Eat Better, Feel Better – by Giada de Laurentis

10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

In yesterday’s edition of 10almonds, we reviewed Dr. Aujla’s “The Doctor’s Kitchen“; today we’re reviewing a different book about healing through food—in this case, with a special focus on maintaining energy and good health as we get older.

De Laurentis may not be a medical doctor, but she is a TV chef, and not only holds a lot of influence, but also has access to a lot of celebrity doctors and such; that’s reflected a lot in her style and approach here.

The recipes are clear and easy to follow; well-illustrated and nicely laid-out.

This cookbook’s style is less “enjoy this hearty dish of rice and beans with these herbs and spices” and more “you can serve your steak salad with white beans and sweet shallot dressing on a bed of organic quinoa if you haven’t already had your day’s serving of grains, of course”.

It’s a little fancier, in short, and more focused on what to cut out, than what to include. On account of that, this could make it a good contrast to yesterday’s book, which had the opposite focus.

She also recommends assorted adjuvant practices; some that are evidence-based, like intermittent fasting and meditation, and some that are not, like extreme detox-dieting, and acupuncture (which has no bearing on gut health).

Bottom line: if you like the idea of eating for good health, and prefer a touch of celebrity lifestyle to your meals, this one’s a good book for you.

Click here to check out “Eat Better, Feel Better”, and enjoy her unique blend of quality and minimalism!

Don’t Forget…

Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

Recommended

  • The Menopause Brain – by Dr. Lisa Mosconi
  • The End of Heart Disease – by Dr. Joel Fuhrman
    Dr. Fuhrman argues that nutrition is key to heart health, challenging common views on oils, with a well-referenced plan and 94 pages of recipes for a heart-healthy diet.

Learn to Age Gracefully

Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Non-Sleep Deep Rest: A Neurobiologist’s Take

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    How to get many benefits of sleep, while awake!

    Today we’re talking about Dr. Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist and professor in the department of neurobiology at Stanford School of Medicine.

    He’s also a popular podcaster, and as his Wikipedia page notes:

    ❝In episodes lasting several hours, Huberman talks about the state of research in a specific topic, both within and outside his specialty❞

    Today, we won’t be taking hours, and we will be taking notes from within his field of specialty (neurobiology). Specifically, in this case:

    Non-Sleep Deep Rest (NSDR)

    What is it? To quote from his own dedicated site on the topic:

    What is NSDR (Yoga Nidra)? Non-Sleep Deep Rest, also known as NSDR, is a method of deep relaxation developed by Dr. Andrew Huberman, a neuroscientist at Stanford University School of Medicine.

    It’s a process that combines controlled breathing and detailed body scanning to bring you into a state of heightened awareness and profound relaxation. The main purpose of NSDR is to reduce stress, enhance focus, and improve overall well-being.❞

    While it seems a bit bold of Dr. Huberman to claim that he developed yoga nidra, it is nevertheless reassuring to get a neurobiologist’s view on this:

    How it works, by science

    Dr. Huberman says that by monitoring EEG readings during NSDR, we can see how the brain slows down. Measurably!

    • It goes from an active beta range of 13–30 Hz (normal waking) to a conscious meditation state of an alpha range of 8–13 Hz.
    • However, with practice, it can drop further, into a theta range of 4–8 Hz.
    • Ultimately, sustained SSDR practice can get us to 0.5–3 Hz.

    This means that the brain is functioning in the delta range, something that typically only occurs during our deepest sleep.

    You may be wondering: why is delta lower than theta? That’s not how I remember the Greek alphabet being ordered!

