The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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.

As part of a media blitz aimed at women voters, Vice President Kamala Harris this week rolled out a plan for Medicare to provide in-home long-term care services. It’s popular, particularly for families struggling to care for both young children and older relatives, but its enormous expense has prevented similar plans from being implemented for decades.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden called out former President Donald Trump by name for having “led the onslaught of lies” about the federal efforts to help people affected by hurricanes Helene and Milton. Even some Republican officials say the misinformation about hurricane relief efforts is threatening public health.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to expand Medicare to cover more long-term care is popular but not new, and in the past has proved prohibitively expensive.
• Former President Donald Trump has abandoned support for a drug price policy he pursued during his first term. The idea, which would lower drug prices in the U.S. to their levels in other industrialized countries, is vehemently opposed by the drug industry, raising the question of whether Trump is softening his hard line on the issue.
• Abortion continues to be the biggest health policy issue of 2024, as Republican candidates — in what seems to be a replay of 2022 — try to distance themselves from their support of abortion bans and other limits. Voters continue to favor reproductive rights, which creates a brand problem for the GOP. Trump’s going back and forth on his abortion positions is an exception to the tack other candidates have taken.
• The Supreme Court returned from its summer break and immediately declined to hear two abortion-related cases. One case pits Texas’ near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires emergency abortions to be performed in certain cases. The other challenges a ruling earlier this year from the Alabama Supreme Court finding that embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization have the same legal rights as born humans.
• The 2024 KFF annual employer health benefits survey, released this week, showed a roughly 7% increase in premiums, with average family premiums now topping $25,000 per year. And that’s with most employers not covering two popular but expensive medical interventions: GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and IVF.

Also this week, excerpts from a KFF lunch with “Shark Tank” panelist and generic drug discounter Mark Cuban, who has been consulting with the Harris campaign about health care issues.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” by Mel Leonor Barclay.

Jessie Hellmann: The Assembly’s “Helene Left Some NC Elder-Care Homes Without Power,” by Carli Brosseau.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It,” by Kate Morgan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Outright Lies’ About Hurricane Response,” by Michael D. Shear.
• The Miami Herald’s “Florida Threatens To Prosecute TV Stations Over Abortion Ad. FCC Head Calls It ‘Dangerous,’” by Claire Healy and Ana Ceballos.
• KFF’s “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Yet Another Promise for Long-Term Care Coverage

[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, October 10th, 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 teleconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Jesse Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Nursing and Politico magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have some excerpts from the Newsmaker lunch we had here at KFF this week with Mark Cuban — “Shark Tank” star, part-owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team, and, for the purposes of our discussion, co-founder of the industry-disrupting pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Vice President [Kamala] Harris, who’s been making the media rounds on women-focused podcasts and TV shows like “The View.” To go along with that, she’s released a proposal to expand Medicare to include home-based long-term care, to be paid for in part by expanding the number of drugs whose price Medicare can negotiate. Sounds simple and really popular. Why has no one else ever proposed something like that? she asks, knowing full well the answer. Joanne, tell us! 

Kenen: As the one full-fledged member of the sandwich generation here, who has lived the experience of being a family caregiver while raising children and working full time, long-term care is the unfulfillable, extremely expensive, but incredibly important missing link in our health care system. We do not have a system for long-term care, and people do not realize that. Many people think Medicare will, in fact, cover it, where Medicare covers it in a very limited, short-term basis. So the estimates of what families spend both in terms of lost work hours and what they put out-of-pockets is in, I think it’s something like $400 billion. It’s extraordinarily high. But the reason it’s been hard to fix is it’s extraordinarily expensive. And although Harris put out a plan to pay for this, that plan is going to have to be vetted by economists and budget scorers and skeptical Republicans. And probably some skeptical Democrats. It’s really expensive. It’s really hard to do. Julie has covered this for years, too. It’s just— 

Rovner: I would say this is where I get to say one of my favorite things, which is that I started covering health care in 1986, and in 1986 my first big feature was: Why don’t we have a long-term care policy in this country? Thirty-eight years later, and we still don’t, and not that people have not tried. There, in fact, was a long-term-care-in-the-home piece of the Affordable Care Act that passed Congress, and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] discovered that they could not implement it in the way it was written, because only the people who would’ve needed it would’ve signed up for it. It would’ve been too expensive. And there it went. So this is the continuing promise of something that everybody agrees that we need and nobody has ever been able to figure out how to do. Shefali, I see you nodding here. 

Luthra: I mean, I’m just thinking again about the pay-fors in here, which are largely the savings from Medicare negotiating drug prices. And what Harris says in her plan is that they’re going to get more savings by expanding the list of drugs that get lower prices. But that also feels very politically suspect when we have already heard congressional Republicans say that they would like to weaken some of those drug negotiation price provisions. And we also know that Democrats, even if they win the presidency, are not likely to have Congress. It really takes me back to 2020, when we are just talking about ideas that Democrats would love to do if they had full power of Congress, while all of us in Washington kind of know that that is just not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yes, I love that one of the pay-fors for this is cutting Medicare fraud. It’s like, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. In every Medicare proposal for the last 45 years. 

Kenen: And it also involves closing some kind of international tax loopholes, and that also sounds easy on paper, and nothing with taxes is ever easy. The Democrats probably are not going to have the Senate. Nobody really knows about the House. It looks like the Democrats may have a narrow edge in that, but we’re going to have more years of gridlock unless something really changes politically, like something extraordinary changes politically. The Republicans are not going to give a President Harris, if she is in fact President Harris, her wish list on a golden platter. On the other hand there’s need for this. 

Rovner: But in fairness, this is what the campaign is for. 

Kenen: Right. There is a need for something on long-term care. 

Rovner: And everybody’s complaining: Well, what would she do? What would she do if she was elected? Well, here’s something she said she would do if she could, if she was elected. Well, meanwhile, former President [Donald] Trump has apparently abandoned a proposal that he made during his first term to require drugmakers to lower their prices for Medicare to no more than they charge in other developed countries where their prices are government-regulated. Is Trump going soft on the drug industry? Trump has been, what, the Republican, I think, who’s been most hostile towards the drug industry until now. 

Hellmann: I would say maybe. I think the “most favored nation” proposal is something that the pharmaceutical industry has feared even more than the Democrats’ Medicare negotiation program. And it’s something that Trump really pursued in his first term but wasn’t able to get done. In such a tight race, I think he’s really worried about angering pharmaceutical companies, especially after they were just kind of dealt this loss with Medicare price negotiation. And if he does win reelection, he’s going to be kind of limited in his ability to weaken that program. It’s going to be hard to repeal it. It’s extremely popular, and he may be able to weaken it. 

Rovner: “It” meaning price negotiation, not the “most favored nations” prices. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s going to be really hard to repeal that, and he may be able to weaken it through the negotiation process with drug companies. It’s definitely an interesting turn. 

Rovner: Joanne, you want to add something? 

Kenen: Trump rhetorically was very harsh on the drug companies right around the time of his inauguration. I think it was the week before, if I remember correctly. Said a lot of very tough stuff on drugs. Put out a list of something like dozens of potential steps. The drug companies have lots of allies in both parties, and more in one than the other, but they have allies on the Hill, and nothing revolutionary happened on drug pricing under Trump. 

Rovner: And his HHS secretary was a former drug company executive. 

Kenen: Yes, Eli Lilly. So we also pointed out here that former President Trump is not consistent in policy proposals. He says one thing, and then he says another thing, and it’s very hard to know where he’s going to come down. So Trump and drug pricing is an open question. 

Rovner: Yes, we will see. All right, well, moving on. Drug prices and Medicare aside, the biggest health issue of Campaign 2024 continues to be abortion and other reproductive health issues. And it’s not just Trump trying to back away from his anti-abortion record. We’ve had a spate of stories over the past week or so of Republicans running for the House, the Senate, and governorships who are trying to literally reinvent themselves as, if not actually supportive of abortion rights, at least anti abortion bans. And that includes Republicans who have not just voted for and advocated for bans but who have been outspokenly supportive of the anti-abortion effort, people like North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, along with former Michigan Republican representative and now Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Donald Trump has gotten away repeatedly, as Joanne just said, with changing his positions, even on hot-button issues like abortion. Are these candidates going to be able to get away with doing the same thing, Shefali? 

Luthra: I think it’s just so much tougher when your name is not Donald Trump. And that’s because we know from focus group after focus group, and survey after survey, that voters kind of give Trump more leeway on abortion. Especially independent voters will look at him and say, Well, I don’t think he actually opposes abortion, because I’m sure he’s paid for them. And they don’t have that same grace that they give to Republican lawmakers and Republican candidates, because the party has a bad brand on abortion at large, and Trump is seen as this kind of maverick figure. But voters know that Republicans have a history of opposing abortion, of supporting restrictions. 

When you look at surveys, when you talk to voters, what they say is, Well, I don’t trust Republicans to represent my interests on this issue, because they largely support access. And one thing that I do think is really interesting is, once again, what we’re seeing is kind of a repeat of the 2022 elections when we saw some very brazen efforts by Republican candidates for the House and Senate try and scrub references to abortion and to fetal personhood from their websites. And it didn’t work, because people have eyes and people have memories, and, also, campaigns have access to the internet archive and are able to show people that, even a few weeks ago, Republican candidates were saying something very different from what they are saying now. I don’t think Mark Robinson can really escape from his relatively recent and very public comments about abortion. 

Rovner: Well, on the other hand, there’s some things that don’t change. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance told RealClearPolitics last week that if Trump is elected again, their administration would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood because, he said, and I quote, “We don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.” Notwithstanding, of course, that even before the overturn of Roe, less than half of all Planned Parenthoods even performed abortions and almost none of those who did perform them later in pregnancy. Is it fair to say that Vance’s anti-abortion slip is showing? 

Luthra: I think it might be. And I will say, Julie, when I saw that he said that, I could hear you in my head just yelling about the Hyde Amendment, because we know that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But we also know that JD Vance has seen that he and his ticket are kind of in a tough corner talking about abortion. He has said many times, We need to rebrand — he’s very honest about that, at least — and trying to focus instead on this nonmedical term of “late term” abortions. 

It’s a gamble. It’s hoping that voters will be more sympathetic to that because they’ll think, Oh, well, that sounds very extreme. And they’re trying to shift back who is seen as credible and who is not, by focusing on something that historically was less popular. But again, it’s again tricky because when we look at the polling, voters’ understanding of abortion has shifted and they are now more likely to understand that when you have an abortion later in pregnancy, it is often for very medically complex reasons. And someone very high-profile who recently said that is Melania Trump in her new memoir, talking about how she supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy because often these are very heart-wrenching cases and not sort of the murder that Republicans have tried to characterize them as. 

Rovner: I think you’re right. I think this is the continuation of the 2022 campaign, except that we’ve had so many more women come forward. We’ve seen actual cases. It used to be anti-abortion forces would say, Oh, well, this never happened. I mean, these are wrenching, awful things that happened to a lot of these patients with pregnancy complications late in pregnancy. And it is, I know, because I’ve talked to them. It’s very hard to get them to talk publicly, because then they get trolled. Why should they step forward? 

Well, now we’ve seen a lot of these women stepping forward. So we now see a public that knows that this happens, because they’re hearing from the people that it’s happened to and they’re hearing from their doctors. I do know also from the polling that there are people who are going to vote in these 10 states where abortion is on the ballot. Many of them are going to vote for abortion access and then turn around and vote for Republicans who support restrictions, because they’re Republicans. It may or may not be their most important issue, but I still think it’s a big question mark where that happens and how it shakes out. Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: You’re seeing two competing things at the same time. You have a number of Republicans trying to moderate their stance or at least sound like they’re moderating their stance. At the same time, you also have the whole, where the Republican Party is on abortion has shifted to the right. They are talking about personhood at the moment of conception, the embryo — which is, scientifically put, a small ball of cells still at that point — that they actually have the same legal rights as any other post-birth person. 

So that’s become a fairly common view in the Republican Party, as opposed to something that just five or six years ago was seen as the fringe. And Trump is going around saying that Democrats allow babies to be executed after birth, which is not true. And they’re particularly saying this is true in Minnesota because of [Gov.] Tim Walz, and some voters must believe it, right? Because they keep saying it. So you have this trend that Shefali just described and that you’ve described, Julie, about this sort of attempting to win back trust, as Vance said. And it sounded more moderate, and at the same time as you’re hearing this rhetoric about personhood and execution. So I don’t think the Republicans have yet solved their own whiplash post-Roe. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, the abortion debate is getting mired in the free-speech debate. In Florida, Republican governor Ron DeSantis is threatening legal action against TV stations airing an ad in support of the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. That has in turn triggered a rebuke from the head of the Federal Communications Commission warning that political speech is still protected here in the United States. Shefali, this is really kind of out there, isn’t it? 

Luthra: It’s just so fascinating, and it’s really part of a bigger effort by Ron DeSantis to try and leverage anything that he can politically or, frankly, in his capacity as head of the state to try and weaken the campaign for the ballot measure. They have used the health department in other ways to try and send out material suggesting that the campaign’s talking points, which are largely focused on the futility of exceptions to the abortion ban, they’re trying to argue that that is misinformation, and that’s not true. And they’re using the state health department to make that argument, which is something we don’t really see very often, because usually health departments are supposed to be nonpartisan. And what I will say is, in this case, at least to your point, Julie, the FCC has weighed in and said: You can’t do this. You can’t stop a TV station from airing a political ad that was bought and paid for. And the ads haven’t stopped showing at this point. I just heard from family yesterday in Florida who are seeing the ads in question on their TV, and it’s still— 

Rovner: And I will post a link to the ad just so you can see it. It’s about a woman who’s pregnant and had cancer and needed cancer treatment and needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to get the cancer treatment. It said that the exception would not allow her to, which the state says isn’t true and which is clearly one of these things that is debatable. That’s why we’re having a political debate. 

Luthra: Exactly. And one thing that I think is worth adding in here is, I mean, this really intense effort from Governor DeSantis and his administration comes at a time when already this ballot measure faces probably the toughest fight of any abortion rights measure. And we have seen abortion rights win again and again at the ballot, but in Florida you need 60% to pass. And if you look across the country at every abortion rights measure that has been voted on since Roe v. Wade was overturned, only two have cleared 60, and they are in California and they are in Vermont. So these more conservative-leaning states, and Florida is one of them, it’s just, it’s really, really hard to see how you get to that number. And we even saw this week there’s polling that suggests that the campaign has a lot of work to do if they’re hoping to clear that threshold. 

Rovner: And, of course, now they have two hurricanes to deal with, which we will deal with in a few minutes. But first, the Supreme Court is back in session here in Washington, and even though there’s no big abortion case on its official docket as of now this term, the court quickly declined to hear two cases on its first day back, one involving whether the abortion ban in Texas can override the federal emergency treatment law that’s supposed to guarantee abortion access in medical emergencies threatening the pregnant woman’s life or health. The court also declined to overrule the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can be considered legally as unborn children. That’s what Joanne was just talking about. Where do these two decisions leave us? Neither one actually resolved either of these questions, right? 

Luthra: I mean, the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] question is still ongoing, not because of the Texas case but because of the Idaho case that is asking very similar questions that we’ve talked about previously on this podcast. And the end of last term, the court kicked that back down to the lower courts to continue making its way through. We anticipate it will eventually come back to the Supreme Court. So this is a question that we will, in fact, be hearing on at some point. 

Rovner: Although, the irony here is that in Idaho, the ban is on hold because there was a court stay. And in Texas, the ban is not on hold, even though we’re talking about exactly the same question: Does the federal law overrule the state’s ban? 

Luthra: And what that kind of highlights — right? — is just how much access to abortion, even under states with similar laws or legislatures, really does depend on so many factors, including what circuit court you fall into or the makeup of your state Supreme Court and how judges are appointed or whether they are elected. There is just so much at play that makes access so variable. And I think the other thing that one could speculate that maybe the court didn’t want headlines around reproductive health so soon into an election, but it’s not as if this is an issue that they’re going to be avoiding in the medium- or long-term future. These are questions that are just too pressing, and they will be coming back to the Supreme Court in some form. 

Rovner: Yes, I would say in the IVF [in vitro fertilization] case, they simply basically said, Go away for now. Right? 

Luthra: Yeah. And, I mean, right now in Alabama, people are largely able to get IVF because of the state law that was passed, even if it didn’t touch the substance of that state court’s ruling. This is something, for now, people can sort of think is maybe uninterrupted, even as we all know that the ideological and political groundwork is being laid for a much longer and more intense fight over this. 

Rovner: Well, remember back last week when we predicted that the judge’s decision overturning Georgia’s six-week ban was unlikely to be the last word? Well, sure enough, the Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned the immediate overturning of the ban, which officially went back into effect on Monday. Like these other cases, this one continues, right? 

Luthra: Yes, this continues. The Georgia case continued for a while, and it just sort of underscores again what we’ve been talking about, just how much access really changes back and forth. And I was talking to an abortion clinic provider who has clinics in North Carolina and Georgia. She literally found out about the decision both times and changed her plans for the next day because I texted her asking her for comment. And providers and patients are being tasked with keeping up with so much. And it’s just very, very difficult, because Georgia also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which means that every time the decision around access has changed — and we know it very well could change again as this case progresses — people will have to scramble very quickly. And in Georgia, they have also been trying to do that on top of navigating the fallout of a hurricane. 

Rovner: Yeah. And as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the court overturned the North Dakota ban, there are no abortion providers left in North Dakota. Now that there’s no ban, it’s only in theory that abortion is now once again allowed in North Dakota. Well, before we leave abortion for this week, we have two new studies showing how abortion bans are impacting the health care workforce. In one survey, more than half of oncologists, cancer doctors, who were completing their fellowships, so people ready to go into practice, said they would consider the impact of abortion restrictions in their decisions about where to set up their practice. And a third said abortion restrictions hindered their ability to provide care. 

Meanwhile, a survey of OBGYNs in Texas by the consulting group Manatt Health found “a significant majority of practicing OB/GYN physicians … believe that the Texas abortion laws have inhibited their ability to provide highest-quality and medically necessary care to their patients,” and that many have already made or are considering making changes to their practice that would “reduce the availability of OB/GYN care in the state.” What’s the anti-abortion reaction to this growing body of evidence that abortion bans are having deleterious effects on the availability of other kinds of health care, too? I mean, I was particularly taken by the oncologists, the idea that you might not be able to get cancer care because cancer doctors are worried about treating pregnant women with cancer. 

Luthra: They’re blaming the doctors. And we saw this in Texas when the Zurawski case was argued and women patients and doctors in the state said that they had not been able to get essential, lifesaving medical care because of the state’s abortion ban and lack of clarity around what was actually permitted. And the state argued, and we have heard this talking point again and again, that actually the doctors are just not willing to do the hard work of practicing medicine and trying to interpret, Well, obviously this qualifies. That’s something we’ve seen in the Florida arguments. They say: Our exceptions are so clear, and if you aren’t able to navigate these exceptions, well, that’s your problem, because you are being risk-averse, and patients should really take this up with their doctors, who are just irresponsible. 

Rovner: Yes, this is obviously an issue that’s going to continue. Well, moving on. The cost of health care continues to grow, which is not really news, but this week we have more hard evidence, courtesy of my KFF colleagues via the annual 2024 Employer Health Benefit Survey, which finds the average family premium rose 7% this year to $25,572, with workers contributing an average of $6,296 towards that cost. And that’s with a distinct minority of firms covering two very popular but very expensive medical interventions, GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] drugs for obesity and IVF, which we’ve just been talking about. Anything else in this survey jump out at anybody? 

Hellmann: I mean, that’s just a massive amount of money. And the employer is really paying the majority of that, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact on people. That means it’s going to limit how much your wages go up. And something I thought of when I read this study is these lawsuits that we’re beginning to see, accusing employers of not doing enough to make sure that they’re limiting health care costs. They’re not playing enough of a role in what their benefits look like. They’re kind of outsourcing this to consultants. And so when you look at this data and you see $25,000 they’re spending per year per family on health care premiums, you wonder, what are they doing? 

Health care, yes, it’s obviously very expensive, but you just kind of question, what role are employers actually playing in trying to drive down health care costs? Are they just taking what they get from consultants? And another thing that kind of stood out to me from this is, I think it’s said in there, employers are having a hard time lately of passing these costs on to employees, which is really interesting. It’s because of the tight labor market. But obviously health care is still very expensive for employees — $6,000 a year in premiums for family coverage is not a small amount of money. So employers are just continuing to absorb that, and it does really impact everyone. 

Rovner: It’s funny. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was employers who were sort of driving the, You must do something about the cost of health care, because inflation was so fast. And then, of course, we saw health care inflation, at least, slow down for several years. Now it’s picking up again. Are we going to see employers sort of getting back into this jumping up and down and saying, “We’ve got to do something about health care costs”? 

Hellmann: I feel like we are seeing more of that. You’re beginning to hear more from employers about it. I don’t know. It’s just such a hard issue to solve, and I’ve seen more and more interest from Congress about this, but they really struggle to regulate the commercial market. So … 

Rovner: Yes, as we talk about at length every week. But it’s still important, and they will still go for it. Well, finally, this week in health misinformation. Let us talk about hurricanes — the public health misinformation that’s being spread both about Hurricane Helene that hit the Southeast two weeks ago, and Hurricane Milton that’s exiting Florida even as we are taping this morning. President [Joe] Biden addressed the press yesterday from the White House, calling out former President Trump by name along with Georgia Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading deliberate misinformation that’s not just undermining efforts at storm relief but actually putting people in more danger. Now, I remember Hurricane Katrina and all the criticism that was heaped, mostly deservedly, on George W. Bush and his administration, but I don’t remember deliberate misinformation like this. I mean, Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this? You lived in Florida for a while. 

Kenen: I went through Andrew, and there’s always a certain — there’s confusion and chaos after a big storm. But there’s a difference between stuff being wrong that can be corrected and stuff being intentionally said that then in this sort of divided, suspicious, two-realities world we’re now living in, that’s being repeated and perpetuated and amplified. It damages public health. It damages people economically trying to recover from this disastrous storm or in some cases storms. I don’t know how many people actually believe that Marjorie Taylor asserted that the Democrats are controlling the weather and sending storms to suppress Republican voters. She still has a following, right? But other things … 

Rovner: She still gets reelected. 

Kenen: … being told that if you go to FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] for help, your property will be confiscated and taken away from you. I mean, that’s all over the place, and it’s not true. Even a number of Republican lawmakers in the affected states have been on social media and making statements on local TV and whatever, saying: This is not true. Please, FEMA is there to help you. Let’s get through this. Stop the lies. A number of Republicans have actually been quite blunt about the misinformation coming from their colleagues and urging their constituents to seek and take the help that’s available. 

This is the public health crisis. We don’t know how many people have been killed. I don’t think we have an accurate total final count from Helene, and we sure don’t have from Milton. I mean, the people did seem to take this storm seriously and evacuated, but it also spawned something like three dozen tornadoes in places where people hadn’t been told, there’s normally no need to evacuate. There’s flooding. It’s a devastating storm. So when people are flooding, power outages, electricity, hard to get access to health care, you can’t refrigerate your insulin. All these— 

Rovner: Toxic floodwaters, I mean, the one thing … 

Kenen: Toxic, yeah. 

Rovner: … we know about hurricanes is that they’re more dangerous in the aftermath than during the actual storm in terms of public health. 

Kenen: Right. This is a life-threatening public health emergency to really millions of people. And misinformation, not just getting something wrong and then trying to correct it, but intentional disinformation, is something we haven’t seen before in a natural disaster. And we’re only going to have more natural disasters. And it was really — I mean, Julie, you already pointed this out — but it was really unusual how precise Biden was yesterday in calling out Trump by name, and I believe at two different times yesterday. So I heard one, but I think I read about what I think was the second one really saying, laying it at his feet that this is harming people. 

