Colorado hospitals got failing grades for compliance with the Colorado Hospital Discounted Care law, according to a new report.

The law passed in 2021, and requires hospitals to tell patients about their rights and access to discounts.

Sophia Hennessy is policy and research coordinator with the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative.

She said people across the state still report the cost of health care is too high, and without access to discounted care, many are skipping doctor's appointments.

"Fear of that hospital bill, and if care is so expensive that it will put you in medical debt," said Hennessy. "Or make it harder to have housing, or food. And that's never a decision that we want anyone in Colorado to have to make."

Researchers audited all of the state's 89 hospitals.

While 58% of hospitals technically met the law's basic requirements, the report shows many just went through the motions - hiding information about discounts in remote parts of their website, or not posting it at all.

Just 20% of patients were able to solve their problem by phone, but that number dropped to under 5% for Spanish-speaking callers.

You can find a fact sheet about your rights at cohealth.co/hospitaldiscounts.

Hospitals must post a conspicuous link to discounted care information on their main website, along with a uniform application for assistance. They also need to list patient rights in both English and Spanish.

Hennessy said the new law also limits how hospitals take action against patients.

"Hospitals can't send your account into collections until 180 days after your date of service," said Hennessy. "So there's way more time for you to figure out how you want to pay those bills, or if you can't pay those bills. And they also have to notify you that they are sending you to collection."

The report finds access to discounted care is twice as hard to get at large health system-owned hospitals than at independent facilities.

Proponents of hospital consolidation have argued mergers will improve the quality of care and access, but Hennessy said she isn't buying it.

"This report showed that that's not true," said Hennessy, "that it was actually harder to get a financial assistance representative on the phone at health system-owned hospitals, and harder to get the information that you needed from them."

They may offer people a legitimate way to convert cash into cryptocurrency but crypto ATMs are also popular with scammers.

Washington had the highest rate of reported impostor scams in the country in 2023, according to the Federal Trade Commission. The Spokane City Council recently passed a resolution supporting more state regulations for the crypto ATMs, including limits on how much money can be withdrawn daily.

Det. Tim Schwering of the Spokane Police Department, said his office is receiving two or three calls a day about crypto ATM scams.

"$50,000 is very common in losses," Schwering pointed out. "You know, $100,000, $200,000 in losses, entire life savings wiped out from these types of scams."

Schwering noted most of the scams center around fake romantic relationships or bogus investment opportunities. He added most of the scammers are based in countries with no diplomatic relationships with the U.S. law enforcement. Even if he can find the money in countries like China, Russia or North Korea, he cannot get it back.

Schwering emphasized investment scams can be especially hard to recognize because scammers will allow victims to withdraw some money after making it look like their investment has grown on a fake website. Once victims feel secure they can withdraw their supposed "earnings," the con escalates. The FBI estimates Americans were robbed of close to $6 billion in 2023 through crypto-related scams.

"When you're making that kind of money, you can put money into building websites that are, they look like, legitimate investment websites," Schwering explained.

Schwering is working with the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions on legislation to limit the amount of money someone can deposit into a crypto ATM to $1,000 a day. He said it will not solve the problem but could help mitigate the potential losses.


get more stories like this via email

South Dakota is among the states with the highest percentage of residents carrying medical debt but a new federal rule announced this week could ease some of the pressure when they apply for loans.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has finalized a rule stating credit agencies cannot share a person's medical debt history with a lending institution requesting credit information. The only debt details that can be relayed to determine a person's creditworthiness are mortgages, car loans, credit cards and similar activity.

Patricia Kelmar, senior director of health care campaigns for the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, said groups like hers had long pushed for this move.

"Medical debt is not really indicative of somebody's ability or desire to pay back a loan," Kelmar pointed out. "Oftentimes people are in a situation where they get a bad medical diagnosis, or they've been in a car accident. Suddenly they have a lot of medical bills."

According to the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, nearly 18% of South Dakota adults report having medical debt. The national average is 8%. Some credit agencies already exclude medical debt in loan situations.

Kelmar acknowledged the incoming Trump administration could seek to reverse this rule change, as some advisers have said they want to do away with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau altogether.

Pushback is also expected from debt collection firms. Kelmar emphasized skeptics should know keeping medical debt out of the equation is good for the overall economy.

"The long arm of medical debt can really hurt people's financial future and their ability to get better," Kelmar contended.

For example, she noted a person emerging from a medical scare might need a new car to rejoin the workforce but the sudden health care debt they incurred might get in the way. The new rule will be effective 60 days after it's published in the Federal Register.


get more stories like this via email

A bill reforming the New York-New Jersey Port Authority is coming back before New York's Legislature.

The reforms it would implement date back to the Bridgegate scandal of former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The bill increases oversight measures and transparency regarding capital planning. Although it passed with bipartisan support during last year's legislative session, Gov. Kathy Hochul vetoed it.

Rachael Fauss, senior policy analyst for the group Reinvent Albany, said the reforms can improve the agency.

"It would require much more public consultation, notification and hearings about the Port Authority's capital plan," Fauss explained. "Port Authority is actually the second-biggest public authority in New York State."

The legislation would add nonvoting members such as mass transit users to the Port Authority's board. It also requires members of the Port Authority to appear before the legislatures in New York and New Jersey when there is a public hearing. In her veto message, Hochul said she wants a more collaborative bill with New Jersey officials but Fauss feels signing the bill would have opened communication. So far, the bill is in committee.

New Jersey's Legislature has yet to pass a similar bill to enact the reforms. The hope is to increase public awareness about the agency's more than $9 billion budget. The Port Authority's primary opposition to the bill centered around how the changes might restrict its operations.

Fauss noted there are concerns the agency is too independent.

"Public authorities of states are often seen as being independent agencies, but that can go too far, and they can act without accountability," Fauss contended. "There is that sort of gut reaction of, 'Well, don't we want this authority to be independent?' But, obviously, we think that has gone too far because it was used for political purposes."

While it remains to be seen how the bill could shake out in the coming session, it could get bogged down in politics. Given New York enacted congestion pricing, which New Jersey has long opposed, it is uncertain whether the two states will come together about the legislation and Port Authority's reforms.