    Indeed, while the Greek alphabet goes alpha beta gamma delta epsilon zeta eta theta (and so on), the brainwave frequency bands are:

    • Gamma = concentrated focus, >30 Hz
    • Beta = normal waking, 13–30 Hz
    • Alpha = relaxed state, 8–13 Hz
    • Theta = light sleep, 4–8 Hz
    • Delta = deep sleep, 1–4 Hz

    Source: Sleep Foundationwith a nice infographic there too

    NSDR uses somatic cues to engage our parasympathetic nervous system, which in turn enables us to reach those states. The steps are simple:

    1. Pick a time and place when you won’t be disturbed
    2. Lie on your back and make yourself comfortable
    3. Close your eyes as soon as you wish, and now that you’ve closed them, imagine closing them again. And again.
    4. Slowly bring your attention to each part of your body in turn, from head to toe. As your attention goes to each part, allow it to relax more.
    5. If you wish, you can repeat this process for another wave, or even a third.
    6. Find yourself well-rested!

    Note: this engagement of the parasympathetic nervous system and slowing down of brain activity accesses restorative states not normally available while waking, but 10 minutes of NSDR will not replace 7–9 hours of sleep; nor will it give you the vital benefits of REM sleep specifically.

    So: it’s an adjunct, not a replacement

    Want to try it, but not sure where/how to start?

    When you’re ready, let Dr. Huberman himself guide you through it in this shortish (10:49) soundtrack:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to try it, but not right now? Bookmark it for later

    Take care!

    Share This Post

  • Debate over tongue tie procedures in babies continues. Here’s why it can be beneficial for some infants

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    There is increasing media interest about surgical procedures on new babies for tongue tie. Some hail it as a miracle cure, others view it as barbaric treatment, though adverse outcomes are rare.

    Tongue tie occurs when the tissue under the tongue is attached to the lower gum or floor of the mouth in a way that can restrict the movement or range of the tongue. This can impact early breastfeeding in babies. It affects an estimated 8% of children under one year of age.

    While there has been an increase in tongue tie releases (also called division or frenotomy), it’s important to keep this in perspective relative to the increase in breastfeeding rates.

    The World Health Organization recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, with breastfeeding recommended into the second year of life and beyond for the health of mother and baby as well as optimal growth. Global rates of breastfeeding infants for the first six months have increased from 38% to 48% over the past decade. So, it is not surprising there is also an increase in the number of babies being referred globally with breastfeeding challenges and potential tongue tie.

    An Australian study published in 2023 showed that despite a 25% increase in referrals for tongue tie division between 2014 and 2018, there was no increase in the number of tongue tie divisions performed. Tongue tie surgery rates increased in Australia in the decade from 2006 to 2016 (from 1.22 per 1,000 population to 6.35) for 0 to 4 year olds. There is no data on surgery rates in Australia over the last eight years.

    Tongue tie division isn’t always appropriate but it can make a big difference to the babies who need it. More referrals doesn’t necessarily mean more procedures are performed.

    chomplearn/Shutterstock

    How tongue tie can affect babies

    When tongue tie (ankyloglossia) restricts the movement of the tongue, it can make it more difficult for a baby to latch onto the mother’s breast and painlessly breastfeed.

    Earlier this month, the International Consortium of oral Ankylofrenula Professionals released a tongue tie position statement and practice guideline. Written by a range of health professionals, the guidelines define tongue tie as a functional diagnosis that can impact breastfeeding, eating, drinking and speech. The guidelines provide health professionals and families with information on the assessment and management of tongue tie.

    Tongue tie release has been shown to improve latch during breastfeeding, reduce nipple pain and improve breast and bottle feeding. Early assessment and treatment are important to help mothers breastfeed for longer and address any potential functional problems.

    baby with open mouth shows tongue tie under tongue
    The frenulum is a band of tissue under the tongue that is attached to the gumline base of the mouth. Akkalak Aiempradit/Shutterstock

    Where to get advice

    If feeding isn’t going well, it may cause pain for the mother or there may be signs the baby isn’t attaching properly to the breast or not getting enough milk. Parents can seek skilled help and assessment from a certified lactation consultant or International Board-Certified Lactation Consultant who can be found via online registry.

    Alternatively, a health professional with training and skills in tongue tie assessment and division can assist families. This may include a doctor, midwife, speech pathologist or dentist with extended skills, training and experience in treating babies with tongue tie.

