Tuesday, June 30, 2026

 

She Struggled To Get a Lifesaving Drug Even After Insurers Vowed To Help

LADUE, Mo. — Over four consecutive days in January, Margaret Hvatum ran a 5K, a 10K, a half-marathon, and a full marathon. The 70-year-old covered a combined distance that’s nearly equivalent to running the length of Manhattan four times. 


By the end of the month, she was in a hospital bed.

Hvatum, a part-time computer science professor, has a weakened immune system due to a rare condition known as primary immunodeficiency, which makes it difficult for her body to fight infections. Prior to her 2005 diagnosis, she had four bouts of shingles, a painful rash caused by a virus.

For more than a decade, she relied on an expensive medicine to treat her chronic condition — and relied on her insurance to pay for it.

Then the denial letters came.


The Medical Service

To give her weakened immune system a boost, she relies on Hizentra, which is made up of antibodies collected from donated blood plasma.

At her home, near St. Louis, Hvatum can administer the complex medicine herself. She uses a large syringe to draw the medicine from a vial and loads the syringe into a plastic apparatus that looks like a toy Nerf gun. She cranks a blue plastic dial that triggers a steady drip of the medicine, and it snakes through plastic tubing until it enters her leg through a needle.

The Bill

$8,141.94: The full charges for a 28-day supply of Hizentra without insurance coverage.

After her Medicare Advantage plan through Humana denied payment for the drug in January, she missed several weekly doses.


The Billing Problem: Prior Authorization

Hvatum got tangled up in the controversial process known as prior authorization, which often requires patients or their medical team to get an insurance company’s approval before obtaining medicines or treatment. 

At the start of the year, after Hvatum switched Medicare Advantage plans, she received a letter saying that Humana, her new carrier, had denied her “prior authorization prescription request” for Hizentra. The authorization from her previous insurer didn’t carry over. 

Without the medicine, Hvatum developed a urinary tract infection that sent her to the emergency room on Jan. 30. Though it is a common infection, her doctor advised her to go there because people with her condition can get sick and deteriorate quickly, she said. 

That ER visit turned into an overnight hospital stay. That turned into hospital charges of more than $18,000, and again her insurance denied payment, saying this time that she wasn’t sick enough to require hospital care.

Hvatum’s experience with prior authorization is not unique.


Medicare Advantage plans reviewed nearly 53 million prior authorization requests in 2024, according to KFF. That’s equivalent to nearly two reviews for every person enrolled in the program.

It’s common for Medicare Advantage plans to deny payment for care — which helps them make a profit, said Carrie Graham, director of the Medicare Policy Initiative at Georgetown University’s Center on Health Insurance Reforms.

The government pays a monthly sum to Medicare Advantage insurers to cover care for each member. “They make a profit if the care that person receives in that year is less than the amount they receive,” Graham said.

More than half of eligible Medicare beneficiaries choose Medicare Advantage insurance coverage. In 2026, roughly 35 million selected one of these private policies offered by insurance companies.

Humana is a dominant player in the space. Nearly half of all Medicare Advantage enrollees nationwide are covered by UnitedHealth Group or Humana, according to KFF.

The killing of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson prompted renewed scrutiny of prior authorization. Last summer, months after his death, the nation’s largest insurers, including Humana, signed a pledge that outlined a handful of commitments to ease the burden on patients.

For example, insurers vowed to reduce the number of services that would require prior authorization approval. They also promised to reduce delays by honoring existing prior authorizations for a 90-day period when patients switched plans.

That’s not what happened in Hvatum’s case.

Humana said this pledge to honor existing approvals comes with limitations. “These commitments are for medical services only and do not apply to prescription medications,” spokesperson Mark Taylor said.  

Humana declined to comment on the specifics of Hvatum’s case, even though she agreed to waive her privacy rights, giving the insurer permission to comment.

While acknowledging that the prior authorization process can be deeply frustrating for patients, Humana said it “builds important checks and balances into the healthcare system by verifying that treatments and care delivery are in the best interest of patient safety and quality of care, while safeguarding taxpayer dollars.”

In July 2025, Humana said it would remove one-third of prior authorization requirements for outpatient services.

“We are committed to making the process faster and more seamless for patients and providers,” Humana said in a statement Taylor provided to KFF Health News.

The Resolution

Hvatum appealed, and Humana in late January reversed its initial payment denial for Hizentra, enabling her to afford her medicine again.

But the approval came with a catch: It expires at the end of the year, after which she would need to obtain approval all over again.

Hvatum has since switched to a different drug — and she might not stick around for any more medical-bill fights like this one. She and her husband are considering a move to Norway, a place with universal healthcare. He is a citizen there, which could give her a path to public health coverage.

The industry’s promises to change are too little, too late for Hvatum. 

By her account, she has done her part. Running is her outlet, maybe an obsession, and it keeps her healthy. Scores of medals and trophies are tucked about her home. Some sit on a white wicker end table, next to family photos, candles, and framed St. Louis Cardinals memorabilia. Above a large bay window in the kitchen, medals hang from ribbons of all colors, made to look almost like custom window drapery.

“I have done everything I possibly can to be healthy,” Hvatum said, sitting at her dining room table in her running gear. Her printed T-shirt read, “If found on ground, please drag across the finish line.”

The Takeaway

Data show patients should appeal prior authorizations because those who do often have their denials reversed, Graham said. In fact, 81% of Medicare Advantage appeals were partially or fully overturned in 2024, according to KFF.

Relatively few people appeal, because “it’s an exhausting process,” Graham said. It puts the onus on patients — and doctors get frustrated, too.

It’s not just Medicare Advantage plans that subject enrollees to prior authorization approvals. It’s prevalent in other types of coverage, and it has prompted blowback from the public. Graham believes the public outcry instigated the industry’s pledge to change.

Hvatum is well-versed in filing appeals. She submitted another appeal to Humana after the insurer denied payment for her January hospital stay. Humana again reversed its denial of payment in her case.

Hvatum blames Humana for her January trip to the hospital. Had Humana approved her Hizentra, she said, she could have avoided hospital care altogether.

In March, she had a stroke. Humana denied coverage of that hospital stay, too.

Humana determined that it was not reasonable for the physician who admitted Hvatum to think she would need to stay at least two nights, the threshold for approval. “You had a small stroke,” Humana’s denial letter stated.

Hvatum noted the letter was dated March 25, two days after she was hospitalized. Humana reversed its denial two weeks after Hvatum appealed.

“They love to send you the denials fast,” Hvatum said. “Approvals take longer.”

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.

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

Signs of Early Dementia


 When most people think about early dementia warning signs, they think about forgetting names or getting lost. But researchers say the sign that appears earliest and gets missed most consistently is something almost nobody is watching for.


It is a loss of SMELL.

Specifically, the gradual inability to detect or identify familiar odors like coffee, flowers, and cleaning products appears years before any memory symptom surfaces.
A landmark study from the Rush Memory and Aging Project found that older adults who scored in the bottom 10% on smell identification tests were more than twice as likely to develop Alzheimer's disease over the following years. The reason is that the olfactory bulb, the brain's smell processing center, is one of the first regions where amyloid plaques accumulate in Alzheimer's disease. It is essentially a window into the brain's earliest pathological changes, visible years before cognitive symptoms emerge.
A simple smell test called the University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test is available through neurologists and some primary care offices. It takes 15 minutes. It is not routinely offered. Ask for it by name.

  • UPSIT (University of Pennsylvania Smell Identification Test): A widely used 40-item, multiple-choice scratch-and-sniff test considered a gold standard in the United States.

  • Other Olfactory Tests


  • Other readily observable changes are
  • Micrographia (smaller handwriting
  • Slowness of gait

  • Share this with someone who keeps saying their aging parent seems a little off but cannot explain why. ❤️





    Monday, June 29, 2026

    Medical device industry continues to turn to AI | MedTech Dive

    More medical device companies are integrating artificial intelligence into their products as the technology advances.

    Imaging machines now use deep learning to speed up scans and flag potential lesions for radiologists. AI is also used in wearable devices to detect heart arrhythmias and in software systems to predict the risk of sepsis in hospitalized patients. 

    As the proliferation of AI in the medtech industry continues, questions remain about the efficacy of these technologies, how they should be regulated and how to mitigate the risk of bias when used in patient care. 



    Professional photo of David Niewolny
    A man looking at papers while working
    A person hits a soccer ball with their head while wearing a wristband.
    A person stands behind a podium and speaks.





    Medical device industry continues to turn to AI | MedTech Dive

    GenAI solved a math problem by challenging old assumptions. Medicine should take note.


    GenAI solved a math problem by challenging old assumptions. Medicine should take note.


    For 80 years, one of the world’s most difficult geometric puzzles stumped mathematicians.

    The problem came from Paul Erdős, a brilliant and eccentric Hungarian mathematician who published more than 1,500 papers and posed hundreds of challenges to colleagues around the world. This one, the unit-distance problem, asked how many pairs of points could be placed the same distance apart on a flat surface.

    Erdős theorized that the answer would come from a highly structured, geometric arrangement. Generations of mathematicians tried to prove it.

    Then, in May, OpenAI announced one of its models had found a solution to the challenge. Rather than proving the hypothesis, it demonstrated that ErdÅ‘s’ conjecture was incorrect. Instead of accepting his geometric hypothesis, the AI model drew on algebraic number theory and found a superior design, one that wasn’t symmetric.

    It was a stunning development. The Erdős breakthrough shook up the world of mathematics, but its significance extends far beyond geometry.

    In medicine, the lesson is simple: clinicians and healthcare leaders will not solve the decades-long crises of quality, access and affordability by clinging to assumptions and beliefs from the past.

    Medicine’s ErdÅ‘s problem

    American healthcare has no shortage of problems that have persisted for decades, despite enormous effort and spending.

    A Johns Hopkins-led study estimates that diagnostic errors kill or permanently disable nearly 800,000 Americans each year. CDC data show that chronic diseases remain poorly controlled, resulting in hundreds of thousands of preventable heart attacks, kidney failures and strokes each year, despite the availability of effective medications and evidence-based protocols. Meanwhile, millions of patients struggle to get timely access to care, and millions more cannot afford the treatments their physicians prescribe.

    And yet, despite spending a projected $5.6 trillion on healthcare in 2025, according to federal estimates, the United States is not solving these problems. Generative AI offers a chance to change that. But the technology will not achieve its full potential if clinicians use it only to reinforce the current system.

    To make progress, medicine will need to follow the same approach OpenAI’s model used in mathematics: question the assumptions of the past and look for innovative opportunities that had previously been hidden.

    It is not that GenAI is completely absent from medicine. Data from OpenEvidence reveals that nearly two-thirds of clinicians report using some form of it today. But most restrict these applications to administrative roles: writing electronic health record notes, drafting billing appeals and summarizing visits. These uses may reduce the daily burden and time pressures doctors face to some degree, but they will not solve medicine’s biggest problems.

    In fact, very few in healthcare have focused on GenAI’s larger opportunities: empowering patients with medical expertise, making care continuous rather than episodic, and saving lives by preventing medical errors.

    Importantly, this is where medicine differs from mathematics. In math, many scholars believe that commercial AI companies will play an outsized role in shaping the field’s future, leaving academics with less control than they have today. In medicine, however, doctors still have time to lead if they are willing to challenge the profession’s longstanding assumptions and discard its persistent fallacies.

    Fallacy 1: Outpatient care must happen in medical offices

    Doctors structure outpatient medicine around the office visit. Patients are told to schedule appointments months in advance. Medication adjustments are made at fixed points in time, even when the prescribed treatment has failed to control a patient’s chronic disease for months.

    That office-based model made sense in the previous century, when most medical problems were acute: a broken bone, an infection, appendicitis or chest pain. Today, however, 75% of patients have at least one chronic disease.

    Hypertension, diabetes, heart failure and kidney disease are not episodic problems. They damage blood vessels and vital organs (heart, brain, kidney) every day when they remain poorly controlled.

    Yet medicine tries to monitor and treat chronic disease through in-person appointments three or four times a year.

    As a result, hypertension, the nation’s leading cause of strokes, is adequately controlled in less than half of patients. Diabetes, a major contributor to heart attacks and kidney failure, is effectively controlled even less often.

    To create and implement an ErdÅ‘s-like solution powerful enough to achieve effective hypertension control, the solution will require frequent monitoring and blood pressure evaluation in the patient’s home. A GenAI tool connected to a blood pressure cuff, glucose monitor, wearable device or bedside sensor could accomplish this by continually analyzing the clinical data as physicians would do if they had the time.

    Through this type of solution, a GenAI application would inform patients of their progress, recommend a medication change when control remains inadequate and answer patient questions. Instead of flooding doctors with raw data, clinicians would know which patients were doing well and which ones required assistance. By personalizing medical care in this way, patients doing poorly could obtain the assistance they needed frequently, while those doing well wouldn’t have to miss work to come to the physician’s office.

    Fallacy 2: Medical expertise must flow through doctors

    For most of modern history, the assumption that medical knowledge must flow through clinicians made sense. Physicians had access to training, textbooks, journals, diagnostic tools and clinical experience that patients did not. There was no way patients could make diagnoses and begin treatment without clinician expertise. That world is ending.

    Right now, a third of U.S. adults are turning to AI for health information and advice, according to KFF. They ask ChatGPT and other tools to explain lab results, medications, diagnoses and treatment options. As the demands on physicians grow and it becomes harder for patients to schedule office visits to get their medical questions answered, these numbers will continue to rise. Already, 14 million adults report that they didn’t require a provider visit after using AI, based on recent Gallup polling.

    As GenAI applications become more reliable and clinically sophisticated, the physician’s role as the sole source of medical information will diminish. This does not eliminate the need for physical examination, clinical judgment or the therapeutic relationship. It just changes where physicians’ expertise is most needed.

    Patients will increasingly begin by entering symptoms, test results and questions into a large language model, then asking follow-up questions to understand what steps they should take.

    To optimally support patients, doctors will need to provide the care technology alone cannot: confirming complex diagnoses, ordering studies, prescribing medications, performing procedures and intervening when GenAI identifies a problem that requires human expertise. Ultimately, the combination of dedicated doctors, empowered patients and GenAI will achieve outcomes far better than any could achieve alone.

    Fallacy 3: Superior clinical outcomes require specialization

    Medicine rewards specialization. Over the past 50 years, general practice has been replaced by dozens of specialties, and many of those fields have fragmented further into subspecialties. Cardiology now includes electrophysiology, interventional cardiology, heart failure, imaging and preventive cardiology. Orthopedics divides into spine, hand, shoulder, hip, knee and sports medicine, and so on.

    For surgical and procedural interventions, subspecialization has produced extraordinary advances, improving outcomes because physicians gain expertise by performing the same intervention repeatedly.

    But specialization and subspecialization have also fragmented care. Patients with diabetes often have hypertension, kidney disease, depression and atrial fibrillation, as well. Each condition is usually managed by a different specialist, with separate appointments, medications, test results and treatment plans. As a result, no single clinician sees the whole picture, and patients fall through the cracks, increasing the risk of medical errors.

    A key lesson of the ErdÅ‘s breakthrough is that GenAI’s power lies in synthesis. The AI model applied algebraic number theory to a geometry problem, connecting two specialties that rarely collaborated. Physicians understand the advantages of specialization, but most fail to recognize the problems it creates.

    A generative AI tool with access to the latest medical literature and treatment protocols could equip primary care doctors with the expertise needed to serve as “quarterback,” coordinating teams of specialists on behalf of patients. Or the large language model itself could help fulfill that role. But either solution will require physicians to abandon the belief that medical specialization, alone, leads to the best clinical outcomes.

    These tools will require evaluation and safeguards, but that is not an argument for preserving a system that currently fails patients and takes hundreds of thousands of lives prematurely.

    Medicine's Erdős threat

    If physicians wait too long to act, the future of medicine will be designed around them, not with them. Doctors still have time and opportunity to lead, but only if they abandon the assumptions that stand in the way of progress.

    Should clinicians fail to lead, technology companies, entrepreneurial firms and insurers will build tools that help people evaluate new medical problems from home, monitor chronic conditions continuously and coordinate care on behalf of patients and their families. Those models will rely on far fewer clinicians than today’s system.

    The ErdÅ‘s breakthrough in mathematics shows how quickly new solutions can be found once outdated assumptions are cast aside. This moment serves as both a warning and a way forward. GenAI’s greatest power is not simply doing old work faster or with fewer people. It is helping experts see problems differently and challenging past assumptions. Clinicians can resist that process or lead it. But they will not be able to stop it.

    AI has been adopted by your physicians.  It is enhancing their performance, decreasing burnout, and improving accessibility, diagnosis, and treatment, and enhancing clinical performance.  Many AI applications are already FDA-approved.    The FDA has authorized over 1,400 AI and machine learning-enabled medical devices. The vast majority are software programs used in radiology for image analysis and diagnostics, though approvals also span cardiology, neurology, and gastroenterology. [1, 2, 3, 4]


    GenAI solved a math problem by challenging old assumptions. Medicine should take note. | LinkedIn