty.
Seated at the front of the courtroom, Hassenplug zipped open his leather binder and uncapped his fountain pen. He is stout, with a pinkish nose and a helmet of salt and pepper hair. His opening case this Tuesday involved 28-year-old Kenneth Maggard, who owed more than $2,000, including interest and court fees, for a 40-mile ambulance ride last year. Maggard had downed most of a bottle of Purple Power Industrial Strength Cleaner, along with some 3M Super Duty Rubbing Compound, "to end it all." His sister had called 911.
Maggard took his seat. He had cropped red hair, pouchy cheeks and mud-caked sneakers. "The welfare patients are the most demanding, difficult patients on God's earth," Hassenplug told me, with Maggard listening, before launching into his interrogation: Are you working? No. Are you on disability? He was diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, and anxiety. Do you have a car? No. Anyone owe you money you can collect? I wish.
They had been here before, and they both knew Maggard's disability checks were protected from collections. Hassenplug set down his pen. "Between you and me," he asked, "you're never going to pay this bill, are you?"
"No, never," Maggard said. "If I had the money, I'd pay it."
Hassenplug replied, "Well, this will end when one of us dies."
Though debt collection filings are soaring in parts of America, Hassenplug speaks with pride about how he discovered their full potential in Coffeyville long before. A transplant from Kansas City, he was a self-dubbed "four-star fuck-up" who worked his way through law school. He moved to Coffeyville to practice in 1980 and soon earned a reputation as a hard ass. He saw that his firm, Becker, Hildreth, Eastman & Gossard, hadn't capitalized on its collections cases. The lawyers didn't demand sufficient payments, and they rarely followed up on litigation, he said. Where other attorneys saw petty work, Hassenplug saw opportunity.
Hassenplug started collecting for doctors, dentists and veterinarians, but also banks and lumber yards and cities. He recognized that medical providers weren't being compensated for their services, and he was maddened by a "welfare mentality," as he called it, that allowed patients to dodge bills. "Their attitude a lot of times is, 'I'm a single mom and … I'm disabled and,' and the 'and' means 'the rules don't apply to me.' I think the rules apply to everybody," he told me.
He logged his cases in a computer to track them. First with the firm and later in his own practice, he took debtors to court, and he won nearly every time; in about 90% of cases nationally, collectors automatically win when defendants don't appear or contest the case. Hassenplug didn't need to accept $10 monthly payments; he could ask for more, or, in some cases, even garnish a quarter of a debtor's wages. His fee was, and often still is, one-third of what he collects. He asked the court to summon defendants, over and over again. It was the judge's contempt authority that backed him, he said. "It's the only way you can get them into court."
The power of contempt was originally the power of kings. Under early English rule, monarchs were considered vicars of God, and disobeying them was equivalent to committing a sin. Over time, that contempt authority spread to English courts, and ultimately to American courts, which use it to encourage compliance with the judicial system. There is no law requiring that a court use civil contempt when an order isn't followed, but judges in the U.S. can choose to, whether it's to force a defendant to pay child support, for example, or show up at a hearing. A person jailed for defying a court order is generally released when they comply.
When Casement took the bench in 1987, after passing a self-study exam, he didn't know much legalese — he had never been in a courtroom. But attorneys taught him early on that the power of contempt was available to him to punish people who ignored his orders. At first, Casement could see himself in the defendants. "I was a much more pro-debtor aligned judge, much more sympathetic, much less inclined to do anything that I thought would burden them," he told me. "And over the years, I've gradually moved to the other side of the fulcrum. I still consider myself very much in the middle, and I don't know if I am or not."
Once a bustling industrial hub, Coffeyville has a poverty rate that is double the national average, and its county ranks among the least healthy in Kansas. Its red-bricked downtown is lined with empty storefronts — former department stores, restaurants and shops. Its signature hotel is now used for low-income housing. "The two growth industries in Coffeyville," Hassenplug likes to say, "are health care and funerals."
Coffeyville Regional Medical Center is the only hospital within a 40-mile radius, and it reported $1.5 million in uncollectible patient debt in 2017. A nonprofit run in a city-owned building, the hospital accounts for the vast majority of medical debt lawsuits in the county — about 2,000 in the past five years. It also accounts for the majority of related warrants. Account Recovery Specialists Inc. handles its collections, and it does so for hospitals in most Kansas counties. Though the hospitals can direct ARSI and its contracted attorneys to tell judges not to issue warrants, hardly any have. The Coffeyville hospital's attorney, Doug Bell, said that its only motivation is to continue to serve the area, and that Kansas' decision to not expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act has had a "dramatic effect on the economic liability of small rural hospitals."
Three nearby hospitals in this rural region have closed in the past several years, meaning ambulances make more trips. A half-hour from Coffeyville, Independence runs its ambulance service at about a $300,000 annual loss. Its bills were at the root of four arrests this year alone. Derek Dustman, who is 36 and works odd jobs, had been driving a four-wheeler when he was hit by a car and rushed to the hospital. Though he was sued for not paying his $818 ambulance bill, he didn't have a license to drive to the courthouse. This spring, he spent two nights in jail. "I never in a million years thought that this would end with jail time," he told me.
For years, Hassenplug has requested that the judge issue warrants on the ambulance service's behalf. When I asked Lacey Lies, the city's director of finance, if she ever considered telling him not to resort to bench warrants, she was puzzled. "You're saying an attorney with no teeth?"
The first time Tres Biggs was arrested, in 2008, he was dove hunting in a grove outside Coffeyville. It had been just a year since his 6-year-old son Lane was diagnosed with lymphoma, and Biggs watched him breathe in the fresh air, seated on a haybale under an orange sky. When a game warden came through to check hunting permits, Biggs' friends scattered and hid. He wasn't the running type, and he took Lane by the hand. The warden ran Biggs' license. There was a warrant out for his arrest. Biggs asked a friend to take Lane home and crouched into the warden's truck, scouring his memory for some misstep.
The last few years had been a blur. His wife, Heather, had quit her job as a babysitter to care for their son. Then, she got sick. Some days, she passed out or felt so dizzy she couldn't leave her bed. Her doctors didn't know if the attacks were linked to her heart condition, in which blood flowed backward through a valve. To provide for his wife, son and two other kids, Biggs worked two jobs, at a lumber yard and on construction sites. He didn't know when he would have had time to commit a crime. He'd never been to jail. As he stared out the window at the rolling hills, his face began to sweat. He felt his skin tighten around him and wondered if he would be sick.
The warrant, he learned at the jailhouse, was for failure to appear in court for an unpaid hospital bill. Coffeyville Regional Medical Center had sued him in 2006 for $2,146, after one of Heather's emergency visits; neither of his jobs offered health insurance. In the shuffle of 70-hour workweeks and Lane's radiation, he had missed two consecutive court dates. He was fingerprinted, photographed, made to strip and told to brace himself for a tub of delousing liquid. His bail was set at $500 cash; he had about $50 to his name.
His friend bailed him out the next morning, but at the bond hearing, the judge granted the $500, minus court fees, to the hospital. Biggs compensated his friend with a motorboat that a client had given him in exchange for a hunting dog. But it wasn't long before the family received a new summons. In 2009, a radiologist represented by Hassenplug sued them for $380.
Some court hearings fell on days when Lane had treatment, at a hospital in Tulsa, an hour south. Heather refused to postpone his care. Lane's condition was improving — in a year, he would be cancer-free — and his dirty blond hair was sprouting again. Her health, though, had taken a turn. She began having weekly seizures, waking up on the floor, confused about where their Christmas tree had gone or why a red Catahoula puppy was skidding around their ranch house. Her doctors concluded she had Lyme disease, which was affecting her nervous system and wiping her short-term memory. Each time she woke up, she repeated: "Don't take me to the hospital."
Biggs was still on the hook for the bill that had landed him in jail; bail had covered only part of it, and the rest was growing with 12% annual interest. The hospital had garnished his wages, and the radiologist had garnished his bank account, seizing contributions that his family had raised for Lane's care. Living on $25,000 a year, Biggs couldn't afford to buy insurance. His family was on food stamps but didn't qualify for Medicaid, a federal insurance program for people in poverty. Other states were about to expand it to cover the working poor, but not Kansas, which limited it, for families of his size, to those who earned under $12,000. Like millions of others across America, he and Heather fell into a coverage gap.
By 2012, the Biggs family had accrued more than $70,000 in medical debt, which it owed to Coffeyville Regional Medical Center and other hospitals, pediatricians and neurologists. Some forgave it; others set up lenient payment plans. Coffeyville's was the only hospital that sued. The doctors who took them to court were represented by Hassenplug.
