








































EviCore, the Company Helping U.S. Health Insurers Deny Coverage for Treatments — ProPublica



































Skip to content  Menu Menu  ProPublica  Donate   Menu Menu  ProPublica  Donate   Close Close  ProPublica  Donate   Search ProPublica:  Search Search  Topics  Racial Justice  Racial Justice Healthcare  Health Care Politics  Politics Criminal Justice  Criminal Justice  more…  Browse by Place   Midwest  Northwest  South  Southwest  Texas  Type   Graphics & Data  Newsletters  Series  Videos    Local Reporting Network  Electionland  Data Store  Info   About Us  Impact  Jobs & Fellowships  Contact Us   Follow ProPublica  Bluesky Bluesky   Instagram Instagram   Facebook Facebook   X (Twitter)   YouTube YouTube   Threads Threads   LinkedIn LinkedIn   RSS RSS    








In 2021, EviCore turned down a doctor’s request to cover a cardiac exam for Little John Cupp, right. He was a constant presence in the lives of his daughter Chris, left, and granddaughter Theresa, center.

Credit: 
        Photo illustration by ProPublica. Photo courtesy of Chris Cupp. Document obtained by ProPublica.
    




Health Care

        “Not Medically Necessary”: Inside the Company Helping America’s Biggest Health Insurers Deny Coverage for Care
    


                by T. Christian Miller, ProPublica; Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum;  and David Armstrong, ProPublica            

Oct. 23, 2024, 1:30 p.m. EDT


 
 
                When companies like Aetna or UnitedHealthcare want to rein in costs, they turn to EviCore, whose business model depends on turning down payments for care recommended by doctors for their patients.
            




        by T. Christian Miller, ProPublica; Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum;  and David Armstrong, ProPublica    

Oct. 23, 2024, 1:30 p.m. EDT



  Share  


 Contrast  Change Appearance  Change Appearance AutoLightDark 

Republish


                Co-published with
                        The Capitol Forum 








Series: 
Uncovered:
How the Insurance Industry Denies Coverage to Patients



        More in this series
        

Caret







ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.



Reporting Highlights

Dialing for Dollars:  America’s largest insurers hire EviCore to make decisions on whether to pay for care for more than 100 million people.
“The Dial”:  EviCore uses an algorithm that allows it to adjust the chances that company doctors will screen prior authorization requests, increasing the possibility of denials.
Lucrative Deals:  Some EviCore contracts are based on how deeply the company can reduce spending on medical procedures. It tells insurers that it can provide a 3-to-1 return on investment.


        These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story. 









Every day, patients across America crack open envelopes with bad news. Yet another health insurer has decided not to pay for a treatment that their doctor has recommended. Sometimes it’s a no for an MRI for a high school wrestler with a strained back. Sometimes for a cancer procedure that will help a grandmother with a throat tumor. Sometimes for a heart scan for a truck driver feeling short of breath.
But the insurance companies don’t always make these decisions. Instead, they often outsource medical reviews to a largely hidden industry that makes money by turning down doctors’ requests for payments, known as prior authorizations. Call it the denials for dollars business.
The biggest player is a company called EviCore by Evernorth, which is hired by major American insurance companies and provides coverage to 100 million consumers — about 1 in 3 insured people. It is owned by the insurance giant Cigna.
A ProPublica and Capitol Forum investigation found that EviCore uses an algorithm backed by artificial intelligence, which some insiders call “the dial,” that it can adjust to lead to higher denials. Some contracts ensure the company makes more money the more it cuts health spending. And it issues medical guidelines that doctors have said delay and deny care for patients.



