Sponsored message
Audience-funded nonprofit news
radio tower icon laist logo
Next Up:
0:00
0:00
Subscribe
  • Listen Now Playing Listen

The Brief

The most important stories for you to know today
  • Who's paying for them? And how to do your homework
    Two glossy mailers are displayed next to each other on a dark background. One reads "Unconstitutional gerrymandering" in large letters and the other reads "Gerrymandering is Wrong - No Matter Who Does It."
    Political mailers for the Nov. 4 special election on redistricting.

    Topline:

    It’s been less than a week since the California Legislature triggered a special statewide election this November over redistricting, and already the political mail is flooding in. Wondering who’s funding these campaigns and what they’re all about? Here are a few tips on how to follow the trail.

    Look at your mailer: By law, all political ads are required to include information about who paid for them. Check for the “ad paid for by” section — often located toward the bottom in smaller print.

    Check the Secretary of State website: For state ballot measures, all the campaign finance information you want to dig through can be found on the California Secretary of State’s website. Go to “Propositions & Ballot Measures” and find Prop 50 listed there to see all the committees supporting or opposing the measure.

    Read on… for more tips on how to follow the money.

    It’s been less than a week since the California Legislature triggered a special statewide election this November over redistricting, and already the political mail is flooding in.

    The ballot measure headed to voters for a decision, Proposition 50, would allow California politicians to redraw congressional maps to benefit Democrats for elections in 2026, 2028 and 2030. It’s an effort to counter a similar move that President Donald Trump promoted successfully in Texas to benefit Republicans.

    This is a high-stakes moment — your yes or no vote will affect who represents our communities and which political party will drive the nationwide agenda.

    Millions of dollars are pouring in to sway your decision. As of Wednesday, more than $7 million had been raised by Gov. Gavin Newsom’s ballot measure committee to support the proposition, while opponents had raised more than $10 million to fight it. This fundraising will likely continue to ramp up all the way to November.

    Mailbox already stacked with campaign mailers? We’ll help you sort out who’s funding these campaigns and what information is available about them. Here’s how to follow the trail.

    Step one: Examine what the mailer says 

    As a first step, take a look at the mailers themselves. By law, every political ad is required to include information about who paid for it.

    My newsroom colleagues have already received several anti-redistricting campaign ads from a group called Protect Voters First, so let’s start there.

    At the bottom of the mailer, the text reads:

    Ad paid for by Protect Voters First, sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable

    Ad Committee’s Top Funder

    Charles T. Munger, Jr.

    Seems straightforward enough: Charles T. Munger, Jr. is the main contributor to the group that paid for the ad in your mailbox. A quick Google search will tell you he’s a physicist and the son of the late billionaire Charles Munger, former vice chairman of Berkshire Hathaway. The ad wants voters to vote “no” and describes the redistricting effort as a “threat to California’s landmark election reform.”

    But perhaps you’d like to know more. Who are these affiliated groups, Protect Voters First and Hold Politicians Accountable? How much money have they raised? What else have they supported in the past? And who else is funding them?

    Before we dig into those details, here’s a quick recap of the basics.

    A white glossy mailer on a wood background. The top of the mailer reads: "Vote NO in the Special Election."
    A mailer paid for by the Protect Voters First committee.
    (
    Rene Lynch/LAist
    )

    Step two: Understanding political committees

    • What’s a political committee? In an election, all political ad spending has to come from a committee. A political committee is any group of people (it can even be just one individual) who wants to raise or spend money to support or oppose a candidate or ballot measure.
    • How they work: Some committees stick around for a long time, putting money behind various measures year after year. One example is the Protect Prop. 13 committee — a project from the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, an anti-tax group that has been around for decades. For the most part, committees are ephemeral: They come together for one specific purpose in an election, then disappear.
    • Who's behind it? All committees have to file a form that outlines their purpose, names of officers and some basic contact details. This information alone may not be enough to reveal the source. You can find a fair amount of information about who contributed money to a committee — and that's where you'll find the really juicy details.

    Step three: Where to find campaign spending information

    For state ballot measures, all the campaign finance information you want to dig through can be found on the California Secretary of State’s website. Its campaign finance database is called Cal-Access.

    You can look up any committee’s name from this website to find out what they’re all about — who’s listed on file as treasurer, previous names the committee has used, who’s contributed money to them and where they’ve spent that money. You can also look up any committee that is for or against any ballot measure.

    As of Wednesday, there are two committees that have filed to support the measure (including Newsom’s ballot measure committee) and two that have filed to oppose it. The committee from the ad is listed here on the “oppose” side: No on Prop 50 — Protect Voters First, Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable.

    What we found on the Protect Voters First committee

    Here’s what came up:

    • Who started the committee? Besides Munger, the names of the other officers listed (on a filing called Form 410) are Christopher E. Skinnell and James W. Carson — they’re attorneys based in San Rafael. The committee was formed in 2015.
    • Previous names used: This committee has been around for a while under slightly different names, all of which have included “Hold Politicians Accountable.” Previously, they were “Voters First, Not Special Interests - Sponsored by Hold Politicians Accountable,” they’ve also had “Yes on 54” in their name, and before that, they were just “Hold Politicians Accountable.” (Prop. 54 was a measure from 2016 that required state bills and legislative meetings to be posted publicly to provide transparency on lawmaking.)
    • How much money they’ve raised: Munger contributed a whopping $10 million on Aug. 21, the day the redistricting measure was approved in the California state Legislature, and followed that up with $90,000 more on Aug. 22. Before that, the committee had raised just $4,960.50 between January and the end of June.
    • Who contributed money to them: Almost every contribution made to this committee over the past 10 years came from Munger, except for one $5,000 contribution from the New Majority PAC in 2016.
    • What’s the takeaway? This committee is funded entirely by Munger. He’s not the only one spending money against the redistricting measure, but so far he’s got a $10 million head start.

    What we’re watching next

    You can use this process to check out any of the groups supporting or opposing Prop. 50. Remember, read the fine print on your mailer and look out for the “ad paid for by” section.

    Things are moving fast with this short election cycle, so the bigger campaign fundraising landscape is still emerging into view. But here are a few details we’re keeping our eyes on:

    • How much are other opponents spending? Other mailers pushing a “no” vote have been circulating, paid for by “Right Path California.” A visit to the organization’s website shows it’s headed by Jessica Millan Patterson, a former chair of the California Republican Party. Right Path California’s campaign finance forms haven’t yet been posted on the Secretary of State’s website, so it’s unclear how much they’ve raised or spent at this stage. (We reached out to Patterson and didn’t hear back by deadline.)
    • Who are the supporters? Meanwhile, Newsom’s ballot measure committee is springing into fundraising action to encourage a “yes” vote with a slew of new donations over the past few weeks. The largest so far come from the House Majority PAC ($3 million), the labor union affiliate SEIU California State Council ($1 million) and business person Bill Bloomfield ($1 million). Another committee supporting the measure, the Progressive Era Issues Committee, hasn’t yet reported any contributions this past month.

    We’re sure to be inundated with more campaign ads in the coming weeks — TV and internet spots, texts and robocalls — so if something catches your eye, let us know. You can reach me at blee@scpr.org.

  • Employees concerned about privacy
    A person walks down a sidewalk past signage that reads "Cal State LA" and "Directory" with arrows directing people to the various buildings on campus.
    Cal State LA.

    Topline:

    Labor unions representing employees around the 22-campus system are waiting to see if they can win the support of a Superior Court judge — or perhaps reach an agreement with CSU itself — to allay members’ fears of harassment and surveillance by the Trump administration.

    More details: Faculty members, a graduate teaching assistant, and a supervisor in a campus facilities department are among the employees who have filed declarations in state court, saying they are worried that Cal State will put their scholarships and well-being at risk by handing over personal information like cellphone numbers and email addresses to federal agencies. Their lawsuit seeking to require CSU to notify employees if it receives federal requests for such information in the future is being heard by Judge Stephen Goorvitch. The parties plan to hold a conference with the judge as soon as next week, a spokesperson for the faculty union said.

    About the lawsuit: The California Faculty Association (CFA) sued the California State University Board of Trustees in October, later adding Teamsters and United Auto Workers units at CSU as fellow plaintiffs. The unions said in court filings that prompt notification of future federal subpoenas would give employees the opportunity to object and attempt to intervene if they don’t want their information shared with the federal government.

    Read on... what employees in the CSU system are saying about the suit.

    California State University is caught between a federal government eager to investigate alleged antisemitism and employees concerned about privacy.

    That dilemma has landed the nation’s largest four-year public university in Los Angeles County Superior Court, where labor unions representing employees around the 22-campus system are waiting to see if they can win the support of a Superior Court judge — or perhaps reach an agreement with CSU itself — to allay members’ fears of harassment and surveillance by the Trump administration.

    Faculty members, a graduate teaching assistant, and a supervisor in a campus facilities department are among the employees who have filed declarations in state court, saying they are worried that Cal State will put their scholarships and well-being at risk by handing over personal information like cellphone numbers and email addresses to federal agencies. Their lawsuit seeking to require CSU to notify employees if it receives federal requests for such information in the future is being heard by Judge Stephen Goorvitch. The parties plan to hold a conference with the judge as soon as next week, a spokesperson for the faculty union said.

    The nine sworn statements, filed by employees from San Bernardino to Humboldt County in early November, show the fallout after CSU revealed in September that it is the subject of a systemwide investigation into allegations of antisemitism and a hostile environment by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). EEOC has filed one complaint related to that investigation, but CSU anticipates others will follow.

    Separately, Cal State alerted Cal State LA employees in September that it had complied with an EEOC subpoena related to a January complaint against the campus of roughly 22,000 students. The subpoena sought the contact information of all Cal State LA faculty and staff in connection with an investigation that also hinges on allegations of antisemitism.

    The California Faculty Association (CFA) sued the California State University Board of Trustees in October, later adding Teamsters and United Auto Workers units at CSU as fellow plaintiffs. The unions said in court filings that prompt notification of future federal subpoenas would give employees the opportunity to object and attempt to intervene if they don’t want their information shared with the federal government.

    The conflict between Cal State and the employee unions comes amid a sweeping campaign by the White House to crack down on colleges and universities that it accuses of fostering political views with which it disagrees, including protesting Israel’s military offensive in Gaza and supporting the rights of transgender students. The University of California system and the University of Pennsylvania are among the colleges facing EEOC investigations alleging a hostile work environment for Jewish employees.

    Cal State says it has not received a subpoena related to the systemwide EEOC investigation and that there have not been any findings, settlement discussions or other federal actions in regard to it. The EEOC did not respond to a request seeking comment.

    Judge Goorvitch on Friday was scheduled to weigh the unions’ request for a preliminary injunction. The court ultimately did not issue a decision and will instead accept additional briefing from CSU, said university system spokesperson Jason Maymon. A status conference on the matter is set for next week, CFA spokesperson Kenyon Farrow said.

    A balancing act for Cal State

    The systemwide EEOC investigation poses a subtle balancing act for Cal State, which has said it will cooperate in good faith with federal investigators while seeking to protect its employees’ privacy. “Fulfilling our legal obligations does not mean surrendering our rights or agreeing with the allegations,” the university system advises on a frequently asked questions webpage. “CSU is required by law to cooperate with an EEOC investigation, but cooperation does not mean that CSU accepts the allegations as true or automatically provides everything that is requested.”

    At Cal State LA, the university system has said it filed a petition to modify the subpoena, narrowing its original scope to exclude home addresses and details about why employees left the university. But Cal State LA ultimately provided information, including employees’ names, genders, race and ethnicity, personal phone number, personal email and work sites.

    In November, Cal State filed a brief opposing the unions’ motion for a preliminary injunction, which the unions have since revised. Attorneys for the university system argued that federal law preempts state privacy protections and that its disclosure of information to a federal agency was permitted under state law.

    Employees cite ‘fear and intimidation’

    Sworn statements by employees at Cal State LA depict what one described as an atmosphere of “fear and intimidation” on campus since employees learned that their personal contact information had been shared with the EEOC.

    Philosophy master’s student Eric Phipps said that shortly after CSU alerted employees about the disclosures, his professor and classmates in a course related to gender “expressed fears that their participation in the course could cause them to be targeted by the federal government and that CSU would not protect them.”

    Phipps, who works as an instructional student assistant, is now second-guessing whether to pursue a career in academia. “I feel that academic freedom is no longer guaranteed, and I am now hesitant to publish my thesis because of the political views expressed therein,” he wrote.

    Faculty also worried that future federal requests would seek private emails with students and colleagues, or other information about their teaching, social media use and political activism.

    Cal State LA professor Ericka Verba said she worries that if CSU were to provide the text of her emails to the federal government, she could face retaliation for her activism related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Verba, a member of Cal State LA’s Latin American Studies Program, said her emails also “contain sensitive information about students’ immigration status” that is not relevant to an antisemitism probe.

    Concerns not limited to Cal State LA

    Similar concerns have spread to employees at other CSU campuses, who said in court declarations that they are worried that future federal requests may seek information they consider confidential and personal.

    Christopher Cox, a San Jose State University lecturer in sociology and interdisciplinary studies, wrote that his teaching specialties — including topics like colonization and international human rights — make him concerned “that I will be targeted for the courses that I teach at SJSU if my private information is subpoenaed by the EEOC or another federal agency.”

    At Cal Poly Humboldt, a philosophy lecturer said he feared his views on political issues, including LGBTQ+ rights, would put him at risk. Loren Cannon, who has worked at the Humboldt campus since 2006, said he was concerned that CSU may in the future turn over information about his scholarship and teaching “that would subject me to additional scrutiny, harassment and even the termination of my position.”

    Institutions of higher education have varied in how they respond to EEOC investigations into alleged discrimination against Jewish employees. The University of Pennsylvania sought to revoke an EEOC subpoena in its entirety, the federal agency said in a court filing. EEOC denied that effort and has asked a federal district court to force Penn to comply with a modified order. Meanwhile, Columbia University in New York City agreed to pay $21 million to settle an EEOC investigation.

    EdSource is an independent nonprofit organization that provides analysis on key education issues facing California and the nation. LAist republishes articles from EdSource with permission.

  • Sponsored message
  • Deal would drop affordable housing requirements
    Development in a planned city. The homes are painted white with gray roofing.
    Irvine's Great Park area.

    Topline:

    The Irvine City Council on Tuesday is set to vote on a land swap deal that will waive affordable housing requirements for one of the biggest developers in Orange County.

    About the land swap: If the council approves the land swap with FivePoint, the city will give 26.4 acres of land in exchange for 35 acres dubbed the Crescent site. The city will then greenlight FivePoint’s development of 1,300 market rate housing in an area where the median price for a home is around $1.5 million.

    Why it matters: The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting does not include land appraisals or a financial analysis of the land swap and the financial impact of waiving affordable housing requirements for FivePoint within the Great Park. LAist has requested those documents from the city and will update the story if we hear back. However, in a staff report, officials say Irvine can use the land in the deal to build more affordable housing than would otherwise be built in the commercial market.

    The Irvine City Council on Tuesday is set to vote on a land swap deal that will waive affordable housing requirements for one of the biggest developers in Orange County.

    If the council approves the land swap with FivePoint, the city will give 26.4 acres of land in exchange for 35 acres dubbed the Crescent site. The city will then greenlight FivePoint’s development of 1,300 market rate housing in an area where the median price for a home is around $1.5 million.

    The staff report for Tuesday’s meeting does not include land appraisals or a financial analysis of the land swap and the financial impact of waiving affordable housing requirements for FivePoint within the Great Park. LAist has requested those documents from the city and will update the story if we hear back.

    However, in a staff report, officials say Irvine can use the land in the deal to build more affordable housing than would otherwise be built in the commercial market.

    The breakdown of the land swap

    Heritage Fields El Toro, part of the FivePoint umbrella, owns the land adjacent to the Irvine Transportation Center, a transit station that falls in the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route, as well as Metrolink train and Orange County Transportation Authority bus routes. That 35-acre area is dubbed the “Crescent Site.” City officials want that land to build a “transit oriented development” connecting the Great Park and Irvine Spectrum areas.

    According to the city, “The area is particularly well suited for higher-density residential and mixed-use formats, sidewalk-activated retail and creative commercial spaces, walkable urban blocks, and a lifestyle environment attractive to young professionals and knowledge-sector employees.”

    Irvine has not included plans on how they will achieve state affordable housing requirements in the staff report.

    LAist has reached out to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for comment.

    What does California law require?

    • California’s Housing Element Law sets housing targets for local governments to meet, including for affordable units. 
    • It allows the state to intervene every eight years to let cities know how much housing they must plan for. 
    • The law also requires cities to put together a housing element showcasing how they will achieve the state’s plan. 
    • The state then approves of the element or sends it back to cities to reconfigure according to the requirements. 

    Will veterans finally get a resting place in Irvine?

    In the land swap, FivePoint will also give the city $15 million to use toward the construction of a columbarium for cremated remains, a new public library and other amenities on a 125-acre plot of land within Great Park — a project that may go to voters in 2026.

    For years, plans to build a final resting place for veterans in Irvine has stalled due to debates over politics, a property developer, site options and ballot measures. Fed-up veterans finally took their plans to Anaheim’s Gypsum Canyon, where they received the backing of the state. Irvine Mayor Larry Agran tried to revive talks of a veterans cemetery in Irvine in May, but that was quickly shut down.

    How to watchdog Great Park board meetings

    One of the best things you can do to hold officials accountable is pay attention.

    Your city council, board of supervisors, school board and more all hold public meetings that anybody can attend. These are times you can talk to your elected officials directly and hear about the policies they’re voting on that affect your community.

    • Read tips on how to get involved.
    • The next scheduled Great Park board meeting is 4 p.m. Tuesday, Dec. 9. You can find meeting agendas and upcoming dates here
    • And submit a comment on the agenda here
  • Fennessy to lead new federal agency
    A group of firefighters and highway officials stand behind a podium at a news conference.
    Orange County Fire Chief Brian Fennessy at a news conference Friday morning.

    Topline:

    Brian Fennessy is retiring as head of the Orange County Fire Authority in January to become the first director of the newly created United States Wildland Fire Service, according to a staff memo.
    OCFA Chief Fennessy retirement letter
    OCFA Chief Brian Fennessy announces his retirement to join new U.S. Wildland Fire Service

    Why it matters: The Trump administration announced the U.S. Wildland Fire Service in September to modernize wildfire management nationwide. It will be a joint effort between the Department of Interior and the Department of Agriculture.

    The context: The service's areas of focus will include strengthening response efforts among local, state and federal agencies, modernizing aviation and coordinating systems and improving technology that can help agencies respond to fires and protect personnel. In his retirement letter, Fennessy said the USWFS "represents a historic opportunity to strengthen interagency coordination, modernize capabilities, and elevate the profession of wildland firefighting."

    The backstory: Fennessy was OCFA fire chief for more than seven years. According to OCFA, his career began in 1978 as a hotshot crewmember with the U.S. Forest Service and the Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management.

    What's next: A new chief has not been announced yet. Fennessy said he would “work closely with Executive Management and our Board of Directors to support a smooth leadership transition.”

  • Republicans push plan, HSA

    Topline:

    Although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    Why it matters: In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    Some background: Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Read on... for what happened with a family who had high-deductible health plan.

    Sarah Monroe once had a relatively comfortable middle-class life.

    She and her family lived in a neatly landscaped neighborhood near Cleveland. They had a six-figure income and health insurance through her job. Then, four years ago, when Monroe was pregnant with twin girls, something started to feel off.

    "I kept having to come into the emergency room for fainting and other symptoms," recalled Monroe, 43, who works for an insurance company.

    The babies were fine. But after months of tests and hospital trips, Monroe was diagnosed with a potentially dangerous heart condition.

    It would be costly. Within a year, as she juggled a serious illness and a pair of newborns, Monroe was buried under more than $13,000 in medical debt.


    Part of the reason: Like tens of millions of Americans, she had a high-deductible health plan. People with these plans typically pay thousands of dollars out of their own pockets before coverage kicks in.

    The plans, which have become common over the past two decades, are getting renewed attention thanks to President Donald Trump and his GOP allies in Congress.

    Many Republicans are reluctant to extend government subsidies that help cover patients' medical bills and insurance premiums through the Affordable Care Act.

    And although GOP leaders have yet to coalesce around an alternative, several leading Republican lawmakers have proposed Americans who don't get insurance through an employer should get cash in a special health care account, paired with a high-deductible health plan.

    In such an arrangement, someone could choose a plan on an ACA marketplace that costs less per month but comes with an annual deductible that can top $7,000 for an individual plan.

    "A patient makes the decision," Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said at a recent hearing. "It empowers the patient to lower the cost."

    In a post on Truth Social last month, Trump said: "The only healthcare I will support or approve is sending the money directly back to the people."

    "Skin in the game"

    Conservative economists and GOP lawmakers have been making similar arguments since high-deductible health plans started to catch on two decades ago.

    Back then, a backlash against the limitations of HMOs, or health maintenance organizations, propelled many employers to move workers into these plans, which were supposed to empower patients and control costs. A change in tax law allowed patients in these plans to put away money in tax-free health savings accounts to cover medical bills.

    "The notion was that if a consumer has 'skin in the game,' they will be more likely to seek higher-quality, lower-cost care," said Shawn Gremminger, who leads the National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, a nonprofit that works with employers that offer their workers health benefits.

    "The unfortunate reality is that largely has not been the case," Gremminger said.

    Today, nearly all health plans comes with a deductible, with the average for a single worker with job-based coverage approaching $1,700, up from around $300 in 2006.

    Plans with deductibles that exceed $1,650 can be paired with a tax-free health savings account.

    But even as deductibles became widespread over the last 20 years, medical prices in the U.S. skyrocketed. The average price of a knee replacement, for example, increased 74% from 2003 to 2016, more than double the rate of overall inflation.

    At the same time, patients have been left with thousands of dollars of medical bills they can't pay, despite having health insurance.

    About 100 million people in the U.S. have some form of health care debt, a 2022 survey showed.

    Most, like Monroe, are insured.

    Medical price shopping isn't easy

    Although Monroe had a health savings account paired with her high-deductible plan, she was never able to save more than a few thousand dollars, she said. That wasn't nearly enough to cover the big bills when her twins were born and when she got really ill.

    "It's impossible, I will tell you, impossible to pay medical bills," she said.

    There was another problem with her high-deductible plan. Although these plans are supposed to encourage patients to shop around for medical care to find the lowest prices, Monroe found this impractical when she had a complex pregnancy and heart troubles.

    Instead, Monroe chose the largest health system in her area.

    "I went with that one as far as medical risk," she said. "If anything were to happen, I could then be transferred within that system."

    Federal rules that require hospitals to post more of their prices can make comparing institutions easier than it used to be.

    But unlike a car or a computer, most medical services remain difficult to shop for, in part because they stem from an emergency or are complex and can stretch over numerous years.

    Researchers at the nonprofit Health Care Cost Institute, for example, estimated that just 7% of total health care spending for Americans with job-based coverage was for services that realistically could be shopped for.

    Fumiko Chino, an oncologist at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, said it makes no sense to expect patients with cancer or another chronic disease to go out and compare prices for complicated medical care such as surgeries, radiation, or chemotherapy after they've been diagnosed with a potentially deadly illness.

    "You're not going be able to actually do that effectively," Chino said, "and certainly not within the time frame that you would need to when facing a cancer diagnosis and the imminent need to start treatment."

    Drowning in bills

    Chino said patients with high deductibles are often instead slammed with a flood of huge medical bills that lead to debt and a cascade of other problems.

    She and other researchers found in a study of more than 8,000 cancer patients presented last year at the American Society of Clinical Oncology that cancer patients who had high-deductible health insurance were more likely to die than similar patients without that kind of coverage.

    For her part, Monroe and her family were forced to move out of their house and into a 1,100-square-foot apartment.

    She drained her savings. Her credit score sank. And her car was repossessed.

    There have been other sacrifices, too. "When families get to have nice Christmases or get to go on spring break," Monroe said, hers often does not.

    She is thankful that her children are healthy. And she continues to have a job. But Monroe said she can't imagine why anyone would want to double down on the high-deductible model for health care.

    "We owe it to ourselves to do it a different way," she said. "We can't treat people like this."

    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.
    Copyright 2025 KFF Health News