Rovner: Yeah, like I said, I remember Katrina vividly, and that was obviously a really devastating storm. I do also remember Democrats and Republicans, even while they were criticizing the federal government reaction to it, not spreading things that were obviously untrue. All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play a segment from our Newsmaker interview with Mark Cuban, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

On Tuesday, October 8th, Mark Cuban met with a group of reporters for a Newsmaker lunch at KFF’s offices in Washington, D.C. Cuban, a billionaire best known as a panelist on the ABC TV show “Shark Tank,” has taken an interest in health policy in the past several years. He’s been consulting with the campaign of Vice President Harris, although he says he’s definitely not interested in a government post if she wins. Cuban started out talking about how, as he sees it, the biggest problem with drug prices in the U.S. is that no one knows what anyone else is paying. 

Mark Cuban: I mean, when I talk to corporations and I’ve tried to explain to them how they’re getting ripped off, the biggest of the biggest said, Well, so-and-so PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] is passing through all of their rebates to us. 

And I’m like: Does that include the subsidiary in Scotland or Japan? Is that where the other one is? 

I don’t know. 

And it doesn’t. By definition, you’re passing through all the rebates with the company you contracted with, but they’re not passing through all the rebates that they get or that they’re keeping in their subsidiary. And so, yeah, I truly, truly believe from there everybody can argue about the best way. Where do you use artificial intelligence? Where do you do this? What’s the EHR [electronic health record? What’s this? We can all argue about best practices there. But without a foundation of information that’s available to everybody, the market’s not efficient and there’s no place to go. 

Rovner: He says his online generic drug marketplace, costplusdrugs.com, is already addressing that problem. 

Cuban: The crazy thing about costplusdrugs.com, the greatest impact we had wasn’t the markup we chose or the way we approach it. It’s publishing our price list. That changed the game more than anything. So when you saw the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] go after the PBMs, they used a lot of our pricing for all the non-insulin stuff. When you saw these articles written by the Times and others, or even better yet, there was research from Vanderbilt, I think it was, that says nine oncology drugs, if they were purchased by Medicare through Cost Plus, would save $3.6 billion. These 15, whatever drugs would save six-point-whatever billion. All because we published our price list, people are starting to realize that things are really out of whack. And so that’s why I put the emphasis on transparency, because whether it’s inside of government or inside companies that self-insure, in particular, they’re going to be able to see. The number one rule of health care contracts, particularly PBM contracts, is you can’t talk about PBM contracts. 

Rovner: Cuban also says that more transparency can address problems in the rest of the health care system, not just for drug prices. Here’s how he responded to a question I asked describing his next big plan for health care. 

We’ve had, obviously, issues with the system being run by the government not very efficiently and being run by the private sector not very efficiently. 

Cuban: Very efficiently, yeah. 

Rovner: And right now we seem to have this sort of working at cross-purposes. If you could design a system from the ground up, which would you let do it? The government or— 

Cuban: I don’t think that’s really the issue. I think the issue is a lack of transparency. And you see that in any organization. The more communication and the more the culture is open and transparent, the more people hold each other responsible. And I think you get fiefdoms in private industry and you get fiefdoms in government, as well, because they know that if no one can see the results of their work, it doesn’t matter. I can say my deal was the best and I did the best and our outcomes are the best, but there’s no way to question it. And so talking to the Harris campaign, it’s like if you introduce transparency, even to the point of requiring PBMs and insurers to publish their contracts publicly, then you start to introduce an efficient market. And once you have an efficient market, then people are better able to make decisions and then you can hold them more accountable. 

And I think that’s going to spill over beyond pharm. We’re working on — it’s not a company — but we’re working on something called Cost Plus Wellness, where we’re eating our own dog food. And it’s not a company that’s going to be a for-profit or even a nonprofit, for that matter, just for the lives that I cover for my companies, that we self-insure. We’re doing direct contracting with providers, and we’re going to publish those contracts. And part and parcel to that is going through the — and I apologize if I’m stumbling here. I haven’t slept in two days, so bear with me. But going through the hierarchy of care and following the money, if you think about when we talk to CFOs and CEOs of providers, one of the things that was stunning to me that I never imagined is the relationship between deductibles for self-insured companies and payers, and the risk associated with collecting those deductibles to providers. 

And I think people don’t really realize the connection there. So whoever does Ann’s care [KFF Chief Communications Officer Ann DeFabio, who was present] — well, Kaiser’s a little bit different, but let’s just say you’re employed at The Washington Post or whoever and you have a $2,500 deductible. And something happens. Your kid breaks their leg and goes to the hospital, and you’re out of market, and it’s out of network. Well, whatever hospital you go to there, you might give your insurance card, but you’re responsible for that first $2,500. And that provider, depending on where it’s located, might have collection — bad debt, rather — of 50% or more. 

So what does that mean in terms of how they have to set their pricing? Obviously, that pricing goes up. So there’s literally a relationship between, particularly on pharmacy, if my company takes a bigger rebate, which in turn means I have a higher deductible because there’s less responsibility for the PBM-slash-insurance company. My higher deductible also means that my sickest employees are the ones paying that deductible, because they’re the ones that have to use it. And my older employees who have ongoing health issues and have chronic illnesses and need medication, they’re paying higher copays. But when they have to go to the hospital with that same deductible, because I took more of a rebate, the hospital is taking more of a credit risk for me. That’s insane. That makes absolutely no sense. 

And so what I’ve said is as part of our wellness program and what we’re doing to — Project Alpo is what we call it, eating our own dog food. What I’ve said is, we’ve gone to the providers and said: Look, we know you’re taking this deductible risk. We’ll pay you cash to eliminate that. But wait, there’s more. We also know that when you go through a typical insurer, even if it’s a self-insured employer using that insurer and you’re just using the insurance company not for insurance services but as a TPA [third-party administrator], the TPA still plays games with the provider, and they underpay them all the time. 

And so what happens as a result of the underpayment is that provider has to have offices and offices full of administrative assistants and lawyers, and they have to not only pay for those people, but they have the associated overhead and burden and the time. And then talking to them, to a big hospital system, they said that’s about 2% of their revenue. So because of that, that’s 2%. Then, wait, there’s more. You have the pre-ops, and you have the TPAs who fight you on the pre-ops. But the downstream economic impacts are enormous because, first, the doctor has to ask for the pre-op. That’s eating doctor’s time, and so they see fewer patients. And then not only does the doctor have to deal with them, they go to HR at the company who self-insures and says, Wait, my employee can’t come to work, because their child is sick, and you won’t approve this process or, whatever, this procedure, because it has to go through this pre-op. 

Or if it’s on medications, it’s you want to go through the step-up process or you want to go through a different utilization because you get more rebates. All these pieces are intertwined, and we don’t look at it holistically. And so what we’re saying with Cost Plus Wellness is, we’re going to do this all in a cash basis. We’re going to trust doctors so that we’re not going to go through a pre-op. Now we’ll trust but verify. So as we go through our population and we look at all of our claims, because we’ll own all of our claims, we’re going to look to see if there are repetitive issues with somebody who’s just trying to —there’s lots of back surgeries or there’s lots of this or there’s lots of that — to see if somebody’s abusing us. And because there’s no deductible, we pay it, and we pay it right when the procedure happens or right when the medication is prescribed. Because of all that, we want Medicare pricing. Nobody’s saying no. And in some cases I’m getting lower than Medicare pricing for primary care stuff. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. Now it’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include the links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week. 

Kenen: There was a fascinating story in The New York Times by Kate Morgan. The headline was “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It.” So I knew nothing about this, and it was so interesting. Placentas have amazing healing properties for wound care, burns, infections, pain control, regenerating skin tissue, just many, many things. And it’s been well known for years, and it’s not widely used. This is a story specifically about a really severe burn victim in a gas explosion and how her face was totally restored. We don’t use this, partly because placenta — every childbirth, there’s a placenta. There are lots of them around. There’s I think three and a half million births a year, or that’s the estimate I read in the Times. One of the reasons they weren’t being used is, during the AIDS crisis, there was some development toward using them, and then the AIDS crisis, there was a fear of contamination and spreading the virus, and it stopped decades later. 

We have a lot more ways of detecting, controlling, figuring out whether something’s contaminated by AIDS or whether a patient has been exposed. It is being used again on a limited basis after C-sections, but it seems to have pretty astonishing — think about all the wound care for just diabetes. I’m not a scientist, but I just looked at the story and said, it seems like a lot of people could be healed quicker and more safely and earlier if this was developed. They’re thrown away now. They’re sent to hospital waste incinerators and biohazard waste. They’re garbage, and they’re actually medicine. 

Rovner: Definitely a scientist’s cool story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from my brilliant colleague Mel Leonor Barclay. The headline is “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” and as part of this really tremendous series that she has running this week, looking at how Latinas as a much more influential and growingly influential voter group could shape gun violence, abortion rights, and housing. And in this story, which I really love, she went to Arizona and spent time talking to folks on all sides of the issue to better understand how Latinas are affected by abortion rights and also how they’ll be voting on this. 

And she really challenges the narrative that has existed for so long, which is that Latinas are largely Catholic, largely more conservative on abortion. And she finds something much more complex, which is that actually polls really show that a large share of Latina voters in Arizona and similar states support abortion rights and will be voting in favor of measures like the Arizona constitutional amendment. But at the same time, there are real divides within the community, and people talk about their faith in a different way and how it connects their stance on abortion. They talk about their relationships with family in different ways, and I think it just underscores how rarely Latina voters are treated with real nuance and care and thoughtfulness when talking about something as complex as abortion and abortion politics. And I really love the way that she approaches this piece. 

Rovner: It was a super-interesting story. Jesse. 

Hellmann: My story is from The Assembly. It’s an outlet in North Carolina. It’s called “Helene Left Some North Carolina Elder-Care Homes Without Power.” Some assisted living facilities have been without power and water since the hurricane hit. Several facilities had to evacuate residents, and the story just kind of gets into how North Carolina has more lax rules around emergency preparedness. While they do require nursing homes be prepared to provide backup power, the same requirements don’t apply to assisted living facilities. And it’s because there’s been industry pushback against that because of the cost. But as we see some more of these extreme weather events, it seems like something has to be done. We cannot just allow vulnerable people living in these facilities to go hours and hours without power and water. And I saw that there was a facility where they evacuated dozens of people who had dementia, and that’s just something that’s really upsetting and traumatizing for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, once again, now we are seeing these extreme weather events in places that, unlike Florida and Texas, are not set up and used to extreme weather events. And it is something I think that a lot of people are starting to think about. Well, my story this week is from our KFF Health News public health project called Health Beat, and it’s called “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly. And it’s one of those stories you never really think about until it’s pointed out that in areas, particularly those that had been redlined, in particular, the lack of safety infrastructure that most of us take for granted — crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic lights are not really there. And that’s a public health crisis of its own, and it’s one that rarely gets addressed, and it’s a really infuriating but a really good story. 

All right, that is our show. Next week, for my birthday, we’re doing a live election preview show here at KFF in D.C., because I have a slightly warped idea of fun. And you’re all invited to join us. I will put a link to the RSVP in the show notes. I am promised there will be cake. 

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 technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me for the moment at X. I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where are you? 

Kenen: @JoanneKenen sometimes on Twitter and @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on Twitter.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil on Twitter.

Rovner: We will 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).

Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz met in an Oct. 1 vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News that was cordial and heavy on policy discussion — a striking change from the Sept. 10 debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. 

Vance and Walz acknowledged occasional agreement on policy points and respectfully addressed each other throughout the debate. But they were more pointed in their attacks on their rival’s running mate for challenges facing the country, including immigration and inflation.

The moderators, “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell and “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan, had said they planned to encourage candidates to fact-check each other, but sometimes clarified statements from the candidates.

After Vance made assertions about Springfield, Ohio, being overrun by “illegal immigrants,” Brennan pointed out that a large number of Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are in the country legally. Vance objected and, eventually, CBS exercised the debate ground rule that allowed the network to cut off the candidates’ microphones.

Most points were not fact-checked in real time by the moderators. Vance resurfaced a recent health care theme — that as president, Donald Trump sought to save the Affordable Care Act — and acknowledged that he would support a national abortion ban.

Walz described how health care looked before the ACA compared with today. Vance offered details about Trump’s health care “concepts of a plan” — a reference to comments Trump made during the presidential debate that drew jeers and criticism for the former president, who for years said he had a plan to replace the ACA that never surfaced. Vance pointed to regulatory changes advanced during the Trump administration, used weedy phrases like “reinsurance regulations,” and floated the idea of allowing states “to experiment a little bit on how to cover both the chronically ill but the non-chronically ill.”

Walz responded with a quick quip: “Here’s where being an old guy gives you some history. I was there at the creation of the ACA.” He said that before then insurers had more power to kick people off their plans. Then he detailed Trump’s efforts to undo the ACA as well as why the law’s preexisting condition protections were important.

“What Sen. Vance just explained might be worse than a concept, because what he explained is pre-Obamacare,” Walz said.

The candidates sparred on numerous topics. Our PolitiFact partners fact-checked the debate here and on their live blog.

The health-related excerpts follow.

The Affordable Care Act:

Vance: “Donald Trump could have destroyed the [Affordable Care Act]. Instead, he worked in a bipartisan way to ensure that Americans had access to affordable care.”

False.

As president, Trump worked to undermine and repeal the Affordable Care Act. He cut millions of dollars in federal funding for ACA outreach and navigators who help people sign up for health coverage. He enabled the sale of short-term health plans that don’t comply with the ACA consumer protections and allowed them to be sold for longer durations, which siphoned people away from the health law’s marketplaces.

Trump’s administration also backed state Medicaid waivers that imposed first-ever work requirements, reducing enrollment. He also ended insurance company subsidies that helped offset costs for low-income enrollees. He backed an unsuccessful repeal of the landmark 2010 health law and he backed the demise of a penalty imposed for failing to purchase health insurance.

Affordable Care Act enrollment declined by more than 2 million people during Trump’s presidency, and the number of uninsured Americans rose by 2.3 million, including 726,000 children, from 2016 to 2019, the U.S. Census Bureau reported; that includes three years of Trump’s presidency.  The number of insured Americans rose again during the Biden administration.

Abortion and Reproductive Health:

Vance: “As I read the Minnesota law that [Walz] signed into law … it says that a doctor who presides over an abortion where the baby survives, the doctor is under no obligation to provide lifesaving care to a baby who survives a botched late-term abortion.”

False.

Experts said cases in which a baby is born following an attempted abortion are rare. Less than 1% of abortions nationwide occur in the third trimester. And infanticide, the crime of killing a child within a year of its birth, is illegal in every state.

In May 2023, Walz, as Minnesota governor, signed legislation updating a state law for “infants who are born alive.” It said babies are “fully recognized” as human people and therefore protected under state law. The change did not alter regulations that already required doctors to provide patients with appropriate care.

Previously, state law said, “All reasonable measures consistent with good medical practice, including the compilation of appropriate medical records, shall be taken by the responsible medical personnel to preserve the life and health of the born alive infant.” The law was updated to instead say medical personnel must “care for the infant who is born alive.”

When there are fetal anomalies that make it likely the fetus will die before or soon after birth, some parents decide to terminate the pregnancy by inducing childbirth so that they can hold their dying baby, Democratic Minnesota state Sen. Erin Maye Quade told PolitiFact in September.

This update to the law means infants who are “born alive” receive appropriate medical care dependent on the pregnancy’s circumstances, Maye Quade said.

Vance supported a national abortion ban before becoming Trump’s running mate.

CBS News moderator Margaret Brennan told Vance, “You have supported a federal ban on abortion after 15 weeks. In fact, you said if someone can’t support legislation like that, quote, ‘you are making the United States the most barbaric pro-abortion regime anywhere in the entire world.’ My question is, why have you changed your position?”

Vance said that he “never supported a national ban” and, instead, previously supported setting “some minimum national standard.”

But in a January 2022 podcast interview, Vance said, “I certainly would like abortion to be illegal nationally.” In November, he told reporters that “we can’t give in to the idea that the federal Congress has no role in this matter.”

Since joining the Trump ticket, Vance has aligned his abortion rhetoric to match Trump’s and has said that abortion legislation should be left up to the states.

— Samantha Putterman of PolitiFact, on the live blog

A woman’s 2022 death in Georgia following the state passing its six-week abortion ban was deemed “preventable.”

Walz talked about the death of 28-year-old Amber Thurman, a Georgia woman who died after her care was delayed because of the state’s six-week abortion law. A judge called the law unconstitutional this week.

A Sept. 16 ProPublica report found that Thurman had taken abortion pills and encountered a rare complication. She sought care at Piedmont Henry Hospital in Atlanta to clear excess fetal tissue from her uterus, called a dilation and curettage, or D&C. The procedure is commonly used in abortions, and any doctor who violated Georgia’s law could be prosecuted and face up to a decade in prison.

Doctors waited 20 hours to finally operate, when Thurman’s organs were already failing, ProPublica reported. A panel of health experts tasked with examining pregnancy-related deaths to improve maternal health deemed Thurman’s death “preventable,” according to the report, and said the hospital’s delay in performing the procedure had a “large” impact.

— Samantha Putterman of PolitiFact, on the live blog

What Project 2025 Says About Some Forms of Contraception, Fertility Treatments

Walz said that Project 2025 would “make it more difficult, if not impossible, to get contraception and limit access, if not eliminate access, to fertility treatments.”

Mostly False. The Project 2025 document doesn’t call for restricting standard contraceptive methods, such as birth control pills, but it defines emergency contraceptives as “abortifacients” and says they should be eliminated from the Affordable Care Act’s covered preventive services. Emergency contraception, such as Plan B and ella, are not considered abortifacients, according to medical experts.

PolitiFact did not find any mention of in vitro fertilization throughout the document, or specific recommendations to curtail the practice in the U.S., but it contains language that supports legal rights for fetuses and embryos. Experts say this language can threaten family planning methods, including IVF and some forms of contraception.

— Samantha Putterman of PolitiFact, on the live blog

Walz: “Their Project 2025 is gonna have a registry of pregnancies.”

False. 

Project 2025 recommends that states submit more detailed abortion reporting to the federal government. It calls for more information about how and when abortions took place, as well as other statistics for miscarriages and stillbirths.

The manual does not mention, nor call for, a new federal agency tasked with registering pregnant women.

Fentanyl and Opioids:

Vance: “Kamala Harris let in fentanyl into our communities at record levels.”

Mostly False.

Illicit fentanyl seizures have been rising for years and reached record highs under Biden’s administration. In fiscal year 2015, for example, U.S. Customs and Border Protection seized 70 pounds of fentanyl. As of August 2024, agents have seized more than 19,000 pounds of fentanyl in fiscal year 2024, which ended in September.

But these are fentanyl seizures — not the amount of the narcotic being “let” into the United States. 

Vance made this claim while criticizing Harris’ immigration policies. But fentanyl enters the U.S. through the southern border mainly at official ports of entry. It’s mostly smuggled in by U.S. citizens, according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most illicit fentanyl in the U.S. comes from Mexico made with chemicals from Chinese labs.

Drug policy experts have said that the illicit fentanyl crisis began years before Biden’s administration and that Biden’s border policies are not to blame for overdose deaths. 

Experts have also said Congress plays a role in reducing illicit fentanyl. Congressional funding for more vehicle scanners would help law enforcement seize more of the fentanyl that comes into the U.S. Harris has called for increased enforcement against illicit fentanyl use.

Walz: “And the good news on this is, is the last 12 months saw the largest decrease in opioid deaths in our nation’s history.”

Mostly True.

Overdose deaths involving opioids decreased from an estimated 84,181 in 2022 to 81,083 in 2023, based on the most recent provisional data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. This decrease, which took place in the second half of 2023, followed a 67% increase in opioid-related deaths between 2017 and 2023.

The U.S. had an estimated 107,543 drug overdose deaths in 2023 — a 3% decrease from the 111,029 deaths estimated in 2022. This is the first annual decrease in overall drug overdose deaths since 2018. Nevertheless, the opioid death toll remains much higher than just a few years ago, according to KFF. 

More Health-Related Comments:

Vance Said ‘Hospitals Are Overwhelmed.’ Local Officials Disagree.

We asked health officials ahead of the debate what they thought about Vance’s claims about Springfield’s emergency rooms being overwhelmed.

“This claim is not accurate,” said Chris Cook, health commissioner for Springfield’s Clark County.

Comparison data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services tracks how many patients are “left without being seen” as part of its effort to characterize whether ERs are able to handle their patient loads. High percentages usually signal that the facility doesn’t have the staff or resources to provide timely and effective emergency care.

Cook said that the full-service hospital, Mercy Health Springfield Regional Medical Center, reports its emergency department is at or better than industry standard when it comes to this metric.

In July 2024, 3% of Mercy Health’s patients were counted in the “left-without-being-seen” category — the same level as both the state and national average for high-volume hospitals. In July 2019, Mercy Health tallied 2% of patients who “left without being seen.” That year, the state and national averages were 1% and 2%, respectively.  Another CMS 2024 data point shows Mercy Health patients spent less time in the ER per visit on average — 152 minutes — compared with state and national figures: 183 minutes and 211 minutes, respectively. Even so, Springfield Regional Medical Center’s Jennifer Robinson noted that Mercy Health has seen high utilization of women’s health, emergency, and primary care services. 

— Stephanie Armour, Holly Hacker, and Stephanie Stapleton of KFF Health News, on the live blog

Minnesota’s Paid Leave Takes Effect in 2026

Walz signed paid family leave into law in 2023 and it will take effect in 2026.

The law will provide employees up to 12 weeks of paid medical leave and up to 12 weeks of paid family leave, which includes bonding with a child, caring for a family member, supporting survivors of domestic violence or sexual assault, and supporting active-duty deployments. A maximum 20 weeks are available in a benefit year if someone takes both medical and family leave.

Minnesota used a projected budget surplus to jump-start the program; funding will then shift to a payroll tax split between employers and workers. 

— Amy Sherman of PolitiFact, on the live blog

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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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.

Congress has left Washington for the campaign trail, but after the Nov. 5 general election lawmakers will have to complete work on the annual spending bills for the fiscal year that starts Oct. 1. While the GOP had hoped to push spending decisions into 2025, Democrats forced a short-term spending patch that’s set to expire before Christmas.

Meanwhile, on the campaign trail, abortion continues to be among the hottest issues. Democrats are pressing their advantage with women voters while Republicans struggle — with apparently mixed effects — to neutralize it.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and the Johns Hopkins schools of nursing and public health, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• When Congress returns after the election, there’s a chance lawmakers could then make progress on government spending and more consensus health priorities, like expanding telehealth access. After all, after the midterm elections in 2022, Congress passed federal patient protections against surprise medical billing.
• As Election Day approaches, Democrats are banging the drum on health care — which polls show is a winning issue for the party with voters. This week, Democrats made a last push to extend Affordable Care Act subsidies expanded during the pandemic — an issue that will likely drag into next year in the face of Republican opposition.
• The outcry over the first reported deaths tied to state abortion bans seems to be resonating on the campaign trail. With some states offering the chance to weigh in on abortion access via ballot measures, advocates are telling voters: These tragedies are examples of what happens when you leave abortion access to the states.
• And Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont summoned the chief executive of Novo Nordisk before the health committee he chairs this week to demand accountability for high drug prices. Despite centering on a campaign issue, the hearing — like other examples of pharmaceutical executives being thrust into the congressional hot seat — yielded no concessions.

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’ “How North Carolina Made Its Hospitals Do Something About Medical Debt,” by Noam N. Levey and Ames Alexander, The Charlotte Observer.

Lauren Weber: Stat’s “How the Next President Should Reform Medicare,” by Paul Ginsburg and Steve Lieberman. 

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “The Woo-Woo Caucus Meets,” by Elaine Godfrey. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “How Special Olympics Kickstarted the Push for Better Disability Data,” by Timmy Broderick.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Florida’s New Covid Booster Guidance Is Straight-Up Misinformation,” by Arthur Allen, Daniel Chang, and Sam Whitehead.
• KFF Health News’ “Feds Killed Plan To Curb Medicare Advantage Overbilling After Industry Opposition,” by Fred Schulte.
• KFF Health News’ “Audits — Hidden Until Now — Reveal Millions in Medicare Advantage Overcharges,” by Fred Schulte and Holly K. Hacker.
• KFF Health News’ “ACA Plans Are Being Switched Without Enrollees’ OK,” by Julie Appleby.
• KFF Health News’ “Biden Administration Tightens Broker Access to Healthcare.gov To Thwart Rogue Sign-Ups,” by Julie Appleby.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Congress Punts to a Looming Lame-Duck Session

[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, September 26th, 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 teleconference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello hello. 