EviCore and companies like it approve prior authorizations “based on the decision that is more profitable for them,” said Barbara McAneny, a former president of the American Medical Association and a practicing oncologist. “They love to deny things.”
EviCore says it scrutinizes requests to make sure that procedures recommended by doctors are safe, necessary and cost-effective. “We are improving the quality of health care, the safety of health care and, by very happy coincidence, we’re also decreasing a significant amount of unnecessary cost,” an EviCore medical officer explains in a video produced by the company.
But EviCore’s cost-cutting is far from coincidental, according to the investigation.
EviCore markets itself to insurance companies by promising a 3-to-1 return on investment — that is, for every $1 spent on EviCore, the insurer would pay out $3 less on medical care and other costs. EviCore salespeople have boasted of a 15% increase in denials, according to the investigation, which is based on internal documents, corporate data and dozens of interviews with former employees, doctors, industry experts, health care regulators and insurance executives. Almost everybody interviewed spoke on condition of anonymity because they continue to work in the industry.
An analysis of the company’s own data shows that, since 2021, EviCore turned down prior authorization requests, in full or in part, almost 20% of the time in Arkansas, which requires the publication of denial rates. By comparison, the equivalent figure for federal Medicare Advantage plans was about 7% in 2022.


They love to deny things.


        —Barbara McAneny, former president of the American Medical Association

    

EviCore has several ways to cut costs for insurers. Chief among them is the dial, the proprietary algorithm that’s the first stop in evaluating a prior authorization. Based on data entered by a doctor’s office, it can automatically approve a request.
The algorithm cannot say no, however. If it finds problems, it sends the request for review to a team of in-house nurses and doctors who consult company medical guidelines. Only doctors can issue a final denial.



This is where tweaking the dial comes in. EviCore can adjust the algorithm to increase the number of requests sent for review, according to five former employees. The more reviews, the higher the chance of denials.


        What We’re Watching
    

During Donald Trump’s second presidency, ProPublica will focus on the areas most in need of scrutiny. Here are some of the issues our reporters will be watching — and how to get in touch with them securely.





Learn more about our reporting team. We will continue to share our areas of interest as the news develops.





Mark Olalde
I’m interested in Trump’s and his allies’ promises to dismantle the federal bureaucracy and laws that protect the environment.

Email
Signal






Robert Faturechi
I have been reporting on Trump Media, the parent company of Truth Social. I’m also reporting on the Trump administration’s trade policies, including tariffs.

Signal
WhatsApp
Email






Maryam Jameel
I’m an engagement reporter interested in immigration, labor and the federal workforce.

Phone
Signal
Email






Andy Kroll
I cover justice and the rule of law, with a focus on the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and the federal courts.

Signal
Phone
Email






If you don’t have a specific tip or story in mind, we could still use your help. Sign up to be a member of our federal worker source network to stay in touch.




 
 
 
 
 
 

We’re trying something new. Was it helpful?

Here’s how it works, the former employees said: The algorithm reviews a request and gives it a score. For example, it may judge one request to have a 75% chance of approval, while another to have a 95% chance. If EviCore wants more denials, it can send on for review anything that scores lower than a 95%. If it wants fewer, it can set the threshold for reviews at scores lower than 75%.
“We could control that,” said one former EviCore executive involved in technology issues. “That’s the game we would play.”
Over the years, medical groups have repeatedly complained that EviCore’s guidelines were outdated and rigid, resulting in inappropriate denials or delays in care. Frustration with the rules has led some doctors to refer to the company as EvilCore. There is even a parody account on X.
The guidelines are also used as a tool to cut costs, the investigation found. Company executives “would say, ‘Keep a closer eye on the guidelines for reviews for a particular company because we’re not showing savings,’” said a former EviCore employee involved in the radiation oncology program.
EviCore says that it develops its guidelines with the input of peer-reviewed medical studies and professional societies, and that they are routinely updated to stay current with the latest evidence-backed practices. It said its decisions are based solely on the guidelines and are not interpreted differently for different clients.
EviCore is not alone in engaging in the denials-for-dollars business. The second-biggest player is Carelon Medical Benefits Management, a subsidiary of Elevance Health, the health insurer formerly known as Anthem. It has been accused in court of wrongfully denying legitimate requests for coverage. The company has denied all charges. Several smaller companies do the same kind of work.


Simply put, EviCore uses the latest evidence-based medicine to ensure that patients receive the care they need and avoid the services they do not.


