STAT42%

Quitting smoking is hard. A Medicare change may push doctors to give more help 39%

By Sarah Todd0%

7/17/2026, 4:05:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Negativity Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 19.7% saturation with 177 hits. Analysis detected 1,736 faulty-reasoning hits from 898 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.7% and a BS Rank of 39% (12,943 of 21,166 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.10% of the article peer group.

Pretty much everyone who cares about public health agrees that it’s a good idea to help people quit smoking, the No. 1 cause of preventable death in the U.S. 
Doctors may soon get some extra encouragement to lend a hand, thanks to proposed changes in Medicare’s physician fee schedules. 
Physicians who offer counseling on quitting cigarettes or other tobacco products during visits with patients would get a 19% increase in reimbursement, according to a few paragraphs buried in the 1,592-page document released this week. 
The same adjustment would also apply to assessments of, and interventions for, alcohol and substance misuse during doctors’ visits. 
“Given the evidence supported role these services play in preventing and managing chronic disease […] we believe that valuation should more accurately reflect the clinical intensity and work associated with these time-based services,” the proposal from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services explains. 
Comments on the proposal are due Sept. 
14. 
“The prioritization of cessation as a service is long overdue, and we’re very excited about it,” said Anne DiGiulio, the American Lung Association’s senior director of nationwide tobacco cessation and health policy. 
If the change is finalized, it would have “tremendous implications” not just for people on Medicare and Medicaid, but for people with private insurance, said Ned Sharpless, a former director of the National Cancer Institute who’s now a professor of cancer policy and innovation at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine. 
That’s because private insurers tend to follow the lead of Medicare and Medicaid, behemoths that cover about 2 in 5 Americans. 
“We have something to offer these patients,” said Sharpless, who was in a celebratory mood having advocated for this kind of change to CMS policy for years during both the Biden and Trump administrations. 
“And we need to incentivize doctors to do this.” 
Until now, the status quo has been that doctors make around $10 from tobacco cessation counseling, said Sharpless. 
That’s not much, and given that primary care and internal medicine doctors are already juggling lots of competing demands, getting into a detailed dialogue about quitting cigarettes is often an afterthought. 
With the nearly 20% bump in reimbursement, “nobody’s getting rich off this, but now it’ll be more on par with other activities,” Sharpless said. 
The majority of people who simply try to quit smoking on their own wind up going back to cigarettes, with success rates under 10%. 
But success rates go up significantly if people receive a combination of both behavioral support and treatments designed to ease withdrawal and craving symptoms, such as varenicline, nicotine patches, or bupropion. 
Yet just 5% of people who had recently attempted to quit had received both counseling and medication, according to 2022 data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
Research also shows that even a few minutes of advice during a doctor’s visit can improve quitting rates. 
But a survey of Medicaid claims in 20 states found that an average 2.7% of people who smoked and had recently attempted to quit had received cessation counseling. 
Alcohol screening and counseling in the doctor’s office is similarly important yet underutilized. 
One study found that 70% of people with alcohol use disorder were asked questions about their drinking while visiting a clinician, of whom 12% received a brief intervention and a scant 5% of whom were given referrals or informed about treatment options. 
“Most clinicians recognize tobacco use as an important health issue, but what patients receive often amounts to a brief statement such as, ‘You should quit,’ rather than an evidence-based treatment plan,” said Adam Goldstein, a professor and director of tobacco intervention programs at the UNC School of Medicine, via email. 
Ideally, Goldstein said, physicians should be having structured conversations discussing matters like patients’ motivations for quitting, potential triggers, and the medications that may help ease cravings and withdrawal symptoms. 
Frequent follow-up support is also crucial, though it’s not practical for doctors to do weekly or daily check-ins. 
That’s where Sharpless and Goldstein would like to see tobacco treatment specialists  similar to diabetes educators, who work with patients on managing their conditions and get reimbursed by Medicare  come in. 
Like Sharpless, Goldstein thinks the reimbursement increase is meaningful. 
But he said that the absolute dollar increase for each individual visit won’t be large enough to get most practices or providers to offer comprehensive services on quitting smoking. 
“The strongest impact would occur if the payment change were paired with reliable tobacco-use screening, electronic-health-record prompts, standing medication protocols, trained nurses or tobacco-treatment specialists, quitline referral systems, and follow-up,” Goldstein said. 
It’s also unclear what kind of impact the change will have on alcohol screenings, interventions, and referrals, Tim Clement, vice president of federal government affairs at Mental Health America, said via email. 
Low reimbursement is “certainly a factor” for limited uptake among physicians, and a pay bump is “a good thing,” he said. 
But there may be other issues contributing to the problem, too. 
Still, Sharpless said the change was a step in the right direction. 
“Every once in a while,” he said, “it’s good to have a good story.” 
*Isabella Cueto contributed reporting. 
* 
*STAT’s coverage of chronic health issues is supported by a grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies. 
Our financial supporters are not involved in any decisions about our journalism. 
* 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Sarah Todd: 3.8%STAT: 3.2%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.6%STAT: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Sarah Todd: 4.9%STAT: 3.8%Availability Heuristic3.2%This article: 6.0%Sarah Todd: 1.7%STAT: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic6.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Sarah Todd: 1.6%STAT: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias5.6%This article: 4.8%Sarah Todd: 7.2%STAT: 8.2%Framing Effect4.8%This article: 2.7%Sarah Todd: 0.8%STAT: 0.7%Loss Aversion2.7%This article: 4.5%Sarah Todd: 2.6%STAT: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.7%Sarah Todd: 8.9%STAT: 3.4%Optimism Bias19.7%This article: 3.2%Sarah Todd: 0.9%STAT: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.2%This article: 18.0%Sarah Todd: 8.7%STAT: 8.3%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 6.7%Sarah Todd: 3.0%STAT: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 3.5%Sarah Todd: 1.0%STAT: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error3.5%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Sarah Todd: 0.3%STAT: 1.4%Halo Effect1.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.2%Sarah Todd: 6.5%STAT: 4.7%Appeal to Authority19.2%This article: 6.2%Sarah Todd: 1.8%STAT: 1.5%False Dilemma6.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.1%Sarah Todd: 7.4%STAT: 4.6%Hasty Generalization14.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.2%Sarah Todd: 2.9%STAT: 0.3%Bandwagon3.2%This article: 5.1%Sarah Todd: 2.8%STAT: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion5.1%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.7%Sarah Todd: 1.7%STAT: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.7%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%Sarah Todd: 0.9%STAT: 0.7%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.0%Sarah Todd: 1.7%STAT: 0.3%Composition/Division6.0%This article: 9.0%Sarah Todd: 2.6%STAT: 3.4%Anecdotal9.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.9%Sarah Todd: 6.2%STAT: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.9%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.6%Sarah Todd: 1.0%STAT: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 6.2%Sarah Todd: 7.3%STAT: 5.9%Biased Writer Voice6.2%This article: 4.2%Sarah Todd: 1.2%STAT: 2.1%Indoctrination4.2%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.0%STAT: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sarah Todd: 0.9%STAT: 3.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

898 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers51%attributed speech440writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageCenters for Medicare and Medicaid Services • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAnne DiGiulio • 32 words • 100.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 34 words • 0.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 9 words • 100.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Goldstein • 50 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Goldstein • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Goldstein • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Goldstein • 32 words • 0.0% coverageTim Clement • 32 words • 0.0% coverageTim Clement • 21 words • 0.0% coverageTim Clement • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNed Sharpless • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageSTAT • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Anne DiGiulio

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words7.0% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Anne DiGiulio: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-12.7 ptsWriter: 12.7%Anne DiGiulio: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.