    When access to advice or treatment is delayed, it can lead to unnecessary supplementation with bottle feeds, early weaning from breastfeeding and increased parental anxiety.

    Getting a tongue tie assessment

    During assessment, a qualified health professional will collect a thorough case history, including pregnancy and birth details, do a structural and functional assessment, and conduct a comprehensive breastfeeding or feeding assessment.

    They will view and thoroughly examine the mouth, including the tongue’s movement and lift. The appearance of where the tissue attaches to the underside of the tongue, the ability of the tongue to move and how the baby can suck also needs to be properly assessed.

    Treatment decisions should focus on the concerns of the mother and baby and the impact of current feeding issues. Tongue tie division as a baby is not recommended for the sole purpose of avoiding speech problems in later life if there are no feeding concerns for the baby.

    baby breastfeeding and holding mother's finger
    A properly qualified lactation consultant can help with positioning and attachment. HarryKiiM Stock/Shutterstock

    Treatment options

    The Australian Dental Association’s 2020 guidelines provide a management pathway for babies diagnosed with tongue tie.

    Once feeding issues are identified and if a tongue tie is diagnosed, non-surgical management to optimise positioning, latch and education for parents should be the first-line approach.

    If feeding issues persist during follow-up assessment after non-surgical management, a tongue tie division may be considered. Tongue tie release may be one option to address functional challenges associated with breastfeeding problems in babies.

    There are risks associated with any procedure, including tongue tie release, such as bleeding. These risks should be discussed with the treating practitioner before conducting any laser, scissor or scalpel tongue tie procedure.

    Post-release support by a certified lactation consultant or feeding specialist is necessary after a tongue tie division. A post-release treatment plan should be developed by a team of health professionals including advice and support for breastfeeding to address both the mother and baby’s individual needs.

    We would like to acknowledge the contribution of Raymond J. Tseng, DDS, PhD, (Paediatric Dentist) to the writing of this article.

    Sharon Smart, Lecturer and Researcher (Speech Pathology) – School of Allied Health, Curtin University; David Todd, Associate Professor, Neonatology, ANU Medical School, Australian National University, and Monica J. Hogan, PhD student, ANU School of Medicine and Psychology, Australian National University

    This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

    Share This Post

  • How Jumping Rope Changes The Human Body

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    Most popularly enjoyed by professional boxers and six-year-old girls, jumping rope is one of the most metabolism-boosting exercises around:

    Just a hop, skip, and a jump away from good health

    Maybe you haven’t tried it since your age was in single digits, so, if you do…

    What benefits can you expect?

    • Improves cardiovascular fitness, equivalent to 30 minutes of running with just 10 minutes of jumping.
    • Increases bone density and boosts immunity by aiding the lymphatic system.
    • Enhances explosiveness in the lower body, agility, and stamina.
    • Improves shoulder endurance, coordination, and spatial awareness.

    What kind of rope is best for you?

    • Beginner ropes: licorice ropes (nylon/vinyl), beaded ropes for rhythm and durability.
    • Advanced ropes: speed ropes (denser, faster materials) for higher speeds and more difficult skills.
    • Weighted ropes: build upper body muscles (forearms, shoulders, chest, back).

    What length should you get?

    • Recommended rope length varies by height (8 ft for 5’0″–5’4″, 9 ft for 5’5″–5’11”, 10 ft for 6’0″ and above).
    • Beginners should start with longer ropes for clearance.

    What should you learn?

    • Initial jump rope skills: start with manageable daily jump totals, gradually increasing as ankles, calves, and feet adapt.
    • Further skills: learn the two-foot jump and then the boxer’s skip for efficient, longer sessions and advanced skills. Keep arms close and hands at waist level for a smooth swing.

    For more on all of this, enjoy:

    Click Here If The Embedded Video Doesn’t Load Automatically!

    Want to learn more?

    You might also like to read:

    How To Do High Intensity Interval Training (Without Wrecking Your Body)

    Take care!

