• Home
  • About Us
  • Getting Finances Done
    • Hiring Advisors
    • Debt Management
    • Spending Plan
  • Insurance
    • Life Insurance
    • Health Insurance
    • Disability Insurance
    • Homeowners/Renters Insurance
  • Contact Us
  • Our Editorial Commitment

The Free Financial Advisor

You are here: Home / Archives for Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

DOJ Settles for $400 Million with Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium Over Unpaid Healthcare Administrative Costs

July 22, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium settlement
The Alaska Native Medical Center in Anchorage is operated in part by the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, which reached a $400 million settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over unpaid healthcare administrative costs. Iljanaresvara Studio/Shutterstock

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has authorized a $400 million settlement with the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium (ANTHC) to resolve a lawsuit over unpaid contract support costs under the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (ISDEAA). The agreement ends litigation filed in 2021, in which ANTHC argued the federal government failed to reimburse administrative expenses tied to operating federally authorized healthcare programs. The settlement follows a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling that clarified tribes are entitled to certain contract support costs associated with third-party healthcare revenue, such as Medicare and private insurance payments. DOJ officials said the agreement is intended to provide greater certainty for tribal healthcare providers and the communities they serve.

Why the Lawsuit Was Filed

ANTHC administers healthcare programs that the federal government would otherwise operate for American Indians and Alaska Natives in Alaska. The consortium also manages the non-primary care functions of the Alaska Native Medical Center, one of the nation’s largest tribally operated hospitals. In its lawsuit, ANTHC argued it should have been reimbursed for administrative costs incurred while managing healthcare services funded in part through payments from Medicare and private insurers. Those expenses, known as contract support costs, help cover the overhead required to operate federally authorized healthcare programs.

Supreme Court Decision Changed the Legal Landscape

While the lawsuit was pending, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe that the federal government must reimburse qualifying contract support costs on third-party healthcare revenue when required under an ISDEAA agreement.

DOJ said that decision provided the legal framework that ultimately led to settlement negotiations with ANTHC. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said Congress intended tribes to be reimbursed for qualifying administrative expenses, while Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said the agreement reflects a commitment to resolving litigation fairly and supporting Native communities. The Justice Department announced the settlement on July 21, 2026.

Broader Impact for Tribal Healthcare

The settlement could have implications beyond Alaska, as many tribal organizations nationwide operate healthcare programs under ISDEAA compacts. It reinforces the federal government’s reimbursement obligations following the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the law and may influence similar claims involving tribal healthcare funding.

While the agreement resolves this particular lawsuit, it also highlights the continuing importance of tribal self-governance in delivering healthcare services to Native communities. Organizations with questions about ISDEAA reimbursement requirements should consult the appropriate federal agencies or qualified legal counsel.

What to Read Next

HHS Seeks OMB Approval for Children and Families Program Monitoring Data Collection

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

SEC Proposes Rule on Electronic Delivery of Information Under Federal Securities Laws

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Alaska Native Medical Center, Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium, ANTHC, Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, contract support costs, Department of Justice, federal settlement, healthcare funding, healthcare news, Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, ISDEAA, Native American health, Supreme Court, tribal healthcare

HHS Seeks OMB Approval for Children and Families Program Monitoring Data Collection

July 22, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

HHS ACF program monitoring
An employee reviews program data at a computer as HHS seeks public comment on extending information collection used to monitor federally funded children and family services programs. Gil C/Shutterstock

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), through its Administration for Children and Families (ACF), is asking for public input on a proposal to extend an existing information collection used to monitor federally funded programs that support children, families, and communities.

The request, published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2026, seeks approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to continue a “generic clearance” that allows ACF to collect standardized information from grant recipients. According to the agency, no changes are being proposed to the existing clearance, although burden estimates have been updated. Public comments will be accepted through August 21, 2026.

