Abortion | Caribbean Health News

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Explaining the decision to cancel some mRNA vaccine funding, a priority for vaccine critics, Kennedy falsely claimed that the technology is ineffective against respiratory illnesses. Researchers have been making headway into mRNA vaccines for maladies such as bird flu and even cancer, and the Trump administration’s opposition to backing vaccine development weakens the prospects for future breakthroughs.
Trump’s insistence that big-name drugmakers voluntarily lower their prices underscores how few tools the presidency has to deliver results on this important pocketbook issue for many Americans. Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices took a hit under Trump’s big tax-and-spending law, which included two provisions advocated by the pharmaceutical industry that would delay or exclude some expensive drugs from the dealmaking process.
A year after Trump promised on the campaign trail to secure coverage of in vitro fertilization, the White House reportedly is not planning to compel insurers to pay for those pricey reproductive services — a change that would require an act of Congress and could raise costs overall.
And with Congress back home for its August recess and a late September deadline looming, the annual government funding process is in progress — but unlikely to resolve quickly or cleanly. Senate appropriators are further along in their work than usual, but the House of Representatives has yet to release its version, which is expected to cut deeper and hit social issues like abortion harder.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too:

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “New Medicaid Federal Work Requirements Mean Less Leeway for States,” by Katheryn Houghton and Bram Sable-Smith.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Slate’s “Confessions of a Welfare Queen,” by Maria Kefalas.

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “Sweden’s Push for Smokeless Products Leads Some To Wonder About Risks,” by Sandhya Raman.

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “‘Hot Wasps’ Found at Nuclear Facility in South Carolina,” by Emily Anthes.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

The Washington Post’s “How RFK Jr.’s mRNA Crackdown Affects Vaccinemaking and Future Pandemics,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Lauren Weber.
The AP’s “Fact Focus: Trump Says He’s Cut Drug Prices By Up to 1,500%. That’s Not Possible,” by Melissa Goldin.
The Washington Post’s “Medicare, Medicaid Plan To Experiment with Covering Weight Loss Drugs,” by Paige Winfield Cunningham.
The Washington Post’s “White House Has No Plan To Mandate IVF Care, Despite Campaign Pledge,” by Riley Beggin and Jeff Stein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Kennedy Cancels Vaccine Funding

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a senior editor for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. Here we go.

Today, we’re joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hey, everybody.

Huetteman: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Huetteman: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Huetteman: It’s August, and here in the nation’s capital that means Congress has flown the coop, and a lot of the federal city has gone with them. No interview this week. And you may be wondering why you’re hearing my voice instead of the incomparable Julie Rovner. Julie’s out this week having surgery to repair her broken wrist. Good news: She’s on the mend and she’ll be back in your podcast feed very soon. Get well soon, Julie. Let’s get to the news.

On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that the secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has canceled almost $500 million in federal grants and contracts to develop mRNA vaccines. That technology, of course, was responsible for the first covid vaccines, and researchers have been working on new ways to use mRNA, including against bird flu and even cancer. But in explaining his decision, Kennedy made false claims about mRNA vaccines, including that they do not protect against respiratory illnesses. Kennedy’s opposition to the covid vaccine, in particular, is well-documented. But before becoming health secretary, he advocated for federal officials to revoke approval for mRNA-based covid shots.

Sarah, you’re our pharmaceutical industry expert. What will this mean for vaccine development? Without this government funding, can that research continue?

Karlin-Smith: I think people are really concerned, particularly about the speed of vaccine development for pandemic situations. That’s a classic market failure in that companies aren’t that incentivized to work on developing products for hypothetical situations that may never come to pass, but we obviously want to be prepared for strains of the flu that can be particularly harmful and stuff. So I think that’s where people are really concerned.

I think, in general, this is just another mark in some of the vaccine actions that have taken place since this administration took over that makes people a little more nervous about just investing in the vaccine field, whether it’s mRNA or vaccines in general. FDA has made some unusual decisions around the indications for covid vaccines moving forward. The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] whole [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] has changed. So I do think there’s broader concern beyond the mRNA vaccines and our need to have this technology to really prepare for a pandemic about how confident industry will be in the places they normally would invest money on their own.

Huetteman: Lauren, you had a story yesterday about how Kennedy’s decision is intensifying concerns about our ability to fight future pandemics. Can you tell us what you’re hearing from public health experts?

Weber: Yeah. We spoke to a number of public health experts and vaccine experts, mRNA experts, who said, Look, this is the technology that you want to be spry, to be able to alter something, to fight potentially a bird flu. It’s also used in revolutionary ways to fight maybe even cancer here in the future. There’s a lot of fear about how this could have a chilling effect, as Sarah was pointing out, on the development pipeline and what that means in a pandemic situation.

I do think it’s important to note that just this morning, Trump was asked about this and said he was going to have a meeting on it at noon. Not sure exactly what that means, but potentially that could be something. Robert Malone, who’s an ACIP member, sent out an email trying to rally MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] supporters to make sure that they backed up Kennedy’s decision.

I think it’s also important to take a step back and look at Kennedy’s past remarks on mRNA, as you alluded to. This is a man who falsely called the covid vaccine “the deadliest ever made.” He’s described it as a poison in the past. Some anti-vaccine factions of MAHA have really been pushing to try and limit access to mRNA technology. You’ve seen this also in some Republican and far-right states, that are more right. You’ve seen some legislation suggested to remove access to mRNA technology. There’s a big question among some of the folks we talked to on if this is a bit of a signal to the base.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, ironically, the mRNA vaccines was probably the biggest success of the Trump administration’s first term in office. He was instrumental in spearheading the fast development of the vaccines for covid.

Huetteman: Right, Operation Warp Speed. Interesting how far we’ve come. To be clear, this isn’t all of the government’s mRNA contracts, right? This is just a piece of the research funding?

Karlin-Smith: This is a piece of it coming through BARDA [the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], which is particularly designed to help fill those market gaps in pandemic preparedness, but they’ve also cut other mRNA vaccine contracts previously in this administration, including a big one around bird flu, which people are concerned about right now. I’ve even seen some media reports where people, researchers in the cancer but mRNA space, were concerned about grants just being flagged just because they had the terminology. It’s not everything, but I think there’s certainly fears that this is just a step in a bigger process that is problematic.

Huetteman: Absolutely. We’ll be keeping an eye on that. And vaccine contracts aren’t the only thing that President Trump’s team is undoing this week. Under a new federal rule, VA hospitals would no longer be able to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health endangerment. You may remember that the Biden administration introduced that policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2022, after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. The policy has allowed veterans and their relatives to obtain abortion services even while they are stationed in states with restrictions.

Meanwhile, lots of news to get to this week. In prescription drug news, late last week, President Donald Trump sent letters to more than a dozen drugmakers insisting that they drop their prices within 60 days. Specifically, the president demanded that pharmaceutical companies offer many American patients the same prices that drugmakers charge abroad. Over the weekend, Trump told reporters that his administration is dramatically lowering drug prices, “up to 1,500%,” he said — which, well, I think that technically means the drugmaker would pay you.

Anyway, Trump told drugmakers that if they don’t lower drug prices, “We will deploy every tool in our arsenal.” What can the president do to force drugmakers to comply?

Karlin-Smith: I think, in some ways, he doesn’t have as many tools in the toolbox as he probably would like to think. At least, not ones that are making the industry particularly fearful right now. He doesn’t have the power to just issue a regulation saying, “The Medicare-Medicaid reimbursement rates are tied to the rates countries are paying abroad.” That would have to be through legislation. And I think there are reasons that both Republicans and Democrats don’t really like this most-favored-nation approach to drug pricing. There is some sort of limited authority for them to do a demonstration project through CMS’ [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’] Medicare-Medicaid Innovation Center. They could come up with a test of this in some kind of limited area. They tried to start implementing that [in] his last term and they got scuttled by lawsuits, so we’ll see if they have a way to avoid that problem this time.

But the ironic thing is that when the administration issued this executive order in May calling for this most-favored-nation pricing, he set this 30-day-ish deadline of saying, OK, we’ll tell you what prices we want, you guys lower them. If not, we’re going to do rulemaking. One thing that came up when he issued this letter, these letters on Friday, giving industry another 60 days is, Well, why are they not just going through with some kind of rulemaking or next steps? It almost seemed to some people like almost a more muted threat because they haven’t done the follow-through yet or come up with what the follow-through is here.

Huetteman: Now, where is the Medicare’s drug negotiation ability in this equation? Why isn’t the president doing more to leverage Medicare’s power to negotiate at this point?

Weber: Well, that’s really interesting because in the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” there were two provisions that a lot of people missed that limited the ability to negotiate on some key drugs, which has been estimated to likely cost the American taxpayer and the government billions of dollars over the next couple years.

Huetteman: Yeah, the CBO says that those changes will cost Medicare at least $5 billion in missed savings over 10 years.

Weber: Yes, that’s what’s called effective lobbying. Essentially, what happened is some pharma companies were able to tuck in provisions that key drugs, I think it was Keytruda, I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing that right, or Keytruda, which is used to treat cancer, it’s a drug by Merck. It had $17.9 billion in U.S. sales in 2024. That’s the kind of drug that they won’t be able to negotiate prices on for a bit.

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s right. Of course, that also means that Medicare patients will be subject to paying their percentage of those higher prices as well. On top of talking about this CBO score there, we’re talking about drug prices that real people are paying for their expensive cancer drugs right now. I guess I’m curious why Trump isn’t using the negotiation process in order to lower those drug prices?

Raman: I would add that something that makes this more difficult is that Trump has been very back-and-forth about a lot of his opinions on different things that he’s going to do throughout the last several months in this process. Even if you look at something like how we would deal with tariffs on the pharmaceutical industry, we’ve been a little bit all over the place. I think even if he’s not demonstrating the clear idea of which way he’d want to go, it makes it a little bit harder for the regulators, whether it would be in Congress or through the FDA, to do anything, given that he’s been changing a lot what he’s hinting at wanting to do.

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s right. Actually, Sarah, you brought up the CMS innovation option. There’s a story out about this this week. The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is considering using that center to do a pilot project to expand access to GLP-1 drugs for weight loss purposes by allowing state Medicaid and Medicare Part D plans to cover them.

Now, insurance premiums are slated to go way up next year. If I’m not mistaken, the cost of covering GLP-1 drugs is one reason that insurers have cited for those premium hikes. If this happens, can we expect that the cost of those drugs would strain state and federal budgets?

Karlin-Smith: Actually, one I guess positive thing is that some GLP-1 drugs are slated to be subject to negotiation through the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] program next year, so that there’s maybe positive news around the prices of those going down. Again, that’s obviously only for Medicare. But the problem on the back end is that, based on law, Medicare is not allowed in Part D to cover drugs for weight loss.

The Biden administration had tried through rulemaking to make an argument that weight loss drugs and drugs that treat obesity are two different things, hearkening back to — when that law was written we really didn’t understand obesity as a disease process and all the health problems it has on your body. We thought of weight loss as more of a cosmetic thing. The Trump administration actually pulled that rule, so this would be a much more small step in the direction of trying to get coverage. The report says it would be a “voluntary demo.”

The biggest question in my mind, which is again, knowing that these drugs, even with cheaper prices, would likely raise costs, is what is the incentive for health plans to voluntarily want to participate in this? What would the government have to do to incentivize this? Without some sort of push there for states and for Medicare Part D plans, I’m not sure the private plans are just going to pick up these products given the amount of people that would qualify for them. I think we need a lot more details from the Trump administration to know if they can actually make this feasible.

Weber: I just find this to be such a fascinating move considering [CMS Administrator Mehmet] Oz and Kennedy have such different opinions about weight loss drugs, as does MAHA as a whole. We at The Washington Post had reported previously that Oz does have financial ties to Ozempic through his show — they had to run a sponsored ad to some extent — and also through other means. It’s fascinating to see that clearly this is going forward, despite Kennedy having said repeatedly, often, constantly that he does not want to pay for these drugs, that he thinks other interventions, healthy diet and lifestyle, should be implemented. Which Oz has also really promoted as well. So fascinating to see how this experiment plays out. I agree with Sarah; I’m not sure where the incentives are, considering the cost that this will be to see it play out.

Huetteman: And one year after Trump promised coverage for in vitro fertilization services on the campaign trail, The Washington Post reports that the White House does not plan to require health insurers to cover IVF. The president had said that “if he were elected, the government would either pay for IVF services itself or require insurance companies to do it.”

What’s standing in the way here? What’s involved in making something an essential health benefit?

Raman: I think this whole process has been interesting. In February, Trump had put out an executive order directing his administration to come up ways to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for IVF. At the time, it’s pretty vague in terms of what that would entail. After the deadline passed, in part, I think a lot of people weren’t surprised because a) IVF is very expensive. And b) I think there are a lot of complicated nuances to some of his base and whether or not they fully support IVF. We had a lot of this last year, with people saying that they support it, but then also some of the folks that are more pro-life have some stipulations about not wanting embryos destroyed. It just complicated that some of the people that were talking to him about some of the other abortion-related issues were not on board with all of the IVF things. I think that has played definitely a factor in what they’re going to do with this.

But it’s also a hard thing to do, to just make this something that — even with prescription drugs, reducing the costs of those is not simple. In order for them to make it an essential health benefit, I think, is also more complicated given the issues that we’ve been having with preventative care, and just the concerns about the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] getting removed and what that’ll do to different things that are covered. It’s complicated and I wouldn’t really see this changing on IVF in the near future, at least from the executive level.

Karlin-Smith: It needs to go through Congress to be an essential health benefit. I think there’s a theme in some of the topics we’re coming up to today where Trump is clearly coming up to the limits of his bully power and his threats of negotiation. I think Martin Makary, the head of the FDA, said, “You get more bees with honey.” Well, unfortunately, sometimes it’s just not enough to attract these industries to make major changes.

Yes, they’ve gotten some sort of minor concessions, I think. I know they would like to think they’re transformative, but I think a lot of what they’ve gotten voluntarily is pretty minor, in terms of both health impact, and also how much it harms industry in terms of, like, food dyes. Or even the insurance companies saying, Oh, sure, we’ll do better on not going crazy on prior authorization.

I think Trump now has to actually double-down and work with policymakers on rule writing, or work with Congress. It’s more complicated, especially again, as Sandhya said, IVF is something that’s complicated for his base to support.

Huetteman: That’s right. This all came out of the blowback about how far towards banning abortion the country was going to go under Trump. This was a way to say, We’re preserving some parts of the reproductive health that are really important to people in our base, right?

Raman: Yet even when Congress has tried to look at any of the IVF legislation in the past, it’s fallen on party lines. There have been ones that have been more messaging on either side. I think the closest we’ve gotten is that, on the defense side, trying to consider measures there for folks with Tricare, but it’s difficult to get folks on board with things like this through Congress.

Huetteman: Well, speaking of Congress, Congress has left the building. August recess has begun and lawmakers are back home. Say, how is that government funding coming along. Sandhya?

Raman: I think we’re in a similar place to many years in that it’s August, they’re out. We need government funding by the end of September, and we’re nowhere close to getting that. I would say on the plus side, the Senate is further along than they usually are. Before they left, they did mark up the Labor, HHS, Education funding bill, and that was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It included some money that would be a boost for NIH [the National Institutes of Health], which I know was a big concern for a lot of folks given what was in the White House proposal. It maintains funding for some of the programs that would be cut under the White House, things like Title X, Ryan White HIV. It also has a little bit of a pushback on making sure that the agencies continue the staffing to keep up some of their statutory duties.

But again, it’s just the Senate. The House has not put out their bill. I would expect theirs to be a bit more conservative, given that the head of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate is Susan Collins, who’s been a little bit more moderate. The House is expected to release theirs and mark up theirs right after they get back. They meant to do it before recess but got pushed back because of reconciliation and that changing their schedule.

It depends what they say in theirs and how much difference there is. I would expect there to be a lot of differences. It seems like we’re headed toward the usual of at least some sort of temporary spending to kick it down the line. Whether or not that ends up being a year again, like we did this year, or a short-term thing, we’re not sure yet. It depends on where we are in September.

Huetteman: Right. And possibly preceded by a lot of fighting over social issues that get thrown into the health bill, and fights over the actual funding levels, if I had to guess, based on how House lawmakers have been talking about it so far.

Raman: Oh, no. I think just the fact that we had such a big rescissions debate this year and the fact that we might do that again, it has definitely left a sour taste for a lot of Democrats who are worried that if whatever they vote for here might just get clawed back later on down the line. That’ll be another thorn in it.

Huetteman: Awesome. Well, thanks for that take. That’s this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credits segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Lauren, why don’t you go first this week?

Weber: I have a doozy of a story from The New York Times titled “‘Hot Wasps’ Found at Nuclear Facility in South Carolina,” by Emily Anthes. Yeah, it’s the stuff of nightmares. It’s all about how wasps became radioactive — four wasps’ nests near a South Carolina nuclear facility.

Huetteman: Yikes.

Weber: If this gave you bad dreams, it definitely did for me. Essentially, what some of the researchers have posited is that wasps could have burrowed in some sort of bad wood or wood that was contaminated or other parts of the area that are contaminated. But this idea that it sounds like something out of Chernobyl, or something like that. But this idea that in the U.S., you could have a nuclear facility that is potentially transforming some of the near-wildlife is concerning in terms of cleanup efforts, and also concerning in terms of contamination control. Clearly, there’s more that needs to be dug into there. Hopefully everyone sleeps after hearing about this.

Huetteman: Woof, yeah. I might need to take an Ambien tonight. Sandhya, how about you go next?

Raman: My extra credit is from me in Roll Call. It’s my last dispatch from my reporting trip in Sweden earlier this year. And it’s called “Sweden’s Push for Smokeless Products Leads Some To Wonder About Risks.” It looks a little bit at some of the public health impacts as Sweden has really tried to reduce their smoking rate to become smoke-free. The U.S. is also at a low from smoking. Some of the things that public health experts are thinking about as people shift to other products and how they’re able to message to the remaining smokers that are not willing to give that up still.

Huetteman: Awesome. Thanks for telling us about your work there. And Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a story from Slate, “Confessions of a Welfare Queen: I Study Poverty for a Living, and I Never Thought I’d Need Medicaid. Then My Child Was Diagnosed With a Terminal Illness,” by Maria Kefalas. It’s a personal story from a mother whose family needed Medicaid when their young child was diagnosed with an illness that was going to severely require intense medical care and limit her lifespan. They were able to take advantage of what are known as “Katie Beckett waivers” that were instituted by Ronald Reagan to allow states to voluntarily allow higher income requirements so that people could get Medicaid and care for their children at home. The original girl it was named for was otherwise basically going to be stuck living her life, and she lived until 34, in a hospital.

The purpose of the story is really to point out that now that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” has passed and there are $1 trillion in spending cuts to Medicaid, that these are some of the sorts of people and programs, because it is not a mandatory program, that may unfortunately be on the first for the chopping block. I think the piece does a good job of pointing out, while there’s been a lot of rhetoric around the people who are going to get hurt by this are people that are not working or somehow abusing the system, and the mother does a pretty good job of talking about how both she and her husband continue to work. Most of the families that need this program, to the extent they can, want to keep working. You just get a really human picture of the type of people that are at risk of losing services.

Huetteman: Yeah, for sure. It’s a really illuminating story. Thanks for talking about it. My extra credit this week is from my colleagues here at KFF Health News. The headline is “New Medicaid Federal Work Requirements Mean Less Leeway for States.” It’s by Katheryn Houghton and Bram Sable-Smith.

They report that at least 14 states are in progress designing their own work requirement programs. But now, with the passage of Trump’s law last month, which institutes federal work requirements, those states must make sure that their programs meet federal standards. In some cases, the states are actually going even further than federal requirements, my colleagues report. For instance, Arizona state law would institute a five-year lifetime limit on Medicaid coverage for “able-bodied adults.”

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks as always to our producer-engineer, Francis Ying, and to Stephanie Stapleton, our editor this week. If you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on LinkedIn. Where are you guys these days? Sandhya?

Raman: I’m on X and Bluesky @SandhyaWrites.

Huetteman: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: A little bit of everywhere, but X, Bluesky, LinkedIn @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Huetteman: And Lauren?

Weber: I’m at X and Bluesky @laurenweberhp. Yes, the HP is for “health policy.”

Huetteman: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

6 days 3 hours ago

Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, Abortion, Cancer, CMS, Drug Costs, FDA, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Podcasts, Prescription Drugs, reproductive health, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Veterans' Health, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Here Come the ACA Premium Hikes

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KFF Health News’ weekly health policy news podcast, “What the Health?” A noted expert on health policy issues, Julie is the author of the critically praised reference book “Health Care Politics and Policy A to Z,” now in its third edition.

Much of the hubbub in health care this year has been focused on Medicaid, which faces dramatically reduced federal funding as the result of the huge budget bill signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. But now the attention is turning to the Affordable Care Act, which is facing some big changes that could cost many consumers their health coverage as soon as 2026.

Meanwhile, changes to immigration policy under Trump could have an outsize impact on the nation’s health care system, both by exacerbating shortages of health workers and by eliminating insurance coverage that helps keep some hospitals and clinics afloat.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Julie Appleby of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Julie Appleby
KFF Health News

@julie_appleby

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Many Americans can expect their health insurance premiums to rise next year, but those rate hikes could be even bigger for the millions who rely on ACA health plans. To afford such plans, most consumers rely on enhanced federal government subsidies, which are set to expire — and GOP lawmakers seem loath to extend them, even though many of their constituents could lose their insurance as a result.
Congress included a $50 billion fund for rural health care in Trump’s new law, aiming to cushion the blow of Medicaid cuts. But the fund is expected to fall short, especially as many people lose their health insurance and clinics, hospitals, and health systems are left to cover their bills.
Abortion opponents continue to claim the abortion pill mifepristone is unsafe, more recently by citing a problematic analysis — and some lawmakers are using it to pressure federal officials to take another look at the drug’s approval. Meanwhile, many Planned Parenthood clinics are bracing for an end to federal funding, stripping money not only from busy clinics where abortion is legal but also from clinics that provide only contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and other non-abortion care in states where the procedure is banned.
And as more states implement laws enabling doctors to opt out of treatments that violate their morals, a pregnant woman in Tennessee says her doctor refused to provide prenatal care, because she is unmarried.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jonathan Oberlander, a Medicare historian and University of North Carolina health policy professor, to mark Medicare’s 60th anniversary later this month.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife with Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules,” by Katheryn Houghton.

Julie Appleby: NPR’s “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That,” by Rachel Treisman.

Jessie Hellmann: Roll Call’s “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel,” by Ariel Cohen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals Are Ultraprocessed,” by Amanda Seitz and Jonel Aleccia.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

KFF Health News’ “Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums,” by Julie Appleby.
The Congressional Budget Office’s “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.”
The CBO’s “How Changes to Funding for the NIH and Changes in the FDA’s Review Times Would Affect the Development of New Drugs.”
KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Public Views on Recent Tax and Budget Legislation,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
The Washington Post’s “Digging Into the Math of a Study Attacking the Safety of the Abortion Pill,” by Glenn Kessler.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Here Come the ACA Premium Hikes

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Julie Appleby.

Julie Appleby: Hi.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the first of a two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which is July 30. Medicare historian and University of North Carolina professor Jonathan Oberlander takes us on a brief tour of the history of Medicare. Next week we’ll do the same with Medicaid. But first, this week’s news.

So, we have talked a lot about the changes to Medicaid as a result of the Trump tax and spending law, but there are big changes coming to the Affordable Care Act, too, which is why I have asked my colleague Julie Appleby to join us this week. Julie, what can people who buy insurance from the ACA marketplaces expect for 2026?

Appleby: Well, there’s a lot of changes. Let’s talk about premiums first, OK? So there’s a couple of things going on with premiums. It’s kind of a double whammy. So, on the one hand, insurers are asking for higher premiums next year to cover different things. So in the summer they put out their rates for the following year. So there’s been a lot of uncertainty this year, so that’s playing into it as well. But what they’re asking for is some money for rising medical and labor costs, the usual culprits, drug costs going up, that kind of thing. But they’re tacking on some extra percentages to deal with some of the policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. And one key factor is the uncertainty over whether Congress is going to extend those more generous covid-era tax subsidies. So we’re looking at premiums going up, and the ask right now, what they’re asking for, the median ask, is 15%, which is a lot higher. Last year when KFF did the same survey, it was 7%. So we’re getting premium increase requests of a fairly substantial amount. In fact, they say it’s about the highest in five years.

And then on top of that, it’s still not clear what’s going to happen with those more generous subsidies. And if the more generous subsidies go away, if Congress does not reinstate them, there’ll be costs from that, and people could be paying maybe 75% more than they’re paying this year. And we could talk some more about that. But that’s kind of the double whammy we’re looking at, rising premiums and the potential that these more generous subsidies won’t be extended by Congress.

Rovner: So there were some things that were specifically in that tax and spending bill that drive up premiums for the ACA, right? Besides not extending the additional subsidies.

Appleby: Well, that’s the biggest piece of it, but yes. They’re tacking on about 4% of that 15% medium increase is related to the uncertainty. Well, they’re assuming that the tax credits will expire. It was not in the bill. Congress could still act. They have until the end of the year. They could extend those subsidies. So that’s about 4%. But one of the things that people haven’t really been talking about are tariffs, and some of the insurers are asking for 3% because they expect drug costs to go up. So there’s those things that are going on. And then there’s just sort of the uncertainty going forward for insurers about what’s going to happen with enrollment as a result of both these premium increases, and then looking a little bit further down the line, there are some changes in the tax and spending bill and some rules that are going to substantially reduce enrollment.

So insurers are worried that the people who are going to sign up for coverage are the ones who are most motivated, and those are probably going to be the people who have some health problems. And the folks who aren’t as motivated are going to look at the prices and maybe the additional red tape and will drop out and leave them with a sicker and more expensive pool to cover. So all of that is factoring in with these premium rate increases that they’re trying to put together. Now remember, a lot of these insurers put in these premium increase requests before they knew the outcome of the tax and spending legislation. They could still modify them.

Rovner: And Jessie, as Julie said, there’s still a chance that Republicans will change their minds on the increased subsidies and tack them onto something. And there’s a big bipartisan health bill on drug prices and other expiring programs that still could get done before the end of the year? Yes?

Hellmann: There have been discussions about a bipartisan health bill, though the main author of it, Sen. Bill Cassidy, himself even seems kind of skeptical. I talked to him this week, and he’s like, It might happen, it might not. But there are a bunch of other health extenders that Congress will need to get to, like telehealth, some Medicare and Medicaid payment things. So there’s definitely something to attach it to. Republicans are not friendly to the ACA. As you mentioned, they made a bunch of changes to it in this tax and spending bill. So I think the people I talk to think it’s a long shot that they’re going to pass billions of dollars in a subsidy extension in this bill. Though there are Republicans who do care about this issue, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She’s kind of been sounding the alarm on this. She thinks that Congress needs to do something to mitigate which could be very big premium increases for people. So there is some pressure there, but it doesn’t seem like the people who should be thinking about this right now have started thinking about it much yet.

Rovner: One presumes they’ll start thinking about it when they start seeing these actual premium increases. I sound like a broken record, but we keep saying, the people who these premium increases are going to hit the hardest are voters in red states.

Appleby: Last year, in 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts and 76% were in states won by President [Donald] Trump. So I’ve got to think they’re thinking about it. When I did the reporting on this story, I spoke with a couple of folks, and they said that some people in Congress are looking at maybe they can mess around or maybe they can do something with the subsidies that’s not keeping them as they are but might deal with a piece of it. For example, there is something called a subsidy cliff. So if you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, you used to not get any subsidies. That would come back if they don’t extend this. And so 400% of the federal poverty level, you make a dollar more, you don’t get a subsidy. So this year — and this year will be the numbers that next year’s rates are based on — $62,600 for one person is 400% of the federal poverty level and $84,600 for a couple. So people are going to start getting, if they don’t extend the tax credits, they’re going to start getting notification about how much they owe for premiums next year.

And this is going to be one of the first effects that people are going to see from all these changes in Washington, the tax and spending bill and the other things, when they get these premiums for January. And if they make even a dollar over that, they’re not going to get any subsidy at all. So what I’m told by some of my sources is that maybe they’re thinking about raising that cliff, maybe keeping the cliff but maybe moving it up a little bit to 500% or 600%. But it’s totally unclear. Like you all are saying, nothing may happen. We may go through Dec. 31 and nothing happens, but I’m hearing that they are maybe talking a little bit about that.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. And there’s a couple interesting dynamics that I think could influence the politics of this and what Congress feels motivated to do or not do. So, like Julie was saying, this would hit in January. And a lot of the stuff in the bill they just passed is designed to not hit until the midterms, but this would hit before the midterms. And so that’s got to be on their minds. And then, like you were saying, not only would this hit Republican voters the hardest, but a reason that’s more true today than it was the last time they took a round at the Affordable Care Act in 2017 is because all of these red states have expanded since then. You have a lot more enrollment, even in states that didn’t expand, and so, like we mentioned, are going to have a lot of Republican voters who get hit and have this sticker shock. And the party in power in Congress and the White House could be to blame.

Rovner: Yeah. One of the things in 2017, there were, what, 12 million people who were buying coverage on the marketplaces. And now there’s 24 million people who are buying coverage on the marketplaces. So it’s a lot more people, just plain, in addition to a lot more people who are likely in some of these red states. So we will follow this closely.

Meanwhile, the fallout continues as people find out more about the new tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office is out with its final numbers on the bill as enacted. It’s now estimating that 10 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of the new law. That’s down from the 11.8 million estimate of the original Senate bill. That’s because the parliamentarian bounced the provisions that would’ve punished states using their own money to cover undocumented people. That was not allowed to be considered under the reconciliation procedure.

We also have a brand-new poll from my colleagues here at KFF that find that more people know about the law than did before it passed, and it’s still unpopular. We’ll post a link to those numbers so you can see just how unpopular it is. As we’ve discussed, lots of Republican senators and House members expressed concern about the impact the Medicaid cuts could have on rural hospitals in particular. So much so that a $50 billion fund was eventually added to the bill to offset roughly $155 billion in rural Medicaid cuts. Even more confusing, that $50 billion is likely to be distributed before some of the cuts begin — as you were just saying, Alice — and not necessarily to just rural areas. So is this $50 billion fund really just a big lobbying bonanza?

Ollstein: Well, it’s certainly designed to function as softening the blow. But these are different things. The hospital could be propped up and stay open, but if no one has Medicaid to go there, that’s still a problem. And the money is sort of acknowledging that a bunch of people are going to lose their coverage, because it’s meant to give the hospital something to use for uncompensated care for people who have no coverage and come to the ER. But that still means that people who lost their insurance because of other provisions in the bill, they might not be going to their preventive care appointments that would avoid them having to go to the emergency room in the first place, which costs all of us more in the long run. So there’s a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of this.

Rovner: Jessie, are you seeing the lobbying already begin for who’s going to get this $50 billion?

Hellmann: Yeah, because the legislation leaves a lot of how the money will be handed out to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, and so that’s something that they’re going to start thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the provider relief fund that was set up during covid. And that didn’t go very well. There were lots of complaints that providers were getting the funding that didn’t need the funding, and the small safety net hospitals weren’t getting enough of the funding. So I’m wondering if they’re going to revisit how that went and try to learn any lessons from it. And then at the same time, like Alice said, this just isn’t a lot of money. It’s not going to offset some of the pain to rural providers that the bill has caused.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another piece that we will be watching. Meanwhile, the cuts to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] food benefits conflict with another stated goal of this administration, improving health by getting people to eat healthier food. Except, as we know, healthier food is often more expensive. Other than not letting people buy soda and candy with their SNAP cards, has the administration tried to address this contradiction at all? I’m seeing a lot of blank stares. I’m assuming that the answer to that is no. We’re hearing so much about food and unhealthy food, and we’re getting rid of seed oils and we’re getting rid of dyes, but at the same time, it’s the biggest cut ever to nutrition assistance, and yet nobody’s really talking about it, right?

Appleby: Sounds like, I think, the states are really worried, obviously, because they’re going to have to make up the difference if they can. And so what other programs are they going to cut? So I’m sure they are talking with folks in Congress, but I don’t know how much leverage they’re going to have. Do you guys have any idea whether the states, is there anything else that they can do to try to get some of this funding?

Rovner: There’s no — I’ve seen no indication. As we said, there’s already some buyer’s remorse on the health side. Last week we talked about [Sen.] Josh Hawley introducing legislation to restore some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about restoring any of these nutrition assistance cuts or any of the other cuts, right?

Appleby: Right. And from what I’ve read, the SNAP cuts won’t fully take effect until after the midterm elections. So maybe we’re just not hearing about it as much because it hasn’t really hit home yet. People are still trying to figure out: What does all this mean?

Rovner: Well, one thing that has hit home yet, I’ve wanted for a while to highlight what some of the changes to immigration policy are going to mean for health care. It’s not just ending legal status for people who came and have lived in the U.S. legally for years, or reinterpreting, again, the 1996 welfare law to declare ineligible for Medicaid and other programs many legal immigrants who are not yet permanent residents but who have been getting benefits because they had been made legally eligible for them by Congress and the president. One of the big changes to policy came to light last week when it was revealed that immigration officials are now being given access to Medicaid enrollment information, including people’s physical addresses. Why is this such a big deal? Alice, you’ve been following this whole immigration and health care issue, right?

Ollstein: Yes. Experts are warning that this is very dangerous from a public health perspective. If you deter people from physically wanting to visit a clinic or a doctor out of fear of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement there, which we’ve already seen — we’ve already seen ICE try to barge into hospitals and seize people. And so fear of that is keeping people away from their appointments. That makes it harder to manage chronic illnesses. That makes it harder to manage infectious diseases, which obviously impacts the whole community and the whole society. We all bear those costs. We live in an interconnected world. What impacts part of the population impacts the rest of the population.

And so what you mentioned about the Medicaid data, as well, deters people who are perfectly eligible, who are not undocumented, who have legal status, who are eligible for Medicaid. It deters them from enrolling, which again deters people from using that health care and keeping their conditions in check. And so there’s a lot of concern about how this could play out and how long the effect could last, because there are studies showing that policies from the first Trump administration were still deterring immigrants from enrolling even after they were lifted by the Biden administration.

Rovner: And we should point out that this whole address thing is a big issue because, as you say, there, maybe, there are a lot of families where there are people who live there who are perfectly, as you say, perfectly eligible. You’re not eligible for Medicaid if you’re not here legally. But they may live in a family, in a household with people who are not here with documentation, and they’re afraid now that if they have their addresses, that ICE is going to come knocking at their door to get, if not them, then their relatives or people who are staying with them.

Appleby: Yeah. And I think it’s also affecting employment. So nursing homes are already saying that they’re losing some people who are losing their protected status or this or that. So they’re losing employees. Some of them are reporting, from what I’ve read, that they are getting fewer applicants for jobs. This is going to make it even tougher. Many of them already have staffing issues, and the nursing home industry has said, Hey, how come we’re not getting any special consideration? Like maybe some of the farmers or other places are supposedly getting, but I don’t know if that’s actually happening. But why aren’t they being considered and why are they losing some of their workers who are here under protected status, which they’re going to lose? And some of them may also be undocumented — I don’t know. But that’s just the nursing homes. Think of all the people around the country who need help in their homes, and maybe they’re taking care of elderly parents and they hire people, and some of those people may not be documented. And that’s a vast number of folks that we’re never going to hear about, but if they start losing their caregivers as well, I think that’s going to be a big impact as we go forward.

Rovner: And it’s also skilled health workers who are here on visas who are immigrants.

Appleby: Right.

Rovner: In rural areas in particular, doctors and nurses are usually people who have been recruited from other countries because there are not enough people or not health professionals living in those rural areas. The knock-on effect of this, I think, is bigger than anybody has really sort of looked at yet.

Ollstein: Absolutely. States have even been debating and in some cases passing legislation to make it easier for foreign medical workers to come practice here, making it so that they don’t have to redo their residency if they already did their residency somewhere abroad, things like that, because there’s such shortages right now, especially in primary care and maternal care and a lot of different areas.

Rovner: Yeah. This is another area that I think we’re only just beginning to see the impact of. Well, there is also news this week in Trump administration cuts that are not from the budget bill. In a report from the Congressional Budget Office that’s separate from the latest budget reconciliation estimate, analysts said that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration could reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. That would not only mean fewer new treatments and cures but also a hit to the economy. And apparently it doesn’t even take into account the uncertainty that’s making many researchers consider offers to decamp to Canada or Europe or other countries. There’s a real multiplier effect here on what’s a big part of U.S. innovation.

Hellmann: I’ve been talking to people on the Hill about this who traditionally have been big supporters of the NIH and authorizing and appropriating increases for the NIH every year. And they are still kind of playing a little coy. The White House is suggesting a budget cut at the NIH of 40%, which would be massive. It’s so massive that the CBO report was like: We cannot estimate the impact of this. We’re going to estimate a smaller hypothetical. Because they just can’t.

And so I think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the appropriations process. You do have senators who are more publicly concerned about it, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who obviously is on the Appropriations Committee. So we might see a situation where Congress ignores the budget request. That usually happens, but these are weird times. And so I think there are questions about, even if they do, if Congress does proceed as normal and appropriate the money that they typically do for NIH, what is the administration going to do with it? They’ve already signaled that they’re fine not spending money that has been appropriated by Congress. And so I think that there’s a big question about that.

Rovner: At some point, this has to come to a head. We’ve been — as I say, I feel like a broken record on this. We talk about it a lot, that this is money that’s been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president and that we keep hearing that people, particularly at NIH, are not being allowed, for one reason or another, to send out. This is technically illegal impoundment. And at some point it comes to a head. We know that Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management Budget, thinks that the anti-impoundment law is illegal and that he can just ignore it. And that’s a lot of what’s happening right now. I’m still surprised that it’s the end of July and Congress is going out for the August recess — and Jessie, I know you’re talking to people and they’re playing coy — that they haven’t jumped up and down yet. The NIH in particular has been such a bipartisanly supported entity. If you’ve ever been around the campus in Bethesda, all of the buildings are named after various appropriators of both parties. This is something that is really dear to Congress, and yet they are just basically sitting there holding their tongues. At some point, won’t it stop?

Hellmann: I think maybe they’re hoping to say something through whatever legislation that they come out with, whatever spending legislation. But, yeah, they’re not being very forceful about it. And I think people are obviously just very afraid of making the Trump administration angry. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said this, like she kind of fears the repercussions of making the president mad. And he’s on this spending-cut spree. So I definitely expected more anger, especially the bipartisan history of the NIH has lasted so long. It’s kind of a weird thing to see happen.

Rovner: Yeah. Of all the things that I didn’t expect to see happen this year, that has to be the thing that I most didn’t expect to see happen this year, which was basically an administration just stopping funding research and Congress basically sitting back and letting it happen. It is still sort of boggling to my mind. Well, we also learned this week about hospitals stopping gender-affirming care of all kinds for minors, under increasing pressure from the administration. And we’re not just talking about red states anymore. Children’s hospitals in California and here in Washington, D.C., have now announced they won’t be offering the care anymore. Wasn’t it just a few months ago when people were moving from red states to blue states to get their kids care? Now what are they going to be able to do?

Ollstein: I think a lot of what we’re seeing play out in the gender-affirming care fight, it reminds me of the abortion rights fight. There are a lot of themes about the formal health care system being very, very risk-averse. And so rather than test the limits of the law, rather than continuing to provide services while things are still pingponging back and forth in courts, which is the case, they’re saying, just out of caution, We’re just going to stop altogether. And that is cutting off a lot of families from care that they were relying on. And there’s a lot of concern about the physical and mental health impacts on — again, this is very small compared to the general population of trans kids — but it’s going to hit a lot of people. And yeah, like you said, this is happening in blue states as well. There’s sort of nowhere for them to go.

Rovner: Yeah. We’re going to see how this one also plays out. Well, turning to abortion, we talked last week about how a federal appeals court upheld a West Virginia law aimed at banning the abortion pill mifepristone. And I wondered why we weren’t hearing more from the drug industry about the dangers of state-by-state undermining of the FDA. And lo and behold, here come the drugmakers. In comments letters to the FDA, more than 50 biotech leaders and investors are urging the agency to disregard a controversial study from the anti-abortion think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center that officials are citing as a reason to reopen consideration of the drug’s approval. Alice, remind us what this study is and why people are so upset about it.

Ollstein: So it’s not a study, first of all. Even its supporters in the anti-abortion movement admitted, in private in a Zoom meeting that I obtained access to, that it is not a study. This is an analysis that they created. They are not disclosing the dataset that it is based on. It did not go through peer review. And so they are citing their own sort of white-paper analysis put out by an explicitly anti-abortion think tank to argue that abortion pills are more dangerous than previously known or that the FDA has previously acknowledged. There’s been a lot of fact checks and debunks of some of their main points that we’ve been through on this podcast also before. The Washington Post did an in-depth fact check if people want to look that up. But suffice it to say that that has not deterred members of Congress from citing this and to pressure the FDA.

And now you have the FDA sort of promising to do a review. If you look at the exact wording of what [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary said, I’m not sure. He said something like, Like we monitor the safety of all drugs, we’re going to blah, blah, blah. And so it’s unclear if there’s anything specific going on. But the threat that there could be, like you said, is really shaking up the drugmaking industry. And you’re hearing a lot of the same alarms that we heard from the pharmaceutical industry when this was before the Supreme Court, when they were afraid the Supreme Court would second-guess the FDA’s judgment and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone. And they’re saying, Look, if we can’t count on this being a process that just takes place based on the science and not politics and not courts coming in 25 years later and saying actually no, then why would we invest so much money in developing drugs if we can’t even count on the rules being fair and staying the same?

Rovner: Yeah. We will see how this goes. I was surprised, though. We know that that Texas case that the Supreme Court managed to not reach the point of, because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, is still alive elsewhere. But I didn’t realize that this other case was still sort of chugging along. So we’ll see when the Supreme Court gets another bite at it. Meanwhile, the fight over funding for Planned Parenthood — whose Medicaid eligibility, at least for one year, was canceled by the new budget law — continues in court. This week a judge in Massachusetts gave the group a partial win by blocking the defunding for some smaller clinics and those that don’t perform abortions, but that ruling replaced a more blanket delay on the defunding. So many clinics are now having their funding stopped while the court fight continues. Alice, what’s the impact here of these Planned Parenthood clinics closing down? It’s not just abortion that we’re talking about. In fact, it’s not even primarily abortion that we’re talking about.

Ollstein: Absolutely. So this is one, it’s set to hit a lot of clinics in states where abortion is legal. And so these are the clinics that are serving a lot of people traveling from red states. And so there’s already an issue with wait times, and this is set to make it worse. But that’s just for abortion. Like you said, this is also set to hit a bunch of clinics in states where abortion is illegal and where these clinics are only providing other services, like birth control, like STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing. And at the same time we’re having a lot of other funding frozen, and so this could really be tough for some of these areas where there aren’t a lot of providers, and especially there are not a lot of providers who accept Medicaid.

Rovner: Meanwhile, a number of states are passing conscience laws that let health professionals opt out of things like doing abortions or providing gender-affirming care if they violate their beliefs. Well, in Tennessee now we have a story of a pregnant woman who says her doctor refused to provide her with prenatal care, because she’s not married to her partner of 15 years. She said at a congressional town hall that her doctor said her marital status violated his Christian beliefs, and he’s apparently protected by the new Tennessee state law called the Medical Ethics Defense Act. I’ve heard of doctors refusing to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, but this is a new one to me, and I’ve been doing this for a very long time. Are these just unintended consequences of these things that maybe state lawmakers didn’t think a lot about? Or are they OK with doctors saying, We’re not going to provide you with prenatal care if you’re pregnant and not married?

Ollstein: So one, as we just said, we’re in a situation where there is such a shortage of providers and such a shortage of providers who accept certain coverage that being turned away by one place, you might not be able to get an appointment somewhere else, depending where you live. And so this isn’t just an issue of, Oh, well, just don’t go to that doctor who believes that. People have very limited choices in a lot of circumstances. But I—

Rovner: Apparently this woman in Tennessee said she’s having to go to Virginia to get her prenatal care.

Ollstein: Well, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This isn’t like people have tons of options. And also this is an example of a slippery slope, of if you allow people to be able to refuse service for this reason, for that reason, what else could happen? And some states have more legal protections for things like marital status, and some do not. And so it’s worth thinking through what could be sort of the next wave.

Rovner: Well, we’re certainly going to see what the outcome of this could be. Well, before we end our news segment this week, I want to give a shoutout to tennis legend Venus Williams, who at age 45 won a singles match at a professional tournament here in Washington this week and said in her post-match interview that she came back to playing because she needed the pro tour’s health insurance to take care of several chronic conditions that she has. So see, even rich athletes need their health insurance. All right. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare historian Jonathan Oberlander, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome Jonathan Oberlander to the podcast. He’s a professor of social medicine, professor of health policy and management, and adjunct professor of political science at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare. Jon, welcome to “What the Health?”

Jonathan Oberlander: Great to see you, Julie.

Rovner: So Medicare, to me at least, remains the greatest paradox in the paradox that is the U.S. health care system. It is at once both so popular and so untouchable that it’s considered the third rail of politics, yet at its core it’s a painfully out-of-date and meager benefit that nevertheless threatens to go bankrupt on a regular basis. How did we get here?

Oberlander: Wow. So let’s talk about the benefits for a minute. And I think one of the things we can say about Medicare in 2025 as we mark this 60th anniversary is it still bears the imprint of Medicare in 1965. And when Medicare was designed as a program — and the idea really dates back to the early 1950s — it was not seen as a comprehensive benefit. It was intended to pay for the most consequential costs of medical care, for acute care costs. And so when it was enacted in 1965, the benefits were incomplete. And the problem is, as you know very well, they haven’t been added to all that much. And here we have a population, and all of us know as we get older, we generally don’t get healthier. I wish it was true, but it’s not. Older persons deal with all kinds of complex medical issues and have a lot of medical needs, and yet Medicare’s benefits are very limited, so limited that actually a very small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries have only Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare plus something else. And that may be an individual private plan that they purchase called a Medigap plan, or maybe a declining number of people have retiree health insurance that supplements Medicare.

Some low-income Medicare beneficiaries have Medicaid as well as Medicare and they are dual-eligible. Some Medicare beneficiaries have extra benefits through the Medicare Advantage program, which I’m sure—

Rovner: We’ll get to.

Oberlander: —we’ll have a lot to say. So the bottom line, though, is Medicare has grown. It has, what, about 70 million Americans rely on Medicare. But the benefit package — with some intermittent exceptions that are significant, such as the addition of outpatient prescription drugs in 2006 — really has not kept pace.

Rovner: So let’s go back to the beginning. What was the problem that Medicare set out to solve?

Oberlander: Well, it was both a substantive problem and a political problem. The origins of Medicare are in the ashes, the failure, of the Truman administration proposals for national health insurance during the mid- and late 1940s. And after they had lost repeatedly, health reformers decided they needed a new strategy. So instead of national health insurance, what today we would call a single-payer, federal-government-run program for everybody, they trimmed their ambitions down to, initially, just hospital insurance, 60 days of hospital insurance for elderly Social Security beneficiaries. And that was it. And they thought if they just focused on older Americans, maybe they would tamp down the controversy and the opposition and the American Medical Association and charges of socialized medicine, all things that are really throwing a wrench into plans for national health insurance. It didn’t quite work out as they thought. It took about 14 years from the time Medicare was proposed to enact it. And there was a big, divisive, controversial debate about Medicare’s enactment. But it was fundamentally a solution to that political problem of, how do you enact government health insurance in the United States? You pick a more sympathetic population.

Now, there was a substantive problem, which was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, private health insurance was growing in the United States for Americans who are working-age, and that growth of employer-sponsored health insurance really left out retirees. They were expensive. Commercial insurers didn’t want to cover them. And the uninsured rate, if you can believe it, for people over age 65, before Medicare, was around 50%. Not 15 but five zero, 50%. And so here you had a population that had more medical needs, was more expensive, and they had less access to health insurance than younger people. And Medicare was created in part to end that disparity and give them access to reliable coverage.

Rovner: So as you mentioned, Medicare was initially just aimed at elderly Social Security recipients. What were some of the biggest benefit and population changes as the years went by?

Oberlander: So in terms of populations in 1972, Medicare added coverage for persons who have end-stage renal disease, so people who need dialysis no matter what the age. It’s a lifesaving technology. They can qualify for Medicare. It didn’t really make sense to add it to Medicare — it’s just it was there. So they added it to Medicare. And also a population we don’t talk nearly enough about, younger Americans with permanent disabilities who are recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance. For a couple of years they qualify for Medicare as well and are a very important part in the Medicare population. Beyond that, Medicare’s covered population has not really changed all that much since the beginning, which actually would be a great disappointment to the architects of Medicare, who thought the program would expand to eventually cover everybody.

In terms of benefits, the benefit package has been remarkably stable, for better and actually probably for worse, with the exception of, for example, the addition of outpatient prescription drug coverage, which came online in 2006, the addition of coverage for various preventive services such as mammography and cancer screenings. But Medicare still does not cover long-term stays in nursing homes. Many Americans think it does. They will be disappointed to find out it does not. Medicare does not cover, generally, hearing or vision or dental services. Traditional Medicare run by the government does not have a cap on the amount of money that beneficiaries can spend in a year on deductibles and copayments and so forth. So really its benefits remain quite limited.

Rovner: So Medicare is also the biggest payer in the nation’s health care system and for decades set the standard in how private insurance covered and paid for health care. So let’s talk about privatization. Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, is now more than half the program, both in terms of people and in terms of budget. Is this the future of Medicare? Or will we look back in many years and see it as kind of a temporary diversion?

Oberlander: I think it’s the present and probably the future. The future is always so hard to predict, Julie, because it’s unwritten. But this is really a shocking outcome historically, because what Medicare’s architects expected was that the program was going to expand government health insurance to all Americans, first with the older population, then adding children, then adding everybody. Did not turn out that way. The original aspiration was Medicare for all, through any incremental means. Instead, 60 years later, we don’t have Medicare for all, but Medicare is mostly privatized. It’s a hybrid program with a public and private component that increasingly is dominated by private insurance. And the fact that over half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in these private plans is a stunning development historically, by the way with lots of implications politically, because that’s an important new political force in Medicare that you have these large private plans and it’s changed Medicare politics.

I don’t think Medicare Advantage is going anywhere. I think the question is, how big is it going to get? And I’m not sure any of us know. It’s been on a growth trajectory for a long time. And the question is — given that all the studies show that Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, by the federal government, and it’s losing a lot of money on Medicare Advantage, and it’s never saved money — is there going to come a point where they actually clamp down? There’ve been some incremental efforts to try and restrain payments. Really haven’t had much effect. Are we actually going to get to a place where the federal government says: We need savings, yeah. This 22% extra that you’re getting, no, we can’t do that anymore. So I think it’s an open question about, how big is it going to get? Is it going to be two-thirds of the Medicare program, three-quarters of the Medicare program? And if so, then what is the future, turning the question on its head, of traditional Medicare if it’s that small? And that’s one of the great questions about Medicare in the next decade or two.

Rovner: Thank you so much.

Oberlander: Oh, thanks for having me. It was great to see you.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile devices. Julie, why don’t you go first this week?

Appleby: Yeah. I found this story on NPR quite interesting. It’s maybe something that a lot of us have thought about, but it just added a lot of numbers to the question of how many chemicals are in our beauty products — basically, the makeup we use, the lotions, our hairspray, the stuff that happens at the salon, that kind of thing. And it’s called “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That.” And it was written by Rachel Treisman. Basically it says that the average American adult uses about 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to about 168 chemicals, which can include things like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc. OK, so that’s interesting. But it also talks about how the European Union has banned more than 2,000 chemicals, basically, but the FDA puts limits on only about a dozen.

So this has caused four Democratic lawmakers to introduce a package of legislation, actually they’re calling the Safer Beauty Bill Package, and it’s four bills. And basically one of them would ban two entire classes of chemicals, phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. And it also calls for some other things as well, which they say hasn’t been done and needs to be looked at. So I just thought it was an interesting thing that pulled together a lot of data from various sources and talked about this package of bills and whether or not it might make a difference in terms of looking at some of these chemicals in the products we use all the time and requiring a little bit more transparency about that. It’s a step. I don’t know if it’s going to resolve everybody’s concerns about this, but I just thought it was an interesting little piece looking at that topic.

Rovner: It’s worth remembering that the FDA’s governing statute is actually called the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Appleby: That’s right.

Rovner: The cosmetics often gets very short shrift in that whole thing. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have a piece from The Associated Press. It’s called “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals are Ultraprocessed.” And so this really gets at something we’ve been talking about on the podcast, where the administration is really fixated on a few kind of superficial food health things like colored dyes in food and frying something in beef tallow instead of vegetable oil. But something fried in beef tallow is still unhealthy. Froot Loops without the color dye are still unhealthy. And these meals that he is promoting as a service for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees are unhealthy. So this article is about how they do have chemical additives, they are high in sodium and sugar and saturated fats, and so it’s not in sort of keeping with the overall MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] message. But in a way it kind of is.

Rovner: From the oops file. Jessie.

Hellmann: My extra credit is from my colleague Ariel Cohen at Roll Call. It’s called “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel.” She did a story about something that kind of, I think, flew under the radar this week. The Trump administration is starting to make good on its promise to look at SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], and the panel was very much full of skeptics of SSRIs who sought to undermine the confidence in using them while pregnant. And Marty Makary himself, FDA commissioner, claimed it could cause birth defects and other fetal harm. That was a statement that was echoed by many of the panelists. There was only one panelist who talked about the benefits of SSRIs in pregnant people who need them, the risks of postpartum depression to both the mom and the baby. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on, is it looks like they’re going to keep looking more at this and raising questions about SSRIs without having much of a nuanced conversation about it.

Rovner: Yeah. I did see something from ACOG, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this week pushing back very hard on the anti-SSRI-during-pregnancy push. So we’ll see how that one goes, too. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleague Katheryn Houghton, and it’s called “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife With Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules.” And it’s about something that didn’t really come up during the whole Medicaid debate, the fact that if Republicans really want people to go to work, well, then maybe they shouldn’t take away their health insurance if they get a small raise or a few extra hours. The subject of this story, only identified as James, technically makes about $50 a week too much to stay on Medicaid, but he otherwise can’t afford his six prescription medications and he can’t afford the care that he needs through even a subsidized Affordable Care Act plan, or his employer’s plan, either.

The point of the ACA was to make coverage seamless so that as you earn more, you can still afford coverage even if you’re not on Medicaid anymore. But obviously that isn’t happening for everyone. Quoting from the story: “‘I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,’ James said. ‘Those shouldn’t be the only two options.’” Yet for a lot of people they are. It’s not great, and it’s not something that’s currently being addressed by policymakers.

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging on social media these days? Jessie?

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on Twitter and Bluesky.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Julie.

Appleby: @julie_appleby on X.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

2 weeks 6 days ago

Courts, Elections, Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, Rural Health, States, The Health Law, Uninsured, Abortion, CBO, Children's Health, FDA, HHS, Hospitals, Immigrants, KFF, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', LGBTQ+ Health, NIH, Nursing Homes, Nutrition, Podcasts, Polls, Premiums, reproductive health, Subsidies, Transgender Health, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Trump’s Bill Reaches the Finish Line

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Early Thursday afternoon, the House approved a budget reconciliation bill that not only would make permanent many of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, but also impose deep cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and, indirectly, Medicare.

Meanwhile, those appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a key vaccine advisory panel used their first official meeting to cast doubt on a preservative that has been used in flu vaccines for decades — with studies showing no evidence of its harm in low doses.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

Read Maya's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

This week the GOP steamrolled toward a major constriction of the nation’s social safety net, pushing through Trump’s tax and spending bill. The legislation contains significant changes to the way Medicaid is funded and delivered — in particular, through imposing the program’s first federal work requirement on many enrollees. Hospitals say the changes would be devastating, potentially resulting in the loss of services and facilities that could touch all patients, not only those on Medicaid.
Some proposals in Trump’s bill were dropped during the Senate’s consideration, including a ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care and federal funding cuts for states that use their own Medicaid funds to cover immigrants without legal status. And for all the talk of not touching Medicare, the legislation’s repercussions for the deficit are expected to trigger spending cuts to the program that covers those over 65 and some with disabilities — potentially as soon as the next fiscal year.
The newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met last week, and it looked pretty different from previous meetings: In addition to new members, there were fewer staffers on hand from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and the notable presence of vaccine critics. The panel’s vote to reverse the recommendation of flu shots containing a mercury-based preservative — plus its plans to review the childhood vaccine schedule — hint at what’s to come.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Lancet’s “Evaluating the Impact of Two Decades of USAID Interventions and Projecting the Effects of Defunding on Mortality up to 2030: A Retrospective Impact Evaluation and Forecasting Analysis,” by Daniella Medeiros Cavalcanti, et al.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “‘I Feel Like I’ve Been Lied To’: When a Measles Outbreak Hits Home,” by Eli Saslow.

Maya Goldman: Axios’ “New Docs Get Schooled in Old Diseases as Vax Rates Fall,” by Tina Reed.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “Snake Venom, Urine, and a Quest to Live Forever: Inside a Biohacking Conference Emboldened by MAHA,” by Will Bahr.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

NBC News’ “Crisis Pregnancy Centers Told To Avoid Ultrasounds for Suspected Ectopic Pregnancies,” by Abigail Brooks.
ProPublica’s “A ‘Striking’ Trend: After Texas Banned Abortion, More Women Nearly Bled to Death During Miscarriage,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, and Andrea Suozzo.
The Washington Post’s “DOGE Loses Control Over Government Grants Website, Freeing Up Billions,” by Dan Diamond and Hannah Natanson.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s Bill Reaches the Finish Line

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 3, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith at the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Maya Goldman of Axios News.

Maya Goldman: Good to be here.

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we will get right to it. So as we sit down to tape, the House is on the cusp of passing the biggest constriction of the federal social safety net ever, part of President [Donald] Trump’s, quote, “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which is technically no longer called that, because the name was ruled out of order when it went through the Senate. In an effort to get the bill to the president’s desk by the July Fourth holiday, aka tomorrow, the House had to swallow without changes the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday morning after Vice President JD Vance broke a 50-50 tie. And the House has been in session continuously since Wednesday morning working to do just that, with lots of arm-twisting and threatening and cajoling to walk back the complaints from both conservative Republicans, who are objecting to the trillions of dollars the bill would add to the national debt, as well as moderates objecting to the Medicaid and food stamp cuts.

There is a whole lot to unpack here, but let’s start with Medicaid, which would take the biggest hit of the health programs in this bill — ironically, just weeks before the program’s 60th anniversary. What does this bill do to Medicaid?

Goldman: This bill makes some huge changes to the way that Medicaid is funded and delivered in the United States. One of the biggest changes is the first federal work requirement for Medicaid, which we’ve talked about at length.

Rovner: Pretty much every week.

Goldman: Pretty much every week. It’s going to be — it’s sort of death by paperwork for many people. They’re not necessarily forced to lose their coverage, but there are so many paperwork hurdles and barriers to making sure that you are reporting things correctly, that CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] expects millions of people are going to lose coverage. And we know from limited experiments with work requirements in Arkansas that it does not increase employment. So, that’s the biggie.

Rovner: The House froze provider taxes, which is what most — all states but Alaska? — use to help pay their share of Medicaid. The Senate went even further, didn’t they?

Goldman: Yeah. Hospitals are saying that it’s going to be absolutely devastating to them. When you cut funding, cut reimbursement in that way, cut the amount of money that’s available in that way, it trickles down to the patient, ultimately.

Karlin-Smith: Especially things like the provider tax, but even just the loss to certain health systems of Medicaid patients end up having a spiral effect where it may impact people who are on other health insurance, because these facilities will no longer have that funding to operate the way they are. Particularly some facilities talked about how the Obamacare Medicaid expansion really allowed them to expand their services and beef up. And now if they lose that population, you actually end up with risks of facilities closing. The Senate tried to provide a little bit of money to alleviate that, but I think that’s generally seen as quite small compared to the long-term effects of this bill.

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a $50 billion rural hospital slush fund, if you will, but that’s not going to offset $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid. And it’s important — I know we keep saying this, but it’s important to say again: It’s not just the people who will lose Medicaid who will be impacted, because if these facilities close — we’re talking about hospitals and rural clinics and other facilities that depend on Medicaid — people with all kinds of insurance are going to lack access. I see lots of nods going around.

Goldman: Yeah. One salient example that somebody told me earlier this week was, think about ER wait times. It already takes so long to get seen if you go into the ER. And when people don’t have health insurance, they’re seeking care at the ER because it’s an emergency and they waited until it was an emergency, or that’s just where they feel they can go. But this is going to increase ER wait times for everybody.

Rovner: And also, if nursing homes or other facilities close, people get backed up in the ER because they can’t move into the hospital when they need hospital care, because the hospital can’t discharge the people who are already there. I had sort of forgotten how that the crowded ERs are often a result of things other than too many people in the ER.

Goldman: Right.

Rovner: They’re a result of other strains on sort of the supply chain for care.

Goldman: There’s so many ripple effects and dominoes that are going to fall, if you will.

Rovner: So, there were some things that were in the House bill that, as predicted, didn’t make it into the Senate bill, because the parliamentarian said they violated the budget rules for reconciliation. That included the proposed Medicaid ban on all transgender care for minors and adults, and most of the cuts to states that use their own funds to cover undocumented people. But the parliamentarian ended up kind of splitting the difference on cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, which she had ruled in 2017 Congress couldn’t do in reconciliation. Alice, what happened here?

Ollstein: She decided that one year of cuts was OK, when they had originally sought 10. And the only reason they originally sought 10 is that’s how these bills work. It’s a 10-year budget window. That’s how you calculate things. They sort of meant it to function like a permanent defund. So, the anti-abortion movement was really divided on this outcome, where some were declaring it a big victory and some were saying: Oh, only one year. This is such a disappointment and not what we were promised blah, blah, blah. And it’ll be really interesting to see if even one year does function like a sort of permanent defund.

On the one hand, the anti-abortion movement is worried that because it’s one year, that means they’ll have to vote on it again next year right before the midterms, when people might get more squirrelly because of the politics of it, which obviously still exist now but would be more potent then. But clinics can’t survive without funding for long. We’re already seeing Planned Parenthoods around the country close because of Title X cuts, because of other budget instability. And so once a clinic closes, even if the funding comes back later, it can’t flip a switch and turn it back on. When things close, they close, the staff moves away, etc.

Rovner: And we should emphasize Medicaid has not been used to pay for federal abortion funding ever.

Ollstein: Yes. Yes.

Rovner: That’s part of the Hyde Amendment. So we’re talking about non-abortion services here. We’re talking about contraception, and STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings, and other types of primary care that almost every Planned Parenthood provides. They don’t all provide abortion, but they all provide these other ancillary services that lots of Medicaid patients use.

Ollstein: Right. And so this will shut down clinics in states where abortion is legal, and it’ll shut down clinics in states where abortion is illegal and these clinics only are providing those other reproductive health services, which are already in scant supply and hard to come by. There’s massive maternity care deserts, contraceptive deserts around the country, and this is set to make that worse.

Rovner: So, while this bill was not painted as a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, unlike the 2017 version, it does do a lot to scale that law back. This has kind of flown under the radar. Maya, you wrote about this. What does this bill do to the ACA?

Goldman: Yeah. Well, so, there were a lot of changes that Congress was seeking to codify from rule that the Trump administration has finalized that really create a lot of extra barriers to enrolling in the ACA. A lot of those did not make it into the final bill that is being voted on, but there’s still more paperwork — death by paperwork. I think there’s preenrollment verification of eligibility, things like that. And I think just in general, the ACA has created massive gains in the insurer population in the United States over the last decade and a half. And there’s estimates that show that this would wipe out three-fourths of that gain. And so that’s just staggering to see that.

Rovner: Yeah. I think people have underestimated the impact that this could have on the ACA. Of course, we’ve talked about this also a million times. This bill does not extend the additional subsidies that were created under the Biden administration, which has basically doubled the number of people who’ve been able to afford coverage and bought it on the marketplaces. But I’ve seen estimates that more than half of the people could actually end up dropping out of ACA coverage.

Goldman: Yeah. And I think it’s important to talk about the timelines here. A lot of the work requirements in Medicaid won’t take effect for a couple of years, but people are going to lose their enhanced subsidies in January. And so we are going to see pretty immediate effects of this.

Rovner: And they’re shortening the enrollment time.

Goldman: Yeah.

Rovner: And people won’t be able to be auto-reenrolled, which is how a lot of people continue on their ACA coverage. There are a lot of little things that I think together add up to a whole lot for the ACA.

Goldman: Right. And Trump administration ACA enrollment barriers that were finalized might not be codified in this law, but they’re still finalized.

Rovner: Yeah.

Goldman: And so they will take effect for 2026 coverage.

Rovner: And while President Trump has said repeatedly that he didn’t want to touch Medicare, this bill ironically is going to do exactly that, because the amount the tax cuts add to the deficit is likely to trigger a Medicare sequester under budget rules. That means there will be automatic cuts to Medicare, probably as soon as next year.

All right, well, that is the moving bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill. One thing that has at least stopped moving for now is the Supreme Court, at least for the moment. The justices wrapped up their formal 2024-2025 term with some pretty significant health-related cases that impact two topics we’re talking about elsewhere in this episode, abortion and vaccines.

First, abortion. The court ruled that Medicaid patients don’t have the right to sue to enforce the section of Medicaid law that ensures free choice of provider. In this case, it frees South Carolina to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program. Now, this isn’t about abortion. This is about, as we said, other services that Planned Parenthood provides. But, Alice, what are the ramifications of this ruling?

Ollstein: They could be very big. A lot of states have already tried and are likely to try to cut Planned Parenthood out of their Medicaid programs. And given this federal defund, this is now going after some of their remaining supports, which is state Medicaid programs, which is a separate revenue stream. And so this will just lead to even more clinic closures. And already, this kind of sexual health care is very hard to come by in a lot of places in the country. And that is set to be even more true in the future. And this is sort of the culmination of something that the right has worked towards for a long time. And so they had just a bunch of different strategies and tactics to go after Planned Parenthood in so many ways in the courts, and there’s still more shoes to drop. There’s still court cases pending.

There’s one in Texas that’s accusing Planned Parenthood of defrauding the state, and so that judgment could wipe them out even more. This federal legislative effort, there’s the Supreme Court case — and they’ve really been effective at just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. And enough is sticking now that the organization is really — they were able to beat back a lot of these attempts before. They were able to rally in Congress. They were able to rally at the state level to push back on a lot of this. And that wasn’t true this time. And so I don’t know what conclusion to take from that. There’s, obviously, people are very overwhelmed. There’s a lot going on. There are organizations getting hit left and right, and maybe this just got lost in the noise this time.

Rovner: Yeah, I think that may be. Well, the other big Supreme Court decision was one we’d talked about quite a bit, the so-called Braidwood case that was challenging the ability of the CDC’s [Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s] Preventive Services Task Force from recommending services that would then be covered by health insurance. This was arguably a win for the Biden administration. The court ruled that the task force members do not need to be confirmed by the Senate. But, Sarah, this also gives Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] more power to do what he will with other advisory committees, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. By affirming the way the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was set up, in that the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary is ultimately the authority for appointing the task force, which then makes recommendations around what coverage requirements under the ACA. It also sort of affirms the authority of the HHS secretary here. And I think people think it has implications for other bodies like CDC’s advisory committee on vaccines as well, where the secretary has a lot of authority.

So, I think people who really support the coverage advantages that have come through the USPSTF and Obamacare have always pushed for this outcome in this case. But given our current HHS secretary, there are some worries that it might lead to rollbacks or changes in areas of the health care paradigm that he does not support.

Rovner: Well, let us segue to that right now. That is, of course, as you mentioned, the other major CDC advisory committee, the one on immunization practices. When we left off, Secretary Kennedy had broken his promise to Senate health committee chairman Bill Cassidy and fired all 17 members of the committee, replacing them with vaccine skeptics and a couple of outright vaccine deniers. So last week, the newly reconstituted panel held its first meeting. How’d that go?

Karlin-Smith: It was definitely an interesting meeting, different, I think, for people who have watched ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] in the past. Besides just getting rid of the members of the advisory panel, Kennedy also removed a lot of the CDC staff who work on that topic as well. So the CDC staffers who were there and doing their typical presentations were much smaller in number. And for the most part, I think they did a really good job of sticking to the tried-and-true science around these products and really having to grapple with extremely, I think, unusual questions from many of the panelists. But the agenda got shrunk quite a bit, and one of the topics was quite controversial. Basically, they decided to review the ingredient thimerosal, which was largely taken out of vaccines in the late ’90s, early 2000s, but remains in certain larger vials of flu vaccines.

Rovner: It’s a preservative, right? You need something in a multi-dose vaccine vial to keep it from getting contaminated.

Karlin-Smith: And they had a presentation from Lyn Redwood, who was a former leader of the Children’s Health Defense, which is a very anti-vax organization started by Robert Kennedy. The presentation was generally seen as not based in science and evidence, and there was no other presentations, and the committee voted to not really allow flu vaccines with that ingredient.

And the impact in the U.S. here is going to be pretty small because, I think, it’s about 4% of people get vaccines through those large-quantity vials, like if you’re in a nursing home or something like that. But what people are saying, and Scott Gottlieb [Food and Drug Administration commissioner in the first Trump administration] was talking a lot about this last week, was that this is really a hint of what is to come and the types of things they are going to take aim at. And he’s particularly concerned about another, what’s called an adjuvant, which is an ingredient added to vaccines to help make them work better, that’s in a lot of childhood vaccines, that Kennedy hinted at he wanted on the agenda for this meeting. It came off the agenda, but he presumes they will circle back to it. And if companies can’t use that ingredient in their vaccines, he’s not really clear they have anything else that is as good and as safe, and could force them out of the market.

So there were a bunch of hints of things concerning fights to come. The other big one was that they were saying they want to review the totality of the childhood vaccine schedule and the amount of vaccines kids get, which was really a red flag for people who followed the anti-vaccine movement, because anti-vaxxers have a lot of long-debunked claims that kids get too many vaccines, they get them too closer together. And scientists, again, have thoroughly debunked that, but they still push that.

Rovner: And that was something else that Kennedy promised Cassidy he wouldn’t mess with, if I recall correctly, right?

Karlin-Smith: You know, the nature of the agreement between Cassidy and Kennedy keeps getting more confusing to me. And I actually talked to both HHS’ secretary’s office and Cassidy’s office last week about that. And they both don’t actually agree on quite exactly what the terms were. But anyway, I looked at it in terms of the terms, like whether it’s to preserve the recommendations ACIP has made over time in the childhood schedule, whether it’s to preserve the committee members. I think it’s pretty clear that Kennedy has violated the sort of heart of the matter, which is he has gone after safe, effective vaccines and people’s access to vaccines in this country in ways that are likely to be problematic. And there are hints of more to come. He’s also cut off funding for vaccines globally. So, I don’t know. I almost just laugh thinking about what they actually agreed to, but there’s really no way Cassidy can say that Kennedy followed through on his promises.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, even while ACIP was meeting last week, the HHS secretary was informing the members of Gavi, that’s the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, that he was canceling the U.S.’ scheduled billion-dollar contribution because, he said, the public-private partnership that has vaccinated more than a billion children over the past two and a half decades doesn’t take vaccine safety seriously enough. Really?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. Kennedy has these claims, again, that I think are, very clearly have been, debunked by experts, that Gavi is not thinking clearly about vaccine safety and offering vaccines they shouldn’t be, and the result is going to be huge gaps in what children can get around the globe to vaccines. And it comes on top of all the other cuts the U.S. has made recently to global health in terms of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development]. So I think these are going to be big impacts. And they may eventually trickle down to impact the U.S. in ways people don’t expect.

If you think about a virus like covid, which continues to evolve, one of the fears that people have always had is we get a variant that is, as it evolves, that is more dangerous to people and we’re less able to protect with the vaccines we have. If you allow the virus to kind of spread through unvaccinated communities because, say you weren’t providing these vaccines abroad, that increases the risk that we get a bad variant going on. So obviously, we should be concerned, I think, just about the millions of deaths people are saying this could cause globally, but there’s also impacts to our country as well and our health.

Rovner: I know there’s all this talk about soft-power humanitarian assistance and helping other countries, but as long as people can get on airplanes, it’s in our interest that people in other countries don’t get things that can be spread here, too, right?

Goldman: Yeah. One very small comment that was made during the ACIP meeting this week from CDC staff was an update on the measles outbreak, which I just thought was interesting. They said that the outbreak in the South from earlier this year is mostly under control, but people are still bringing in measles from foreign countries. And so that’s very much a real, real threat.

Rovner: Yeah.

Ollstein: It’s the lesson that we just keep not learning again and again, which is if you allow diseases to spread anywhere, it’ll inevitably impact us here. We don’t live on an island. We have a very interconnected world. You can’t have a Well we’re going to only protect our people and nobody else mentality, because that’s just not how it works. And we’re reducing resources to vaccinate people here as well.

Rovner: That’s right. Turning back to abortion, there was other news on that front this week. In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court formally overturned that state’s 1849 abortion ban. That was the big issue in the Supreme Court election earlier this year. But a couple of other stories caught my eye. One is from NBC News about how crisis pregnancy centers, those anti-abortion facilities that draw women in by offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, are actually advising clinics against offering ultrasounds in some cases after a clinic settled a lawsuit for misdiagnosing a woman’s ectopic pregnancy, thus endangering her life. Alice, if this is a big part of the centers’ draw with these ultrasounds, what’s going on here?

Ollstein: I think it’s a good example. I want to stress that there’s a big variety of quality of medical care at these centers. Some have actual doctors and nurses on staff. Some don’t at all. Some offer good evidence-based care. Some do not. And I have heard from a lot of doctors that patients will come to them with ultrasounds that were incorrectly done or interpreted by crisis pregnancy centers. They were given wrong information about the gestation of their pregnancy, about the viability of their pregnancy. And so this doesn’t surprise me at all, based on what I’ve heard anecdotally.

People should also remember that these centers are not regulated as much as health clinics are. And that goes for things like HIPAA [the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] as well. They don’t have the same privacy protections for the information people share there. And so I think we should also keep in mind that women might be depending more and more on these going forward as Planned Parenthoods close, as other clinics close because of all the cuts we just talked about. These clinics are really proliferating and are trying to fill that vacuum. And so things like this should keep people questioning the quality of care they provide.

Rovner: Yeah. And of course, layer on top of that the Medicaid cuts. There’s going to be an increased inability to get care, particularly in far-flung areas. You can sort of see how this can sort of all pile onto itself.

Well, the other story that grabbed me this week comes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning team at ProPublica. It’s an analysis of hospital data from Texas that suggests that the state’s total abortion ban is making it more likely that women experiencing early miscarriages may not be getting timely care, and thus are more likely to need blood transfusions or experience other complications. Anti-abortion groups continue to maintain that these bans don’t impact women with pregnancy complications, which are super common, for those who don’t know, particularly early in pregnancy. But experience continues to suggest that that is not the case.

Ollstein: Yeah. This is a follow-up to a lot of really good reporting ProPublica has done. They also showed that sepsis rates in Texas have gone way up in the wake of the abortion ban. And so anti-abortion groups like to point to the state’s report showing how many abortions are still happening in the state because of the medical emergency exceptions, and saying: See? It’s working. People are using the exceptions. And it is true that some people are, but I think that this kind of data shows that a lot of people are not. And again, if it’s with what I hear anecdotally, there’s just a lot of variety on the ground from hospital to hospital, even in the same city, interpreting the law differently. Their legal teams interpret what they can and can’t provide. It could depend on what resources they have. It could depend on whether they’re a public or private hospital, and whether they’re afraid of the state coming after them and their funding.

And so I think this shows that one doctor could say, Yes, I do feel comfortable doing this procedure to save this woman’s life, and another doctor could say, I’m going to wait and see. And then you get the sepsis, the hemorrhage. These are very sensitive situations when even a short delay could really be life-and-death, or be long-term health consequences. People have lost the ability to have more children. We’ve seen stories about that. We’ve seen stories about people having to suffer a lot of health consequences while their doctors figure out what kind of care they can provide.

Rovner: In the case of early miscarriage, the standard of care is to empty the uterus basically to make sure that the bleeding stops, which is either a D&C [dilation and curettage], which of course can also be an early abortion, or using the abortion pill mifepristone and misoprostol, which now apparently doctors are loath to use even in cases of miscarriage. I think that’s sort of the take-home of this story, which is a little bit scary because early miscarriage is really, really, really common.

Ollstein: Absolutely. And this is about the hospital context, which is obviously very important, but I’m also hearing that this is an issue even for outpatient care. So if somebody is having a miscarriage, it’s not severe enough that they have to be hospitalized, but they do need this medication to help it along. And when they go to the pharmacy, their prescription says, “missed abortion” or “spontaneous abortion,” which are the technical terms for miscarriage. But a pharmacist who isn’t aware of that, isn’t used to it, it’s not something they see all the time, they see that and they freak out and they say, Oh, I don’t want to get sued, so they don’t dispense the medication. Or there are delays. They need to call and double-check. And that has been causing a lot of turmoil as well.

Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, Elon Musk is fighting with President Trump again over the budget reconciliation bill, but the long shadow of DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency] still lives on in federal agencies. On the one hand, The Washington Post scooped this week that DOGE no longer has control over the Grants.gov website, which controls access to more than half a trillion dollars in federal grant funding. On the other hand, I’m still hearing that money is barely getting out and still has to get multiple approvals from political appointees before it can basically get to where it’s supposed to be going. NPR has a story this week with the ominous headline “‘Where’s Our Money?’ CDC Grant Funding Is Moving So Slowly Layoffs Are Happening.”

I know there’s so much other news happening right now, it’s easy to overlook, but I feel like the public health and health research infrastructure are getting starved to death while the rest of us are looking at shinier objects.

Goldman: Yeah. This the whole flood-the-zone strategy, right? There’s so many things going on that we can’t possibly keep up with all of them, but this is extremely important. I think if you talk to any research scientist that gets federal funding, they would tell you that things have not gotten back to normal. And there’s so much litigation moving through the courts that it’s going to take a really long time before this is settled, period.

Rovner: Yeah. We did see yet another court decision this week warning that the layoffs at HHS were illegal. But a lot of these layoffs happened so long ago that these people have found other jobs or put their houses up for sale. You can’t quite put this toothpaste back in the tube.

Goldman: Right. And also, with this particular ruling, this came from a Rhode Island federal judge, a Biden appointee, so it wasn’t very surprising. But it said that the reorganization plan of HHS was illegal. Or, not illegal, it was a temporary injunction on the reorganization plan and said HHS cannot place anyone else on administrative leave. But it doesn’t require them to rehire the employees that have been laid off, which is also interesting.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we will continue to monitor that. All right, that is as much as this week’s news as we have time for. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, you were first to choose this week. Why don’t you go first?

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a Wired piece from Will Bahr, “Snake Venom, Urine, and a Quest To Live Forever: Inside a Biohacking Conference Emboldened by MAHA.” And it is about a conference in Texas kind of designed to sell you products that they claim might help you live to 180 or more. A lot of what appears to be people essentially preying on people’s fears of mortality, aging, death to sell things that do not appear to be scientifically tested or validated by agencies like FDA. The founder even talks about using his own purified urine to treat his allergies. They’re microdosing snake venom. And it does seem like RFK is sort of emboldening this kind of way of thinking and behavior.

One of the things I felt was really interesting about the story is the author can’t quite pin down what unites all of these people in their interests in this space. In many cases, they claim there are sort of — there’s not a political element to it. But since I cover the pharma industry very closely, they all seem disappointed with mainstream medical systems and the pharma industry with the U.S., and they are seeking other avenues. But it’s quite an interesting look at the types of things they are willing to try to extend their lives.

Rovner: Yeah, it is quite the story. Maya, why don’t you go next?

Goldman: My extra credit this week is from my Axios colleague Tina Reed. It’s called “New Docs Get Schooled in Old Diseases as Vaxx Rates Fall.” And it’s all about how medical schools are adjusting their curriculum to teach students to spend more time on measles and things that we have considered to be wiped out in the United States. And I think it just — it really goes to show that this is something that is real and that’s actually happening. People are coming to emergency rooms and hospitals with these illnesses, and young doctors need to learn about them. We already have so many things to learn in medical school that there’s certainly a trade-off there.

Rovner: There is, indeed. And Alice, you have a related story.

Ollstein: Yes, I do. So, this is from The New York Times. It’s called “‘I Feel I’ve Been Lied To’: When a Measles Outbreak Hits Home,” by Eli Saslow. And it’s about the measles outbreak that originated in Texas. But what I think it does a really good job at is, we’ve talked a lot about how people have played up the dangers of vaccines and exaggerated them and, in some cases, outright lied about them, and how that’s influencing people, fear of autism, etc., fear of these adverse reactions. But I think this piece really shows that the other side of that coin is how much some of those same voices have downplayed measles and covid.

And so we have this situation where people are too afraid of the wrong things — vaccines — and not afraid enough of the right things — measles and these diseases. And so in the story people who are just, including people with some medical training, being shocked at how bad it is, at how healthy kids are really suffering and needing hospitalization and needing to be put on oxygen. And that really clashes with the message from this administration, which has really downplayed that and said it’s mainly hitting people who were already unhealthy or already had preexisting conditions, which is not true. It can hit other people. And so, yeah, I think it’s a very nuanced look at that.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really extraordinary story. My extra credit this week is from the medical journal The Lancet. And I won’t read the entire title or its multiple authors, because that would take the rest of the podcast. But I will summarize it by noting that it finds that funding provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed up shop this week after being basically illegally dissolved by the Trump administration, has saved more than 90 million lives over the past two decades. And if the cuts made this year are not restored, an additional 14 million people will die who might not have otherwise. Far from the Trump administration’s claims that USAID has little to show for its work, this study suggests that the agency has had an enormous impact in reducing deaths from HIV and AIDS, from malaria and other tropical diseases, as well as those other diseases afflicting less developed nations. We’ll have to see how much if any of those services will be maintained or restored.

OK. That’s this week’s show. Thanks to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. You can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys these days? Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m a little bit on X, mostly on Bluesky, at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda. Still a little bit on X, @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Maya.

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_, and also on LinkedIn. You can just find me under my name.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

1 month 1 week ago

Courts, Health Care Costs, Health Care Reform, Health Industry, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Public Health, States, Abortion, CDC, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Legislation, Podcasts, reproductive health, Trump Administration, vaccines, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

The Supreme Court this week ruled in favor of Tennessee’s law banning most gender-affirming care for minors — a law similar to those in two dozen other states.

Meanwhile, the Senate is still hoping to complete work on its version of President Donald Trump’s huge budget reconciliation bill before the July Fourth break. But deeper cuts to the Medicaid program than those included in the House-passed bill could prove difficult to swallow for moderate senators.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Victoria Knight of Axios, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

The Supreme Court’s ruling on gender-affirming care for transgender minors was relatively limited in its scope. The majority did not address the broader question about whether transgender individuals are protected under federal anti-discrimination laws and, as with the court’s decision overturning the constitutional right to an abortion, left states the power to determine what care trans youths may receive.
The Senate GOP unveiled its version of the budget reconciliation bill this week. Defying expectations that senators would soften the bill’s impact on health care, the proposal would make deeper cuts to Medicaid, largely at the expense of hospitals and other providers. Republican senators say those cuts would allow them more flexibility to renew and extend many of Trump’s tax cuts.
The Medicare trustees are out this week with a new forecast for the program that covers primarily those over age 65, predicting insolvency by 2033 — even sooner than expected. There was bipartisan support for including a crackdown on a provider practice known as upcoding in the reconciliation bill, a move that could have saved a bundle in government spending. But no substantive cuts to Medicare spending ultimately made it into the legislation.
With the third anniversary of the Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade approaching, the movement to end abortion has largely coalesced around one goal: stopping people from accessing the abortion pill mifepristone.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “The Bureaucrat and the Billionaire: Inside DOGE’s Chaotic Takeover of Social Security,” by Alexandra Berzon, Nicholas Nehamas, and Tara Siegel Bernard.

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling,” by Kashmir Hill.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Wired’s “What Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Do to the Human Body,” by Emily Mullin.

Sandhya Raman: North Carolina Health News and The Charlotte Ledger’s “Ambulance Companies Collect Millions by Seizing Wages, State Tax Refunds,” by Michelle Crouch.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Views of the One Big Beautiful Bill,” by Ashley Kirzinger, Lunna Lopes, Marley Presiado, Julian Montalvo III, and Mollyann Brodie.
The Associated Press’ “Trump Administration Gives Personal Data of Immigrant Medicaid Enrollees to Deportation Officials,” by Kimberly Kindy and Amanda Seitz.
The Guardian’s “VA Hospitals Remove Politics and Marital Status From Guidelines Protecting Patients From Discrimination,” by Aaron Glantz.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Supreme Court Upholds Bans on Gender-Affirming Care

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, June 20, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week but more than enough news to make up for it, so we will go right to it. It is June. That means it is time for the Supreme Court to release its biggest opinions of the term. On Wednesday, the justices upheld Tennessee’s law banning gender-affirming medical care for trans minors. And presumably that means similar laws in two dozen other states can stand as well. Alice, what does this mean in real-world terms?

Ollstein: So, this is a blow to people’s ability to access gender-affirming care as minors, even if their parents support them transitioning. But it’s not necessarily as restrictive a ruling as it could have been. The court could have gone farther. And so supporters of access to gender-affirming care see a silver lining in that the court didn’t go far enough to rule that all laws discriminating against transgender people are fine and constitutional. A few justices more or less said that in their separate opinions, but the majority opinion just stuck with upholding this law, basically saying that it doesn’t discriminate based on gender or transgender status.

Rovner: Which feels a little odd.

Ollstein: Yes. So, obviously, many people have said, How can you say that laws that only apply to transgender people are not discriminatory? So, been some back-and-forth about that. But the majority opinion said, Well, we don’t have to reach this far and decide right now if laws that discriminate against transgender people are constitutional, because this law doesn’t. They said it discriminates based on diagnosis — so anyone of any gender who has the diagnosis of gender dysphoria for medications, hormones, that’s not a gender discrimination. But obviously the only people who do have those diagnoses are transgender, and so it was a logic that the dissenters, the three progressive dissenters, really ripped into.

Rovner: And just to be clear, we’ve heard about, there are a lot of laws that ban sort of not-reversible types of treatments for minors, but you could take hormones or puberty blockers. This Tennessee law covers basically everything for trans care, right?

Ollstein: That’s right, but only the piece about medications was challenged up to the Supreme Court, not the procedures and surgeries, which are much more rare for minors anyways. But it is important to note that some of the conservatives on the court said they would’ve gone further, and they basically said, This law does discriminate against transgender kids, and that is fine with us. And they said the court should have gone further and made that additional argument, which they did not at this time.

Rovner: Well, I’m sure the court will get another chance sometime in the future. While we’re on the subject of gender-affirming care in the courts, in Texas on Wednesday, conservative federal district judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — that’s the same judge who unsuccessfully tried to repeal the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill a couple of years ago — has now ruled that the Biden administration’s expansion of the HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] medical privacy rules to protect records on abortion and gender-affirming care from being used for fishing expeditions by conservative prosecutors was an overreach, and he slapped a nationwide injunction on those rules. What could this mean if it’s ultimately upheld?

Ollstein: I kind of see this in some ways like the Trump administration getting rid of the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] guidance, where the underlying law is still there. This is sort of an interpretation and a guidance that was put out on top of it, saying, We interpret HIPAA, which has been around a long time, to apply in these contexts, because we’re in this brave new world where we don’t have Roe v. Wade anymore and states are seeking records from other states to try to prosecute people for circumventing abortion bans. And so, that wasn’t written into statute before, because that never happened before.

And so the Biden administration was attempting to respond to things like that by putting out this rule, which has now been blocked nationwide. I’m sure litigation will continue. There are also efforts in the courts to challenge HIPAA more broadly. And so, I would be interested in tracking how this plays into that.

Rovner: Yeah. There’s plenty of efforts sort of on this front. And certainly, with the advent of AI [artificial intelligence], I think that medical privacy is going to play a bigger role sort of as we go forward. All right. Moving on. While the Supreme Court is preparing to wrap up for the term, Congress is just getting revved up. Next up for the Senate is the budget reconciliation, quote, “Big Beautiful Bill,” with most of President [Donald] Trump’s agenda in it. This week, the Senate Finance Committee unveiled its changes to the House-passed bill, and rather than easing back on the Medicaid cuts, as many had expected in a chamber where just a few moderates can tank the entire bill, the Finance version makes the cuts even larger. Do we have any idea what’s going on here?

Knight: Well, I think mostly they want to give themselves more flexibility in order to pursue some of the tax policies that President Trump really wants. And so they need more savings, basically, to be able to do that and be able to do it for a longer amount of years. And so that’s kind of what I’ve heard, is they wanted to give themselves more room to play around with the policy, see what fits where. But a lot of people were surprised because the Senate is usually more moderate on things, but in this case I think it’s partially because they specifically looked at a provision called provider taxes. It’s a way that states can help fund their Medicaid programs, and so it’s a tax levied on providers. So I think they see that as maybe — it could still affect people’s benefits, but it’s aimed at providers — and so maybe that’s part of it as well.

Rovner: Well, of course aiming at providers is not doing them very much good, because hospitals are basically freaking out over this. Now there is talk of creating a rural hospital slush fund to maybe try to quell some of the complaints from hospitals and make some of those moderates feel better about voting for a bill that the Congressional Budget Office still says takes health insurance and food aid from the poor to give tax cuts to the rich. But if the Senate makes a slush fund big enough to really protect those hospitals, wouldn’t that just eliminate the Medicaid savings that they need to pay for those tax cuts, Victoria? That’s what you were just saying. That’s why they made the Medicaid cuts bigger.

Knight: Yeah. I think there’s quite a few solutions that people are throwing around and proposing. Yeah, but, exactly. Depending on if they do a provider relief fund, yeah, then the savings may need to go to that. I’ve also heard — I was talking to senators last week, and some of them were like, I’d rather just go back to the House’s version. So the House’s version of the bill put a freeze on states’ ability to raise the provider tax, but the Senate version incrementally lowers the amount of provider tax they can levy over years. The House just freezes it and doesn’t allow new ones to go higher. Some senators are like: Actually, can we just do that, go back to that? And we could live with that.

Even Sen. Josh Hawley, who has been one of the biggest vocal voices on concern for rural hospitals and concern for Medicaid cuts, he told me, Freeze would be OK with me. And so, I don’t know. I could see them maybe doing that, but we’ll see. There’s probably more negotiations going on over the weekend, and they’re also going to start the “Byrd bath” procedure, which basically determines whether provisions in the bill are related to the budget or not and can stay in the bill. And so, there’s actually gender-affirming care and abortion provisions in the bill that may get thrown out because of that. So—

Rovner: Yeah, this is just for those who don’t follow reconciliation the way we do, the “Byrd bath,” named for the former Sen. [Robert] Byrd, who put this rule in that said, Look, if you’re going to do this big budget bill with only 50 votes, it’s got to be related to the budget. So basically, the parliamentarian makes those determinations. And what we call the “Byrd bath” is when those on both sides of a provision that’s controversial go to the parliamentarian in advance and make their case. And the parliamentarian basically tells them in private what she’s going to do — like, This can stay in, or, This will have to go out. If the parliamentarian rules it has to go out, then it needs to overcome a budget point of order that needs 60 votes. So basically, that’s why stuff gets thrown out, unless they think it’s popular enough that it could get 60 votes. And sorry, that’s my little civics lesson for the day. Finish what you were saying, Victoria.

Knight: No, that was a perfect explanation. Thank you. But I was just saying, yeah, I think that there are still some negotiations going on for the Medicaid stuff. And where also, you have to remember, this has to go back to the House. And so it passed the House with the provider tax freeze, and that still required negotiations with some of the more moderate members of House Republicans. And some of them started expressing their concern about the Senate going further. And so they still need to — it has to go back through the House again, so they need to make these Senate moderates happy and House moderates happy. There’s also the fiscal conservatives that want deeper cuts. So there’s a lot of people within the caucus that they need to strike a balance. And so, I don’t know if this will be the final way the bill looks yet.

Rovner: Although, I think I say this every week, we have all of these Republicans saying: I won’t vote for this bill. I won’t vote for this bill. And then they inevitably turn around and vote for this bill. Do we believe that any of these people really would tank this bill?

Knight: That’s a great point. Yeah. Sandhya, go ahead.

Raman: There are at least a couple that I don’t think, anything that we do, they’re not going to change their mind. There is no courting of Rep. [Thomas] Massie in the House, because he’s not going to vote for it. I feel like in the Senate it’s going to be really hard to get Rand Paul on board, just because he does not want to raise the deficit. I think the others, it’s a little bit more squishy, depends kind of what the parliamentarian pulls out. And I guess also one thing I’m thinking about is if the things they pull out are big cost-savers and they have to go back to the drawing board to generate more savings. We’ve only had a few of the things that they’ve advised on so far, but it’s not health, and we still need to see — health are the big points. So, I think—

Rovner: Well, they haven’t started the “Byrd bath” on the Finance provisions—

Raman: Yes, or—

Rovner: —which is where all the health stuff is.

Raman: Yeah.

Knight: But that is supposed to be over the weekend. It’s supposed to start over the weekend.

Raman: Yes.

Rovner: Right.

Raman: Yeah. So, I think, depending on that, we will see. Historically, we have had people kind of go back and forth. And even with the House, there were people that voted for it that then now said, Well, I actually don’t support that anymore. So I think just going back to just what the House said might not be the solution, either. They have to find some sort of in-between before their July Fourth deadline.

Rovner: I was just going to say, so does this thing happen before July Fourth? I noticed that that Susie Wiles, the White House chief of staff said: Continue. It needs to be on the president’s desk by July Fourth. Which seems pretty nigh impossible. But I could see it getting through the Senate by July Fourth. I’m seeing some nods. Is that still the goal?

Knight: Yeah. I think that’s the goal. That’s what Senate Majority Leader [John] Thune has been telling people. He wants to try to pass it by mid-, or I think start the process by, midweek. And then it’s going to have to go through a “vote-a-rama.” So Democrats will be able to offer a ton of amendments. It’ll probably go through the night, and that’ll last a while. And so, I saw some estimate, maybe it’ll get passed next weekend through the Senate, but that’s probably if everything goes as it’s supposed to go. So, something could mess that up.

But, yeah, I think the factor here that has — I think everyone’s kind of been like: They’re not going to be able to do it. They’re not going to be able to do it. With the House, especially — the House is so rowdy. But then, when Trump calls people and tells them to vote for it, they do it. There’s a few, yeah, like Rand Paul and Massie — they’re basically the only ones that will not vote when Trump tells them to. But other than that — so if he wants it done, I do think he can help push to get it done.

Rovner: Yeah. I noticed one change, as I was going through, in the Senate bill from the House bill is that they would raise the debt ceiling to $5 trillion. It’s like, that’s a pretty big number. Yeah. I’m thinking that alone is what says Rand Paul is a no. Before we move on, one more thing I feel like we can’t repeat enough: This bill doesn’t just cut Medicaid spending. It also takes aim at the Affordable Care Act and even Medicare. And a bunch of new polls this week show that even Republicans aren’t super excited about this bill. Are Republican members of Congress going to notice this at some point? Yeah, the president is popular, but this bill certainly isn’t.

Raman: When you look at some of the town halls that they’ve had — or tried to have — over the last couple months and then scaled back because there was a lot of pushback directly on this, the Medicaid provisions, they have to be aware. But I think if you look at that polling, if you look at the people that identify as MAGA within Republicans, it’s popular for them. It’s just more broadly less popular. So I think that’s part of it, but—

Ollstein: I think that people are very opposed to the policies in the bill, but I also think people are very overwhelmed and distracted right now. There’s a lot going on, and so I’m not sure there will be the same national focus on this the way there was in 2017 when people really rallied in huge ways to protect the Affordable Care Act and push Congress not to overturn it. And so I think maybe that could be a factor in that outrage not manifesting as much. I also think that’s a reason they’re trying to do this quickly, that July Fourth deadline, before those protest movements have an opportunity to sort of organize and coalesce.

Just real quickly on the rural hospital slush fund, I saw some smart people comparing it to a throwback, the high-risk pools model, in that unless you pour a ton of funding into it, it’s not going to solve the problem. And if you pour a ton of funding into it, you don’t have the savings that created the problem in the first place, the cuts. And all that is to say also, how do we define rural? A lot of suburban and urban hospitals are also really struggling currently and would be subject to close. And so now you get into the pitting members and districts against each other, because some people’s hospitals might be saved and others might be left out in the cold. And so I just think it’s going to be messy going forward.

Rovner: I spent a good part of the late ’80s and early ’90s pulling out of bills little tiny provisions that would get tucked in to reclassify hospitals as rural so they could qualify, because there are already a lot of programs that give more money to rural hospitals to keep them open. Sorry, Victoria, we should move on, but you wanted to say one more thing?

Knight: Oh, yeah. No. I was just going to say, going back to the unpopularity of the bill based on polling, and I think that we’ll see at least Democrats — if Republicans get this done and they have the work requirements and the other cuts to Medicaid in the bill, cuts to ACA, no renewal of premium tax credits — I think Democrats will really try to make the midterms about this, right? We already are seeing them messaging about it really hardcore, and obviously the Democrats are trying to find their way right now post-[Joe] Biden, post-[Kamala] Harris. So I think they’ll at least try to make this bill the thing and see if it’s unpopular with the general public, what Republicans did with health care on this. So we’ll see if that works for them, but I think they’re going to try.

Rovner: Yeah, I think you’re right. Well, speaking of Medicare, we got the annual trustees report this week, and the insolvency date for Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund has moved up to 2033. That’s three years sooner than predicted last year. Yet there’s nothing in the budget reconciliation bill that would address that, not even a potentially bipartisan effort to go after upcoding in Medicare Advantage that we thought the Finance Committee might do, that would save money for Medicare that insurers are basically overcharging the government for. What happened to the idea of going after Medicare Advantage overpayments?

Knight: My general vibe I got from asking senators was that Trump said, We’re not touching Medicare in this bill. He did not want that to happen. And I think, again, maybe potentially thinking about the midterms, just the messaging on that, touching Medicare, it kind of always goes where they don’t want to touch Medicare, because it’s older people, but Medicaid is OK, even though it’s poor people.

Rovner: And older people.

Ollstein: And they are touching Medicare in the bill anyway.

Rovner: Thank you. I know. I think that’s the part that makes my head swim. It’s like, really? There are several things that actually touch Medicare in this bill, but the thing that they could probably save a good chunk of money on and that both parties agree on is the thing that they’re not doing.

Knight: Exactly. It was very bipartisan.

Rovner: Yes. It was very bipartisan, and it’s not there. All right. Moving on. Elon Musk has gone back to watching his SpaceX rockets blow up on the launchpad, which feels like a fitting metaphor for what’s been left behind at the Department of Health and Human Services following some of the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts. On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts ruled that billions of dollars in cuts to about 800 NIH [National Institutes of Health] research grants due to DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] were, quote, “arbitrary and capricious” and wrote, quote, “I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.” And mind you, this was a judge who was appointed by [President] Ronald Reagan. So what happens now? It’s been months since these grants were terminated, and even though the judge has ordered the funding restored, this obviously isn’t the last word, and one would expect the administration’s going to appeal, right? So these people are just supposed to hang out and wait to see if their research gets to continue?

Raman: This has been a big thing that has come up in all of the appropriations hearings we’ve had so far this year, that even though the gist of that is to look forward at the next year’s appropriations, it’s been a big topic of just: There is funding that we as Congress have already appropriated for this. Why isn’t it getting distributed? So I think that will definitely be something that they push back up on the next ones of those. Some of the different senators have said that they’ve been looking into it and how it’s been affecting their districts. So I would say that. But I think the White House in response to that called the decision political, which I thought was interesting given, like you said, it was a Reagan appointee that said this. So it’ll definitely be something that I think will be appealed and be a major issue.

Ollstein: Yeah, and the folks I’ve talked to who’ve been impacted by this stress that you can’t flip funding on and off like a switch and expect research to continue just fine. Once things are halted, they’re halted. And in a lot of cases, it is irreversible. Samples are thrown out. People are laid off. Labs are shut down. Even if there’s a ruling that reverses the policy, that often comes too late to make a difference. And at the same time, people are not waiting around to see how this back-and-forth plays out. People are getting actively recruited by universities and other countries saying: Hey, we’re not going to defund you suddenly. Come here. And they’re moving to the private sector. And so I think this is really going to have a long impact no matter what happens, a long tail.

Rovner: And yet we got another reminder this week of the major advances that federally funded research can produce, with the FDA approval of a twice-a-year shot that can basically prevent HIV infection. Will this be able to make up maybe for the huge cuts to HIV programs that this administration is making?

Raman: It’s only one drug, and we have to see what the price is, what cost—

Rovner: So far the price is huge. I think I saw it was going to be like $14,000 a shot.

Raman: Which means that something like PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis] is still going to be a lot more affordable for different groups, for states, for relief efforts. So I think that it’s a good step on the research front, but until the price comes down, the other tools in the toolbox are going to be a lot more feasible to do.

Rovner: Yeah. So much for President Trump’s goal to end HIV. So very first-term. All right. Well, turning to abortion, it’s been almost exactly three years since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in the Dobbs case. In that time we’ve seen abortion outlawed in nearly half the states but abortions overall rise due to the expanded use of abortion medication. We’ve seen doctors leaving states with bans, for fear of not being able to provide needed care for patients with pregnancy complications. And we’ve seen graduating medical students avoiding taking residencies in those states for the same reason. Alice, what’s the next front in the battle over abortion in the U.S.?

Ollstein: It’s been one of the main fronts, even before Dobbs, but it’s just all about the pills right now. That’s really where all of the attention is. So whether that’s efforts ongoing in the courts back before our friend Kacsmaryk to try to challenge the FDA’s policies around the pills and impose restrictions nationwide, there’s efforts at the state level. There’s agitation for Congress to do something, although I think that’s the least likely option. I think it’s much more likely that it’s going to come from agency regulation or from the courts or from states. So I would put Congress last on the list of actors here. But I think that’s really it. And I think we’re also seeing the same pattern that we see in gender-affirming care battles, where there’s a lot of focus on what minors can access, what children can access, and that then expands to be a policy targeting people of any age.

So I think it’s going to be a factor. One thing I think is going to slow down significantly are these ballot initiatives in the states. There’s only a tiny handful of states left that haven’t done it yet and have the ability to do it. A lot of states, it’s not even an option. So I would look at Idaho for next year, and Nevada. But I don’t think you’re going to see the same storm of them that you have seen the last few years. And part of that is, like I said, there’s just fewer left that have the ability. But also some people have soured on that as a tactic and feel that they haven’t gotten the bang for the buck, because those campaigns are extremely expensive, extremely resource-intensive. And there’s been frustration that, in Missouri, for instance, it’s sort of been — the will of the people has sort of been overturned by the state government, and that’s being attempted in other states as well. And so it has seemed to people like a very expensive and not reliable protection, although I’m not sure in some states what the other option would even be.

Rovner: Of course the one thing that is happening on Capitol Hill is that the House Judiciary Committee last week voted to repeal the 1994 Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, or FACE. Now this law doesn’t just protect abortion clinics but also anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers. This feels like maybe not the best timing for this sort of thing, especially in light of the shootings of lawmakers in Minnesota last weekend, where the shooter reportedly had in his car a list of abortion providers and abortion rights supporters. Might that slow down this FACE repeal effort?

Ollstein: I think it already was going to be an uphill battle in the Senate and even maybe passing the full House, because even some conservatives say, Well, I don’t know if we should get rid of the FACE Act, because the FACE Act also applies to conservative crisis pregnancy centers. And lest we forget, only a few short weeks ago, an IVF [in vitro fertilization] clinic was bombed, and it would’ve applied in that situation, too. And so some conservatives are divided on whether or not to get rid of the FACE Act. And so I don’t know where it is going forward, but I think these recent instances of violence certainly are not helping the efforts, and the Trump administration has already said they’re not really going to enforce FACE against people who protest outside of abortion clinics. And so that takes some of the heat off of the conservatives who want to get rid of it. Of course, they say it shouldn’t be left for a future administration to enforce, as the Biden administration did.

Raman: It also applies to churches, which I think if you are deeply religious that could also be a point of contention for you. But, yeah, I think just also with so much else going on and the fact that they’ve kind of slowed down on taking some of these things up for the whole chamber to vote on outside of in January, I don’t really see it coming up in the immediate future for a vote.

Rovner: Well, at the same time, there are efforts in the other direction, although the progress on that front seems to be happening in other countries. The British Parliament this week voted to decriminalize basically all abortions in England and Wales, changing an 1861 law. And here on this side of the Atlantic, four states are petitioning the FDA to lift the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill, mifepristone, even as — Alice, as you mentioned — abortion foes argue for its approval to be revoked. You said that the abortion rights groups are shying away from these ballot measures even if they could do it. What is going to be their focus?

Ollstein: Yeah, and I wouldn’t say they’re shying away from it. I’ve just heard a more divided view as a tactic and whether it’s worth it or not. But I do think that these court battles are really going to be where a lot is decided. That’s how we got to where we are now in the first place. And so the effort to get rid of the remaining restrictions on the abortion pill, the sort of back-and-forth tug here, that’s also been going on for years and years, and so I think we’re going to see that continue as well. And I think there’s also going to be, parallel to that, a sort of PR war. And I think we saw that recently with anti-abortion groups putting out their own not-peer-reviewed research to sort of bolster their argument that abortion pills are dangerous. And so I think you’re going to see more things like that attempting to — as one effort goes on in court, another effort in parallel in the court of public opinion to make people view abortion pills as something to fear and to want to restrict.

Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, a couple of stories that just kind of jumped out at me. First, the AP [Associated Press] is reporting that Medicaid officials, over the objections of some at the agency, have turned over to the Department of Homeland Security personal data on millions of Medicaid beneficiaries, including those in states that allow noncitizens to enroll even if they’re not eligible for federal matching funds, so states that use their own money to provide insurance to these people. That of course raises the prospect of DHS using that information to track down and deport said individuals. But on a broader level, one of the reasons Medicaid has been expanded for emergencies and in some cases for noncitizens is because those people live here and they get sick. And not only should they be able to get medical care because, you know, humanity, but also because they may get communicable diseases that they can spread to their citizen neighbors and co-workers. Is this sort of the classic case of cutting off your nose despite your face?

Ollstein: I think we saw very clearly during covid and during mpox and measles, yes. What impacts one part of the population impacts the whole population, and we’re already seeing that these immigration crackdowns are deterring people, even people who are legally eligible for benefits and services staying away from that. We saw that during Trump’s first term with the public charge rule that led to people disenrolling in health programs and avoiding services. And that effect continued. There’s research out of UCLA showing that effect continued even after the Biden administration got rid of the policy. And so fear and the chilling effect can really linger and have an impact and deter people who are citizens, are legal immigrants, from using that as well. It’s a widespread impact.

Rovner: And of course, now we see the Trump administration revoking the status of people who came here legally and basically declaring them illegal after the fact. Some of this chilling effect is reasonable for people to assume. Like the research being cut off, even if these things are ultimately reversed, there’s a lot of — depends whether you consider it damage or not — but a lot of the stuff is going to be hard. You’re not going to be able to just resume, pick up from where you were.

Ollstein: And one concern I’ve been hearing particularly is around management of bird flu, since a lot of legal and undocumented workers work in agriculture and have a higher likelihood of being exposed. And so if they’re deterred from seeking testing, seeking treatment, that could really be dangerous for the whole population.

Rovner: Yeah. It is all about health. It is always all about health. All right. Well, the last story this week is from The Guardian, and it’s called “VA Hospitals Remove Politics and Marital Status From Guidelines Protecting Patients From Discrimination.” And it’s yet another example of how purging DEI language can at least theoretically get you in trouble. It’s not clear if VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] personnel can now actually discriminate against people because of their political party or because they’re married or not married. The administration says other safeguards are still in place, but it is another example of how sweeping changes can shake people’s confidence in government programs. I imagine the idea here is to make people worried about discrimination and therefore less likely to seek care, right?

Raman: It’s also just so unusual. I have not heard of anything like this before in anything that we’ve been reporting, where your political party is pulled into this. It just seems so out of the realm of what a provider would need to know about you to give you care. And then I could see the chilling effect in the same way, where if someone might want to be active on some issue or share their views, they might be more reluctant to do so, because they know they have to get care. And if that could affect their ability to do so, if they would have to travel farther to a different VA hospital, even if they aren’t actually denying people because of this, that chilling effect is going to be something to watch.

Rovner: And this is, these are not sort of theoretical things. There was a case some years ago about a doctor, I think he was in Kentucky, who wouldn’t prescribe birth control to women who weren’t married. So there was reason for having these protections in there, even though they are not part of federal anti-discrimination law, which is what the Trump administration said. Why are these things in there? They’re not required, so we’re going to take them out. That’s basically what this fight is over. But it’s sort of an — I’m sure there are other places where this is happening. We just haven’t seen it yet.

All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: Sure thing. My extra credit, it’s from The New York Times. The title is, “They Asked an A.I. Chatbot Questions. The Answers Sent Them Spiraling,” by Kashmir Hill, who covers technology at The Times. I had seen screenshots of this article being shared on X a bunch last week, and I was like, “I need to read this.”

Basically it shows that different people who, they may be going through something, they may have a lot of stress, or they may already have a mental health condition, and they start messaging ChatGPT different things, then ChatGPT can kind of feed into their own delusions and their own misaligned thinking. That’s because that’s kind of how ChatGPT is built. It’s built to be, like, they call it in the story, like a sycophant. Is that how you say it? So it kind of is supposed to react positively to what you’re saying and kind of reinforce what you’re saying. And so if you’re feeding it delusions, it will feed delusions back. And so it was really scary because real-life people were impacted by this. There was one individual who thought he was talking to — had found an entity inside of ChatGPT named Juliet, and then he thought that OpenAI killed her. And so then he ended up basically being killed by police that came to his house. It was just — yeah, there was a lot of real-life effects from talking to ChatGPT and having your own delusions reinforced. So, and so it was just an effect of ChatGPT on real-life people that I don’t know if we’ve seen illustrated in a news story yet. And so it was very illuminating, yeah.

Rovner: Yeah. Not scary much. Sandhya.

Raman: My extra credit was “Ambulance Companies Collect Millions by Seizing Wages, State Tax Refunds.” It’s by Michelle Crouch for The Charlotte Ledger [and North Carolina Health News]. It’s a story about how some different ambulance patients from North Carolina are finding out that their income gets tapped for debt collection by the state’s EMS agencies, which are government entities, mostly. So the state can take through the EMS up to 10% of your monthly paycheck, or pull from your bank account higher than that, or pull from your tax refunds or lottery winnings. And it’s taking some people a little bit by surprise after they’ve tried to pay off this care and having to face this, but something that the agencies are also saying is necessary to prevent insurers from underpaying them.

Rovner: Oh, sigh.

Raman: Yeah.

Rovner: The endless stream of really good stories on this subject. Alice.

Ollstein: So I chose this piece in Wired by Emily Mullin called “What Tear Gas and Rubber Bullets Do to the Human Body,” thinking a lot about my hometown of Los Angeles, which is under heavy ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement and National Guard and Marines and who knows who else. So this article is talking about the health impacts of so-called less-lethal police tactics like rubber bullets, like tear gas. And it is about how not only are they sometimes actually lethal — they can kill people and have — but also they have a lot of lingering impacts, especially tear gas. It can exacerbate respiratory problems and even cause brain damage. And so it’s being used very widely and, in some people’s view, indiscriminately right now. And there should be more attention on this, as it can impact completely innocent bystanders and press and who knows who else.

Rovner: Yeah. There’s a long distance between nonlethal and harmless, which I think this story illustrates very well. My extra credit this week is also from The New York Times. It’s called “The Bureaucrat and the Billionaire: Inside DOGE’s Chaotic Takeover of Social Security,” by Alexandra Berzon, Nicholas Nehamas, and Tara Siegel Bernard. It’s about how the White House basically forced Social Security officials to peddle a false narrative that said 40% of calls to the agency’s customer service lines were from scammers — they were not — how DOGE misinterpreted Social Security data and gave a 21-year-old intern access to basically everyone’s personal Social Security information, and how the administration shut down some Social Security offices to punish lawmakers who criticized the president. This is stuff we pretty much knew was happening at the time, and not just in Social Security. But The New York Times now has the receipts. It’s definitely worth reading.

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. You can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and the same on Bluesky.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Bluesky and @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk on X.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

1 month 3 weeks ago

Courts, Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Rural Health, States, Abortion, Children's Health, Hospitals, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', LGBTQ+ Health, Podcasts, Privacy, Tennessee, texas, Transgender Health, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, Veterans' Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or — as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding — kill it.

Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings — as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely — and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “Take the Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “A DNA Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” by Isabelle Taft.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

NOTUS.org’s “The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
The Washington Post’s “White House MAHA Report May Have Garbled Science by Using AI, Experts Say,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up — there is a lot of it.

We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions.

Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it?

Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations.

But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys.

Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this.

Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates.

Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO — it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head.

Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark.

Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill.

It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax.

Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out.

Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize — well, here’s what she posted on Instagram.

Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth.

So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren.

Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back.

So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead — combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor— I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback.

Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.”

So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts — and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House.

Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough.

Rovner: And we’re all going to die.

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die.

Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work.

But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care.

Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators.

But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud.

Rovner: Or by executive order.

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist Maya Goldman over at Axios. The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage.

It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it.

Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do — short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see.

But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think — and, it was interesting. I think the Guardian spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today.

I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows?

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout.

Weber: Yeah.

Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe—

Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans.

Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks.

And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system.

Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is.

Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses.

Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at the news service NOTUS decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues took that yet another step. So tell us about that.

Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated — which is what they call it — which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI.

And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report?

And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say.

Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts.

The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this?

Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it.

A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this.

Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something.

Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition.

He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find.

Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate?

Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state.

In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive.

Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for its series detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person.

Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” — that’s the premature rupture of membranes — “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the American College of Emergency Physicians, quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.”

So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban?

Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate.

It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose?

Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Arielle, welcome back.

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital.

Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City.

But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City.

Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it?

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000.

Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid?

Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid.

Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states?

Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care.

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency.

Zionts: Yes.

Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right?

Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll.

And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead.

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare.

Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to KFF Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care.

All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection.

Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge.

Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways.

Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas.

Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do.

So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have — you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice.

Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself.

Zionts: Yes.

Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much.

Zionts: Thank you.

Rovner: OK. We’re back, and it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Jessie, why don’t you go first this week?

Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “A [DNA] Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation.

Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that.

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren.

Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “Take a Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group.

Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back.

Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?”

These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered.

Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice.

Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers.

And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks.

And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look.

Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice.

Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it.

Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story.

OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at KFF Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years.

I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Jessie?

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and LinkedIn.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and on Bluesky, shockingly, now.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Bluesky and @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

2 months 1 week ago

COVID-19, Insurance, Medicaid, Multimedia, Public Health, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Biden Administration, Bill Of The Month, CBO, Children's Health, Doctors, Emergency Medicine, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Medical Education, Podcasts, reproductive health, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old.
People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies.
HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, who has a new book out on the history and possible future of the “personhood” movement. But first, this week’s news.

So, against all odds and many predictions, including my own, the House around 7 a.m. Thursday morning, after being in session all night, passed President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — that is its actual, official name — by a vote of 215-214, with one Republican voting present. Before we get into the details of the House-passed bill, what are the prospects for this budget reconciliation bill in this form in the Senate? Very different, I would think.

Ollstein: Yeah, this is not going to come out the way it went in. Senate is already openly talking about a “‘One, Big Beautiful’ Rewrite” — that was the headline at Politico.

And you’re going to see some of the same dynamics. You’re going to see hard-liners saying this doesn’t go far enough, this actually adds a lot to the deficit even with all of the deep cuts to government programs. And you’re going to have moderates who have a lot of people in their state who depend on Medicaid and other programs that are set to be cut who say this goes too far. And so you’re going to have that same push and pull. And the House, barely, by one vote, got this through. And so we’ll see if the Senate is able to do the same.

Rovner: Yeah, so all eyes on [Sen.] John McCain in 2017. This year it could be all eyes on Josh Hawley, I suspect, the very conservative senator from Missouri who keeps saying “Don’t touch Medicaid.”

But back to the House bill. We don’t have official scores yet from the Congressional Budget Office, and we won’t for a while, I suspect. But given some last-minute changes made to pacify conservatives who, as Alice pointed out, said this bill didn’t cut deeply enough, I think it’s clear that if it became law in this form, it would represent the biggest cuts to federal health programs in the 60-year history of Medicare and Medicaid.

Those last-minute changes also took pretty square aim at the Affordable Care Act, too, so much that I think it’s safe to call this even more than a partial repeal of the health law. And Medicare does not go unscathed in this measure, either, despite repeated promises by President Trump on the campaign trail and since he took office.

Let’s take these one at a time, starting with Medicaid. I would note that at a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, President Trump told them not to expletive around with Medicaid. You can go look up the exact quote yourself if you like. But apparently he’s OK with the $700 billion plus that would be cut in the bill, which Republicans say is just waste, fraud, and abuse. Where does that money come from? And would Medicaid really continue to cover everyone who’s eligible now, which is kind of what the president and moderate Republicans are promising?

Edney: Well, it sounds like the bulk of it is coming from the work requirements that Alice mentioned earlier. And would it be able to cover them? Sure, but will it? No, in the sense that, as Alice has talked about often on this podcast, it’s basically a time tax. It’s not easy to comply with. All federal regulations, they’re not going to a website and putting in what you did for work. Particularly, if you are a freelancer or something, it can be really difficult to meet all the requirements that they’re looking for. And also, for some people, they just don’t have the ability, even the internet, to be able to do that reliably. So they’re going to save money because people are going to lose their health care.

Rovner: I saw a lot of people referring to them this week not as work requirements anymore but as work reporting requirements. Somebody suggested it was like the equivalent of having to file your income taxes every month. It’s not just check a box and say, I worked this month. It’s producing documentation. And a lot of people have jobs that are inconsistent. They may work some hours some week and other hours the other week. And even people who work for small businesses, that would put an enormous burden on the employers to come up with all this.

Obviously, the CBO thinks that a lot of people won’t be able to do this and therefore people are going to lose their health insurance. But Alice, as you have told us numerous times when we did this in Arkansas, it’s not that people aren’t working — it’s that people aren’t successfully reporting their work.

Ollstein: Right. And we’ve seen this in Georgia, too, where this has been implemented, where there are many different ways that people who are working lose their insurance with this. People who don’t have good internet access struggle. People who have fluctuating work schedules, whether it’s agricultural work, tourism work, things that are more seasonal, they can’t comply with this strict monthly requirement.

So there are numerous reports from the ground of people who should be eligible losing their coverage. And I’ll note that one of the last-minute changes the House made was moving up the start date of the requirements. And I’m hearing a lot of state officials and advocates warn that that gives states less time to set up a system where people won’t fall through the cracks. And so the predicted larger savings is in part because they imagine more people will be kicked off the program.

Rovner: It’s also the most stringent work requirement we’ve seen. It would cover people from age 19 through age 64, like right up until you’re eligible for Medicare. And if you lose Medicaid because you fail to meet these reporting requirements, you’re no longer eligible for a subsidy to buy insurance in the ACA exchange. Is there a policy point to this? Or are they just trying to get the most people off the program so they can get the most savings?

Edney: If you ask Republicans, they would tell you: We’re going to get people back working. We’re going to give them the pride of working — as if people don’t want that on their own. But the actual outcome is not that people end up working more. And there are cases even where they lose their health insurance and can’t work a job they already had. On the surface, and this is why it’s such a popular program, because it seems like it would get more people working. Even a large swath of Democrats support the idea when they just hear the name — of voters. But the actual outcome, that doesn’t happen. People aren’t in Medicaid because they aren’t working.

Rovner: Right. And I get to say for the millionth time, nobody is sitting on their couch living on their Medicaid coverage.

Edney: Right, right.

Rovner: There’s no money that comes with Medicaid. It’s just health insurance. The health providers get paid for Medicaid and occasionally the managed-care companies. But there’s no check to the beneficiary, so there’s no way to live on your Medicaid.

As Alice points out, most of the people who are working and have Medicaid are working at jobs, obviously, that don’t offer employer health insurance. So having, in many cases, as you say, Anna, having Medicaid is what enables you to work.

All right, well, our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff have an excellent Medicaid story out this week on a new study that looks very broadly at Medicaid and finds that it actually does improve the health of its beneficiaries. Now this seems logical, but that has been quite a talking point for Republicans for many years, that we spend all this money and it doesn’t produce better health, because we’ve had a lot of studies that have been kind of neither here nor there on this.

Do we finally have proof that Democrats need? Because I have heard, over many years — there was a big Oregon study in 2011 that found that it helped people financially and that it helped their mental health, but there was not a lot of physical health benefit that they saw. Of course, it was a brief. It was like two years. And it takes a longer time to figure out the importance of health insurance. But I’m wondering if maybe the Democrats will finally be able to put down that talking point. I didn’t hear it, actually, as much this week as I have in years past: Why are we spending all this money on Medicaid when we don’t know whether it’s producing better health?

Karlin-Smith: One of the interesting things I thought about this study and sort of the timing of it, post-Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and more younger people being covered, is that it seems to really show that, not only does this study show it saves lives, but it’s really helping these younger populations.

And I think there are some theories as to why it might have been harder to show the economic cost-effectiveness benefits people were looking for before, when you had Medicaid covering populations that were already either severely ill or older. Which doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, right? To provide health coverage to somebody who’s 75 or 80, but unfortunately we have not found the everlasting secret to life yet.

So, but I think for economists who want to be able to show this sort of, as they show in this paper, this “quality-adjusted life year” benefit, this provides some really good evidence of what that expansion of Medicaid — which is a lot of what’s being rolled back, potentially, under the reconciliation process — did, which is, helps younger people be healthier and thus, right, hopefully, ideally, live a higher quality of life, and where you need less health coverage over time, and cost the government less.

It’s quite interesting, for people who want to go look at the graph The New York Times put in their story, of just where Medicaid fits, in terms of other sort of interventions we spend a lot of money on to help save lives. Because I was kind of surprised, given how much health insurance does cover, that it comes out on sort of the lower end, as being a pretty good bargain.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we don’t have time to get into everything that’s in this bill, and there is a lot. It also includes a full ban of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. And it cuts reimbursement to states that use their own funds to provide coverage to undocumented people. Is this a twofer for Republicans, saving money while fighting the culture wars?

Edney: Certainly. And I was surprised to see some very liberal states on the immigration front saying: We just have to deal with this. And this really sucks, but we have to balance our budget. And if we’re not going to get those tax dollars, then we aren’t going to be able to offer health insurance to people who are undocumented, or Medicaid to people who are undocumented.

Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably.

Edney: Yeah, California for sure. And they found a way to do it, hit them in the pocketbook, and that that’s a way for them to win the culture war, for sure.

Rovner: Alice, you’ve spent a lot of time looking at gender-affirming care. Were you surprised to see it banned for adults, too? Obviously the gender-affirming care for minors has been a continuing issue for a while.

Ollstein: Yeah, I would say not surprised, because this is sort of a common pattern that we see across different things, including in the abortion space, where first policies are targeted just at minors. That often is more politically palatable. And then it gets expanded to the general population. And so I think, given the wave of state bans on care for minors that we’ve seen, I think a lot of people had been projecting that this was the trajectory.

I think that there’s been some really good reporting from The 19th and other outlets about what an impact this would have. Trans people are disproportionately low-income and dependent on Medicaid, and so this would have really sweeping impacts on a lot of people.

Rovner: Well, turning to the Affordable Care Act, if you thought Republicans weren’t going to try to repeal the health law this time around, you thought wrong. There are a bucket of provisions in this bill that will make the Affordable Care Act coverage both more expensive and harder to get, so much that some analysts think it could reduce enrollment by as much as half of the 24 million people who have it now. Hasn’t someone told Republicans that many of these people are their voters?

Edney: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know what the Republican strategists are telling them. But certainly they needed to save money. And so they found their loopholes and their different things that they thought they could scrape from. And maybe no one will notice? But I don’t think that’s going to happen.

A lot of people suddenly have much higher ACA premiums because of the way they’re going to take away this ability that the insurers have had to silver-load, essentially, the way that they deal with the premium tax credits by setting some of the savings, kind of the cost sharing that they need to do, right into the silver plan, because the silver plan is where the premiums are set off of. And so they were able to offer the plans with lower premiums, essentially, but still get paid for cost-sharing reductions. So they were able to still get that money taken away from them.

Rovner: So let me see if I can do it. It was, and this was something that Trump tried to do in 2017, that he thought was going to hurt the marketplace plans. And it ended up doing the opposite—

Edney: Right.

Rovner: —because it basically shifted money from the insurance companies and the beneficiaries back to the federal government, because it made the premium subsidies bigger.

So I think the point I want to make is that we’ve been talking all year about these extra subsidies that are going to expire, and that will make premiums go up, and the Republicans did not move to extend those subsidies. But this going back to the government paying these cost-sharing reduction payments is going to basically reverse the accidental lowering of premiums that Trump did in 2017. And therefore, raise them again.

So now we have a double whammy. We have premiums going up because the extra subsidies expire, and then we’ll have premiums going up even more because they’re going back to this original cost-sharing reduction. And yet, as we have said many times, a lot of these additional people who are now on the Affordable Care Act are people in the very red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. These are Republican voters.

Karlin-Smith: We haven’t talked a lot about the process of how they got this bill through this week. It was incredibly fast and done literally in the dead of night.

Ollstein: Multiple nights.

Karlin-Smith: So you have to wonder, particularly, if you think back to the last time Republicans tried to overturn Obamacare — and they did come pretty close — eventually, I think, that unpalatableness of taking away health care from so many of their own constituents came back to really hurt them. And you do have to wonder if the jamming was in part to make more people unaware of what was happening. You’d still think there’d be political repercussions later down the line when they realize it. But I think, especially, again, just thinking back on all the years when Republicans were saying Democrats were pushing the ACA through too fast and nobody could read the bill, or their CBO scores. This was a much, much faster version of that, with a lot less debate and public transparency and so forth.

Rovner: Yeah, they went to the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday, so Tuesday night. The Rules Committee went until almost 9 o’clock the next evening, just consecutively. And shout out to Rules Committee chairman Virginia Foxx, who sat there for, I think, the entire time. And then they went straight from rules to the floor.

So it’s now Wednesday night at 10 o’clock at night, and then went all the way through and voted, I think, just before 7 a.m. I’ve done a lot of all-nighters in the Capitol. I haven’t seen one that was two nights in a row like this. And I have great admiration for the people who really were up for 48 hours to push this thing through.

Well, finally, let’s remember President Trump’s vow not to touch Medicare. Well, Medicare gets touched in this bill, too. In addition to restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants who are able to get coverage now, and making it harder for some low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get extra financial help, mostly through Medicaid, the bill as a whole is also likely to trigger a 4% Medicare sequester. Because, even all those other health cuts and food stamp cuts and other cuts don’t pay for all the huge tax breaks in the bill. Alice, you pointed that out. Is there any suggestion that this part might give people some pause, maybe when it gets to the Senate?

Edney: I’ve heard the Senate mostly seem upset about Medicaid. And I also feel like this idea that sequestration is coming back up into our consciousness is a little bit new. Like you said, it was pushed through and it was like, Oh, wait, this is enough to trigger sequestration. I think it certainly could become a talking point, because Trump said he would not cut Medicare. I don’t think, if senators are worried about Medicaid — and I think maybe some of us were a little surprised that that is coming from some red-state senators. Medicare is a whole different thing, and in the sense of being even more wildly popular with a lot of members of Congress.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this whole thing hasn’t, you’re right, sort of seeped into the general consciousness yet. Alice, did you want to say something?

Ollstein: Yeah, so a couple things, a couple patterns we’ve seen. So one, there are a lot of lawmakers on the right who have been discrediting the CBO, even in advance of estimates coming out, basically disparaging their methodology and trying to convince the public that it’s not accurate. And so I think that’s both around the deficit projections as well as how many people would be uninsured under different policies. So that’s been one reaction to this.

We’ve seen a pattern over many administrations where certain politicians are very concerned about things adding to the deficit when the opposition party is in power. And suddenly those concerns evaporate when their own party is in power and they don’t mind running up the deficit if it’s to advance policies that they want to advance. And so I think, yes, this could bother some fiscal hawks, and we saw that in the House, but I think, also, these other factors are at play.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this has a long way to go. There’s still a lot that people, I think you’re right, have not quite realized is in there. And we will get to more of it in coming weeks, because this has a long process in the Senate.

All right, well, segueing to abortion, the One Big Beautiful Bill also includes a couple of pretty significant abortion provisions. One would effectively ban abortion and marketplace plans for people with lower incomes. Affordable Care Act plans are not currently a big source of insurance coverage for abortion. Many states already ban abortion from coverage in these plans. But this would disrupt one of the big compromises that ultimately got the ACA passed in 2010.

The other provision would evict Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, even though federal Medicaid funds don’t and never have been used for abortions. Many, many Medicaid patients use Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, including contraception and cancer screenings, and that is covered by Medicaid.

But while I see lots of anti-abortion groups taking victory laps over this, when the House passed a similar provision in 2017 as part of its repeal bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not go in a budget reconciliation bill, because its purpose was not, quote, “primarily budgetary.” So is this all for show? Or is there a belief that something different might happen this time?

Ollstein: Well, I think there is more interest in ignoring or overruling the parliamentarian among Senate Republicans than there has been in the past. We’re seeing that now on an unrelated environmental issue. And so that could signal that they’re willing to do it more in the future. Of course, things like that cut both ways, and that raises the idea that the Democrats could also do that the next time they’re in power.

Rovner: And we should say, that if you overrule the parliamentarian in reconciliation — it’s a she right now — when she says it can’t go in reconciliation, that is equivalent to getting rid of the filibuster.

Ollstein: Correct.

Rovner: So I mean, that’s why both parties say, We want to keep the filibuster. But the moment you say, Hey, parliamentarian, we disagree with you and we’re just going to ignore that, that has ramifications way beyond budget reconciliation legislation.

Ollstein: That’s right. And so that’s been a line that a lot of senators have not been willing to cross, but I think you’re seeing more willingness than before. So that’s definitely something to watch on that. But I think, in terms of abortion, I think this is a real expansion of trends that were already underway, in ever-expanding the concept of what federal dollars going to abortion means. And it’s now in this very indirect way, where it’s reaching into the private insurance market, and it’s using federal funding as a cudgel to prevent groups like Planned Parenthood, and then also these private plans, from using other non-federal money to support abortions. And so it’s a real expansion beyond just you can’t use federal money to pay directly for abortions.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, two other reproductive-associated health stories worth mentioning. In California, a fertility clinic got bombed. The bomber apparently died in the explosion, but this is the first time I can remember a purposeful bombing to a health center that was not an abortion clinic. How significant is it to the debate, that we’re now seeing fertility clinics bombed as well? And what do we know, if anything, about why the bomber went after a fertility clinic?

Karlin-Smith: There has been, obviously, some pressure on the right, I think, to go after fertility processes, and IVF [in vitro fertilization], and lump that in with abortion. Although, I think Trump and others have pushed back a bit on that, realizing how common and popular some of these fertility treatments are. And also it conflicts, I think, to some extent with their desire to grow the American population.

The motives of this particular person don’t seem aligned with, I guess, the anti-abortion movement. He sort of seems more anti-natalist movement and stuff. So from that perspective, I didn’t see it as being aligned with kind of a bigger, more common political debate we’ve had recently, which is, again, does the Republican Party want to expand the anti-abortion debate even further into fertility treatments and stuff.

Rovner: I was going to say, it certainly has drawn fertility clinics into the abortion debate, even if neither side in the abortion debate would presumably have an interest in blowing up a fertility clinic. But it is now sort of, I guess, in the general consciousness of antisocial people, if you will, that’s out there.

The other story in the news this week is about a woman named Adriana Smith, a nurse and mother from Georgia who was nine weeks pregnant in February when she was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency. Smith has been kept alive on life support ever since, not because her family wants that but because her medical team at Emory University Hospital is worried about running afoul of Georgia’s abortion ban, which prohibits terminations after cardiac activity can be detected. Even if the mother is clinically dead? I feel like this case could have really ominous repercussions at some point.

Ollstein: Well, I just want to point out that, yes, the state’s abortion ban is playing a role here, but this was happening while Roe v. Wade was still in place. There were cases like this. Some of it has to do with legislation around advanced directives and pregnancy. So I will point out that this is not solely a post-Dobbs phenomenon.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it also bears watching. Well, there was lots of vaccine news this week — I’m so glad we have Anna and Sarah here — with both the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declaring an end to recommending covid vaccines for what seems to be most of the population. Sarah, what did they do? And what does this mean?

Karlin-Smith: So the new director of FDA’s biologics center and the FDA commissioner released a framework for approving covid shots moving forward. And basically they are saying that, because covid, the virus, shifts, and we want to try and update our vaccines at least yearly, usually, to keep up with the changing viruses, but we want to do that in a reasonable time so that by the time when you update the vaccine it’s actually available within that time — right? — FDA has allowed companies to do studies that don’t require full clinical trials anymore, because we sort of have already done those trials. We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We’re making minor tweaks to them, and they do immunogenicity studies, which are studies that basically show they mount the proper immune response. And then they approve them.

FDA is now, seems to be, saying, We’re only going to allow those studies to approve new covid vaccine updates for people who are over 65, or under 65 and have health conditions, because they are saying, in their mind, the risk-benefit balance of offering these shots doesn’t necessarily pan out favorably for younger, healthier populations, and we should do clinical trials.

It’s not entirely clear yet, despite them rolling out a framework, how this will actually play out. Can they relabel shots already approved? Will this only impact once companies do need to do a strain change next as the virus adapts? Did they go about doing this in a sort of legal manner? It came out through a journal kind of editorial commentary piece, not through the Federal Register or formal guidance. There’s been no notice of comment.

So there’s a lot of questions to remain as to how this will be implemented, which products it would affect, and when. But there is a lot of concern that there may be reduced access to the products moving forward.

Rovner: That’s because the vaccine makers aren’t going to — it’s not probably worth it financially to them — to remount all these studies. Right?

Karlin-Smith: First off, a lot of people I’ve talked to, and this came up yesterday at a meeting FDA had, don’t believe it’s actually ethical to do some of the studies FDA is now calling for. Even though the benefits, particularly when you’re talking about boosting people who already had a primary vaccination series for covid, or some covid, is not the same as the benefits of getting an original covid vaccine series.

There still are benefits, and there still are benefits for pretty much everybody that outweigh the risks. On average, these are extremely safe shots. We know a lot about their safety, and the balance is positive. So people are saying, once that exists, you cannot ethically test it on placebo. Even as [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary says, Well, so many Americans are declining to take the shot, so let’s test it and see. A lot of ethicists would say it’s actually, even if people are willing to do something that may not be ideal for their health, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical to test it in a trial.

So, I think there’s questions about, just, ethics, but also, right, whether companies would want to invest the time and money it would take to achieve and try to do them under this situation. So that is a big elephant in the room here. And I think some people feel like this is just sort of a push by Makary and his new CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director, essentially, to cut off vaccine access in a little bit of a sneaky way.

Rovner: Well, I did see, also this week, was I think it was Moderna, that was going to make a combination flu covid vaccine, has decided not to. I assume that’s related to all of this?

Karlin-Smith: Right. So Moderna had a, what people call a next-generation vaccine, which is supposed to be an improved update over the original shot, which is a bigger deal than just making a strain change. They actually think they provide a better response to protecting against the virus. And then they also added flu vaccine into it to sort of make it easier for people to get protected from both, and also provided solid data to show it would work well for flu.

And they seem to have probably pulled their application at this point over, again, these new concerns, and what we know Novavax went through in trying to get their covid vaccine across the finish line dealing with this new administration. So I think people have their sort of alert lights up going forward as to how this administration is going to handle vaccine approvals and what that will mean for access going forward.

Rovner: Well, in somewhat related news, we got the long-awaited report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which is supposed to lay out a blueprint for an action plan that will come later this summer. Not much in the 68-page report seems all that surprising. Some is fairly noncontroversial, calling for more study of ultra-processed foods and less screen time and more physical activity for kids.

And some is controversial but at this point kind of predictable, calling for another look at the childhood vaccine schedule, including, as we just discussed, more placebo studies for vaccines, and also less fluoride available, except in toothpaste. Anything jump out at you guys from the report that we should keep an eye on?

Karlin-Smith: I think one thing to think about is what it doesn’t address and doesn’t talk about. It’s not surprising the issues they call out for harming health in America, and some of them are debatable as to how much they do or don’t harm health, or whether their solutions would actually address those problems.

But they never talk about the U.S.’ lack of a health insurance system that assures people have coverage. They don’t mention the Republican Party’s and likely president’s willingness to sign onto a major bill that’s going to impact health. They don’t really talk about the socioeconomic drivers that impact health, which I find particularly interesting when they talk about food, because, obviously, the U.S. has a lot of healthy and unhealthy food available. And a lot of people know sort of how they could make better choices, but there are these situational factors outside of, often, an individual’s control to lead to that.

And I think the other thing that jumped out to me is, I think The Washington Post had a good line in their paragraph about just how many of the points are either overstated or misstated scientific findings. And they did a pretty good job of going through some of those. And it’s a difficult situation, I think, for the public to grapple with when you have leadership and the top echelons of our health department that is pushing so much misinformation, often very carefully, and having to weed out what is correct, where is the grains of truth, where does it go off into misinformation.

I don’t know. I find it really hard as a journalist. And so I do worry about, again, how this all plays into public perception and misunderstanding of these topics.

Rovner: And apparently they forgot about gun violence in all of this, which is rather notably not there.

Ollstein: Cars and guns are the big killers. And yeah, no mention of that.

Edney: I thought another glaring omission was tobacco. Kids are using e-cigarettes at high rates. We don’t really know much about them. And to Sarah’s point about misinformation, too, I think the hard part of being able to discern a lot of this, even as a member of the public, is everything they’ve done so far is only rhetoric. There hasn’t been actual regulation, or — this could be anything that you’re talking about. It could be food dyes. It could be “most favored nations.” We don’t know what they actually want to implement and what the potential for doing so — I think maybe on vaccines we’re seeing the most action. But as Sarah mentioned, we don’t know how that, whether it legally is going to be something that they can continue doing.

So even with this report, it was highly anticipated, but I don’t think we got anything beyond what I probably heard Kennedy say over and over throughout the campaign and in his bid for health secretary. So I am wondering when they actually decide to move into the policymaking part of it, instead of just telling us they’re going to do something.

Rovner: And interestingly, Secretary Kennedy was interviewed on CNN last night and walked back some of the timelines, even, including that vow that they were going to know the cause of autism by September and that they were going to have an action plan for this ready in another, I think, a hundred days. So this is going to be a hurry-up-and-wait.

All right, well, that is as much news as we have time for in this incredibly busy week. Now we will play my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis. She’s also a historian of the abortion movement. And her newest book, just out, is called “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.”

Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again.

Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So we’ve talked about personhood a lot on our podcast, including with you, but it means different things to different people. What’s your working definition, at least for the purpose of this book?

Ziegler: Yeah, I’m interested in this book in the legal fight for personhood, right? Some people have religious ideas of personhood. Bioethicists have ideas of personhood. Philosophers debate personhood. But I’m really interested in the legal claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, which gives us liberty and equality, applies the moment an egg is fertilized. Because it’s that legal claim that’s had a lot of knock-on effects with abortion, with IVF, and potentially even beyond.

Rovner: So if we as a society were to accept that fetuses or embryos or zygotes were people with full constitutional rights at the moment of creation, that can impact things way beyond abortion, right?

Ziegler: Definitely, yeah, especially if you make the moves that the anti-abortion movement, or the pro-life movement, in the United States has made, right? So one of the other things that’s probably worth saying is, if you believe the claim I laid out about fetal personhood, that doesn’t mean you necessarily think abortion should be criminalized or that IVF should be criminalized, either.

But the people who are leading the anti-abortion movement do, in large part, right? So it would have ramifications in lots of other contexts, because there’s a conclusion not only that human life begins at fertilization and that constitutional rights begin at fertilization but that the way you honor those constitutional rights is primarily by restricting or criminalizing certain things that threaten that life, in the views of the people who advocate for it.

Rovner: Right. And that includes IVF and forms of contraception. That’s where we sort of get to this idea that an abortion is murder or that, in this case, doing anything that harms even a zygote is murder.

Ziegler: Yeah. And it gets us to the Adriana Smith case in Georgia, too. So there’s sort of end-of-life cases that emerge. So, it obviously would have a big impact on abortion. So it’s not wrong to think about abortion in this context. It’s just that would definitely not be the stopping point.

Rovner: So, many people have only talked about personhood, really, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, but the concept is a lot older than that. I started covering personhood in like 2010, I think, when a couple of states were trying to vote on it. I didn’t realize until I read your book that it goes back well beyond even that.

Ziegler: Yeah. So I think a lot of people had that conception. And in the 2010s, there were state constitutional amendment efforts to write the idea of fetal personhood into state constitutions. And they all failed. So I think the narrative coming out of that was that you had the anti-abortion movement on the one hand, and then you had this more extreme fetal personhood movement on the other hand.

And that narrative fundamentally is wrong. There is no one in the anti-abortion movement who’s opposed to fetal personhood. There are disagreements about how and when it can be recognized. There’s strategic disagreements. There are no substantive disagreements much to speak of on the basics of fetal personhood.

So the idea goes all the way back to the 1960s, when states were first reforming the 19th-century criminal laws you sometimes see coming back to life as zombie laws. And initially it started as a strategic necessity, because it was very hard for the early anti-abortion movement to stop this reform wave, right? They were saying things like, Oh, abortion is going to lead to more sexual promiscuity, or, No one really needs abortion, because pregnancy is no longer dangerous. And that just wasn’t getting the job done.

So they began to argue that no one had a choice to legalize abortion in worse circumstances, because it would violate the rights of the unborn child. What’s interesting is that argument went from being this kind of strategic expedient to being this tremendously emotionally resonant long-term thing that has lived on the American right for now like a half-century. Even in moments when, I think arguably like right now, when it’s not politically smart to be making the argument, people will continue to, because this speaks to something, I think, for a lot of people who are opposed to abortion and other things like IVF.

Rovner: I know you’ve got access in writing this book to a lot of internal documents from people in the anti-abortion movement. I’m jealous, I have to say. Was there something there that surprised you?

Ziegler: Yeah, I think I was somewhat surprised by how much people talked this language of personhood when they were alone, right? This was not just something for the consumption of judges, or the consumption of politicians, or sort of like a nicer way to talk about what people really wanted. This was what people said when there was no one else there.

That didn’t mean they didn’t say other things that suggested that there were lots of other values and beliefs underlying this concept of personhood. But I think one of the important lessons of that is if you’re trying to understand people who are opposed to abortion, just assuming that everything they’re saying is just pure strategy is not helpful, right? Any more than it would be for people who support reproductive rights, to have it assume that everything they’re saying is not genuine. You just fail to understand what people are doing, I think. And I think that was probably what I was the most surprised about.

Rovner: I was struck that you point out that personhood doesn’t have to begin and end with the criminalization of abortion. How could more acceptance of the rights of the unborn change society in perhaps less polarized ways?

Ziegler: Yeah, one of the things that’s really striking is that there are other countries that recognize a right to life for a fetus or unborn child that don’t criminalize abortion or don’t enforce criminal abortion laws. And often what they say is that it’s not OK for the state to start with criminalization when it isn’t doing things to support pregnant women, who after all are necessary for a fetus or unborn child to survive, right?

So there are strategies that you could use to reduce infant mortality, for example, to reduce neonatal mortality, to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth, to improve maternal health, to really eliminate some of the reasons that people who may want, all things being equal, to carry a child to term. That’s not, obviously, going to be everybody. Some people don’t want to be parents at all.

But there are other people for whom it’s a matter of resources, or it’s a matter of overcoming racial discrimination, or it’s a matter of leaving an abusive relationship. And if governments were more committed to doing some of those things, it’s reasonable to assume that a subset of those people would carry pregnancies to term, right?

So there are lots of ways that if a state were serious about honoring fetal life, that it could. I think one of the other things that’s striking that I realized in writing the book is that that tracks with what a subset of Americans think. You’ll find these artifacts in polls where you’ll get something like 33% of people in Pew Forum’s 2022 poll saying they thought that life and rights began at conception, but also that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized.

So there are a subset of Americans who, whether they’re coming from a place of faith or otherwise, can hold those two beliefs at once. So I think an interesting question is, could we have a politics that accommodates that kind of belief? And at the moment the answer is probably not, but it’s interesting to imagine how that could change.

Rovner: It’s nice to know that there is a place that we can hope to get.

Ziegler: Yeah, exactly.

Rovner: Mary Ziegler, thank you so much for joining us again.

Ziegler: Thanks for having me.

Karlin-Smith: I purposely chose a sort of light story from Australia, where scientists studied remote work, and the headline is “[Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have] Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier.’” And it just goes through some of the benefits and perks people have found from working remotely, including more sleep, more time with friends and family, things like that. And it just felt like a nice, interesting read in a time where there’s a lot of heavy health news.

Rovner: Also, scientific evidence of things that I think we all could have predicted. Anna.

Edney: Apologies for going the other direction here, but it’s a story that I wrote this week, an investigation that I’ve been working on for a long time, “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug.” So this is one, in particularly a lot of women have used. You can go in any CVS, Target, Walmart, stores like that, and buy it. Called Azo, for urinary tract infections. And all these stores sell their own generic versions as well, under phenazopyridine.

And this drug, I was kind of shocked to learn, is not FDA-approved. There are prescription versions that are not FDA-approved, either. It’s just been around so long that it’s been grandfathered in. And that may not be a big deal, except that this one, the FDA has raised questions about whether it causes cancer and whether it needs a stronger cancer warning, because the National Cancer Institute found in 1978 that it causes tumors in rats and mice. But no other work has been done on this drug, because it hasn’t been approved. So no one’s looked at it in humans. And it masks issues that really need antibiotics and causes a host of other issues.

There were — University of Virginia toxicologists told me they found, in the last 20 years, at least 200 suspected teen suicides where they used this drug, because of how dangerous this drug can be in any higher amounts than what’s on the box. So I went through this drug, but there are other ones on the market as well that are not approved. And there’s this whole FDA system that has allowed the OTC [over-the-counter] market to be pretty lax.

Rovner: OK, that’s terrifying. But thank you for your work. Alice.

Ollstein: Speaking of terrifying, I chose a piece from NPR called, “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago.” And this is a look at all of the ways our public health agency that is supposed to be letting us know when outbreaks are happening, and where, and how to protect ourselves, they’ve gone dark. They are not posting on social media. They are not sending out alerts. They are not sending out newsletters. And it walks through the danger of all of that happening, with interviews with people who are still on the inside and on the outside experiencing the repercussions.

Rovner: Well, my extra credit, it helps explain why Alice’s extra credit, because it’s about all the people who were doing that who have been fired or laid off from the federal government. It’s called, “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

And it’s the result of interviews with more than 30 current and former federal workers, along with the families of some who died or killed themselves. And it’s a review of documents to confirm those stories. It’s a super-depressing but beautifully told piece about the dramatic mental health impact of the federal DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs and firings, and the impact that that’s been having on these workers, their families, and their communities.

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks to our fill-in editor this week, Rebecca Adams, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Anna?

Edney: Both of those [X and Bluesky], @annaedney.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: Everywhere — X, Bluesky, LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: I am off to California next week, where we’ll be taping the podcast at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Care Journalists, which we won’t post until the following Monday. So everyone please have a great Memorial Day holiday week. And until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

2 months 3 weeks ago

california, COVID-19, Health Care Costs, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Public Health, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Children's Health, FDA, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Medicaid Expansion, Misinformation, Nutrition, Podcasts, Pregnancy, Premiums, reproductive health, Subsidies, Transgender Health, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

After narrowly passing a budget resolution this spring foreshadowing major Medicaid cuts, Republicans in Congress are having trouble agreeing on specific ways to save billions of dollars from a pool of funding that pays for the program without cutting benefits on which millions of Americans rely. Moderates resist changes they say would harm their constituents, while fiscal conservatives say they won’t vote for smaller cuts than those called for in the budget resolution. The fate of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” containing renewed tax cuts and boosted immigration enforcement could hang on a Medicaid deal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate by agreeing with the Biden administration that a Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone should be dropped. It’s clear the administration’s request is purely technical, though, and has no bearing on whether officials plan to protect the abortion pill’s availability.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Congressional Republicans are making halting progress on negotiations over government spending cuts. As hard-line House conservatives push for deeper cuts to the Medicaid program, their GOP colleagues representing districts that heavily depend on Medicaid coverage are pushing back. House Republican leaders are eying a Memorial Day deadline, and key committees are scheduled to review the legislation next week — but first, Republicans need to agree on what that legislation says.
Trump withdrew his nomination of Janette Nesheiwat for U.S. surgeon general amid accusations she misrepresented her academic credentials and criticism from the far right. In her place, he nominated Casey Means, a physician who is an ally of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and a prominent advocate of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
The pharmaceutical industry is on alert as Trump prepares to sign an executive order directing agencies to look into “most-favored-nation” pricing, a policy that would set U.S. drug prices to the lowest level paid by similar countries. The president explored that policy during his first administration, and the drug industry sued to stop it. Drugmakers are already on edge over Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on drugs and their ingredients.
And Kennedy is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week. The hearing would be the first time the secretary of Health and Human Services has appeared before the HELP Committee since his confirmation hearings — and all eyes are on the committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who expressed deep concerns at the time, including about Kennedy’s stances on vaccines.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and co-wrote the latest KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” installment, about an unexpected bill for what seemed like preventive care. If you have an outrageous, baffling, or infuriating medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured,” by Andrea Hsu.

Maya Goldman: Stat’s “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare,” by Zachary R. Mider and Zeke Faux.

Sandhya Raman: The Louisiana Illuminator’s “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” by Anna Claire Vollers.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

ProPublica’s series “Life of the Mother: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, and the winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism.
The New York Times’ “G.O.P. Targets a Medicaid Loophole Used by 49 States To Grab Federal Money,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
KFF Health News’ “Seeking Spending Cuts, GOP Lawmakers Target a Tax Hospitals Love to Pay,” by Phil Galewitz.
Axios’ “Out-of-Pocket Drug Spending Hit $98B in 2024: Report,” by Maya Goldman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via a videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News.

Maya Goldman: Great to be here.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news.

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where Sandhya is coming directly from, where regular listeners to this podcast will be not one bit surprised that Republicans working on President [Donald] Trump’s one “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill are at an impasse over how and how deeply to cut the Medicaid program. Originally, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was supposed to mark up its portion of the bill this week, but that turned out to be too optimistic. Now they’re shooting for next week, apparently Tuesday or so, they’re saying, and apparently that Memorial Day goal to finish the bill is shifting to maybe the Fourth of July? But given what’s leaking out of the closed Republican meetings on this, even that might be too soon. Where are we with these Medicaid negotiations?

Raman: I would say a lot has been happening, but also a lot has not been happening. I think that anytime we’ve gotten any little progress on knowing what exactly is at the top of the list, it gets walked back. So earlier this week we had a meeting with a lot of the moderates in Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s office and trying to get them on board with some of the things that they were hesitant about, and following the meeting, Speaker Johnson had said that two of the things that have been a little bit more contentious — changing the federal match for the expansion population and instituting per capita caps for states — were off the table. But the way that he phrased it is kind of interesting in that he said stay tuned and that it possibly could change.

And so then yesterday when we were hearing from the Energy and Commerce Committee, it seemed like these things are still on the table. And then Speaker Johnson has kind of gone back on that and said, I said it was likely. So every time we kind of have any sort of change, it’s really unclear if these things are in the mix, outside the mix. When we pulled them off the table, we had a lot of the hard-line conservatives get really upset about this because it’s not enough savings. So I think any way that you push it with such narrow margins, it’s been difficult to make any progress, even though they’ve been having a lot of meetings this week.

Rovner: One of the things that surprised me was apparently the Senate Republicans are weighing in. The Senate Republicans who aren’t even set to make Medicaid cuts under their version of the budget resolution are saying that the House needs to go further. Where did that come from?

Raman: It’s just been a difficult process to get anything across. I mean, in the House side, a lot of it has been, I think, election-driven. You see the people that are not willing to make as many concessions are in competitive districts. The people that want to go a little bit more extreme on what they’re thinking are in much more safe districts. And then in the Senate, I think there’s a lot more at play just because they have longer terms, they have more to work with. So some of the pushback has been from people that it would directly affect their states or if the governors have weighed in. But I think that there are so many things that they do want to get done, since there is much stronger agreement on some of the immigration stuff and the taxes that they want to find the savings somewhere. If they don’t find it, then the whole thing is moot.

Rovner: So meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Democrats is out with estimates of what some of these Medicaid options would mean for coverage, and it gives lie to some of these Republican claims that they can cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid without touching benefits, right? I mean all of these — and Maya, your nodding.

Goldman: Yeah.

Rovner: All of these things would come with coverage losses.

Goldman: Yeah, I think it’s important to think about things like work requirements, which has gotten a lot of support from moderate Republicans. The only way that that produces savings is if people come off Medicaid as a result. Work requirements in and of themselves are not saving any money. So I know advocates are very concerned about any level of cuts. I talked to somebody from a nursing home association who said: We can’t pick and choose. We’re not in a position to pick and choose which are better or worse, because at this point, everything on the table is bad for us. So I think people are definitely waiting with bated breath there.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans over the last week or so with the talking points. If we’re just going after fraud and abuse then we’re not going to cut anybody’s benefits. And it’s like — um, good luck with that.

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, one place Congress could recoup a lot of money from Medicaid is by cracking down on provider taxes, which 49 of the 50 states use to plump up their federal Medicaid match, if you will. Basically the state levies a tax on hospitals or nursing homes or some other group of providers, claims that money as their state share to draw down additional federal matching Medicaid funds, then returns it to the providers in the form of increased reimbursement while pocketing the difference. You can call it money laundering as some do, or creative financing as others do, or just another way to provide health care to low-income people.

But one thing it definitely is, at least right now, is legal. Congress has occasionally tried to crack down on it since the late 1980s. I have spent way more time covering this fight than I wish I had, but the combination of state and health provider pushback has always prevented it from being eliminated entirely. If you want a really good backgrounder, I point you to the excellent piece in The New York Times this week by our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff. What are you guys hearing about provider taxes and other forms of state contributions and their future in all of this? Is this where they’re finally going to look to get a pot of money?

Raman: It’s still in the mix. The tricky thing is how narrow the margins are, and when you have certain moderates having a hard line saying, I don’t want to cut more than $500 billion or $600 billion, or something like that. And then you have others that don’t want to dip below the $880 billion set for the Energy and Commerce Committee. And then there are others that have said it’s not about a specific number, it’s what is being cut. So I think once we have some more numbers for some of the other things, it’ll provide a better idea of what else can fit in. Because right now for work requirements, we’re going based on some older CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers. We have the CBO numbers that the Democrats asked for, but it doesn’t include everything. And piecing that together is the puzzle, will illuminate some of that, if there are things that people are a little bit more on board with. But it’s still kind of soon to figure out if we’re not going to see draft text until early next week.

Goldman: I think the tricky thing with provider taxes is that it’s so baked into the way that Medicaid functions in each state. And I think I totally co-sign on the New York Times article. It was a really helpful explanation of all of this, and I would bet that you’ll see a lot of pushback from state governments, including Republicans, on a proposal that makes severe changes to that.

Rovner: Someday, but not today, I will tell the story of the 1991 fight over this in which there was basically a bizarre dealmaking with individual senators to keep this legal. That was a year when the Democrats were trying to get rid of it. So it’s a bipartisan thing. All right, well, moving on.

It wouldn’t be a Thursday morning if we didn’t have breaking federal health personnel news. Today was supposed to be the confirmation hearing for surgeon general nominee and Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat. But now her nomination has been pulled over some questions about whether she was misrepresenting her medical education credentials, and she’s already been replaced with the nomination of Casey Means, the sister of top [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] aide Calley Means, who are both leaders in the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] movement. This feels like a lot of science deniers moving in at one time. Or is it just me?

Edney: Yeah, I think that the Meanses have been in this circle, names floated for various things at various times, and this was a place where Casey Means fit in. And certainly she espouses a lot of the views on, like, functional medicine and things that this administration, at least RFK Jr., seems to also subscribe to. But the one thing I’m not as clear on her is where she stands with vaccines, because obviously Nesheiwat had fudged on her school a little bit, and—

Rovner: Yeah, I think she did her residency at the University of Arkansas—

Edney: That’s where.

Rovner: —and she implied that she’d graduated from the University of Arkansas medical school when in fact she graduated from an accredited Caribbean medical school, which lots of doctors go to. It’s not a sin—

Edney: Right.

Rovner: —and it’s a perfectly, as I say, accredited medical school. That was basically — but she did fudge it on her resume.

Edney: Yeah.

Rovner: So apparently that was one of the things that got her pulled.

Edney: Right. And the other, kind of, that we’ve seen in recent days, again, is Laura Loomer coming out against her because she thinks she’s not anti-vaccine enough. So what the question I think to maybe be looking into today and after is: Is Casey Means anti-vaccine enough for them? I don’t know exactly the answer to that and whether she’ll make it through as well.

Rovner: Well, we also learned this week that Vinay Prasad, a controversial figure in the covid movement and even before that, has been named to head the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research, making him the nation’s lead vaccine regulator, among other things. Now he does have research bona fides but is a known skeptic of things like accelerated approval of new drugs, and apparently the biotech industry, less than thrilled with this pick, Anna?

Edney: Yeah, they are quite afraid of this pick. You could see it in the stocks for a lot of vaccine companies, for some other companies particularly. He was quite vocal and quite against the covid vaccines during covid and even compared them to the Nazi regime. So we know that there could be a lot of trouble where, already, you know, FDA has said that they’re going to require placebo-controlled trials for new vaccines and imply that any update to a covid vaccine makes it a new vaccine. So this just spells more trouble for getting vaccines to market and quickly to people. He also—you mentioned accelerated approval. This is a way that the FDA uses to try to get promising medicines to people faster. There are issues with it, and people have written about the fact that they rely on what are called surrogate endpoints. So not Did you live longer? but Did your tumor shrink?

And you would think that that would make you live longer, but it actually turns out a lot of times it doesn’t. So you maybe went through a very strong medication and felt more terrible than you might have and didn’t extend your life. So there’s a lot of that discussion, and so that. There are other drugs. Like this Sarepta drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a big one that Vinay Prasad has come out against, saying that should have never been approved, because it was using these kind of surrogate endpoints. So I think biotech’s pretty — thinking they’re going to have a lot tougher road ahead to bring stuff to market.

Rovner: And I should point out that over the very long term, this has been the continuing struggle at FDA. It’s like, do you protect the public but make people wait longer for drugs or do you get the drugs out and make sure that people who have no other treatments available have something available? And it’s been a constant push and pull. It’s not really been partisan. Sometimes you get one side pushing and the other side pushing back. It’s really nothing new. It’s just the sort of latest iteration of this.

Edney: Right. Yeah. This is the pendulum swing, back to the Maybe we need to be slowing it down side. It’s also interesting because there are other discussions from RFK Jr. that, like, We need to be speeding up approvals and Trump wants to speed up approvals. So I don’t know where any of this will actually come down when the rubber meets the road, I guess.

Rovner: Sandhya and Maya, I see you both nodding. Do you want to add something?

Raman: I think this was kind of a theme that I also heard this week in the — we had the Senate Finance hearing for some of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nominees, and Jim O’Neill, who’s one of the nominees, that was something that was brought up by Finance ranking member Ron Wyden, that some of his past remarks when he was originally considered to be on the short list for FDA commissioner last Trump administration is that he basically said as long as it’s safe, it should go ahead regardless of efficacy. So those comments were kind of brought back again, and he’s in another hearing now, so that might come up as an issue in HELP [the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] today.

Rovner: And he’s the nominee for deputy secretary, right? Have to make sure I keep all these things straight. Maya, you wanting to add something?

Goldman: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think there is a divide between these two philosophies on pharmaceuticals, and my sense is that the selection of Prasad is kind of showing that the anti-accelerated-approval side is winning out. But I think Anna is correct that we still don’t know where it’s going to land.

Rovner: Yes, and I will point out that accelerated approval first started during AIDS when there was no treatments and basically people were storming the — literally physically storming — the FDA, demanding access to AIDS drugs, which they did finally get. But that’s where accelerated approval came from. This is not a new fight, and it will continue.

Turning to abortion, the Trump administration surprised a lot of people this week when it continued the Biden administration’s position asking for that case in Texas challenging the abortion pill to be dropped. For those who’ve forgotten, this was a case originally filed by a bunch of Texas medical providers demanding the judge overrule the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in the year 2000. The Supreme Court ruled the original plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but in the meantime, three states —Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — have taken their place as plaintiffs. But now the Trump administration points out that those states have no business suing in the Northern District of Texas, which kind of seems true on its face. But we should not mistake this to think that the Trump administration now supports the current approval status of the abortion bill. Right, Sandhya?

Raman: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. It doesn’t surprise me. If they had allowed these three states, none of which are Texas — they shouldn’t have standing. And if they did allow them to, that would open a whole new can of worms for so many other cases where the other side on so many issues could cherry-pick in the same way. And so I think, I assume, that this will come up in future cases for them and they will continue with the positions they’ve had before. But this was probably in their best interest not to in this specific one.

Rovner: Yeah. There are also those who point out that this could be a way of the administration protecting itself. If it wants to roll back or reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, it would help prevent blue states from suing to stop that. So it serves a double purpose here, right?

Raman: Yeah. I couldn’t see them doing it another way. And even if you go through the ruling, the language they use, it’s very careful. It’s not dipping into talking fully about abortion. It’s going purely on standing. Yeah.

Rovner: There’s nothing that says, We think the abortion pill is fine the way it is. It clearly does not say that, although they did get the headlines — and I’m sure the president wanted — that makes it look like they’re towing this middle ground on abortion, which they may be but not necessarily in this case.

Well, before we move off of reproductive health, a shoutout here to the incredible work of ProPublica, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service this week for its stories on women who died due to abortion bans that prevented them from getting care for their pregnancy complications. Regular listeners of the podcast will remember that we talked about these stories as they came out last year, but I will post another link to them in the show notes today.

OK, moving on. There’s even more drug price news this week, starting with the return of, quote, “most favored nation” drug pricing. Anna, remind us what this is and why it’s controversial.

Edney: Yeah. So the idea of most favored nation, this is something President Trump has brought up before in his first administration, but it creates a basket, essentially, of different prices that nations pay. And we’re going to base ours on the lowest price that is paid for—

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’—

Edney: —prices.

Rovner: —price limits.

Edney: Yeah. Essentially, yes. We can’t import their drugs, but we can import their prices. And so the goal is to just basically piggyback off of whoever is paying the lowest price and to base ours off of that. And clearly the drug industry does not like this and, I think, has faced a number of kind of hits this week where things are looming that could really come after them. So Politico broke that news that Trump is going to sign or expected to sign an executive order that will direct his agencies to look into this most-favored-nation effort. And it feels very much like 2.0, like we were here before. And it didn’t exactly work out, obviously.

Rovner: They sued, didn’t they? The drug industry sued, as I recall.

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re right. Yes.

Goldman: If I’m remembering—

Rovner: But I think they won.

Goldman: If I’m remembering correctly, it was an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit though, right? So—

Rovner: It was. Yes. It was about a regulation. Yes.

Goldman: —who knows what would happen if they go through a different procedure this time.

Rovner: So the other thing, obviously, that the drug industry is freaked out about right now are tariffs, which have been on again, off again, on again, off again. Where are we with tariffs on — and it’s not just tariffs on drugs being imported. It’s tariffs on drug ingredients being imported, right?

Edney: Yeah. And that’s a particularly rough one because many ingredients are imported, and then some of the drugs are then finished here, just like a car. All the pieces are brought in and then put together in one place. And so this is something the Trump administration has began the process of investigating. And PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], the trade group for the drug industry, has come out officially, as you would expect, against the tariffs, saying that: This will reduce our ability to do R&D. It will raise the price of drugs that Americans pay, because we’re just going to pass this on to everyone. And so we’re still in this waiting zone of seeing when or exactly how much and all of that for the tariffs for pharma.

Rovner: And yet Americans are paying — already paying — more than they ever have. Maya, you have a story just about that. Tell us.

Goldman: Yeah, there was a really interesting report from an analytics data firm that showed the price that Americans are paying for prescriptions is continuing to climb. Also, the number of prescriptions that Americans are taking is continuing to climb. It certainly will be interesting to see if this administration can be any more successful. That report, I don’t think this made it into the article that I ended up writing, but it did show that the cost of insulin is down. And that’s something that has been a federal policy intervention. We haven’t seen a lot of the effects yet of the Medicare drug price negotiations, but I think there are signs that that could lower the prices that people are paying. So I think it’s interesting to just see the evolution of all of this. It’s very much in flux.

Rovner: A continuing effort. Well, we are now well into the second hundred days of Trump 2.0, and we’re still learning about the cuts to health and health-related programs the administration is making. Just in this week’s rundown are stories about hundreds more people being laid off at the National Cancer Institute, a stop-work order at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, that studies Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases, and the layoff of most of the remaining staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health.

A reminder that this is all separate from the discretionary-spending budget request that the administration sent up to lawmakers last week. That document calls for a 26% cut in non-mandatory funding at HHS, meaning just about everything other than Medicare and Medicaid. And it includes a proposed $18 billion cut to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and elimination of the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of low-income Americans pay their heating and air conditioning bills. Now, this is normally the part of the federal budget that’s deemed dead on arrival. The president sends up his budget request, and Congress says, Yeah, we’re not doing that. But this at least does give us an idea of what direction the administration wants to take at HHS, right? What’s the likelihood of Congress endorsing any of these really huge, deep cuts?

Raman: From both sides—

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya.

Raman: It’s not going to happen, and they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the appropriations bills. I think that when we’re looking in the House in particular, there are a lot of things in what we know from this so-called skinny budget document that they could take up and put in their bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. But I think the Senate’s going to be a different story, just because the Senate Appropriations chair is Susan Collins and she, as soon as this came out, had some pretty sharp words about the big cuts to NIH. They’ve had one in a series of two hearings on biomedical research. Concerned about some of these kinds of things. So I cannot necessarily see that sharp of a cut coming to fruition for NIH, but they might need to make some concessions on some other things.

This is also just a not full document. It has some things and others. I didn’t see any to FDA in there at all. So that was a question mark, even though they had some more information in some of the documents that had leaked kind of earlier on a larger version of this budget request. So I think we’ll see more about how people are feeling next week when we start having Secretary Kennedy testify on some of these. But I would not expect most of this to make it into whatever appropriations law we get.

Goldman: I was just going to say that. You take it seriously but not literally, is what I’ve been hearing from people.

Edney: We don’t have a full picture of what has already been cut. So to go in and then endorse cutting some more, maybe a little bit too early for that, because even at this point they’re still bringing people back that they cut. They’re finding out, Oh, this is actually something that is really important and that we need, so to do even more doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense right now.

Rovner: Yeah, that state of disarray is purposeful, I would guess, and doing a really good job at sort of clouding things up.

Goldman: One note on the cuts. I talked to someone at HHS this week who said as they’re bringing back some of these specialized people, in order to maintain the legality of, what they see as the legality of, the RIF [reduction in force], they need to lay off additional people to keep that number consistent. So I think that is very much in flux still and interesting to watch.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think that’s part of what we were seeing this week is that the groups that got spared are now getting cut because they’ve had to bring back other people. And as I point out, I guess, every week, pretty much all of this is illegal. And as it goes to courts, judges say, You can’t do this. So everything is in flux and will continue.

All right, finally this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who as of now is scheduled to appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next week to talk about the department’s proposed budget, is asking CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to develop new guidance for treating measles with drugs and vitamins. This comes a week after he ordered a change in vaccine policy you already mentioned, Anna, so that new vaccines would have to be tested against placebos rather than older versions of the vaccine. These are all exactly the kinds of things that Kennedy promised health committee chairman Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do. And yet we’ve heard almost nothing from Cassidy about anything the secretary has said or done since he’s been in office. So what do we expect to happen when they come face-to-face with each other in front of the cameras next week, assuming that it happens?

Edney: I’m very curious. I don’t know. Do I expect a senator to take a stand? I don’t necessarily, but this—

Rovner: He hasn’t yet.

Edney: Yeah, he hasn’t yet. But this is maybe about face-saving too for him. So I don’t know.

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy?

Edney: For Cassidy, given he said: I’m going to keep an eye on him. We’re going to talk all the time, and he is not going to do this thing without my input. I’m not sure how Cassidy will approach that. I think it’ll be a really interesting hearing that we’ll all be watching.

Rovner: Yes. And just little announcement, if it does happen, that we are going to do sort of a special Wednesday afternoon after the hearing with some of our KFF Health News colleagues. So we are looking forward to that hearing. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, welcome back.

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient got preventive care, which the Affordable Care Act was supposed to incentivize by making it cost-free at the point of service — except it wasn’t. Tell us who the patient is and what kind of care they got.

Sausser: Carmen Aiken is from Chicago. Carmen uses they/them pronouns. And Carmen made an appointment in the summer of 2023 for an annual checkup. This is just like a wellness check that you are very familiar with. You get your vaccines updated. You get your weight checked. You talk to your doctor about your physical activity and your family history. You might get some blood work done. Standard stuff.

Rovner: And how big was the bill?

Sausser: The bill ended up being more than $1,400 when it should, in Carmen’s mind, have been free.

Rovner: Which is a lot.

Sausser: A lot.

Rovner: I assume that there was a complaint to the health plan and the health plan said, Nope, not covered. Why did they say that?

Sausser: It turns out that alongside with some blood work that was preventive, Carmen also had some blood work done to monitor an ongoing prescription. Because that blood test is not considered a standard preventive service, the entire appointment was categorized as diagnostic and not preventive. So all of these services that would’ve been free to them, available at no cost, all of a sudden Carmen became responsible for.

Rovner: So even if the care was diagnostic rather than strictly preventive — obviously debatable — that sounds like a lot of money for a vaccine and some blood test. Why was the bill so high?

Sausser: Part of the reason the bill was so high was because Carmen’s blood work was sent to a hospital for processing, and hospitals, as you know, can charge a lot more for the same services. So under Carmen’s health plan, they were responsible for, I believe it was, 50% of the cost of services performed in an outpatient hospital setting. And that’s what that blood work fell under. So the charges were high.

Rovner: So we’ve talked a lot on the podcast about this fight in Congress to create site-neutral payments. This is a case where that probably would’ve made a big difference.

Sausser: Yeah, it would. And there’s discussion, there’s bipartisan support for it. The idea is that you should not have to pay more for the same services that are delivered at different places. But right now there’s no legislation to protect patients like Carmen from incurring higher charges.

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill?

Sausser: Carmen ended up paying it. They put it on a credit card. This was of course after they tried appealing it to their insurance company. Their insurance company decided that they agreed with the provider that these services were diagnostic, not preventive. And so, yeah, Carmen was losing sleep over this and decided ultimately that they were just going to pay it.

Rovner: And at least it was a four-figure bill and not a five-figure bill.

Sausser: Right.

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? I imagine it is not that you should skip needed preventive/diagnostic care. Some drugs, when you’re on them, they say that you should have blood work done periodically to make sure you’re not having side effects.

Sausser: Right. You should not skip preventive services. And that’s the whole intent behind this in the ACA. It catches stuff early so that it becomes more treatable. I think you have to be really, really careful and specific when you’re making appointments, and about your intention for the appointment, so that you don’t incur charges like this. I think that you can also be really careful about where you get your blood work conducted. A lot of times you’ll see these signs in the doctor’s office like: We use this lab. If this isn’t in-network with you, you need to let us know. Because the charges that you can face really vary depending on where those labs are processed. So you can be really careful about that, too.

Rovner: And adding to all of this, there’s the pending Supreme Court case that could change it, right?

Sausser: Right. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments. It was in April. I think it was on the 21st. And it is a case that originated out in Texas. There is a group of Christian businesses that are challenging the mandate in the ACA that requires health insurers to cover a lot of these preventive services. So obviously we don’t have a decision in the case yet, but we’ll see.

Rovner: We will, and we will cover it on the podcast. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much.

Sausser: Thank you.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Maya, you were the first to choose this week, so why don’t you go first?

Goldman: My extra credit is from Stat. It’s called “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. And I just think it’s a really interesting evidence point to the United States’ losses, other countries’ gain. The U.S. has long been the pinnacle of research science, and people flock to this country to do research. And I think we’re already seeing a reversal of that as cuts to NIH funding and other scientific enterprises is reduced.

Rovner: Yep. A lot of stories about this, too. Anna.

Edney: So mine is from a couple of my colleagues that they did earlier this week. “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare.” And I thought it was really interesting because it had brought me back to these cheap, bare-bones plans that people were allowed to start selling that don’t meet any of the Obamacare requirements. And so this guy who used to, in the ’80s and ’90s, wrote for sitcoms — “Coach” or “Night Court,” if anyone goes to watch those on reruns. But he did a series of random things after that and has sort of now landed on selling these junk plans, but doing it in a really weird way that signs people up for a job that they don’t know they’re being signed up for. And I think it’s just, it’s an interesting read because we knew when these things were coming online that this was shady and people weren’t going to get the coverage they needed. And this takes it to an extra level. They’re still around, and they’re still ripping people off.

Rovner: Or as I’d like to subhead this story: Creative people think of creative things.

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: So my pick is “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” and it’s from Anna Claire Vollers at the Louisiana Illuminator. And her story looks at some of the ties between civil rights and health. So 2025 is the 70th anniversary of the bus boycott, the 60th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act. And it’s also the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. And she goes into, Medicaid isn’t something you usually consider a civil rights win, but health as a human right was part of the civil rights movement. And I think it’s an interesting piece.

Rovner: It is an interesting piece, and we should point out Medicare was also a huge civil rights, important piece of law because it desegregated all the hospitals in the South. All right, my extra credit this week is a truly infuriating story from NPR by Andrea Hsu. It’s called “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured.” And it’s a situation that if a private employer did it, Congress would be all over them and it would be making huge headlines. These are federal workers who are trying to do the right thing for themselves and their families but who are being jerked around in impossible ways and have no idea not just whether they have jobs but whether they have health insurance, and whether the medical care that they’re getting while this all gets sorted out will be covered. It’s one thing to shrink the federal workforce, but there is some basic human decency for people who haven’t done anything wrong, and a lot of now-former federal workers are not getting it at the moment.

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions, We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Sandhya?

Raman: I’m on X, @SandhyaWrites, and also on Bluesky, @SandhyaWrites at Bluesky.

Rovner: Anna.

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney.

Rovner: Maya.

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_. Same on Bluesky and also increasingly on LinkedIn.

Rovner: All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

3 months 1 week ago

Courts, COVID-19, Health Care Costs, Insurance, Medicaid, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Public Health, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Bill Of The Month, Drug Costs, FDA, HHS, Hospitals, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', NIH, Podcasts, Prescription Drugs, Preventive Services, reproductive health, Surprise Bills, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress, vaccines, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': The Dismantling of HHS

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

A week into the reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services announced by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the scope of the staff cuts and program cutbacks is starting to become clear. Among the biggest targets for reductions were the nation’s premier public health agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the FDA.

Meanwhile, Kennedy did not show up as invited to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, known as HELP, but he did visit families in Texas whose unvaccinated children died of measles in the current outbreak and called for an end to water fluoridation during a stop in Utah.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Victoria Knight of Axios, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

Amid a dearth of public information about federal health cutbacks, HHS employees currently on administrative leave report they were given no opportunity to hand off their responsibilities, suggesting important work will simply be discontinued. Critical staff members have been cut from the FDA offices funded by user fees, for instance — affecting the drugmakers that pay the fees in exchange for timely evaluation of their products, as well as the patients hoping for access to those drugs. Even if the cuts were reversed, the damage could linger, especially in areas where there will be gaps in data such as disease surveillance.
Meanwhile, the temporary public communications freeze implemented in the Trump administration’s early days apparently has not ended. State officials, desperate for information from federal health officials about ongoing programs, are receiving no response as they seek guidance from offices in which most or all staffers were laid off.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order this week that instructs federal department heads to summarily repeal any regulation they deem “unlawful.” The order threatens to effectively short-circuit the federal regulatory process, which involves public notices and opportunities to comment. Businesses rely on that process to make decisions, and Trump’s order could create further instability for health care and other industries.
And Kennedy traveled West this week, using his public appearances to call for removing fluoride from the water supply and to discuss the measles outbreak. He issued his strongest endorsement of the measles vaccine yet, but he also praised doctors who have used alternative and unapproved remedies to treat measles patients. Senators had called him to testify before Congress this week about the ongoing upheaval at HHS, but the hearing was canceled.
Legislators in a growing number of states are introducing abortion bans that would punish women seeking abortions as well as abortion providers, suggesting a long game for abortion opponents that goes well beyond overturning a nationwide right to the procedure.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Georgetown Law School professor Stephen Vladeck about the limits of presidential power.

Plus, for “extra credit” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin,” by Richard Fausset.

Victoria Knight: Wired’s “Dr. Oz Pushed for AI Health Care in First Medicare Agency Town Hall,” by Leah Feiger and Steven Levy.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Guardian’s “‘We Are Failing’: Doctors and Students in the US Look to Mexico for Basic Abortion Training,” by Carter Sherman.

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “In Sweden, a Focus on Smokeless Tobacco,” by Sandhya Raman.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

The New York Times’ “The Three States That Are Especially Stuck if Congress Cuts Medicaid,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
The AP’s “Ex-Official Says He Was Forced out of FDA After Trying To Protect Vaccine Safety Data From RFK Jr.,” by Matthew Perrone.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Dismantling of HHS

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 10, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios news.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who will talk about the limits of presidential power — if there are any left. But first, this week’s news.

So the dust is starting to settle, sort of, in that ginormous reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services launched by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week, which I am now calling “The Great Dismantling.” Here’s some of what we know about the casualties at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Offices that worked on sexually transmitted disease prevention, injury prevention, lead poisoning surveillance, and tobacco were basically gutted. At NIH [the National Institutes of Health], the chronic pain division was eliminated, as was the Office of Long Covid. And at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], offices handling veterinary medicine, generic drugs, and food safety were dramatically reduced. Now that we’ve had a week to absorb what’s been done and, despite claims of the contrary from Secretary Kennedy, we are told there is no plan to hire back some of those workers who were apparently let go in error, what are you guys hearing about where we are?

Ollstein: Yeah, there’s a lot of people who were put on administrative leave, which is going to run out in a few weeks. By and large, they are not expecting to be called back. They are holding out hope. They would love to be called back. They keep telling me that they would love to get back to the work they were doing. They’re really worried about it not continuing without them, but they’re mostly assuming that these cuts are permanent for now. And contrary to claims from HHS that work isn’t being eliminated, it’s just being consolidated or folded in or there’s different words they’re using, all of these different laid-off workers told me from different divisions that they were basically given no opportunity to hand over their ongoing projects to anyone else, to train anyone else, to make sure it keeps going. So as far as they know, a lot of this surveillance work, research work, coordination work is just not going to be happening going forward.

Rovner: As far as I can tell, money that’s supposed to be going out the door from places like the NIH isn’t.

Knight: Yeah, you hit some of the offices, programs that have been cut, but also I think at FDA, we did some reporting this week on the user drug fee program and how staff that do the evaluating drugs and things like that have been cut. And it’s interesting because pharmaceutical companies pay these fees hoping that they’ll get timely evaluations of their drugs, and also—

Rovner: They pay these fees and are told they will get timely evaluation of these drugs in exchange. That’s the deal.

Knight: Exactly. And I know pharmaceutical companies are definitely concerned about this, and it’s also concerning for patients who may be waiting for certain drugs to be approved and things like that. And I think it’s interesting, also, Republicans like to talk a lot about innovation and getting new drugs approved and things like that, and this would harm that process if the staff are not rehired. I haven’t really heard an update on that, so—

Raman: I would also add that part of it is that we just don’t have a lot of information, right? We had Secretary Kennedy invited to come testify before the Senate HELP Committee this week and go through some of these things and explain the rationale and get into that, and that did not happen.

Rovner: Yeah, we’ll get to that.

Raman: Yes, and I think, at the same time, a lot of those cuts were also to the communications folks within those agencies that could be disseminating this information to external folks, to internal folks to provide more clarity about where things would be going. And we don’t have those there now, so it will take some time to kind of see where things are going, and even when there’s going to be a delay in some of that stuff, getting that information out is going to be difficult.

Ollstein: Sandhya is absolutely right about the communications issue here, and I’m just hearing that on so many fronts. States are desperate to get in contact with someone in the federal government to understand what’s going on. Do they have to keep collecting data and sending it to the federal government even though there’s no one left to compile and process it? They’re reaching out asking: Are certain grants going to continue or not? What should we do? Are we going to be in legal trouble if we continue some of this work? And there’s just no one answering, sometimes because all the people that would’ve answered have been let go. But also the communications freeze that was supposed to be temporary at the very beginning of the administration, a lot of federal workers told me that never really ended.

So there are these email accounts that they were ordered to stop checking and responding to. So one example is the entire team that worked on IVF [in vitro fertilization], evaluating which IVF clinics had the best pregnancy success rates, monitoring safety, all of that — they were all eliminated. And one consequence of that is that there was this email account that doctors, patients, anybody could reach out to for information and to ask questions, and no one’s checking it, no one’s responding.

Rovner: I don’t know about you guys. I am starting to hear from health care stakeholders. The federal government is so intertwined in, basically it’s a fifth of the economy, what we spend on health care, and it’s creating so much uncertainty. As you were saying, people don’t know if they’re going to get in trouble for not doing things or for doing things. But we do know, as we said, we talked about last week, FDA missed a deadline to rule on a Novavax vaccine. This is going to have ramifications way beyond just the people who are losing their jobs in the federal government, right?

Raman: There’s so many people that receive the services that we contract out, that we put grants through across the country. And I think that even in speaking to some of these employees that have lost their jobs, one of the top concerns is not even for their own job but that no one else can do the work that they did. Or in some cases, the only person that could have done that work has also already been let go. And just that those things are going to fall through the cracks for a lot of vulnerable communities.

Ollstein: Some of the folks also told me that even if this is reversed in the future, the damage will just be there for a very long time, especially on things like surveillance and data collection. If you have a gap in there, that skews things. That messes things up for the future. It makes it harder to make comparisons. It makes it harder to know if things are getting better or worse on, like, asthma rates and levels of lead in people’s blood, all kinds of things, things that are not politically controversial or partisan. And so it’ll just be really difficult going forward to know which programs are working, which interventions are working or not working.

Rovner: So things are happening almost too fast to keep track of. But in his latest round of executive orders on Wednesday, President [Donald] Trump signed one called Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, in which he basically instructs the heads of all departments to repeal rules they consider unlawful, without notice or comment, which is not how this is supposed to work. I’m not sure even, though, quite what to make of all this. And it seems to be going mostly unnoticed in all of the attention, deservedly, to the other news that’s happening, some of which we’ll get to. But repealing rules basically on a whim could be as important to how the federal government functions as firing all these people, right?

Raman: Yeah, there’s a reason that the rulemaking process is the way it is, that it takes a certain amount of time. You allow stakeholders to weigh in, to meet, to revise, and that the things aren’t changing too drastically. And there are some rules that go back and forth between the administrations, but a lot of things last over time, and the process is the way it is to make sure that you get the best possible result for whatever you’re changing and—

Rovner: That you get stability.

Raman: Yes.

Rovner: I think that’s the theme here, is that that’s what we’re lacking right now. Nobody can count on what the rules are.

Knight: And I was going to say, from an industry perspective, industries make decisions based on these rules and knowing when they’re going to come out and when they might change. Think about the insurance industry, physicians, people within the health care industry. And so that could really impact those groups as well a lot. So, and exactly, going back to what you said about stability, so it’ll make it really hard to make business decisions.

Rovner: Right. So this goes along with the stuff with the tariffs, is that we have no idea what the rules of the road are going to be going forward if rules can be sort of disappeared in a matter of days the way staff is being. Well, let’s move to Congress. Remember Congress? Late last Friday, or I guess it was technically early Saturday, the Senate passed what was supposed to be a compromise Republican budget resolution between the House and the Senate. For those who have forgotten, while the House passed a resolution that would lead to a single gigantic budget reconciliation bill, including tax cuts and likely big cuts to Medicaid, the Senate’s original budget resolution would only have led to a bill on immigration and energy, saving the tax and health fights for later in the year.

Well, it seems like the compromise, which is kind of a vaguer version of the House blueprint, didn’t go over so well in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson had hoped to push it through this week. A vote was scheduled for Wednesday, then it got delayed, then it got shelved, at least for the night. They’re apparently trying to regroup and do this this morning. Where are we in this?

Knight: Yeah, so you gave a pretty good rundown. I was here late last night talking to Freedom Caucus members, the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-liners. Their concerns with, this is basically a Senate amendment to the House’s resolution. And so what the Senate passed was an amendment, and it technically really just gives instructions for the Senate. It didn’t touch the House’s resolution. So the House’s budget resolution they passed is the same thing, but House Freedom Caucus members had issue that the Senate ceilings for cuts is much lower than the House’s. And so they’re saying—

Rovner: It’s in the billions instead of trillions.

Knight: Exactly. Exactly. So coming out, they holed up with Speaker Johnson last night and House GOP leadership and were saying, We need more binding cuts on the Senate side, and were like: We need you guys to commit to this, otherwise we’re unhappy with this amount of cuts. This is going to increase spending. There’s been a lot of discussion on how to do the budget math for these things, but it’s pretty clear the Senate’s resolution would not cut spending as much as the House’s. So that was what they came out demanding last night. This morning, Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune came out, did a press conference, and said: We’re going to proceed with this. We’ll see if that changes. But it was interesting to note that Thune said, he noted that there are Senate Republicans that do want cuts that may be up to the $1.5 trillion, but he did not commit to making cuts on his side. So we’ll see how this goes. That seems to be the state of play. It’s very in flux. That could change over time. So if anyone has anything to add, I think that’s a rundown.

Rovner: Yeah, it feels like they’re kind of buying time to see if they can keep together what’s clearly a very fractious group here.

Knight: Yeah, and jet fumes are always a good motivator, and also holidays. So there’s supposed to be a two-week recess right after this, and Passover starts this weekend and Easter next weekend, so we’ll see if that motivates people to vote for it. I will say, an argument that we’ve heard from a lot of the moderates that are concerned about the Medicaid cuts, when they voted for these, they’ve said: This is just an outline. It’s just a blueprint. It’s not committing us to anything. But hard-liners don’t seem to like that argument as much. So can they convince them that way? I don’t know.

Rovner: Well, let’s talk about those Medicaid cuts for a minute, which, by the way, as you pointed out, Victoria, is not really what’s holding up the vote in the House. Our New York Times podcast pals Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz had a really interesting story over the weekend about three red states that would really be stuck if Medicaid gets cut. Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Dakota all passed their Medicaid expansions by ballot measure, including it as part of their state constitutions. Now this is exactly the opposite of those states that would immediately cancel their expansions if Congress cuts the Medicaid match. These three states would be totally stuck, unless they could have another ballot measure that would then eliminate what they added. I guess that helps explain why very conservative Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley says he is so opposed to reducing the Medicaid match. But he seems OK with Medicaid work requirements that would also cut people off the rolls, just not necessarily in a way that would cost the state so much money, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, I think we’re going to see a lot of interesting semantic games going forward. I think we’re going to see a lot of different interpretations of what a cut is. We’re going to see a lot of claims made about who does and doesn’t deserve Medicaid coverage. We’ve been seeing this for a long time, but as these tough decisions have to be made on the Hill, I think a lot of that is going to come to a head. And so I think you see a lot of conservatives wrestling with believing very strongly in cutting government spending but also recognizing that a lot of their constituents could be harmed by these policies and they would be very angry with their members if that happened.

And so trying to thread that needle, we’ll see how they do it, whether they can do it successfully without getting a lot of political blowback. Even though there has been a lot of turnover in Congress, you have a decent number of folks who were there last time Congress tried to take a big whack at Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act repeal fight.

Rovner: In 2017.

Ollstein: Exactly. Exactly. And the impact on Medicaid is one of the biggest things that garnered a backlash. And Capitol Hill was covered in folks with disabilities protesting, and it was a really bad look, and it contributed to that effort failing.

Knight: And I think interesting talking about Hawley, but also the Republican Governors Association joined up with some other conservative groups this week to start an ad saying, Don’t cut Medicaid, basically. And so we’re starting to hear that from the states. States are really concerned how this could affect their budgets. They’ve already expanded the program. It would be really hard for them to have to make up in the state that amount of money if the federal government takes away money from the Medicaid program for them or caps it or whatever. It’s interesting to see people walk that line. And House GOP moderates, they are more likely to fold, I think, than hard-liners, but they keep telling me when I talk to them, We’re OK with work requirements, but anything past that might be really hard for us to vote for. But who knows? They could fold if they have enough pressure, but they’re trying to walk the line at this moment.

Rovner: This is going to be a very different Medicaid fight than it was in 2017. Well, turning to this week in “Make America Healthy Again,” I think we mentioned last week that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. had been invited to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee today. Well, as Sandhya pointed out, that did not happen. We’re not entirely sure why, but the secretary continues to do things, well, things he kind of promised senators that he wouldn’t, like saying that he’s going to order the CDC to stop recommending adding fluoride to public water supplies, which he did on a trip to Utah this week. Once more for those in the back, why do most public health professionals support water fluoridation?

Raman: It really reduces dental decay, by like 25%. ADA [the American Dental Association] has been recommending fluoride for years. So it’s a big proponent of that.

Rovner: And as someone pointed out, it’s against dentists’ interests to be recommending something that gives them less work and yet they’re still recommending it.

Ollstein: And even though we have a very silly system in the U.S. where dental care is siloed off from the rest of health care, it does impact your overall health a lot. So it could lead to lung issues, heart issues, all kinds of things if you have dental issues. So it’s not just a cosmetic problem, it can be a very serious health problem. And I will say, too, people should keep in mind that there’s a lot of pointing at studies about negative health impacts from excessive consumption of fluoride, but those studies have a level that is much, much higher than what’s in the U.S. tap water right now. So anything in excess can be bad for you — even just plain water can kill you if you have too much of it. And so I think that people should keep that in mind and remain skeptical about claims being made.

Rovner: Well, RFK Jr. also continues to make news in his handling of the measles outbreak in Texas, which is now the largest in the nation in the past 30 years, having sickened nearly 600 people, mostly unvaccinated children. Kennedy traveled to the heart of the outbreak last week and visited with the families of the two children that we know have died so far of the virus. He also praised the measles vaccine, but then just hours later posed with and praised two doctors who are using unapproved treatments for measles, including one who was disciplined by Texas medical regulators. Meanwhile, Peter Marks, the FDA vaccine official forced to resign last month, is speaking out, calling Kennedy’s actions thus far, quote, “very scary” in an interview with The Wall Street Journal and telling the AP [Associated Press] that he got fired for trying to keep Kennedy’s team from editing or possibly erasing the very sensitive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System kept by the FDA. Is there any way we didn’t see all of this coming?

Knight: Well, going back to the congressional aspect. The HELP chair, [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, he had both the HELP hearing and the Senate Finance hearing where he questioned Kennedy repeatedly about his views on vaccines, his views on the link between vaccines and autism, I think also measles and autism. And he didn’t really ever get a super substantial answer from Kennedy. And yet the compromise was somewhat that Cassidy said, You’ll have to come quarterly before the HELP Committee and testify about what’s going on, what your views are. And we saw Cassidy try to do that last week. And Kennedy has, as far as I know, the latest is that he received the request but he hasn’t accepted it yet, and unclear if he will.

So that congressional oversight was supposed to be the way to keep him in check, somewhat. And that’s not happening. It’s not really that enforceable. So I think it’s pretty predictable what’s happening. I think what will be interesting is if the White House gets unhappy with some of Kennedy’s things that he’s doing. There’s been some stories of how they’re having to take over his communications because there’s been no communications from HHS on it, and so they’re kind of unhappy with that. We’ll see if that reaches to a level where they could change leadership or something. But, not there yet, certainly, but something to watch.

Rovner: Again, so much going on. I think this would normally rise to a higher level than it has given all of the other news that’s happening. Moving on to abortion. We talked last week, or maybe it was the week before, about the Overton window moving towards criminalizing women who have or even seek abortions. That’s apparently the point of a bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature. In North Carolina, a new bill could subject anyone convicted of performing or receiving an abortion to life in prison. We talked a few weeks ago about a similar bill in Georgia that got a legislative hearing. Even if none of these bills pass — and it seems that none of them will pass, at least this year — it certainly seems that claims by the anti-abortion movement that they don’t want to punish women are either not true or falling on deaf ears.

Ollstein: So the anti-abortion movement, just like the pro-abortion-rights movement, is not a monolith. And just like the political parties, there are moderates and hard-liners. There are people who disagree on tactics. And so I think for so long the movement appeared united because their main goal was just overturning Roe v. Wade. And they were able to paper over other divisions by focusing pretty exclusively on that, or not exclusively but that being the overriding goal. And now that they’ve accomplished that and now that there are a lot more opportunities for them, you’re seeing these divisions. And we’ve seen that over the past few years. There were people who said, OK, a 15-week ban is better than nothing, and we can build on it. And there are people who say: No, that’s an unacceptable compromise, and it has to be a total ban or nothing. And if you do a 15-week ban, you’re endorsing the murder of most babies, because most abortions happen before 15 weeks of pregnancy.

So I think this is a continuation of that. And it’s also a reflection that there is a lot of frustration in the anti-abortion movement that not only have abortions not ceased when states enact bans, in some cases they’ve gone up, nationally. And that’s a combination of people traveling, that’s a combination of people using telehealth and getting pills mailed to them. That’s become a huge thing that people rely on. And so looking at ways to crack down on those things, including this kind of criminalization of the pregnant patient that’s been sort of a third rail that is now more in the conversation. Of course, people have been proposing such things for a while now, but it’s getting more prominent attention than before.

Rovner: Yeah. And that was my question, is it used to be a real outlier, and now we’ve seen legislation introduced in 10 states that would criminalize the woman in some way, shape, or form. Sandhya, you wanted to add something.

Raman: I was going to say it’s also a long game. There are things that we’ve had proposed years ago that I think garnered attention then as being very outside the realm of something that people would consider. And then a few years later, when we first saw some of these personhood bills years ago, I think those got attention as being a little different than some of the other things that were being considered. And now that has become more mainstream. We see that in a lot of states now. And I think that something like this, even though it is very different than the messaging we’ve seen in the past, it doesn’t mean that, down the line, a greater portion of the movement pivots toward this. Because we’ve seen so much of this throw the spaghetti at the wall with seeing different things that they can see, what can pass, what doesn’t get litigated, that kind of thing. So a lot of this is kind of a long game.

Ollstein: Yeah. And there is an imbalance between the two sides where the right is much more willing to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks, much more willing to throw out things that could anger people, could generate controversy, could generate backlash, but they do believe will advance the goal. And you’re not really seeing the same willingness on the left. You’re not really seeing states propose, Let’s get rid of all abortion restrictions in total. And so you have this imbalance of what each side is willing to even consider, where the left has been, overall, not exclusively, but overall much more cautious and much more consensus-seeking.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in Texas, where over the past few years we’ve had story after story about women with wanted pregnancies nearly dying from complications, the legislature finally has before it a compromise bill that would better define when doctors can end a doomed pregnancy without risking going to prison, except it’s turning out to be not as much of a compromise as its backers had hoped. Is there any way to actually find a compromise on what is a necessary abortion and what is saving the woman’s life? They write these things and they say: Well, look. Here are the exceptions, and they should work. But now they’re trying to spell out the exceptions and they can’t seem to agree on those, either.

Ollstein: So it’s really a catch-22. And I was just in Texas. I was interviewing OB-GYNs, and they were explaining — and those in other states with bans have said the same thing — that, look, it’s really tough, because if a law is too broad and too vague, then doctors don’t feel comfortable doing even things they feel are absolutely medically necessary. But if a law is too prescriptive — if, for example, it tries to list every single possible condition that would necessitate an emergency abortion or an abortion to save someone’s life for health — you’re never going to be able to list everything. So many things can go wrong during a pregnancy, and so any attempt to be comprehensive will inevitably leave something out. And so if you go the route of listing specific conditions and someone comes in with a condition that’s not on the list, doctors won’t feel comfortable, because they’ll feel that, Oh, well, because the law lists these other conditions, that must mean that anything else is not allowed.

But on the other hand, if it’s too vague, you have the opposite problem. And so really a lot of mainstream medical groups like ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have really come down on, like: Just don’t legislate this at all. Just let us do our jobs. Because they are in this conundrum. I will say, there are divides within the medical community despite that, where some feel like, OK, well, if we can add a few more exceptions and that can even help a few more people, that’s at least something to consider, where others think, OK, no, if we endorse these quote-unquote “fixes,” that kind of in a way is endorsing the underlying ban, and we don’t want to do that. And so there’s some tension there as well.

Rovner: Yeah, this is going to continue to be an issue going forward. All right, well, finally this week there is some other policy news. The Trump administration last week reversed a Biden administration decision to start covering those GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] drugs for people with obesity as well as those with diabetes. According to The New York Times, the administration didn’t attribute the decision to Secretary Kennedy’s known dislike of the drugs, which he has said are inferior to people just, you know, eating better, and that it may reconsider the decision in the future. But obviously cost is a huge issue here. These drugs are less expensive than they were, but they are still super expensive if they’re going to be taken by the millions of people who would qualify for an indefinite period of time. Is there any talk of finding a way to bring that cost down? That would obviously be popular and something that President Trump has said he wants to do in terms of drug prices overall.

Raman: I have not heard of anything on bringing the cost down. I think that the only discussions that really come about are really tailoring who would qualify within that bucket, and to narrow that as a piece to bring the cost down rather than the cost of the specific drugs. And we’ve been — yeah.

Rovner: I would say, I know that Ozempic is on the list of Medicare drugs to be negotiated this year, but I think that’s only for the diabetic indication. So on the one hand, that could bring down the cost for—

Ollstein: And that wouldn’t help people for years and years. Yeah.

Rovner: Exactly. So I mean we might — if you have diabetes, Medicare could start saving money on one of the GLP drugs, but I guess it’s going to be a while before we see the cost fall. And of course, we didn’t even talk about the potential tariffs on prescription drugs, because we’re not going to talk about that this week.

That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with law professor Stephen Vladeck, then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Stephen Vladeck, professor at Georgetown University Law School and author of the invaluable Substack “One First,” which helps explain the workings of the Supreme Court to us lay folks. Steve Vladeck, welcome to “What the Health?”

Stephen Vladeck: Thanks, Julie. Great to be with you.

Rovner: So I’ve asked you to help us with the next in a series I’m calling “How Things Are Supposed to Work in Health Policy.” And I’m particularly interested in how much power the president has vis-à-vis Congress and the courts. Is there kind of a 30-second law school description of who has the power to do what?

Vladeck: It’s a little longer than 30 seconds, but to make the long version shorter: Congress makes laws, the president carries those laws into effect, and the courts decide whether everyone’s playing by the rules and abiding by those laws. That’s how it’s supposed to go — and if only that were how it actually was.

Rovner: Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have been at this for a long time, and I always understood that executive orders from presidents were mostly for show. They were expressions of intent that needed to be carried out by someone else in the executive branch most of the time, usually using the formal regulatory process. But that is not at all what this administration is doing with its executive orders, right?

Vladeck: So, Julie, I think part of the problem is that we really are at the apex of something that’s been building for a while, which is that as Congress has stopped doing its job, as Congress has stopped passing statutes to respond to our pressing issues of the day, presidents of both parties have been left to govern more and more aggressively based on increasingly, for lack of a better word, creative interpretations of old statutes and constitutional authorities. And so, yes, I think we’re seeing differences in both degree and kind from President Trump, but some of this has been building for a while where, we haven’t had meaningful immigration reform since 1986. We haven’t had meaningful financial systems reform in 25 years. And so in those spaces, presidents are going to do what they can to try to accomplish their policy goals, which means more and more executive orders where the presidents are at least purporting to interpret authorities that they’ve been given, either by statute or the Constitution, as we get further and further away from those authorities themselves.

Rovner: So this is the unitary executive theory that we’ve, those of us who play to be lawyers sometimes, have heard about. But how abnormal is what Trump is doing now? Is this even legal, a lot of what he’s doing?

Vladeck: So a lot of what he’s doing is not legal, but some of it is legal. And one of the complications is that the illegalities are at scales and in ways that we haven’t really seen before and that therefore our existing legal processes aren’t necessarily well set up to respond to. I would break Trump’s behavior into a couple of categories. So I think there’s the internal stuff, which is firing tons of people, hollowing out the bureaucracy, demanding political fealty from even those who are civil servants. And we’ve seen, Julie, I think, flash points of those before. What’s novel about what’s happening now is just the sheer scale on which it’s happening. I think the biggest area of real novel action is the effort by Trump really to sort of change how all federal money is spent, right? Money is supposed to be Congress’s, like, superpower. Not only is appropriations Congress’ most important function, but it’s actually the only thing that the Constitution specifically says only Congress can do.

And yet we’re seeing really novel assertions by the president of the power to not spend money Congress has appropriated, of the power to stop paying for contracts where the work has already been performed, of the power to threaten Maine and other jurisdictions with the withholding of federal funds if they don’t just bend the knee to Trump. And that is really, I think, both shocking and dangerous because it basically means that the president’s trying to seize unilateral control over what has historically been Congress’ principal vehicle for doing policy. And at that point, you don’t really have much of a separation of powers anymore. You’ve just got a president.

Rovner: Could Congress take back this authority if it wanted to?

Vladeck: Sure. But just before letting folks get too optimistic, one of the problems is that taking back this authority probably means, at the very least, passing new statutes, and Trump’s not going to sign those statutes. So one of the things that has been a fear of separation-of-power scholars for a long time is that when Congress delegates authority to the president, or when Congress acquiesces in the drift of power to the president, it’s actually really hard for Congress to get that power back, because it’s usually going to require veto-proof supermajorities, and really hard to see in our current political climate a veto-proof supermajority agreeing even to the fact that today is Tuesday, let alone that we should take back power from the president. So Congress could do tons of things. The problem is that assuming Congress won’t, we really are left to these series of confrontations between the president and the courts, because the courts are all that’s left.

Rovner: Which brings me to something that I think most people would think would be not really health-policy-related but really is, which are all these threats against these big law firms. How does that play into this whole thing?

Vladeck: So I think it’s a big piece of the puzzle because what the threats, I think, are really intended to do is to cow law firms into submission, to try to increase the cost both economically and politically of bringing lawsuits challenging what the federal government’s doing. And Julie, I think that the long-term idea is to chill people from suing the federal government, to chill people from hiring folks who worked in administrations from the wrong party in ways that I think are really disruptive not just to the economics of law firms but to the courts. The courts depend upon a strong, robust, and independent bar that is able to actually move freely when it comes to challenging the government. Courts can’t go out and find cases. Lawyers bring the cases to them. And if the lawyers are for some reason disincentivized from bringing those cases, part of the separation of powers breaks down even further.

Rovner: Or basically, in this case, I guess they’re promising not to bring cases that the administration doesn’t like.

Vladeck: Exactly. We should be terrified. No matter what you think of lawyers, no matter what you think of the administration, we should want a world in which there’s no disincentive to challenge what the government’s doing in court. We should want a world, as James Madison put it, where ambition is counteracting ambition, where the branches are pushing up against each other, not where they are stunned into submission.

Rovner: And finally, you’re an expert in the Supreme Court. Is there any chance that the Supreme Court’s going to rescue us here?

Vladeck: No, but I think what I would say — to try to both be a little more optimistic and to try to put a little more depth into my one-word answer — it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to rescue us. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to protect the separation of powers. And as you and I are sitting here, we’ve seen a couple of early rulings from the court that have kind of sided with Trump in these sort of very, very fleeting technical emergency postures without actually saying anything about what he’s doing is legal. I have at least a modicum of faith, Julie, that when the courts get to the legality questions, they’re going to find that most of this stuff actually is illegal.

I think the question is, what happens then? And this is why, although I’m as big a believer in a powerful and independent judiciary as anyone, the courts alone can’t save us, right? What we need is we need the courts backed by Congress, by the people, by our other institutions, universities, law firms. I mean it should be all of the institutions of our civil society, not opposing Trump to oppose Trump but standing up for the notion that our institutions matter and that the way that we can be confident that the government is working the way it’s supposed to is when the institutions are pushing up against each other with all their might and without the fear of what’s going to happen to them if they lose.

Rovner: I feel like one of the bright spots out of this is that finally the nation is getting the lesson in civics that it’s needed for a while.

Vladeck: I couldn’t agree more. I think we are seeing the very, very real costs of generations of insufficient civics education, but I also think this opens the door to real conversation about how to fix this. And in the short term, some of it is about stopping a lot of what Trump is doing, and that’s what a lot of these lawsuits are about. When we talk about, Julie, building back institutions, whether it’s in the public health space or more broadly, I hope that we keep having the civics lesson, and I hope that we don’t forget that it’s actually really important to have independent agencies, and it’s important to have a civil service, and it’s important to have institutions that are actually not just subject to the whims of whoever happens to be the current president. And the more that we can build off of that going forward, maybe the more that we can prevent what has happened already over the first 11 weeks of the second Trump administration from becoming a permanent feature of our constitutional system.

Rovner: Well, we will keep at it. I hope you’ll come back and join us again.

Vladeck: I’d love to. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week?

Raman: So my piece for extra credit is from me, on Roll Call. It’s called “In Sweden, a Focus on Smokeless Tobacco,” and it’s the first in my series I’m doing through the Association of Health Care Journalists, where I went to Sweden to learn about smoking cessation and public health between Sweden and what we can learn in the U.S. And the story looks at the different political factions of the Parliament over there and how they found some common ground in areas to become hopefully the first country in Europe below 5% daily smokers, and just what lessons the U.S. can learn as they’re trying to reduce smoking here as well.

Rovner: So jealous that you got to do this. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I chose a piece from The Guardian by Carter Sherman [“‘We Are Failing’: Doctors and Students in the US Look to Mexico for Basic Abortion Training”] on an issue that has interested me for a long time, which is how U.S. residents are learning how to provide abortions when their training opportunities have been eliminated in so many states. I’ve been covering those who have been traveling to different U.S. states, but this piece is about a small but growing number who are traveling to Mexico for this training. Mexico, like many countries in Latin America and really around the world over the last few years, has moved in the direction of decriminalizing abortion as the U.S. has moved in the opposite direction and is very eager to help train more people.

But the article stresses that this is not a solution for everyone in the U.S. who needs this training, because you have to be able to speak fluent Spanish in order to do it. You have to already have some abortion experience, which not every medical resident has. And it’s also expensive. There are fellowships, but the trip and the training and everything costs thousands of dollars. And so I think it’s a very interesting opportunity for some people. And the article also talks about folks who are doing some training in the U.K., as well. And so I wonder if these international opportunities will become more of a piece of the puzzle in the future.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: OK, my extra credit for this week is an article in Wired called “Dr. Oz Pushed for AI Health Care in First Medicare Agency Town Hall.” So basically this was Dr. [Mehmet] Oz’s first town hall talking to CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] staff, and he talked about a lot of his personal story and not as much of the goals of the agency, seemed to be the vibe of the meeting. But also, interestingly, he talked about using AI avatars instead of actual people. So that’s like people that do simple health diagnoses using AI instead to diagnose people, is kind of what it sounded like. And that’s in part because—

Rovner: My comment to this story was: Not at all creepy. Sorry.

Knight: Right. And—

Rovner: I interrupted you, Victoria.

Knight: No, no, that’s OK. But he was saying the benefit of this is that it could cost less because it could only cost maybe like $2 an hour versus a doctor could be a hundred dollars for a consult. And so people interviewed in the story were CMS employees that felt very concerned about that and also felt like it could come off a bit tone-deaf when there have been a bunch of CMS staff also just recently let go. And CMS was actually on the agencies that was hit with less workforce cuts. But even so, people are still upset about it. And so, it was like, Why are you replacing great people that worked here with AI? It was just an interesting look at his first week at the agency

Rovner: Yeah. And it’s a big agency with a lot of money. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin,” by Richard Fausset. And it’s a pretty hair-raising story of medical malfeasance, foisted on people by those seeking political or financial gain or both. Quoting from the story: “Ivermectin has become a sort of enduring pharmacological MAGA hat: a symbol of resistance to what some of the movement described as an elitist and corrupt cabal of politicians, scientists and medical experts.” This is another in a long list of unproven remedies people take just to thumb their noses at treatments that have, you know, actual scientific evidence behind them. It’s a really interesting read.

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Alice, you’re the birthday girl. Where can we all wish you a happy birthday?

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda, but still hanging on X, @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: On X and Bluesky, @sandhyawrites.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m just on X, @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

4 months 5 days ago

Courts, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Public Health, Abortion, FDA, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', Podcasts, reproductive health, Trump Administration, Women's Health

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': American Health Gets a Pink Slip

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

The Department of Health and Human Services underwent an unprecedented purge this week, as thousands of employees from the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies across the department were fired, placed on administrative leave, or offered transfers to far-flung Indian Health Service facilities in such places as New Mexico, Montana, and Alaska. Altogether, the layoffs mean the federal government, in a single day, shed hundreds if not thousands of years of health and science expertise.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court heard a case about whether states can bar Planned Parenthood from providing non-abortion-related services to Medicaid patients. But by the time the case is settled, it’s unclear how much of Medicaid or the Title X Family Planning Program will remain intact.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Bloomberg News

@rachelcohrs

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

As details trickle out about the major staffing purge underway at HHS, long-serving and high-ranking health officials are among those who have been shown the door: in particular, senior scientists at FDA, including the top vaccine regulator, and even the head veterinarian working on bird flu response.
The Trump administration has also gutted entire offices, including the FDA’s tobacco division — even though the division’s elimination would not save taxpayer money because it’s not funded by taxpayers. Still, the tobacco industry stands to benefit from less regulatory oversight. Many health agencies have their own examples of federal jobs cut under the auspices of saving taxpayer money when the true effect will be undermining federal health work.
Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey set a record this week during a marathon, 25-hour-plus chamber floor speech railing against Trump administration actions, and he used much of his time discussing the risks posed to Americans’ health care. With Republicans considering deep cuts that could hit Medicaid hard, it’s possible that health changes could be the area that resonates most with Americans and garner key support for Democrats come midterm elections.
And the tariffs unveiled by President Donald Trump this week reportedly touch at least some pharmaceuticals, leaving the drug industry scrambling to sort out the impact. It seems likely tariffs would raise the prices Americans pay for drugs, as tariffs are expected to do for other consumer products — leaving it unclear how Americans stand to benefit from the president’s decision to upend global trade.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby, whose latest “Bill of the Month” feature is about a short-term health plan and a very expensive colonoscopy. Do you have a baffling, confusing, or outrageous medical bill to share with us? You can do that here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Uber for Nursing Is Here — And It’s Not Good for Patients or Nurses,” by Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: MSNBC’s “Florida Considers Easing Child Labor Laws After Pushing Out Immigrants,” by Ja’han Jones.

Lauren Weber: The Atlantic’s “Miscarriage and Motherhood,” by Ashley Parker.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Wall Street Journal’s “FDA Punts on Major Covid-19 Vaccine Decision After Ouster of Top Official,” by Liz Essley White.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

Stat’s “Laid-Off HHS Leaders Offered Transfers to Remote Indian Health Service Regions,” by Usha Lee McFarling.
The Washington Post’s “Fired Health Workers Were Told To Contact an Employee. She’s Dead.” By Lauren Weber.
Georgia Recorder’s “Bill That Criminalizes Abortion, Undermines IVF Access Gets Georgia House Panel Hearing,” by Jill Nolin.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: American Health Gets a Pink Slip

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 3, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello hello.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast Rachel Cohrs Zhang, now at Bloomberg News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about yet another very expensive colonoscopy. But first, this week’s news.

We’re going to start this week, as usual, with the latest changes to the Department of Health and Human Services from the Trump administration. But before we dive in, I want to exercise my host prerogative to make a personal observation for those who think that what’s happening here is, quote, “politics as usual.” I am now a month into my 40th year of covering health policy in Washington and HHS in particular. When I began, Ronald Reagan was still president. So I’ve been through Democratic and Republican administrations, and Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses, and all the changeovers that have resulted therefrom.

And obviously the HHS I cover today is far different from the one I covered in 1986, but I can safely say I have never seen such a swift and sweeping dismantling of the structure that oversees the U.S. health system as we’ve witnessed these past 60 days. Agencies and programs that were the result of years of expert consultations and political compromises have been summarily eliminated, and health and science professionals with thousands of years of combined experience cut loose via middle-of-the-night form emails. To call the scope and speed of the changes breathtaking is an understatement, and while I won’t take any more personal time here, if you want to hear me expand further on just how different this all really is, I’m on this week’s episode of my friend Dan Gorenstein’s “Tradeoffs” podcast, which you should all be listening to anyway.

All right. That said, now let’s dive in. I suppose it was inevitable that we would see the results of last week’s announced reorganization of HHS on April Fools’ Day. Let’s start with who was let go. While the announcement last week suggested it would mostly be redundancies and things like IT and HR and procurement, there were a bunch of longtime leaders included in this purge, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. At FDA [the Food and Drug Administration] there were some of the most senior scientists, like their Office of New Drugs directors, their chief medical officer, almost everybody who works on policy, legislative affairs, entire communications offices, external affairs. And even in the case where they are laying off people whose job titles might sound extraneous, or not as important to the health of people in the U.S., I think you can sort of debate that, but they did it in such a way that they laid off so many people in those departments that the people they said, We are protecting, because we do at least understand these jobs are important, cannot actually fully do their jobs. So scientists are not able to access the supplies they need. It’s not even clear how people at FDA are going to get paid and do their timesheets and track time given how many people they laid off.

And it also just seems like there’s been a ton of, again, to the extent they were trying to protect certain positions that they deemed more critical to U.S. health and well-being, like medical reviewers or inspectors, they didn’t quite understand who actually is critical to doing that work, because it’s not just somebody who has, like, “inspector” in the title. Vanity Fair had a great piece about this man who really has saved people in the U.S. from going blind by helping inspectors catch sterility issues in eye drops, and they walk through very clearly how people like him do not have a title of inspector but are absolutely needed to ensure we have drugs that are safe for people in the U.S. So, probably not surprising to people who’ve tracked the administration so far, but it’s been a lot of the move-fast -break-things, and then realize on the back end that they maybe broke things they didn’t necessarily mean to, or don’t actually care as much about whether it’s broken.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: They got rid of the head veterinarian on the bird flu response. That would seem to be a thing that is surprising. I spoke to a congressman yesterday who said that seems very dumb. It’s not just that. They also eliminated entire swaths of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], small agencies that maybe a lot of people have no idea alphabetically what they do but are pivotal in preventing injury deaths, and in really the preventative and chronic disease care that RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] has said is really vital to getting America back on track. When we talk about dollars and cents saved in health care, a lot of that is in chronic disease and in preventative care. And to see some of these places get hit so broadly is quite shocking considering the end goal is allegedly to save money.

Rovner: There are also a lot of things that seem sort of at odds with [President Donald] Trump’s own agenda. David Kessler, the former FDA commissioner, was on TV last night talking about how the people who answer the phones when a doctor wants to get an emergency use authorization for a drug that’s not yet approved. That’s something that’s been a very big deal for Donald Trump. The people who answer the phones got fired. So, when a doctor has a patient who, nothing else will work and they need an experimental drug, and they’re supposed to be able to call FDA. And I think there are rules about how fast FDA is supposed to respond. But now there’s nobody to actually answer the phone and take those requests.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think the list of things that don’t seem to align is very long. One thing I was talking to somebody about yesterday who said, well, pretty much everybody who deals with tracking pesticides in foods, and food safety at the FDA in regards to pesticides was let go. And making our food system healthier and safer, and concerns about pesticides, has actually been a big focus of RFK. Similarly, Martin Makary talked a lot in his opening speech to FDA employees yesterday about obesity, and they are basically gutting offices that work on pediatrics, minority health. They’ve laid off lots of people in their tobacco division at FDA, and FDA’s tobacco division actually is not funded at all by taxpayer funding. So, I have a hard time understanding how anybody besides the tobacco industry really benefits from this loss. As Lauren said, it’s like every health agency, you can kind of find examples of that. They say America is not healthy, but they’re cutting these top researchers that have found incredible advances in Parkinson’s and some of the chronic diseases he’s most cared about.

Rovner: They also, I mean, there are some big names who were let go. We didn’t even — the Peter Marks firing at FDA happened last week after we taped, so we haven’t even talked about that. Somebody tell us who Peter Marks is and why everybody’s all freaked out about that.

Cohrs Zhang: Well, Peter Marks was head of the division of biologics and the top regulator of vaccines, and complicated injectable medicines like insulin products, too, fell under his purview. And I think we saw markets react in a panic on Monday. The shares of vaccine makers like Moderna were falling. And we saw companies selling gene therapies that Peter Marks has been really involved in regulating and championing through some of those processes, they were kind of freaked out because it just creates uncertainty as to kind of what the new philosophy toward these medicines will be. And the Trump administration, we’ve seen, especially on the Marks being pushed out, I think they’ve tried to highlight some of his more controversial actions in the past.

We saw a White House adviser, Calley Means, was personally attacking Marks for some conflicts he had with vaccine regulators during debate over the covid booster approvals, and just his decisions to overrule recommendations by FDA experts on some innovative medications that some people disagreed with. But the perspective from former officials has been that, like Peter Marks or not, the idea that scientific expertise is being purged in this way is concerning. And it wasn’t just Peter Marks. There’s another regulator at the Office of New Drugs, Peter Stein. who was pushed out. We have Anthony Fauci’s successor at NIH [the National Institutes of Health] was pushed out, Jeanne Marrazzo, as well as a couple other heads of scientific research institutes at NIH.

Rovner: Anthony Fauci’s wife was pushed out—

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Yeah.

Rovner: —as the head of the office of bioethics at NIH.

Cohrs Zhang: Truly, and I think we had heard that some of these more politically sensitive center leader positions would be at risk. We’ve heard this for a very long time, but it seems like they took advantage of the chaos to implement some of these high-level cuts to people that they may have disagreed with. But, like, people will be filling those positions. I don’t know that there’s a cost-saving argument there. But it certainly seems like they were trying to push out senior leaders with a lot of experience.

Rovner: It also feels like, the way that people were let go seems, to put it bluntly, purposely cruel, like sending out RIF [reduction in force] notices at 5 a.m. and then having people find out they’ve been let go when they stand in long lines only to find out that their IDs no longer work, or CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] employees being directed to contact a person who died last year. Is there a strategy here? Lauren, you wanted to add something.

Weber: I wrote a story on the CMS employees being told to contact someone who was dead. And I spoke to one of this woman Anita Pinder’s former colleagues who said she was just heartbroken. She said CMS employees who got that email had gone to this woman’s funeral, and what a gut punch. She said, Look — this person who was talking to me is a former CMS employee — said: Look, you know, there always is a way to reorganize. It’s not that there isn’t waste or ability to consolidate or streamline in the federal government. She’s like, That’s not my problem. My problem, this woman told me, was that it was done in such a way that you really can’t take that back. People getting a dead woman’s name as their point of contact to contest their firings is something that is difficult to take back.

Rovner: I guess my question is: Is this just sloppy, or are they actually trying to be cruel in this? Because it certainly feels like they’re trying to be cruel.

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s possible. It’s both, a combination, one or the other. Again, it seems like the people who are doing this are not expert, right? They didn’t actually take the time to assess HHS and all what the agency does to understand what people do for the government beyond just looking at their job titles. And so some of it may be intentional cruelty, and some of it just may be really just rushing and not understanding the process. I mean, there were other notices at FDA that were signed by somebody that no longer worked there. People’s performance scores were wrong. The sense is they didn’t follow the normal process of, like, when you do a RIF, you have to give — there’s certain people that get preferences and who stays and who goes and whether it’s veteran status, disability, all those things.

And I think some of that will probably result in legal challenges down the line, including they got rid of certain offices, or everybody in them, that were mandated by Congress. So some of it’s probably sloppy, but some of it is — right? — they don’t really care how they treat people, because there is like a very clear message that comes from their rhetoric of kind of lack of respect for government bureaucracy.

Rovner: And I know some of these senior leaders, they figured out that they can’t just summarily fire them. So a number of them were offered transfers to the Indian Health Service in places like Alaska and Montana, and they were given 36 hours to decide whether they would accept the transfer. And we are told that Secretary Kennedy is very concerned about Native populations and the Indian Health Service, which is short of workers in a lot of places. But this seemed to be insulting to both the people who were given these quote-unquote “transfers” and to the Indian Health Service, because it wasn’t sending the Indian Health Service what it actually needs, which are practitioners, doctors and nurses, and laboratory workers. It was sending research analysts and bench scientists and people whose qualifications do not match what the IHS needs.

Karlin-Smith: Right. They wanted to send, I think, the FDA’s tobacco head to the IHS to do, I think, medical care. So it enraged people in the IHS.

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the Native population was really thrilled about this, either. Lauren, you wanted to add something.

Weber: Yeah, I would just say that this is a playbook the Trump administration has executed in other government agencies. Members of the FBI, top leaders of the FBI were reassigned to child sex trafficking crimes or faraway distant lands in the hopes of getting them to resign. So, I think we are seeing that play out at HHS, but it certainly is a tactic they’ve used in other federal agencies to, quote-unquote, “drain the swamp.”

Rovner: Right. And in the first Trump administration, they did move some offices out of Washington to the middle of the country, if you will, and most people obviously didn’t go. And now there’s a lot of expertise that, again, that we lost. I think that really can’t be overstated, is how much expertise is being pushed out the door right now, in terms of things that, as I said, this administration says that it wants to do or get accomplished. Meanwhile, Secretary Kennedy has been invited — or should I say summoned — to come testify next week before the Senate health committee at the behest of Republican Chairman Bill Cassidy, Democratic ranking member Bernie Sanders. So far Congress has mostly just been kind of sitting back and watching all of this happen. Is there any indication that that’s about to change?

Karlin-Smith: I think Democrats are pushing a little bit harder, but I’m not sure they have enough power or have enough, again, momentum yet to actually do what they can with their power. I’m interested to see how Cassidy handles this hearing going forward because his statement the day of the big reduction in force seemed to suggest that the media was maybe unfairly reporting on it and that Kennedy may have another side to the story to share to justify it. And it didn’t sound like somebody that was necessarily going to go particularly hard at RFK. It seemed like somebody who wanted to give him a chance to justify his moves. But we’ll see what happens. I think Cassidy has been, despite RFK walking back a lot of his promises he made to Cassidy around vaccines and so forth, Cassidy has not been that willing to go hard on him so far.

Rovner: Yeah, the other thing we’ve seen is that most of the big health groups that you would expect to be out on the front lines, hair on fire, have actually been keeping their heads down through most of these huge changes. But that seems to be maybe changing a little bit, too. This is a pretty dramatic change to get not a huge response from. I’ve seen way lesser changes get way bigger responses.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think I spend a lot of time thinking about what is going to be the last straw for some of these organizations. And I think we saw some more effective organizing from the, like, medical device industry when actual medical device reviewers were laid off, and I think they went public pretty quickly, and those people were rehired. But I think it’s important to remember that some of these larger trade organizations in these companies are looking at a broader picture here. And there are all these different pieces of the puzzle. And certainly I think we’ve seen some trade groups that represent, like, pharmaceutical companies criticize some of the cutbacks at HHS, but also for now they were spared in a tariff announcement this week.

And so I think they are trying to walk this tightrope where they have to figure out how to get the wins that they think they need and take losses in other place, and hope it kind of all evens out for them. So, I think they’re in a tough situation, and I think there’s much more concern behind the scenes than we’re seeing spill out into the public. But I think at some point maybe the line will be crossed, and I just don’t think we’ve seen that quite yet.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think the dam is definitely starting to break a bit, though. I was shocked — I guess, what day was it, Tuesday, when all this happened? — when finally late in the day, pharma sent a statement, and it was more scathing than you might even expect. And I think it was the first time they’ve actually responded to anything I’ve asked them to respond to that the administration does. And they said that it’s going to raise crucial questions about the FDA’s ability to fulfill its role. And so I think that is a big sign because, as Rachel mentioned, the medical device community was willing to stick their neck out there when they felt they were really harmed. Smaller trade associations have been starting to push back, but the silence has really been notable, and notable I think by people outside who were hoping that these powerful industries that have sort of more connections to the Republican Party would use that leverage, and they sort of felt abandoned by them. So, I think that is a significant crack to follow.

Rovner: I feel like everybody’s waiting for somebody else to stand up and see if they get their head chopped off. I agree. I mean, I’m hearing, quietly, I’m hearing the concern, too, but publicly not so much. Well, moving to Capitol Hill, Congress is in this week. Well, they were in. We’ll get to the House in a minute. But first in the Senate, New Jersey’s Cory Booker set a new record for holding the floor, which is saying something for a place where being long-winded is basically a prerequisite. Twenty-five hours and five minutes, besting by almost an hour the 1957 filibuster against the Civil Rights Act by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Much of what Booker talked about during his more than a day on the Senate floor was health care. Is this still the issue that Democrats are hoping to ride to their political return?

Weber: I was going to say, if the massive Medicaid cuts that are forecast come through, I do think that will be the midterm political return of Democrats. I think the writing is on the wall politically for Republicans if those do go through, which is why I think you’re seeing a lot of Republican leaders start to say: Oh, no. No, no, no. We don’t want some of these Medicaid cuts like this. But to be determined how that actually plays out.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that Democrats are just trying to figure out something that will break through to people. They’re just trying to throw spaghetti at the wall and see if there’s some strategy they can find to get through to people. And I think this, just given the viewership of Sen. Booker’s speech, seemed to break through in a way and felt like even though Democrats do have really limited levers of power in Washington right now, that at least somebody was doing something, you know. And that’s kind of the takeaway that I had from that speech.

But I will say I think Congressman Jake Auchincloss appeared after White House adviser Calley Means criticized the scientific establishment and HHS and was defending these cuts, and Congressman Auchincloss, I think, did have a more forceful tone in pushing back and just arguing for the scientific advances that have happened and had some really camera-ready little tidbits about the new administration being run by like conspiracy theorists and podcast bros. And I think they’re trying to figure out how to push back and how to get through to people and what approaches are going to work. And I think that was just a new tactic that we saw break through.

Rovner: Well, if the Democrats did want to make a statement about Medicaid, they could make a stand against President Trump’s nominee to head the Medicaid program, as well as Medicare and the ACA [Affordable Care Act], Dr. Mehmet Oz. That vote is scheduled in the Senate for today after we finish taping. But we’re not really seeing that much pushback. Are we, Lauren?

Weber: Not so far. I guess we’ll see. We’re taping before this happens. But Mehmet Oz really waltzed through his confirmation hearing process. It’s rare that you see someone who will lead such a massive agency on health care mention the multiple Daytime Emmys he’s won, but I think that helped in his charming of legislators. His daytime bona fides were on high display. He was able to dodge multiple questions about what he would do about cuts to Medicaid, and even Democratic senators were inviting him to come to church. I would be surprised if we see some sort of big stand today.

Rovner: He was super well prepped, which we said — we did a special after the hearing — which is of all of the Trump nominees, I think he was the best prepped of anybody I’ve seen. He was ready with tidbits from every single member of the committee. But I will say that, going back years, and as I said, you know, 40 years, this is a position that one party or the other has frequently blocked, not for reasons that the nominee was not qualified but because they wanted to make a point about something that was going on at the agency. And it kind of surprises me that we haven’t seen that sort of thing. There were years where we did not have a Senate-approved head of Medicare and Medicaid. Sarah, as you pointed out, there were years when we didn’t have a Senate-approved head of the FDA for the same reason. Had nothing to do with the nominee. Had everything to do with the party that was out of power trying to use that as leverage to make a point. And we’re just not even seeing the Democrats try that.

Weber: I guess we’ll see this afternoon. You could be forecasting what’s going to happen, Julie. But I think on top of him being well prepped, Oz does have a history in health care, is a very accomplished surgeon. But what is fascinating to me is that he’s coming back to the Senate after a 2014 grilling by the Senate on his pushing of supplements and other things for, quote, “fat blasting” and, quote, “weight loss” products. And it’s just the turnaround of daytime TV star to failed Senate candidate to potential administrator for CMS, which runs hundreds of millions Americans’ health insurance, potentially at a very consequential period in which there are massive cuts to them, is really going to be something.

Rovner: Yes. Yet another eye-opening thing out of this administration. Well, over in the House, things are a little more confusing. On Tuesday, the usually unified Republicans rejected a rule, normally a party-line , because Speaker Mike Johnson was using it to avoid a vote on a bill that would allow new parents to vote by proxy, basically granting them parental leave. I did not have this fight on my bingo card for this year. It’s actually less a partisan fight than one between younger — read, childbearing age — members of Congress and older ones from both parties. I’m kind of surprised that this of all things is what stopped the House from doing business this week.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think that it is an interesting contrast here because House Republicans have had this very pro-family rhetoric in the campaign, but they also have been so against remote work in any fashion, and members of Congress travel really far. There’s a time in pregnancy when you can no longer fly on a plane. And so I think given Republicans’ really, really slim majority in the House, it puts them in kind of a pickle where they need these votes to keep the majority, but it kind of sits at the intersection of all these different forces at play. So, I think, yeah, just a really weird political pickle that House Republicans have found themselves in this week.

Rovner: Yeah, and of course this was a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a Republican member of the House Freedom Caucus, who was pushing this, who got a majority of the House to sign her discharge petition, which is supposed to bring this bill to the floor. So, we will see how that one plays out. Obviously, with everything else that’s going on, it’s not the biggest story, but it sure is interesting.

Well, the big non-health news of the week are the tariffs that President Trump announced in the Rose Garden Wednesday afternoon. There is a health care angle to this story. The tariffs reportedly include at least some drugs and drug ingredients that are manufactured overseas. This, again, feels like it’s going to do exactly the opposite of what the president says he wants to do in terms of reducing drug prices, right?

Weber: I mean, yes, yes. That would seem to be exactly how that is likely to go. Even look at drugs we get from Canada. They’re going to have tariffs on them. I think we have to wait and see exactly what happens. Trump has had a history of proposing these and then taking them back. Obviously these are much more sweeping than the ones we’ve seen so far. So, I think it, the jury is out on how exactly this will play out over the next couple weeks.

Rovner: Right. And I said there’s also the exception process, right?

Karlin-Smith: So, yeah, there’s been I think a lot of confusion and lack of clarity around exactly what happened yesterday here. It seems like the drug industry did get some key exemptions, but people are trying to kind of clarify some of those, including, like: Do you just apply to finished product? Do ingredients that they need lower down in the supply chain get impacted? So, I think it seems like pharma at least got some amount of a win here and got some of the typical exemptions for medicines, but people are not confident in all of that and how it’s going to play out. And I’ve seen sort of mixed reactions from analysts in the space. But yeah, it’s just like other parts of the economy that people have talked about with tariffs. It’s not entirely clear how the average American consumer would actually benefit from these tariffs versus having to just pay more money for goods.

Rovner: We are apparently going to tariff penguins from islands off the coast of Australia. That much we seem clear on this morning. Turning to abortion, this week, as we mentioned last week, the Supreme Court heard a case out of South Carolina testing whether a state can kick Planned Parenthood not just out of the federal Family Planning Program, Title X, but whether Planned Parenthood can be disallowed from providing Medicaid services as well. Now, Planned Parenthood gets way more money from Medicaid than it does from Title X, and neither program allows the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. I will say that again: Neither program allows the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Interestingly, it seems the high court might actually be leaning towards Planned Parenthood in this case, not because the conservative justices have any sympathy towards Planned Parenthood but because the court has fairly recently made it clear that the provision of Medicaid law that says patients can choose any qualified provider actually means what it says: The patient can choose any qualified provider.

At the same time, though, the Trump administration this week declined to distribute a big swath of that Title X funding. And you have to wonder whether, even if Planned Parenthood wins this South Carolina case, what’s going to be left of either Title X or the Medicaid program. Possibly a Pyrrhic victory coming here? It seems that this administration is just whacking things, and even if the court ultimately says you can’t kick them out, there’s going to be nothing for them to stay in.

Karlin-Smith: Well, the any-willing-provider debate struck me as sort of most interesting here because that type of clause seems to be something you typically see conservatives want to put into a government health program. They don’t feel comfortable kind of restricting people and choices in that way around who they see. So that was one of the elements of this case. The other thing that I think is being watched is this argument that the state is making around, like, how you enforce disagreements, I guess, around how the Medicaid program is being operated. And that seems like it could have a lot of long-lasting impacts as well if people, depending on if the court weighs in on that and so forth, just what rights people have to contest problematic decisions made in state Medicaid programs.

Rovner: Yeah, for the first hour of the debate, the word “abortion” wasn’t mentioned. The word “Planned Parenthood” wasn’t mentioned. This was really about whether patients actually have a right to sue over not being able to get the kind of care that they want, which has been a long-standing fight in Medicaid, back to, I think, pretty much the beginning of Medicaid. So, we’ll see how this one comes out. Well, turning to the states and another case we have talked about, Texas wants to prosecute a New York doctor who was acting legally under New York law from prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine to a Texas patient. The latest is that the court clerk in Ulster County, New York, has refused to file a judgment for the $100,000 fine that Texas says the New York doctor owes.

At the other end of the spectrum, in Georgia, meanwhile, lawmakers held a hearing on a bill that would — and I’m quoting from a Georgia state news service here — “ban abortions in Georgia from the moment of fertilization and codify it as a felony homicide crime unless a pregnant woman was threatened with violence to have the procedure.” Now, under this bill, both the woman and the doctor could be charged with murder. This bill is unlikely to be enacted this year, but I feel like the Overton window on this continues to move towards maybe punishing women with poor pregnancy outcomes.

Karlin-Smith: Well, and punishing women who have trouble getting pregnant, as some of the opponents of this bill are arguing. It’s not clear whether it will really be possible to do IVF procedures if the bill was enacted how it was written. And even it seems like some of the reason why some pretty anti-abortion groups are concerned about this law, because they feel uncomfortable that it’s penalizing or going after the woman rather than other people involved in the abortion system.

Rovner: I feel like we’ve been creeping this direction for a while, though. Obviously, this bill’s probably not going to move this cycle, but it got a hearing. We’ve seen a lot of things like this introduced. We’ve rarely seen it progress to the hearing stage. Another thing that bears watching. So, last week in the segment that I’m now calling “MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] in the States,” we talked about West Virginia banning food dyes and additives. Well, hold my beer — um, make that water, says Utah. Utah has now become the first state to ban fluoride in public water systems, something takes effect next month. Lauren, I feel like states are rushing to match RFK Jr. Is that what we’re seeing?

Weber: There is some interest at the state level, but I also think it speaks to RFK’s limitations. I think everybody always thinks the game is always in D.C., but there’s a lot the states can do. And so I think it’ll be fascinating to kind of see how this continues to play out.

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will keep watching it. All right, that is this week’s health news. Now we will play my interview with KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ other Julie, Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Julie, welcome back.

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, this month’s patient is yet another with a gigantic colonoscopy bill, but there’s a twist with this one. Tell us who he is and, important for this story, what kind of health insurance he has.

Appleby: Yes, absolutely. His name is Tim Winard, and he lives in Addison, Illinois. He bought his own health insurance after he left his management job to launch his own business. So he shopped around a little bit. This is the first time he’s bought insurance. And he chose a short-term policy, which is good for six months in his state. And the first six months went pretty well. And he was still working on starting his business, so he signed up for another short-term policy with a different insurer. And this one cost about $500 a month.

Rovner: So, remind us again. What is short-term health insurance? And how is it different from most employer and Affordable Care Act coverage?

Appleby: Right. These types of policies have been sold for years. They’re generally intended for people who are, like, between jobs or maybe just getting out of school. They’re a temporary bridge to more comprehensive insurance, and as such they are not considered Affordable Care Act-qualified plans. So they don’t have to meet the rules that are set under the Affordable Care Act. So, for example, they might look like comprehensive major medical policies, but they all have sort of significant caveats. And some of these might surprise people who are accustomed to work-based or ACA plans. So, for example, like in Tim Winard’s plan, some set specific dollar caps on certain types of medical care, and sometimes those are, like, per day or per visit or something like that, and they can be sometimes far below what it actually costs.

And all of them — this is a key difference with ACA plans — all of these types of short-term plans screen applicants for health conditions, and they can reject people because of health problems or exclude those conditions from coverage. Many also do not cover drugs or maternity care. So people really have to read their policies carefully to see what they cover and what they don’t cover.

Rovner: So this is sort of like pre-ACA. It’s cheap because it doesn’t cover that much.

Appleby: Exactly. That’s why they can offer them lower premiums. Now, again, some people with a subsidized ACA plan, these are not necessarily cheaper, but for others these are less expensive.

Rovner: So back to our patient this month. He does what we always advise and calls his insurance company before he goes for this, because it is obviously scheduled care, not an emergency. What did they tell him?

Appleby: Well, I think he only asked where he could go. He was concerned that he would go to a facility that was in-network, and they told him he could pretty much go anywhere. He did not ask about cost in that phone call.

Rovner: Yeah, so he gets his colonoscopy. Everything turns out OK medically. And then, as we say, the bill comes. How big was it?

Appleby: He was left owing $7,226 after his plan paid about $817 towards the bill. They got a little bit of a discount for being insured, but then he was still left owing more than $7,000.

Rovner: And what was the explanation for him owing that much? Just a reminder that this should have been fully covered if he’d had an ACA plan, right?

Appleby: That’s correct. Under the ACA, screening colonoscopies and other types of cancer screenings are covered without a copay for the patient. But he didn’t have an ACA plan here. So, what was the explanation? Well, this time he did email his insurance company, which is Companion Life Insurance of Columbia, South Carolina, and they wrote him back, and they told him his policy classified the procedure and all of its costs, including the anesthesia, under his policy’s outpatient surgery facility benefit. What is that? you might ask. Well, in his policy, that benefit caps insurance payments within that facility to a maximum of a thousand dollars per day. So, the most they were going to pay towards this was a thousand dollars, because they classified the whole thing as an outpatient procedure with that cap. And this surprised Winard because he thought the cancer screening was covered and he would only owe 20% of the bill, not almost the entire thing, basically.

Rovner: So how did this eventually work out?

Appleby: Well, we reached out and tried to reach Companion Life, and we also talked to Scott Wood, who works as a program manager and is a co-founder of a marketing company that markets Companion Life and other insurance plans. And he thought there was some room for interpretation in the billing and in the policy language. So he asked Companion Life to take another look. And shortly after that, Winard said he was contacted by his insurer, and a representative told him that upon reconsideration the bill had been adjusted. And he wasn’t really given a reason why that happened, but as it turns out his new bill showed he owed only $770.

Rovner: Which is, I assume, about what he expected when he went into this, right?

Appleby: That’s, yes, correct. He didn’t think he was going to have to pay as much as it was initially billed at.

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here other than to come to us if you have a bill that you can’t deal with?

Appleby: Right. Well, I think experts say to be very cautious and read the plans very carefully if you’re shopping for a short-term plan. And realize they have some of these limits and they may not cover everything. They may not cover preexisting conditions. And this could become more widespread in the coming years as — short-term plans have been somewhat of a political football. So, out of concern that people would choose them over more comprehensive coverage, President Barack Obama’s administration limited them to terms of three months. Those rules were lifted during the first Trump administration, and he allowed the plans to again be sold as 364-day policies, just one day short of a year, and then you could try to get another one. Or in some cases the insurer could opt to renew them.

And then Joe Biden came in, and President Biden called them “junk insurance,” and he restricted the policies to four months. So, it’s been bouncing back and forth, back and forth. Everybody really expects the Trump administration to do what it did the last time and make them available for longer periods. So I think if we’re going to hear more about short-term plans. They may become more common. And again, it’s just a matter of trying to understand what you’re buying, and why they might be less expensive in your mind than an ACA plan, but they might not turn out to be.

Rovner: And you can always ask for an estimate, right?

Appleby: And always ask for an estimate. That’s a given. Experts always say, before any kind of scheduled procedure, call your insurer, call the provider, ask for an estimate on how much this might cost you out-of-pocket.

Rovner: Good. And if all else fails, then you can write to us.

Appleby: There you go.

Rovner: Julie Appleby, thank you very much.

Appleby: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week?

Cohrs Zhang: All right. My extra credit is a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the headline is “FDA Punts on Major COVID-19 Vaccine Decision After Ouster of Top Official,” by Liz Essley White. It’s a great story, and I think, as we talked about earlier, I’m thinking about: What are the breaking points for companies, for industries, as they look at how the HHS is changing? And I think one of those metrics is if the FDA starts missing deadlines to approve products. I think this one is a little bit of a special case because it is a covid-19 vaccine, which is, like, the most highly politicized medical product right now. But I think there could be other cases, and I think industry is watching this so closely to see if some of these changes at FDA really do bleed into approvals, whether the approval process will be politicized, whether they’re going to start missing deadlines. And given just the amount of financial support that industry provides to fund routine activities, I think this was kind of a really good marker in this process as we learn what the impacts are.

Rovner: Yeah, agree. Lauren.

Weber: I read “Miscarriage and Motherhood” by Ashley Parker, now at The Atlantic. And I’ve got to be honest — if you read it, be in a place where you can cry. It’s an incredibly moving piece about tragedies of miscarriage, and frankly about women’s health care, and how little support and understanding there is in general about what surrounds that entire field. And some of the fascinating parts in it is when Ashley details going in for a D&C [dilation and curettage] and being told that is an abortion. And it’s kind of an interesting interplay between how what words mean, what people understand what words mean, and what exactly parenthood entails in modern America today.

Rovner: And how extremely common miscarriage is. I think people just don’t realize, because it’s something that’s just not talked about very much. It’s a really beautiful story. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at an MSNBC piece [“Florida Considers Easing Child Labor Laws After Pushing Out Immigrants”] by Ja’han Jones, about Florida considering easing their child labor laws after pushing out immigrants. And, yeah, the state is considering bills that would allow very young teenagers to work overnight, to maybe work at the kinds of jobs that would normally be seen as too unsafe for such young people. And, yeah, it just seems like an interesting sort of consequence of pushing out immigrant workers. But also it comes after some really moving reports over the past few years, too, about just how dangerous some of this work is, and how even under current law that is supposed to prevent this, particularly immigrants and the most vulnerable workers have ended up with young people in this job, and they’ve really — these types of jobs — and they’ve been harmed by it.

Rovner: Who could have possibly seen this coming? Sorry. My extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Uber for Nursing is Here — and It’s Not Good for Patients or Nurses,” by Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda. And it’s yet another case of something that sounds really good, using an app to help nurses who want to find extra work and set their own schedules get it, and helping facilities that need extra help find workers. But like so many of these things, it’s not as rosy as it appears unless you’re the one that’s collecting the fees from the app. Workers are basically all temps. They may not be familiar with the facilities they’ve been assigned to, much less the patients, which doesn’t always result in optimal care. And they bid against each other for who will do the job for the lowest rate, creating a race to the bottom for wages. It’s another one of those quote-unquote “advances” that’s a lot less than meets the eye.

All right, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys these days? Rachel, you’re still on LinkedIn, right?

Cohrs Zhang: Still on LinkedIn. Still on X. I do have a Bluesky account, too. But any and all the places.

Rovner: Excellent. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I’m at Bluesky, some X, some LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: I’m still on X, and I am on Bluesky, @LaurenWeberHP. And as a member of — a congressional staffer asked me: Does the “HP” really stand for “health policy”? And yes, it does. So, still there.

Rovner: Absolutely. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

4 months 1 week ago

Courts, Medicaid, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, Abortion, Bill Of The Month, CDC, Drug Costs, FDA, HHS, KFF Health News' 'What The Health?', NIH, Podcasts, Prescription Drugs, reproductive health, Tobacco, Trump Administration, U.S. Congress

KFF Health News' 'What the Health?': The Ax Falls at HHS

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

As had been rumored for weeks, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled a plan to reorganize the department. It involves the downsizing of its workforce, which formerly was roughly 80,000 people, by a quarter and consolidating dozens of agencies that were created and authorized by Congress.

Meanwhile, in just the past week, HHS abruptly cut off billions in funding to state and local public health departments, and canceled all research studies into covid-19, as well as diseases that could develop into the next pandemic.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Maya Goldman of Axios News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

Read Maya's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

As federal health officials reveal the targets of a significant workforce purge and reorganization, the GOP-controlled Congress has been notably quiet about the Trump administration’s intrusions on its constitutional powers. Many of the administration’s attempts to revoke and reorganize federally funded work are underway despite Congress’ previous approval of that funding. And while changes might be warranted, reviewing how the federal government works (or doesn’t) — in the public forums of congressional hearings and floor debate — is part of Congress’ responsibilities.
The news of a major reorganization at HHS also comes before the Senate finishes confirming its leadership team. New leaders of the National Institutes of Health and the FDA were confirmed just this week; Mehmet Oz, the nominated director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, had not yet been confirmed when HHS made its announcement; and President Donald Trump only recently named a replacement nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after withdrawing his first pick.
While changes early in Trump’s second term have targeted the federal government and workforce, the impacts continue to be felt far outside the nation’s capital. Indeed, cuts to jobs and funding touch every congressional district in the nation. They’re also being felt in research areas that the Trump administration claims as priorities, such as chronic disease: The administration said this week it will shutter the office devoted to studying long covid, a chronic disease that continues to undermine millions of Americans’ health.
Meanwhile, in the states, doctors in Texas report a rise in cases of children with liver damage due to ingesting too much vitamin A — a supplement pushed by Kennedy in response to the measles outbreak. The governor of West Virginia signed a sweeping ban on food dyes and additives. And a woman in Georgia who experienced a miscarriage was arrested in connection with the improper disposal of fetal remains.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF senior vice president Larry Levitt about the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and the threats the health law continues to face.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest health policy stories they read this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “State Lawmakers Are Looking To Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Wirecutter’s “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now,” by Max Eddy.

Maya Goldman: KFF Health News’ “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers,” by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

The New York Times’ “West Virginia Bans 7 Artificial Food Dyes, Citing Health Concerns,” by Alice Callahan.
The Washington Post’s “Why I Left My Job Leading Public Health Messaging for the CDC,” by Kevin Griffis.
Politico’s “The Limits of RFK Jr.’s Power,” by Joanne Kenen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Ax Falls at HHS

[Editor’s note: This transcript was generated using both transcription software and a human’s light touch. It has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 27, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast — really fast this week — and things might well have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News.

Maya Goldman: Great to be here.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Senior Vice President Larry Levitt, who will riff on the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and what its immediate future might hold. But first, this week’s news.

So for this second week in a row, we have news breaking literally as we sit down to tape, this time in the form of an announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services with the headline “HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again.” The plan calls for 10,000 full-time employees to lose their jobs at HHS, and when combined with early retirement and other reductions, it will reduce the department’s workforce by roughly 25%, from about 82,000 to about 62,000. It calls for creation of a new “Administration for a Healthy America” that will combine a number of existing HHS agencies, including the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under one umbrella.

Reading through the announcement, a lot of it actually seems to make some sense, as many HHS programs do overlap. But the big overriding question is: Can they really do this? Isn’t this kind of reorganization Congress’ job?

Ollstein: Congress has not stood up for itself in its power-of-the-purse role so far in the Trump administration. They have stood by, largely, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, or they’ve offered sort of mild concerns. But they have not said, Hey guys, this is our job, all of these cuts that are happening. There’s talk of a legislative package that would codify the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts that are already happening, rubber-stamping it after the fact. But Congress has not made moves to claw back its authority in terms of saying, Hey, we approved this funding, and you can’t just go back and take it. There’s lawsuits to that effect, but not from the members — from outside groups, from labor unions, from impacted folks, but not our dear legislative branch.

Rovner: You know, Joanne, you were there for a lot of this. We covered the creation of a lot of these agencies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, I covered the creation of its predecessor agency, which there were huge compromises that went into this, lots of policymaking. It just seems that RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. going to say: We don’t actually care all these things you did. We’re just going to redo the whole thing.

Kenen: As many of the listeners know, many laws that Congress passes have to be reauthorized every five years or every 10 years. Five is the most typical, and they often don’t get around to it and they extend and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But basically the idea is that things do change and things do need to be reevaluated. So, normally when you do reauthorization — we all just got this press release announcing all these mergers of departments and so forth at HHS. None of us are experts in procurement and IT. Maybe those two departments do need to be merged. I mean, I don’t know. That’s the kind of thing that, reauthorization, Congress looks at and Congress thinks about. Well, and agencies and legislation do get updated. Maybe the NIH [National Institutes of Health] doesn’t need 28 institutes and they should have 15 or whatever. But it’s just sort of this, somebody coming in and waving a magic DOGE wand, and Congress is not involved. And there’s not as much public input and expert input as you’d have because Congress holds hearings and listens to people who do have expertise.

So it’s not just Congress not exercising power to make decisions. It’s also Congress not deliberating and learning. I mean all of us learned health policy partly by listening to experts at congressional panels. We listen to people at Finance, and Energy and Commerce, and so forth. So it’s not just Congress’ voice being silenced. It’s this whole review and fact-based — and experts don’t always agree and Congress makes the final call. But that’s just been short-circuited. And I mean we all know there’s duplication in government, but this isn’t the process we have historically used to address it.

Rovner: You know, one other thing, I think they’re merging agencies that are in different locations, which on the one hand might make sense. But if you have one central IT or one central procurement agency in Washington or around Washington, you’ve got a lot of these organizations that are outside of Washington. And they’re outside of Washington because members of Congress put them there. A lot of them are in particular places because they were parochial decisions made by Congress. That may or may not make sense, but that’s where they are. It might or might not make sense. Maya, sorry I interrupted you.

Goldman: No, I was just going to add to Joanne’s point. Julie, I think before we started recording you mentioned that the administration is saying: We’ve thought this all out. These are well-researched decisions. But they’ve been in office for two months. How much research can you really do in that time and how intentional can those decisions really be in that time frame?

Ollstein: Especially because all of the leaders aren’t even in place yet. Some people were just confirmed, which we’re going to talk about. Some people are on their way to confirmation but not there yet. They haven’t had the chance to talk to career staff, figure out what the redundancies are, figure out what work is currently happening that would be disrupted by various closures and mergers and stuff. So Maya’s exactly right on that.

Goldman: You know there’s — the administration chose a lead for HRSA and other offices. And so what happens to those positions now? Do they just get demoted effectively because they’re no longer heads of offices? I would be pretty—

Rovner: But we have a secretary of education whose job is to close the department down, so—.

Goldman: Good point.

Rovner: That’s apparently not unprecedented in this administration. Well, as Alice was saying, into this maelstrom of change comes those that President [Donald] Trump has selected to lead these key federal health agencies. The Senate Tuesday night confirmed policy researcher Jay Bhattacharya to head the NIH and Johns Hopkins surgeon and policy analyst Marty Makary to head the Food and Drug Administration. Bhattacharya was approved on a straight party-line vote, while Makary, who I think it’s fair to say was probably the least controversial of the top HHS nominees, won the votes of three Democrats: Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and New Hampshire’s Democrats, [Sens.] Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, along with all of the Republicans. What are any of you watching as these two people take up their new positions?

Kenen: Well, I mean, the NIH, Bhattacharya — who I hope I’ve learned to pronounce correctly and I apologize if I have not yet mastered it — he’s really always talked about major reorganization, reprioritization. And as I said, maybe it’s time to look at some overlap, and science has changed so much in the last decade or so. I mean are the 28 — I think the number’s 28 — are the 28 current institutes the right—

Rovner: I think it’s 27.

Kenen: Twenty-seven. I mean, are there some things that need to be merged or need to be reorganized? Probably. You could make a case for that. But that’s just one thing. The amount of cuts that the administration announced before he got there, and there is a question in some things he’s hinted at, is he going to go for that? His background is in academia, and he does have some understanding of what this money is used for. We’ve talked before, when you talk to a layperson, when you hear the word “overhead,” “indirect costs,” what that conjures up to people as waste, when in fact it’s like paying for the electricity, paying for the staff to comply with the government regulations about ethical research on human beings. It’s not parties. It’s security. It’s cleaning the animal cages. It’s all this stuff. So is he going to cut as deeply as universities have been told to expect? We don’t know yet. And that’s something that every research institution in America is looking at.

The FDA, he’s a contrarian on certain things but not across the board. I mean, as you just said, Julie, he’s a little less controversial than the others. He is a pancreatic surgeon. He does have a record as a physician. He has never been a regulator, and we don’t know exactly where his contrarian views will be unconventional and where — there’s a lot of agreement with certain things Secretary Kennedy wants to do, not everything. But there is some broad agreement on, some of his food issues do make sense. And the FDA will have a role in that.

Rovner: I will say that under this reorganization plan the FDA is going to lose 3,500 people, which is a big chunk of its workforce.

Kenen: Well things like moving SAMHSA [the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration], which is the agency that works on drug abuse within and drug addiction within HHS, that’s being folded into something else. And that’s been a national priority. The money was voted to help with addiction on a bipartisan basis several times in recent years. The grants to states, that’s all being cut back. The subagency with HHS is being folded into something else. And we don’t know. We know 20,000 jobs are being cut. The 10 announced today and the 10 we already knew about. We don’t know where they’re all coming from and what happens to the expertise and experience addressing something like the addiction crisis and the drug abuse crisis in America, which is not partisan.

Rovner: All right. Well we’ll get to the cuts in a second. Also on Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted, also along party lines, to advance to the Senate floor the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. And while he would seem likely to get confirmed by the full Senate, I did not have on my bingo card Dr. Oz’s nomination being more in doubt due to Republicans than Democrats. Did anybody else?

Ollstein: Based on our reporting, it’s not really in doubt. [Sen.] Josh Hawley has raised concerns about Dr. Oz being too squishy on abortion and trans health care, but it does not seem that other Republicans are really jumping on board with that crusade. It sort of reminds me of concerns that were raised about RFK Jr.’s background on abortion that pretty much just fizzled and Republicans overwhelmingly fell in line. And that seems to be what’s going to happen now. Although you never know.

Rovner: At least it hasn’t been, as you point out, it hasn’t failed anybody else. Well, the one nominee who did not make it through HHS was former Congressman Dave Weldon to head the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. So now we have a new nominee. It’s actually the acting director, Susan Monarez, who by the way has a long history in federal health programs but no history at the CDC. Who can tell us anything about her?

Goldman: She seems like a very interesting and in some ways unconventional pick, especially for this administration. She was a career civil servant, and she worked under the Obama administration. And it’s interesting to see them be OK with that, I think. And she also has a lot of health care background but not in CDC. She’s done a lot of work on AI in health care and disaster preparedness, I think. And clearly she’s been leading the CDC for the last couple months. So she knows to that extent. But it will be very interesting when she gets around to confirmation hearings to hear what her priorities are, because we really have no idea.

Rovner: Yeah, she’s not one of those good-on-Fox News people that we’ve seen so many of in this administration. So while Monarez’s nomination seems fairly noncontroversial, at least so far, the nominee to be the new HHS inspector general is definitely not. Remember that President Trump fired HHS IG Christi Grimm just days after he took office, along with the IGs of several other departments. Grimm is still suing to get her job back, since that firing violated the terms of the 1978 Inspector General Act. But now the administration wants to replace her with Thomas Bell, who’s had a number of partisan Republican jobs for what’s traditionally been a very nonpartisan position and who was fired by the state of Virginia in 1997 for apparently mishandling state taxpayer funds. That feels like it might raise some eyebrows as somebody who’s supposed to be in charge of waste, fraud, and abuse. Or am I being naive?

Goldman: My eyebrows were definitely raised when I saw that news. I, to be honest, don’t know very much about him but will be very interested to see how things go, especially given that fraud, waste, and abuse and rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse are high priorities for this administration, but also things that are very up to interpretation in a certain way.

Ollstein: Yes, although it’s clearly been very mixed on that front because the administration is also dismantling entire agencies that go after fraud and abuse—

Goldman: Exactly.

Ollstein: —like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So there is some mixed messaging on that front for sure.

Rovner: Well, as Joanne mentioned, the DOGE cuts continue at the NIH. In just the last week, billions of dollars in grants have been terminated that were being used to study AIDS and HIV, covid and other potential pandemic viruses, and climate change, among other things. The NIH also closed its office studying long covid. Thank you, Alice, for writing that story. This is, I repeat, not normal. NIH only generally cancels grants that have been peer reviewed and approved for reasons of fraud or scientific misconduct, yet one termination letter obtained by Science Magazine simply stated, quote, “The end of the pandemic provides cause to terminate COVID-related grant funds.” Why aren’t we hearing more about this, particularly for members of Congress whose universities are the ones that are being cut?

Kenen: I mean, the one Republican we heard at the very beginning was [Sen.] Katie Britt because the University of Alabama is a big, excellent, and well-respected national medical and science center, and they were targeted for a lot of cuts. She’s the only Republican, really, and she got quiet. I mean, she raised her voice very loud and clear. We may go into a situation — and everybody sort of knows this is how Washington sometimes works — where individual universities will end up negotiating with NIH over their funds and that—

Rovner: Columbia. Cough, cough.

Kenen: Right. And Alabama may come out great and Columbia might not, or many other leading research institutions. But these job cuts affect people in every congressional district across the country. And the funding cuts affect every congressional district across the country. So it’s not just their constitutional responsibilities. It’s also, like, their constituents are affected, and we’re not hearing it.

Rovner: And as I point out for the millionth time, it’s not a coincidence that these things are located in every congressional district. Members of Congress, if not the ones who are currently in office then their predecessors, lobbied and worked to get these funds to their states and to their district. And yet the silence is deafening.

Ollstein: To state the obvious, one, covid is not over. People are still contracting it. People are still dying from it. But not only that, a lot of this research was about preparing for the inevitable next pandemic that we know is coming at some point and to not be caught as unawares as we were this past time, to be more prepared, to have better tools so that there don’t have to be widespread lockdowns, things can remain open because we have more effective prevention and treatment efforts. And that’s what’s being defunded here.

Kenen: The other thing is that long covid is in fact a chronic disease and even though it’s caused by an infectious disease, a virus. But people have long covid but it is a chronic disease, and HHS says that’s their priority, chronic disease, but they’re not including long covid. And there’s also more and more. When we think of long covid, we think of brain fog and being short of breath and tired and unable to function. There’s increasing evidence or conversation in the medical world about other problems people have long-term that probably stem from covid infections or multiple covid infections. So this is affecting millions of Americans as a chronic disease that is not well understood, and we’ve just basically said, That one doesn’t count, or: We’re not going to pay attention to that one. We’re going to, you know, we’re looking at diabetes. Yeah, we need to look at diabetes. That’s one of the things that Kennedy has bipartisan support. This country does not eat well. I wrote about this about a week ago. But what he can and can’t do, because he can’t wave a magic wand and have us all eating well. But it’s very selective in how we’re defining both the causes of diseases and what diseases we’re prioritizing. We basically just shrunk addiction.

Goldman: In the press release announcing the reorganization this morning, there was a line talking about how the HHS is going to create this new Administration for a Healthy America to investigate chronic disease and to make sure that we have, I think it was, wholesome food, clean water, and no environmental toxins, in order to prevent chronic disease. And those are the only three things that it mentions that lead to chronic disease.

Rovner: And none of which are under HHS’ purview.

Goldman: Right, right. Yeah.

Rovner: With the exception of—

Goldman: There are things that HHS does in that space. But yeah, we’re being very selective about what constitutes a chronic disease and what causes a chronic disease. If you’re trying to actually solve a problem, maybe you should be more expansive.

Kenen: So HHS has some authority over food, not significant authority of it, but it is shared with the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]. Like school lunches are USDA, the nutritional guidelines are shared between USDA and HHS, things like that. So yeah, it has some control about, over food but not entirely control over food.

And then EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], which has also been completely reoriented to be a pro-fossil-fuel agency, is in charge of clean water and the environmental contaminants. That’s not an HHS bailiwick. And Kennedy is not aligned with other elements of the administration on environmental issues. And also genetics, right? Genetics is also, you know, who knows? That’s NIH? But who knows what’s going to happen to the National Cancer Institute and other genetic research at NIH? We don’t know.

Rovner: Yes. Clearly much to be determined. Well, speaking of members of Congress whose states and districts are losing federal funds, federal aid is also being cut by the CDC. In a story first reported by NBC News, CDC is reportedly clawing back more than $11 billion in covid-related grants. Among other things, that’s impacting funding that was being used in Texas to fight the ongoing measles outbreak. How exactly does clawing back this money from state and local public health agencies make America healthy again?

Goldman: That’s a great question, and I’m curious to see how it plays out. I don’t have the answer.

Rovner: And it’s not just domestic spending. The fate of PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], the international AIDS/HIV program that’s credited with saving more than 20 million lives, remains in question. And The New York Times has gotten hold of a spreadsheet including more global health cuts, including those for projects to fight malaria and to pull the U.S. out of Gavi. That’s the global vaccine alliance that’s helped vaccinate more than 1.1 billion children in 78 countries. Wasn’t there a court order stopping all of these cuts?

Ollstein: So there was for some USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] work, but not all of these things fall under that umbrella. And that is still an ongoing saga that has flipped back and forth depending on various rulings. But I think it’s worth pointing out, as always, that infectious diseases don’t respect international borders, and any pullback on efforts to fight various things abroad inevitably will impact Americans as well.

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, we’ve seen these measles cases obviously in Texas, but now we’re getting measles cases in other parts of the country, and many of them are people coming from other countries. We had somebody come through Washington, D.C.’s Union Station with measles, and we’ve had all of these alerts. I mean, this is what happens when you don’t try and work with infectious diseases where they are, then they spread. That’s kind of the nature of infectious disease.

Well, at the same time, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. is putting his Make America Healthy Again agenda into practice in smaller ways as well. First up, remember that study that Kennedy promised again to look into any links between childhood vaccines and autism? It will reportedly be led by a vaccine skeptic who was disciplined by the Maryland Board of Physicians for practicing medicine without a license and who has pushed the repeatedly debunked assertion that autism can be caused by the preservative thimerosal, which used to be used in childhood vaccines but has long since been discontinued. One autism group referred to the person who’s going to be running this study as, quote, “a known conspiracy theorist and quack.” Sen. [Bill] Cassidy seemed to promise us that this wasn’t going to happen.

Kenen: Well, we think that Sen. Cassidy was promised it wouldn’t happen, and it’s all happening. And in fact, when a recent hearing, he was very outspoken that there’s no need to research the autism link, because it’s been researched over and over and over and over and over again and there’s a lot of reputable scientific evidence establishing that vaccination does not cause autism. We don’t know what causes autism, so—

Rovner: But we know it’s not thimerosal.

Kenen: Right, which has been removed from many vaccines, in fact, and autism rates went up. So Cassidy has not come out and said, Yeah, I’m the guy who pulled the plug on Weldon. But it’s sort of obvious that he had, at least was, a role in. It is widely understood in Washington that he and a few other Republicans, [Sens. Lisa] Murkowski and [Susan] Collins, I believe — I think Murkowski said it in public — said that the CDC could not go down that route.

Rovner: Well, I would like to be inadvertently invited to the Signal chat between Secretary Kennedy and Sen. Cassidy. I would very much wish to see that conversation.

Meanwhile, in Texas, where HHS just confiscated public health funding, as we said, a hospital in Lubbock says it’s now treating children with liver damage from too much vitamin A, which Secretary Kennedy recommended as a way to prevent and or treat measles. Which it doesn’t, by the way. But that points to, that some of these — I hesitate of how to describe these people who are “making America healthy again.” But some of the things that they point to can be actively dangerous, not just not helpful.

Goldman: Yeah. And I think it also shows how much messaging from the top matters, right? People are listening to what Secretary Kennedy says, which makes sense because he’s the secretary of health and human services. But if he’s pedaling misinformation or disinformation, that can have real harmful effects on people.

Kenen: And his messages are being amplified even if some people are not, their parents, who aren’t maybe directly tuned in to what Kennedy personally is saying, but they follow various influencers on health who are then echoing what Kennedy’s saying about vitamin A. Yeah, we all need vitamin A in our diet. It’s something, part of healthy nutrition. But this supplement’s unnecessary, or excess supplements, vitamin A or cod liver oil or other things that can make them sick, including liver damage. And that’s what we’re seeing now. Vitamin A does have a place in measles under very specific circumstances, under medical supervision in individual cases. But no, people should not be going to the drugstore and pouring huge numbers of tablets of vitamin C down their children’s throat. It’s dangerous.

Rovner: And actually the head of communications at the CDC not only quit his job this week but wrote a rather impassioned op-ed in The Washington Post, which I will post in our show notes, talking about he feels like he cannot work for an agency that is not giving advice that is based in science and that that’s what he feels right now. Again, that’s before we get a new head of the CDC. Well, MAHA is apparently spreading to the states as well. West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey this week signed a bill to ban most artificial food coloring and two preservatives in all foods sold in the state starting in 2028. Nearly half the rest of the states are considering similar types of bans. But unless most of those other states follow, companies aren’t going to remake their products just for West Virginia, right?

Kenen: West Virginia is not big enough, but they sometimes do remake their products for California, which is big. The whole food additive issue is, traditionally the food manufacturers have had a lot of control over deciding what’s safe. It’s the industry that has decided. Kennedy has some support across the board and saying that’s too loose and we should look at some of these additives that have not been examined. There are others, including some preservatives, that have been studied and that are safe. Some preservatives have not been studied and should be studied. There are others that have been studied and are safe and they keep food from going rotten or they can prevent foodborne disease outbreaks. Something that does make our food healthy, we probably want to keep them in there. So, and are there some that—

Rovner: I think people get mixed up between the dyes and the preservatives. Dyes are just to make things look more attractive. The preservatives were put there for a reason.

Kenen: Right. And there’s some healthy ways of making dyes, too, if you need your food to be red. There’s berry abstracts instead of chemical extracts. So things get overly simplified in a way that does not end up necessarily promoting health across the board.

Rovner: Well, not all of the news is coming from the Trump administration. The Supreme Court next week will hear a case out of South Carolina about whether Medicaid recipients can sue to enforce their right to get care from any qualified health care providers. But this is really another case about Planned Parenthood, right, Alice?

Ollstein: Yep. If South Carolina gets the green light to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program, which is really what is at the heart of this case, even though it’s sort of about whether beneficiaries can sue if their rights are denied. A right isn’t a right if you can’t enforce it, so it’s expected that a ruling in that direction would cause a stampede of other conservative states to do the same, to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Many have tried already, and that’s gone around and around in the courts for a while, and so this is really the big showdown at the high court to really decide this.

And as I’ve been writing about, this is just one of many prongs of the right’s bigger strategy to defund Planned Parenthood. So there are efforts at the federal level. There are efforts at the state level. There are efforts in the courts. They are pushing executive actions on that front. We can talk. There was some news on Title X this week.

Rovner: That was my next question. Go ahead.

Ollstein: Some potential news.

Rovner: What’s happening with Title X?

Ollstein: Yeah. So HHS told us when we inquired that nothing’s final yet, but they’re reviewing tens of millions of Title X federal family planning grants that currently go to some Planned Parenthood affiliates to provide subsidized contraception, STI [sexually transmitted infection] screenings, various non-abortion services. And so they are reviewing those grants now. They are supposed to be going out next week, so we’ll have to see what happens there. There was some sort of back-and-forth in the reporting about whether they’re going to be cut or not.

Rovner: What surprises me about the Title X grant, and there has been, there have been efforts, as you point out, going back to the 1980s to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Title X program. That’s separate from kicking Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, which is where Planned Parenthood gets a lot more money.

But the first Trump administration did kick Planned Parenthood out of Title X, and they went through the regulatory process to do it. And then the Biden administration went through the regulatory process to rescind the Trump administration regulations that kicked them out. Now it looks like the Trump administration thinks that it can just stop it without going through the regulatory process, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. So not only are they going around Congress, which approves Title X funding every year, they are also going around their own rulemaking and just going for it. Although, again, it has not been finally announced whether or not there will be cuts. They’re just reviewing these grants.

Rovner: But I repeat for those in the back, this is not normal. It’s not how these things are supposed to work it.

Kenen: It’s normal now, Julie.

Rovner: Yeah, clearly it’s becoming normal. Well, finally this week, another case of a woman arrested for a poor pregnancy outcome. This happened in Georgia where the woman suffered a natural miscarriage, not an abortion, which was confirmed by the medical examiner, but has been arrested on charges of improperly disposing of the fetal remains. Alice, this is turning into a trend, right?

Ollstein: Yes. And it’s important for people to remember that this was happening before Dobbs. This was happening when Roe v. Wade was still in place. This has happened since then in states where abortion is legal. Some prosecutors are finding other ways to charge people. Whether it’s related to, yeah, the disposal of the fetus, whether it’s related to substance abuse, substance use during pregnancy, even sometimes the use of substances that are actually legal, but people have been charged, arrested for using them during pregnancy. So yes, it’s important to remember that even if there’s not a quote-unquote “abortion ban” on the books, there are still efforts underway in many places to criminalize pregnancy loss however it happens, naturally or via some abortifacient method.

Rovner: Well, something else we’ll be keeping an eye on. All right, that’s as much news as we have time for this week. Now, we will play my interview with KFF’s Larry Levitt. Then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

So, last Sunday was the 15th anniversary of President Barack Obama’s signing of the original Affordable Care Act. And before you ask, yes, I was there in the White House East Room that day. Anyway, to discuss what the law has meant to the U.S. health system over the last decade and a half and what its future might be, I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF colleague Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy.

Larry, thanks for joining us again.

Larry Levitt: Oh, thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, [then-House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi was mercilessly derided when she said that once the American people learned exactly what was in the ACA, they would come to like it. But that’s exactly what’s happened, right?

Levitt: It is. Yes. I think people took her comments so out of context, but the ACA was incredibly controversial and divisive when it was being debated. Frankly, after a pass, the ACA became pretty unpopular. If you go back to 2014, just before the main provisions of the ACA were being implemented, there was all this controversy over the individual mandate, over people’s plans being canceled because they didn’t comply with the ACA’s rules. And then, of course, healthcare.gov, the website, didn’t work. So the ACA was very underwater in public opinion. And even after it first went into effect and people started getting coverage, that didn’t necessarily turn around immediately, there was still a lot of divisiveness over the law.

What changed is, No. 1, over time, more and more people got covered, people with preexisting conditions, people who couldn’t afford health insurance, people who turned 26 or could stay on their parents’ plans until 26 and then could enroll in the ACA or Medicaid after turning 26. All these people got coverage and started to see the benefits of the law. The other thing that happened was in 2017, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to repeal and replace the ACA, and people really realized what they could be missing if the law went away.

Rovner: So what’s turned out to be the biggest change to the health care system as a result of the ACA? And is it what you originally thought it would be?

Levitt: Well, yeah, in this case it was not a surprise, I think. The biggest change was the number of people getting covered and a big decrease in the number of people uninsured. We have been at the lowest rate of uninsurance ever recently due to the ACA and some of the enhancements, which we’ll probably talk about. And that was what the law was intended to do, was to get more people covered. And I think you’d have to call that a success, in retrospect.

Rovner: I will say I was surprised by how much Medicaid dominated the increased coverage. I know now it’s sort of balanced out because of reductions in premiums for private coverage, I think in large part. But I think during the 2017 fight to undo the ACA, that was the first time since I’ve been covering Medicaid that I think people really realized how big and how important Medicaid is to the health care system.

Levitt: No, that’s right. I mean the ACA marketplace, healthcare.gov, the individual mandate, preexisting condition protections, I mean, those are the things that got a lot of the public attention. But in fact, yeah, in the early years of the ACA, I mean really up until just the last couple years, the Medicaid expansion in the ACA was really the engine of coverage. And that’s not what a lot of people expected. In fact, Congressional Budget Office in their original projections kind of got that wrong, too.

Rovner: So what was the biggest disappointment about something the ACA was supposed to do but didn’t do or didn’t do very well?

Levitt: Yeah, I mean, I would have to point to health care costs as the biggest disappointment. The ACA really wasn’t intended to address health care costs head-on. And that was both a policy judgment but also a political decision. If you go back to the debate over the Clinton health plan in the early ’90s, which failed spectacularly — you and I were both there — it addressed health care costs aggressively, took on every segment of the health care industry, and died under that political weight. The political judgment of Obama and Democrats in Congress with the ACA was to not take on those vested health care interests and not really address health care costs head-on. That’s what enabled it to get passed. But it sort of lacked teeth in that regard. There were some things in the ACA like expansion of ACOs, accountable care organizations, which maybe had some promise but frankly have not done a whole lot.

Rovner: And of course, Congress undoing what teeth there were in the ensuing years probably didn’t help very much, either.

Levitt: No. I mean there was this provision in the ACA called the Cadillac plan tax, right? The idea was to tax so-called Cadillac health plans, very generous health plans. That probably would’ve had an effect. I’m not sure it would’ve done what people intended for it to do. I mean, I think it would’ve actually shifted costs to workers and caused deductibles to rise even higher. But no one but economists liked that Cadillac plan tax, and it was repealed.

Rovner: So, as you mentioned, you and I are both also veterans of the 1993, 1994 failed effort by President Bill Clinton to overhaul the nation’s health care system, which, like the fight over the ACA, featured large-scale, deliberate mis- and disinformation by opponents about what a major piece of health legislation could do. In fact, and I have done lots of stories on this, scare tactics about the possible impact of providing universal health insurance coverage date back to the early 1900s and have been a feature of every single major health care debate since then. What did we learn from the ACA debate about combating this kind of deliberate misinformation?

Levitt: Yeah, you’re so right about the disinformation, and I was actually looking yesterday — we have a timeline of health policy over the decades in our KFF headquarters in San Francisco, and we have an ad up there from the debate over the Truman health plan. You and I were not there for that debate.

Rovner: Thank you.

Levitt: And the AMA [American Medical Association] opposed that as socialized medicine and ran these ads featuring robots who were going to be your doctor if the Truman plan passed. So this is certainly nothing new. And we saw it in the ACA with death panels, right? I mean, which just spread like wildfire through the media and over social media. I would kind of hope we learned some lessons from the ACA. I’m not sure we have. And I kind of worry that with declining trust in institutions, particularly government institutions, I just wonder whether we’ll get back to a place where, yeah, we’ll disagree about policy. There will be spin, there will be scare tactics, but at least there’s some trusted source of facts and data that we can rely on, and I’m not so hopeful there.

Rovner: Somebody asked former [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a 15th-anniversary event what she regretted most about not having in the ACA, and she said, With all the talk of our actually taking over the health care system, we should have just taken over the health care system, since that’s what everybody was accusing it of. It might’ve worked better.

Levitt: Yeah, there is — we could have a whole other session on “Medicare for All” and single payer and the pros and cons of that. But one thing I think we did learn from the ACA, that complexity is just a huge problem. Even what’s supposed to be the simplest part of our health care system now, Medicare, has become incredibly complex with Part A and Part B and Part C and Part D. Seniors kind of scratch their heads trying to figure out what to do, and the ACA even more so.

And I think back to your original question, part of what made the ACA so hard for people to grasp is there was not one single, Oh, I’m going to sign up for the ACA. There were so many pieces of it. And over time, I’m not even sure people identify those pieces with the ACA anymore.

Rovner: Yeah. Oh, no, I am surprised at how many younger people have no idea of what the insurance market was like before the ACA and how many people were simply redlined out of getting coverage.

Levitt: Right. No. I mean, once you fix those problems, then people don’t see them anymore.

Rovner: So let’s look forward quickly. It seemed at least for a while after the Republicans failed in 2017 to repeal and replace the law that efforts to undo it were finally over. But while this administration isn’t saying directly that they want to end it, they do have some big targets for undoing big pieces of it. What are some of those and what are the likelihood of them happening?

Levitt: Yeah, in some ways we have an ACA repeal-and-replace debate going on right now, just not in name. And there are really kind of two big pieces on the table. One, of course, is potential cuts to Medicaid. The House has passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts, by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid. The vast majority of those cuts would have to be in Medicaid. The math is simply inescapable. And a big target on the table is that expansion of Medicaid that was in the ACA.

And interestingly, you’re even hearing Republicans on the Hill talking about repealing the enhanced federal matching payments for the ACA Medicaid expansion and saying: Well, that’s not Medicaid cuts. That’s Obamacare. That’s not Medicaid. But 20 million people are covered under that Medicaid expansion. So it would lead to the biggest increase in the number of people uninsured we’ve ever had, if that gets repealed.

The other issue really has not gotten a lot of attention yet this year, which is the extra premium assistance that was passed under [President Joe] Biden and by Democrats in Congress. And that’s led to a dramatic increase in ACA marketplace enrollment. ACA enrollment has more than doubled to 24 million since 2020. Those subsidies expire at the end of this year. So if Congress does nothing, people would be faced with very big out-of-pocket premium increases. And I suspect it’s going to get more attention as we get closer to the end of the year, but so far there hasn’t been a big debate over it yet.

Rovner: Well, we’ll continue to talk about it. Larry Levitt, thank you so much.

Levitt: Oh, thanks. Great conversation.

Kenen: There’s a piece in The Atlantic this week called “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag, and it’s basically saying that half of the people who said they were vegan or vegetarian were lying and that meat is very much back in fashion. That the new pejorative term — some of us may remember from 20 years or so ago, the “quiche eaters” —now it’s the “soy boy.” And that one of the new “in” foods, and I think this is the first for the podcast to use the phrase, raw beef testicles. So when we’re talking about political red meat, it’s not just political red meat. America is, we’re eating a lot more meat than we said we did, and we’re no longer saying that we’re not eating it.

Rovner: Real red meat for the masses.

Ollstein: For what it’s worth, “soy boy” has been a slur since the Obama administration.

Kenen: Well, it’s just new to me. Thank you. I welcome the—

Ollstein: I unfortunately have been in the online fever swamps where people say things like that.

Kenen: Thank you, Alice. Now I know.

Rovner: Maya, why don’t you go next?

Goldman: My extra credit is a KFF Health News article by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani called “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers.” And I think it’s just worth remembering that there are real consequences, real mental health consequences to mass upheaval at the scale of what’s going on in the federal government right now with so many people losing their jobs and just not sure if their jobs are stable, especially in light of this morning’s news about HHS reorganizations. But also I think this article does a really good job of highlighting how this chaos and instability is only going to exacerbate already ongoing mental health crises that some of these workers that have been laid off were trying to help solve. And so it’s just this cycle that keeps running through. It’s worth remembering.

Rovner: The chaos is the point. Alice.

Ollstein: So, I have a piece from the New York Times Wirecutter section called “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now.” And it’s what it says. The company that millions and millions of people have sent samples of their DNA to over the years to find out what percent European they are and all this stuff and their propensity for various inherited diseases, that company is going bankrupt, and there is the expectation that it will be sold off for parts, including people’s very sensitive DNA. And the article points out that because they are not a health care provider, they are not subject to HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]. And so many elected officials and privacy advocates are recommending that people, very quickly, if they have given their DNA to this company, go and delete their information now before it gets sold off to who knows who.

Rovner: And for who knows what reason. My extra credit this week is something I really did think at first was from The Onion. It’s actually from CNN, and it’s called “State Lawmakers Are Looking to Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller, who’s a CNN meteorologist. It seems that several states are moving to ban those white lines the jets leave behind them, on the theory that they are full of toxic chemicals and/or intended to manipulate the weather. In fact, they’re mostly just water vapor. They’re called contrails because the con is for condensation. But these laws could outlaw some new types of technologies that are aimed at addressing things like climate change. Clearly we need to teach more science along with more civics.

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you could email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Maya?

Goldman: I am on X and Bluesky. If you search Maya Goldman, you’ll find me. And also increasingly on LinkedIn. Find me there.

Rovner: Hearing that a lot. Alice.

Ollstein: I am on X, @AliceOllstein, and Bluesky, @alicemiranda.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: I’m mostly at Bluesky, and I’m also using LinkedIn a lot. @joannekenen at Bluesky. LinkedIn is reverberating more.

Rovner: All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week with still more breaking news. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).