    Share This Post

Related Posts

  • The Menopause Brain – by Dr. Lisa Mosconi
  • Menopause, & When Not To Let Your Guard Down

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    This is Dr. Jessica Shepherd, a physician Fellow of the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists, CEO at Sanctum Medical & Wellness, and CMO at Hers.

    She’s most well-known for her expertise in the field of the menopause. So, what does she want us to know?

    Untreated menopause is more serious than most people think

    Beyond the famous hot flashes, there’s also the increased osteoporosis risk, which is more well-known at least amongst the health-conscious, but oft-neglected is the increased cardiovascular disease risk:

    What Menopause Does To The Heart

    …and, which a lot of Dr. Shepherd’s work focuses on, it also increases dementia risk; she cites that 60–80% of dementia cases are women, and it’s also established that it progresses more quickly in women than men too, and this is associated with lower estrogen levels (not a problem for men, because testosterone does it for them) which had previously been a protective factor, but in untreated menopause, was no longer there to help:

    Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear

    Treated menopause is safer than many people think

    The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study, conducted in the 90s and published in 2002, linked HRT to breast cancer, causing fear, but it turned out that this was quite bad science in several ways and the reporting was even worse (even the flawed data did not really support the conclusion, much less the headlines); it was since broadly refuted (and in fact, it can be a protective factor, depending on the HRT regimen), but fearmongering headlines made it to mainstream news, whereas “oopsies, never mind, we take that back” didn’t.

    The short version of the current state of the science is: breast cancer risk varies depending on age, HRT type, and dosage; some kinds of HRT can increase the risk marginally in those older than 60, but absolute risk is low compared to placebo, and taking estrogen alone can reduce risk at any age in the event of not having a uterus (almost always because of having had a hysterectomy; as a quirk, it is possible to be born without, though).

    It’s worth noting that even in the cases where HRT marginally increased the risk of breast cancer, it significantly decreased the risk of cancers in total, as well fractures and all-cause-mortality compared to the placebo group.

    In other words, it might be worth having a 0.12% risk of breast cancer, to avoid the >30% risk of osteoporosis, which can ultimately be just as fatal (without even looking at the other things the HRT is protective against).

    However! In the case of those who already have (or have had) breast cancer, increasing estrogen levels can indeed make that worse/return, and it becomes more complicated in cases where you haven’t had it, but there is a family history of it, or you otherwise know you have the gene for it.

    You can read more about HRT and breast cancer risk (increases and decreases) here:

    HRT: A Tale Of Two Approaches

    …and about the same with regard to HMT, here:

    The Hormone Therapy That Reduces Breast Cancer Risk & More

    Lifestyle matters, and continues to matter

    Menopause often receives the following attention from people:

    1. Perimenopause: “Is this menopause?”
    2. Menopause: “Ok, choices to make about HRT or not, plus I should watch out for osteoporosis”
    3. Postmenopause: “Yay, that’s behind me now, back to the new normal”

    The reality, Dr. Shepherd advises, is that “postmenopause” is a misnomer because if it’s not being treated, then the changes are continuing to occur in your body.

    This is a simple factor of physiology; your body is always rebuilding itself, will never stop until you die, and in untreated menopause+postmenopause, it’s now doing it without much estrogen.

    So, you can’t let your guard down!

    Thus, she recommends: focus on maintaining muscle mass, bone health, and cardiovascular health. If you focus on those things, the rest (including your brain, which is highly dependent on cardiovascular health) will mostly take care of itself.

    Because falls and fractures, particularly hip fractures, drastically reduce quality and length of life in older adults, it is vital to avoid those, and try to be sufficiently robust so that if you do go A over T, you won’t injure yourself too badly, because your bones are strong. As a bonus, the same things (especially that muscle mass we talked about) will help you avoid falling in the first place, by improving stability.

    See also: Resistance Is Useful! (Especially As We Get Older)

    And about falls specifically: Fall Special: Be Robust, Mobile, & Balanced!

    Want to know more from Dr. Shepherd?

    You might like this book of hers that we reviewed not long back:

    Generation M – by Dr. Jessica Shepherd

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Why Lung Cancer Is On The Rise In Women Who’ve Never Smoked

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    It’s easy to assume that if you’ve never smoked, lung cancer is just not a risk for you, unless you got very unlucky with an asbestos-laden environment or such.

    And yes, smoking is indeed the most overwhelmingly strong risk factor:

    ❝It is estimated that cigarette smoking explains almost 90% of lung cancer risk in men and 70 to 80% in women

    Which is a lot (and we’ll address that discrepancy by sex shortly), but meanwhile first let’s mention:

    ❝Compared with non-smokers, smokers have as much as a 30-fold increased risk of developing cancer.

    31% and 26% of all cancer deaths in men and women, respectively, result from lung cancer in the United States.

    Overall 5-year survival is only 15%, and 1-year survival is approximately 42%.

    In total, lung cancer is responsible for more deaths than prostate, colon, pancreas, and breast cancers combined

    Source: Smoking and Lung Cancer

    Sobering statistics for any smoker, certainly.

    But, “smoking is bad for the health” is not the breaking news of the century, so we’ll look now at the other risk factors.

    Before we do though, let’s just drop this previous main feature of ours for anyone who does smoke or perhaps who has a loved one who smokes:

    Which Addiction-Quitting Methods Work Best? ← it’s not specific just to smoking, but it does cover such also

    So, Why the extra risk for women, even if we don’t smoke?

    Let’s reframe that first statistic we gave, now presenting the same information differently:

    Women who do not smoke are 2–3x more likely to get lung cancer than men who do not smoke.

    So… why?

    There are three main reasons:

    Genetic risks

    Cancer often arises from genetic mutations. In the case of lung cancer, genes such as ALK, ROS1, TP53, KRAS, and EGFR are implicated, and some of those are much more likely to mutate in women than in men.

    In some cases, it’s because if you have XX chromosomes (as most women do), there are genes you have redundant copies of that people with XY chromosomes don’t. Other less common karyotypes, such as XXY, probably carry higher risks, but that’s just a hypothesis we’re making based on “more copies of a gene = more chances for it to mutate”.

    See also: Frequency and Distinctive Spectrum of KRAS Mutations in Never Smokers with Lung Adenocarcinoma

    In other cases, it’s because estrogen interacts with the gene mutations, making lung cancer more likely to develop in women over time:

    See also: Lung cancer in never-smoker female Asians is driven by oncogenic mutations, most often involving EGFR

    Hormonal risks (but not what you might think)

    When something affects women more, it’s easy to blame hormones, but, as researchers have concluded…

    ❝A reduced lung cancer risk was found for OC and HRT ever users. Both oestrogen only and oestrogen+progestin HRT were associated with decreased risk. No dose-response relationship was observed with years of OC/HRT use. The greatest risk reduction was seen for squamous cell carcinoma in OC users and in both adenocarcinoma and small cell carcinoma in HRT users.❞

    OC = oral contraceptive
    HRT = hormone replacement therapy

    Note: we snipped out the statistical calculations for readability and brevity, so if you are interested in those, check out the paper below:

    Source: Hormone use and risk for lung cancer: a pooled analysis from the International Lung Cancer Consortium (ILCCO)

    Meanwhile, another research review of 22 studies with nearly a million participants found:

    ❝Current or ever HRT use is partly correlated with the decreased incidence of lung cancer in women.

    Concerns about the incidence of lung cancer can be reduced when perimenopausal and postmenopausal women use current HRT to reduce menopausal symptoms.❞

    Source: The association between different hormone replacement therapy use and the incidence of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

    So, the problem seems to at least a lot of the time be not estrogen (notwithstanding what we mentioned previously about mutations—sometimes a thing can have both pros and cons), but rather, untreated menopause being the higher risk factor.

