WASHINGTON — As Salvatore LoGrande fought cancer and all the pain that came with it, his daughters promised to keep him in the white, pitched roof house he worked so hard to buy decades ago.
So, Sandy LoGrande thought it was a mistake when, a year after her father’s death, Massachusetts billed her $177,000 for her father’s Medicaid expenses and threatened to sue for his home if she didn’t pay up quickly.
“The home was everything,” to her father, said LoGrande, 57.
But the bill and accompanying threat weren’t a mistake.
Rather, it was part of a routine process the federal government requires of every state: to recover money from the assets of dead people who, in their final years, relied on Medicaid, the taxpayer-funded health insurance for the poorest Americans.
People are also reading…
A person’s home is typically exempt from qualifying for Medicaid. But it is subject to the estate recovery process for those who were over 55 and used Medicaid to pay for long-term care such as nursing home stays or in-home health care.
This month, a Democratic lawmaker proposed scuttling the “cruel” program altogether. Critics argue the program collects too little — roughly 1% — of the more than $150 billion Medicaid spends yearly on long-term care. They also say many states fail to warn people who sign up for Medicaid that big bills and claims to their property might await their families once they die.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., speaks at a rally Sept. 28, 2022, on Capitol Hill. Schakowsky reintroduced legislation that would end the federal government’s mandate requiring every state to recover money from the assets of dead people who, in their final years, relied on Medicaid for long-term care.
LoGrande says that’s how she ended up in a two-year legal battle with Massachusetts after her father died. Several years before he died in 2016, she had turned to a local nonprofit for advice on caring for her elderly father. The group suggested she sign him up for Medicaid. She even remembers asking about the house, but was assured the state would only seek the house if it sent her father to a nursing home.
For years, her father got an annual renewal notice from the state’s Medicaid office. She says it wasn’t until after his death, when the state’s demand for $177,000 arrived, that she saw the first bill for his care, which included a brief stint in the hospital for pain from cancer, medications and hospice.
“That’s what ripped my guts out,” LoGrande said. “It was dishonest.”
The state settled with the LoGrandes in 2019 and released its claim on the house.
State policies around this recovery process vary widely, according to a 2021 report from the Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission, which makes policy recommendations to Congress.
Some states will put a lien — a legal right — on a home while others don’t. Meanwhile, some Medicaid offices try to recoup all medical costs from patients, like doctor visits or prescriptions, while others just pursue the costs for long-term care. Alaska and Arizona pursued just dozens of properties in recent years while other states go after thousands of homes, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.
New York and Ohio topped the country for such collections, recovering more than $100 million combined in a single year, a Dayton Daily News investigation found.
Last month, a foundation for one of the industry’s biggest health insurance giants called on Massachusetts to overhaul its process, which includes collecting reimbursement for most Medicaid costs, beyond the federal government’s minimum requirement to recover long-term care expenses. The Blue Cross Blue Shield Foundation of Massachusetts recommended the state Legislature pass a law that would prohibit those additional collections.
Imani Mfalme stands outside her late mother’s house March 7 in Knoxville, Tenn. After the death of Mfalme’s mother, who suffered from Alzheimer’s and was placed in long-term care. the state is seeking a court order that would require Mfalme to sell the house to pay $225,000 for the care her mother received.
In Tennessee, which recovered more than $38.2 million from more than 8,100 estates last year, Imani Mfalme found herself in a similar predicament after her mother’s death in 2021.
As her mother’s early-onset Alzheimer’s worsened, Mfalme continued to care for her. But in 2015, when Mfalme was diagnosed with breast cancer and needed a double mastectomy, she started looking at other options. She hosted a meeting in her mother’s home with the local Medicaid office. The representative told her to drain her mother’s bank accounts — money Mfalme poured into assisted living facility payments for her mom — so her mother would qualify for the program.
The representative, Mfalme said, made no mention that she could be forced to sell the house to settle her mother’s bill with Medicaid once she died.
Now, Tennessee’s Medicaid office says she owes $225,000 and the state is seeking a court order that would require Mfalme to sell the house to pay up.
Mfalme, now 42, said she wants to pay what she can, but the house is a particular pain point. Her mother, a Black woman, purchased her dream home in Knoxville after she won a landmark discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, Boeing, for paying her less than her male co-workers.
The Medicaid and CHIP Payment and Access Commission’s report recommended that Congress reverse the 1993 law that required states to recover money from estates, instead making it optional.
Earlier this month, Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois reintroduced legislation that would end the federal government’s mandate. Schakowsky believes the rule is a losing proposition for families, who give up their homes, and taxpayers, who don’t see big returns from the recovery efforts.
“It is one of the most cruel, ineffective programs that we see,” Schakowsky said. “This is a program that doesn’t work for anybody.”
New laws are increasing price transparency in health care. Here’s what they mean for you.
New laws are increasing price transparency in health care. Here’s what they mean for you.
Health care is one of the most burdensome expenses saddled on Americans. Half of adults in the U.S. report struggling to afford health care, and about the same portion says a $500 medical expense would push them into debt. A quarter of adults put off getting the care they need because of that financial cost, according to surveys from KFF, the organization formerly known as the Kaiser Family Foundation.
What’s more, being insured often isn’t enough to soften the blow. The majority of people in medical debt today actually have health insurance, medical billing analysts report.
Workers and employers have seen their costs for health insurance plans rise significantly since the pandemic began in 2020, a trend that had already been playing out long before. Costs are projected to rise another 6.5% in 2024, according to benefits consulting firm Willis Towers Watson. Rising drug costs, a growing elderly population, pent-up demand post-pandemic, shortages of care workers, and expensive technologies all factor into the increasing expense of health care.
A slew of new rules has been signed into law in the last several years to help Americans, as well as the publicly funded Medicare and Medicaid programs, save money on health care expenses. Broadly, the new laws pertain to prescription costs, price negotiations, surprise billing, and cost transparency. These measures have largely been championed by politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Care Better analyzed information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and major hospital systems to compile this explanation of what Americans can expect from new health care cost transparency laws.
The Trump administration previously enacted rules through executive order requiring hospitals to publicly post the costs of certain services online and another that requires health insurers to share the costs of services covered under their health care plans, which was rolled out in phases under the Biden administration.
A study from the University of Minnesota published in 2023 estimated that price transparency rules for health plans alone could lead to “substantial savings,” potentially in the tens of billions of dollars, benefiting consumers, employers, and even insurers.
The most recent effort to boost health care transparency is making its way through Congress this winter. It’s H.R. 5378, nicknamed the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act. The resolution was voted through the House of Representatives in December and now awaits consideration from the Senate.
The bill is an amalgamation of many existing draft bills championed by Republican and Democratic Congress members who argue the new resolution will empower consumers to make informed decisions related to their health care, lower drug costs, and end overcharging for services by hospitals. It would build on previous transparency measures enacted prior to the pandemic. Health care executives and for-profit hospitals have been critics of the legislation, arguing the changes to Medicare reimbursements will hurt hospitals, particularly those in rural areas where consumers have few other options for care.
Read on to learn more about the changes that could be coming if the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act becomes law.

Site-neutral procedures for Medicare
Implementing what are known as “site-neutral” procedures for Medicare is one area that hospital executives have pushed back against in particular. This part of the legislation would make it so that hospitals can’t charge Medicare more for the same procedures and services provided at lower expense to the program by physicians’ offices. A 2021 estimate by the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget organization projected that eliminating the cost of the unequal charges at hospitals could save Medicare more than $150 billion by 2030.
Spread pricing under Medicaid is out
Spread pricing is a practice where pharmacy benefit managers—some of the most recognizable names being CVS Caremark and OptumRx—charge Medicare or Medicaid more for a drug than it was charged by the pharmacy. Studies have highlighted the potential for the practice to be very profitable for the organizations charged with negotiating drug prices for health plans. The new resolution would ban the practice under Medicaid reimbursement.
Hospital price transparency
All hospitals would be required to make public the cash and insurance-adjusted costs of at least 300 health care services. It also requires them to provide those prices in a single file that can be read by popular programs so that entrepreneurs might be able to develop shopping services for consumers, promoting healthy competition among health care providers. Studies show that compliance rates for existing rules are low, and hospitals are struggling to get in compliance due to a lack of standardization, according to KFF.
Public lab test and imaging pricing
Part of the proposed resolution would require diagnostic labs to publish the cash costs of specific clinical tests as well as the minimum and maximum insurer-negotiated rates under Medicare and Medicaid. Imaging services like MRIs and X-rays would be subject to similar requirements.
Additional funding for health care worker training programs
The resolution would also add around $5 billion in funding for programs that work to expand the pipeline of professionals going into health care careers. The Health Resources & Services Administration estimates that in regions of the U.S. deemed Health Professional Shortage Areas by the federal government, the public needs nearly 13,000 more primary care practitioners, almost 10,000 dental health care workers, and more than 6,000 mental health practitioners. The shortage of workers isn’t just about making services easier to access; it’s partly responsible for higher health care costs for consumers, studies have found.
Extending the ban on pharmacist gag clauses
Private health insurance plans use legal agreements known as “gag clauses” to prevent pharmacists from disclosing when a cheaper drug is available to a patient. The resolution would clarify earlier rules so that the ban on these clauses applies to all private health insurance plans.
Health care coverage price transparency
Similar to hospital transparency rules, the resolution also builds on previous efforts to require health care plans to be transparent about the rates they charge for in-network and out-of-network services as well as prescription drugs. The price info shared would also have to be posted in an accessible, machine-readable file.
Story editing by Ashleigh Graf. Copy editing by Tim Bruns. Photo selection by Ania Antecka.
This story originally appeared on Care Better and was produced and distributed in partnership with Stacker Studio.