Biggs began to panic around police, haunted by the fear that at any moment, he might be locked up. That spring, outside the Woodshed gas station, he spotted a sheriff's deputy who was also an old friend. To shake off his dread, he asked the friend to run his license. The deputy found another warrant, signed by Casement, involving the $380 radiologist's bill. "You're not really going to take me in, right?" Biggs remembers asking. The deputy said he had no choice. Bail, as usual, was set at $500.
The family filed for bankruptcy, a short-term fix that erased their debt but burdened them with legal fees. They lost their home and started renting. Biggs ultimately got a job that offered insurance, as a rancher, covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield. But it required Biggs to pay the first $5,000 before it covered medical expenses. When chest pain hit him as he worked cattle in the heat, and he began vomiting, the only nearby hospital was Coffeyville's. In 2017, the hospital sued again. It was the family's sixth lawsuit for medical debt.
Sitting in Casement's courtroom this July, Biggs calculated that he was losing about $120 by taking time off from work to attend this hearing. "I haven't received a bill," he told me, slouched over his turquoise shorts. "The only thing I received was this summons." Around noon, he finally sat down with an ARSI representative, who explained that the underlying bill had been garnished from his wages, but he still owed $328 in interest and court fees. He had another couple thousand dollars in collections for separate bills he hadn't paid, for which he hadn't yet been sued. He said the most he could afford to pay, every two weeks, was $12.50.
Before the end of the Tuesday docket, Casement returned to the courtroom to read off the names of the hospital's defendants. Five had failed to show up for contempt citations, to give their reasons for missing their debtor's exams. Casement saw that two of the no-shows hadn't been properly notified of the hearing, so attorneys would need to try to reach them again. The judge read the names of the other three defendants and told the hospital's collections lawyer, "That would be a bench warrant if you want it."
The following morning, I was reading court files in the clerks' office when Christa Strickland arrived at 10:20 in flip-flops and black leggings, her caramel hair wrapped in a bun atop her head. She ran her finger down a docket on the bulletin board and asked why her case wasn't listed. When the clerk pulled up her file, she told Strickland that her contempt hearing had been on Tuesday and she was one day late. "You need to call the law office of Amber Brehm," the clerk insisted, referring to ARSI's contracted lawyer, who represents the hospital. She handed over the phone number.
Strickland sat on a hard bench and took out her cellphone. She had saved the hearing in the wrong day on her calendar, but she had taken the day off from work and wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. "I had a court date," she said when a man answered at the law office. "I thought it was today but apparently it was yesterday. I'm just needing to see if I can set something up?"
"By not appearing at that, the court would be in the process of issuing a bench warrant," he said.
"What does that mean?" Strickland asked, shaking her head.
"You don't know what a bench warrant means?" he asked. "That means you will be arrested and taken to jail and ordered to post bond."
"Oh my God." Strickland squeezed her eyes shut, wetness smudging her mascara. She poked at her cheek with her index finger. Her father was a preacher. She'd never been in trouble with the law. She had made a mistake, she tried to explain. She wanted to make an arrangement to pay.
The man on the phone told her that it might take a couple weeks before the court processed her warrant paperwork, which the law office had not yet submitted. Once the judge issued the warrant, she could turn herself in. Strickland wanted to scream, I'll pay the bill, don't make me go to jail! but she didn't have the money. Instead, she looked at the ceiling and asked: "Turn myself into the court? The police station?"
"The Sheriff's Department," he responded.
"They're here in the same building," she said. "I won't leave here until I get this figured out. Thank you!"
She hung up. Prick, she muttered to herself. You're going to talk to me like I'm a freaking idiot? That's not okay. Educate me. The court has to process it? Her mind kept moving in circles. She herself worked in debt collection, for an auto title lending company. She understood that everyone was doing their job. Still, she couldn't grasp how this bill had gotten this far.
Before she had taken this position, during her second pregnancy, her right breast had developed a chronic infection. In 2008, she was uninsured, needed surgery to remove the swollen abscess and ran up a $2,514 bill. More than a decade later, she was still chipping away at a balance that, because of interest and court fees, had more than doubled to $5,736. She had fallen behind on her monthly payment plan and now worried that her booking photo would be on Mugshot Monday, a Facebook album run by the Police Department. She imagined what she would tell her boss: I went to jail … because I missed a court date … for medical bills. It sounded absurd.
She spotted a sheriff's deputy in a bulletproof vest with a name tag that said Bishop and a pistol on his hip. "Hey!" she called out, explaining her phone call and how the man said something about a warrant and turning herself in. Bishop radioed into dispatch and smiled with an update: "There's no warrant in the system yet," he told her.
"Yet!" Strickland replied, deflating his look of reassurance. "That's what I'm worrying about."
"You better give Amber a call back," Bishop said.
When I asked ARSI about how attorneys decide to request warrants, Joshua Shea, who is general counsel, told me that they don't. The judge can choose to issue one if court orders are not followed, he said. But Casement said the opposite, telling me that he gave the choice to the attorneys. "I'm not ordering a bench warrant. My decision is to give them that option," Casement told me. "Whether they exercise it is up to them, but they have my blessing if that's what they want to do."
Shea sent me an eight-page email to make clear, in large part, that ARSI, as a collection agency, has no involvement in the courts, and that Brehm is a lawyer whom the agency contractually employs and who represents the hospital directly. Her email address, though, has an ARSI domain, and her resume lists her as ARSI's director of legal. Brehm said that court hearings aren't the only option for debtors, who can call her instead and answer questions under oath. Shea said nobody — not the hospital, ARSI, Brehm or the court — uses the threat of jail to "extract payment."
Strickland reached Brehm after several days, and the attorney agreed to a new hearing. On Aug. 13, when they met in court, Brehm sat at the front of the room.
"We're giving you a second chance on that citation; just to try to take care of this without there having to be any sort of bench warrant," the lawyer said. "I want to make sure that we're all on the same page about the consequences of not coming into court when the order has been issued."
Strickland nodded.
"Again, if you set a payment plan and keep it," Brehm said, "we won't have to worry about that."
In some courthouses, like Coffeyville's, collection attorneys are not only invited to decide when warrants are issued, but they can also shape how law is applied. Recently, Hassenplug came to believe that debtors were only attending every other hearing in a scheme to avoid jail, and he raised his concern with the judge. He suggested that the judge could fix this by charging extra legal fees; Casement wrote a new policy explaining that anyone who missed two debtor's exam hearings without a good reason would be ordered to pay an extra $50 to cover the plaintiff's attorney fees. If they didn't pay, they would be given a two-day jail sentence; for each additional hearing that they missed, they would be charged a higher attorney fee and get a longer sentence.
Most states don't allow contempt charges to be used for nonpayment, and some, like Indiana and Florida, have concluded that it is unconstitutional. Michael Crowell, a retired law professor at the University of North Carolina and an expert in judicial authority, reviewed Casement's policy. "You can't lock people up for contempt for failing to pay unless you have gone to the trouble to determine that they really have the ability to pay," he said. Casement told me he hadn't made findings on ability to pay before ordering defendants to foot attorney's fees, "but I know that's something the court should consider," he said. He also made plain why he wrote the policy: "Mr. Hassenplug and Brehm's outfit have asked me to." (Brehm denied she requested this.)
Casement has not done everything the debt collection lawyers have suggested. At first, he agreed to their requests to set bail at the amount of the debt, but he eventually settled on $500. "Most people can come up with $500," he said. "It may not be their money, but they know someone who will pay." He made sure no one was arrested unless they'd been reached by personal service or certified mail.
Kansas law allows courts to order debtors in "from time to time," leaving discretion to judges. Casement limited the frequency of Hassenplug's debtor's exams to once every three months. He came to the decision by his own logic around what seemed like a reasonable burden for defendants, and it remains his personal policy today. The law also states that anyone found to be disabled and unable to pay can only be ordered to appear once a year. Without an attorney, debtors like Kenneth Maggard don't know to assert this right.
Allowing bail money to count toward collections raises some of the most critical legal questions. Hassenplug told me that he thinks it's great that cash bail is applied to the debt. "A lot of times, that's the only time we get paid, is if they go to jail," he said. Peter Holland, the former director of the Consumer Protection Clinic at the University of Maryland Law School, explained that this practice reveals that the jailing is not about contempt, but about collection. "Most judges will tell you, 'I'm working for the rule of law, and if you don't show up and you were summoned, there have to be consequences,'" he explained. "But the proof is in the pudding: If the judge is upholding the rule of law, he would give the bail money back to you when you appear in court. Instead, he is using his power to take money from you and hand it to the debt collector. It raises constitutional questions."