    This is very reminiscent of what we talked about in one of our main features about Alzheimer’s disease:

    Alzheimer’s Sex Differences May Not Be What They Appear ← Women get Alzheimer’s at nearly 2x the rate than men do, and deteriorate more rapidly after onset, too.

    Chronic inflammation

    For reasons that have not been tied to genetics or hormones*, women suffer from autoimmune diseases at much higher rates than men.

    *presumably it is at least one or the other, because there aren’t a lot of other options that seem plausible, but (as with many “this thing mainly affects women” maladies), science hasn’t yet determined the cause.

    Because cancer is in part a disease of immune dysfunction (cells fail to kill cells they should be killing), having an autoimmune disease, or indeed chronic inflammation in general, will result in a higher risk of cancer.

    For general theory, see: Cancer and Autoimmune Diseases: A Tale of Two Immunological Opposites?

    For specifics, see: Non–Small Cell Lung Cancer: Role of the Immune System and Potential for Immunotherapy

    And this one is the most likely explanation of why lung cancer in women who’ve never smoked is on the rise—it’s because chronic inflammation in women is on the rise. While people regardless of gender are getting chronic inflammation at increased rates nowadays (probably due in large part to the rise of ultra-processed food, as well as the higher stress of modern life, but again, we’re hypothesizing), if all other factors are equal, women will still get it more than men.

    However!

    Like the consideration of HRT’s protective effects (and unlike the genetic factors), this is one we can do something about.

    For how, check out: How to Prevent (or Reduce) Inflammation

    Want to know more?

    For lung health in general, see:

    Seven Things To Do For Good Lung Health!

    Take care!

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails:

  • Ouch. That ‘Free’ Annual Checkup Might Cost You. Here’s Why.

    10almonds is reader-supported. We may, at no cost to you, receive a portion of sales if you purchase a product through a link in this article.

    When Kristy Uddin, 49, went in for her annual mammogram in Washington state last year, she assumed she would not incur a bill because the test is one of the many preventive measures guaranteed to be free to patients under the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The ACA’s provision made medical and economic sense, encouraging Americans to use screening tools that could nip medical problems in the bud and keep patients healthy.

    So when a bill for $236 arrived, Uddin — an occupational therapist familiar with the health care industry’s workings — complained to her insurer and the hospital. She even requested an independent review.

    “I’m like, ‘Tell me why am I getting this bill?’” Uddin recalled in an interview. The unsatisfying explanation: The mammogram itself was covered, per the ACA’s rules, but the fee for the equipment and the facility was not.

    That answer was particularly galling, she said, because, a year earlier, her “free” mammogram at the same health system had generated a bill of about $1,000 for the radiologist’s reading. Though she fought that charge (and won), this time she threw in the towel and wrote the $236 check. But then she dashed off a submission to the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” project:

    “I was really mad — it’s ridiculous,” she later recalled. “This is not how the law is supposed to work.”

    The ACA’s designers might have assumed that they had spelled out with sufficient clarity that millions of Americans would no longer have to pay for certain types of preventive care, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and recommended vaccines, in addition to doctor visits to screen for disease. But the law’s authors didn’t reckon with America’s ever-creative medical billing juggernaut.

    Over the past several years, the medical industry has eroded the ACA’s guarantees, finding ways to bill patients in gray zones of the law. Patients going in for preventive care, expecting that it will be fully covered by insurance, are being blindsided by bills, big and small.

    The problem comes down to deciding exactly what components of a medical encounter are covered by the ACA guarantee. For example, when do conversations between doctor and patient during an annual visit for preventive services veer into the treatment sphere? What screenings are needed for a patient’s annual visit?

    A healthy 30-year-old visiting a primary care provider might get a few basic blood tests, while a 50-year-old who is overweight would merit additional screening for Type 2 diabetes.

    Making matters more confusing, the annual checkup itself is guaranteed to be “no cost” for women and people age 65 and older, but the guarantee doesn’t apply for men in the 18-64 age range — though many preventive services that require a medical visit (such as checks of blood pressure or cholesterol and screens for substance abuse) are covered.