        —A Cigna spokesperson in a statement provided on behalf of EviCore

    

There is no question that prior authorizations play an important role in modern medicine. They serve to guard against doctors who recommend unnecessary and even potentially harmful treatments. They also protect insurers from fraudulent physicians who overbill for services.
In a response to questions, a Cigna spokesperson provided a statement on behalf of EviCore. “Simply put, EviCore uses the latest evidence-based medicine to ensure that patients receive the care they need and avoid the services they do not,” it said.
The statement acknowledged that EviCore used algorithms for some clinical programs, but “ONLY to accelerate approval of appropriate care and reduce the administrative burden on providers.”
The statement noted that doctors have the ability to appeal prior authorization denials, and that the company routinely monitors the outcomes “as part of our continuous quality improvement to ensure accurate and timely medical necessity decision-making.”



Prior authorization reviews provided by EviCore save money for the entire health insurance system, the statement said. “The natural product of improved care quality and reduced waste is savings for our clients, lower out-of-pocket costs for patients, and fewer health care premium increases for Americans.”
Turning the Dial

In the fall of 2021, when the air grew crisp and the leaves reddened in central Ohio, Little John Cupp began feeling short of breath. He gasped while pushing a shopping cart. His feet and ankles swelled. He could only sleep while sitting up.
An echocardiogram revealed that his heart was having trouble pumping blood. Cupp’s doctor suggested more testing, including the insertion of a catheter to examine whether his arteries were blocked.
A few days after the doctor made the request, Cupp received a letter from his insurance company, UnitedHealthcare. The procedure, it said, was “not medically necessary.”







Little John Cupp provided support for his family, including buying a new four-bedroom trailer.

Credit: 
        Courtesy of Chris Cupp
    


One sentence in 8-point type revealed that the insurer had outsourced the decision to EviCore.
Cupp’s doctor put him on medications to reduce swelling and high blood pressure and tried a second time to win approval for a left heart catheter examination. EviCore turned it down again. He revealed his disappointment in shorthand in Cupp’s medical records: “ideally he needs LHC (denied twice by insurance).”
Cupp was 5-foot-7 and 282 pounds, with a wedding ring the size of a quarter. He had a white beard, his face wide and warm. He wore blue jean overalls and scuffed leather work boots. He had spent most of his life as a welder, working at metal fabrication shops in and around his hometown of Circleville, Ohio, population 14,063. He was 61, nearly the same age as his father when he died from a massive heart attack. Cupp was a stoic, his daughter Chris said, but the denial worried him.
“Well, I have to call the doctor and see what we’re going to do,” he told her after the second rejection.
The doctor decided to give up on getting an approval for the catheter exam. In challenging EviCore, he was fighting not just a company but an industry.
EviCore is the product of a massive, decadeslong push by insurance companies to control health care costs. They point to studies that show 20% to 45% of some medical treatments are wasteful or ineffective. To decrease such spending, insurers began requiring doctors to seek permission for medical care before agreeing to pay for it — a process known as “utilization review.” As treatments became more complex, the reviews proved costly in themselves.
Created from a 2014 merger of two smaller companies, EviCore offered a solution: It allowed insurers to outsource prior authorization decisions for the most specialized and expensive procedures. EviCore today issues recommendations for imaging, oncology, cardiology, gastroenterology, sleep problems and many other fields.



