Barbara Feder Ostrov

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Physicians groups on January 17 hailed a new federal rule requiring health insurers to streamline and disclose more information about their prior authorization processes, saying it will improve patient care and reduce doctors’ administrative burden.

Health insurers participating in federal programs, including Medicare Advantage and Medicaid, must now respond to expedited prior authorization requests within 72 hours and other requests within 7 days under the long-awaited final rule, released on January 17 by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). 

Insurers also must include their reasons for denying a prior authorization request and will be required to publicly release data on denial and approval rates for medical treatment. They’ll also need to give patients more information about their decisions to deny care. Insurers must comply with some of the rule’s provisions by January 2026 and others by January 2027. 

The final rule “is an important step forward” toward the Medical Group Management Association’s goal of reducing the overall volume of prior authorization requests, said Anders Gilberg, the group’s senior vice president for government affairs, in a statement. 

“Only then will medical groups find meaningful reprieve from these onerous, ill-intentioned administrative requirements that dangerously impede patient care,” Mr. Gilberg said.

Health insurers have long lobbied against increased regulation of prior authorization, arguing that it’s needed to rein in healthcare costs and prevent unnecessary treatment. 

“We appreciate CMS’s announcement of enforcement discretion that will permit plans to use one standard, rather than mixing and matching, to reduce costs and speed implementation,” said America’s Health Insurance Plans, an insurers’ lobbying group, in an unsigned statement. “However, we must remember that the CMS rule is only half the picture; the Office of the Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC) should swiftly require vendors to build electronic prior authorization capabilities into the electronic health record so that providers can do their part, or plans will build a bridge to nowhere.” 

The rule comes as health insurers have increasingly been criticized for onerous and time-consuming prior authorization procedures that physicians say unfairly delay or deny the medical treatment that their patients need. With federal legislation to rein in prior authorization overuse at a standstill, 30 states have introduced their own bills to address the problem. Regulators and lawsuits also have called attention to insurers’ increasing use of artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny claims without human review.

“Family physicians know firsthand how prior authorizations divert valuable time and resources away from direct patient care. We also know that these types of administrative requirements are driving physicians away from the workforce and worsening physician shortages,” said Steven P. Furr, MD, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, in a statement praising the new rule. 

Jesse M. Ehrenfeld, MD, MPH, president of the American Medical Association, called the final rule “ a major win” for patients and physicians, adding that its requirements for health insurers to integrate their prior authorization procedures into physicians’ electronic health records systems will also help make “the current time-consuming, manual workflow” more efficient.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

Doctors’ groups are lining up to support new federal legislation to permanently tie Medicare physician payment updates to inflation.

Introduced by four physician U.S. House representatives, HR 2474 would link Medicare fee schedule updates to the Medicare Economic Index, a measure of inflation related to physicians’ practice costs and wages.

That’s a long-sought goal of the American Medical Association, which is leading 120 state medical societies and medical specialty groups in championing the bill.

The legislation is essential to enabling physician practices to better absorb payment distributions triggered by budget neutrality rules, performance adjustments, and periods of high inflation, the groups wrote in a joint letter sent to the bill’s sponsors. The sponsors say they hope the legislation will improve access to care, as low reimbursements cause some physicians to limit their number of Medicare patients.

Physicians groups for years have urged federal lawmakers to scrap short-term fixes staving off Medicare pay cuts in favor of permanent reforms. Unlike nearly all other Medicare clinicians including hospitals, physicians’ Medicare payment updates aren’t currently tied to inflation.

Adjusted for inflation, Medicare payments to physicians have declined 26% between 2001 and 2023, including a 2% payment reduction in 2023, according to the AMA. Small and rural physician practices have been disproportionately affected by these reductions, as have doctors treating low-income or uninsured patients, the AMA said.

Last month, an influential federal advisory panel recommended permanently tying Medicare physician pay increases to inflation. Clinicians’ cost of providing services, measured by the Medicare Economic Index, rose by 2.6% in 2021 and are estimated to have risen 4.7% in 2022, significantly more than in recent years, the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission said.

A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

California lawmakers are considering legislation to protect California physicians and pharmacists who prescribe abortion pills to out-of-state patients. The proposed law would shield health care providers who are legally performing their jobs in California from facing prosecution in another state or being extradited.

State Sen. Nancy Skinner, who introduced the bill, said the legislation is necessary in a fractured, post-Roe legal landscape where doctors in some states can face felony charges or civil penalties for providing reproductive health care. It’s part of a package of 17 new bills aiming to “strengthen California’s standing as a safe haven for abortion, contraception, and pregnancy care,” according to a press release.

“I’m trying to protect our healthcare practitioners so they can do their jobs, without fear,” Ms. Skinner said in a statement on March 24.

Most abortions are banned in 14 states after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. Lawmakers in those states have established a variety of penalties for doctors, pharmacists, and other clinicians to provide abortion care or assist patients in obtaining abortions, including jail time, fines, and loss of professional licenses.

As a result, doctors in restrictive states have anguished over having to delay treatment for patients experiencing miscarriages, ectopic pregnancies, and other conditions until their lives are enough at risk to satisfy exceptions to state abortion laws.

“As a physician, I believe everyone deserves the care they need, regardless of where they live,” said Daniel Grossman, MD, a University of California, San Francisco, ob.gyn. professor who directs the university’s Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health program.

“Since the fall of Roe v. Wade, patients are being forced to travel long distances – often over 500 miles – to access abortion care in a clinic. People should be able to access this essential care closer to home, including by telemedicine, which has been shown to be safe and effective. I am hopeful that SB 345 will provide additional legal protections that would allow California clinicians to help patients in other states,” he stated.

Other states, including New York, Vermont, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, have passed or are considering similar legislation to protect doctors using telemedicine to prescribe abortion medication to out-of-state patients. These laws come amid a growing push by some states and anti-abortion groups to severely restrict access to abortion pills.

Wyoming is the first state to explicitly ban the pills, although a judge on March 22 blocked that ban. And, in a closely watched case, a conservative federal judge could soon rule to ban sales of mifepristone, one of the medications in a two-pill regimen approved for abortions early in pregnancy.

California’s legislation protects clinicians from losing their California professional licenses if an out-of-state medical board takes action against them. It also allows clinicians to sue anyone who tries to legally interfere with the care they are providing.

It also covers California physicians prescribing contraceptives or gender-affirming care to out-of-state patients. At least 21 states are considering restrictions on gender-affirming care for minors and another 9 states have passed them, according to the advocacy group Human Rights Campaign. Courts have blocked the restrictions in some states.

“It’s understandable that states like California want to reassure their doctors ... that, if one of their patients is caught in one of those states and can’t get help locally, they can step up to help and feel safe in doing so,” said Matthew Wynia, MD, MPH, FACP, director of the Center for Bioethics and Humanities at the University of Colorado at Denver, Aurora.

“This is also a crazy development in terms of the law. It’s just one part of the legal mayhem that was predicted when the Supreme Court overturned Roe,” Dr. Wynia said of the growing number of bills protecting in-state doctors. These bills “will almost certainly end up being litigated over issues of interstate commerce, cross-state licensure and practice compacts, FDA regulations and authorities, and maybe more. It’s a huge mess, in which both doctors and patients are being hurt.”

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The child is well-known in the halls in which state bureaucrats oversee health care for millions of Californians – not by name, but by a number: $21 million.

His medications alone cost state taxpayers that much in a single year, not including other health care. The boy, whose identity has not been released, was California’s most expensive Medicaid patient in recent years. His case was singled out in a tweet last year by the state’s top health care official to highlight the public insurance program’s extraordinary obligations as a backstop for low-income patients.

How on earth can a single child’s treatment cost that much? The answer: He has hemophilia and needs large quantities of a pricey drug – known as clotting factor – that makes blood coagulate.

Hemophilia drugs are among the most costly drugs in the nation, and taxpayers are footing the bill for many patients on Medicaid who could never afford them on their own. Officials in California and other states are doing what they can to manage the costs, but it’s a daunting task that highlights the complexity and secrecy of prescription drug pricing.

Tab for 145 kids: $195 million

The California boy whose drugs cost $21 million in a single year was an extreme case, and the circumstances of his care have not been disclosed because of confidentiality protections. Still, medications to treat hemophilia on average annual cost more than $270,000 per patient, according to a 2015 Express Scripts report, and they can easily soar past $1 million annually.

In contrast to more common diseases like hepatitis C, hemophilia treatment is not a state “budget buster” per se: about 4,000 patients live in California. About 1,100 of them are covered by Medi-Cal or two other government-funded programs for chronically ill children in California, according to Jennifer Kent, director of the state Department of Health Care Services and author of last year’s tweet. But the amount of money spent per person dwarfs that spent on people with other serious diseases.

One Stanford University study of 34,000 California kids with severe chronic diseases found that the tiny portion of children who needed blood factor accounted for 41% of the state’s outpatient drug spending on this entire patient population. About $195 million was spent on just 145 kids over a 3-year period, although some of that money came back to the state in rebates from drug companies – a portion of the cost that Medicaid can recoup after purchase.

Caitlin Carroll, director of public affairs for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, said high development costs and the complicated and lengthy manufacturing process play a role in how hemophilia drugs are priced. She added that federally mandated rebates significantly reduce the cost of blood factor. They amount to 17% of the average manufacturer price per unit.

Manufacturers also note that some newer and more expensive hemophilia drugs last longer and do not need to be administered as frequently, so they can prove less costly to payers overall.

Even so, some patients require a monumental investment to survive.
 

‘Extremely fortunate’

Colleen Tuite’s son Kevin, a 7-year-old, has severe hemophilia with a complication known as an inhibitor – an antibody that makes his regular blood-factor infusions less effective. Inhibitors can dramatically increase the cost of care, because massive doses of blood factor or expensive, specialized blood products known as bypassing agents may be needed.

Ms. Tuite and her husband initially were Kevin’s foster parents, then adopted the boy as a toddler. Because he has been a foster child, Kevin qualifies for Medi-Cal until he is 26.

The Monrovia, Calif., family also has private health insurance, which pays for about half of Kevin’s medical bills. These can run upward of $200,000 per month, Ms. Tuite said.

“We definitely would not have been able to adopt him without the help of Medi-Cal,” Ms. Tuite said. “We’ve been extremely fortunate.”

With the support of drug manufacturers and hemophilia advocacy groups, patients and their families have significant political clout. Some experts say they also have a moral claim on public resources: In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, thousands of the nation’s hemophilia patients died after they contracted HIV through transfusions before the virus was eliminated from the blood supply.

State health officials say the costs of hemophilia are hard to anticipate and control, even with rebates.

“We do a really aggressive job of collecting rebates on our pharmacy costs,” said Ms. Kent, California’s top Medicaid official. “But there’s just not any way around blood factor. It is just a very, very expensive product. It’s nonnegotiable for people that require it.”

In 2016, California’s Medicaid program paid at least $205 million for medications used to treat hemophilia, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal Medicaid data. That figure doesn’t account for the federal rebates.

States can negotiate “supplemental” rebates with drugmakers for individual medications – but those must be kept secret under federal and some state laws. Such secrecy is becoming increasingly controversial as states continue to confront spiraling drug prices.

Limited options for states

In 2016, Pfizer sued Texas’ state health agency for giving data on the drug company’s supplemental Medicaid rebates to state lawmakers who requested it. The drugmaker alleged that releasing the confidential information would undermine the company’s competitiveness and give away trade secrets, and warned that the discounts it gave Texas could disappear.

In early October, a judge ruled that lawmakers should be able to obtain some of that data, noting dryly that “in Pfizer’s view, legislators are not necessary to carry out the state’s Medicaid program.”

Instead of seeking additional rebates from manufacturers for blood factor, some states, including Washington and Oregon, have chosen to require patients to get their blood factor from federally designated Hemophilia Treatment Centers only. That allows state Medicaid programs to take advantage of a federal drug-discount program known as “340B.”

However, officials in California said they studied that option and determined it wouldn’t save them any more money than the rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

Whatever their approach, state health officials say they are struggling against forces they are nearly powerless to change.

“There aren’t a lot of options available to Medicaid programs in terms of controlling costs, because we don’t set the initial costs,” said Deborah Weston, pharmacy program manager for Oregon’s Medicaid program.
 

Kaiser Health News data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Laura and John Arnold Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation. This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The child is well-known in the halls in which state bureaucrats oversee health care for millions of Californians – not by name, but by a number: $21 million.

His medications alone cost state taxpayers that much in a single year, not including other health care. The boy, whose identity has not been released, was California’s most expensive Medicaid patient in recent years. His case was singled out in a tweet last year by the state’s top health care official to highlight the public insurance program’s extraordinary obligations as a backstop for low-income patients.

How on earth can a single child’s treatment cost that much? The answer: He has hemophilia and needs large quantities of a pricey drug – known as clotting factor – that makes blood coagulate.

Hemophilia drugs are among the most costly drugs in the nation, and taxpayers are footing the bill for many patients on Medicaid who could never afford them on their own. Officials in California and other states are doing what they can to manage the costs, but it’s a daunting task that highlights the complexity and secrecy of prescription drug pricing.

Tab for 145 kids: $195 million

The California boy whose drugs cost $21 million in a single year was an extreme case, and the circumstances of his care have not been disclosed because of confidentiality protections. Still, medications to treat hemophilia on average annual cost more than $270,000 per patient, according to a 2015 Express Scripts report, and they can easily soar past $1 million annually.

In contrast to more common diseases like hepatitis C, hemophilia treatment is not a state “budget buster” per se: about 4,000 patients live in California. About 1,100 of them are covered by Medi-Cal or two other government-funded programs for chronically ill children in California, according to Jennifer Kent, director of the state Department of Health Care Services and author of last year’s tweet. But the amount of money spent per person dwarfs that spent on people with other serious diseases.

One Stanford University study of 34,000 California kids with severe chronic diseases found that the tiny portion of children who needed blood factor accounted for 41% of the state’s outpatient drug spending on this entire patient population. About $195 million was spent on just 145 kids over a 3-year period, although some of that money came back to the state in rebates from drug companies – a portion of the cost that Medicaid can recoup after purchase.

Caitlin Carroll, director of public affairs for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, said high development costs and the complicated and lengthy manufacturing process play a role in how hemophilia drugs are priced. She added that federally mandated rebates significantly reduce the cost of blood factor. They amount to 17% of the average manufacturer price per unit.

Manufacturers also note that some newer and more expensive hemophilia drugs last longer and do not need to be administered as frequently, so they can prove less costly to payers overall.

Even so, some patients require a monumental investment to survive.
 

‘Extremely fortunate’

Colleen Tuite’s son Kevin, a 7-year-old, has severe hemophilia with a complication known as an inhibitor – an antibody that makes his regular blood-factor infusions less effective. Inhibitors can dramatically increase the cost of care, because massive doses of blood factor or expensive, specialized blood products known as bypassing agents may be needed.

Ms. Tuite and her husband initially were Kevin’s foster parents, then adopted the boy as a toddler. Because he has been a foster child, Kevin qualifies for Medi-Cal until he is 26.

The Monrovia, Calif., family also has private health insurance, which pays for about half of Kevin’s medical bills. These can run upward of $200,000 per month, Ms. Tuite said.

“We definitely would not have been able to adopt him without the help of Medi-Cal,” Ms. Tuite said. “We’ve been extremely fortunate.”

With the support of drug manufacturers and hemophilia advocacy groups, patients and their families have significant political clout. Some experts say they also have a moral claim on public resources: In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, thousands of the nation’s hemophilia patients died after they contracted HIV through transfusions before the virus was eliminated from the blood supply.

State health officials say the costs of hemophilia are hard to anticipate and control, even with rebates.

“We do a really aggressive job of collecting rebates on our pharmacy costs,” said Ms. Kent, California’s top Medicaid official. “But there’s just not any way around blood factor. It is just a very, very expensive product. It’s nonnegotiable for people that require it.”

In 2016, California’s Medicaid program paid at least $205 million for medications used to treat hemophilia, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal Medicaid data. That figure doesn’t account for the federal rebates.

States can negotiate “supplemental” rebates with drugmakers for individual medications – but those must be kept secret under federal and some state laws. Such secrecy is becoming increasingly controversial as states continue to confront spiraling drug prices.

Limited options for states

In 2016, Pfizer sued Texas’ state health agency for giving data on the drug company’s supplemental Medicaid rebates to state lawmakers who requested it. The drugmaker alleged that releasing the confidential information would undermine the company’s competitiveness and give away trade secrets, and warned that the discounts it gave Texas could disappear.

In early October, a judge ruled that lawmakers should be able to obtain some of that data, noting dryly that “in Pfizer’s view, legislators are not necessary to carry out the state’s Medicaid program.”

Instead of seeking additional rebates from manufacturers for blood factor, some states, including Washington and Oregon, have chosen to require patients to get their blood factor from federally designated Hemophilia Treatment Centers only. That allows state Medicaid programs to take advantage of a federal drug-discount program known as “340B.”

However, officials in California said they studied that option and determined it wouldn’t save them any more money than the rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

Whatever their approach, state health officials say they are struggling against forces they are nearly powerless to change.

“There aren’t a lot of options available to Medicaid programs in terms of controlling costs, because we don’t set the initial costs,” said Deborah Weston, pharmacy program manager for Oregon’s Medicaid program.
 

Kaiser Health News data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Laura and John Arnold Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation. This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

The child is well-known in the halls in which state bureaucrats oversee health care for millions of Californians – not by name, but by a number: $21 million.

His medications alone cost state taxpayers that much in a single year, not including other health care. The boy, whose identity has not been released, was California’s most expensive Medicaid patient in recent years. His case was singled out in a tweet last year by the state’s top health care official to highlight the public insurance program’s extraordinary obligations as a backstop for low-income patients.

How on earth can a single child’s treatment cost that much? The answer: He has hemophilia and needs large quantities of a pricey drug – known as clotting factor – that makes blood coagulate.

Hemophilia drugs are among the most costly drugs in the nation, and taxpayers are footing the bill for many patients on Medicaid who could never afford them on their own. Officials in California and other states are doing what they can to manage the costs, but it’s a daunting task that highlights the complexity and secrecy of prescription drug pricing.

Tab for 145 kids: $195 million

The California boy whose drugs cost $21 million in a single year was an extreme case, and the circumstances of his care have not been disclosed because of confidentiality protections. Still, medications to treat hemophilia on average annual cost more than $270,000 per patient, according to a 2015 Express Scripts report, and they can easily soar past $1 million annually.

In contrast to more common diseases like hepatitis C, hemophilia treatment is not a state “budget buster” per se: about 4,000 patients live in California. About 1,100 of them are covered by Medi-Cal or two other government-funded programs for chronically ill children in California, according to Jennifer Kent, director of the state Department of Health Care Services and author of last year’s tweet. But the amount of money spent per person dwarfs that spent on people with other serious diseases.

One Stanford University study of 34,000 California kids with severe chronic diseases found that the tiny portion of children who needed blood factor accounted for 41% of the state’s outpatient drug spending on this entire patient population. About $195 million was spent on just 145 kids over a 3-year period, although some of that money came back to the state in rebates from drug companies – a portion of the cost that Medicaid can recoup after purchase.

Caitlin Carroll, director of public affairs for PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry lobbying group, said high development costs and the complicated and lengthy manufacturing process play a role in how hemophilia drugs are priced. She added that federally mandated rebates significantly reduce the cost of blood factor. They amount to 17% of the average manufacturer price per unit.

Manufacturers also note that some newer and more expensive hemophilia drugs last longer and do not need to be administered as frequently, so they can prove less costly to payers overall.

Even so, some patients require a monumental investment to survive.
 

‘Extremely fortunate’

Colleen Tuite’s son Kevin, a 7-year-old, has severe hemophilia with a complication known as an inhibitor – an antibody that makes his regular blood-factor infusions less effective. Inhibitors can dramatically increase the cost of care, because massive doses of blood factor or expensive, specialized blood products known as bypassing agents may be needed.

Ms. Tuite and her husband initially were Kevin’s foster parents, then adopted the boy as a toddler. Because he has been a foster child, Kevin qualifies for Medi-Cal until he is 26.

The Monrovia, Calif., family also has private health insurance, which pays for about half of Kevin’s medical bills. These can run upward of $200,000 per month, Ms. Tuite said.

“We definitely would not have been able to adopt him without the help of Medi-Cal,” Ms. Tuite said. “We’ve been extremely fortunate.”

With the support of drug manufacturers and hemophilia advocacy groups, patients and their families have significant political clout. Some experts say they also have a moral claim on public resources: In the early days of the AIDS epidemic, thousands of the nation’s hemophilia patients died after they contracted HIV through transfusions before the virus was eliminated from the blood supply.

State health officials say the costs of hemophilia are hard to anticipate and control, even with rebates.

“We do a really aggressive job of collecting rebates on our pharmacy costs,” said Ms. Kent, California’s top Medicaid official. “But there’s just not any way around blood factor. It is just a very, very expensive product. It’s nonnegotiable for people that require it.”

In 2016, California’s Medicaid program paid at least $205 million for medications used to treat hemophilia, according to a Kaiser Health News analysis of federal Medicaid data. That figure doesn’t account for the federal rebates.

States can negotiate “supplemental” rebates with drugmakers for individual medications – but those must be kept secret under federal and some state laws. Such secrecy is becoming increasingly controversial as states continue to confront spiraling drug prices.

Limited options for states

In 2016, Pfizer sued Texas’ state health agency for giving data on the drug company’s supplemental Medicaid rebates to state lawmakers who requested it. The drugmaker alleged that releasing the confidential information would undermine the company’s competitiveness and give away trade secrets, and warned that the discounts it gave Texas could disappear.

In early October, a judge ruled that lawmakers should be able to obtain some of that data, noting dryly that “in Pfizer’s view, legislators are not necessary to carry out the state’s Medicaid program.”

Instead of seeking additional rebates from manufacturers for blood factor, some states, including Washington and Oregon, have chosen to require patients to get their blood factor from federally designated Hemophilia Treatment Centers only. That allows state Medicaid programs to take advantage of a federal drug-discount program known as “340B.”

However, officials in California said they studied that option and determined it wouldn’t save them any more money than the rebates they negotiate with drugmakers.

Whatever their approach, state health officials say they are struggling against forces they are nearly powerless to change.

“There aren’t a lot of options available to Medicaid programs in terms of controlling costs, because we don’t set the initial costs,” said Deborah Weston, pharmacy program manager for Oregon’s Medicaid program.
 

Kaiser Health News data correspondent Sydney Lupkin contributed to this report. KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by Laura and John Arnold Foundation and Heising-Simons Foundation. This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Struggling with long wait times, the Veterans Affairs Health Care System is trying something new: a partnership with the CVS Pharmacy chain to offer urgent care services to more than 65,000 veterans.

The experiment begins today at the VA’s operations in Palo Alto, California.

Veterans can visit 14 “MinuteClinics” operated by CVS in the San Francisco Bay area and Sacramento, where staff will treat them for conditions such as respiratory infections, order lab tests and prescribe medications, which can be filled at CVS pharmacies.

The care will be free for veterans, and the VA will reimburse CVS for the treatment and medications. Whether the partnership will spread to other VA locales isn’t yet clear.

The collaboration comes amid renewed scrutiny of the nation’s troubled VA health system, which has tried without much success to improve long wait times for veterans needing health care.

Despite a $10 billion “Veterans Choice” program allowing veterans to receive care outside the closed VA system, vets nationwide wait for an appointment even longer than they did before the program started in 2014, according to a federal audit.

The MinuteClinic partnership is not part of the Veterans Choice program.

“The concern has always been, how do we make sure veterans get the care they need in a timely way and in a way that works for the veteran?” said Dr. Stephen Ezeji-Okoye, the Palo Alto VA’s deputy chief of staff. The deal indicates that the VA is willing to try outside partnerships to meet veterans’ needs, he said. “We want to have not just timely access but geographic access to care.”

Sarah Russell, the Palo Alto VA’s chief medical informatics officer, came up with the idea, said Ezeji-Okoye.

The VA will integrate MinuteClinics’ patient records with its own electronic health records to provide consistency of care, Ezeji-Okoye said.

The Palo Alto VA fares better than some other facilities nationwide in providing timely care to veterans, according to VA data, and Ezeji-Okoye said most patients with urgent care needs are seen quickly.

But the system was so busy in the past year that about 11 percent of appointments at its network of hospitals and clinics — which stretch south from Sonora to Monterey — could not be scheduled within 30 or fewer days, which is considered an acceptable timeframe, VA data show. That includes appointments that would require urgent care.

More than 5,000 appointments system-wide were scheduled more than 30 days out, but each hospital and clinic’s performance varied widely. At a Fremont clinic, less than 2 percent of appointment requests could not be scheduled within 30 days. At the VA’s rural Modesto clinic, by contrast, more than 17 percent of requests were not be scheduled within 30 days.

Once the MinuteClinic operation is well underway, Ezeji-Okoye anticipates that between 10 and 15 veterans — from among the estimated 150 who call the Palo Alto VA’s advice nurse hotline daily — will be treated at the retail clinics on any given day.

About 95,000 veterans are eligible to use the Palo Alto system, one of the VA’s largest in the Western United States. About 65,000 use it every year.

The $330,000 pilot project will be evaluated after one year. CVS’ MinuteClinic president, Dr. Andrew Sussman, hopes it can be rolled out nationally if it succeeds. CVS is by far the biggest player in retail pharmacy clinics, operating 1,135 of them in 35 states.

“We’d love to have that opportunity to expand after we go through this phase,” Sussman said. “We’re well suited to help because of our large footprint and ability to see people on a quick basis.”

It is unclear, however, what the VA’s nationwide plans are. The Veterans Health Administration office did not respond to Kaiser Health News’ request for comment.

Blake Schindler, a retired Army major who lives in Santa Clara near one of the participating MinuteClinics, was intrigued, but cautious about the MinuteClinics. He counts himself lucky because unlike some other veterans, he has access to the U.S. military’s TRICARE health insurance program for active and some retired service members.

“It could make a big difference, but how much access are the veterans going to have? That was the big problem with the Veterans Choice program; it didn’t end up the way it was supposed to,” said Schindler, 58.

“I’m always hopeful when I hear about these things; I keep an open mind until I have experience with it,” he added.

Interested veterans served by the VA Palo Alto can call its advice nurse line at 800-455-0057.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

This story also ran on NPR.

Struggling with long wait times, the Veterans Affairs Health Care System is trying something new: a partnership with the CVS Pharmacy chain to offer urgent care services to more than 65,000 veterans.

The experiment begins today at the VA’s operations in Palo Alto, California.

Veterans can visit 14 “MinuteClinics” operated by CVS in the San Francisco Bay area and Sacramento, where staff will treat them for conditions such as respiratory infections, order lab tests and prescribe medications, which can be filled at CVS pharmacies.

The care will be free for veterans, and the VA will reimburse CVS for the treatment and medications. Whether the partnership will spread to other VA locales isn’t yet clear.

The collaboration comes amid renewed scrutiny of the nation’s troubled VA health system, which has tried without much success to improve long wait times for veterans needing health care.

Despite a $10 billion “Veterans Choice” program allowing veterans to receive care outside the closed VA system, vets nationwide wait for an appointment even longer than they did before the program started in 2014, according to a federal audit.

The MinuteClinic partnership is not part of the Veterans Choice program.

“The concern has always been, how do we make sure veterans get the care they need in a timely way and in a way that works for the veteran?” said Dr. Stephen Ezeji-Okoye, the Palo Alto VA’s deputy chief of staff. The deal indicates that the VA is willing to try outside partnerships to meet veterans’ needs, he said. “We want to have not just timely access but geographic access to care.”

Sarah Russell, the Palo Alto VA’s chief medical informatics officer, came up with the idea, said Ezeji-Okoye.

The VA will integrate MinuteClinics’ patient records with its own electronic health records to provide consistency of care, Ezeji-Okoye said.

The Palo Alto VA fares better than some other facilities nationwide in providing timely care to veterans, according to VA data, and Ezeji-Okoye said most patients with urgent care needs are seen quickly.

But the system was so busy in the past year that about 11 percent of appointments at its network of hospitals and clinics — which stretch south from Sonora to Monterey — could not be scheduled within 30 or fewer days, which is considered an acceptable timeframe, VA data show. That includes appointments that would require urgent care.

More than 5,000 appointments system-wide were scheduled more than 30 days out, but each hospital and clinic’s performance varied widely. At a Fremont clinic, less than 2 percent of appointment requests could not be scheduled within 30 days. At the VA’s rural Modesto clinic, by contrast, more than 17 percent of requests were not be scheduled within 30 days.

Once the MinuteClinic operation is well underway, Ezeji-Okoye anticipates that between 10 and 15 veterans — from among the estimated 150 who call the Palo Alto VA’s advice nurse hotline daily — will be treated at the retail clinics on any given day.

About 95,000 veterans are eligible to use the Palo Alto system, one of the VA’s largest in the Western United States. About 65,000 use it every year.

The $330,000 pilot project will be evaluated after one year. CVS’ MinuteClinic president, Dr. Andrew Sussman, hopes it can be rolled out nationally if it succeeds. CVS is by far the biggest player in retail pharmacy clinics, operating 1,135 of them in 35 states.

“We’d love to have that opportunity to expand after we go through this phase,” Sussman said. “We’re well suited to help because of our large footprint and ability to see people on a quick basis.”

It is unclear, however, what the VA’s nationwide plans are. The Veterans Health Administration office did not respond to Kaiser Health News’ request for comment.

Blake Schindler, a retired Army major who lives in Santa Clara near one of the participating MinuteClinics, was intrigued, but cautious about the MinuteClinics. He counts himself lucky because unlike some other veterans, he has access to the U.S. military’s TRICARE health insurance program for active and some retired service members.

“It could make a big difference, but how much access are the veterans going to have? That was the big problem with the Veterans Choice program; it didn’t end up the way it was supposed to,” said Schindler, 58.

“I’m always hopeful when I hear about these things; I keep an open mind until I have experience with it,” he added.

Interested veterans served by the VA Palo Alto can call its advice nurse line at 800-455-0057.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

This story also ran on NPR.

Struggling with long wait times, the Veterans Affairs Health Care System is trying something new: a partnership with the CVS Pharmacy chain to offer urgent care services to more than 65,000 veterans.

The experiment begins today at the VA’s operations in Palo Alto, California.

Veterans can visit 14 “MinuteClinics” operated by CVS in the San Francisco Bay area and Sacramento, where staff will treat them for conditions such as respiratory infections, order lab tests and prescribe medications, which can be filled at CVS pharmacies.

The care will be free for veterans, and the VA will reimburse CVS for the treatment and medications. Whether the partnership will spread to other VA locales isn’t yet clear.

The collaboration comes amid renewed scrutiny of the nation’s troubled VA health system, which has tried without much success to improve long wait times for veterans needing health care.

Despite a $10 billion “Veterans Choice” program allowing veterans to receive care outside the closed VA system, vets nationwide wait for an appointment even longer than they did before the program started in 2014, according to a federal audit.

The MinuteClinic partnership is not part of the Veterans Choice program.

“The concern has always been, how do we make sure veterans get the care they need in a timely way and in a way that works for the veteran?” said Dr. Stephen Ezeji-Okoye, the Palo Alto VA’s deputy chief of staff. The deal indicates that the VA is willing to try outside partnerships to meet veterans’ needs, he said. “We want to have not just timely access but geographic access to care.”

Sarah Russell, the Palo Alto VA’s chief medical informatics officer, came up with the idea, said Ezeji-Okoye.

The VA will integrate MinuteClinics’ patient records with its own electronic health records to provide consistency of care, Ezeji-Okoye said.

The Palo Alto VA fares better than some other facilities nationwide in providing timely care to veterans, according to VA data, and Ezeji-Okoye said most patients with urgent care needs are seen quickly.

But the system was so busy in the past year that about 11 percent of appointments at its network of hospitals and clinics — which stretch south from Sonora to Monterey — could not be scheduled within 30 or fewer days, which is considered an acceptable timeframe, VA data show. That includes appointments that would require urgent care.

More than 5,000 appointments system-wide were scheduled more than 30 days out, but each hospital and clinic’s performance varied widely. At a Fremont clinic, less than 2 percent of appointment requests could not be scheduled within 30 days. At the VA’s rural Modesto clinic, by contrast, more than 17 percent of requests were not be scheduled within 30 days.

Once the MinuteClinic operation is well underway, Ezeji-Okoye anticipates that between 10 and 15 veterans — from among the estimated 150 who call the Palo Alto VA’s advice nurse hotline daily — will be treated at the retail clinics on any given day.

About 95,000 veterans are eligible to use the Palo Alto system, one of the VA’s largest in the Western United States. About 65,000 use it every year.

The $330,000 pilot project will be evaluated after one year. CVS’ MinuteClinic president, Dr. Andrew Sussman, hopes it can be rolled out nationally if it succeeds. CVS is by far the biggest player in retail pharmacy clinics, operating 1,135 of them in 35 states.

“We’d love to have that opportunity to expand after we go through this phase,” Sussman said. “We’re well suited to help because of our large footprint and ability to see people on a quick basis.”

It is unclear, however, what the VA’s nationwide plans are. The Veterans Health Administration office did not respond to Kaiser Health News’ request for comment.

Blake Schindler, a retired Army major who lives in Santa Clara near one of the participating MinuteClinics, was intrigued, but cautious about the MinuteClinics. He counts himself lucky because unlike some other veterans, he has access to the U.S. military’s TRICARE health insurance program for active and some retired service members.

“It could make a big difference, but how much access are the veterans going to have? That was the big problem with the Veterans Choice program; it didn’t end up the way it was supposed to,” said Schindler, 58.

“I’m always hopeful when I hear about these things; I keep an open mind until I have experience with it,” he added.

Interested veterans served by the VA Palo Alto can call its advice nurse line at 800-455-0057.

This story was produced by Kaiser Health News, which publishes California Healthline, a service of the California Health Care Foundation.

This story also ran on NPR.