What the Data Collection Supports

Program monitoring is a routine post-award process used to evaluate how organizations receiving federal funding are managing their programs and complying with grant requirements. ACF says the information helps program offices assess both program performance and business management practices while ensuring responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars.

The agency also uses the information to identify areas where grantees may need technical assistance or additional support to meet program goals. Because the clearance is generic, it allows ACF to efficiently approve individual monitoring activities without seeking a separate OMB review each time.

Who May Be Affected

The proposal primarily affects organizations that receive funding from ACF, including nonprofits, state and local agencies, tribal organizations, and other entities that administer children and family services programs. While the notice does not create new reporting requirements, it extends ACF’s authority to continue collecting information needed for ongoing oversight activities. Anyone interested in the proposal may submit comments through the federal comment process before the August 21 deadline. Additional details and submission instructions are available through the Federal Register and RegInfo websites.

What to Read Next

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

SEC Proposes Rule on Electronic Delivery of Information Under Federal Securities Laws

SEC Approves ICE Clear Credit Rule Change on Operational Risk Management Framework

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: ACF, Administration for Children and Families, children and families, data collection, federal grants, Federal Register, government oversight, HHS, nonprofit funding, Office of Management and Budget, OMB, Paperwork Reduction Act, program monitoring, public comments

Celsius Network Founders Ordered to Pay $16.5 Million to Resolve FTC Charges

July 21, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Celsius Network FTC settlement
A smartphone displays cryptocurrency market data as the FTC announces a $16.5 million settlement with the founders of Celsius Network over allegations they misled consumers about the safety of customer funds. DCStockPhotography/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that the founders of collapsed cryptocurrency platform Celsius Network will pay a combined $16.5 million to resolve allegations that they misled consumers about the safety of customer deposits. The settlements involve former CEO Alexander Mashinsky, former Chief Strategy Officer Shlomi Daniel Leon, and former Chief Technology Officer Hanoch “Nuke” Goldstein. According to the FTC, the executives falsely assured customers that funds deposited with Celsius were safe, secure, and always available for withdrawal, even as the company’s financial condition deteriorated.

FTC Alleged Consumers Were Misled

The FTC first filed its case against Celsius and its executives in 2023, alleging the company marketed itself as a safer alternative to traditional banks while making misleading claims about its lending practices, reserves, and risk management. Regulators said many customers believed their cryptocurrency deposits were protected when, in reality, Celsius engaged in risky business practices that ultimately contributed to its collapse. Celsius filed for bankruptcy in 2022 after freezing customer withdrawals, leaving many investors unable to access their funds.

Settlement Includes Industry Restrictions

Under the settlement orders, Mashinsky will pay $10 million, Leon will pay $4.1 million, and Goldstein will pay $2.4 million, totaling $16.5 million. In addition to the financial penalties, the founders are barred from marketing or selling many cryptocurrency-related products and services in the future. The FTC said the restrictions are intended to help prevent similar conduct and protect consumers from deceptive practices in the digital asset marketplace.

A Reminder About Cryptocurrency Risks

While the settlements close the FTC’s consumer protection claims against the founders, they also serve as a reminder that cryptocurrency investments often lack many of the safeguards associated with traditional financial institutions. Investors should carefully evaluate claims about safety, guaranteed returns, or easy access to deposited funds before committing money to any digital asset platform. Consumers who believe they may have been affected by the Celsius collapse should monitor official FTC and bankruptcy updates for information about ongoing proceedings or potential relief.