Rovner: Alice Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning. 

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Nursing, and Politico. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Big props to Emmarie for hosting last week while I was in Ann Arbor at the Michigan Daily reunion. I had a great time, but I brought back an unwelcome souvenir in the form of my first confirmed case of covid. So apologies in advance for the state of my voice. Now, let us get to the news. 

To steal a headline from Politico earlier this week, Congress lined up in punt formation, passing a continuing resolution that will require them to come back after the election for what could be a busy lame-duck session. Somebody remind us who wanted this outcome — the Let’s only do the CR through December — and who wanted it to go into next year? Come on, easy question. 

Ollstein: Well, the kicking it to right before Christmas, which sets up the stage for what we’ve seen so many times before where it just gets jammed through and people who have objections, generally conservatives who want to slash spending and add on a bunch of policy riders, which they tried and failed to do this time, will have a weaker base to operate from, given that everybody wants to go home for the holidays. 

And so once again, we’re seeing people mad at Speaker Mike Johnson, who, again and again, even though he is fully from the hard right of the party, is not catering to their priorities as much as they would like. And so obviously his speakership depends on which party wins control of the House in November. But I think even if Republicans win control, I’m already starting to hear rumblings of throwing him overboard and replacing with someone who they think will cater to them more. 

Rovner: It was so déjà vu all over again, which is, last year, as we approached October 1st and the Republican House could not pass any kind of a continuing resolution with just Republican votes, that eventually Kevin McCarthy had to turn to Democrats, and that’s how he lost his job. 

And yet that’s exactly what happened here, which is the Republicans wanted to go until March, I guess on the theory that they were betting that they would be in full power in March and would have a chance to do a lot more of what they wanted in terms of spending bills than if they just wait and do it in the lame duck. And yet the speaker doesn’t seem to be paying the same price that Kevin McCarthy did. Is that just acknowledgment on the part of the right wing that they can’t do anything with their teeny tiny majority? 

Kenen: I mean, yes, it’s pretty stalemate-y up there right now, and nobody is certain who’s going to control the House, and at this point it is likely to still be a narrow majority, whoever wins it. I mean, they’re six weeks out. Things can change. This has been an insane year. Nobody’s making predictions, but it looks like pretty divided. 

Rovner: Whoever wins isn’t going to win by much. 

Kenen: We have a pretty divided country, and the likelihood is we’re going to have a pretty divided House. So the dynamic will change depending on who’s in charge, but the Republicans are more fractious and divided right now than the Democrats, although that’s really easy to change, and even the Democrats have gone through their rambunctious divided phases, too. 

Everybody just doesn’t know what’s next, because the top of the ticket is going to change things. So the more months you push out, the less money you’re spending. If you control the CR, if you make the CR, the continuing resolution, meaning current spending levels for six months, it’s a win for the Republicans in many ways because they’re keeping — they’re preventing increases. But in terms of policy, both sides get some of the things they want extended. 

I don’t know if you can call it a productive stalemate. That’s sort of a contradiction in terms. But I mean, for the Republicans, longer, it would’ve been better. 

Rovner: So now that we know that Congress has to come back after the election, there’s obviously things that they are able to do other than just the spending bills. And I’m thinking of a lot of unfinished health legislation like the telehealth extensions and the constant, Are we going to do something about pharmacy benefit managers? which has been this bipartisan issue that they never seem to solve. 

I would remind the listeners that in 2022 after the election, that’s when they finally did the surprise-bills legislation. So doing big things in the lame duck is not unheard of. Is there anything any of you are particularly looking toward this time that might actually happen? 

Kenen: It’s something like telehealth because it’s not that controversial. I mean, it’s easiest to get something through in — in lame duck, you want to get some things off the plate that are either overdue and need to be taken care of or that you don’t want hanging over you next year. So telehealth, which is, there are questions about does it save money, et cetera, and what form it should take and how some of it should be regulated, so forth, but the basic idea, telehealth is popular. Something like that, yes. 

PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] is a lot harder, where there is some agreement on the need to do something but there’s less agreement about what that something should look like. So although I’m not personally covering that day-to-day basis, in any sense, that’s harder. The more consensus there is and the fewer moving parts, the easier it is to do, as a rule. I mean, sometimes they do get something big done in lame duck, but a lot of it gets kicked. 

And also there’s a huge, huge, huge tax fight next year, and it’s going to require a lot of wheeling and dealing no matter what shape it takes, because it’s expiring and things have to be either renewed or allowed to die. So that’s just going to be mega-enormous, and a lot of this stuff become bargaining chips in that larger debate, and that becomes the dominant domestic policy vehicle next year. 

Rovner: Well, even before we get to the lame duck, we have to finish the campaign, which is only a month and a half away. And we are still talking about the Affordable Care Act in an election where it was not going to be a campaign issue, everybody said. 

I know that you talked last week about all the specifics of the ways former President [Donald] Trump actually tried to sabotage rather than save the ACA and all the ways what [Sen.] JD Vance was talking about on “Meet the Press,” dividing up risk pools once again so sicker people would no longer be subsidized by the less sick, would turn the clock back to the individual insurance market as it existed before 2014. 

Now the Democrats in the Senate are taking one last shot at the ACA with a bill — that will fail — to renew the expanded marketplace subsidies, so it will expire unless Congress acts by the end of next year. Might this last effort have some impact in the swing states, or is it just a lot more campaign noise? 

Weber: I think this is a lot of campaign noise, to some extent. I mean, I think Democrats are clear in polling shows that the average American voter does trust Democrats more than Republicans on ACA and health issues and health insurance. So I do think this is a messaging push in part by the Dems to speak to voters. As we all know, this is a turnout election, so I think anything that they feel like voters care about, which often has to do with their pocketbook, I think they’re going to lead the drum on. 

I do think it’s interesting again that JD Vance really is reiterating a talking point that Donald Trump used in the debate, which is that he said he had improved the ACA and many experts would say it was very much the opposite. Again, I think I did this on the last podcast, but let me reread this because I think it’s important as a fact check. Most of the Trump administration’s ACA-related actions included cutting the program. 

So they reduced millions of dollars of funding for marketing and enrollment, and he repeatedly tried to overturn the law. So I think some of the messaging around this is getting convoluted, in part because it’s an election year, to your point. 

Rovner: And because it’s popular. Because Nancy Pelosi was right. When people found out what was in it, it got popular. 

Kenen: I think there are two things. I mean, I agree with what Lauren just said, but the Democrats came out in favor of extending the subsidies yesterday, which not only changed the eligibility criteria — more people, more higher up the middle-income chain could get subsidized — but also everybody in it had extra benefits for it, including people who were already covered. But it’s better for them. 

The idea that Republicans are going to try to take that benefit away from people six weeks before an election — they were probably not. How they handle it next year? I was really surprised by the silence yesterday. The Democrats rolled out their plans for renewing this, and I didn’t see a lot of Republican pushback. So they were really quiet about it. 

The other thing that struck me is that JD Vance went on on this risk pool thing last week on “Meet the Press” and in Raleigh, in North Carolina, and then there was pushback. And on that particular point, there’s been silence for the last week. I don’t think he stuck his neck out on that one again. Who knows what next week will bring, but it didn’t continue, and nor did I hear other Republicans saying, “Yeah, let’s go do that.” 

So if that was a trial balloon, it was somewhat leaden. So I think that we really don’t know how the subsidy fight is going to play —how or when the subsidy fight will play out. It’s really, you know, we’ve all said many times before, once you give people the benefit, it’s really hard to take it away. And— 

Rovner: Although we did that with the Child Tax Credit. We gave everybody the Child Tax Credit and then took it away. 

Kenen: We did, and other things that were temporary during the pandemic, and we’ll just see how many of those temporary things do in fact go away. I mean, does it come back next year? I mean, now SALT [state and local taxes], right? I mean, Trump backed backing what’s called SALT. It’s a limit based on mortgage and state taxes. And now he’s talking about he’s going to rescue that like it wasn’t him who … So it all comes around again. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and I think what you’re seeing is both sides drawing the battle lines for next year and signaling what the core arguments are going to be. And so you had Democrats come out with their bill this year, and you are hearing a lot of Republicans in hearings and speeches sprinkled around talking about claiming that there is a huge amount of fraud in the ACA marketplaces and linking that to the subsidies and saying, Why would we continue to subsidize something where there’s all this fraud? 

I think that is going to be a big argument on that side next year for not extending the subsidies. So I would urge people to keep listening for that. 

Kenen: And that came from a conservative think tank consulting firm in which they blame — I actually happened to read it this week, so it’s fresh in my mind. They’re blaming the fraud actually on brokers rather than individuals. They’re saying that people are— 

Rovner: That was an investigation uncovered by my colleague Julie Appleby here at KFF Health News. 

Kenen: Right. And they ran with that, and they were talking about the low end of the income bracket. And I’m waiting for the sequel in which the people at the upper end of the income bracket, which is the law that’s expiring that we’re talking about, it’s pretty — I’m waiting for the sequel Paragon paper saying, See, it’s even worse at the upper end, and that’s easy to get rid of because it’ll expire. That’s the argument of the day, but there’s so many flavors of anti-ACA arguments that we’ve just scratched the beginning of this round. 

Rovner: Exactly. It’ll come back. All right, well, let us move on to abortion. Vice President [Kamala] Harris said in an interview this week that she would support ending the filibuster in the Senate in order to restore abortion rights with 51 rather than 60 votes, which has apparently cost her the endorsement of retiring West Virginia Democratic senator Joe Manchin. Was Manchin’s endorsement even that valuable to her? It’s not like West Virginia was going to vote Democratic anytime soon. 

Ollstein: The Harris campaign has really leaned into emphasizing endorsements she’s been getting from across the ideological spectrum, from as far right as Dick Cheney to more centrist types and economists and national security people. And so she’s clearly trying to brandish her centrist credentials. So I guess in that sense. But like you said, Democrats are not going to win West Virginia, and so I think also he was getting upset about something, a position she’s been voicing for years now. This is not new, this question of the filibuster. So I doubt it’ll have much of an impact. 

Kenen: It’s a real careful-what-you-wish for, because if the Senate goes Republican, which at the moment looks like it’s going to be a narrow Republican majority. We don’t know until November. There’s always a surprise. There’s always a surprise. 

Rovner: You’re right. It’s more likely that it’ll be 51-49 Republican than it’ll be 51-49 Democrat. 

Kenen: Right. So if the filibuster is going to be abolished, it would be to advance Republican conservative goals. So it’s sort of dangerous territory to walk into right now. The Democrats have played with abolishing the filibuster. They wanted to do it for voting rights issues, and they decided not to go there on legislation. They did modify it a number of years ago on judicial appointments and other Cabinet appointments and so forth. 

But legislative, the filibuster still exists. It’s very, very, very heavily used, much more than historically, by both parties, whoever is in power. So changing it would be a really radical change in how things move or don’t move. So it could have a long tail, that remark. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, Senate Democrats, who don’t have the votes now, as we know, to abolish the filibuster, because Manchin is among their one-vote margin, are continuing to press Republicans on reproductive rights issues that they think work in their favor. Earlier this week, the Senate Finance Committee had a hearing on EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act. 

It’s a federal law that’s supposed to guarantee women access to abortion in medical emergencies. But in practice, it has not. Last week we talked about the ProPublica stories on women whose pregnancy complications actually did lead to their death. Is this something that’s breaking through as a campaign issue? I do feel like we’ve seen so much more on pregnancy complications and the health impacts of those rather than just, straight, women who want to end pregnancies. 

Ollstein: I just got back from Michigan, and I would say it is having a big impact. I was really interested in how Democrats were trying to campaign on abortion in Michigan, even now that the state does have protections. And I heard over and over from voters and candidates that Trump’s leave-it-to-the-states stance, they really are still energized by that. 

They’re not mollified by that, because they are pointing to stories like the ones that just came out in Georgia and saying: See? That’s what happens when you leave it to the states. We may be fine, but we care about more than just ourselves. We’re going to vote based on our concern for women in other states as well. I found that really interesting to be hearing out in the field. 

Rovner: Lauren, you want to add something? 

Weber: Yeah, I just was going to add, I mean, Harris obviously highlighted this effectively in the debate, and I think that has helped bring it to more of a crescendo, but there’s obviously been a lot of reporting for months on this. I mean, the AP has talked about — I think they did a count. It’s over 100 women, at least, have been denied emergency care due to laws like this. 

I’d be curious — and it sounds like Alice has this, for voters that are in swing states, that it’s breaking through to — I’d be curious how much this has siloed to people that are outraged by this, and so we’re hearing it and how much it’s skidding down to those that — the Republican talking points have been that these are rare, they don’t really happen, it’s a liberal push to get against this. I’d be curious how much it’s breaking through to folks of all stripes. 

Rovner: I watched a big chunk of the Finance Committee hearing, and the anti-abortion witnesses were saying this is not how it worked, that ectopic pregnancies, pregnancy complications do not qualify as abortions, and basically just denying that it happened. They’re sitting here. They’re sitting at the witness table with the woman to whom this happened and saying that this does not happen. So it was a little bit difficult, shall we say. Go ahead. 

Ollstein: Well, and the pushback I’ve been hearing from the anti-abortion side is less that it’s not happening and more that it’s not the fault of the laws, it’s the fault of the doctors. They are claiming that doctors are either intentionally withholding care or are wrong in their interpretation of the law and are withholding care for that reason. They’re pointing to the letter of the law and saying, Oh no, it doesn’t say let women bleed out and die, so clearly it’s fine. They’re not really grappling with the chilling effect it’s having. 

Rovner: Although we do know that in Texas when, I think it was Amanda Zurawski, there was — no, it was Kate Cox who actually got a judge to say she should be allowed to have an abortion. Ken Paxton, the Texas attorney general, then threatened the hospital, said, If you do this, I will come after you. On the one hand, they say, Well, that’s not what the law says. On the other hand, there are people saying, Yeah, that’s what the law says. 

Turning to the Republicans, Donald Trump had some more things to say about abortion this week, including that he is women’s protector and that women will, and I quote, “be happy, healthy, confident, and free. You will no longer be thinking about abortion.” 

If that wasn’t enough, in Ohio, Bernie Moreno, who’s the Republican running against Senator Sherrod Brown in the otherwise very red state, said the other night that he doesn’t understand why women over 50 would even care about abortion, since, he suggested, they can no longer get pregnant, which isn’t correct, by the way. But who exactly are the voters that Trump and Moreno are going after here? 

Kenen: Moreno is already lagging in the polls. Sherrod Brown is a pretty liberal Democrat in an increasingly conservative state, and he’s also very popular. And it looks like he’s on a glide path to win, and this probably made it easier for him to win. And there are men who support abortion rights, and there are women who oppose. 

I mean, this country’s divided on abortion, but it’s not age-related. It’s not like if you’re under 50 and female, you care about abortion and nobody else does. I mean, that’s really not the way it works. Fifty-year-old and older women, some of whom had abortions when they were younger, would want that right for younger women, including their daughters. It’s not a quadrant. It’s not like, oh, only this segment cares. 

Ollstein: It’s interesting that it comes amid Democrats really working to broaden who they consider an abortion voter, like I said, trying to encourage people in states where abortion is protected to vote for people in states where abortion is not protected and doing more outreach to men and saying this is a family issue, not just a women’s issue, and this affects everybody. 

So as you see Democrats trying to broaden their outreach and get more people to care, you have Bernie Moreno saying the opposite, saying, I don’t understand why people care when it doesn’t affect their own particular life and situation. 

Rovner: Although I will say, having listened to a bunch of interviews with undecided voters in the last couple of weeks, I do hear more and more voters saying: Well, such and such candidate, and this is on both sides, is not speaking to me. It’s almost like this election is about them individually and not about society writ large. 

And I do hear that on both sides, and it’s kind of a surprise. And I don’t know, is that maybe where Moreno is coming from? Maybe that’s what he’s hearing, too, from his pollsters? It’s only that people are most interested in their own self-interest and not about others? Lauren, you wanted to add to that? 

Weber: I mean, I would just say I think that’s a kind interpretation, Julie. I think that more likely than not, he was just speaking out of turn. And in some prior reporting I did this year on misinformation around birth control and contraception, I spoke to a bunch of women legislators, I believe it was in Idaho, who found that in speaking with their male legislator friends, that a lot of them were uncomfortable talking about abortion, birth control, et cetera, which led to a lot of these misconceptions. And I wonder if we’re seeing that here. 

Ollstein: Just quickly, I think it’s also reflective of a particular conservative mind-set. I mean, it reminds me of when I was covering the Obamacare fight in Congress and you had Republican lawmakers making jokes about, Oh, well, wouldn’t want to lose coverage for my mammograms. And just what we were just talking about, about the separate risk pools and saying, Oh, I’m healthy. Why should I subsidize a sick person? when that’s literally how insurance works. 

But I think just the very individualistic go-it-alone, rugged-individual mind-set is coming out here in different ways. And so it seems like he did not want this particular comment to be scrutinized as it is getting now, but I think we hear versions of this from conservative lawmakers all the time in terms of, Why should I have to care about, pay for, subsidize, et cetera, other people in society? 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of that. Well, finally this week in reproductive health issues that never seem to go away, a federal judge in North Dakota this week slapped an injunction on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s enforcement of some provisions of the 2022 Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, ruling that Catholic employers, including for-profit Catholic-owned entities, don’t have to provide workers with time off for abortions or fertility treatments that violate the church’s teachings. 

Now, lest you think this only applies to North Dakota, it does not. There’s a long way to go before this ruling is made permanent, but it’s kind of awkward timing for Republicans when they’re trying to convince voters of their strong support of IVF [in vitro fertilization], and yet here we have a large Catholic entity saying, We don’t even want to give our workers time off for IVF. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I think you’ve been hearing a lot of Republicans scoffing at the idea that anyone would oppose IVF, when there are many, many conservatives who do either oppose it in its entirety or oppose certain ways that it is currently commonly practiced. You had the Southern Baptist Convention vote earlier this year in opposition to IVF. You have these Catholic groups who are suing over it. 

And so I think there needs to be a real reckoning with the level of opposition there is on the right, and I think that’s why you’re seeing an interesting response to Trump’s promise for free IVF for all and whether or not that is feasible. I think this shows that it would get a lot of pushback from groups on the right if they were ever to pursue that. 

Rovner: Yeah, I will also note that this was a Trump-appointed judge, which is pretty … The EEOC, when they were doing these final regulations, acknowledged that there will be cases of religious employers and that they will look at those on a case-by-case basis. But this is a pretty sweeping ruling that basically says, we’re back to the Hobby Lobby Supreme Court case: If you don’t believe in something, you don’t have to do it. 

I mean, that’s essentially where we are with this, and we will see as this moves forward. Well, moving on to another big election issue, drug prices, the CEO of Novo Nordisk, makers of the blockbuster obesity and diabetes drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, appeared at the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee on Tuesday in front of Senator Bernie Sanders, who has been one of their top critics. 

And maybe it’s just my covid-addled brain, but I watched this hearing and I couldn’t make heads or tails of how Lars Jørgensen, the CEO, tried to explain why either the differences between prices in the U.S. and other countries for these drugs weren’t really that big, or how the prices here are actually the fault of PBMs, not his company. Was anybody able to follow this? It was super confusing, I will say, that he tried to … 

First he says that, well, 80% of the people with insurance coverage can get these drugs for $25 a month or less, which I’m pretty sure only applies to people who are using it for diabetes, not for obesity, because I think most insurers aren’t covering it for obesity. And there was much backing and forthing about how much it costs and how much we pay and how much it would cost the country to actually allow people, everybody who’s eligible for these drugs, to use them. And no real response. I mean, this is a big-deal campaign issue, and yet I feel like this hearing was something of a bust. 

Weber: I mean, do we really expect a CEO of a highly profitable drug to promise to reduce it immediately on the spot? I mean, I guess I’m not surprised that the hearing was a back-and-forth. From what I understand of what happened, I mean, most hearings with folks that have highly lucrative drugs, they’re not looking to give away pieces of the lucrative drugs. So I think to some extent we come back to that. 

But I did think what was interesting about the hearing itself was that Sanders did confront him with promises from PBMs that they would be able to offer these drugs and not short the American consumer, which was actually a fascinating tactic on Sanders part. But again, what did we really walk away with? I’m not sure that we know. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, even if you were interested in this issue — and I’m interested in this issue and I know this issue better than the average person, as I said —I literally could not follow it. I found it super frustrating. I mean, I know what Sanders was going for here. I just don’t feel like he got what he was hoping to. I don’t know. Maybe he was hoping to get the CEO to say, “We’ve been awful, and so many people need this drug, and we’re going to cut the price tomorrow.” And yes, you point out, Lauren, that did not happen. But we shall see. 

Well, speaking of PBMs, the Federal Trade Commission late last week filed an administrative complaint against the nation’s three largest PBMs, accusing them of inflating insulin prices and steering patients toward higher-cost products so they, the PBMs, can make more money, which is, of course, the big problem with PBMs, which is that they get a piece of the action. So the more expensive the drug, the bigger the piece of the action that they get. 

I was most interested in the fact that the FTC’s three Democratic appointees voted in favor of the legal action. Its two Republican appointees didn’t vote but actually recused themselves. This whole PBM issue is kind of awkward for Republicans who say they want to fight high drug prices, isn’t it? I feel like the whole PBM issue, which, as we said, is something that Congress in theory wants to get to during the lame-duck session, is tricky. 

I mean, it’s less tricky for Democrats who can just demagogue it and a little bit more tricky for Republicans who tend to have more support from both the drug industry and the insurance industry and the PBM industry. How much can they say they want to fight high drug prices without irritating the people with whom they are allied? 

Kenen: And the PBMs themselves are owned by insurers. The pharmaceutical drug pricing, it’s really, really, really confusing, right? 

Rovner: Nobody understands it. 

Kenen: The four of us, none of us cover pharma full time, but the four of us are all pretty sophisticated health care reporters. And if we had to take a final exam on the drug industry, none of us would probably get an A-plus. So I’d be surprised if they figure this out in lame duck. I mean, they could —there’s always the possibility that when they look at the outcome of things, they decide: We do need to cut a deal and get this off the plate. This is the best we’re going to get. We’re going to be in a worse position next month. And they do it. 

But it just seems really sticky and complicated, and it doesn’t feel like it’s totally jelled yet to the point that they can move it. I would expect this to spill into next year. If a deal comes through, if a big budget deal comes through at the end of the year, it does have a lot of trade-offs and moving parts, and this could, in fact, get wrapped into it. 

If I had to guess, I would say it’s more likely to spill into the following year, but maybe they’ve decided they’ve had enough and want to tie the bow on it and move on. And then it’ll go to court and we’ll spend the next year talking about the court fight against the PBM law. So it’s not going to be gone one way or another, and nor are high drug prices going to be gone one way or another. 

Rovner: The issue that keeps on giving. Well, finally this week, a new entry in out This Week in Health Misinformation segment from, surprise, Florida. This is a story from my KFF Health News colleagues Arthur Allen, Daniel Chang, and Sam Whitehead. And the headline kind of says it all: “Florida’s New Covid Booster Guidance Is Straight-Up Misinformation.” 

This is the continuing saga involving the state surgeon general, Joseph Ladapo, who’s been talking down the mRNA covid vaccine for several years now and is recommending that people at high risk from covid not get the latest booster. What surprised me about this story, though, was how reluctant other health leaders in Florida, including the Florida Medical Association, have been to call the surgeon general out on this. 

I guess to avoid angering his boss, Republican governor Ron DeSantis, who’s known to respond to criticism with retribution. Anybody else surprised by the lack of pushback to this there in Florida? Lauren? 

Weber: No, I’m not really surprised. I mean, we’ve seen the same thing over and over and over again. I mean, this is the man who really didn’t make a push to vaccinate against measles when there was an outbreak. He has previously stated that seniors over 65 should not get an mRNA vaccine, with misinformation about DNA fragments. We’ve seen this pattern over and over again. 

He is a bit of a rogue state public health officer in a crew that usually everyone else is on pretty much the same page, whether or not they’re red- or blue-state public health officers. And I think what’s interesting about this story and what continues to be interesting is as we see RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] gaining influence, obviously, in Trump’s potential health picks, you do wonder if this is a bit of a tryout. Although Ladapo is tied to DeSantis, who Trump obviously has feelings about. So who knows there. But it very clearly is the politicization of public health writ large. 

Kenen: And DeSantis, during the beginning of the pandemic, he disagreed with the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] guidelines about who should get vaccinated, but he did push them for older people. And I think that was his cutoff. If you’re 15 up, you should have them. He was quite negative from the start on under. Florida’s vaccination rates for the older population back when they rolled out in late 2020, early 2021, were not — they were fairly high. And there’s been a change of tone. As the political base became more anti-vax, so did the Florida state government. 

Rovner: And obviously, Florida, full of older people who vote. So, I mean, super-important constituency there. Well, we will watch that space. All right, that is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: Elaine Godfrey in the Atlantic has a story called “The Woo-Woo Caucus Meets,” and it’s about a four-hour summit on the Hill with RFK Jr., moderated by Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who also has some unconventional ideas about vaccination and public health. The writer called it the “crunch-ificiation of conservatism.” 

It was the merging of the anti-vax pharma-skeptic left and the Trump right and RFK Jr. talking about MAHA, Making America Healthy Again, and his priorities for what he expects to be a leading figure in some capacity in a Trump administration fixing our health. It was a really fun — just a little bit of sarcasm in that story, but it was a good read. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I would point out that this goes, I mean, back more than two decades, which is that the anti-vax movement has always been this combination of the far left and the far right. 

Kenen: But it’s changed now. I mean, the medical liberty movement, medical freedom movement and the libertarian streak has changed. It started changing before covid, but it’s not the same as it was a few years ago. It’s much more conservative-dominated, or conservative-slash-libertarian-dominated. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: I have an interesting story from Stat. It’s called “How Special Olympics Kickstarted the Push for Better Disability Data.” It’s about how the Special Olympics, which just happened, over the years have helped shine a light on just how many people with developmental and intellectual disabilities just aren’t getting the health care that they need and aren’t even getting recognized as having those disabilities. 

And the data we’re using today comes from the Clinton administration still. It’s way out of date. So there have been improvements because of these programs like Healthy Athletes that have been launched around this, but it’s still nowhere near good enough. And so this was a really fascinating story on that front and on a population that’s really falling through the cracks. 

Rovner: It really was. Lauren. 

Weber: I actually picked an opinion piece in Stat that’s called, quote, “How the Next President Should Reform Medicare,” by Paul Ginsburg and Steve Lieberman. And I want to give a shoutout to my former colleague Fred Schulte, who basically has single-handedly revealed — and now, obviously, there’s been a lot of fall-on coverage — but he was really beating this drum first, how much Medicare Advantage is overbilling the government. 

And Fred, through a lot of FOIAs [Freedom of Information Act requests] — and KFF has sued to get access to these documents — has shown that, through government audits, the government’s being charged billions and billions of dollars more than it should be to pay for Medicare Advantage, which was billed as better than Medicare and a free-market solution and so on. But the reality is … 

Rovner: It was billed as cheaper than Medicare. 

Weber: And billed as cheaper. 

Rovner: Which it’s not. 

Weber: It’s not. And this opinion piece is really fascinating because it says, look, no presidential candidate wants to talk about changing Medicare, because all the folks that want to vote usually have Medicare. But something that you really could do to reduce Medicare costs is getting a handle around these Medicare Advantage astronomical sums. And I just want to shout out Fred, because I really think this kind of opinion piece is possible due to his tireless coverage to really dig into what’s some really wonky stuff that reveals a lot of money. 

Rovner: Yes, I feel like we don’t talk about Medicare Advantage enough, and we will change that at some point in the not-too-distant future. All right, well, my story is from KFF Health News from my colleague Noam Levey, along with Ames Alexander of the Charlotte Observer. It’s called “How North Carolina Made Its Hospitals Do Something About Medical Debt.” 

Those of you who are regular listeners may remember back in August when we talked about the federal government approving North Carolina’s unique new program to have hospitals forgive medical debt in exchange for higher Medicaid payments. It turns out that getting that deal with the state hospitals was a lot harder than it looked, and this piece tells the story in pretty vivid detail about how it all eventually got done. It is quite the tale and well worth your time. 

OK, that is our show for this week. 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. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X. I’m @jrovner. Lauren, where are you? 

Weber: I’m still on X @LaurenWeberHP. 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: On X at @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: X @JoanneKenen and Threads @JoanneKenen1. 

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.

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).

Tim Sheehy “would let politicians like him ban abortion, with no exceptions for rape or to save a woman’s life, and criminalize women.”

A Facebook ad from the campaign of Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.), launched on Sept. 6, 2024

In a race that could decide control of the U.S. Senate, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) is attacking his challenger, Republican Tim Sheehy, for his stance on abortion. 

Montana’s Senate race is one of a half-dozen tight contests around the country in which Democrats are defending seats needed to keep their one-seat majority. If Republicans flip Tester’s seat, they could take over the chamber even if they fail to oust Democrats in any other key races.

In a series of Facebook ads launched in early September, Tester’s campaign said Sheehy supports banning abortion with no exceptions.

An ad launched on Sept. 6 said, “Tim Sheehy wants to take away the freedom to choose what happens with your own body, and give that power to politicians. Sheehy would let politicians like him ban abortion, with no exceptions for rape or to save a woman’s life, and criminalize women. We can’t let Tim Sheehy take our freedom away.”

Sheehy’s Anti-Abortion Stance Allows for Rape, Health Exceptions

Sheehy’s website calls him “proudly pro-life,” and he’s campaigning against abortion. He opposes a measure on Montana’s November ballot that would amend the Montana Constitution to provide the right to “make and carry out decisions about one’s own pregnancy, including the right to abortion.”

In July, we rated False Sheehy’s statement that Tester and other Democrats have voted for “elective abortions up to and including the moment of birth. Healthy, 9-month-year-old baby killed at the moment of birth.”

But contrary to the new ad’s message, Sheehy has voiced support for exceptions.

In a Montana Public Radio interview in May, Sheehy was asked, “Yes or no, do you support a federal ban on abortion?” 

Sheehy said, “I am proudly pro-life and support commonsense protections for when a baby can feel pain, as well as exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother, and I believe any further limits must be left to each state.”

And in a June debate with Tester, Sheehy said, “I’ll always protect the three rights for women: rape, incest, life of the mother.”

The issues section of Sheehy’s campaign website does not say that he has a no-exceptions stance, nor does it say he would “criminalize women” who have abortions.

In a statement, the Sheehy campaign told PolitiFact that the ad mischaracterizes Sheehy’s abortion position. Allowing no exceptions “has never been Tim’s position,” the campaign said.

Our Ruling

The Tester campaign’s ad says Sheehy “would let politicians like him ban abortion, with no exceptions for rape or to save a woman’s life, and criminalize women.” 

Sheehy has said he supports abortion ban exceptions for rape or to save a pregnant woman’s life. We found no instances of him saying he would be OK with states criminalizing women who receive abortions in violation of state laws.

What gives the ad a kernel of truth is that Sheehy has voiced support for letting states decide abortion parameters within their borders. The Tester campaign argues that this means Sheehy would effectively enable legislators to pass abortion restrictions that don’t include exceptions or that criminalize women.

The Tester campaign’s argument relies on hypotheticals and ignores Sheehy’s stated support for exceptions, giving a misleading impression of Sheehy’s position.

We rate it Mostly False.

Our Sources

Jon Tester, Facebook ad, Sept. 6, 2024

Tim Sheehy, campaign issues page, accessed Sept. 12, 2024

KFF, “Policy Tracker: Exceptions to State Abortion Bans and Early Gestational Limits,” last updated July 29, 2024

Montana Public Radio, “Q&A: Tim Sheehy, Republican Candidate for U.S. Senate,” May 15, 2024 

Montana Senate debate (excerpt), June 9, 2024

Last Best Place PAC, “choice” web page, accessed Sept. 12, 2024

Montana Republican Party, 2024 platform, accessed Sept. 12. 2024

Daily Montanan, “Sheehy criticizes ballot measures, including initiative to protect abortion,” Aug. 22, 2024

Sabato’s Crystal Ball, “Where Abortion Rights Will (or Could) Be on the Ballot,” July 9, 2024

Heartland Signal, “Unearthed audio shows Tim Sheehy calling abortion ‘sinful,’ wanting it to ‘end tomorrow,’” Aug. 30, 2024

Montana Independent, “Jon Tester accuses Tim Sheehy of lying about abortion during first Senate campaign debate,” June 11, 2024

Statement to PolitiFact from the Sheehy campaign

Statement to PolitiFact from the Tester campaign

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).

The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Emmarie Huetteman, senior editor, oversees a team of Washington reporters, as well as “Bill of the Month” and KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” She previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail. 

Recent comments from former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers preview potential health policy pursuits under a second Trump administration. Trump is yet again eyeing changes to the Affordable Care Act, while key lawmakers want to repeal Medicare drug price negotiations.

Also, this week brought news of the first publicly reported death attributed to delayed care under a state abortion ban. Vice President Kamala Harris said the death shows the consequences of Trump’s actions to block abortion access.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and the Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Trump’s running mate, says Trump is interested in loosening ACA rules to make cheaper policies available. While the campaign has said little about what Trump would do or how it would work, the changes could include eliminating protections against higher premiums for those with preexisting conditions. Republicans would also likely let enhanced subsidies for ACA premiums expire.
• Key Republican lawmakers said this week that they’re interested in repealing the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions enabling Medicare drug pricing negotiations. Should Trump win, that stance could create intraparty tensions with the former president, who has vowed to “take on Big Pharma.”
• A state review board in Georgia ruled that the death in 2022 of a 28-year-old mother, after her doctors delayed performing a dilatation and curettage procedure, was preventable. Harris tied the death to Trump’s efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, which included appointing three Supreme Court justices who voted to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion.
• And in health tech news, the FDA has separately green-lighted two new Apple product functions: an Apple Watch feature that assesses the wearer’s risk of sleep apnea, and an AirPods feature that turns the earbuds into hearing aids.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: The Washington Post’s “What Warning Labels Could Look Like on Your Favorite Foods,” by Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein. 

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “At Catholic Hospitals, a Mission of Charity Runs Up Against High Care Costs for Patients,” by Rachana Pradhan. 

Tami Luhby: Politico Magazine’s “Doctors Are Leaving Conservative States To Learn To Perform Abortions. We Followed One,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein. 

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “This Chatbot Pulls People Away From Conspiracy Theories,” by Teddy Rosenbluth, and The Atlantic’s “When Fact-Checks Backfire,” by Jerusalem Demsas. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

ProPublica’s “Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable,” by Kavitha Surana.

Click to Open the Transcript

Transcript: American Health Under Trump — Past, Present, and Future

[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 the regular editor on this podcast. I’m filling in for Julie this week, joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping on Thursday, September 19th, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

We’re joined today, by videoconference, by Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Good morning. 

Huetteman: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Huetteman: And Joanne Kenan of Politico and Johns Hopkins University Schools of Nursing and Public Health. 

Joanne Kenan: Hi everybody. 

Huetteman: No interview this week, so let’s get right to the news, shall we? It’s big, it’s popular, and if Donald Trump reclaims the presidency, it could be on the chopping block again. Yes, I’m talking, of course, about the Affordable Care Act. Over the weekend, Senator JD Vance claimed that Trump had “protected Americans” insured under the ACA from “losing their health coverage.” Trump himself made a similar claim during the recent debate, where he also said he has the “concepts of a plan” for health reform. Vance, who is Trump’s running mate, suggested the GOP could loosen regulations to make cheaper policies available. But otherwise, the Trump campaign has not said much about what his administration might change. 

Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has backed off her own plan to change the ACA. You may remember that when she was running for president in 2019, Harris embraced a “Medicare for All” plan. Now, Harris says she plans to build on the existing health system rather than replace it. So let’s talk about what Trump might do as president. What sort of changes could Trump implement to make policies cheaper, as Vance has suggested? 

Luhby: Well, one of the things that Vance has talked about, when he talks about deregulating the market, giving people more choice of plans, it’s actually separating people, the healthier people and the sicker enrollees, into separate, different risk pools, which is what existed before the ACA. And that may be, actually, better for the healthy people. That might lower their premiums. But it would cause a lot of problems for sicker enrollees, those with chronic health conditions or serious illnesses, because they would see their premium skyrocket. And this is one of the reasons why health care was so unaffordable for many people prior to the ACA. So Vance says that he wants to protect people with preexisting conditions. That’s what everyone says. It’s a very popular and well-known provision of the ACA. But by separating people into different risk pools, it would actually hurt people with preexisting conditions, because it may make their health insurance unaffordable. 

Kenan: The difference between pre-ACA and post-ACA is it might actually even be as bad or possibly worse for people with preexisting conditions. Right now, everybody’s in one unified risk pool, right? Whether you’re sick or healthy, your costs, more or less, get averaged out, and that’s how premiums are calculated. Before ACA, people with preexisting conditions just couldn’t get covered necessarily, or if they got covered, it was sky-high, the premiums. By doing what Tami just described, the people, presumably, in the riskiest pool, the sickest people, the insurers would have to offer them coverage. They couldn’t say, “No, you’re sick, you can’t have it,” because there’s guaranteed coverage. But it would be sky-high. So it would be de facto no insurance for most of those people unless the government were to subsidize them to a really high extent, which I didn’t hear JD Vance mention the other day. 

Luthra: Right. 

Luhby: And one of the other things that they talked about, more choice. I mean, one of the issues that a lot of people complained about in the ACA, early on, was that they didn’t want substance abuse coverage. There’s 10 health-essential benefits which every insurer has to cover — pregnancy, maternal care, et cetera. And 60-year-old men or even 60-year-old women said: Why am I paying for this? This is making my plan more expensive. But again, as Joanne said, it’s evening out the costs among everyone so that it’s making health care more affordable for everyone. And if you allow people to start picking and choosing what benefits they want covered, it’s going to make the plans more expensive for those who need the higher-cost care. 

Luthra: Tami alluded to something that is really important, which is that these conditions we’re talking about are very common. A lot of people get pregnant, for example. A lot of people have chronic health conditions. We are not the healthiest country in the world. And so when you think about who would be affected by this, it’s quite a large number of Americans who would no longer be able to get affordable health coverage and a small group of people who probably would. Because, I mean, one thing that’s worth noting —right? — is even if you are healthy for a time, that’s a transient state. And you can be healthy when you are young and get older and suddenly have knee problems, and then things look very different. 

Huetteman: It seems like if they use the exact words, “preexisting-condition protections,” and said they were trying to roll them back in order to make policies cheaper, that might be just a bad political move all around. Preexisting-condition protections are pretty popular, right? 

Luhby: Yes, they certainly are. But that’s why they’re saying they’re going to continue it. But what’s also popular is choice. And that’s been one of the knocks against the Affordable Care Act, is that, while there are a lot of plans out there, they do have to conform to certain requirements, and therefore that gives people less choice. I mean, and remember, one of the things that we started by talking about, what a second Trump administration might look like for health care. One of the things the first Trump administration did is loosen the rules on short-term plans, which don’t have to conform to the ACA. And prior, they were available for a short time as a bridge between policies, but the Trump administration lengthened them to up to three years. And the goal of the Trump administration was that people would have more choice. They could pick skinnier plans that they felt would cover them. But they didn’t always realize that if they got into a car accident, if they were diagnosed with cancer, if something bad happened, they did not have all of the protections that ACA plans have. 

Huetteman: Joanne, you have something to add. 

Kenan: So the first thing is that they spent years and a lot of political capital trying and failing to repeal the ACA or to make major changes in the ACA. The reason it failed is because even then, when the ACA was sort of quasi-popular and there was a lot of controversy still, the preexisting-condition part was extremely popular. Since then, the ACA has become even more popular. What [former President Barack] Obama said when he was speaking to the Democratic National Committee convention the other night — remember that aside where he said, Hey, they don’t call it Obamacare anymore now that it’s popular. It is popular. You’ve even had Republican senators going on record saying it’s here to stay. 

So major overhaul of it is, politically, not going to be popular. Plus, the Republicans, even if they capture the Senate, which is what most of the prognosticators are saying right now, it would be a small majority. If the Republicans have 51, 52, none of us know exactly what’s going to happen, because we’re in a rather rapidly changing political environment. But say the Republicans capture the Senate and say Trump is in the White House. They’re not going to have 60 votes. They’re not going to have anywhere near 60 votes. I’m not even sure if there was a way to do this under reconciliation, which would require 51. I’m not sure they have 51 votes. So and then if they do it through some kind of regulatory approach — which I think is harder to do, something this massive, but people find a way — then it ends up in court. 

So I think it’s politically unfeasible, and I think it’s practically unfeasible. I think there are smaller things they could do to weaken it. I mean, they did last time, and coverage dropped under Trump, last time. I mean, they could not promote it. They could not market it. They could not have navigators helping people. There’s lots of things they could do to shrink it and damage it, but there’s a difference between denting something and having a frontal collision. And we’ve all seen Vance have to roll back other things that he’s predicted Trump would do, so this is very TBD. 

Huetteman: One of the bigger issues with the ACA going into next year is these enhanced subsidies that Joe Biden implemented under the pandemic, that helped a lot of people pay for their premiums, will expire at the end of 2025. And depending on which party has control after this election, that could decide the fate of the subsidies. Joanne, you had something to add on this. 

Kenan: That’s the big vulnerability. And it’s not so much, are they going to repeal it or define their concept of a plan? I mean, the subsidies are vulnerable because they expire without action, and they’re part of a larger debate that’s going to happen no matter who wins the presidency and no matter who wins Congress. It’s that a lot of the tax cuts expire in 2025. The subsidies are part of that tax, but many aspects of the tax bill are going to be a huge issue no matter who’s in charge. 

The subsidies are vulnerable, right? Republicans think that they went too high. Basically those subsidies let more middle-class people with a higher income get ACA subsidies, so insurance is more affordable. And quite a few million people — Tami might remember how many, because I don’t — are getting subsidized this way. It’s not free. They don’t get the biggest subsidies as somebody who’s lower-income, but they are getting enough subsidies that we saw ACA enrollment go up. That is where the big political battle over the ACA is inevitable. I mean, that is going to happen no matter what else happens around aspects of repealing or redesigning or anything else. This is inevitable. They expire unless there’s action. There will be a fight. 

Luhby: Yeah, these— 

Kenan: And I don’t know how it’ll turn out, right? 

Luhby: These subsidies were created as part of the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and were extended for two years as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which the Republicans don’t like. And they have, as Joanne said, they’ve allowed more middle-class people to come in, and also, they’re more generous subsidies than in the past. Plus they’ve made policies free for a lot of lower-income people. Folks can get these policies without premiums. So enrollment has skyrocketed, in large part because of these subsidies. Now there are more than 20 million people enrolled. It’s a record. So the Biden administration would like to keep that intact, especially if Harris wins the presidency. But it will be a big fight in Congress next year, as part of the overall Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations, and we’ll see what the Democrats might have to give up in order to retain the subsidies. The— 

Kenan: It’s going to be, yeah. 

Luhby: Enhanced subsidies. 

Kenan: There are deals to be had with tax cuts versus subsidies, because these are large, sprawling bills with many moving parts. But it’s way too early to know if Republicans are willing to deal on this and what a deal would look like. We’re nowhere near there. But yeah, if you talk about ACA battles in 2025, that’s number one. 

Huetteman: Well, speaking of health policies that are on the GOP agenda, some high-ranking Republican lawmakers are saying they want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act if the party wins big in November, particularly the part that enables Medicare drug negotiations. You may recall their objections from when Congress passed the law two years ago. Republicans argue the negotiations harm innovation and amount to government price controls. But on the other hand, drug prices are an issue where Trump kind of sort of agrees with Democrats. He has promised to “take on Big Pharma.” Does this mean we could see a Republican Congress fighting with Trump over drug price negotiations? 

Luhby: Well, he did have a lot of executive orders and a lot of efforts that were very un-Republican-like. One was called Most Favored Nation. He didn’t say that we should do negotiations. We were just going to piggyback on the negotiations done in other countries and get their lower prices. He didn’t really get very far in a lot of those measures, so it didn’t come to a fight with the Republican Congress. But he may leave the negotiation process alone, the next set of drugs, that’ll be 15 drugs, that, we’ll find out next year, that will be negotiated. So he could leave that alone. If he tries to expand it, yeah, he may have some problems with the Republican Congress. But as we’ve also seen, a Republican Congress has acquiesced to his demands in the past. 

Huetteman: And Congress certainly has no shortage of battles teed up for 2025, of course. Speaking of, here we are again. Yesterday, in the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans joined together to defeat a stopgap spending bill that would’ve kept the government open. To be sure they didn’t have the same objections, Democrats opposed a Republican amendment that would impose new voter registration requirements about proving citizenship. And hard-right Republicans objected to the size of the temporary spending bill, $1.6 trillion. Trump weighed in on social media, calling on Republicans to oppose any government spending bill at all, unless it comes with a citizenship measure. 

Now, Senate Republican leaders, in particular, are not thrilled about this. Here are the words of [Senate minority Leader] Mitch McConnell, who said it better than I can: “It would be politically beyond stupid for us to do that right before the election, because certainly, we’d get the blame” for that government shutdown. What happens now? 

Kenan: Last-minute agreement, like, I feel. I used to cover the Hill full time. I no longer do, but it was, like, late nights standing in the hallway for a last-minute reprieve. At some point, they’re going to probably keep the government open, but with Trump’s demands and the citizenship proof of a life for voters and all that, it’s going to be really messy. Mike Johnson became speaker after a whole bunch of other speakers failed to keep the government open. 

Huetteman: That’s right. 

Kenan: Probation spell, we went through chaos, he has a small majority. He survived because the Democrats intervened on his behalf once, because of Ukraine. We have no idea the dynamics of — do the Democrats want to see complete chaos so the Republicans get blamed? Who knows? I don’t think it’s going to be a handshake tomorrow and Let’s do a deal. What they usually do is continue current spending levels and what they call a continuing resolution. So you keep status quo for one month, two months, three months, sometimes 10 months. The odds are, the government will stay open at some kind of a last-minute patchwork deal that nobody particularly likes, but that’s likely. I wouldn’t say that certain. Republicans have backed off shutting the government down for a while now, a couple of years. 

Huetteman: It’s worth noting, though, that even this bill that they just voted down would’ve only kicked the can down to March. So we are still talking about something that the new Congress would have to deal with pretty quickly, even if we can get something done short-term. But we’ve got a lot of news today. So moving on to reproductive health news. 

This week, Senate Republicans, again, blocked a bill that would’ve guaranteed access to in vitro fertilization nationwide. That federal bill would, of course, have overridden state laws that restrict access to the procedure. You may recall that Republicans also blocked that bill earlier this summer, describing it as a political show vote. And indeed, Democrats are trying to get Republicans on the record, opposing IVF, in order to draw contrast with the GOP before voters go to the polls. What do we think? Did Democrats succeed here in showing voters their lawmakers really think about IVF? 

Luthra: I mean, realistically, yes, I think this is a very effective strategy for Democrats. If they could talk about abortion and IVF every day, all day, they would. We can look at Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris and [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz. She specifically mentions reproductive rights, and she mentions IVF in particular, noting that she thinks that these are the candidates who will support access to that fertility regimen. IVF is very popular, and it is obviously going to be a major battle, because it is the next frontier for the anti-abortion movement, and the Republican Party is allied very closely to this movement. Even if there have been more fractures emerging lately, I just don’t see how Republicans can find a way to make this a political winner for them, unless they figure out a way to change their tune, at least temporarily, without alienating that ally they have. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. And meanwhile, speaking of the consequences of these actions on abortion lately, this week we learned of the first publicly reported death from delayed care under a state abortion ban. ProPublica reported the heart-wrenching story of a 28-year-old mother in Georgia who died in 2022 after her doctors held off on performing a D&C [dilation and curettage procedure]. Performing a D&C in Georgia is a felony, with a few exceptions. Sorry, this is difficult to talk about, especially if you or someone you know has needed a D&C, and that may be a lot of us, whether we know it or not. 