It works with more than 100 insurers across the country, including industry titans such as UnitedHealthcare, Aetna and Blue Cross Blue Shield and some Medicare and Medicaid contractors. Cigna took over the company in 2018, but EviCore maintains its independence by blocking insurers from prying into one another’s proprietary data.
In responses to inquiries, the large insurance companies said they hired EviCore as a way to make sure that customers received safe and necessary medical treatments, while holding down costs for inappropriate care.
EviCore built its business by relying on different types of contracts. In one, a health insurance company pays EviCore a flat rate to review coverage requests.
Another type is more lucrative, providing an incentive for EviCore to cut costs, former employees said. Known as risk contracts, EviCore takes on the responsibility for paying claims. As an example, say an insurer spends $10 million a year on MRIs. If EviCore keeps costs below that figure, it pockets the difference. In some cases, it splits the savings with the insurance company.
“Where you really made your money was on a risk model,” a former EviCore executive said. “Their margins were exponentially higher.”
EviCore teams involved in developing the algorithms and contracting with clients “operate separately” from reviewers “to prevent any potential conflicts of interest,” according to the statement from Cigna’s spokesperson.
Insurers do not make explicit demands for more denials, a former EviCore sales executive said, Instead, they asked about “controlling the spend” — the amount of money paid out on certain procedures, he said. Nor would EviCore always use the word “denials” — they employed circumlocutions like “inappropriate determinations.”
Aetna and Cigna are two of the companies that have requested “high touch” plans — those that would send more cases to clinical review and thus generate more denials, according to the former employee involved in data issues.
Aetna did not directly respond to whether it used “high touch” plans. “Although we never automate medical necessity denials, we automate and provide real-time approval of some services to ease administrative burden and allow providers to focus on patient care,” the insurer said in a statement. Cigna did not respond to questions about its use of such plans.


The fact that these big companies focused on profits and can play all these games is quite disturbing to me.


        —Martin Lustick, a former insurance executive

    

“When you have human eyes on something, you can pick up where there might be a gray area where the algorithm might not pick up,” a former EviCore account executive said. “That is how you would increase the denial rate.”
EviCore can also adjust the algorithm to achieve its internal goals, without the knowledge of clients, former employees said. This happened when EviCore was not generating enough savings to demonstrate its value to insurers, several former employees told ProPublica.



“The pressure from our business leaders was to make sure that we were able to provide evidence of a strong enough impact to justify the contracts with clients,” said the former employee involved with technology.
The system also runs in reverse. When doctors or employer health plans complain about high rejection rates, insurance companies can ask EviCore to back off. The company simply adjusts its algorithm to approve more prior authorization requests.
Dave Jones, a former California insurance commissioner and now director of the climate risk initiative at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, said arbitrarily increasing or decreasing manual reviews didn’t appear to violate any standards. Still, he questioned whether a payment structure or contract for EviCore based on reducing claims payments or authorizations would result in objective and thorough evaluations of prior authorization requests, as required by law.
“That to me is troubling,” Jones said. “It suggests that the claim settlement procedure is not objective, right?” He added, “It calls into question everything that’s occurring.”
Other industry experts found the manipulation of denial rates upsetting.
“The fact that these big companies focused on profits and can play all these games is quite disturbing to me,” said Martin Lustick, a former insurance executive and the author of a book on industry practices. “They know the more reviews they do, the more denials they get.”
Disputed Guidelines
On March 2, 2022, Cupp and his daughter entered the Adena Regional Medical Center, a gray and glass building surrounded by central Ohio’s low rolling hills.
It had been almost three months since EviCore first turned down coverage for the catheterization. Changing tack, Cupp’s doctor ordered a new exam, which EviCore approved, called a nuclear stress test. It shows how well blood flows through your heart.
A heart catheterization generally costs around $3,500 when done in network, according to Fair Health, a nonprofit that tracks health care prices. A nuclear stress test runs about $315.
Afterward, Cupp greeted Chris in the waiting room. He told her he felt fine. They went for lunch at a favorite hamburger spot. At the time, they did not know the results of the stress test, which showed that his heart was pumping even less blood than indicated by his echocardiogram.
At each step of the way, EviCore had steered Cupp’s medical treatment by denying or approving his doctor’s coverage requests based on its own internal guidelines.
Those guidelines have long been the subject of complaints from doctors. Over the past five years, organizations ranging from the American College of Cardiology to the Society for Vascular Surgery to ASTRO, the American Society for Radiation Oncology, have written to EviCore or regulators that the guidelines are flawed and can interfere with delivering the right care for patients. Benjamin Durkee, a doctor who chairs ASTRO’s payor relations committee, said EviCore had generally made “a good faith” effort to respond to the society’s concerns. But, he noted, the company continues to consistently deny a radiation treatment called proton beam therapy for some pelvic tumors that is more costly but supported by ASTRO’s recommendations.