What to Read Next

7 Advisor Red Flags to Watch When Retirement Advice Involves AI or Crypto

Cryptocurrency Owners Are Getting IRS Letters — Even for Small Trades

5 Ways to Avoid Being Reported Under New 1099-DA Crypto Rules

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Alexander Mashinsky, bankruptcy, Celsius Network, Consumer Protection, crypto investing, crypto regulation, cryptocurrency, cryptocurrency fraud, digital assets, enforcement action, Federal Trade Commission, financial news, FTC', investor protection

SEC Proposes Rule on Electronic Delivery of Information Under Federal Securities Laws

July 21, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

SEC electronic delivery rule
An investor reviews financial documents on a laptop as the SEC proposes new rules that could make electronic delivery the default for many required securities disclosures. Tada Images/Shutterstock

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has published a proposed rule, “Electronic Delivery of Information Under the Federal Securities Laws,” that could modernize how investors receive required disclosures and other securities-related documents. According to the proposal, the SEC would allow many firms to use electronic delivery as the default method for providing required information, replacing the current system that often requires investors to opt in before receiving documents digitally. The proposal was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2026, and the public comment period remains open through September 21, 2026.

What the Proposal Would Change

If adopted, the rule would apply to a wide range of market participants, including public companies, broker-dealers, investment advisers, investment companies, and transfer agents. Instead of relying primarily on paper mailings, firms could satisfy many federal securities law delivery requirements by making documents available electronically and notifying investors how to access them. Investors who still prefer paper copies would generally be able to request them. The SEC says the proposal is intended to reflect how most people already access financial information while reducing printing and mailing costs.

Why Investors Should Pay Attention

For most investors, the proposal would not change the information they receive but rather how they receive it. Required documents such as prospectuses, proxy materials, account information, and other disclosures could become more readily available through secure electronic methods. The SEC believes electronic delivery may improve accessibility while maintaining investor protections, but the agency is seeking public feedback before making any final decision.

Public Comment Period Remains Open

The proposal is not yet final and could be revised before adoption. Individuals, businesses, and other interested parties have until September 21, 2026, to submit comments through the SEC and the Federal Register process. Anyone affected by potential changes to securities disclosure requirements should review the full proposal and consider whether the changes could impact how they receive or provide investment-related information.

What to Read Next

SEC Approves ICE Clear Credit Rule Change on Operational Risk Management Framework

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: broker-dealers, electronic delivery, Federal Register, federal securities laws, finance news, financial regulation, investing, investment advisers, investor disclosures, public comment period, Regulations.gov, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, securities compliance

SEC Approves ICE Clear Credit Rule Change on Operational Risk Management Framework

July 20, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

ICE Clear Credit Operational Risk Management Framework
ICE Clear Credit LLC has received SEC approval to update its Operational Risk Management Framework, a change intended to support the resilience and reliability of the financial market infrastructure that clears credit-related derivatives. g0d4ather/Shutterstock

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has formally approved a proposed rule change submitted by ICE Clear Credit LLC concerning updates to the company’s Operational Risk Management Framework. The approval was published in the Federal Register on July 20, 2026, under SEC Release No. 34‑105918 and docket number SR‑ICC‑2026‑004.

The notice appears at 91 FR 45306 and spans three pages. ICE Clear Credit LLC operates as a registered clearing agency responsible for clearing credit default swaps and other credit‑related derivatives. As a central counterparty, its risk‑management practices directly affect market participants who rely on its clearing services for trade execution, settlement, and systemic protection.

Background on the Rule Change Process

The SEC initially published the proposed rule change on June 8, 2026, opening a public comment window and allowing stakeholders to review the submission. Roughly six weeks later, the Commission issued its approval order. This timeline reflects the standard review process under the Securities Exchange Act, which requires clearing agencies to submit rule changes for regulatory oversight before implementation.

Although the approval order confirms that ICE Clear Credit updated its Operational Risk Management Framework, the Federal Register summary does not describe the specific revisions. Operational risk frameworks typically address how a clearinghouse identifies, measures, and mitigates risks related to technology, internal processes, staffing, and external disruptions. Any changes to such a framework can influence how the clearinghouse responds to incidents that may affect clearing operations.