Her name was Amber Thurman. Amber needed the D&C because she was suffering from a rare complication after taking the abortion pill. She developed a serious infection, and she died on the operating table. Georgia’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee determined that Amber Thurman’s death was preventable. ProPublica says at least one other woman has died from being unable to access illegal abortions and timely medical care. And as the story said, “There are almost certainly others.” On Tuesday, Vice President Harris said Amber’s death shows the consequences of Trump’s actions to block abortion access. How does this affect the national conversation about abortion? Does it change anything? 

Luthra: I mean, it should, and I don’t think it’s that simple. And it’s tough, because, I mean, these stories are incredible pieces of journalism, and what they show us are that two women are dead because of abortion bans — and that there are almost certainly many more, because these deaths were in 2022, very soon after the Dobbs decision. And what has been really striking, at the same time, is that the anti-abortion movement has very clear talking points on these deaths. And they’re doing what we have seen them do, in so many cases, where women have almost lost their lives, and now, in these cases where they have, which is they blame the doctors. And they have been going out of their way to argue that, actually, the exceptions that exist in these laws are very clear, even though doctor after doctor will tell you they are not, and that it is the doctor’s fault for not providing care when there is very obviously an exception. 

They are also arguing that this is further proof that medication abortion, which is responsible for the vast majority of abortions in this country, is unsafe, even though, as you noted and as these stories noted, the complications these women experienced are very rare and could be addressed and treated for and do not have to be fatal if you have access to health care and doctors who are not handcuffed by your state’s abortion laws. And so what I think happens then is this is something that should matter and that should change our conversation. And there are people talking about this and making clear that this is because of the reproductive health world that we live in, but I don’t think it will necessarily change the course of where we are headed, despite the fact that what abortion opponents are saying is not true and despite the fact that these abortion bans remain very unpopular. 

Kenan: I think you can, and she said it really well, but I think in terms of, does it change minds? Think about the two bumper stickers, right? One is “Abortion bans kill,” and the other one is “The abortion pill kills.” And both of these women had medication abortions. Those side effects are very, very, very unusual, that dangerous side effects, are extremely unusual. There’s years of data, there’s like no drug on Earth that is a hundred percent, a thousand percent, a hundred thousand percent safe. So these were tragedies in which the women did develop severe life-threatening side effects, didn’t get the proper treatment. But think about your bumper stickers. I don’t think this changes a lot of minds. 

Huetteman: All right. Well, unfortunately we will keep watching for this and more news on this subject. But in state news, Nevada will become the 18th state to use its Medicaid funds to cover abortions after a recent court ruling. While federal funds are generally barred from paying for abortions, states do have more flexibility to use their own Medicaid funds to cover the procedure. And, North Dakota’s abortion ban has been overturned, after a judge ruled that the state’s constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable. But there’s a bigger challenge: The state has no abortion clinics left. We’ve talked a lot on this podcast about how overturning Roe has effectively created new, largely geographical classes of haves and have-nots, people who can access abortion care and people who can’t. It seems like the lesson out of North Dakota right now is that evening that playing field isn’t as simple as changing the law, yes? 

Luthra: Absolutely. And this is something that we have seen even before Roe was overturned. I mean, an example that I think about a lot is Texas, which had had this very big abortion law passed in 2013, and it was litigated in the courts, was in and out of effect before it went to the Supreme Court and was largely struck down. But clinics closed in the meantime. And what that tells us is that when clinics close, they largely don’t reopen. It is very, very hard to open an abortion clinic. It is expensive. It can be dangerous because of harassment. You need to find providers. You need to build up a medical infrastructure that doesn’t exist. And we are seeing several states with ballot measures to try to undo abortion bans in their states — Florida, Missouri, Nebraska with their 12-week ban. We are seeing efforts across the country to try and restore access to these states. 

But the question is exactly what you pointed out, which is there is a right in name and there is a right in practice. And for all the difficulties of creating a right in name, creating a right in practice is even harder. And there is just so much more that we will need to be following as journalists, and also as people who consume health care, to fully see what it takes for people to be able to get reproductive health care, including abortion, after they have lost it. 

Huetteman: All right. And with fewer than 50 days left until Election Day and way fewer before early voting begins, a court in Nebraska has ruled that competing abortion rights measures can appear on the ballot there this fall. Two measures, one that would expand access and one that would restrict it, qualified for the ballot. Nebraska will be the first state to ask residents to vote on two opposing abortion ballot measures. Currently, the state bans abortion in most cases, starting at 12 weeks. There are at least nine other states with ballot measures to protect abortion rights this fall, but this one’s pretty unusual. What do we think? Will this be confusing to Nebraska voters? 

Luthra: I mean, I imagine if I were a voter, I would be confused. Most people don’t follow the ins and outs of what’s on their ballot until you get close to Election Day and you are bombarded with advertisements. And I think this is really striking, because it is just part of, I guess, maybe not long, because this only happened two years ago, but part of a repeated pattern of abortion opponents trying to find different ways to get around the fact that ballot measures restoring abortion rights or protecting abortion rights largely win. And so how do you find a way around that? You can try and create confusion. You can try and raise the threshold for approval like they tried and failed to do in Ohio. You can, maybe in Nebraska this is more effective, put multiple measures on the ballot. You can try, as they tried and failed to do in Missouri, try and stop something from appearing on the ballot. 

And I think this is just something that we need to watch and see. Is this the thing that finally sticks? Does this finally undercut efforts to use direct voting to restore abortion rights? Which we should also note is a strategy with an expiration date of sorts, because not every state allows for this direct democracy approach. And we’re actually hitting the end of the list of states very soon where this is a viable strategy. 

Huetteman: And as we know, every state where a ballot measure has addressed this issue since Roe was overturned has fallen on the side of abortion rights, ultimately. It’ll be curious to see what happens here, where voters have both choices right before them. 

Well, let’s wrap up with tech news this week. Are you wearing an Apple Watch right now? Or maybe you’re listening to us on AirPods? Well, that watch could soon tell you if you might have sleep apnea. Or, if you have trouble hearing, those earbuds could soon help you hear better. The FDA has given separate green lights to two new Apple product functions. One is an Apple Watch change that assesses the wearer’s risk of sleep apnea. And the FDA also authorized Apple AirPods as the first over-the-counter hearing-aid software, to assist those with mild to moderate hearing loss. Hearing aids can be pretty expensive, and some resist wearing them due to stigma or stubbornness. What does this mean for people with these conditions, and also about the possibilities for health tech? 

Kenan: I mean, none of us are covering the FDA’s tech division full time or even much at all. So basically there’s been a trend toward sort of overlap with consumer and health products. Many of us have something on our wrists or something in our phone that is monitoring something or other, and there’s been some controversy about how accurate some of them are. My understanding with the sleep apnea thing, that it doesn’t actually diagnose it. It tracks your sleep patterns, and if it sees some red flags, it says: You might have sleep apnea. You should go see a doctor. That’s what I think that does. 

Huetteman: That’s right. 

Kenan: You’re asleep when you’re having sleep apnea. You don’t necessarily know what’s happening. So it’s arguably a useful thing that you have kind of an alert system. The hearing aids, it’s not just these. The FDA, a few months ago, authorized more over-the-counter hearing aids of various types, which have made them much cheaper and much more accessible. This is an advance, another category, another type to have people wearing earbuds anyway. I know people who have the over-the-counter hearing aids, and they are small and cheap, so that industry has really been disrupted by tech. So we are seeing not necessarily some of the sky-in-the-pie promises of health and tech from a few years ago but some useful things for consumers to either make things more accessible or affordable, like the earbuds — although I would lose them — or just a useful tool or a potentially useful tool, I don’t know how great the data is, saying ask your doctor about this. Sleep apnea is dangerous. 

So my mom is about to turn 90, and we have a fall monitor on her watch that we actually pay for, an extra service, that they alert emergency. I was with her once when she fell. They called her and said, Are you okay? And she said, Yes, my daughter’s here and et cetera. Except, at 90, she still plays pingpong, doubles pingpong, not a lot of movement for 90 year olds, and it does get the fall monitor very confused. I think it’s been trained. So yeah, I mean, it’s not that expensive, and it’s great peace of mind. People would much rather have it on their watch, because young cool people wear smartwatches, than those buttons around their neck. I would’ve never gotten my mother to wear a button around her neck. So it’s part of a larger trend of tech becoming a health tool, and it’s not a panacea, but the affordability for over-the-counter hearing aids is a big deal. 

Huetteman: Right, right. This is expanded access. If you’ve got this consumer product already in your pocket, on your wrist, in your ears, why not have it help with your health? We’ve already kind of adjusted, in many ways, to health tech. We had Fitbits. We’ve had things that have tracked our heart rates and that sort of thing, or even our phones can do that at this point. But hearing aids, in many cases for people who have mild or moderate hearing loss, they don’t even go for a hearing aid, because they don’t want to be stigmatized as being maybe a little older and being unable to hear, even if they might just muddle through. But if you’ve already got those AirPods in, because you’re going to take a call later, I mean, that’s pretty below the radar. You don’t have to feel too self-conscious about that one, so … 

Kenan: Yeah, my mom would look cool, but she actually doesn’t need them, so that’s OK. 

Huetteman: If she’s playing pingpong at her age, she already looks cool. 

Kenan: She plays pingpong very slowly. I hope I’m doing the equivalent when I’m 90. I hope I’m 90, you know? 

Huetteman: Hear, hear. 

Kenan: You know. 

Huetteman: OK, that’s this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes, on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you go first this week? 

Luthra: All right. My story is from KFF Health News by the great Rachana Pradhan. The headline is, “At Catholic Hospitals, a Mission of Charity Runs Up Against High Care Costs for Patients.” The story is one of my favorite genres of stories, which is stories about how everyone loves their hospital and their hospital is a business. And Rachana does a great job looking at the history of Catholic hospitals and the extent to which they were founded as these beacons of charitable care meant to improve the community. But actually, when you look at where Catholic hospitals are now — and Catholic hospitals have really proliferated in the past several years — they look a lot like businesses and a lot less like charities. There’s some fascinating patient stories and also analyses in here, showing that Catholic hospitals are less likely than other nonprofit hospitals to treat Medicaid patients. They are great at going after patients for unpaid medical bills, including suing them, garnishing wages, reporting them to credit bureaus. It’s really great. It’s the exact kind of journalism that I think we need more of, and I love this story, and I hope others do, too. 

Huetteman: Excellent. It is a great piece of journalism. We hope everyone will take some time to read it. Tami, why don’t you go? 

Luhby: OK. My extra credit is an in-depth piece by one of our very own, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and it’s titled, “Doctors Are Leaving Conservative States to Perform Abortions. We Followed One.” So Alice followed a doctor who spent a month in Delaware learning how to perform abortions, because she couldn’t obtain that training in her home state, across the country. Alice notes that Politico granted the doctor anonymity due to her fear of professional repercussions and the threat of physical violence for seeking abortion training, which is concerning to hear. While many stories have written about states’ abortion bans, Alice’s piece provides a different perspective. She writes about the lengths the doctors must go to obtain training in the procedure and the negative effects that the overturning of Roe has had on medical education. 

The doctor she profiled spent nearly two years searching for a position where she could obtain this training, before landing at Delaware’s Planned Parenthood. It cost nearly $8,000. The doctor had to pull together grants and scholarships in order to cover the costs. Alice walked readers through the doctor’s training in both surgical and medical abortions and through her ethical and medical thoughts after seeing — and this is one thing that stuck with me in the story — what’s called the “products of conception” on a little tray. So the story is very moving, and it’s well worth your time. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. And the more detail we can get about what these sorts of procedures and this training looks like for doctors, the better we understand what we’re actually talking about when we’re talking about these abortion bans and other restrictions on reproductive health. Joanne, why don’t you talk to us about your extra credit this week? 

Luthra: OK. There’s a piece in the New York Times by Teddy Rosenbluth called “This Chatbot Pulls People Away from Conspiracy Theories.” And there’s also a related podcast at the Atlantic called, by Jerusalem Demsas, “When Fact-Checks Backfire.” They’re both about the same piece of research that appeared in Science. Basically, debunking, or fact-checking, has not really worked very well in pulling people away from misinformation and conspiracy theories. There had been some research suggesting that if you try to debunk something, it was the backfire effect, that you actually made it stick more. That doesn’t always happen. There’s sort of some people that it does and some people it doesn’t — that’s beginning to be understood more. 

And what this study, the Times reported on and the Atlantic podcast discussed, is using AI, because we all think that AI is going to be generating more disinformation, but AI is also going to be fighting disinformation. And this is an example of it, where the people in this study had a dialogue, a written, typed-in dialogue, where the chatbot that gave a bespoke response to conspiracy beliefs, including vaccines and other public health things. And that these individually tailored, back-and-forth dialogue, with an AI bot, actually made about 20% of the people, which is, in this field, a lot, drop their or modify their beliefs or drop their conspiracy beliefs. And that it stuck. It wasn’t just because some of these fact-checks work for like a week or two. These, they checked in with people two months later and the changes in their thinking had stuck. So it’s not a solution to disinformation and conspiracy belief, but it is a fairly significant arrow to new techniques and more research to how to debunk it better without a backfire effect. 

Huetteman: That’s great. Thanks for sharing those. All right. My extra credit this week comes from two of our podcast pals at The Washington Post, Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein. The headline is, “What Warning Labels Could Look Like on Your Favorite Foods.” They report that the FDA is considering labeling food to identify when they have a high saturated fat content, sodium, sugar, those sorts of things that we should all be paying attention to on nutrition labels. But their proposal falls short, critics say. It’s not quite as good, they say, at identifying the health risk factors of certain amounts of sodium and sugar in our food, especially compared to other countries. 

They do an extensive study on Chile’s food labeling, in fact. And if you’re like me and you buy a lot of your groceries for your household and you try to look at the nutrition labels, you might be surprised by some of the items the article identifies as being particularly high in sodium, like Cheerios. Bad news for my family this morning. 

All right, that’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy 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. Special thanks, as always, to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you could try tweeting me. I’m lurking on X, @emmarieDC. Shefali. 

Luthra: I’m @shefalil. 

Huetteman: Joanne. 

Kenan: @JoanneKenen on Twitter, @joanneKenen1 on Threads. 

Huetteman: And Tami. 

Luhby: Best place to find me is cnn.com. 

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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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.

As expected, the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris offered few new details of their positions on abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and other critical health issues. But it did underscore for voters dramatic differences between the two candidates.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration issued rules attempting to better enforce mental health parity — the federal government’s requirement that services for mental health care and substance use disorders be covered by insurance to the same extent as other medical services.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Trump declined to say during the debate whether he’d veto legislation implementing a nationwide abortion ban. But he could effectively ban the procedure without Congress passing anything because of the 150-year-old Comstock Act. And Project 2025, a policy blueprint by the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls for doing just that.
• There is a good chance that enhanced federal subsidies for ACA coverage that were introduced during the pandemic could expire next year, depending on which party controls Congress. The subsidies have helped more people secure zero-premium health coverage through the ACA exchanges, though Republicans say the subsidies cost too much to keep. Residents in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid coverage — including Florida and Texas — would be most affected.
• The Census Bureau reports that the uninsured rate didn’t change much last year after hitting a record low in the first quarter. But the report’s methodology prevented it from capturing the experiences of many people disenrolled and left uninsured after what’s known as the Medicaid “unwinding” began. Meanwhile, a Treasury Department report sheds light on just how many Americans have benefited from the ACA, as polls show the health law has also grown more popular.
• And Congress has yet to pass key government spending bills, meaning the nation (again) faces a possible federal government shutdown starting Oct. 1. It remains to be seen what could pass during a lame-duck session after the November elections. In 2020, the end-of-the-year spending package featured many health care priorities — and that could happen again.

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

Julie Rovner: The Wall Street Journal’s “A Nurse Practitioner’s $25,000 in Student-Debt Relief Turned Into a $217,500 Bill From the Government,” by Rebecca Ballhaus.  

Lauren Weber: Stat’s “Youth Vaping Continues Its Tumble From a Juul-Fueled High,” by Lizzy Lawrence.  

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “Lilly Bulks Up Irish Operations in Obesity Drug Production Push,” by Madison Muller.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: ProPublica’s “‘I Don’t Want To Die’: Needing Mental Health Care, He Got Trapped in His Insurer’s Ghost Network,” by Max Blau.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “US Uninsured Rate Was Stable in 2023, Even as States’ Medicaid Purge Began,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Louisiana Illuminator’s “Doctors Grapple With How To Save Women’s Lives Amid ‘Confusion and Angst’ Over New Louisiana Law,” by Lorena O’Neil.
• ProPublica’s “Why I Left the Network,” by Annie Waldman, Maya Miller, Duaa Eldeib, and Max Blau.
• The New York Times’ “How a Leading Chain of Psychiatric Hospitals Traps Patients,” by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Katie Thomas.
• Stat’s “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names,” by Tara Bannow.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump-Harris Debate Showcases Health Policy Differences

[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, Sept. 12, 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 teleconference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Hey, hey.

Rovner: And Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s special episode on health equity from the Texas Tribune Festival. Now we have a lot of news to catch up on, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with politics and with the much-anticipated presidential debate Tuesday night, obviously the big health issue was abortion. And as I said afterwards on the radio, the most consistent thing about former President Trump’s abortion position is how inconsistent it has been. Did we learn anything new from everything he tried to say about abortion?

Cohrs Zhang: I think he didn’t provide a lot of clarity on the issue of whether he would veto a nationwide abortion ban, and I think that has been the question that is kind of hard to nail down. And his response is that, Well, that’s not going to pass Congress, so I won’t have to worry about it.

Rovner: Which is kind of true. I mean, it’s not going to pass Congress. That was Nikki Haley’s point.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, so I think we have seen, though, some talk floating around about ending the filibuster for abortion from [Sen.] Chuck Schumer’s side of things, at least. So I think it’s not completely out of the question to think that things could be different in the future. We don’t entirely know. But that’s his argument that I don’t really have to answer that question, because it’s not actually going to happen. So I think that’s not really an answer to the question.

Rovner: Riley?

Griffin: It does beg the question what he has to gain from answering that question. If he says he supports vetoing a national abortion ban, it’s certain to anger some of his base, and the opposite is true, too. He’s been threading a really tenuous needle here in trying to appease very different crowds within the Republican Party. And I think that is perhaps, at this point, more interesting to think about his positioning around abortion than the Democratic Party’s.

Rovner: So this is where I get to jump up and down and say for the millionth time: He doesn’t have to sign a nationwide ban to ban abortion nationwide. This is where the Comstock Act comes in that we have talked about so many times and that Project 2025 talks about starting to enforce it, which it has not been in decades and decades, but it is still on the books. And a lot of people say, oh, they could ban the abortion pill by enforcing the Comstock Act, which bans the mailing of things that can be used for abortion. But as others point out, it could be not just the abortion pill. Anything that is used to perform any sort of abortion travels in the mail or FedEx or UPS, all of which are covered by the Comstock Act. So in fact, he could support a nationwide abortion ban and still say that he would veto legislation calling for a nationwide abortion ban.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. And it seems like when he’s been questioned about this in the past, he hasn’t quite understood or seems like he understands the nuances of that. And I think our frequent panelist Alice Ollstein had some good reporting indicating that the pro-life groups wanted more commitments from him on the Comstock Act and aren’t getting them. So I think there are certainly some questions out there. But as a reporter in D.C., we have the privilege of covering health care almost exclusively, and sometimes you can tell when a lawmaker or a public official doesn’t understand the question, and I think that’s a little bit of what’s happening here. But obviously it’s his campaign’s job to prep him and make clear what his position is so voters can make an informed decision.

Rovner: And, of course, with Trump, you’re never sure whether he really doesn’t understand it or whether he’s purposely pretending that he doesn’t understand it.

Cohrs Zhang: Right, right.

Rovner: Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: On a lot of issues, Trump doesn’t necessarily always give a straight answer and often walks them back. So it’s somewhat representative of also playing, as Riley pointed out, to political points as we get so very close to the election and to pick up some of the folks that are undecided. So as you said, we didn’t learn much.

Rovner: So what about Vice President [Kamala] Harris? Those of us sitting here and those of us who listen to the podcast know that she’s been on the trail talking about reproductive health since before the fall of Roe. It’s an issue that she is super comfortable with. I was, I think, surprised at how surprised people watching were when she was able to articulate a really thorough answer. Did that surprise any of you?

Weber: That did not surprise me at all. But I think what was so shocking about it was everyone remembers where they were when Joe Biden got the abortion question at the debate, not so long ago, and truly butchered that answer. That was one of the worst moments of the debate for him. He really could not get through it. The man has notoriously not felt comfortable talking about abortion — older man, Catholic, et cetera. But the contrast, I think, is what was so surprising, because Democrats consider this very much an essential issue for winning the election. Abortion issues are polling incredibly well, obviously with women. You have abortion rights on the ballot in several states, including swing states. This is kind of a make-or-break issue to win the presidential for Democrats. And for Kamala Harris to be able to give not just a coherent answer but one that actually had some resonance, I think, was just so markedly different that people ended up as surprised as you pointed out.

Griffin: Just want to add here that this is a space that she is so incredibly comfortable talking about on the campaign trail. Even before she assumed the top of the ticket, this had been her marquee subject. And I’ve been moonlighting as a Kamala Harris campaign reporter for the last few months. Every rally you go to, this is where she gets the biggest applause. This is the note that strikes, that resonates with the crowd. She had been doing what she called a “Reproductive Freedom” tour through swing states four months prior to assuming the top of the ticket. So it’s no surprise that she is quick not just to talk about the stakes of the overturning of Roe v. Wade but also fact-check the former president. There was a really fitting moment during the debate where she said: “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening.” So that she could not only come and deliver the lines but also listen to Donald Trump respond to some of the factual errors in real time was again a marked difference from President Joe Biden.

Rovner: Yes, it was a very different debate, I will say. There was actually, a bit surprising to me also, some discussion of the Affordable Care Act. Apparently Donald Trump is now saying that he’s the one who saved it, which is not exactly how I remember things going down. Is that an acknowledgment that the ACA is now here to stay? Or should we still assume that if Republicans take control of the White House and Congress they will, at the very least, let those expanded ACA subsidies expire?

Cohrs Zhang: I think there’s a very good chance that those subsidies do expire. It just obviously depends on control of Congress and how much leverage Democrats have and what they’re willing to give up to get them. And again, it’s kind of difficult because a lot of the states that benefit the most from these subsidies are Republican states that have not expanded Medicaid. So I think there are some difficult political considerations for the Republican Caucus on that issue. But I think Trump was implying that maybe he could have done more to sabotage the ACA without actually revealing it.

Rovner: That’s kind of true.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, so I think that was an interesting point. And of course he returned to the refrain that he’s going to have a plan. We haven’t seen a plan for nine years.

Rovner: He has the …

Rovner and Weber (together): … “concepts” of a plan.

Cohrs Zhang: We’ll see it soon.

Weber: I think it’s important to also fact-check Trump on saying he improved the ACA. I want to read a list of things from a great Stat article: “While in office, Trump’s administration shortened open enrollment periods, cut funding for navigators who help people enroll … expanded short-term insurance plans, lowered standards for health benefits provided by small employers that banded [together] into larger groups and enabled employers with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage to opt out of requirements to provide no-cost coverage.” So I think some of his as assertations about improving the ACA are up for debate, depending on how you feel about that list of things I just read.

Griffin: And you can also see the impact in enrollment. We had some really interesting data released just before the debate, conveniently, by the Treasury Department showing that the Biden administration had ushered in this all-time-high enrollment in the ACA insurance marketplaces. But what was also tucked into that data was that under the Trump administration, there was also pretty significant lows compared to the other parts of the last 10 years. So that’s notable, too.

Rovner: Yes. And actually you’re anticipating my very next question, which is, while we are on the subject of the ACA, the Census Bureau was also out this week with its annual estimate of people without insurance, and, surprise, even with the Medicaid unwinding and people being dumped off of the Medicaid rolls, the 2023 uninsured rate of about 8% remained near the all-time low that it achieved under the Biden administration. Now, this is not the complete picture of the uninsured. Those who lost coverage at any point during 2023, which is when everybody on the unwinding lost coverage, wouldn’t be counted as uninsured for the purposes of this particular survey, which counts people who were uninsured for the entire year. But the Biden administration, the day before, released an analysis finding that over the 10 years that the Affordable Care Act marketplaces have been operational, 1 in 7 Americans has been enrolled in one of the plans. Is this a first election where the ACA could turn out to be a boon for its backers rather than an albatross around their necks?

Weber: I think KFF polling, recent numbers say some 60% of Americans support the ACA. So that would be a majority of Americans that would be very unhappy if it was repealed. So I mean to your point, Julie, I think the popular opinion has shifted on the ACA and we’re in new ground here.

Cohrs Zhang: Even in 2020, I think after all of that happened, I think there was this realization that maybe this isn’t a viable option, so we should stop promising it to people. And I think Democrats had gotten so much momentum on all of the claims that Republicans did want to take apart the ACA, and we saw that conversation in the Supreme Court as well. And I think that reality has just become so much more real with Dobbs and seeing that when the makeup of a court changes, court decisions can change, and that elections matter in that calculus. So I think we started to see the movement in 2020, but obviously there was so much pandemic going on that I think some of these other health care lines got lost in that election, that we’re seeing come out a little more clearly this time around.

Rovner: And, of course, despite Donald Trump now becoming a latter-day champion of the ACA — sort of — if Republicans win back control of Congress and the White House, we’ve got both these expanded subsidies — that, as we pointed out, have enabled this big enrollment — expiring, and the Trump tax cuts expiring. It’s hard to imagine both of those getting extended. One would think that the Republicans’ priority would be the tax cuts and not the subsidies, right?

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Again, depends on whether Democrats are able to hold a chamber of Congress and what kind of leverage they have.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s obviously a 2025 issue. Well, turning to elected officials who are already in office, today is Sept. 12, and that means Congress has basically eight more working days to avoid a government shutdown by either passing all of the 12 regular spending bills or some sort of continuing resolution to keep agencies funded after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. This is where I get to say for the millionth time that when Congress settled the funding for fiscal 2024 last — checks notes — March, House Republicans vowed again to have this year’s funding bills finished on time. Rachel, that did not happen. So where are we?

Cohrs Zhang: It does not happen. Yeah, I think it’s business as usual around here. I think, honestly, the posturing has started earlier than I expected with the House speaker, Mike Johnson, putting out this proposal for a CR [continuing resolution] that he couldn’t even get through the House. He kind of pulled that before it came to a vote on the floor. So I guess that’s, at least, an opening salvo earlier than we see, usually, early in September.

Rovner: Well, this was the big fight about: Do we want a CR that goes to after Thanksgiving, which would be the typical CR, and then we’ll come back after the election and fight about next year’s funding? Or, in this case, they wanted a CR that went until next March, I guess betting that maybe the Republicans will be in charge then and they’ll have more of a say over this year’s spending than they do now?

Cohrs Zhang: Right. I think that’s certainly an open question, and I think it seems like Senate appropriators are not necessarily on board with that March timeline at this point. They really would like to wrap things up in December. And again, I think, looking back in 2020, we did see a really significant appropriations package with a lot of health care policy pass at the end, kind of in the December time frame of 2020, in lame-duck. So I think it’s a really big question.

And then the other question is: Do all these expiring health care programs that are currently slated to end in December get extended with that appropriations package? I think there’s just a lot of moving parts here, and we don’t exactly know what the deadlines are going to be yet. But at least they’re arguing about it in the public sphere, so that’s a start.

Rovner: They’re legislating. That’s what they do. Lauren?

Weber: I just wanted to say, Julie, I think you should have a segment that’s a tally of how many times you ask on this podcast if the funding bill has passed. Because I know myself, I’ve been on many, and I really think it’d be kind of funny. So I’m just saying it’s quite fascinating over the years, the many, many times these bills do not seem to make it.

Rovner: Well, this is just me as the lifelong Capitol Hill reporter who — we’re always talking about what’s going to happen next year and the year after. It’s like: You have a job to do this year. Let’s see how you’re doing in the job that you have to do this year. Does anybody think there’s actually going to be a shutdown? I mean, that’s still a possibility if they don’t get a deal, although that would be — I’m trying to remember if we’ve ever seen a government shutdown in a presidential election year. That seems risky politically? Riley, I see you sort of raising your eyebrows.

Griffin: Yeah, it’s definitely risky and clearly something right now you can see that the Biden administration wants to avoid. I was sitting in the White House press briefing room on Monday and Karine [Jean-Pierre], the press secretary, was like: This is Congress’ one job. This is their main job. It’s to keep the government open. So there’s a level of frustration that, I think, this is coming into the discourse yet again, but to be expected.

Rovner: Yeah. And I should point out, it’s not just Republicans that are unable to get funding bills done on time. The Democrats are unable to get their funding bills done on time, either. I believe that the last time all of the funding bills were actually passed before Oct. 1 was the year 2000.

Weber: This is why this should be a Julie segment. I’m telling you, you should run a tally.

Rovner: Yes. Well, it is kind of a Julie segment.

Weber: Yes.

Rovner: And I will keep at it, because this is my job, too. All right, turning back to abortion, in the debate Tuesday night, Vice President Harris talked at some length about some of the unintended consequences of abortion bans, as we discussed — women unable to get miscarriage care, girls being forced to carry pregnancies resulting from incest all the way to term. Now we have another new potential health risk in Louisiana. The new law that makes the abortion medications mifepristone and misoprostol controlled substances is resulting in a major disruption to hemorrhage care. It seems that misoprostol, which is used for a variety of purposes other than abortion — it was originally an ulcer drug — is a key emergency drug used in a wide variety of reproductive health emergencies. And it’s not clear what will take its place on emergency carts, since you can’t have controlled substances just hanging around in the hallways. Is this yet another example of lawmakers basically practicing medicine without a license?

Weber: I think that’s right, Julie. I spoke to a Louisiana ER doctor last week who put it pretty bluntly. He’s like, Look, I have a woman who’s bleeding out in front of me, and I need to call down to the pharmacy and put in an order? That could take not just seconds, not just minutes, but many minutes, even longer in possibly rural pharmacieswhere the access may not be as readily available. He’s like, This is truly a life-or-death issue. Women, when you are bleeding out from post-birth complications, which by the way is not as uncommon as people would like to think it is, this is really quite something. And so folks in Louisiana are obviously very up in arms.

And I think it speaks, as you pointed out, to the larger environment that Kamala Harris has pointed to — and many reporters that have been on your show and that we have discussed many times on the show — is that there are many unintended consequences for laws that limit abortion and for women seeking access to care where hospitals afraid that they’re not going to interpret the law correctly are leaving women to seek care elsewhere. And what are the health ramifications of that? But this is a pretty frightening unintended consequence.

Rovner: Yeah, this was something that I was not aware of, that I had not seen. Of course, Louisiana is the first state to basically declare these controlled substances. So it seems that every time we get a new restriction, there’s a new twist to it that I think most people did not expect.

There’s also been lots of court actions, obviously, on abortion in the past few weeks. In Missouri, last week a judge tried to strike the state’s abortion rights referendum from the ballot, although this week a higher court ordered it back on the ballot. I believe that’s the final word on Missouri. They will vote on it in November. In Alaska, a judge struck down a state law that limited who could perform abortions to just doctors rather than doctors and other medical professionals. And in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against a new federal rule that shields the medical records of women who cross state lines to obtain an abortion in a state where it’s legal, which it’s not in Texas. It would seem the implication here is that Texas wants to prosecute women who leave the state for a legal medical procedure. Or am I misinterpreting that somehow?

Griffin: That’s my understanding as well. And it’s a development that, I believe the rule was announced in April when Biden had said that no one should have their medical records used against them, and lo and behold we’re a few months later, but this Texas lawsuit does suggest that this could be a part of criminal prosecution.

Rovner: I know. I mean this seems to be sort of this underlying issue of what happens to women who live in banned states who go to other states to obtain abortions. And there’s been a lot of back-and-forth and a lot of people, even on the anti-abortion side, trying to say that this is not our intent. But this certainly seems to be the intent of some people. Seeing nods all around. We will continue to follow this string.

Finally this week, I want to talk about mental health. Over the objections of some insurers and large employer groups, the Biden administration finalized the latest set of rules attempting to guarantee parity between coverage for mental health and substance abuse and every other type of medical care. This is literally a 30-year fight that’s been going on to regularize, if you will, coverage of mental health. This action comes just as ProPublica is unveiling a pretty remarkable series on the inability of patients, even patients with insurance — in fact, mostly patients with insurance — to obtain needed health care, often with catastrophic consequences. Rachel, one of those stories is your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it?

Cohrs Zhang: It is, yes. So my extra credit is “‘I Don’t Want To Die’: Needing Mental Health Care, He Got Trapped in His Insurer’s Ghost Network,” by Max Blau and ProPublica. And I think this story kind of really makes clear the consequences for certain patients, especially mental health patients in crisis, of when the list that you get from your insurer of in-network providers is inaccurate.

And I think ghost networks, it’s kind of a weird, jargon-y term, I think. There have been some hearings on the issue on the Hill. But when we think about somebody who desperately needs some crisis counseling and they’re doing everything they can, they’re exhausted, they’re already dealing with so much to already have to call provider after provider who doesn’t take their insurance anymore, doesn’t know what they’re talking about, it’s just such a frustrating process that I think many of us have experienced. I personally have experienced it getting an MRI in Los Angeles, and the list is out of date. And I think there’s definitely room for regulation here. And I think that mental health care, through this series, was just highlighted as such an important part of that conversation.

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve all had this, and we’ve all written the stories about people who have lists of in-network providers and can’t find one or can’t find one who’s taking new patients, or the provider there does not do what the directory suggests that they do. They may say they may only treat children, or they may not treat children. But I think in mental health, these are people in mental health crises trying to get care that they are guaranteed by law and guaranteed under their insurance and being unable to do it — and as I say, often, sometimes, not un-often with catastrophic consequences. Needing mental health care is not just somebody who says, “Oh, I don’t feel well today.” These often are people who are in actual crisis situations.

So speaking of people who are in actual mental health crisis situations, The New York Times has a piece this week on a chain of mental hospitals that’s basically holding patients in their facilities against their will to get as much as they can collect from insurance. In some cases, patients’ relatives have had to get court orders to get their patients released. How did we let our mental health system get so far off the tracks? Either you can’t get care or you get care that you can’t get out of.

Weber: Well, this piece by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Katie Thomas, which is truly phenomenal — everyone who’s listening to this should read it — makes a very astute point, which is that the government and nonprofits have really gotten out of the psychiatric hospital business, and for-profit companies have swept in. And they interview several former employees who make it very clear that these were run with profit incentives in mind, of holding patients to maximize the insurance money they could get, to catastrophic effects. The details in this are wild. They talk about people having to go to court to get folks out, very clear violations. And again, they speak to not just one, not just two, but multiple former employees who allege that this company was acting in such a way that was not for its patients’ best interest.

Cohrs Zhang: And I do have to do a plug for my colleague Tara Bannow, who also reported on Acadia and how they’re kind of operating mental health institutions under the brand names of Catholic hospitals. So people might even think that they’re going to a well-respected community hospital under the name, but these for-profit institutions have even made their way into not-for-profit spaces, and these services are just being contracted out, because they’re simply unprofitable.

Rovner: And we talked about Tara’s story when it came out.

Cohrs Zhang: We did, yeah.

Rovner: A month or two ago.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, this next story is a great — kind of building on, building just a fuller story around the implications of for-profit.

Rovner: It does sort of, both this and, I think, the ProPublica series highlight in the ’60s and ’70s, the problem was people who were in state-run facilities. And they were warehoused, and they were underfunded, and people just didn’t get the care that they needed. And that was one of the things that led to deinstitutionalization, which of course is one of the things that ended up leading us to the homeless, because when they deinstitutionalized these patients, they were promised outpatient care which never materialized. So now we’ve kind of profitized this, if you will, and we have a different set of problems. It’s every bit as bad. It’s kind of a microcosm of the entire health care system. It’s like, well, we don’t really trust the nonprofit sector to run it right, because they don’t have enough money. And now we don’t trust the for-profit sector to run it right, because they have too much of a profit motive. Is there any middle ground here?

Griffin: I think we could spend weeks, you could have a whole podcast just dedicated to this question, and it’s a harrowing one. And there’s a parallel discussion to be had also about the centers that navigate patients who are seeking treatment for substance use, right? Often those are one and the same, but I think the same dynamics are playing out here. And to the mental health parity regulation that was finalized, that included substance use benefits, too. It wasn’t just mental health. So yeah, I don’t know. I say with a heavy heart that we could talk about this a long time, but I don’t have any answers for where the best care is going to be.

Rovner: Yeah, none of us, I think, does. And that’s why we were all going to have jobs from now until eternity as we at least keep working on this.

All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week, we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include links to all these stories in our show notes, on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, you’ve already done yours. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: So I picked a story from Stat titled “Youth Vaping Continues Its Tumble From a Juul-Fueled High,” written by Lizzy Lawrence. And I was really struck, I’m sure public health officials are really struck, by how far vaping rates have gone. I mean, they’re down to 6% of middle and high school students using vapes in 2024. That’s down from 8% last year and 20% in 2019. I mean, that is a marked change. And I expected to read this article and see, Oh, but don’t worry, they’re all using Zyn, which is another nicotine product. But, actually, that had only gone up to about 1.8%. It was not nearly the same bit. And I think if you’re a public health official, you’ve got to be pretty pleased with yourself, because this would seem to show that the public health action that they very aggressively took at both the federal, national, and in some places locality level to limit flavored vapes and have other actions for kids has resulted in a pretty steep decline, much faster than you saw cigarette use decline. So I was really impressed to see these numbers. It’s quite a change.

Rovner: Yeah. Yay public health. Riley?

Griffin: Yeah, I want to tout a story from my colleague Madison Muller. It’s titled “Lilly Bulks Up Irish Operations in Obesity Drug Production Push.” And she’s actually in Ireland right now. She was reporting out this story. Ultimately, we all know there’s been this immense demand for obesity drugs — Eli Lilly and Co. has two, Mounjaro and Zepbound — and they just can’t seem to build out production quickly enough. My colleague did some data analysis here and actually found that since 2020, believe it or not, Lilly has poured 17.3 billion [dollars] into weight-loss drug manufacturing. I mean, what an insane number. And the latest push is in Ireland, which is notable because here in Washington there’s been a lot of work to scrutinize and even prevent U.S. drugmakers from collaborating with Chinese manufacturers of biologics. So sometimes they talk about “near-shoring” or “friend-shoring” in D.C., which is really a kitschy term to refer to seeing more friendly countries to the United States bolstering up manufacturing, and here you see Lilly doing just that. So it’s a fun story, and kudos to Madison, who went out to Ireland to tell it.

Rovner: I’d love to be sent to Ireland.

Weber: Yeah, I need to get more stories in Ireland. I mean, what? That’s amazing.

Rovner: Just saying. It is a good story. All right. Well, my story this week is from The Wall Street Journal, by Rebecca Ballhaus, and it’s called “A Nurse Practitioner’s $25,000 in Student-Debt Relief Turned Into a $217,500 Bill From the Government.” And it’s a really infuriating story about a really excellent government program called the National Health Service Corps that helps medical professionals pay off their loans if they agree to practice in underserved areas. The problem is that there are penalties if you fail to complete your term of service, which obviously there should be.

But in this case, one of the nurse practitioners’ supervising physicians died, and the other one retired, and there were no other eligible placements within two hours of her Alabama home, where she cared for her three young children as well as her elderly parents. Obviously there should be consequences for breaching a contract, but this is far from the only case where people who are obviously deserving of exceptions are being denied them. The National Student Legal Defense Network has filed suit on the nurse practitioner’s behalf, and I’ll be watching to see how this all turns out.

OK. That is our 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 technical guru, 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. I’m @jrovner. Riley, where are you hanging these days?

Griffin: I’m on X, though infrequently, @rileyraygriffin.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still only on X, @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Still on X, @rachelcohrs.

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.

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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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.

The conventions are over, and the general-election campaign is officially on. While reproductive health is sure to play a key role in the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, it’s less clear what role other health issues will play.

Meanwhile, Medicare recently announced negotiated prices of the first 10 drugs selected under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The announcement is boosting attention to what was already a major pocketbook issue for both Republicans and Democrats.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Democratic National Convention highlighted reproductive rights issues as never before, with a parade of public officials and private citizens recounting some of their most personal, painful memories of needing abortion care. But abortion rights activists remain concerned that Harris has not promised to push beyond codifying the rights established under Roe v. Wade, which they believe allows too many barriers to care.
• As reproductive rights have taken center stage in her campaign, Harris has been less forthcoming about her other health policy plans so far. In her career, she has embraced fights against anticompetitive behavior by insurers and hospitals and in drug pricing.
• Would former President Donald Trump make Robert Kennedy Jr. his next health secretary? Even many Republicans would consider his elevation a bridge too far. Polls show Trump stands to gain from Kennedy’s departure from the presidential race, but likely only slightly more than Harris.
• In other national health news, abortion access will be on the ballot this fall in Arizona and Montana, and the federal government recently announced the first drug prices secured under Medicare’s new drug-negotiation program.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment about a woman who fought back after being charged for two surgeries despite undergoing only one. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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’ “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications,” by Emily Baumgaertner.

Joanne Kenen: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s “Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?” by Natalie Eilbert. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care,” by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods,” by Ariana Eunjung Cha. 

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Let the General Election Commence

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Let the General Election Commence’Episode Number: 361Published: Aug. 23, 2024

[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, Aug. 23, 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 teleconference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about a woman who got two bills for the same surgery and refused to back down. But first, this week’s news. So, now both conventions are over. Labor Day is just over a week away. And I think it’s safe to declare the general election campaign officially on. What did we learn from the just-completed Democratic [National] Convention, other than that Beyoncé didn’t show up?

Luthra: I think the obvious thing we learned is there is a lot of abortion for Democrats to talk about and very little abortion Republicans would like to. I did the fun brain exercise of going back through old Democratic conventions to see how much abortion came up. It might be interesting to note that in 2012, for instance, [the former president of Planned Parenthood] Cecile Richards spoke, never mentioned abortion.

A Planned Parenthood patient came and didn’t talk about abortion, talked about endometriosis care. And I think that really underscores what a shift we have seen in the party from treating abortion as an issue for the base, but not one that got center stage very often. And that shifted a bit in 2016, but is really very different now.

We had abortion every night, and that is just such a marked contrast from the RNC, where Republicans went to great lengths to avoid the topic because Democrats are largely on the winning side of this issue and Republicans are not.

Rovner: I’ve watched every Democratic convention since 1984. I have to say, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of all of these, and not just women, but men and [Sen.] Tammy Duckworth talking about IVF and women who had various difficulties with pregnancy. Usually, it would be tucked into a section of one night, but every single night we had people getting up and telling their individual stories. I was kind of surprised. Alice, you wanted to add something?

Ollstein: Yeah. We also wrote about how the breadth of the kinds of abortion stories being told has also changed. There’s been frustration on the left for a while that only these medical emergency cases have been lifted up.

Rovner: The good abortions.

Ollstein: Exactly. So there’s a fear that that further stigmatizes people who just had an abortion because they simply didn’t want to be pregnant, which is the majority of cases. These really awful medical emergencies are the minority, even though they are happening, and people do want those stories told. But I think it was notable that the head of Planned Parenthood talked about a case that was simply someone who didn’t want to be pregnant and the lengths she had to go through to get an abortion.

I think we’re still mostly seeing the more politically palatable, sympathetic stories of sexual assault and medical emergencies, but I think you’re starting to see the discourse broaden a little bit more. It’s still not what a lot of activists want, but it’s widening. It’s opening the door a little bit more to those different stories.

Rovner: And certainly having [Kamala] Harris at the top of the ticket rather than Biden, I mean, she’s been the point person of this administration on reproductive health even before Roe v. Wade got overturned.

Ollstein: Right. And I think it’s been interesting to see the policy versus politics side of this, where politically she’s seen as such a stronger ally on abortion rights, and her messaging is much more aggressive than [President Joe] Biden’s, a lot more specific. But when it comes to the policy, she’s exactly where Biden was. She says, “I want to restore Roe v. Wade,” where a lot of activists say that’s not enough. Roe v. Wade left a lot of people out in the cold who couldn’t get an abortion that they wanted later in pregnancy, or they ran into all these restrictions earlier in pregnancy that were allowed under Roe. And so I think we’re going to see that tension going forward of the messaging is more along the lines of what the progressive activists want, but the policy isn’t.

Luthra: And to build on Alice’s point, I mean, a lot of the speakers we had this week are speakers who would’ve been there for a Biden campaign as well. Amanda Zurawski was a very effective Biden surrogate. She is now a Harris surrogate.

And I think what’s really important for us to remember as we look not just to November, but to potentially January and beyond, is that what Harris is campaigning on, what Biden tried to campaign on, although he struggled to say the words, is something that probably isn’t going to happen because they’re talking about signing a law to codify Roe’s protections and they in all likelihood won’t have the votes to do so.

Rovner: Yes. And they either have to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate or they have to have 60 votes, neither of which seems probable. And as I have pointed out many times, the Democrats have never had enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade. There’s never actually been a basically pro-choice Congress. The House has never been pro-choice until Trump was president, when obviously there was nothing they could do.

It’s not that Congress didn’t want to, or the Democrats in Congress didn’t want to or didn’t try, they never had the votes. For years and years and years, I would say, there were a significant number of Republicans who were pro-abortion rights and a significant, even larger number of Democrats who were anti-abortion. It’s only in the last decade that it’s become absolutely partisan, that basically each party has kicked out the ones on the other side. Joanne, you wanted to add something?

Kenen: Remember that the very last snag that almost pulled down the Affordable Care Act at zero hour, or zero minus, after zero hour, was anti-abortion Democrats. And that was massaged out and they cut a deal and they put in language and they got it through. But no, the phenomenon Julie’s talking about was that the dynamics have changed because of the polarization.

I mean, it wasn’t just abortion; there were centrists in both parties, and they’re pretty much gone. The other thing that struck me last night is there was rape victims and victims of traffic and abuse speaking both within the context of abortion. I mean, that was a mesmerizing presentation by a really courageous young woman.

And then there were other episodes about sexual violence against women, a nod to Biden a couple of times, who actually wrote the original Violence Against Women Act in ’94, part of the crime bill, but also in terms of liberal Democrats or progressives who … “prosecutor” isn’t their favorite title. But because they tied these themes together or at least link them or they were there in a basket together of her as a protector of victims of trafficking, rape, and abuse, starting when she was in high school with her friend.

So I thought that that was another thing that we would not have spoken about. You did not have young women talking about being raped by their stepfather and impregnated at age 12.

Rovner: So aside from reproductive rights, which was obviously a headline of this convention, it’s almost impossible to discern what a second Trump administration might mean for health because Trump has been literally all over the place on most health issues. And he may or may not hire back the former staffers who compiled Project 2025.

But we don’t really know what a Harris administration would mean either. There is still no policy section on the official Harris for President website. One thing we do seem to know is that she seems to have backed away from her support for “Medicare for All,” which she kind of ran on in 2019.

Luthra: Sort of.

Rovner: Yeah, kind of, sort of. What else do we know about what she would do on health care other than on reproductive health, where she’s been quite clear?

Ollstein: So the focus on the policies that have been rolled out so far have been cost of living and going after price-gouging. She also has a history, as California attorney general, of using antitrust and those kinds of legal tools to go after monopolistic practices in health care. In California, she did that on the insurance front and the hospital front and the drug pricing front. So there is an expectation that that would be a focus. But again, they have not disclosed to us what the plans are.