Congress has not acted on advocates' calls to amend the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to prohibit collectors from requesting warrants. There are also no current efforts to bar nonprofit hospitals or medical providers that receive funds through Medicare or Medicaid from seeking warrants. Some states have reformed their laws, to make sure defendants are properly served or to prohibit wage garnishments for debt. But legal experts on collections say that more remains to be done, like taking jail out of the equation and instead requiring debtors to sign a financial affidavit or a promise to appear.
Shea, from ARSI, said that using the legal process is time-consuming and costly — a last resort; arrests are "the least desirable stage for any case to reach for all involved." Even after lawsuits are filed, they try to connect eligible debtors with the Coffeyville hospital to apply for financial assistance, he said. Last year, the hospital wrote off $1.7 million in charity care, said Bell, the hospital lawyer. "That is evidence of a hospital that cares."
Casement said he did not consider the legality of his policies a problem. He placed some blame on the health care system. "What we have isn't working," he said. "As a lifelong Republican, I would probably be hung, but I think we need health care for everybody with some limits on what it's going to cost us."
The way he saw it, he had wide latitude to enforce compliance with a court orders, though he acknowledged that creditors used bail money to their advantage. "I don't know whether the Legislature intended it to be used that way or not," he told me. "I have not had enough pushback from the defendants' side to give me the impression that I'm really abusing this badly."
Before I left Coffeyville, I sat down with Hassenplug in the low-ceilinged courtroom. I asked him whether he thought that the system in Coffeyville was effectively imprisonment for debt, in a country that has outlawed debtors' prisons. "The only thing they're in jail for is not appearing," he replied. "I do my job, I follow the law. You just have to show up in court."
Debt collection is an $11 billion industry, involving nearly 8,000 firms across the country. Medical debt makes up almost half of what's collected each year. Today, millions of debt collection suits are overwhelming state courts. The practice is considered a "race of the diligent," where every creditor is rushing to the courthouse, hustling to get the first judgment, in order to be the first to collect on a debtor's assets. In Hassenplug's view, though, this work is not the rich taking from the poor. He laughed at how locals spread rumors, saying that he seized wheelchairs or Christmas trees. Once, he confessed, he took a man's Rolex, only to find out it was a fake. Some months, he said, even his law office could not make ends meet.
After a couple of hours, a clerk poked her head into the courtroom and told us it was time to leave. Hassenplug and I began to walk out, and on the terrazzo steps, he asked if I wanted to see his buildings. He owned five of them on a shuttered stretch of town. He wondered out loud if he was making a mistake by inviting me, but he was pleased when I accepted. "There ain't any place on earth quieter than downtown Coffeyville," he said, leading me into the silent streets.
He walked me through the alleys under a cloudless sky, and when he arrived at one of his buildings, he tapped a code to his garage. The door lifted, and inside, five perfectly maintained motorcycles, Yamahas and Suzukis, were propped in a line. To their left, nine pristine, candy-colored cars were arranged – a Camaro SS with orange stripes, a Pontiac Trans Am, a vintage Silverado pickup with velvet seats. He toured me around the show cars, peering into their windows, and mused about what his hard work had gotten him.
Lizzie Presser covers health and healthcare policy at ProPublica. She previously worked as a contributing writer for The California Sunday Magazine, where she wrote about labor, immigration, and how social policy is experienced.
The U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services "takes allegations of abuse and mistreatment seriously," spokeswoman Maria LoPiccolo said in an email on Monday. "CMS is actively monitoring the situation and is in close communication with" New Jersey's Department of Health, she added. The department said Friday that it was reviewing the allegations.
CMS works with state health departments to review transplant programs and determine if they are eligible for Medicare reimbursement.
ProPublica's investigation found that Newark Beth Israel's transplant team was worried about the possibility of being disciplined by CMS after six out of 38 patients who received heart transplants in 2018 died before their one-year anniversary. That translated to an 84.2% survival rate, considerably worse than the 91.5% national probability of surviving a year for heart transplant patients, according to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which tracks and analyzes outcomes for the government.
The team appeared to tailor medical decisions for at least four patients because of these concerns. In the case of Darryl Young, a heart transplant recipient, members of the medical staff didn't offer options like hospice care to his family because they wanted to make sure Young lived at least a year after his surgery, according to current and former employees familiar with his care.
In an audio recording obtained by ProPublica, Dr. Mark Zucker, the director of the heart and lung transplant programs, told the team at an April meeting, "I'm not sure that this is ethical, moral or right," but it's "for the global good of the future transplant recipients."In response to the concerns raised by the article, Newark Beth Israel said that it would conduct an "evaluation and review of the program, its processes and its leadership." It later added that it had hired an outside consultant to perform the review.
Dr. Herb Conaway, a New Jersey assemblyman and chair of the Legislature's Health and Senior Services Committee, called for the transplant team's actions to be reviewed. "The implicated doctors must face consequences if the allegations are indeed accurate," he said in a statement on Friday. "Their actions are a stain on the entire medical community, and they must be held accountable for what they have done to both this patient and his family."
The editorial board of The Star-Ledger in Newark, which co-published the ProPublica investigation, urged prompt scrutiny of the hospital. "This is astoundingly unethical, and if true, should prompt firings of those involved and a federal and state review," the board wrote. "The Attorney General's Office should look into it, too, in case there's something criminal here."
The Attorney General's Office and the New Jersey Board of Medical Examiners would not confirm or deny the existence of investigations, a spokeswoman said.
Darryl Young suffered brain damage during a heart transplant at Newark Beth Israel and never woke up. Doctors kept him alive for a year to avoid federal scrutiny.
This article was first published on Thursday, October 3, 2019 in ProPublica and was co-published with NJ Advance Media.
This story was co-published with NJ Advance Media.
On a Thursday morning this past April, 61-year-old Darryl Young was lying unconscious in the eighth-floor intensive care unit of Newark Beth Israel Medical Center. After suffering from congestive heart failure for years, Young, a Navy veteran and former truck driver with three children, had received a heart transplant on Sept. 21, 2018. He didn't wake up after the operation and had been in a vegetative state ever since.
Machines whirred in his room, pumping air into his lungs. Nutrients and fluids dripped from a tube into his stomach. Young had always been fastidious, but now his hair and toenails had grown long.
A nurse suctioned mucus from his throat several times a day to keep him from choking, according to employees familiar with his care. His medical record would note: "He follows no commands. He looks very encephalopathic" — brain damaged.
That day, in another wing of the hospital, where a group of surgeons, cardiologists, transplant coordinators, nurses and social workers gathered for their weekly meeting in a second-floor conference room, his name came up.
"Anything on Darryl Young?" asked cardiologist Dr. Darko Vucicevic, according to a recording of the meeting obtained by ProPublica.
"Need to keep him alive till June 30 at a minimum," responded Dr. Mark Zucker, director of the hospital's heart and lung transplant programs.
Since the transplant, Young had suffered from pneumonia, strokes, seizures and a fungal infection. The Newark transplant team believed that he would never wake up or recover function, according to current and former staff members familiar with his case, as well as audio recordings. Yet they wanted to do all they could to keep his new heart beating.
The recordings show that the transplant team was fixated on keeping him alive, rather than his quality of life or his family's wishes, because of worries about the transplant program's survival rate, the proportion of people undergoing transplants who are still alive a year after their operations.
Federal regulators rely on this statistic to evaluate — and sometimes penalize — transplant programs, giving hospitals across the country a reputational and financial incentive to game it. Newark Beth Israel's one-year survival rate for heart transplants had dipped, and if Young were to die too soon, the program's standing and even its own survival might be in jeopardy.
June 30, Zucker explained at the meeting, was the date of the next report by a federally funded organization that tracks transplant survival rates. "If he's not dead in this report, even if he's dead in the next report, it becomes an issue that moves out six more months," he said in the recording.
Zucker cautioned the staff against offering Young's family the option of switching from aggressive treatment to palliative care, which focuses on comfort, until September, which would mark one year since his transplant. "This is very disingenuous, right? It's very unethical."
Dr. Martin Strueber, a transplant surgeon who has since left the hospital, then expressed hope that the transplant team could "move the program forward ... to a status that we never ever have this discussion again," or even have to "think about this ethical dilemma of keeping somebody alive for the sake of the program."
Dr. Navin Rajagopalan, the heart program's medical director, wanted to make sure the family hadn't already requested palliative treatment. "They've not asked...for us to withdraw care?" he asked. "I'm playing devil's advocate" he went on. "It's not as if they're asking for this and we're saying no, we cannot do this."
Zucker replied, "We haven't refused anything they've asked." He added, "We just haven't raised withdrawing it."
In the ensuing months, the doctors continued to leave Young's family in the dark, according to his sister Andrea and employees familiar with Young's care. They didn't want to run any risk that the people who loved him would interfere with their agenda: boosting the program's numbers. "I'm not sure that this is ethical, moral or right," Zucker told the team at the April meeting, but it's "for the global good of the future transplant recipients."
In 2007, the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, which tracks outcomes of all organ transplants, set quality standards after a number of high profile mishaps at other hospitals, including a teenage girl receiving a heart and lung with the wrong blood type. Under those rules, the one-year survival rate has been "the magic number," according to Laura Aguiar, principal of consulting firm Transplant Solutions.
If a program's survival rate fell too far under its expected rate, which was calculated by a CMS algorithm, the agency could launch an audit. If the audit uncovered serious problems, CMS could pull a program's Medicare certification, meaning that the federal health care insurer would stop reimbursing for transplants. This penalty can be "devastating," Aguiar said, because many commercial insurers and some state Medicaid plans only pay for procedures at Medicare-approved programs. Hospitals charge about $1.4 million for a heart transplant, consulting firm Milliman reported in 2017.
In the past decade, more than 20 transplant programs lost Medicare funding after CMS found deficiencies; most shut down, according to the agency. An additional 40 reached a Systems Improvement Agreement with CMS, allowing them to continue receiving federal funding while getting back into compliance with the agency's requirements.
In 2008, Johns Hopkins' liver transplant program entered into such an agreement with CMS because of lower-than-expected performance outcomes. More recently, CMS cut off funding to Baylor St. Luke's Medical Center's heart transplant program, following an investigation by ProPublica and the Houston Chronicle revealing a high rate of patient deaths. The hospital initially appealed but then opted instead to reapply at a later date.
To bolster their survival rates, some transplant centers have turned down patients who were considered too sick or rejected organs that were deemed imperfect. Critics have said that this conservative approach can deprive patients of the chance to receive lifesaving treatment and waste potentially usable organs at a time when the demand for them far outpaces the supply.
Newark Beth Israel shows another facet of how transplant providers can game the system, a ProPublica investigation found. Worried that the transplant program's existence was threatened by a downturn in its survival rate, doctors appeared to tailor medical decisions to the metrics for at least four patients, and they sometimes didn't consult adequately with patients and family members.
This story is based on medical records, emails and text messages, and interviews with family members as well as eight current and former staff at Newark Beth Israel, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of jeopardizing their jobs or future employment in the field. The recordings were corroborated by staff members who were present during those discussions and verified the identities of the speakers.
Newark Beth Israel said in a statement that, in response to the concerns raised by ProPublica, it is "conducting an evaluation and review of the program, its processes and its leadership."
In an apparent reference to the recordings, it said that "disclosures of select portions of lengthy and highly complex medical discussions, when taken out of context, may distort the intent of conversations." The hospital also said that its transplant program "has saved countless lives" and consistently met or exceeded all regulatory guidelines to maintain funding and certification, including providing one-year survival rates.
The hospital didn't respond to questions about Young, even though his family signed a release allowing Newark Beth Israel to discuss details of his care. A spokeswoman said its statement was made on behalf of Zucker and other transplant team members, as well as hospital administrators. Strueber declined comment separately, saying he "was not directly involved in the care of Mr. Darryl Young nor in the interactions with his family."
The hospital also emphasized its commitment to being transparent with patients and their families. "Our patients are our utmost priority and communication with our patients and their families is paramount in enabling our team to provide the best and most comprehensive care," it said.
In Darryl Young's case, though, the staff's reluctance to discuss treatment options with his family appears to run counter to the American Medical Association's code of ethics, which encourages physicians to communicate "routinely" with patients about their care goals. When a patient is not able to communicate, the physician "has an ethical responsibility to candidly and compassionately discuss these issues with the patient's authorized surrogate and document the surrogate's decision in the medical record." Withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is ethically acceptable, the AMA adds. "When an intervention no longer helps to achieve the patient's goals for care or desired quality of life, it is ethically appropriate for physicians to withdraw it."
After listening to the recordings, Young's daughter, Taccara Beale, was furious. "How dare you take it upon yourself to withhold such information from any family?" Beale said. "They took a decision away from us."
Arthur Caplan, head of the Division of Medical Ethics at NYU School of Medicine, reviewed transcripts of the recordings, including discussions about Young. "The management of this patient is egregiously unethical," he said. "Prolonging 'dying' to preserve a flawed transplant program makes a mockery of transplant medicine and is an assault on both ethics and compassion."
Founded in 1901, Newark Beth Israel has 665 beds and prides itself on its heart and lung transplant program. RWJBarnabas Health, a hospital network with which Newark Beth Israel is affiliated, countsit among "the best heart transplant hospitals that patients can trust."
A large banner on the hospital's brown brick facade proclaims, "1,000 hearts transplanted. Countless lives touched." One of the top 20 programs in the country by volume, it has performed 1,090 heart transplants to date, according to the hospital.
Another banner declares that Newark Beth Israel has New Jersey's only lung transplant program. The hospital transplants far fewer lungs than hearts; 16 lungs in 2017 and 15 in 2018, compared with 49 hearts in 2017 and 38 in 2018. The lung program shut down temporarily in 2013 because of a lack of staff. For most of 2019, it has had only one lung surgeon.
Zucker has been the director of the heart transplant program for 30 years. His team currently includes five cardiologists and a surgeon, according to the hospital's website, plus nurses, transplant coordinators, social workers, dieticians and a pharmacist.
Dr. Margarita Camacho, the surgeon who performs the vast majority of heart transplants, including Young's, has been at the hospital since 2005. She's well known for her practice of retrieving donor hearts in person: traveling to the donor's hospital, inspecting the heart and bringing it back for surgery. A donated organ should be used within four to six hours of removal, so once a heart becomes available, it needs to be flown to the recipient's hospital and rushed to the operating room. In a 2013 videoposted online by Newark Beth Israel, Camacho boards a plane and says, "I'm very well suited for this job, because I love it, I really do love what I do — I'm very fortunate, but I also can survive on cat naps."
A heart transplant is a complex and difficult operation. Surgery can last eight hours. Afterward, patients must take medication for the rest of their lives in order to prevent their immune system from rejecting the new heart.
Nonetheless, most transplants are successful, at least by the government's one-year metric. The national probability of surviving for a year for heart patients transplanted between January 2016 through June 2018 was 91.5%, according to the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services to track and analyze transplant outcomes. (SRTR publishes the semiannual reports that Zucker referred to when he said that Young needed to be kept alive until at least June 30.)
From 2008 through 2017, Newark Beth Israel's annual one-year survival rate for patients receiving a heart transplant has never dipped below 85.7%, rising as high as 96.9% in 2012, according to SRTR. But its performance declined in 2018 for reasons that remain unclear. Of 38 patients who received a heart transplant, six have already died within a year of their surgery, according to current and former staff. The causes ranged from complications after severe oxygen deprivation to the brain to a parasitic infection.
The six deaths translated into an 84.2% survival rate. If Young were to be the seventh, the rate would slip further, to 81.6%, well below the national average — and unlikely, the transplant team worried, to escape the federal government's attention.
For nearly a year now, Andrea Young has commuted an hour each way from Trenton every week to sit by her older brother's bedside, holding his hand and praying for his recovery. She is also Darryl's health care proxy; he had designated her to make decisions about his treatment, in the event that he was unable to do so himself.
Andrea, who is 59, retired at 55 from a decadeslong position as an analyst at the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission. She and Darryl had always been close. He joined the Navy at the age of 18 and served four years on the USS Kitty Hawk, naval records show. After spending time on opposite coasts, both siblings returned to New Jersey, where their mother's family lived, to settle down. They both loved keeping up with the news, sometimes calling each other as late as 11 p.m. to discuss a breaking story on cable TV.
"We talked every day," she said. "We'd call sometimes two times, even four times in a day. Now I feel a big void."
After a heart attack, Young received a mechanical pump, known as a left ventricular assist device, or LVAD, in 2014, according to his sister and medical records. The implanted device is often used as a bridge to transplant, helping to keep a patient's heart going while waiting for an organ match. The LVAD comes with a control unit, and batteries are worn in a holster. Showers are awkward because the equipment must stay dry.
Young was always impeccably dressed, wearing a suit to medical appointments. He spent so much time chatting with the nursing staff that the meetings would often run over, according to employees. He never complained, his sister said. He loved life and was hopeful that a heart transplant would help him continue to enjoy it.
After about three years on the waitlist, Young received a call from Newark Beth Israel late at night on Sept. 20, 2018, Andrea recalled. A heart was available. He was told to arrive at the hospital as soon as possible and went into surgery the following day. At Newark Beth Israel, surgery candidates aren't required to spell out their wishes for care in the event of being incapacitated, and Young didn't.
Initially, his family was told that the operation had gone well, and there was no reason to worry, his sister said. A few days after the transplant, Andrea Young spoke with Camacho on the phone and asked why her brother hadn't woken up yet. Camacho reassured her, saying she'd seen many patients in similar situations make "a full recovery," Andrea recalled.
As days turned into weeks, she became increasingly concerned. "I didn't have a good feeling," she said. "None of the doctors were very forthcoming. I felt like they were hiding something."
About three weeks after the surgery, Andrea Young said, she requested a meeting with her brother's medical team. But first, she went to her local library and checked out some neurology textbooks. Although her hands were full with two children she had adopted — brothers who were 5 and 6 years old — she made time to pore over the textbooks, trying to prepare so she could ask the correct questions. "I studied them for six hours, trying to understand," she said.
At the meeting, she asked if the surgeon had seen any sign that her brother's brain was deprived of oxygen during the surgery. Camacho said no, Young recalled. It was another cardiologist, whose name Andrea can't recall, who told her around this time that Young's MRI showed brain damage.
"I asked, Which part of the brain? And he said, 'Every part, but just a very small part of each section,' and that gave me hope. Now I know it was false hope."
Typically, if a patient suffers brain damage in an operation and doesn't wake up, doctors are supposed to meet with the family to explain the prognosis and options for care.
"You'd explain in a direct and empathetic way that it's not likely that this person will recover in a clinically meaningful way and then the question you'd hone in on is, 'If your loved one were awake to hear this, what would he or she want?'" said Dr. Ali Zarrabi, assistant professor of medicine and palliative care physician at Emory University School of Medicine.
The options presented would range from hospice care — which typically entails removing machine support, such as a ventilator, and not administering antibiotics for an infection — to a do not resuscitate order in case of cardiac arrest, to life-sustaining therapy.
But even though a few staff members suggested that the team schedule a meeting for Young's family to discuss options for his care, including hospice, the medical staff didn't have this conversation with Young's family, according to Andrea and employees familiar with his care.
Doctors also didn't inform Andrea when her brother contracted C. auris, a dangerous fungal infection that the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says is a "serious global health threat" because it is difficult to identify and is often resistant to multiple drugs.
According to text messages reviewed by ProPublica, Darryl Young had been treated for the infection at least once by early March. But Andrea said she only learned about it when a social worker mentioned it to her in late May. She searched on Google for information about the fungus.
"I had to ask for every meeting," Andrea said. "I had to dig and dig and dig. I was on my own trying to do the technical research."
Several nurses as well as a social worker were remarkably compassionate and caring toward her brother, Andrea said. Still, she struggled to get basic cosmetic care for him, she said. It grieved her to see his physical appearance neglected, with his toenails overgrown. She said she requested that the medical staff trim his nails, but it took four months before someone finally tended to them.
Leaders of the transplant program saw no alternative to keeping Young alive, employees said. Camacho, the heart surgeon, has more than once told staff that Young needs to "take one for the team," according to two people with direct knowledge of these remarks.
At a meeting in May, Zucker articulated the trade-off. "This is a very, very unethical, immoral but unfortunately very practical solution, because the reality here is that you haven't saved anybody if your program gets shut down," he said, according to an audio recording obtained by ProPublica.
Young "unfortunately became the seventh potential death in a very bad year, all right, and that puts us into a very difficult spot," Zucker said.
If Young died too soon, he continued, CMS might force the program to enter a Systems Improvement Agreement. "You haven't saved anybody if you spend $2 million in an SIA trying to defend your program, bringing outside reviewers in for two years to supervise every single transplant you do."
According to Aguiar, the transplant consultant, $2 million is actually a low estimate of what an SIA would cost a hospital. "Usually transplants are the treatment of last resort, and you have patients referred as they're approaching end-stage organ failure, so if there's no more transplant program there, referrals can dry up," causing a hospital to lose business beyond the direct expense of an SIA, she said.
For several months, administrators at a weekly hospital-wide meeting known as the "Bed Board" kept asking the transplant team why Young was occupying a hospital bed, rather than being sent to a long-term care facility, according to the recordings.
Hospitals typically prefer short stays because they need beds for other patients and can start losing compensation if insurance runs out or the insurer thinks the patient should be released or transferred.
Care in an ICU unit typically costs more than $3,000 a day, according to a 2005 study of U.S. hospitals' billing data, and about $1,000 more when the patient is on a ventilator. (Young is supported by a ventilator overnight.) He is covered by Medicare and Medicaid, but Newark Beth Israel doesn't bill insurers until a patient is discharged. So, for the time being, the hospital was absorbing the cost of Young's stay.
As the hospital's chief operating officer, Douglas Zehner ran the "Bed Board" meetings. At a July transplant team meeting, Zucker said that Zehner approved the plan to keep Young in the hospital, according to an audio recording obtained by ProPublica.
Zucker said Zehner called him one night and said, "We, as an administration, have made a decision ... to house this man indefinitely so that he doesn't become a mortality," according to the recording. Zehner was promotedJuly 30 to regional chief financial officer for RWJBarnabas Health.
No matter how much treatment Young received, his prospects for long-term survival in a vegetative state were dim. Patients like him can be sustained by ventilators and feeding tubes but are likely to die within a couple of years, said Dr. Randi Huo, a palliative care physician at the Everett Clinic in Everett, Washington.
"You're looking at recurrent infection — he's fed through a tube, he could get bed sores, he has an opening in his throat, which means he's at risk of pneumonia," she said. "Eventually, organisms will become resistant enough that nothing works. Then he would become septic and die."
Even if Young isn't in pain or distress, Huo said, his loved ones should decide the course of his care. "If the care he's receiving is not appropriate to the life he wants to live — if medicine is not serving him, then why are [they] doing this?"
The one-year survival rate has dictated Newark Beth Israel's treatment of other patients besides Young, according to employees and the recordings.
"A lot of you weren't here for our first lung transplant when we reopened, after we reopened the program. The first lung transplant stayed at the hospital until day 366, was sent out to rehab and died that day," Camacho said at the May meeting, according to a recording obtained by ProPublica.
The month before, Zucker had a similar recollection: "We did the same thing once with a lung transplant patient and this was just critical, remember? Keep that lady alive?"
It isn't clear if Camacho and Zucker were talking about the same patient. One former employee recalled a lung transplant patient who stayed for exactly a year. "It was done on purpose and they wouldn't let her be discharged out," the ex-employee said.
Even for transplant patients whose conditions were not as critical as Young's, the one-year date has been a consideration. Yosry Awad went to Newark Beth Israel on May 13 for a routine biopsy of his new heart, according to a medical record. His one-year anniversary was coming up in two weeks, on May 27.
During his hospital visit, the checkup revealed that a measure of the pressure of the blood in the heart, called filling pressure, was high, according to staff familiar with his care. The medical team decided to admit Awad and treat him with diuretics, which can help reduce blood pressure.
Awad had suffered multiple serious complications after his transplant surgery the previous year, including a cardiac arrest that required his heart to be temporarily supported by a machine that performs the functions of the heart and lungs, according to medical records.
Given his history of complications, Newark's staff was anxious to make sure he would reach his one-year date, according to three people familiar with Awad's case.
A week and a half later, Awad was still at Newark Beth Israel. By that point, there was no medical reason requiring that he stay in the hospital, according to the three people. But the medical team delayed his discharge.
A medical record viewed by ProPublica stated that Awad "remains in very good spirits and is hopeful to go home prior to the holiday weekend. Per the medical team he will remain hospitalized through 5/27 to hit his one year anniversary."
After the weekend, the transplant team joked about Awad. "Well today is his one year, so congratulations!" said cardiologist Vucicevic. "Discharge!" chimed in medical director Rajagopalan, according to an audio recording and employees who witnessed the conversation.
In an interview at his home, Awad acknowledged that he had wanted to go home in May and spend Memorial Day weekend with his family. As far as he knew, he said, the hospital kept him because of his blood pressure problems. He added that he is grateful for the heart he received at Beth Israel. "I know I'm lucky," he said.
"We are not doctors or nurses, how would we know" whether his stay was justified, asked his sister and caregiver, Nagwa Helmy, who said she was satisfied with the hospital's care of her brother. Although Awad signed a release allowing the hospital to discuss his care, it did not respond to questions about him.
Another patient, who received both a heart and kidney transplant, similarly had a hospital stay extended until his one-year anniversary, according to two staff members familiar with his care. The patient's family did not respond to requests for comment.
Medical records reviewed by ProPublica show he was admitted at the end of last January with abdominal pain. About three weeks before the anniversary, Zucker instructed staff to "keep him alive," one employee recalled. When he reached the milestone on a Thursday in late March, the record noted, "1 year anniversary."
He was discharged the following Monday.
It wasn't until late July, 10 months after Young's surgery, that anyone at Newark Beth Israel consulted his sister about his future care.
Andrea Young recalled that she was leaving the hospital, already late to pick up her sons from school, when cardiologist Dr. Laurie Letarte asked her permission to do a procedure to see if the fungal infection had spread to Darryl Young's heart.
Letarte asked "what I would like to have done for my brother with respect to his treatment," Young recalled. Letarte, though, didn't go into detail about her brother's prognosis or options such as a do not resuscitate order.
Taken aback, Andrea said she responded, "I'm not making any absolute decisions." She said she asked Letarte to continue standard care for her brother for now. Nobody from the hospital followed up on the 10-minute conversation, Andrea said.
A few weeks later, sitting in her living room while her two boys zoomed up and down the stairs, bouncing onto the couch for a hug then running off to grab toys, Andrea mused about her desires for Darryl.
Wrestling with the pressure of making the correct decisions for her brother, she said she wasn't sure about hospice care, if it meant removing Young's ventilator. "I'm not ready to make that kind of decision," she said, adding that other family members might want to visit him first.
But she was contemplating a DNR order. "Why resuscitate someone who loved life so much?" she wondered.
After listening to the audio recordings of the transplant team's meetings, she shook her head. "I know that what happened could've not been intentional, but at the very least, they could be honest," she said. "People should be able to make informed decisions for themselves and their loved one."
She wondered if her brother could possibly be brought home to his own apartment someday.
"I want him to have the wind in his hair and the sun on his face," she said. "I want him to be as comfortable as he can."
On a Tuesday at the end of August, I accompanied Andrea on her weekly visit to her brother. On the eighth floor, we had to stop outside his room to put on gowns and gloves — precautions against an infection that could kill him.
Darryl Young's eyes were open, drifting over the ceiling. They did not connect with Andrea as she leaned over the bed, greeting him.
"Hi Darryl, how are you today?"
Young's corner room overlooked the street. It was bare of any personal effects — no photographs or cards to give a clue about the man who had been in the hospital for nearly a year. Instead, he was surrounded by machines. On the right of the bed was a monitor to track his vital signs.
On the left was the ventilator used at night to help him breathe, and hanging near him, a bottle of nutrients and a bag of liquid for hydration.
Every inhalation was accompanied by a gurgling noise, perhaps caused by mucus in his tracheostomy tube. The only other sound in the room came from the TV over the bed, set on CNN, which was warning of a hurricane approaching Puerto Rico.
Young asked a passing nurse if the doctors were around, and she was told that Zucker and Letarte weren't on the floor. She asked if anyone could tell her how her brother's most recent procedure had gone.
The hospital staff had told her that they would drain his lungs because he had a bout of pneumonia, and she had asked if someone could call her afterward and update her, but nobody had. The nurse said he didn't know.
Young turned back to her brother. She pulled up a song on her phone: "Lean on Me," which had been their mother's favorite tune.
She held her phone close to his ear so he could hear the lyrics: "Lean on me, when you're not strong, and I'll be your friend, I'll help you carry on...."
With her other hand, she stroked his face and arm.
"It's OK," she murmured. "You can close your eyes if you're tired, you can sleep."
Around that time, Andrea Young sat down and wrote a short statement, expressing her feelings about her brother's treatment.
"These revelations are deeply disturbing," she wrote. "I will be forever grateful to those who had the courage to come forward, possibly putting themselves at risk, to expose this hospital's wrongdoing. It is my hope that the appropriate action will be taken against the hospital as well as the doctors involved for such a betrayal of trust and for inflicting such pain upon me, my family, and many other families as well."
As part of the Trump administration's deregulatory push, it is relaxing performance requirements for transplant programs. Under a rule that was finalized last month and will take effect in November, transplant programs won't have to submit data on outcomes to CMS to receive Medicare reimbursement.
However, SRTR will continue to report one-year survival rates, and CMS says it will still monitor quality of care and investigate complaints.
Three days before the anniversary of Young's transplant, Andrea Young was met at the hospital by a cardiologist and a social worker. They told her that Darryl was now stable enough to consider a move to a long-term care facility. The social worker offered to start looking up facilities. Andrea Young asked why, after all this time, they were planning to transfer him. She didn't get a clear response, she said.
On Sept. 21, one year after his operation, Darryl Young was still alive, and still at Newark Beth Israel. After so long in a vegetative state, the chances of a patient regaining the ability to communicate are "grim to none," said Dr. Joseph Safdieh, associate professor of neurology at Weill Cornell Medicine. But for the hospital, Young now counted as a victory.
Inmates suffering heart attacks, on the verge of diabetic comas and brutalized in jail beatings have been released so sheriffs wouldn't have to pay for their medical care.
Michael Tidwell's blood sugar reading was at least 15 times his normal level when sheriff's deputies took him to the hospital. But before they loaded the inmate into the back of a car, deputies propped up his slumping body and handed him a pen so he could sign a release from the Washington County Jail.
"I could barely stand up or keep my eyes open," he recalled.
Tidwell said that he didn't know what he was signing at the time, and that he lost consciousness a short time later. The consequences of his signature only became clear in the weeks that followed the 2013 medical emergency.
By signing the document, which freed him on bond from the small jail in south Alabama, Tidwell had in essence agreed that the Washington County Sheriff's Office would not be responsible for his medical costs, which included the two days he spent in a diabetic coma in intensive care at Springhill Medical Center in Mobile.
It's unclear whether Tidwell, who was uninsured at the time and in poor health afterward, was billed for his care or if the medical providers wrote it off. Neither Tidwell's attorneys nor the hospital was able to say, and Tidwell was unable to get answers when he and a reporter called the hospital's billing department.
What is clear is that the sheriff's office avoided paying Tidwell's hospital bills.
Tidwell had been on the receiving end of a practice referred to by many in law enforcement as a "medical bond." Sheriffs across Alabama are increasingly deploying the tactic to avoid having to pay when inmates face medical emergencies or require expensive procedures — even ones that are necessary only because an inmate received inadequate care while incarcerated.
What's more, once they recover, some inmates are quickly rearrested and booked back into the jail from which they were released.
Local jails across the country have long been faulted for providing substandard medical care. In Alabama, for instance, a mentally ill man died from flesh-eating bacteria 15 days after being booked into the Mobile County Metro Jail in 2000. And in 2013, a 19-year-old man died of gangrene less than a month after he was booked into the Madison County Jail. In both cases, officials denied wrongdoing and surviving relatives settled lawsuits alleging that poor jail health care contributed to their loved ones' deaths.
But the use of medical bonds isn't about inferior care. It's about who pays for care.
While medical bonds have been a last resort in many states for more than 20 years, experts say they are employed in Alabama more often than elsewhere. Their use in some counties but not in others illustrates the vast power and latitude that sheriffs have in Alabama, which is the subject of a yearlong examination by AL.com and ProPublica.
Several Alabama sheriffs, including Washington County Sheriff Richard Stringer, said in interviews that they often find ways to release inmates with sudden health problems to avoid responsibility for their medical costs. Stringer denied any wrongdoing in his office's handling of Tidwell's emergency.
"We had a guy a couple of weeks ago with congestive heart failure. … The judge let him make bond so the county didn't get stuck with that bill," Lamar County Sheriff Hal Allred said in a March telephone interview. "We don't have any medical staff in the jail. I wish we did, that would be great, but the way the county finances are, I won't live long enough to see it."
Typically the process works like this: When an inmate awaiting trial is in a medical crisis, a sheriff or jail staffer requests that a judge allow him or her to be released on bond just before, or shortly after, the inmate is taken to a hospital. If the request is granted, the inmate typically signs the document granting the release.
Michael Jackson, district attorney for Alabama's 4th Judicial Circuit, said he is aware of multiple recent cases in which sheriffs released inmates on bond without first obtaining a judge's approval. Jackson said he also worries about the risk of inmates reoffending after they receive medical treatment.
"I'm not saying there should be no situation where an inmate can get released early, but it shouldn't be about money," Jackson said in a phone interview this month. "No one's watching them when they get out, and people might get robbed or their houses might get broken into."
While judges usually sign off on bonds, lawyers who represent inmates and other experts say sheriffs are often the key decision-makers and can be held legally responsible for what happens after they release inmates via such methods.
If an inmate is already sick or injured when he or she is released, sheriffs are "not going to be able to avoid the liability just by opening the trap door and letting them go," said Henry Brewster, one of Tidwell's attorneys.
'They Have to Do Something'
Shortly after Tidwell was locked up for a probation violation in 2013, his sister Michelle Alford, a nurse at a Mobile hospital, said she brought his diabetes medications to the Washington County Jail and gave them to the guard on duty.
She says she explained to the staff that her brother is a "brittle" diabetic, meaning he needs frequent monitoring. She provided the jail with a two-page document that explained how often his blood sugar needed to be checked, what symptoms to watch for and the purpose of each medication.
The jail's employees, none of whom had any formal medical training, did not follow those instructions, according to Tidwell's jailhouse medical records, a copy of which Alford provided to AL.com and ProPublica.
On his fourth day in the aging jailhouse, Tidwell became ill and vomited off and on for the ensuing 48 hours. He was unconscious for most of his final two days there, according to court and medical records.
Before he was taken to Washington County Hospital, Tidwell's blood sugar reading was 1,500 mg/dl; a normal reading for him is 80 to 100 mg/dl. Over the less than seven full days he was incarcerated, he had lost at least 17 pounds, records show.
Tidwell's release form bears his signature scrawled incomprehensibly outside the signature box, overlapping the typed prompt for "Signature of Defendant." It does not match other examples of his signature on court documents reviewed by AL.com and ProPublica.
"If you're in there and you get sick, they have to do something and get some medical attention," he said. "But if you're in so bad of shape that they're trying to hold you up and get you to sign something, that's wrong."
Tidwell, who was 42 at the time, was assessed at the local hospital and taken to Springhill, a larger and better-equipped hospital, where he lay in a coma in the intensive care unit. He was suffering from renal failure and other complications related to his diabetes, according to the records.
During a conversation in his office in downtown Chatom, Stringer, the Washington County sheriff, said that he and his jail staffers are not medically trained. Instead, they "listen to what [inmates are] complaining about and examine them to determine if they need medical bond, because people will do anything to get out of jail."
If they decide an inmate has a serious and potentially costly medical issue — and doesn't pose a threat to the public — Stringer said he or the jail's administrator will call a judge and request that the inmate be released.
Asked last week whether he believes Tidwell was legally able to provide consent to being bonded out, Stringer said: "They've got to be physically able to sign the bond. I'm sure he was [conscious] or he wouldn't have been able to be bonded out. … It's been so long ago it's hard to remember all these things. I'm sure we did what needed to be done."
But in an earlier interview, the sheriff provided an alternate explanation for Tidwell's hospitalization.
"When someone comes in and says he's a diabetic, we try to prepare a meal that will accommodate his diabetes," Stringer said. "But now on commissary, they're on their own there. I mean, you know you're diabetic. Don't order — he actually ordered 12 honey buns."Tidwell, who denies eating a dozen honey buns in the jail, recovered and was sent home from the hospital.
He filed a lawsuit against Stringer and several sheriff's office employees in 2014; it was settled the following year. Stringer said he believes he and his employees would have been exonerated had the suit gone to trial, but because he said the settlement was for "something like $20,000 ... it's not worth fighting it."
But Tidwell's problems didn't end there. Exactly three months after Tidwell was released on bond, a judge issued a bench warrant for his arrest on another probation violation.
'They'll Lower the Bond'
AL.com and ProPublica have reviewed the cases or media reports of inmates in 15 of Alabama's 67 counties who were issued last-minute bonds or released on their own recognizance just before they were hospitalized for emergencies.
In September 2018, for instance, a 38-year-old inmate at the Lauderdale County Jail was taken to a nearby hospital after he suffered a stroke that left him partially paralyzed and unable to communicate verbally, stand or perform daily tasks, state court records show. The inmate, Scottie Davis, was released from sheriff's office custody on bond the following day, though he couldn't sign the release document. Someone instead wrote the words "Unable to sign due to medical cond." in the space for the inmate's signature. Davis was responsible for the medical costs after he was bonded out.
Lauderdale County Sheriff Rick Singleton said when inmates are too ill to sign their names, sheriff's officials notify a judge who decides whether to allow them to be released on bond.
And earlier last year, in Randolph County, an inmate was released on a medical bond before going to the hospital for surgery, according to The Randolph Leader, a local newspaper. When he wasn't able to immediately get the procedure, he was rearrested on a new misdemeanor charge and booked back into the Randolph County Jail.
The county ended up on the hook for the over $10,000 the procedure was expected to cost. Some county officials view the turn of events as an unfortunate financial setback.
Randolph County Commissioner Lathonia Wright said in a phone interview this month that paying inmates' hospital bills is "really rough" on the county's budget, but it sometimes can't be avoided.
"I hate that we have to pay for it out of taxpayer money, but the law demands that we take care of people that are incarcerated in the jail," he said. "If we get a bill, we pay for our medical bills. They come straight from the hospital."
In urban counties with larger populations, the majority of inmates' medical problems are dealt with in the jails, usually by private companies that provide infirmaries, round-the-clock nurses and doctors who make regular visits.
But in some rural counties, sheriffs do not have any staff members with medical training or the budget to absorb significant hospital costs.
Jim Underwood, who was sheriff of Walker County from 2015 until January, said the county budgeted about $350,000 per year for jail health care while he was in office. The sheriff's office did everything it could to keep costs down, Underwood said, adding that before he was sheriff, one inmate's medical care cost about $300,000.
"I think that a lot of it does depend on what they're charged with … but there are people released because of medical bills," he said. "You have to go through the judge; they'll lower the bond."
Underwood said he believes the practice "happens everywhere" in Alabama, though it takes different forms in different counties. One sheriff's office has paid for inmates to wear ankle monitors while out on bond for unexpected medical care; another waited for an inmate's relatives to secure a private bond before allowing him to be taken to a hospital, records show.
Sheriff's officials in Washington County, where Tidwell was in custody, have faced other lawsuits alleging improper use of medical bonds, including in the case of a woman who died of a stroke one day after being released from the county's jail in 2016. In that case, which was settled this year, an audio recording captured a top sheriff's office official asking jail staff to ensure the woman was released on a medical furlough, a method of release similar to a medical bond, before taking her to the hospital.
Nora Demleitner, a law professor at Washington and Lee University in Virginia who specializes in criminal sentencing, said medical bonds may violate inmates' rights and the way some sheriffs use them is "totally flawed."
"It's a stunning problem," she said. "When [inmates] file lawsuits, and rightly so, they should get civil compensation."
Demleitner added via email that the phenomenon is prevalent in a number of counties and entirely absent in others. AL.com and ProPublica have reviewed media reports of sheriffs pursuing medical bonds for inmates with medical crises in 25 states.
Alan Lasseter, a Birmingham-based attorney who has filed lawsuits over alleged police misconduct and jail health care issues, said sheriffs' reliance on medical bonds appears to be on the rise.
"It's only something I've been hearing about for about two years, maybe longer, but it's becoming more common and it's really starting to resonate with me that it's been happening more and more in Alabama," Lasseter said.
'They Are Responsible'
Marcus Echols said his daughter was 9 years old when he first learned that she was his child. Until then, the girl's mother had been collecting child support from another man who was eventually determined not to be her father, according to court records and Echols.
In 1998, a judge in Morgan County ordered Echols to pay more than $9,000 worth of back child support and interest in monthly payments of $500.
Over the ensuing years, Echols, who pays support on other children and has had trouble keeping a job, repeatedly failed to make the required payments. By November 2015, when he was arrested for contempt of court for failure to make child support payments, his debt totaled more than $50,000. He was booked into the Morgan County Jail in Decatur, a city in north Alabama.
Two months later, on Jan. 16, 2016, Echols suffered a heart attack inside his painted cinder-block cell.
For over half an hour, guards argued over whether he needed to be taken to the hospital, Echols, now 49, said.
They eventually took him to Huntsville Hospital. Several hours later, Echols said, he awoke from a procedure and was told by a doctor that he had needed three stents inserted because his heart had suffered extensive damage over the extended period of time between when he went into cardiac arrest and his arrival at the hospital. Medical records reviewed by AL.com and ProPublica confirm Echols' account of his condition and treatment.
The doctor also informed him that he had been officially released from Morgan County Sheriff's Office custody, Echols said.
Echols said he was glad to find out that he would be allowed to go home instead of back to jail, but when he received a bill less than two weeks later from Huntsville Hospital for the costs of his medical care, he learned that he was personally responsible for more than $80,000.
"I didn't get the bill until about a week after I got out of the hospital," Echols said. "It just showed up in the mail."
Echols said he never learned what mechanism the sheriff's office had used to release him from its custody, and none of the court records associated with his lawsuit provide any clarity.
"I didn't sign nothing. … When I woke up," he said, "the doctor told me that the sheriff's office had told him to tell me that I had been released from jail."
A local charitable foundation ultimately paid Echols' bills. But he still feels that he was taken advantage of.
"It seems like a scam that they're running. They're running the jail at the lowest possible cost at the expense of everyone else."
Ana Franklin, who was sheriff at the time of Echols' incarceration and hospitalization, declined to comment on Echols' experience. But she said her "first consideration in whether or not to release someone on a medical release was never the budget." She said the primary factors that drove such determinations when she was sheriff included criminal history, risk of reoffense and whether the jail was equipped to provide adequate medical care.
"It's great to just say the sheriffs cut them loose because it saves them money on their medical," said Franklin, who pleaded guilty last year to a federal charge of failing to file an income tax return. "But it's just as big a liability issue that an inmate is going to say that we didn't provide adequate treatment for them in the jail as it is that he's going to sue us and say we cut him loose and they had to pay their medical bills."
In March 2016, just a few weeks after Echols' heart attack, the sheriff's office attempted to obtain a new warrant to arrest him for contempt of court for his continued failure to pay the thousands of dollars worth of back child support he still owed.
Morgan County District Judge Charles B. Langham issued an order stating that Echols "is still under medical care" — he was attending cardiac rehab sessions at the time — and denied the sheriff's office's request. A year later, Langham issued an order for a new warrant for Echols' arrest. At the time, Echols was unable to work, had applied for federal disability and was living with relatives.
Echols' sister, Lashundra Craig, said she takes issue with the sheriff's office's persistent attempts to arrest her brother despite his continuing health issues.
"They are responsible for whatever happens to the inmates. … If they don't want to be responsible for the medical costs but they want to put you back in jail to face your responsibility, to me it's showing they just still want their money," she said.
'They Said They Would Release Me'
It has historically been difficult for inmates to prevail in lawsuits alleging that sheriffs violated their rights by releasing them while they required medical attention.
On July 3, 1996, four inmates beat Leroy Owens with a metal pipe; stabbed him with a screwdriver; kicked, stomped and punched him; and left him in a pool of blood in a common room on the second floor of the Butler County Jail in Alabama's Black Belt.
Owens described the events of that evening in a recent interview, and they are laid out in detail in the records of the federal court case he and a fellow inmate who was also beaten would later file against then-sheriff Diane Harris, the county and the county commission in Alabama's Middle District in Montgomery.
For nearly an hour, no one answered Owens' cries for help or those of other inmates who banged on the jail's walls, one of whom yelled, "They're killing him up here," according to the court records.
Finally, Harris' chief deputy, Phillip Hartley, was called to the jail. Twenty minutes after the attack ended, Owens was taken downstairs and then driven to a nearby hospital, where he was treated for his injuries.
The hospital released Owens into the custody of two sheriff's deputies, who were given a discharge document detailing "specific procedures to care for Owens's head wounds and other injuries. It instructed them to monitor his level of consciousness, pupils, vision, and coordination, and to call the hospital immediately if any change occurred," according to a summary of Owens' allegations included in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit's ruling on the appeal of his federal case.
Instead, after they arrived at the jail, Hartley insisted that the bloodied inmate sign a bond granting his release, according to Owens and the court records.
"I signed out of the jail. All I know is it was a piece of paper I signed. I was bleeding and I was coming in and out of consciousness," Owens, who is now 56, said last month. "They said they would release me if I signed it."
After Owens signed the bond, Hartley drove him almost to the county line and dropped him off at about 3:30 a.m. on July 4, 1996, on the side of a desolate stretch of highway, without shoes, according to Owens and the court records.
"When he released me from the jail, he took me to the edge of the county and he said, 'Your best bet is to leave town,'" Owens recalled.
After spending the night in a hotel, Owens awoke "in terrible pain" and was taken by ambulance back to the emergency room, according to the court records. He returned to the hospital again on July 8 for further treatment, the court records show.
Medicaid ultimately paid the hospital bills Owens incurred after he was bonded out from the jail.
Danny Bond, the current sheriff of Butler County, did not respond to repeated requests for comment.
In 2001, the 11th Circuit reinstated Owens' case against the county, the sheriff and others after a lower court had dismissed it. The court ruled that though Owens and the other inmate did not prove that Harris or the county were deliberately indifferent to their medical needs, they "sufficiently stated a claim against the County and the Sheriff for the conditions at the Butler County Jail." The court, however, also found that Harris was "entitled to immunity for her policy of releasing sick and injured inmates."
Judge Rosemary Barkett, writing for a four-judge minority, disagreed, saying that the allegations of deliberate indifference against Harris should not be dismissed. Barkett wrote that Harris and her staff should have known that releasing Owens and leaving him on the side of the road after 3 a.m. could be a constitutional violation.
Harris and the county denied wrongdoing; Owens and the other inmate plaintiff ultimately settled the suit.
Meanwhile, legal experts who reviewed relevant portions of Alabama's state code said they were able to find only two vague references to the issue: a statement that certain fees shall not be assessed "if a person is released on judicial public bail or on personal recognizance for a documented medical reason" and a stipulation that "the sheriff or jailer, at the expense of the county," must provide "necessary medicines and medical attention to those who are sick and injured, when they are unable to provide them for themselves."
Despite that, some lawyers and experts say inmates often have a hard time winning cases against sheriffs on those grounds.
"If a county sheriff threw someone out of the jail who's unconscious and said 'good luck,' you could possibly make a civil rights violation or negligence claim," said Paul Saputo, a Dallas-based criminal defense attorney who has represented multiple clients who have been bonded out of jail for medical reasons.
"If you have a heart attack and are taken to a hospital, and the question at the end of the day is who's gonna pay for it, that's a little bit closer of a call."
'They're Technically Still in Custody'
Lauderdale County, in Alabama's northwest corner, has taken official action to expand the use of medical bonds.
During its April 25, 2017, meeting, the Lauderdale County Commission agreed to enter into a contract with a Tennessee company to provide ankle monitors and monitoring services for inmates who are permitted to leave the county's jail to obtain expensive medical treatments.
Lauderdale County District Attorney Chris Connolly explained the concept during a discussion of the ankle monitor plan earlier that month, as Florence's Times Daily newspaper reported at the time.
"Putting them on an ankle monitor and then releasing them on medical furlough or a recognizance bond would still allow us to have control of them, but also it would make them responsible for any medical treatment or expense," Connolly said.
The new approach to reducing the jail's medical costs has been used 12 to 15 times since the contract was signed, Singleton, the Lauderdale County sheriff, said in a telephone interview last month.
"I guess you'd consider it like house arrest," he said. "They're technically still in custody" and must immediately return to the jail once they are deemed healthy enough to do so. But instead of adding to the $500,000 of medical care the jail averaged annually as of 2017, the inmates must pay the bill. That means the program has been a success, according to Singleton.
"It's accomplished what we wanted to accomplish," he said. "It's saved us some money."
Singleton also emphasized that the program does not affect public safety because ankle monitors are only used in cases involving nonviolent inmates who are not considered threats to the community.
Lauderdale County District Judge Carole Medley, who rules on small-time criminal cases nearly every day in her courtroom, said she often grants bonds so inmates can obtain medical care, which they must then pay for themselves. She said that she is "very pro-ankle monitor," and that she considers the program "a win-win" for inmates and for the jail and the county's finances.
"I release people on [own recognizance] bonds every other week for medical issues. Do I take into consideration the charge? Of course. And there are times where we release them on an ankle monitor to get their medical needs addressed, and then some of them do return to jail."
Critics of the practice say it raises important questions about the very purpose of incarceration. For instance, if sheriffs and other officials claim that these inmates must be jailed to prevent them from harming others, punish them for wrongdoing and deter would-be criminals, why are those officials so quick to abandon those goals in order to avoid paying their medical bills?
Jasmine Heiss, a campaign director at the Vera Institute of Justice in New York, said if such inmates can in fact be safely released when doing so saves tax dollars, perhaps they shouldn't have been incarcerated in the first place.
"Broadly, what we would like to see is people who can be safely released on their own recognizance being released earlier in the process rather than waiting until people have these severe medical crises," Heiss said.
Research reporter Claire Perlman contributed to this report.