Why the Update Matters for Market Participants

For broker‑dealers, asset managers, and other financial professionals who interact with ICE Clear Credit, updates to operational risk protocols can affect daily workflows and compliance obligations. Enhancements to risk identification or monitoring procedures may change reporting expectations, incident‑response timelines, or technology‑related requirements.

Operational risk failures — such as system outages, data‑processing errors, or procedural breakdowns — can disrupt trade clearing and settlement. Because clearinghouses play a critical role in maintaining market stability, the SEC closely monitors changes to their risk‑management frameworks to ensure they meet regulatory standards for resilience and reliability.

Readers seeking authoritative guidance should review the official Federal Register publication or contact the SEC or ICE Clear Credit directly. These sources can clarify how the approved changes may affect specific clearing arrangements or regulatory responsibilities.

What to Read Next

SEC Grants CME Conditional Exemption for Certain Cash-Settled Security Futures

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

The SEC Just Formed a Retail Fraud Working Group: What Everyday Investors Should Watch

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: clearinghouse, compliance, credit default swaps, derivatives, Federal Register, financial markets, financial regulation, ICE Clear Credit, investing news, market infrastructure, operational risk, Risk management, SEC, SEC approval, Securities and Exchange Commission

SEC Grants CME Conditional Exemption for Certain Cash-Settled Security Futures

July 16, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

SEC CME exemption
The SEC has granted the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) a conditional exemption from certain opening price settlement requirements for select cash-settled security futures contracts, marking a targeted regulatory change that affects how those products may be settled under specific conditions. Mark Van Scyoc/Shutterstock

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has issued an official order granting the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Inc. (CME) conditional exemptive relief from specific settlement requirements that apply to certain cash-settled security futures contracts, according to an official announcement published in the Federal Register on July 15, 2026.

The order, identified as Release No. 34-105882 and published at 91 FR 43410, was issued under Section 36 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 6h-1(d) thereunder. It exempts CME, on a conditional basis, from the opening price settlement requirements set out in Rule 6h-1(b) of the Exchange Act for the specific category of cash-settled security futures covered by the relief.

The action follows a formal application process. According to the Federal Register filing, CME submitted an application for the exemption in February 2026, and the SEC published a notice of that application along with a request for public comment at that time. The July 2026 order represents the SEC’s final determination granting the requested relief, subject to conditions.

Rule 6h-1 generally governs how certain security futures products must be settled, including requirements tied to opening prices. The conditional exemption means CME is not required to comply with those particular opening price settlement rules for the covered contracts, provided it meets whatever conditions the SEC has attached to the relief. The full text of those conditions spans five pages in the official Federal Register document.

The order is categorized as a Notice by the SEC and carries docket file number S7-2026-04. It applies specifically to CME and to the cash-settled security futures contracts identified within the order, rather than to the broader futures or securities markets.

For market participants, broker-dealers, or investors involved in security futures products traded on CME, this regulatory change may affect how certain contracts are settled. Those with questions about how this exemption applies to their specific situation should consult the official Federal Register document or contact the SEC directly, as the full conditions and scope of the relief are detailed in the official filing. Readers are encouraged to verify any specifics relevant to their circumstances with the SEC or a qualified financial or legal professional.

What to Read Next

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

Hospital Service Costs Rose in May CPI—A Retirement Healthcare Planning Reminder

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: broker-dealers, cash-settled security futures, Chicago Mercantile Exchange, CME, derivatives, Exchange Act, Federal Register, financial regulation, futures trading, investing news, Rule 6h-1, SEC, Securities and Exchange Commission, security futures, settlement rules

New York AG Charges Long Island Man With Fraudulently Collecting Over $100,000 in Social Security Disability Benefits

July 15, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Social Security disability fraud
New York Attorney General Letitia James has announced the arrest of a Long Island man who has stolen more than $100,000 in benefits from the state. Steve Sanchez Photos/Shutterstock

New York Attorney General Letitia James announced the arrest and indictment of Raymond Phillips, 40, of Huntington, Suffolk County, for allegedly fraudulently collecting more than $100,000 in Social Security disability benefits, according to an official announcement from the Office of the New York Attorney General (OAG).

According to the announcement, Phillips submitted paperwork to the New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) in August 2018 claiming he had sustained serious injuries to his dominant arm from weightlifting and was physically incapable of working or performing most routine daily activities. The Social Security Administration (SSA) approved his disability benefits application in May 2021, retroactive to 2018. From May 2021 through December 2024, Phillips collected $100,000 in disability benefits based on those claims.

“Hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers rely on disability benefits as a source of independence and income,” said Attorney General James. “Raymond Phillips shamelessly collected benefits meant for disabled New Yorkers while boasting his weightlifting achievements on social media. My office has no tolerance for fraudsters who cheat the system and steal from programs that are a lifeline for New Yorkers in need. I thank our partners in law enforcement and the Social Security Administration for ensuring we hold those who steal taxpayer dollars accountable.”

The OAG’s investigation found that during the same period Phillips was receiving benefits (between 2021 and 2024), he posted videos and photos on Facebook and Instagram showing himself lifting heavy weights, competing in weightlifting competitions, and advertising a personal trainer business. The announcement states that Phillips continued to claim eligibility for disability benefits in hearings and written reports through October 2025.

Phillips has been charged with one count of Grand Larceny in the Second Degree, a Class C felony, and two counts of Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, a Class E felony.

The SSA’s Office of the Inspector General participated in the investigation. Conor Washington, Special Agent-in-Charge at the SSA’s Office of the Inspector General, was quoted in the announcement stating that disability benefits are intended for individuals legitimately unable to work and that the agency will continue working with law enforcement partners to hold accountable those who attempt to defraud the program.

This case is relevant to consumers and taxpayers who rely on or interact with federal disability benefit programs. Fraudulent claims can affect the availability of resources for individuals with legitimate disabilities. Readers with questions about Social Security disability eligibility or reporting fraud should contact the SSA or the SSA Office of the Inspector General directly to verify information specific to their situation.

What to Read Next

The SEC Just Formed a Retail Fraud Working Group: What Everyday Investors Should Watch

Hospital Service Costs Rose in May CPI—A Retirement Healthcare Planning Reminder

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: consumer news, Crime News, disability benefits, federal benefits, Fraud Investigation, government benefits, Letitia James, Long Island, New York Attorney General, Social Security, Social Security Administration, Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI), Social Security Fraud, SSA, Taxpayer News

RentGrow to Pay $2.25 Million to Settle FTC Allegations of Fair Credit Reporting Act and FTC Act Violations

July 10, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

RentGrow FTC allegations
A complaint was filed with the FTC regarding RentGrow’s practices, and now the company has been ordered to pay a settlement of more than $2 million. Mehaniq/Shutterstock

The Federal Trade Commission announced on July 9, 2026, that RentGrow will pay $2.25 million to settle allegations that the company violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the FTC Act, according to an official FTC press release.

Beyond the settlement amount and the statutes allegedly violated, the source document provided does not contain sufficient detail about the specific nature of the allegations, what conduct RentGrow was accused of, how consumers may have been harmed, or what behavioral or operational changes the company may be required to make under the settlement.

RentGrow is a tenant screening company whose reports are used by landlords and property managers to evaluate prospective renters. Tenant screening companies are considered consumer reporting agencies under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, meaning they are subject to rules governing accuracy, dispute handling, and how consumer data is used and shared.

The complaint against RentGrow alleged that the company violated the FCRA in several ways, including:

  • Neglecting to maintain reasonable procedures, which led to some reports being included more than once in a background check
  • Failing to disclose all the information and sources of data included in its consumer reports when a consumer asked for the information
  • And failing to comply with requirements related to consumer disputes

“Inaccurate background reports can have a real impact on people by affecting their ability to obtain housing or a job,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Companies that provide background reports have a responsibility under the law to take reasonable steps to ensure the accuracy of those reports and to comply with other requirements of the FCRA.”

Consumers and housing industry professionals who want to understand the full terms of the settlement, including any rights or remedies available to affected individuals, should consult the official FTC press release and related case documents directly at ftc.gov.

Readers with specific questions about their own consumer reports or tenant screening records should contact the FTC or call the Consumer Response Center toll-free at 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357). You may also consider speaking with a qualified legal professional for guidance relevant to your situation.

What to Read Next

7 Financial Red Flags That Could Freeze Your Accounts Without Warning

California Seniors Face Insurance Renewal Shock as Housing and Utility Costs Continue Climbing

7 Everyday Mistakes That Invite Cybercriminals Into Your Life

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Equal Housing, Fair Credit Reporting Act, FTC violations, FTC', housing, RentGrow

IRS Announces 27 States Have Opted Into New Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Program

July 8, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

Federal Scholarship Tax Credit
IRS Commissioner Frank J. Bisignano announced that 27 states have opted into the new Federal Scholarship Tax Credit program, allowing eligible taxpayers to claim up to a $1,700 credit for qualifying scholarship donations. Mehaniq/Shutterstock

The Internal Revenue Service announced that 27 states have elected to participate in the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit (FSTC) program, a new federal initiative that allows eligible taxpayers to claim a tax credit for contributions made to qualifying scholarship organizations.

“It’s encouraging to see that 27 states have already signed up to participate in this program that promotes and supports elementary and secondary education,” said IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano. “We are hopeful that additional states will decide to participate.”

According to the official IRS announcement, taxpayers may claim a federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for qualified contributions to Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). These organizations provide scholarships to cover qualified elementary and secondary education expenses.

The program operates differently from a tax deduction. Instead of reducing taxable income, eligible taxpayers may receive a federal tax credit—up to the program’s annual limit—for qualified donations made to approved Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). However, taxpayers must follow IRS rules, and not every state has elected to participate.

To be eligible for the credit, a taxpayer’s contribution must go to an SGO located in a state that has formally elected to participate in the program and submitted a list of qualified SGOs to the IRS.

The FSTC program was enacted under legislation referred to as the One, Big, Beautiful Bill. State participation in the program is voluntary. As of the announcement date, 27 states had signed up, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, and Louisiana, among others. The IRS announcement noted that the list of participating states was still being compiled at the time of publication.

IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank J. Bisignano said in the announcement that the agency is encouraged by the early participation and expressed hope that additional states will choose to opt in.

The program is relevant to taxpayers across the country who may wish to support private elementary and secondary education scholarships while also reducing their federal tax liability. Because participation depends entirely on a taxpayer’s state of residence and whether qualifying SGOs are available there, eligibility will vary significantly by location.

Taxpayers interested in claiming this credit should verify their state’s participation status and confirm that any organization they contribute to is on their state’s official list of qualified SGOs. Readers should consult the IRS directly at IRS.gov or speak with a qualified tax professional to determine how this program applies to their individual circumstances.

FAQs About the New Federal Scholarship Tax Credit Program

  • What is the Federal Scholarship Tax Credit? The Federal Scholarship Tax Credit allows eligible taxpayers to claim a federal tax credit of up to $1,700 for qualified contributions to approved Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs) that fund K-12 scholarships in participating states.
  • How much is the tax credit? Eligible taxpayers may claim a credit of up to $1,700, subject to IRS rules and program requirements.
  • Do all states participate? No. Participation is voluntary. As of the IRS announcement, 27 states had elected to participate, with additional states expected to join over time.
  • How do I know if my donation qualifies? Your contribution must be made to a qualified Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO) located in a participating state and recognized by the IRS and the state.
  • Where can I find the list of participating states and approved organizations? The IRS maintains the official list of participating states and qualifying SGOs on its website and updates it as additional states complete the required election process.

What to Read Next

7 OregonSaves Rules Every New Oregon Employer Should Know Before the July 31 Deadline

White House Orders Labor and SEC to Make Private Equity and Real Estate Available in 401(k)s—What Fiduciaries Should Watch

Your Employer May Match Student Loan Payments in 2026—But Only Up to the 401(k) Deferral Limit

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: news Tagged With: Education, Federal Scholarship Tax Credit, federal taxes, IRS, IRS news, One Big Beautiful Bill, Personal Finance, Scholarship Granting Organizations, scholarships, school choice, SGOs, tax credits, taxes

Insurance Just Stopped Paying for These Routine Health Supplies — Check Your Plan Immediately

February 8, 2026 by Amanda Blankenship Leave a Comment

insurance coverage cuts
Image Source: Shutterstock

With the beginning of a new year comes many changes. Most people anticipate changes in their health insurance because deductibles reset, and plans change slightly. However, many people have noted that some of the everyday medical supplies they rely on are no longer covered under their insurance… even though nothing technically changed. This is because insurers have updated some of their coverage rules moving into 2026. As a result, many of the items people rely on every single day are now being denied, restricted, or reclassified.

These changes are hitting seniors, caregivers, and anyone managing a chronic condition the hardest because the supplies being cut are often the ones used most frequently. Here are six routine health supplies some insurance companies are no longer covering, and what you can do about it.

1. CGM Adhesives, Sensor Covers, and Skin Prep Wipes

Many insurers have reclassified common Continuous Glucose Monitor (CGM) accessories as “non‑essential,” even though they’re crucial for keeping sensors attached and functioning properly. This shift means items like adhesives, barrier wipes, and over‑patches may no longer be covered at all, even if the CGM itself is still approved. Patients who rely on these supplies daily are now paying out of pocket, often adding $30 to $60 per month to their expenses. Insurers argue that cheaper alternatives exist, but those alternatives often don’t work for people with sensitive skin or active lifestyles. These new insurance coverage cuts are forcing many diabetics to choose between comfort, reliability, and affordability.

2. CPAP Filters, Tubing, and Mask Cushions

For years, CPAP users could count on regular replacement schedules for filters, tubing, and cushions, which are all items that wear out quickly and affect hygiene. In 2026, many insurers switched to “usage‑based replacement,” meaning you must prove an item is damaged before they’ll cover a new one. Many also require you to use the CPAP a certain number of hours per day to be covered (usually four hours per night, minimum). This creates delays, extra paperwork, and more out‑of‑pocket spending for people who depend on CPAP therapy to sleep safely.

Some plans now only approve replacements every 90 days instead of monthly, even though manufacturers recommend more frequent changes. These insurance coverage cuts are leaving many CPAP users with worn‑out equipment that affects both comfort and treatment effectiveness.

3. Basic Orthopedic Braces and Supports

Items like wrist splints, ankle braces, and knee sleeves (once routinely covered under durable medical equipment benefits) are now being denied unless tied to a very specific diagnosis. Insurers claim these braces are “overused” and can be purchased cheaply at retail stores, even though medical‑grade versions offer better support. Patients recovering from injuries or managing chronic pain are discovering that their doctor‑recommended brace is no longer covered at all.

Certain plans require prior authorization for even the simplest supports, adding delays to treatment. These insurance coverage cuts are pushing more people toward lower‑quality retail options that may not provide the stability they need.

4. Incontinence Supplies

Incontinence pads, liners, and protective underwear were once widely covered for seniors and people with mobility challenges. But in 2026, many insurers tightened eligibility rules, requiring a documented chronic condition before approving coverage. This means people who previously used monthly OTC credits or supplemental benefits are now paying full price unless they meet strict criteria.

Caregivers are especially feeling the strain, as these supplies can cost $50 to $100 per month. These insurance coverage cuts are creating financial pressure for families already managing complex care needs.

5. Wound Care Supplies

Bandages, dressings, and medical‑grade tapes are now harder to get covered unless you’re actively receiving wound care from a provider. Insurers have tightened definitions around “medical necessity,” meaning chronic skin conditions or recurring minor wounds may no longer qualify. Patients who previously received monthly supplies are now being told they must schedule more frequent doctor visits to justify coverage.

This adds both cost and inconvenience, especially for seniors or those with limited mobility. These insurance coverage cuts are making it harder for people to manage ongoing skin issues safely at home.

6. Glucose Test Strips and Lancets

Even though many CGM users still need test strips for calibration or backup, insurers are cutting quantities dramatically. Some plans now limit strips to as few as 10 per month, regardless of your doctor’s recommendation. This creates problems when sensors fail, fall off, or give inaccurate readings, all situations where test strips are essential.

Patients are being told to “rely on the CGM,” even though manufacturers still recommend periodic finger‑stick checks. These insurance coverage cuts are leaving many diabetics without the tools they need for safe glucose monitoring.

Why These Cuts Are Happening and What You Can Do About It

Insurers are tightening coverage because of rising drug costs, new Medicare Part D rules, and pressure to reduce spending on “supplemental” items. While these changes feel sudden, they’re part of a broader shift toward limiting anything not considered strictly medically necessary. The best way to protect yourself is:

  1. Review your plan’s 2026 coverage list, especially for items you use regularly.
  2. Ask your doctor to submit a Letter of Medical Necessity if something essential was denied.

Staying proactive can help you push back against insurance coverage cuts and avoid unnecessary out‑of‑pocket costs.

Staying Ahead of Coverage Cuts Helps You Protect Your Budget

These 2026 changes may feel overwhelming, but knowing what’s no longer covered helps you plan, budget, and advocate for yourself. Many of these supplies are essential for daily health, and losing coverage can create real financial strain. By reviewing your plan, talking with your doctor, and appealing denials when necessary, you can often restore at least partial coverage. The key is staying informed before you’re hit with a surprise bill at the pharmacy. With a little preparation, you can navigate these insurance coverage cuts more confidently.

Have you lost coverage for a routine health supply this year? Share your experience in the comments.

What to Read Next

Citizens Property Insurance Sees Sharp Drop in Policies — What It Means for Homeowners in 2026

Insurance Now Accounts for 9% of Typical Monthly Mortgage Payment

Louisiana Insurance Crisis: Non-Renewal Rates Jump Since 2018

13% of California Realtors Report Sales Falling Through Due to Insurance Issues

The Credit Score That Adds $2,000/Year to Florida Homeowner’s Insurance Premiums

Amanda Blankenship

Amanda Blankenship is the Chief Editor for District Media.  With a BA in journalism from Wingate University, she frequently writes for a handful of websites and loves to share her own personal finance story with others. When she isn’t typing away at her desk, she enjoys spending time with her daughter, son, husband, and dog. During her free time, you’re likely to find her with her nose in a book, hiking, or playing RPG video games.

Filed Under: Health & Wellness Tagged With: chronic conditions, health supplies, insurance coverage, medical costs, Medicare 2026, pharmacy changes, seniors

  • 1
  • 2
  • Next Page »

Follow Us

Search this site:

Recent Posts

  • Can My Savings Account Affect My Financial Aid? by Tamila McDonald
  • 12 Ways Gen X’s Views Clash with Millennials… by Tamila McDonald
  • What Advantages and Disadvantages Are There To… by Jacob Sensiba
  • 10 Tactics for Building an Emergency Fund from Scratch by Vanessa Bermudez
  • Call 911: Go To the Emergency Room Immediately If… by Stephen Kanaval
  • 7 Weird Things You Can Sell Online by Tamila McDonald
  • 10 Scary Facts About DriveTime by Tamila McDonald

Copyright © 2026 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework