Astronomical hospital bill hits woman after slip on ice: 'Payments for rest of my life'

As soon as she fell, Deborah Buttgereit knew she couldn’t avoid going to the hospital.

“I could hear the bones moving around in my elbow,” said Buttgereit, who was 60 when she slipped on a patch of ice in December outside her apartment in Bozeman, Montana.

Emergency room scans showed she had fractured her left arm near the joint. Doctors told her she needed surgery to repair it.

At the time, Buttgereit didn’t have health insurance — she had struggled to afford coverage after her husband’s death. The local health system, Bozeman Health, estimated Buttgereit would have to pay $50,560 out-of-pocket for the outpatient surgery to have her elbow pieced back together.

The estimate noted: “You could be charged more if complications or special circumstances occur.”

Four days after her fall, Buttgereit went in for surgery, which took about three hours. During a follow-up visit, she said, her doctor told her the procedure ended up being more complicated than expected.

Then the bill came.

The Medical Procedure

Buttgereit broke her humerus, the upper-arm bone that meets two other bones and forms the elbow. The way the bone splintered is known as a distal humerus fracture. It’s rare as far as breaks go, accounting for only about 2% of all fractures among adults. But older people, as well as kids in high-contact sports, are more prone to the big falls that lead to such fractures. The injury is painful and can make it impossible to move the elbow.

Some of these types of fractures heal with time in a splint, but most often surgery is the only fix. The patient is put under anesthesia while a surgeon repositions fragmented bones with plates and screws.

The Final Bill

$97,998. That includes at least $44,300 for the operating room and anesthesia administration, plus more than $50,000 for medical supplies and implants, such as screws and plates. After the hospital applied a self-pay discount, Buttgereit was on the hook for $78,398.40.

The Problem: Surprise Complications, Surprising Charges

The hospital said the price for Buttgereit’s surgery increased because doctors encountered complications midprocedure.

In particular, the fall had shattered Buttgereit’s bone into more pieces than her surgeon anticipated, according to operating notes. That meant it took more time, skill, and supplies to reconstruct her elbow. And, since she was uninsured, Buttgereit alone faced the burden to pay the higher costs.

“I’ll make payments the rest of my life to pay it all off,” she said.

Buttgereit’s husband died suddenly in 2023. About a year later, she left her job with the company that had employed them both. The memories of him in that space were too difficult, she said. That also meant leaving behind her health coverage. She moved to Bozeman to be closer to one of her daughters and found a health plan at healthcare.gov that the federal government subsidized because of her limited income.

But she also faced a higher cost of living in Bozeman than her Social Security benefits could cover, and she needed part-time work. While that new income helped pay her bills, Buttgereit said, she no longer qualified for the same level of subsidized coverage and couldn’t afford her plan. So she dropped her health insurance.

About two months later, she fell.

After getting the surgery bill, Buttgereit began calling and emailing the hospital’s customer service team, asking how the price had risen from the $50,560 estimate to nearly $98,000. The hospital had automatically applied the self-pay discount of $19,600 to Buttgereit’s bill — 20% of the total. But that still left her with a tab of more than $78,000.

After more time to think pain-free, she said, she also wanted to know why the initial estimate was much steeper than those she found online for similar procedures.

Specifically, Buttgereit asked how to dispute her bill. When she felt she wasn’t making progress contesting the charges with the hospital, she asked about her options under the No Surprises Act, a federal consumer protection law.

According to emails reviewed by KFF Health News, a Bozeman Health billing employee incorrectly told Buttgereit the law applies only to ER services. The employee later said Buttgereit had the right to dispute the bill but gave her an incorrect deadline.

Hospital staffers recommended Buttgereit set up a payment plan and apply to the health system’s financial aid program.

Erin Schaible, a spokesperson with Bozeman Health, told KFF Health News that online estimates don’t reflect the specific details of a patient’s care. In addition to the shattered bones noted in Buttgereit’s surgery notes, Schaible said the physician identified nerve damage midsurgery that required additional work to fix.

“This situation highlights the importance of clear and compassionate communication,” Schaible said. “In response, our team leaders are revising internal protocols for escalating patient concerns and are reeducating staff on best practices for communicating cost estimate changes.”

The Resolution

Buttgereit refused to apply for financial aid, opting instead to challenge what she sees as inflated pricing. Using Healthcare Bluebook, an online price comparison tool that draws on insurance claims data, Buttgereit found similar procedures ranged from $8,000 to $40,000.

She said she believes that there are also errors on her bill and that the complications didn’t justify the price.

“I felt like going through financial assistance means that I’m OK with the price of the bill,” she said. “I want to get the bill reduced on the front end and then, if I need financial assistance, go through it.”

A billing employee emailed Buttgereit in May to offer an additional $7,000 discount if she set up a payment plan. If she later qualified for financial assistance, “we will adjust the amount accordingly,” the email said.

In June, the employee told Buttgereit her account would be put on hold before a collection process was initiated, “so that you have time to decide what to do.”

Buttgereit agreed to a payment plan of $100 a month, though she continued to contest the total charges.

At that rate, it would take about 60 years to pay off the debt — or longer, if the health system were to charge interest.

Buttgereit made one more bid for help: She emailed the White House.

This month, in the same week she got a detailed letter from the hospital standing by its charges, Buttgereit said she received a call from an official with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, saying she could dispute the bill to federal health officials.

The Takeaway

The best time to push back against a price is before surgery, upon receiving a hospital’s best guess on costs, known as a “good faith estimate.” Otherwise, undergoing surgery is considered tacit acceptance of that price as a baseline.

Patricia Kelmar, director of health care campaigns at the national consumer advocacy group U.S. PIRG, follows ways in which people get tangled financially in the health industry. She said patients should compare cost estimates by searching their hospital’s online pricing tool (as well as those of nearby hospitals) to see whether the estimates align. But not every procedure makes those lists, especially those for uncommon injuries, nor is every hospital’s list easy to access and navigate.

Post-surgery, patients have few resources to fight big bills, but a little-known rule in the No Surprises Act could help, Kelmar said.

The law, which took effect in 2022, is best known for protecting patients from surprise bills for out-of-network, emergency care. But it also created a formal dispute process for uninsured patients, or those paying completely out-of-pocket for nonemergency procedures, if their final tab is $400 or more than the initial estimate.

“This is a valid, important part of making sure that patients who are cash-pay have a watchdog,” Kelmar said.

People can start the patient-provider dispute process online, through the CMS website, by providing medical records and paying a $25 fee. Patients must initiate the process within 120 days of receiving the bill, and the bill may not be sent to a collection agency while under review.

An independent reviewer evaluates whether the final price is drastically different from what a health insurance company would have paid and whether the complication was predictable. If the review finds that the health provider erred on either front, federal health officials could require them to reduce the bill to match the original estimate or the median price insurers pay.

Buttgereit said she initially opted against pursuing that formal dispute process because, after such a review, the floor would be the hospital’s initial estimate, and she still had questions about how it would work. But after hearing from CMS, Buttgereit said it’s the path she plans to take.

“You’ve got to fight for yourself,” she said. “I don’t know where this is going to end up, but I feel a little bit more hopeful.”

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and The Washington Post’s Well+Being that dissects and explains medical bills. Since 2018, this series has helped many patients and readers get their medical bills reduced, and it has been cited in statehouses, at the U.S. Capitol, and at the White House. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

'I don't want to die': Republican admits Medicaid changes force him to 'fudge the numbers'

MISSOULA, Mont. — As congressional Republicans finalized Medicaid work requirements in President Donald Trump’s budget bill, one man who relies on that government-subsidized health coverage was trying to coax his old car to start after an eight-hour shift making sandwiches.

James asked that only his middle name be used to tell his story so that he wouldn’t lose health coverage or be accused of Medicaid fraud. He found his food service gig a few weeks into an addiction treatment program. The man in his late 30s said his boss “hasn’t been disappointed.”

“I’m a good worker,” he said with a grin.

James can get the prescription drugs that help him stabilize his life and hold down that job through Medicaid, the state-federal insurance program that covers people with low incomes or disabilities. Those drugs curb his desire for alcohol and treat long-standing conditions that exacerbate his addiction, including bipolar and insomnia disorders.

But he hasn’t qualified for the program in months, ever since his work hours increased and he received a raise of about $1 an hour. He exceeds his income eligibility limit of about $21,000 per year by roughly $50 a week.

James said that despite his raise, he’s struggling to cover routine expenses, such as keeping his car running and paying his phone bill. He said he can’t afford the care he needs even on the cheapest insurance plan available to him through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace or through his job’s health insurance plan. Even paying $60 a month for his sleep medications — one of six prescriptions he takes daily — is too expensive.

“I only saw one option,” James said. “Fudge the numbers.”

James hasn’t reported his new income to the state. That puts him at odds with congressional Republicans who justified adding hurdles to Medicaid by claiming the system is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse. But James isn’t someone sitting on his couch playing video games, the type of person House Speaker Mike Johnson and other people said they would target as they sought work requirements.

Medicaid provides health coverage and long-term care to more than 70 million people in the United States. Those who study safety-net systems say it’s extremely rare for enrollees to commit fraud to tap into that coverage. In fact, research shows swaths of eligible people aren’t enrolled in Medicaid, likely because the system is so confusing. And nearly two-thirds of people on Medicaid in 2023 had jobs, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Those transitioning off Medicaid may qualify for other subsidized or low-priced health plans through the Affordable Care Act’s marketplace. But, as in James’ case, such plans can have gaps in what care is covered, and more comprehensive private plans may be too expensive. So James and an unknown number of other people find themselves caught between working too much to qualify for Medicaid but earning too little to pay for their own health care.

James considers himself to be a patriot and a Republican sympathizer and said that people shouldn’t “use government funding to just be lazy.” He agrees with the Republican argument that, if able, people should work if they receive Medicaid. Hiding his hours on the job from the government bothers him, especially since he feels he must lie to access the medical care that enables him to work.

“I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,” James said. “Those shouldn’t be the only two options.”

On July 4, Trump signed into law the major tax and spending bill that makes it harder for low-income workers to get Medicaid. That includes requiring beneficiaries to work or go to school and adding paperwork to prove every six months they meet a minimum number of hours on the job.

“It’s going to hurt people, whether they’re playing by the rules or not,” said Ben Sommers, a health economist at Harvard University. “We see this vilification of mostly very hard-working people who are really struggling and are benefiting from a program that helps them stay alive.”

James said he initially declined his raise because he worried about losing Medicaid. He had previously been kicked off the coverage about a month into his rehab program after finding work. To stay in the sober-living program he otherwise couldn’t afford, James said, he dropped just enough hours at work to requalify for Medicaid and then soon picked up hours again. If he didn’t earn more, he said, he had no chance of saving enough money to find housing after graduating from the treatment program.

“They’ll give you a bone if you stay in the mud,” James said. “But you have to stay there.”

That problem — becoming just successful enough to suddenly lose Medicaid — is common. It’s called a benefit cliff, said Pamela Herd, who researches government aid at the University of Michigan.

“It just doesn’t make any sense that someone gets a dollar pay raise and all of a sudden they lose all access to their health insurance,” Herd said.

She said a partial fix exists called continuous eligibility, which guarantees an individual’s Medicaid coverage for a specific period, such as a year or longer. The goal is to give people time to adjust when they do earn more money. Continuous eligibility also helps maintain coverage for low-income workers with unpredictable hours and whose pay changes month to month.

But Congress has moved in the other direction. Under the new law, policymakers limited windows of eligibility for able-bodied adults to every six months. That will put more people on the program’s eligibility cliff, Herd said, in which they must decide between losing access to coverage or dropping hours at work.

“It is going to be a nightmare,” Herd said.

Those federal changes will be especially difficult for people with chronic conditions, such as James in Montana.

Not that long ago, James wouldn’t have been breaking the rules to access Medicaid because his state had 12-month continuous eligibility. But in 2023, Montana began requiring enrollees to report any change in their income within 10 days.

James is proud of how far he’s come. About a year ago, his body was breaking down. He couldn’t hold a spoon to eat breakfast without whiskey — his hands shook too hard. He had alcohol-induced seizures. He said his memories from his unhealthiest times come in flashes: being put on a stretcher, the face of a worried landlord, ambulance lights in the background.

James recently graduated from his treatment program. He’s staying with a relative to save money as he and his girlfriend try to find an affordable place to rent — though even with Medicaid, finding housing feels like a stretch to him. He’s taking classes part-time to become a licensed addiction counselor. His dream is to help others survive addiction, and he also sees that career as a way out of poverty.

To James, all his progress rides on keeping Medicaid a bit longer.

“Every time I get a piece of mail, I am terrified that I’m gonna open it up and it’s gonna say I don’t have Medicaid anymore,” he said. “I’m constantly in fear that it’s gonna go away.”

As of mid-July, officials hadn’t noticed the extra $50 he makes each week.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

Subscribe to KFF Health News' free Morning Briefing.

This article first appeared on KFF Health News and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

Congressman off-base in ad claiming Fauci shipped COVID to Montana before the pandemic

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. This article was produced in partnership with PolitiFact.

“IT’S BEEN REVEALED THAT FAUCI BROUGHT COVID TO THE MONTANA ONE YEAR BEFORE COVID BROKE OUT IN THE U.S!” — ad from the Matt Rosendale for Montana campaign

A fundraising ad for U.S. Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) shows a photo of Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, behind bars, swarmed by flying bats.

Rosendale, who is eyeing a challenge to incumbent Sen. Jon Tester, a Democrat, maintains that a Montana biomedical research facility, Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, has a dangerous link to the pandemic. This claim is echoed in the ad:

“It’s been revealed that Fauci brought COVID to the Montana one year before COVID broke out in the U.S!,” it charges in all-caps before asking readers to “Donate today and hold the D.C. bureaucracy accountable!”

The ad, paid for by Matt Rosendale for Montana, seeks contributions through WinRed, a platform that processes donations for Republican candidates. Rosendale also shared the fundraising pitch on his X account Nov. 1, and it remained live as of early February.

Rosendale made similar accusations on social media, during a November speech on the U.S. House floor, and through his congressional office. Sometimes his comments, like those on the House floor, are milder, saying the researchers experimented on “a coronavirus” leading up to the pandemic. Other times, as in an interview with One America News Network, he linked the lab’s work to covid-19’s spread.

In that interview clip, Rosendale recounted pandemic-era shutdowns before saying, “And now we’re finding out that the National Institute of Health, Rocky Mountain Lab, down in Hamilton, Montana, had also played a role in this.”

Rosendale’s statements echo broader efforts to scrutinize how research into viruses happens in the United States and is part of a continued wave of backlash against scientists who have studied coronaviruses. Rosendale is considering seeking the Republican nomination to challenge Tester, in a toss-up race that could help determine which party controls the Senate in 2025. Political newcomer Tim Sheehy is also seeking the Republican nomination for the Senate.

Rosendale proposed amendments to a health spending bill that would ban pandemic-related pathogen research funding for Rocky Mountain Laboratories and cut the salary of one of its top researchers, virologist Vincent Munster, to $1. The House has included both amendments in the Health and Human Services budget bill that the Republican majority hopes to pass. A temporary spending bill is funding the health department until March.

We contacted Rosendale’s congressional office multiple times — with emails, a phone call, and an online request — asking what proof he had to back up his statements that the Montana lab infected bats with covid from China before the outbreak. We got no reply.

Kathy Donbeck, of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases’ Office of Communications and Government Relations, said in an email that the ad’s claims are false. Interviews with virologists and a review of the research paper published shortly before Rosendale’s assertions support that position.

Where this is coming from

Rosendale’s statements seem to stem from a Rocky Mountain Laboratories study from 2016 that looked into how a coronavirus, WIV1-CoV, acted in Egyptian fruit bats. The work, published by the journal Viruses in 2018, showed that the specific strain didn’t cause a robust infection in the bats.

The study did not receive widespread attention at the time. But on Oct. 30, 2023, the study was highlighted by a blog called White Coat Waste Project, which says its mission is to stop taxpayer-funded experiments on animals. Some right-wing media outlets began to connect the Montana lab with the coronavirus that causes covid.

Rosendale’s office issued an Oct. 31 news release saying the Wuhan Institute of Virology in China “shipped a strain of coronavirus” to the Hamilton lab. “Our government helped create the Wuhan flu, then shut the country down when it escaped from the lab,” Rosendale said.

It’s a different virus

Rocky Mountain Laboratories is a federally funded facility as part of NIAID, the nation’s top infectious disease research agency, which Fauci led for nearly 40 years.

According to the study and Donbeck’s email, the Montana researchers focused on a coronavirus called WIV1-CoV, not the covid-causing SARS-CoV-2. They’re different viruses.

“The genetics of the viruses are very different, and their behavior biologically is very different,” said Troy Sutton, a virologist with Pennsylvania State University who has studied the evolution of pandemic influenza viruses.

In a review of media reports on the Montana study, Health Feedback, a network of scientists that fact-checks health and medical media coverage, showed the virus’s lineage indicated that WIV1 “is not a direct ancestor or even a close relative of SARS-CoV-2.”

Additionally, the description of the coronavirus strain as being “shipped” suggests that it physically traveled across the world. That’s not what happened.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology provided the WIV1 virus’s sequence that allowed researchers to make a lab-grown copy. A separate study, published in 2013 by the journal Nature, outlines the origins of the lab-created virus.

According to the study’s methodology, the researchers used a clone of WIV1. An NIAID statement to Lee Enterprises, a media company, said the virus “was generated using common laboratory techniques, based on genetic information that was publicly shared by Chinese scientists.”

Stanley Perlman, a University of Iowa professor who studies coronaviruses and serves on the federal advisory committee that reviews vaccines, said Rosendale’s claim is off-base.

He said Rosendale’s focus on where the lab got its materials is irrelevant and serves “only to make people wary and scared.”

Rosendale’s efforts to prohibit particular research at Rocky Mountain Laboratories appear ill-informed, too. Rosendale targeted banning gain-of-function research, which involves altering a pathogen to study its spread. In her email, NIAID’s Donbeck said the Rocky Mountain Laboratories study didn’t involve gain-of-function research.

This type of research has long been controversial, and people who study viruses have said the definition of “gain of function” is problematic and insufficient to show when research, or even work to create vaccines, could cross into that type of research.

But both Sutton and Perlman said that, any way you look at it, the Rocky Mountain Laboratories study published in 2018 didn’t change the virus. It put a virus in bats and showed it didn’t grow.

And it had no effect on the covid outbreak a year later, first detected in Washington state.

Our ruling

Rosendale’s ad said, “It’s been revealed that Fauci brought COVID to the Montana one year before COVID broke out in the U.S!” The campaign ad and Rosendale’s similar statements refer to research at the Rocky Mountain Laboratories involving WIV1, a coronavirus that researchers say is not even distantly close in genetic structure to SARS-CoV-2, the virus that caused covid-19.

Rosendale’s claim is wrong about when the scientists began their work, what they were studying, and where they got the materials. The researchers began their work in 2016 and, although they were studying a coronavirus, it wasn’t the virus that causes covid. The Montana scientists used a lab-grown clone of WIV1 for their research. The first laboratory-confirmed case of covid was not detected in the U.S. until Jan. 20, 2020. Rosendale’s ad is inaccurate and ridiculous. We rate it Pants on Fire!

Sources:

Viruses, “SARS-Like Coronavirus WIV1-CoV Does Not Replicate in Egyptian Fruit Bats (Rousettus aegyptiacus),” Dec. 19, 2018

White Coat Waste Project, “Horror Show: Shady Zoo Sent Bats to NIH to Be Infected With a Wuhan Lab Coronavirus,” Oct. 30, 2023

MattForMontana X post, Nov. 1, 2023

Campaign ad, accessed Dec. 14, 2023

Rep. Matt Rosendale, House floor speech, Nov. 14, 2023

One America News Network, interview, accessed Dec. 14, 2023

Rosendale congressional office, “Rep. Rosendale Reacts to Reports That Wuhan Lab Shipped Coronavirus to Fauci-Run Lab in Hamilton Prior to Pandemic,” Oct. 31, 2023

National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “History of Rocky Mountain Labs (RML),” accessed Dec. 14, 2023

Email exchange with NIAID, beginning Dec. 14, 2023

Statement from NIAID provided to Lee Enterprises, accessed Jan. 2, 2024

Nature, “Isolation and Characterization of a Bat SARS-Like Coronavirus That Uses the ACE2 Receptor,” Oct. 30, 2013

Ravalli Republic, “Rosendale Moves to Strip Rocky Mountain Lab Research Funding,” Nov. 17, 2023

Interview, Troy Sutton, assistant professor of veterinary and biomedical sciences at Pennsylvania State University, Jan. 5, 2024

Interview, Stanley Perlman, professor of microbiology and immunology and professor of pediatrics at the University of Iowa, Jan. 13, 2024

FDA, “Roster of the Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee,” accessed Jan. 16, 2024

Health Feedback, “2018 Coronavirus Research in NIAID Montana Lab Is Unrelated to the COVID-19 Pandemic, Contrary to Claim by Fox News’s Jesse Watters,” last accessed Jan. 17, 2024

Email exchange with OpenSecrets, an independent research group tracking money in politics, beginning Jan. 30, 2024

CDC Museum COVID-19 Timeline, accessed Feb. 2, 2024

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.