    No wonder what’s covered under the umbrella of prevention can look very different to medical providers (trying to be thorough) and billers (intent on squeezing more dollars out of every medical encounter) than it does to insurers (who profit from narrower definitions).

    For patients, the gray zone has become a billing minefield. Here are a few more examples, gleaned from the Bill of the Month project in just the past six months:

    Peter Opaskar, 46, of Texas, went to his primary care doctor last year for his preventive care visit — as he’d done before, at no cost. This time, his insurer paid $130.81 for the visit, but he also received a perplexing bill for $111.81. Opaskar learned that he had incurred the additional charge because when his doctor asked if he had any health concerns, he mentioned that he was having digestive problems but had already made an appointment with his gastroenterologist. So, the office explained, his visit was billed as both a preventive physical and a consultation. “Next year,” Opasker said in an interview, if he’s asked about health concerns, “I’ll say ‘no,’ even if I have a gunshot wound.”

    Kevin Lin, a technology specialist in Virginia in his 30s, went to a new primary care provider to take advantage of the preventive care benefit when he got insurance; he had no physical complaints. He said he was assured at check-in that he wouldn’t be charged. His insurer paid $174 for the checkup, but he was billed an additional $132.29 for a “new patient visit.” He said he has made many calls to fight the bill, so far with no luck.

    Finally, there’s Yoori Lee, 46, of Minnesota, herself a colorectal surgeon, who was shocked when her first screening colonoscopy yielded a bill for $450 for a biopsy of a polyp — a bill she knew was illegal. Federal regulations issued in 2022 to clarify the matter are very clear that biopsies during screening colonoscopies are included in the no-cost promise. “I mean, the whole point of screening is to find things,” she said, stating, perhaps, the obvious.

    Though these patient bills defy common sense, room for creative exploitation has been provided by the complex regulatory language surrounding the ACA. Consider this from Ellen Montz, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed response to queries and an interview request on this subject: “If a preventive service is not billed separately or is not tracked as individual encounter data separately from an office visit and the primary purpose of the office visit is not the delivery of the preventive item or service, then the plan issuer may impose cost sharing for the office visit.”

    So, if the doctor decides that a patient’s mention of stomach pain does not fall under the umbrella of preventive care, then that aspect of the visit can be billed separately, and the patient must pay?

    And then there’s this, also from Montz: “Whether a facility fee is permitted to be charged to a consumer would depend on whether the facility usage is an integral part of performing the mammogram or an integral part of any other preventive service that is required to be covered without cost sharing under federal law.”

    But wait, how can you do a mammogram or colonoscopy without a facility?

    Unfortunately, there is no federal enforcement mechanism to catch individual billing abuses. And agencies’ remedies are weak — simply directing insurers to reprocess claims or notifying patients they can resubmit them.

    In the absence of stronger enforcement or remedies, CMS could likely curtail these practices and give patients the tools to fight back by offering the sort of clarity the agency provided a few years ago regarding polyp biopsies — spelling out more clearly what comes under the rubric of preventive care, what can be billed, and what cannot.

    The stories KFF Health News and NPR receive are likely just the tip of an iceberg. And while each bill might be relatively small compared with the stunning $10,000 hospital bills that have become all too familiar in the United States, the sorry consequences are manifold. Patients pay bills they do not owe, depriving them of cash they could use elsewhere. If they can’t pay, those bills might end up with debt-collection agencies and, ultimately, harm their credit score.

    Perhaps most disturbing: These unexpected bills might discourage people from seeking preventive screenings that could be lifesaving, which is why the ACA deemed them “essential health benefits” that should be free.

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

    Subscribe to KFF Health News’ free Morning Briefing.

    Don’t Forget…

    Did you arrive here from our newsletter? Don’t forget to return to the email to continue learning!

    Learn to Age Gracefully

    Join the 98k+ American women taking control of their health & aging with our 100% free (and fun!) daily emails: