Connect with us

Business

Health care providers and debt collectors are biting from people’s paychecks to cover old medical bills

Published

on


Stacey Knoll thought the court summons she received was a scam. She didn’t remember getting any medical bills from Montrose Regional Health, a nonprofit hospital, after a 2020 emergency room visit.

So she was shocked when, three years after the trip to the hospital, her employer received court orders requiring it to start funneling a chunk of her paychecks to a debt collector for an unpaid $881 medical bill — which had grown to $1,155.26 from interest and court fees.

The timing was terrible. After leaving a bad marriage and staying in a shelter, she had just gotten full custody of her three children, steady housing in Montrose, Colorado, and a job at a gas station.

“And that’s when I got that garnishment from the court,” she said. “It was really scary. I’d never been on my own or raised kids on my own.”

KFF Health News reviewed 1,200 Colorado cases in which judges, over a two-year period from Feb. 1, 2022, through Feb. 1, 2024, gave permission to garnish wages over unpaid bills. At least 30% of the cases stemmed from medical care — even when patients’ bills should have been covered by Medicaid, the public insurance program for those with low incomes or disabilities. That 30% is likely an underestimate since medical debt is often hidden behind other types of debt, such as from credit cards or payday loans. But even that minimum would translate to roughly 14,000 cases a year in Colorado in which courts approved taking people’s wages because of unpaid medical bills.

Among the other findings:

  • Patients were pursued for medical bills ranging from under $30 to over $30,000, with most of the bills amounting to less than $2,400. As the cases rolled through the legal system, accumulating interest and court fees, the amount that patients owed often grew by 25%. In one case, it snowballed by more than 400%.
  • Cases trailed people for up to 14 years after they received medical care, with debt collectors reviving their cases even as they moved from job to job.
  • Medical providers of all stripes are behind these bills — big health care chains, small rural hospitals, physician groups, public ambulance services, and more. In several cases, hospitals won permission to take the pay of their own employees who had unpaid bills from treatment at the facilities.

Colorado has company. It is one of 45 states that allow wage garnishment for unpaid medical bills. Only Delaware, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas have banned wage garnishment for medical debt.

As KFF Health News has reported, medical debt is devastating for millions of people across the country. And now the problem is likely to grow more pressing nationwide. Millions of Americans are expected to lose health insurance in the coming years due to Medicaid changes in President Donald Trump’s tax and spending law and if Congress allows some Affordable Care Act subsidies to expire. That means health crises for the newly uninsured could lead them, too, into a spiral of medical debt.

And the hurt will linger: Large unpaid medical bills are staying on credit reports in most states after a July decision from a federal judge reversed a new rule aimed at protecting consumers.

“If you can’t maintain your health, how are you going to work to pay back a debt?” said Adam Fox, deputy director of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, a nonprofit aimed at lowering health costs. “And if you fundamentally can’t pay the bill, wage garnishment isn’t going to help you do that. It’s going to put you in more financial distress.”

Flying blind on medical debt

When someone fails to pay a bill, the creditor that provided the service — whether for a garage door repair, a car loan, or medical care — can take the debtor to court. Creditors can also pass the debt to a debt collector or debt buyer, who can do the same.

“At any given point, about 1% of working adults are being garnished for some reason,” said Anthony DeFusco, an economist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who studied paycheck data from ADP, a payroll processor that distributes paychecks to about a fifth of private sector U.S. workers. “That’s a big chunk of the population.”

But specific research into the practice of garnishing wages over medical debt is scant. Studies in North Carolina, Virginia, and New York have found that nonprofit hospitals commonly garnish wages from indebted patients, with some studies finding those patients tend to work in low-wage occupations.

Marty Makary, who led research on medical debt wage garnishment in Virginia at Johns Hopkins University before joining Trump’s cabinet as Food and Drug Administration commissioner, has called the practice “aggressive.” He co-authored a study that found 36% of Virginia hospitals, mostly nonprofit and mostly in urban areas, were using garnishment to collect unpaid debts in 2017, affecting thousands of patients.

The Colorado findings from KFF Health News show that hospitals are far from the only medical providers going after patients’ paychecks, though.

Researchers and advocates say that, in addition to a dearth of court case data, another phenomenon tends to obscure how often this happens. “People find debt shameful,” said Lester Bird, a senior manager at the Pew Charitable Trusts who specializes in courts. “A lot of this exists in the shadows.”

Without data on how often this tactic is employed, lawmakers are flying blind — even as a 2024 Associated Press-NORC poll showed about 4 in 5 U.S. adults believe it’s important for the federal government to provide medical debt relief.

‘Blood from a turnip’

Colorado was among the first of 15 states to scratch medical debt from credit reports. Debt buyers in the state aren’t allowed to foreclose on a patient’s home. If qualified patients opt to pay in monthly installments, those payments shouldn’t exceed 6% of their household income — and the remaining debt gets wiped after about three years of paying.

But if they don’t agree to a payment plan, Coloradans can have up to 20% of their disposable earnings garnished. The National Consumer Law Center gave the state a “D” grade for state protections of family finances.

Consumer advocates said they aren’t sure how well even those Colorado requirements are being followed. And people wrote letters to the courts saying wage garnishment would exacerbate their already dire financial situations.

“I have begun to fall behind on my electricity, my gas, my water my credit cards,” wrote a man in western Colorado in a letter to a judge that KFF Health News obtained in the court filings. Court records show he was working in construction and at a rent-to-own store, with about $8,000 in medical debt. He wrote to the judge that he was paying close to $1,000 a month. “The way things are going now I will lose everything.”

The people being sued in KFF Health News’ Colorado review worked in a wide array of jobs. They worked in school districts, ranching, mining, construction, local government, even health care. Several worked at stores such as Walmart and Family Dollar, or at gas stations, restaurants, or grocery stores.

“You’re really kicking people when they’re down,” said Lois Lupica, a former attorney working with the Denver-based Community Economic Defense Project and the Debt Collection Lab at Princeton. “They’re basically suing the you-can’t-get-blood-from-a-turnip population.”

In 2022, court records show, Valley View health system based in Glenwood Springs was allowed to garnish the wages of one of its patients over a $400 medical bill. The patient was working at a local organization that the health system supported as part of the community benefits it provides to keep its tax-exempt status. Nonprofit hospitals like Valley View are required to provide community benefits, which can also include charity care that covers patients’ bills.

Stacey Gavrell, the health system’s chief community relations officer, said it offers options such as interest-free payment plans and care at reduced or no cost to families with incomes up to 500% of the federal poverty level.

“As our rural region’s largest healthcare provider, it is imperative to the health and well-being of our community that Valley View remains a financially viable organization,” she said. “Most of our patients work with us to develop a payment plan or pursue financial assistance.”

The collection agency that took the employee to court, A-1 Collection Agency, advertises itself on its website as empathetic: “We understand times are tough and money is tight.”

Pilar Mank, who oversees operations at A-1’s parent company, Healthcare Management, said it accepts payment plans as small as $50 a month and that most of the hospitals it works with allow it to offer a discount if patients pay all at once.

“Suing a patient is the absolute last resort,” she said. “We try everything we can to work with the patient.”

Hospitals sometimes also garnish wages from their own employees for care they provided them. In one case, a hospital employee worked her way up from housekeeper to registrar to quality analyst. She even participated in public events representing her employer and appeared on the hospital’s website as a featured employee — while the court issued writs of garnishment until her $10,000 in medical bills from the hospital was paid off.

“Hospital care costs money to deliver,” said Colorado Hospital Association spokesperson Julie Lonborg about hospitals’ garnishing their own employees’ wages. “In some ways, I think it’s funny to be asked the question. I would understand if someone said, ‘Why aren’t you garnishing their wages?’”

Studies show that hospital debt collection efforts through wage garnishment bring in only about 0.2% of hospital revenues, said April Kuehnhoff, a senior attorney with the National Consumer Law Center, which advocates for people with low incomes.

“We also know that there are states that don’t allow this at all,” she said. “Hospitals are continuing to provide medical care to consumers.”

Smooth sailing for collectors — but not for patients

Health care providers appeared as the plaintiffs in only 2% of the medical debt cases. Instead, cases were filed almost entirely by third-party debt collectors and buyers, with BC Services and Professional Finance Company behind more than half of the cases, followed by A-1 Collection Agency and Wakefield & Associates.

Debt buyers make money by buying debt from providers who’ve given up on getting paid then collecting what they can of the money owed, plus interest. Debt collectors get paid a percentage of what they recover. Some companies do a bit of both.

BC Services declined to comment, and Wakefield & Associates did not respond to questions.

Charlie Shoop, president of Professional Finance Company, said his company initiates wage garnishment on less than 1% of all accounts placed with it for collection.

Health care providers in Colorado can no longer hide behind debt collectors’ names when they sue people, according to a 2024 state law prompted by a 9News-Colorado Sun investigation in partnership with a Colorado News Collaborative-KFF Health News reporting project.

In many states, the path for filing a case against a debtor and garnishing their wages is relatively smooth — especially if the debtor doesn’t appear in court.

“It’s unbelievably easy,” said Dan Vedra, a lawyer in Colorado who often represents consumers in debt cases. “If you have a word processor and a spreadsheet, you can mass-produce thousands of lawsuits in a matter of hours or minutes.”

Within KFF Health News’ sample, nearly all the medical debt cases were default judgments, meaning the patient did not defend themselves in court or in writing. Missing a court date can happen for a variety of reasons, such as not receiving the notice in the mail, assuming it was a scam, knowingly ignoring it, or not having the time to take off from work.

Vedra and other debt law experts said a high rate of default judgments indicates a system that favors the pursuers over the pursued — and increases the chances someone will be harmed by an erroneous bill.

But in New Hampshire, creditors now have to keep going to court for each paycheck they want to garnish, because the state allows creditors to garnish only wages that have already been earned, said Maanasa Kona, an associate research professor at the Center on Health Insurance Reforms at Georgetown University.

“It might not look like much on paper,” she said. “It’s just not worth it if they have to keep going back to court.”

Wrongly pursued for bills

The nation’s medical billing setup is already prone to errors due to its complexity, according to Barak Richman, a law professor at George Washington University and a senior scholar at Stanford Medicine who has studied medical debt collection practices in several states. “Bills are not only noncomprehensible, but often wrong,” Richman said.

Indeed, Colorado’s Health Care Policy & Financing Department, which runs Medicaid in the state, said it sent out nearly 11,000 letters in the past fiscal year to health providers and collectors that erroneously went after patients on Medicaid. Bills for Medicaid recipients are supposed to be sent to Medicaid, not the patients, who typically pay a nominal amount, if anything, for their care.

Shoop said his industry has pushed Colorado, without success, for access to a database that would allow them to confirm if patients had Medicaid coverage.

Colorado’s Medicaid program declined to comment.

Patricia DeHerrera in Rifle, Colorado, had to prove that she and her children had Medicaid when they received care at Grand River Health — but only after A-1 contacted her employer at the time, the gas station chain Kum & Go, with court-approved paperwork to take a portion of her paychecks.

She contacted the state, which sent letters to the hospital and the collector notifying them they were engaging in “illegal billing action” and telling the collector to stop. The companies did.

Theresa Wagenman, controller for Grand River Health, said if a patient can present a letter from a Medicaid caseworker saying they’re eligible, then their bills get removed from the collections pipeline. Wagenman also said patients get at least eight letters in the mail and several phone calls before Grand River gives the go-ahead for the collector to send them to court.

DeHerrera’s main advice to others in this situation: “Know your rights. Otherwise, they’re going to take advantage of you.”

Yet fighting back isn’t easy.

Nicole Silva, who lives in the 900-person town of Sanford in south-central Colorado, said she and her family were all on Medicaid when her daughter was in a car crash. Still, court records show, her wages were garnished for a $2,181.60 ambulance ride, which grew to more than $3,000 from court fees and interest.

She tried to prove the bill was wrong, contacting her county’s social services office, but Silva said it wasn’t helpful and she wasn’t able to reach the right person at a state office. The state Medicaid program confirmed to KFF Health News that her daughter was covered at the time of the wreck.

Fighting the bill felt like too much for Silva and her husband to handle while parenting a growing number of kids, one of them severely disabled, and working — she as a preschool teacher and he as a rancher.

Not receiving the roughly $500 a month that she said came out of her pay was enough to affect their ability to pay other bills. “It was deciding to buy groceries or pay the electric bill,” Silva said.

When their electricity got shut off, she said, they had to scramble to borrow money from colleagues and friends to get it turned back on — with an extra fee.

She said the saga makes her hesitant to call an ambulance in the future.

Fox, of the Colorado Consumer Health Initiative, said consumers often think they cannot do anything to stop their wages from being garnished, but they can contest it in court, for example by pointing out they should have qualified for discounted — or charity — care if the hospital that provided the treatment is a nonprofit.

DeFusco, the economist, believes filing for Chapter 7 bankruptcy is an underused option for debtors. It halts garnishment in its tracks, though not always permanently, and it comes with other consequences. But he understands it’s a Catch-22: It’s a complex process and typically necessitates hiring a lawyer.

“To get rid of your debt, you need money,” he said. “And the whole reason you’re in this situation is because you don’t have money.”

KFF Health News intern Henry Larweh, data editor Holly K. Hacker, Mountain States editor Matt Volz, and web editor Lydia Zuraw contributed to this report.

Methodology

We wanted to know how often Coloradans get their wages garnished due to medical debt. Courts don’t compile this information, and researchers and advocates haven’t tracked it systematically.

So we created our own database. We requested a list of all civil cases across the state in which judges gave permission for a person’s earnings to be garnished — known as writs of garnishment in court lingo — from Feb. 1, 2022, through Feb. 1, 2024. The Colorado Supreme Court Library provided a list from all courts except for Denver County Court, which provided its own records. The combined list comprised nearly 90,000 unique court cases. We split up the cases by county population — small (fewer than 10,000 people), medium (10,000 to 100,000 people), and large (more than 100,000 people) — then generated a random sample of 400 cases from each group to ensure we evaluated medical debt across counties of all sizes.

To identify medical debt cases, we looked at the original creditors named in court records, primarily the complaints or affidavits of indebtedness. Often, this information was available through a state website. When it wasn’t available online, we asked county courthouses to send us supporting documents. We counted dentists as medical providers. We excluded 14 cases in which the debt wasn’t exclusively medical.

We looked only at cases in which courts approved money to be garnished from someone’s paycheck, as opposed to from other sources such as their bank accounts. We did not review garnishment cases involving child support, taxes, or federal student loans.

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 — the independent source for health policy research, polling, and journalism.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Senate Dems’ plan to fix Obamacare premiums adds nearly $300 billion to deficit, CRFB says

Published

on



The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) is a nonpartisan watchdog that regularly estimates how much the U.S. Congress is adding to the $38 trillion national debt.

With enhanced Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies due to expire within days, some Senate Democrats are scrambling to protect millions of Americans from getting the unpleasant holiday gift of spiking health insurance premiums. The CRFB says there’s just one problem with the plan: It’s not funded.

“With the national debt as large as the economy and interest payments costing $1 trillion annually, it is absurd to suggest adding hundreds of billions more to the debt,” CRFB President Maya MacGuineas wrote in a statement on Friday afternoon.

The proposal, backed by members of the Senate Democratic caucus, would fully extend the enhanced ACA subsidies for three years, from 2026 through 2028, with no additional income limits on who can qualify. Those subsidies, originally boosted during the pandemic and later renewed, were designed to lower premiums and prevent coverage losses for middle‑ and lower‑income households purchasing insurance on the ACA exchanges.

CRFB estimated that even this three‑year extension alone would add roughly $300 billion to federal deficits over the next decade, largely because the federal government would continue to shoulder a larger share of premium costs while enrollment and subsidy amounts remain elevated. If Congress ultimately moves to make the enhanced subsidies permanent—as many advocates have urged—the total cost could swell to nearly $550 billion in additional borrowing over the next decade.

Reversing recent guardrails

MacGuineas called the Senate bill “far worse than even a debt-financed extension” as it would roll back several “program integrity” measures that were enacted as part of a 2025 reconciliation law and were intended to tighten oversight of ACA subsidies. On top of that, it would be funded by borrowing even more. “This is a bad idea made worse,” MacGuineas added.

The watchdog group’s central critique is that the new Senate plan does not attempt to offset its costs through spending cuts or new revenue and, in their view, goes beyond a simple extension by expanding the underlying subsidy structure.

The legislation would permanently repeal restrictions that eliminated subsidies for certain groups enrolling during special enrollment periods and would scrap rules requiring full repayment of excess advance subsidies and stricter verification of eligibility and tax reconciliation. The bill would also nullify portions of a 2025 federal regulation that loosened limits on the actuarial value of exchange plans and altered how subsidies are calculated, effectively reshaping how generous plans can be and how federal support is determined. CRFB warned these reversals would increase costs further while weakening safeguards designed to reduce misuse and error in the subsidy system.

MacGuineas said that any subsidy extension should be paired with broader reforms to curb health spending and reduce overall borrowing. In her view, lawmakers are missing a chance to redesign ACA support in a way that lowers premiums while also improving the long‑term budget outlook.

The debate over ACA subsidies recently contributed to a government funding standoff, and CRFB argued that the new Senate bill reflects a political compromise that prioritizes short‑term relief over long‑term fiscal responsibility.

“After a pointless government shutdown over this issue, it is beyond disappointing that this is the preferred solution to such an important issue,” MacGuineas wrote.

The off-year elections cast the government shutdown and cost-of-living arguments in a different light. Democrats made stunning gains and almost flipped a deep-red district in Tennessee as politicians from the far left and center coalesced around “affordability.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is reportedly smelling blood in the water and doubling down on the theme heading into the pivotal midterm elections of 2026. President Donald Trump is scheduled to visit Pennsylvania soon to discuss pocketbook anxieties. But he is repeating predecessor Joe Biden’s habit of dismissing inflation, despite widespread evidence to the contrary.

“We fixed inflation, and we fixed almost everything,” Trump said in a Tuesday cabinet meeting, in which he also dismissed affordability as a “hoax” pushed by Democrats.​

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle now face a politically fraught choice: allow premiums to jump sharply—including in swing states like Pennsylvania where ACA enrollees face double‑digit increases—or pass an expensive subsidy extension that would, as CRFB calculates, explode the deficit without addressing underlying health care costs.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

Netflix–Warner Bros. deal sets up $72 billion antitrust test

Published

on



Netflix Inc. has won the heated takeover battle for Warner Bros. Discovery Inc. Now it must convince global antitrust regulators that the deal won’t give it an illegal advantage in the streaming market. 

The $72 billion tie-up joins the world’s dominant paid streaming service with one of Hollywood’s most iconic movie studios. It would reshape the market for online video content by combining the No. 1 streaming player with the No. 4 service HBO Max and its blockbuster hits such as Game Of ThronesFriends, and the DC Universe comics characters franchise.  

That could raise red flags for global antitrust regulators over concerns that Netflix would have too much control over the streaming market. The company faces a lengthy Justice Department review and a possible US lawsuit seeking to block the deal if it doesn’t adopt some remedies to get it cleared, analysts said.

“Netflix will have an uphill climb unless it agrees to divest HBO Max as well as additional behavioral commitments — particularly on licensing content,” said Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Jennifer Rie. “The streaming overlap is significant,” she added, saying the argument that “the market should be viewed more broadly is a tough one to win.”

By choosing Netflix, Warner Bros. has jilted another bidder, Paramount Skydance Corp., a move that risks touching off a political battle in Washington. Paramount is backed by the world’s second-richest man, Larry Ellison, and his son, David Ellison, and the company has touted their longstanding close ties to President Donald Trump. Their acquisition of Paramount, which closed in August, has won public praise from Trump. 

Comcast Corp. also made a bid for Warner Bros., looking to merge it with its NBCUniversal division.

The Justice Department’s antitrust division, which would review the transaction in the US, could argue that the deal is illegal on its face because the combined market share would put Netflix well over a 30% threshold.

The White House, the Justice Department and Comcast didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 

US lawmakers from both parties, including Republican Representative Darrell Issa and Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren have already faulted the transaction — which would create a global streaming giant with 450 million users — as harmful to consumers.

“This deal looks like an anti-monopoly nightmare,” Warren said after the Netflix announcement. Utah Senator Mike Lee, a Republican, said in a social media post earlier this week that a Warner Bros.-Netflix tie-up would raise more serious competition questions “than any transaction I’ve seen in about a decade.”

European Union regulators are also likely to subject the Netflix proposal to an intensive review amid pressure from legislators. In the UK, the deal has already drawn scrutiny before the announcement, with House of Lords member Baroness Luciana Berger pressing the government on how the transaction would impact competition and consumer prices.

The combined company could raise prices and broadly impact “culture, film, cinemas and theater releases,”said Andreas Schwab, a leading member of the European Parliament on competition issues, after the announcement.

Paramount has sought to frame the Netflix deal as a non-starter. “The simple truth is that a deal with Netflix as the buyer likely will never close, due to antitrust and regulatory challenges in the United States and in most jurisdictions abroad,” Paramount’s antitrust lawyers wrote to their counterparts at Warner Bros. on Dec. 1.

Appealing directly to Trump could help Netflix avoid intense antitrust scrutiny, New Street Research’s Blair Levin wrote in a note on Friday. Levin said it’s possible that Trump could come to see the benefit of switching from a pro-Paramount position to a pro-Netflix position. “And if he does so, we believe the DOJ will follow suit,” Levin wrote.

Netflix co-Chief Executive Officer Ted Sarandos had dinner with Trump at the president’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida last December, a move other CEOs made after the election in order to win over the administration. In a call with investors Friday morning, Sarandos said that he’s “highly confident in the regulatory process,” contending the deal favors consumers, workers and innovation. 

“Our plans here are to work really closely with all the appropriate governments and regulators, but really confident that we’re going to get all the necessary approvals that we need,” he said.

Netflix will likely argue to regulators that other video services such as Google’s YouTube and ByteDance Ltd.’s TikTok should be included in any analysis of the market, which would dramatically shrink the company’s perceived dominance.

The US Federal Communications Commission, which regulates the transfer of broadcast-TV licenses, isn’t expected to play a role in the deal, as neither hold such licenses. Warner Bros. plans to spin off its cable TV division, which includes channels such as CNN, TBS and TNT, before the sale.

Even if antitrust reviews just focus on streaming, Netflix believes it will ultimately prevail, pointing to Amazon.com Inc.’s Prime and Walt Disney Co. as other major competitors, according to people familiar with the company’s thinking. 

Netflix is expected to argue that more than 75% of HBO Max subscribers already subscribe to Netflix, making them complementary offerings rather than competitors, said the people, who asked not to be named discussing confidential deliberations. The company is expected to make the case that reducing its content costs through owning Warner Bros., eliminating redundant back-end technology and bundling Netflix with Max will yield lower prices.



Source link

Continue Reading

Business

The rise of AI reasoning models comes with a big energy tradeoff

Published

on



Nearly all leading artificial intelligence developers are focused on building AI models that mimic the way humans reason, but new research shows these cutting-edge systems can be far more energy intensive, adding to concerns about AI’s strain on power grids.

AI reasoning models used 30 times more power on average to respond to 1,000 written prompts than alternatives without this reasoning capability or which had it disabled, according to a study released Thursday. The work was carried out by the AI Energy Score project, led by Hugging Face research scientist Sasha Luccioni and Salesforce Inc. head of AI sustainability Boris Gamazaychikov.

The researchers evaluated 40 open, freely available AI models, including software from OpenAI, Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Microsoft Corp. Some models were found to have a much wider disparity in energy consumption, including one from Chinese upstart DeepSeek. A slimmed-down version of DeepSeek’s R1 model used just 50 watt hours to respond to the prompts when reasoning was turned off, or about as much power as is needed to run a 50 watt lightbulb for an hour. With the reasoning feature enabled, the same model required 7,626 watt hours to complete the tasks.

The soaring energy needs of AI have increasingly come under scrutiny. As tech companies race to build more and bigger data centers to support AI, industry watchers have raised concerns about straining power grids and raising energy costs for consumers. A Bloomberg investigation in September found that wholesale electricity prices rose as much as 267% over the past five years in areas near data centers. There are also environmental drawbacks, as Microsoft, Google and Amazon.com Inc. have previously acknowledged the data center buildout could complicate their long-term climate objectives

More than a year ago, OpenAI released its first reasoning model, called o1. Where its prior software replied almost instantly to queries, o1 spent more time computing an answer before responding. Many other AI companies have since released similar systems, with the goal of solving more complex multistep problems for fields like science, math and coding.

Though reasoning systems have quickly become the industry norm for carrying out more complicated tasks, there has been little research into their energy demands. Much of the increase in power consumption is due to reasoning models generating much more text when responding, the researchers said. 

The new report aims to better understand how AI energy needs are evolving, Luccioni said. She also hopes it helps people better understand that there are different types of AI models suited to different actions. Not every query requires tapping the most computationally intensive AI reasoning systems.

“We should be smarter about the way that we use AI,” Luccioni said. “Choosing the right model for the right task is important.”

To test the difference in power use, the researchers ran all the models on the same computer hardware. They used the same prompts for each, ranging from simple questions — such as asking which team won the Super Bowl in a particular year — to more complex math problems. They also used a software tool called CodeCarbon to track how much energy was being consumed in real time.

The results varied considerably. The researchers found one of Microsoft’s Phi 4 reasoning models used 9,462 watt hours with reasoning turned on, compared with about 18 watt hours with it off. OpenAI’s largest gpt-oss model, meanwhile, had a less stark difference. It used 8,504 watt hours with reasoning on the most computationally intensive “high” setting and 5,313 watt hours with the setting turned down to “low.” 

OpenAI, Microsoft, Google and DeepSeek did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Google released internal research in August that estimated the median text prompt for its Gemini AI service used 0.24 watt-hours of energy, roughly equal to watching TV for less than nine seconds. Google said that figure was “substantially lower than many public estimates.” 

Much of the discussion about AI power consumption has focused on large-scale facilities set up to train artificial intelligence systems. Increasingly, however, tech firms are shifting more resources to inference, or the process of running AI systems after they’ve been trained. The push toward reasoning models is a big piece of that as these systems are more reliant on inference.

Recently, some tech leaders have acknowledged that AI’s power draw needs to be reckoned with. Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella said the industry must earn the “social permission to consume energy” for AI data centers in a November interview. To do that, he argued tech must use AI to do good and foster broad economic growth.



Source link

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © Miami Select.