In a 2019 letter to EviCore, the Society for Vascular Surgery expressed concern about the company’s medical guidelines.

Credit: 
        Obtained by ProPublica. Highlighted by ProPublica.
    


A 2023 academic study examined the criteria EviCore used to approve payment for imaging of the lower spine in cases of extreme pain. It found the guidelines deficient. Two of five medical experts who reviewed the guidelines even recommended not using them.



A 2018 audit by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, found that Health Care Service Corporation, a Blue Cross Blue Shield insurer, had hired EviCore to review prior authorizations. EviCore, the audit found, played a role in making “inappropriate denials” for 30 patients because it failed to keep its cancer guidelines up to date. As a result, EviCore retrained its staff. HCSC did not respond for comment.
Former employees have also questioned how the guidelines were put to use.
A maternal-fetal medicine physician in Colorado, Gail Miller, took a job as a doctor at EviCore in 2018. The idea of ensuring safe medical practices appealed to her. But she soon grew convinced that EviCore was more interested in saving money.
EviCore rejected her suggestions for improving its maternal fetal health guidelines. Her supervisor required her to decide at least 15 cases an hour — or one every four minutes. She often reviewed requests by physicians outside her specialty.
Nine months after starting at EviCore, Miller quit, disappointed by the attitudes of some of her colleagues. “Most of the physicians who work at these places just don’t care,” she said. “Any empathy they had is gone.”
EviCore noted its clinical staff had “high engagement, satisfaction and retention rates.” It said the most common reason for denying a prior authorization is because doctors neglect to include necessary information.
Results

EviCore meets regularly with insurers and state Medicaid programs. It is a critical part of the business. The company has to demonstrate savings or clients will have little reason to continue their contracts.
Typical was a 2019 meeting with Vermont’s Medicaid program, which for years had used EviCore to review coverage requests for advanced radiology and cardiology scans. A slide show demonstrated how the company had helped lower costs for cardiac imaging through denials. Rates had zigzagged, from a high of almost 15% of requests in one three-month period to a low of 6.1% in another.
But the presentation, obtained through Vermont’s Public Records Act, revealed another way that EviCore saved money for insurers. Prior authorization requests for radiology imaging services had dropped to 3,629, a decline of 16%. Cardiology requests had plummeted even more — down 38% in a little more than a year. Doctors had simply stopped asking for procedures for their patients.
An EviCore executive called this the “sentinel effect” at a legislative hearing in Kansas. It is like the sheriff coming to town. Once doctors know EviCore is watching, they make fewer inappropriate prior authorization requests, he said.



Doctors, however, say that such decreases reflect how difficult it is to fight EviCore and similar companies. Their entrance into the market frustrates doctors from making otherwise legitimate requests.
In its statement, Cigna described the sentinel effect differently. The company said that it helps doctors stay up to date on best practices. “Sentinel effect refers to the reduction in frequency with which physicians order inappropriate services because they are now aware of the latest clinical evidence,” the statement read.
A spokesperson for Vermont’s Medicaid program said the state does not believe that EviCore made unfair or unsound coverage recommendations. Instead, EviCore helped Vermont make “sound decisions from both a fiscal and patient care perspective.”
“It is never a goal for the state of Vermont or our third-party contractors to deny service,” said Alex McCracken, spokesperson of Department of Vermont Health Access. “We are committed to delivery of service for our customers.”
Vermont eventually ended its contract with EviCore because it decided to no longer require prior authorization for advanced imaging scans in its Medicaid program.
“Too Much Say”

The day after his stress test, Cupp drove to his granddaughter’s high school to drop off her archery bow — it had been left behind in the morning rush. He and his wife went shopping at the grocery store. That evening, he watched as his grandkids showed off some baby frogs they had purchased at a pet store.
He went to bed at 8:30 p.m. in order to wake at 2:30 a.m. for the hourlong drive to his job as a maintenance worker at a medical supplies warehouse just south of Columbus.
At about 10:30 p.m., Cupp’s wife, Vivian, shook Chris awake. “Your dad’s breathing funny,” she told her. Chris ran into their bedroom. Her father was gasping for air. Suddenly, he stopped. Chris began CPR. She told her mom to call 911.
By the time the ambulance arrived at Adena Regional Medical Center, where he had received his nuclear stress test 36 hours earlier, his body was mottled and cool. He had suffered cardiac arrest. The time of death was 11:39 p.m.



Chris Cupp, in the home she shared with her family in Bainbridge, Ohio, has been devastated by her father’s death.

Credit: 
        Maddie McGarvey for ProPublica
    





Cupp looks through photos of her parents.

Credit: 
        Maddie McGarvey for ProPublica
    


ProPublica asked four cardiology experts to review Cupp’s medical situation. One cardiologist said she would not have recommended a heart catheterization. Given his symptoms, which did not include complaints about chest pain, the best diagnostic tool would have been the stress test, she said.
Three others said the heart catheterization was appropriate. One cardiologist noted that Cupp was diabetic, overweight and showed signs of having suffered a prior heart attack. “It’s very reasonable to say we’ll just go straight to a heart catheterization,” the cardiologist said.
If Cupp had received the procedure when first ordered, his life may have been saved, one expert said. “The doctor was absolutely right to order the catheterization. It was certainly necessary,” said Jonni Cooper, president of American Board of Cardiovascular Medicine and a board certified cardiovascular nurse practitioner.



State and federal regulators rarely impose onerous penalties on companies like EviCore.
Connecticut’s Insurance Department recently reviewed EviCore and Carelon. It found no problems with Carelon. EviCore was fined $16,000 this year for more than 77 violations found in a review of 196 files. EviCore is also accredited by two trade associations, which review companies periodically for compliance with industry standards.



ProPublica





Read More







Find Out Why Your Health Insurer Denied Your Claim



Holding the companies legally responsible for their decisions is also difficult. In 2022, Carelon settled a lawsuit for $13 million that alleged the company, then called AIM, had used a variety of techniques to avoid approving coverage requests. Among them: The company set its fax machines to receive only 5 to 10 pages. When doctors faxed prior authorization requests longer than the limit, company representatives would deny them for failing to have enough documentation. Carelon denied the allegations in court and admitted no fault. A spokesperson declined to comment on the lawsuit.
Elevance, Carelon’s parent company, said its subsidiary “is focused on improving health outcomes while also lowering the cost of care.”
This year, Chris, representing Cupp’s estate, sued United Healthcare, EviCore, the Adena Regional Medical Center and Cupp’s doctor, accusing them of malpractice, among other allegations. Cupp’s attorney, John Markus, later decided to drop United and EviCore. Lawsuits against employer-funded health plans, like the one Cupp had with United, must be tried in federal court, where case law favors insurance companies. For instance, insurers found at fault do not pay punitive damages, only the cost of treatment. The medical center and the doctor declined to comment, citing the ongoing litigation. In court, both denied any wrongdoing. United and EviCore declined to discuss Cupp’s case, despite an offer from Chris to sign a waiver of medical privacy rights.
Her father’s death wracked Chris. He had been her best friend. He helped raise her three kids. He provided for the family. Two years before his death, he purchased a new double-wide trailer to replace a rusting single-wide the family had lived in for years. It had four bedrooms, enough for everyone. It stood on the side of a hill, surrounded by oak and maple, a leafy retreat with a view of the valley below.
Cupp was buried at a cemetery across from a cornfield on March 9. A gray granite headstone marks his date of death.
Chris Cupp drives a school bus to make ends meet. For extra pay, she picks up a lot of the trips for night games. She says she hopes that no one else has to go through what she did.
“Insurance has too much say over something that can save your life,” she said. “When it comes to your heart, something that’s going to kill you, they have too much say in that. That’s my thought about it.”


Do You Have Insights Into Dental and Health Insurance Denials? Help Us Report on the System.

Insurers deny tens of millions of claims every year. ProPublica is investigating why claims are denied, what the consequences are for patients and how the appeal process really works.






Expand



Agnel Philip contributed reporting.





Filed under —


Health Care


Health Insurance








T. Christian Miller





X





 

T. Christian Miller is a reporter for ProPublica.


More Stories



  Contact Me  


 
 
 



David Armstrong

 

David Armstrong is a reporter at ProPublica specializing in health care investigations.


More Stories



  Contact Me  


 
 
 
 







More in Health Care


Caret














                                    What a $2 Million Per Dose Gene Therapy Reveals About Drug Pricing
                            


                            Taxpayers and charities helped develop Zolgensma. Then it debuted at a record price, ushering in a new class of wildly expensive drugs. Its story upends the widely held conception that high prices reflect huge industry investments in innovation.
                    

            by Robin Fields,             Feb. 12, 2025, 8 a.m. EST












                                    Three Months After Missouri Voted to Make Abortion Legal, Access Is Still Being Blocked
                            


                            Reproductive rights are now enshrined in the state constitution, but Missouri’s main abortion provider is fighting legal hurdles to resume offering the procedure. Meanwhile, anti-abortion lawmakers strategize to prevent a return of abortion services.
                    

            by Jeremy Kohler,             Feb. 5, 2025, 4:40 p.m. EST












                                    Dozens of People Died in Arizona Sober Living Homes as State Officials Fumbled Medicaid Fraud Response
                            


                            Arizona officials acknowledged that a fraud scheme targeting Indigenous people with addictions cost taxpayers $2.5 billion. But they haven’t accounted publicly for the number of deaths tied to the scheme.
                    

            by Mary Hudetz, ProPublica, and Hannah Bassett, Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting,             Jan. 27, 2025, 7 a.m. EST










Committed to Jail


                                    Is a New Mississippi Law Decreasing Jailings of People Awaiting Mental Health Treatment? The State Doesn’t Know.
                            


                            Community mental health centers, counties and a state agency have reported vastly different numbers of people who spent time in jail while waiting to be treated for serious mental illness.
                    

            by Gwen Dilworth, Mississippi Today,             Jan. 23, 2025, 5 a.m. EST

Local Reporting Network









America’s Mental Barrier


                                    Her Mental Health Treatment Was Helping. That’s Why Insurance Cut Off Her Coverage.
                            


                            Providers, patients and even some federal judges say progress-based insurance denials harm patients at key moments of mental health treatment.
                    

            by Maya Miller and Duaa Eldeib,             Dec. 31, 2024, 5 a.m. EST










America’s Mental Barrier


                                    Insurers Continue to Rely on Doctors Whose Judgments Have Been Criticized by Courts
                            


                            In dozens of cases ProPublica reviewed, judges found that some doctors working for these companies engaged in “selective readings” of medical evidence and “shut their eyes” to medical opinions opposing their conclusions.
                    

            by Duaa Eldeib and Maya Miller, with research by Kirsten Berg,             Dec. 30, 2024, 6 a.m. EST






Most Read











                                    Trump Vowed to Clean Up Washington, Then His Team Hired a Man Who Pushed a Scam the IRS Called the “Worst of the Worst”
                            


                            Frank Schuler was a leading promoter of a tax deduction derided as a scam by prosecutors, senators and the IRS. Now he’s a senior adviser to the General Services Administration, which manages the federal government’s property.
                    

            by Peter Elkind,             Feb. 18, 2025, 6 a.m. EST














                                    The One That Got Away: This Small Town Is Left in Limbo After Betting Big on GMO Salmon
                            


                            AquaBounty GMO salmon was going to be the future of fish — and the future for one Ohio village that offered incentives to make a new facility happen. But years after breaking ground, there are no fancy fish tanks. No designer fish. No new jobs.
                    

            by Anna Clark,             Feb. 18, 2025, 5 a.m. EST














                                    “We’ve Been Essentially Muzzled”: Department of Education Halts Thousands of Civil Rights Investigations Under Trump
                            


                            Since Inauguration Day, the Office for Civil Rights has only opened about 20 investigations focused on Trump’s priorities, placing more than 10,000 student complaints related to disability access and sexual and racial harassment on hold.
                    

            by Jennifer Smith Richards and Jodi S. Cohen,             Feb. 13, 2025, 9:30 p.m. EST














                                    Trump Official Destroying USAID Secretly Met With Christian Nationalists Abroad in Defiance of U.S. Policy
                            


                            Now one of the most powerful people in the U.S. government, Peter Marocco’s turbulent tenure during the first Trump administration sheds light on his current efforts to dismantle the American foreign aid system from the inside out.
                    

            by Brett Murphy and Anna Maria Barry-Jester,             Feb. 15, 2025, 9 p.m. EST












The New Immigration


                                    U.S. Claims Immigrants Held at Guantanamo Are “Worst of the Worst.” Their Families Say They’re Being Unfairly Targeted.
                            


                            ProPublica and The Texas Tribune have identified nearly a dozen immigrants who have been flown to Guantanamo Bay. Government officials have refused to release the names of detainees or provide details about the crimes that landed them in detention.
                    

            by Perla Trevizo and Mica Rosenberg, ProPublica and The Texas Tribune,             Feb. 13, 2025, 1:20 p.m. CST




 
 


Stay informed with the Daily Digest.  Mail Email Address:   Arrow Right Sign Up            ProPublica Investigative Journalism in the Public Interest © Copyright 2025 Pro Publica Inc.   Sites ProPublica Local Reporting Network Texas Tribune Partnership The Data Store Electionland    Sections Topics Series Videos News Apps Get Involved The Nerd Blog @ProPublica Events    Info About Board and Advisors Officers and Staff Diversity Jobs and Fellowships Media Center Reports Impact Awards Corrections    Policies Code of Ethics Advertising Policy Privacy Policy    Follow Newsletters iOS and Android RSS Feed    More Send Us Tips Steal Our Stories Browse via Tor Contact Us Donate More Ways to Give     







Close




Close this dialogue






Republish This Story for Free
Creative Commons License (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0)

Thank you for your interest in republishing this story. You are free to republish it so long as you do the following:

You have to credit ProPublica and any co-reporting partners. In the byline, we prefer “Author Name, Publication(s).” At the top of the text of your story, include a line that reads: “This story was originally published by ProPublica.” You must link the word “ProPublica” to the original URL of the story.
If you’re republishing online, you must link to the URL of this story on propublica.org, include all of the links from our story, including our newsletter sign up language and link, and use our PixelPing tag.
If you use canonical metadata, please use the ProPublica URL. For more information about canonical metadata, refer to this Google SEO link.
You can’t edit our material, except to reflect relative changes in time, location and editorial style. (For example, “yesterday” can be changed to “last week,” and “Portland, Ore.” to “Portland” or “here.”)
You cannot republish our photographs or illustrations without specific permission. Please contact [email protected].
It’s okay to put our stories on pages with ads, but not ads specifically sold against our stories. You can’t state or imply that donations to your organization support ProPublica’s work.
You can’t sell our material separately or syndicate it. This includes publishing or syndicating our work on platforms or apps such as Apple News, Google News, etc.
You can’t republish our material wholesale, or automatically; you need to select stories to be republished individually. (To inquire about syndication or licensing opportunities, contact [email protected].)
You can’t use our work to populate a website designed to improve rankings on search engines or solely to gain revenue from network-based advertisements.
We do not generally permit translation of our stories into another language.
Any website our stories appear on must include a prominent and effective way to contact you.




Copy HTML







 undefined undefined    





















The fact a corporation that capitalizes on denying U.S. citizens professionally prescribed medical care even exists, yet alone is called EviCore, dabs another blot on a square of the dystopian bingo card that is the American Dream™️.