Kenen: I mean, one of the immediate things, and I watched a fair amount of the convention and none of us absorbed every word, but I don’t think I heard a single mention of it was the extension of the ACA subsidies, which expire next year. I mean, if they mentioned it, it was in passing by somebody. So you didn’t really hear too much ACA, right? You hear that wonderful line from President [Barack] Obama when he said the Affordable Care Act, and then he said that aside: “Now that it’s popular, they don’t call it Obamacare anymore.”

But you didn’t hear a lot of ACA discussion. You heard a lot of drug price and you heard a lot of some vague Medicare, mostly in the context of drug prices. But there wasn’t a segment of one night devoted to the health policy. So I mean, I think we can assume she’s pretty much going to be Biden-like. I would be surprised if she didn’t fight to preserve the subsidies.

The Medicare drug stuff is in law now and going ahead. I think Julie wants to come back to that, but I don’t think we know what’s different. And I don’t know what, in that to-do list, I don’t think she articulated the priorities, although I would imagine she’ll start talking about the subsidies because the Republicans are probably going to oppose that. But no, it wasn’t a big focus. It was like sprinkles on an ice cream cone instead of serving a sundae.

Rovner: It’s hard to remember that just four years ago in 2020, there was this huge fight about the future of health care. Do we want to go to Medicare for All? What do we want to do about the ACA? Biden was actually the most conservative, I think, of the Democratic candidates when it came to health care.

Kenen: And then he expanded things way more than people expected him to.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. I was going to say, but the other thing that jumped out at me is how many liberals, [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, talking like a moderate basically, I mean, giving this big speech. It feels like the left wing of the Democratic Party, at least on health care, has figured out that it’s better to be pragmatic and get something done, which apparently the right wing of the Republican Party has not figured out.

Luthra: Well, part of what happened, right, is, I mean, the left lost in 2020. Joe Biden won. He became president. And there’s this real interesting effort that we saw this week to try and recapture the energy of 2008, 2012, the Obama era, and that wasn’t a Medicare-for-All-type time. That was much more vibes and pragmatism, which is what we are seeing now.

Kenen: The other thing is that the progressives, more centrist, more moderate, whatever you call the mainstream bring, they kissed and made up. I mean, [Sen.] Bernie Sanders became an incredible backer of Biden. I mean, they fought on the original Bring [Build] Back Better. That became the watered-down Inflation Reduction [Act]. They had some policy differences and some of which were stark.

But basically, Bernie Sanders became this bulwark for it, helped create party unity, helped move it ahead, supported Biden when he was thinking about staying in the race. So I think that Bernie’s support of Biden, who did do an awful lot of things on the progressive agenda; he did expand health care, although not through single-payer, but through expanded ACA. He did do a lot on climate. He did do a lot of things they cared about, and the party is less divided. We don’t know how long that’ll last. We had, not just unusual, but unprecedented last two months. So these things like Medicare for All versus strengthening the ACA, they’ll bubble up again, but they’re not going to divide the party in the next seven weeks, eight weeks, whatever we’re out: 77 days. Do the math, 10 weeks.

Rovner: Seventy-some days. In other political news, third-party candidate and anti-vax crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is going to drop out of the race later today and perhaps endorse Donald Trump. The rumor is he’s hoping to win a position in a second Trump administration, if there is one, possibly even secretary of Health and Human Services. What would that look like? A lot of odd faces from our panelists here.

Ollstein: I’m always skeptical. There’s also talk about Elon Musk getting a Cabinet job. I’m always skeptical of these incredibly wealthy individuals — who, currently, as private citizens, can basically do whatever they want — I have a hard time imagining them wanting to submit to the constrictures and the oversight of being in the Cabinet. I would be surprised. I think that it sounds good to have that power, but to actually have to do that job, I think, would not be appealing to such people. But I could be surprised.

Rovner: We did have Steve Mnuchin as secretary of the Treasury, and he seemed to have a pretty good time doing it.

Ollstein: I guess so, but I think his background was maybe a little more suited to that. I don’t know.

Kenen: Mnuchin, you’ve also had Democrats who appoint Wall Street types. Rubin being one of several, at least.

Rovner: We tend to have billionaires at the Treasury Department.

Kenen: The idea of Bobby Kennedy running HHS, I think even many Republicans who support Trump would find a bridge too far. And remember they want … if you look at the part of the Republican Party that really equate … their priority is anti-abortion, that’s it for them. There’s some on the right who talked about — I’m pretty sure this is in 2025, but at least it’s out there — change it to the Department of Life.

There’s a faction within the Republican Party who sees HHS as the way of driving an anti-abortion agenda. What’s left of abortion, right? It has oversight over the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], et cetera. You can’t say that Trump won’t do something because he is a very unpredictable person. So, who knows what Donald Trump would do? I don’t think it’s all that likely that Bobby Kennedy gets HHS.

But I do think that in order to get the endorsement that Trump wants, he’d have to promise him something in the health realm — whether it’s a special adviser for vaccine safety, who knows what it would be? But something that makes him feel like he got something in exchange for the support.

Rovner: I do wonder what the support would mean politically to have prominent anti-vaxxer. If Trump is out trying to capture swing voters, this doesn’t seem necessarily a way to appeal to suburban moms.

Kenen: Remember the vaccine commission to study vaccine safety? And it was Bobby Kennedy who came out of a meeting with Trump and said it was going to happen, that he was going to be the chair of it. The commission didn’t happen, and Bobby Kennedy didn’t chair it. So we already know that this goes back, what, eight years now. So there’s going to be a tit-for-tat. That’s politics. Whether the tat is HHS secretary, I’m skeptical. But again, I’d never say anything isn’t possible in Washington.

Rovner: If nothing else, this year has shown us that …

Kenen: I think it’s extremely unlikely.

Luthra: To your point about who Bobby Kennedy appeals to, the polls tell us that everyone who supports him, by and large, would vote for Trump if he dropped out. So I mean, that’s obviously why this would happen. It’s because it is a net gain for Trump and his calculus is probably that it would outweigh the losses he might get from having someone with a strong anti-vax bent on his side. I think that’s a pretty obvious, to me at least, gain for him rather than loss, especially given how close the race is.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of national politics and abortion, former President Trump this week said in an interview with CBS that he would not enforce the Comstock Act to basically impose a national abortion ban, reiterating that he wants to leave it to the states to decide what they want to do. Alice, it’s fair to say this did not go over very well with the anti-abortion base, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. It’s interesting. I reached out to lots of different folks in the anti-abortion movement to get their take, and I expected at least some of them to say, “Oh, Trump’s just saying that. He doesn’t really mean it. He’ll still do it anyways.” None of them said that. They all completely took him seriously and said that they were extremely upset about this. I mean, it’s also not happening in a vacuum.

They were already upset about the RNC [Republican National Convention] platform having some anti-abortion language being taken out of it. There is still some anti-abortion language in there. Folks should remember him declining to endorse a national abortion ban. Him refusing to say how he plans to vote in Florida’s referendum on abortion coming up. So this is one more thing that they’re upset about. And they told me that they think it could really cost him some votes and enthusiasm from the base.

He’s having trouble winning over these moderate swing voters. If that’s true, then he needs every vote on the more religious right/conservative wing of things. And they’re saying, look, most people are probably going to vote for him anyways because they don’t want Kamala Harris to be president. But will they volunteer? Will they tell a friend? Will they go knock on doors? Begrudgingly voting for someone versus being enthusiastic difference.

Rovner: I think it’s fair to say that it was the anti-abortion right that basically got him over the finish line in 2016 when he put out that list of potential Supreme Court nominees and signed a now-infamous letter that Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America] list put together. Then the anti-abortion movement put a lot of money into door-knocking and getting out the vote. And obviously, as we all remember, it was just a few thousand votes in a couple of states that made him president.

So I was a little bit surprised that he was that definitive — although as we said 14 times already this morning — he often says one thing and does another, or says one thing and says another thing later, right.

Kenen: In the same day!

Rovner: Or in the same conversation sometimes. I was interested to see Kamala Harris in her speech refer to the Comstock Act without doing it by name. I thought that was artfully done.

Ollstein: Yeah, and several other speakers did talk about it by name, which is interesting because I think earlier this year there was this attitude among Democrats and some abortion rights leaders that there should not be a lot of talk about the Comstock Act because they didn’t want to give the right ideas. But I think now it’s pretty clear that the right doesn’t need to be given ideas. They already had these ideas. And so there’s a lot more open talk about it.

And just this piece of Project 2025, along with all of the focus on Project 2025 in general, just really seemed to resonate with voters in a really unusual way. And no matter how much Trump tries to disavow it or distance himself from it, it doesn’t seem like people are convinced, because these are very close allies of Trump who worked for him, who are likely to work for him in the future, who are the authors of this.

Rovner: And who put together this whole list of people who could work in a second administration. It’s basically the second Trump term all ready to go. It’s hard to imagine where he would then find a list of people to populate his agencies if not turning to the list that was put together by Project 2025.

So Trump says, as we’ve mentioned, that he wants voters in each state to decide how to regulate abortion. And that’s pretty much what he’s getting. Since we last talked, several states have finalized abortion rights ballot questions. But some have come with a couple of twists. Alice, where are we on the state ballot measure checklist?

Ollstein: It’s been a crazy couple of weeks. So we have Arizona and Montana certified for the ballot. Those are two huge states that also have major Senate races. Arizona is a presidential swing state. Montana, arguably not. But these are states that are going to get a blitz of ads and campaign attention. I think there is an expectation that the abortion measures on the ballot will benefit the Democratic candidates.

I would caution people to be skeptical about this. We’ve done analyses of the abortion ballot measures that have been on the ballot in the past couple of years in other states, and they did not always benefit the Democratic candidates who shared the ballot. Of course, this is a presidential year. It could be totally different.

At the same time, the big news this week was that a Arkansas Supreme Court ruling means that their abortion rights ballot measure will almost certainly not be on the ballot in November. And there’s a lot of consternation about that. The dissenting justices accused the majority of making up rules out of whole cloth and treating different ballot measures differently based on the content.

So basically there was a medical marijuana ballot measure and the sponsors of it wrote a brief saying, “Hey, we made the same alleged paperwork error that the abortion rights folks are accused of making, yet ours was certified for the ballot and theirs wasn’t. What gives?” So there are accusations of the conservative officials of Arkansas making these rulings to prevent a vote on abortion rights in that state. So they could try again in 2026. They are weighing their options right now.

Rovner: So abortion issues are not just bubbling among voters and in the elections. We now have a series of lawsuits with patients accusing hospitals that deny them emergency care of violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Some may remember this was also the subject of a Supreme Court case this term. For those who have forgotten, Shefali, what happened with that Supreme Court case? Where are we with EMTALA?

Luthra: Great question, Julie. We are waiting, as ever, and we will be waiting for a long time because the Supreme Court after taking up that case said, “Actually, never mind. We were wrong to take this case up now. It should go back to the lower courts and continue to progress.” And what that means is uncertainty. It does mean that EMTALA’s protections exist for now in Idaho. They do not exist in Texas, where there is a related corresponding case going through the courts as well.

But regardless, EMTALA’s protections are quite meaningful for providers compared to not having them. But they are still pretty vague and pretty limited in terms of how abortion can come up in pregnancy. And that’s why we are still seeing patients filing these complaints saying, “My rights were violated. I did not get this emergency care I needed until it was very late.” But the problem there is that: A, EMTALA is retroactive.

So these complaints only come up when people know to file them; when they have perhaps already suffered medical consequences such as losing a fallopian tube, as two women in Texas both reported experiencing. You know, serious implications for their future fertility. And the other thing that’s important to note is that complaints are one step, but enforcement is another one.

And we haven’t seen a ton of hospitals being penalized by the federal government for not giving people care in these medical emergencies. And so if you’re a hospital, the dilemma is complicated, but in some ways not. Because if you provide care for someone and you find yourself in violation of state law, that’s a felony, potentially. But if you are going against EMTALA, well, maybe it’ll be reported, maybe it won’t be. Maybe you’ll be fined or penalized by the federal government, but maybe you won’t be. And that creates a real challenge for patients in particular because they are once again caught in a situation where they need emergency medical care, and the incentives are against hospitals providing it.

Ollstein: The Biden administration has not been transparent on how many complaints have been filed, how many hospitals they’ve investigated, what measures they’ve taken to make hospitals correct their behavior, whether they’ve come into compliance or not, whether they are getting these penalties, including losing Medicare status, which is one of the most severe penalties possible.

We just don’t know. And so they say they’re making this big focus on EMTALA enforcement, but we are not really seeing the evidence of that. And the only way we even know anything is happening is when the patients themselves are choosing to disclose it, either to advocacy groups or the media.

Rovner: Or the Democratic National Convention, where we saw several of these stories. It is a continuing theme as we go forward. Well, moving on. While we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] here on “What the Health?” last week — and if you did not hear that special episode, I highly recommend it — the Biden administration unveiled negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs chosen under the new authority granted by the Inflation Reduction Act.

It’s hard to tell how much better the prices that they got are because so much of the information remains proprietary. But Joanne, what’s the reaction been, both in the drug industry and larger in the political realm?

Kenen: The drug industry obviously doesn’t like it. This is only 10 drugs this year, but it’ll be more in the future. Look, I’m not so sure how well that message has gotten through yet. The Medicare drugs came under what ended up being called the Inflation Reduction Act. There’s several measures in it. There’s protection for everybody in Medicare, how much you spend on drugs in a year, it’s $2,000. That’s it. Which is a big difference from what some of the out-of-pocket vulnerabilities people had in the past.

When you look at the polls or you look at interviews with undecided voters, you wonder who’s paying attention other than us? The Democrats have wanted this for more than 20 years. Twenty years is a conservative estimate. I mean, it was part of the fight over what became the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003.

They fought for it every year. They lost every year. They finally got it through. So the idea of having Medicare negotiating drug prices is a huge victory for the Democrats. Ten drugs, not a big deal for the industry, but they know something changed. They will fight every opportunity for a lawsuit or a lobbying campaign or blocking a new regulation or the next round of negotiations.

This is going to be probably just like these annual fights we have about physician pay. This’ll be an annual fight about how much can PhRMA punch back. That would assume that a Democrat wins and that these policies don’t get rescinded. It’s a big deal. It’s not a big deal for individual pocketbooks yet, but it’s a big, big deal on the balance of power between PhRMA, which is so powerful, and the federal government, which pays for these drugs.

Rovner: I’m reminded of a sentence I wrote about the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was passed and repealed much at the behest of the drug industry because it had what would’ve been the first Medicare outpatient drug benefit ever. And I wrote, the drug industry fought this tooth and nail because they were concerned that if Medicare started covering drugs, they would want to have some say in how much they cost. That was, I think, 1989.

Kenen: Right.

Rovner: And here we are, however many years later it is.

Kenen: It’s really hard to take away a benefit, as the Republicans learned when they spent all that energy trying and failing to repeal the ACA. Once people have a benefit, it’s hard to say, “Whoops! No more.” However, that doesn’t mean there’s not fights about technical matters or how the regulations are worded or how deep discounts are or what other things they could get in exchange that make up for the losses on this.

I mean, PhRMA is really a huge lobby, hugely influential, and sympathetic in some ways because they do create a pro … — unlike something like tobacco — they do create products that saves our lives, right? And their argument, innovation, and those arguments resonate with people. But I don’t really see this turning back. I don’t think any of us can predict how PhRMA will regain some of the influence that it did lose in this battle.

It’s certainly not permanent defeat of PhRMA. I mean, PhRMA is powerful. PhRMA has allies in both parties. But this was a huge victory for the Democrats. They got something after 20-plus years.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, earlier this spring we talked at some length about the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission proposal to ban noncompete clauses, which in health care often applied to even the lowest-level jobs. It was supposed to take effect Sept. 4, but a federal district court judge in Texas has ruled in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the agency lacks the authority to implement such a sweeping rule.

And the appeals court there in the 5th Circuit is notoriously conservative and unlikely to overturn that lower-court decision even if Vice President Harris wins and becomes president. Are we just going to continue to see every agency effort blocked by some Trump-appointed judge in Texas? That seems to be what’s happening now.

Ollstein: I mean, I think especially with the recent Supreme Court rulings on Chevron, I think we’re just … I mean, that plus the makeup of the judiciary means that executive power is just a lot more curtailed than it used to be. Theoretically, that should apply to both parties to whoever is president, but we have seen courts be very politicized and treat different things differently. So I think that it will be a special challenge for a Democratic or progressive administration to push those policies going forward.

Rovner: And of course in Texas, as we have pointed out on many occasions, there are all these single-judge districts, where if you file in certain places you know which judge you’re going to get. I mean, it’s the ultimate in judge shopping.

Luthra: I was just thinking about [U.S. District Judge] Reed O’Connor and [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk, two names that listeners know well.

Rovner: Yes, that’s right. And this was a third judge, by the way. This was neither Reed O’Connor nor Matthew Kacsmaryk in this case.

Ollstein: But a secret third thing.

Rovner: A secret, a secret third thing.

Kenen: I mean, what Alice just referred to as the Supreme Court reducing the power of the regulators, and they said Congress has to pass the laws. You’re not going to get something this sweeping through Congress. But could you end up getting bits of it written into legislation about hospital personnel or doctors or things like that? I can see nibbles added in certain fields. And also you’re going to see some of it at the state level. I’m pretty sure Maryland has passed some kind of a noncompete.

Rovner: Yeah, there are states that have their own noncompete laws.

Kenen: I think they’ll go at it piecemeal. They may not be able to do anything that huge, all noncompetes, but by profession, or sector by sector, I think they may try to keep nibbling away at it. But the effort that we saw is gone.

Rovner: I mean, just to broaden it out, obviously this was something that the Biden administration has relied on the power of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, something that the Biden administration has highlighted. It’s something that I think Vice President Harris is relying on going forward. So this is probably not a good sign for wanting to make policy in this way.

See, nods all around. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back to “What the Health?”

Tony Leys: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient: who she is, where she’s from, and what kind of medical care she got.

Leys: The patient is Jamie Holmes, who lives in Washington state. In 2019, she went to a surgical center to have her fallopian tubes tied. While she was on her anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous tissue grows in and around the uterus. The surgeon took care of that secondary issue. Holmes said he later told her the whole operation was done within the allotted time for the original surgery, which was about an hour.

Rovner: As one who’s had and knows a lot of people who’ve had endometriosis, it is extremely painful and very difficult to treat. So medically, at least this story seems to have a happy ending, a doctor who was on his toes spotted an impending problem and took care of it on the spot. But then, as we say, the bill came.

Leys: The bill came. The surgery center billed her for two separate operations, $4,810 each.

Rovner: So even though she only went under anesthesia once and simply had two different things done to her at the time.

Leys: Right. And the surgery center is the place that does the support work for the operation. And there was just one operation.

Rovner: So obviously she figured this must be a mistake and complained. What happened?

Leys: She thought once she explained what really happened, they would go, “Oh,” and they would fix it. But that didn’t work. And after adjustments and the insurance payment for the one operation, they said that she still owed the surgery center $2,605, and she said, “Nope.”

Rovner: This was in 2019. So obviously things have happened since then.

Leys: Right. The bill was turned over to a collections agency, which wound up suing Holmes last year for about $3,800, including interest and fees.

Rovner: Now, to be clear, Jamie says she doesn’t object to paying extra for the extra service that she got. What she does object to is being charged as if it was two separate surgical procedures. So what happened next?

Leys: I mean, she joked that it was as if she went to a fast-food restaurant and ordered a value meal, ended up with one extra order of fries and then got charged for two full meals. The collections agency went to court. They asked for a summary judgment, which could have allowed the collection agency to garnish Holmes’ wages.

But she went to a couple of court hearings and explained her side, and the judge ruled last February that he wasn’t going to grant summary judgment to the collection agency. And if it really wanted to pursue the matter, it would have to go to trial. And she has not heard from them since then.

Rovner: Because presumably it would cost them more to go to trial than it would to collect her … however many couple of thousand dollars they say she still owes, right?

Leys: That could certainly be the explanation. We don’t know.

Rovner: So what’s a takeaway here?

Leys: The takeaway is if you get a bill that’s totally bogus, don’t necessarily pay it. Don’t be afraid to fight it. And if someone sues you, don’t be afraid to go to court and tell your side of it.

Rovner: Yeah, because I mean, that’s mostly what happens is that these collection agencies go to court, nobody shows up on the other side, and they get to start garnishing wages, right?

Leys: Exactly. That’s probably what would’ve happened here.

Rovner: She didn’t even have to hire a lawyer. She just showed up and told her side of the story.

Leys: And her take on it is she could have arranged to pay it. It’s not a huge, huge amount of money. But she just wasn’t going to do it. So she stood her ground.

Rovner: And as we pointed out, she was willing to pay for the extra order of fries. She just wasn’t willing to pay for an entire second meal that she didn’t get.

Leys: Right. I mean, she told me, “I didn’t get the extra burger and drink and a toy.”

Rovner: There we go. So basically fight back if you have a problem, and don’t be afraid to fight back.

Leys: Exactly.

Rovner: Tony Leys, thank you so much.

Leys: Thanks, Julie.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include links to all of these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Alice, you chose first this week. Why don’t you go first?

Ollstein: Sure. So I had an interesting piece from The Wall Street Journal by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans called “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care.” So we’ve seen this growing effort from conservative activists to go after so-called DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, to go after affirmative action, to go after a lot of various programs in government and in the private sector that take race into account when allocating resources.

And so now this is coming to health care where you have a lot of major players. This story is about a complaint filed against the Cleveland Clinic. But throughout health care, you have efforts to say, OK, certain racial groups and other demographics have higher risk and are less likely to get treatment for various diseases. This one is about strokes, but it applies in many areas of health care. And so they have created these targeted programs to try to help those populations because they are at higher risk and have been historically marginalized and denied care. And now those efforts are coming under attack. And so it’s unclear. So this is a federal complaint, and so the federal government would have to agree with it and take action. I don’t think that’s super likely from the Biden administration to crack down on a minority health care program. But this could be yet another thing people should keep in mind regarding the stakes of the election because a conservative administration could very well take a different approach.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from The Washington Post. It is by Ariana Eunjung Cha, and the headline is “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods.” I think this is a really smart framing and it gets at something that folks have been worried about for a long time, which is that we have these revolutionary drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy. They show massive improvements for people with diabetes, for people with obesity. And they are so expensive and often not covered by Medicaid. Or if you are uninsured, you cannot get them. And what this story gets at really …

Rovner: If you’re insured, you can’t get them in a lot of cases.

Luthra: It’s true. What I love about this story is it sets us in place. It takes us to Atlanta and helps us see in the different parts of the city, based on income, on access to all sorts of other, to use the jargon, race, social determinants of health, obesity and diabetes are already very unequal diseases. They hit people differently because of access to safe places to exercise, walkable streets, affordable groceries, time to cook, all of that. And then you add on it another layer, which is this drug that can be very helpful is just out of reach for people who are already at higher risk because of systemic inequalities. The story also gets into some of the more social challenges that you might see from a drug like Ozempic. People saying, “Well, I know that rich people get that drug, but how do I know they would be giving the same thing to me? How do I know that the side effects will not be really damaging down the line because these drugs are so new?” And what it speaks to, in a way that I think we’re seeing a lot more journalism do very intelligently, is that there are going to be very real challenges — economic and cultural and social and political — to helping these drugs have the impact that they were touted as potentially able to have.

Rovner: Indeed. Joanne.

Kenen: Well, after that amazing moment with Gus Walz and his dad on the convention floor, I looked up the quick 24-hour coverage of what was going to best explain what a nonverbal learning disorder is and a little bit about who Gus Walz is. And Natalie Eilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a nice piece [“Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?”]

Nothing I read yesterday answered every question I had about this particular processing disorder, but this was a good one and it explained what kind of things kids with these kinds of issues have trouble comprehending, and also what kind of things they’re really good at. This is not a learning disability. You can be really, really smart and still have a learning disability.

There’s actually an acronym, as there always is, which is GTLD: gifted and talented and learning disabled. Much of the country responded really warmly, as we all saw, and some of the country did not. But in terms of just what is this disorder and how does it affect your ability to communicate, which is part of what it is, understanding language cues, Natalie Eilbert did a good job.

Rovner: And no matter what you can be proud of your dad, particularly when he’s just been nominated to run for vice president. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications.” And it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while because packages get subjected to major extremes of temperature in both the summer and the winter.

Indeed, now we have studies that show particularly that heat can degrade the efficacy and safety of some medications. One new study that embedded data-logging thermometers in packages found that those packages spent more than two-thirds of their transit time outside the recommended temperature range.

While the FDA has very strict temperature guidelines for shipping and storing medications between manufacturers and wholesalers and pharmacies, once it leaves the pharmacy it’s apparently up to each state to regulate. Just one more unexpected consequence of climate change.

OK, that is our 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 technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Shefali, where are you these days?

Luthra: I am on the former Twitter platform @shefalil.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: On X @aliceollstein.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: On X @JoanneKenen and on Threads @JoanneKenen1.

Rovner: Before we go, a quick note about our schedule. We are taking next week off. I’m going to the beach. The week after that, we’ll have a very special show from The Texas Tribune TribFest in Austin. We’ll be back with our regular panel and all the news we might’ve missed on Sept. 12. 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.

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).

A federal lawsuit in Texas against Planned Parenthood has a web of ties to conservative activist Leonard Leo, whose decades-long effort to steer the U.S. court system to the right overturned Roe v. Wade, yielding the biggest rollback of reproductive health access in half a century.

Brought by an anonymous whistleblower and later joined by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, the suit alleges the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and three Planned Parenthood affiliates defrauded the Texas and Louisiana Medicaid programs by collecting $17 million for services provided while it fought state efforts to remove it as an approved provider.

The suit claims violations of the False Claims Act, an obscure but powerful law protecting the government from fraud, and seeks $1.8 billion in penalties from Planned Parenthood, according to a motion that lawyers for the whistleblower filed in federal court in 2023.

The lawsuit builds on efforts over years by the religious right and politicians who oppose abortion to deliver blows to Planned Parenthood — which provides sexual and reproductive health care at nearly 600 sites nationwide — now bolstered by Leo’s work reshaping the American judiciary.

Anti-abortion groups and their allies secured a generational victory in 2022 when the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, which ended the constitutional right to abortion and paved the way for bans or severe restrictions in 20 states. The court challenge in Texas demonstrates how the forces behind the end of Roe threaten access to other health and family planning services.

The Planned Parenthood clinics being sued do not provide abortions. They are in Texas and Louisiana, which banned nearly all abortions, respectively, in 2021 and 2022.

Leo, an anti-abortion Catholic, is connected to the key players in the Texas lawsuit — the whistleblower plaintiff, an attorney general, and the judge — according to a KFF Health News review of tax records, court documents from multiple lawsuits, statements to lawmakers, and website archives.

Leo provided legal counsel to the anti-abortion group at its center, and he has financial and other connections to Paxton.

They filed the case in federal court in Amarillo, Texas, where Matthew Kacsmaryk is the only judge. He is a longtime member of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal juggernaut for which Leo has worked for over 25 years in various capacities and currently serves as co-chair.

Kacsmaryk’s rulings have curtailed access to reproductive health since the Senate confirmed him in 2019. He suspended the FDA’s approval of mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortion, propelling the issue to the Supreme Court, which ultimately threw out the case. In another case, Kacsmaryk ruled to limit young people’s access to birth control through a federal family planning program.

Leo did not respond to questions for this article and a spokesperson declined to comment. Through a court spokesperson, Kacsmaryk declined to comment for this article.

The anonymous whistleblower in 2021 accused the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and Planned Parenthood affiliates of defrauding the Medicaid programs of Texas and Louisiana. Paxton, who has repeatedly acted to thwart abortion rights and joined the case in 2022, alleges in the lawsuit that clinics received payments they weren’t entitled to from Texas Medicaid from early 2017 to early 2021 as the state was pushing to end Planned Parenthood’s status as a Medicaid provider. Louisiana and the Department of Justice have not joined the complaint.

The lawsuit’s origins go back a decade. The anonymous whistleblower, between 2013 and 2015, “conducted an undercover investigation to determine whether Planned Parenthood’s fetal tissue procurement practices were continuing, and if they were legal and/or ethical,” according to the whistleblower’s complaint filed in 2021.

The explanation mimics how the Center for Medical Progress, a California-based anti-abortion group founded by activist David Daleiden in 2013, has publicly described its work. “The Human Capital project is a 30-month-long investigative journalism study by The Center for Medical Progress, documenting how Planned Parenthood sells the body parts of aborted babies,” the group states on its website.

In a November 2022 court order, Kacsmaryk said the private party initiating the lawsuit is “the president of CMP,” the title Daleiden held at that time, according to a Center for Medical Progress tax filing.

The Center for Medical Progress and Daleiden did not respond to requests for comment.

By law, federal funds can’t pay for abortions unless the pregnancy threatens the life of a woman or is the result of rape or incest, but the program reimburses for other care such as contraception, screenings for sexually transmitted infections, and cancer screenings. Medicaid, which provides health coverage for people with low incomes, is jointly financed by states and the federal government.

According to its 2022-23 annual report, Planned Parenthood affiliate clinics provided 9.13 million health care services to 2.05 million patients nationally in 2022. Testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections accounted for about half of those services, contraception amounted to a quarter, and abortions constituted 4%.

Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, which operates clinics in Texas and Louisiana, is among the branches Paxton and the whistleblower are suing. From July 2022 to June 2023, its clinics provided patients more than 86,000 tests for sexually transmitted infections, 44,000 visits for birth control, and nearly 7,000 cancer screening and prevention services, CEO Melaney Linton told KFF Health News.

“All of these services and more are at risk in this politically motivated lawsuit,” Linton said. The lawsuit’s allegations “are false. Planned Parenthood did not commit Medicaid fraud.”

Linton has said the lawsuit’s purpose is clear: “trying to shut Planned Parenthood down.”

Texas terminated Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid participation in March 2021. Until then, affiliates “were entitled to receive reimbursement” for services to Medicaid patients because their provider agreements with Texas’ Medicaid program were valid, attorneys for the Planned Parenthood clinics wrote in a February 2023 court filing in support of their motion for summary judgment.

Louisiana has not removed Planned Parenthood from its Medicaid program.

Leo served as legal counsel to the Center for Medical Progress, according to documents produced as part of a separate lawsuit Planned Parenthood filed in federal court in California against the anti-abortion group. Among those, a July 2018 document lists 25 emails Leo and Daleiden traded in June and July 2015, including in the days before the anti-abortion group released its first video.

Paxton’s ties to Leo can be traced back at least a decade to when the former state senator and rising conservative star was about to begin his first term as attorney general.

In 2014, Leo, then executive vice president of the Federalist Society, was a rare non-Texan named to Paxton’s attorney general transition advisory team. Tax filings show that the Concord Fund, one of several Leo-linked groups that spend money to influence elections and aren’t required to disclose their donors, gave $20.3 million from July 2014 through June 2023 to the Republican Attorneys General Association, the political nonprofit that works to elect Republicans as states’ top law enforcement officers. Known as RAGA, the group funneled more than $1.2 million to Paxton’s campaign over three election cycles from 2014 to 2022, Texas campaign finance records show.

Texas government officials knew the state was reimbursing Planned Parenthood clinics for medical services from 2017 to 2021, which renders the state’s argument that clinics violated the False Claims Act “without merit,” said Jacob Elberg, a professor at Seton Hall Law School and an expert in health care fraud.

The law is intended for situations “where essentially someone submits a claim for payment or keeps money that they’re not entitled to where they have information that the government doesn’t have,” Elberg said. “And they essentially know that if the government knew the truth, the government wouldn’t pay them or would be demanding money back.”

But with Planned Parenthood, “everything involved here happened out in the open,” Elberg said. “They were submitting bills and the government knew what was going on and was paying those bills.”

The plaintiffs’ arguments are a “tortured use” of the False Claims Act, said Sarah Saldaña, a former U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas.

“Things like this, which have these obvious political overtones, tend to undermine further the view of the public of the judicial courts system,” Saldaña said.

The office of the attorney general did not respond to requests for comment.

Anti-abortion groups support the Paxton lawsuit even though abortion is essentially outlawed in the Lone Star State. Planned Parenthood “is still a pro-abortion organization,” said John Seago, president of Texas Right to Life. Even though Planned Parenthood provides other care, “all of those services are tainted by their pro-abortion mindset,” he said.

“Planned Parenthood is a danger to Texans. We wish that Planned Parenthood didn’t have a single location within our state,” Seago said. “Whenever the state pays Planned Parenthood to do something, even if it’s a good service, we are building up their brand and giving them more reach into our Texas communities.”

Roughly three dozen Planned Parenthood clinics in Texas continue to provide non-abortion services like birth control and STI screenings. The $1.8 billion the whistleblower is seeking is equivalent to nearly 90% of Planned Parenthood’s annual revenue, according to its most recent annual report.

The Campaign Against Planned Parenthood

The Center for Medical Progress was little known in 2015 when it began releasing videos containing explosive allegations that Planned Parenthood was illegally selling tissue from aborted fetuses, which Planned Parenthood denies.

The group and Daleiden had ties to powerful anti-abortion organizations. They include Live Action, where Daleiden worked before creating the Center for Medical Progress, and Operation Rescue, the Kansas-based group that staged demonstrations against George Tiller’s abortion clinic in that state before a gunman killed the physician in 2009.

“The evidence I am gathering deeply implicates Planned Parenthood affiliates across the country in multiple felonies and can trigger severe legal and financial consequences for PP and their associates, while providing new justifications for state defunding efforts and turning public opinion against Planned Parenthood and abortion,” Daleiden wrote in a May 2013 email produced as part of the litigation Planned Parenthood brought in California. The subject line: “Meeting to Take Down PP.”

Texas tried to remove Planned Parenthood clinics from its Medicaid program following the center’s release of the undercover videos, a move that was part of a larger political firestorm. Roughly a dozen states launched investigations into the reproductive health provider, and Republicans in Congress renewed calls to strip Planned Parenthood of government funding.

Paxton made his feelings clear about abortion as he pursued an investigation of Planned Parenthood in Texas. During a July 29, 2015, legislative hearing, he said “the true abomination in all of this is the institution of abortion.”

“We are rightfully horrified by what we’ve seen on these videos,” Paxton said. “However these videos also serve as a larger reminder that, as a society, we’ve turned a blind eye to the gruesome horrors that occur in abortion clinics across America every single day. They remind us that this industry as a whole has lost the perspective of humanity.”

Planned Parenthood denied selling fetal tissue and other claims in the videos, some of which contained graphic footage. It said the videos were “deceptive” and heavily edited to be misleading. A grand jury in Texas cleared Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing.

Daleiden worked on the center’s “Human Capital Project” for years, receiving advice from Leo and his associates, according to the Center for Medical Progress’ website, and Daleiden’s email correspondence and other documents produced as part of the separate lawsuit in federal court in California.

The July 2018 document filed as part of the litigation in California describes emails between Leo and Daleiden as “providing legal communication with counsel regarding legal planning” and “for counsel to provide legal advice regarding investigative journalism methods and the legality of fetal tissue procurement practices,” among other descriptions. Daleiden sent one email to Leo “regarding legal planning” on July 13, 2015, the day before the Center for Medical Progress released its first video.

A November 2018 letter from the Center for Medical Progress’ lawyers stated “CMP was receiving legal advice” from Leo, as well as other conservative lawyers and organizations. Lawyers representing the center and Daleiden in a December 2018 legal filing said Leo “provided legal advice on how to ensure successful prosecutions of the criminal actors which CMP identified.”

In its defense, Planned Parenthood has said it billed the Texas Medicaid program for reimbursement for “lawfully provided” services from February 2017 to March 2021 as a participating Medicaid provider in the state.

In 2015 and 2017, federal courts in Louisiana and Texas blocked those states from terminating Planned Parenthood’s Medicaid provider agreements. Judge John deGravelles of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana said the state was prohibited “from suspending Medicaid payments to [Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast] for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries.”

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in November 2020 vacated the Texas and Louisiana injunctions, but the court never weighed in on clawing back Medicaid funds that had been paid to clinics. Texas terminated Planned Parenthood in March 2021, following a state court ruling.

Texas and the whistleblower argue that, once the court injunctions were lifted, Planned Parenthood’s termination from each state’s Medicaid program became effective years earlier — 2015 in Louisiana and 2017 in Texas — due to the dates that state officials gave clinics final notice.

Planned Parenthood has argued that it is under no obligation to return payments received while injunctions were in place. Kacsmaryk disagrees. In a recently unsealed summary judgment order in the case, the judge wrote that Planned Parenthood clinics “had an obligation to repay the government payments they received as a matter of law.”

The order was unsealed after attorneys for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press intervened. The committee argued the public has a presumptive and constitutional right to access judicial records, and that Kacsmaryk’s stated concerns — which included the tainting of a potential jury pool or jeopardizing the safety of those involved in the lawsuit — didn’t justify keeping the document secret.

Kacsmaryk’s brief justification for sealing the document, contained in the order itself, “was very thin,” said Katie Townsend, legal director for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

She said his decision to seal such an important document was “highly unusual” and “very troubling.”

“Those orders are almost always completely public,” she said.

What Paxton Gains

Paxton has publicly toyed with the idea of pursuing federal office, and former President Donald Trump has said he’d consider him for U.S. attorney general should Trump return to the White House.

For Republicans in Texas, there are political benefits to going after Planned Parenthood, said Mark Jones, a political scientist at Rice University in Houston. “Doing anything punitive against Planned Parenthood and anything that would reduce the ability of Planned Parenthood to be active and effective in Texas is going to be greeted with near-universal consensus within the Republican primary electorate,” Jones said. “There’s no downside to it.”

The Republican Attorneys General Association, which can accept unlimited political donations that it distributes to candidates, is a Paxton supporter. Campaign finance records show it gave more than $730,000 to Paxton’s attorney general campaigns in 2014 and 2018.

Tax filings show that the Marble Freedom Trust, a political nonprofit where Leo serves as trustee and chair, gave the Concord Fund $100.9 million from May 2020 through April 2023. During the 2022 election cycle, the Concord Fund gave $6.5 million to RAGA, which then contributed $500,000 to Paxton’s campaign. It was tied as the highest contribution to the Texas attorney general, matched by a $500,000 contribution from a political action committee backed by conservative Texas billionaires, according to Transparency USA, a nonprofit that tracks spending in state politics.

RAGA has praised Leo’s role, calling him its “greatest champion.”

“Leonard Leo has helped shape the trajectory of RAGA and the conservative legal movement more than anyone else. As RAGA’s greatest champion, Leonard Leo reimagined the role of the state attorney general and promoted men and women dedicated to the persistence of the rule of law and the original meaning of the Constitution,” reads a RAGA website post from 2019 that has since been deleted.

“You want access to Leo because Leo gives you access to money,” said Chris Toth, former executive director of the National Association of Attorneys General.

In many conservative states like Texas, Toth said, “the issue is worrying about getting primaried. And that is where playing nice with Leonard Leo and the Concord Fund come in because if you’re on their side, basically, you’re going to have no problem getting reelected.”

The Concord Fund gave $4 million to RAGA between July 1, 2022, and June 30, 2023, four times what it gave the prior fiscal year.

Abortion rights supporters have warned that they anticipate ongoing reproductive health battles in Texas and beyond, with access to contraception, fertility services, and other types of care under threat.

As an example, some point to the Griswold v. Connecticut decision from 1965, in which the Supreme Court legalized the use of contraception among married couples. The high court ruled that a state law violated a constitutional right to privacy, a rationale that was central to Roe v. Wade eight years later.

In a 2017 speech at the Acton Institute, a conservative think tank, Leo criticized Griswold as a decision amounting to “the creation of rights found nowhere in the text or structure of the Constitution.”

The Planned Parenthood lawsuit in Texas is expected to go to trial, potentially this year. The central question is whether Planned Parenthood knowingly withheld money owed to the government.

All the while the public is expressing greater uncertainty about rights once considered constitutionally guaranteed. In a KFF poll conducted in February, 1 in 5 adults said the right to use contraception is threatened and likely to be overturned.

Fewer than half of adults considered it to be secure.

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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is Vice President Kamala Harris’ choice of running mate. Walz — also a former U.S. congressman, high school teacher, and member of the National Guard — has a folksy, Midwestern affect and a liberal record. He has signed bills expanding abortion rights and medical care for transgender people as governor and represented a swing district in the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. since the overturn of Roe v. Wade continued to rise into early this year, according to a new study. That is frustrating abortion opponents, who are seeking more ways to bring the numbers down, even if it means barring pregnant women from traveling to other states.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Walz has been active on health issues, including capping insulin prices, codifying access to abortion and gender-affirming care, and supporting veterans’ health, as well as challenging hospital consolidation efforts. In fact, the similarities between him and Harris highlight unity among Democrats on key health issues.
• Meanwhile, the GOP vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, said in an interview that reforming the Affordable Care Act would still be on the table if Trump were reelected, though he did not elaborate. The lack of specificity in the GOP’s plans leaves a lot unknown about what a second Trump administration would do with health policy.
• A recent report shows the number of abortions continued to rise amid restrictions. How? Telehealth is a major reason for the trend. And a separate report shows hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been funneled to crisis pregnancy centers since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, reflecting an effort in conservative state legislatures to steer funding to centers that discourage abortion.
• And Congress has departed for its August recess without funding the federal government, again. Those eyeing other must-pass legislation, such as extended telehealth flexibilities and pharmacy benefit manager reform, are banking on the lame-duck session after the election.

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

Julie Rovner: JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons,” by Emily Lupton Lupez; Steffie Woolhandler; David U. Himmelstein; et al.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion,” by Stephanie Armour.

Sandhya Raman: The War Horse’s “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them,” by Hope Hodge Seck.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, But No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.
• Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.
• Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Turned a Questionable Artery-Screening Program Into a Gold Mine,” by Casey Ross, Lizzy Lawrence, Bob Herman, and Tara Bannow.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “The One-Hour Nurse Visits That Let Insurers Collect $15 Billion From Medicare,” by Anna Wilde Mathews, Christopher Weaver, Tom McGinty, and Mark Maremont.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Walz Record

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘The Walz Record’Episode Number: 359Published: Aug. 8, 2024

[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, Aug. 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news for a hot summer week so we will get right to it. So for the second time in three weeks, we have a new vice-presidential nominee to talk about. Newly minted Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen former congressman and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate. What do we know about Walz’s record on health care?

Raman: We know a lot. I think it’s easier to draw from his record compared to JD Vance, who was only elected for the first time in 2022. Tim Walz has had six terms in the House. He’s on his second term as governor. And from that you can see what his priorities are, how he’s drawn from his personal experience and the things that he’s been doing that are very in line with what either Biden and Harris or just Harris have done. When we had Biden, we hear a lot of talk about capping insulin costs, and that’s something that Walz signed a Minnesota bill for a few years ago. And he’s also been very active in reproductive health issues. He signed a couple abortion-related laws last year. That’s been a key focus of the Harris and Biden-Harris campaigns. He’s been active in talking about IVF and how his family has used that, also pretty in line with that.

Rovner: I love that he had a daughter using IVF, whose name is Hope.

Raman: Yeah, yeah.

Rovner: Very Midwestern.

Raman: Yes, and I think he’s also been pretty active on some of the veterans’ issues as a former member of the Army National Guard for several years. And just some of the education and health issues as a former teacher. And he signed legislation related to gender-affirming care as governor. So I think we have a pretty good idea of the types of things that he’d be interested in if they were elected.

Luthra: And I think what’s striking as well is how in line he seems to be on so many policy fronts to what we know the vice president and, frankly, what we know about the other people who were in contention for the vice-presidential nomination. And what I think that tells us is how unified a lot of the party is right now on health care and health policy issues in general. I was pretty struck by how quickly we got reactions from both pro-abortion rights groups and anti-abortion rights groups. As soon as the news came, SBA [Susan B. Anthony] Pro-Life America, one of the biggest anti-abortion groups, is quick to say this is the most pro-abortion ticket in history. They might be right.

Rovner: I was going to say it’s probably true.

Luthra: Yeah. And they could have said that about any Harris, et cetera, ticket, whether that was Walz, whether that was [Pennsylvania Gov. Josh] Shapiro, whether that was someone else from her reported list of finalists. And at the same time, what we saw from abortion rights advocates is they’re equally thrilled about this because they look at Walz as an ally. They look at the work that was done in Minnesota around getting rid of abortion bans; codifying abortion rights in the state constitution; limiting requirements like the 24-hour waiting period: That is gone in the state. And passing a shield law.

All of that underscores that he’s very in line with the vice president. I think what’s worth asking ourselves is how much does that matter when we have someone like Kamala Harris who is very interested in these issues. And in a way, we know far less about JD Vance. But whatever we could find out about him probably matters a lot more because Donald Trump has never shown much interest in health care or health policy. So if we did get a Trump-Vance ticket, it feels like there is a real possibility we’d have a lot more Vance influence in this area as opposed to Walz in a Harris-Walz administration.

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second. Just something that jumped out at me when I was researching this is that there’d been much made about the fact that Harris is the first presidential candidate who’s actually visited an abortion clinic. Well, so has Walz. So we’ve now got a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate who have visited an abortion clinic. And I’m thinking even 15, 20 years ago on a Democratic ticket, how much the world has changed since the fall of Roe [v. Wade], that that never would’ve been something that anybody would’ve wanted to advertise. I think it speaks volumes as to really how big reproductive health is going to be going forward in this campaign.

Raman: They went together when they visited a clinic together in St. Paul [Minnesota] earlier. So I think that speaks to it, too, that it is a very important issue for both of them and that it is definitely going to be something the other side is going to really seize on and a point of distinction.

Rovner: Meanwhile, as Shefali alluded to, the Republicans continue to bob and weave on health care issues. Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance told the news site Notice earlier this week that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is indeed on the agenda for a second Trump administration, although he didn’t say exactly how. “I think we’re definitely going to have to fix the health care problem in this country,” was his exact quote. Any hints to what that might entail?

Raman: Honestly, no. I think that everything that we’ve heard so far has really just put multiple things up on the table without giving any specifics. Is the ACA repeal-and-replace still on the table? It depends on do we have a majority, do we have a minority, in Congress? And what would that even entail given that we had the whole thing in 2017 where it didn’t work out for them? And Trump has hinted back and forth and not been very clear, so we’re still not sure without more clarity from them.

Rovner: The rest of what JD Vance said was “Obamacare is still too expensive and a lot of people can’t afford it, and if they can’t afford it, they don’t get high-quality care, and we’re going to give them high-quality care.” And my thought was, that would be great. How on earth do you plan to make Obamacare less expensive and care higher quality? That seems like a rather tall order, but a great goal.

Luthra: And realistically, right? We don’t have, as Sandhya pointed out, a real record for JD Vance to look at. We do have a record for Donald Trump, but we don’t have statements of principle or value that we can really attribute to him. We don’t know what he really would do because we don’t know what he believes in. And that, I think, is why we put so much attention in the press. And why we’ve seen Democrats put so much attention on what Republican think tanks are talking about. And what the people who would staff those administrations would say. That is why something like Project 2025 merits so much scrutiny because those are the people who will be in power in institutions of government and potentially interpreting these kinds of vague sentences into actual policy that touches our lives.

Rovner: We don’t know very much of what Donald Trump really thinks about health care because he wants it that way. He wants to keep all of his options open. But one of the things that we do know is that he’s repeatedly promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare, the so-called third rails of American politics. He has specifically declined, however, to include Medicaid on that list of things that he won’t touch. And now we’re reading various proposals — as you mentioned, from Project 2025 to the Paragon Institute, which is run by a former Trump official — that are proposing various ways to scale back Medicaid, particularly federal Medicaid spending, possibly dramatically. Did they not learn from the 2017 repeal-and-replace fight that Medicaid, now that it covers like 90 million people, is kind of pretty popular?

Raman: I think that even after that, we’ve had so many times that we’ve seen in that administration trying to modify the ways that they can with Medicaid. We had the try to push for block grant proposals multiple times. We’ve had the work requirements try to come to fruition in multiple states before being struck down by the courts. And those things are still pretty popular if you look at the documents put out by a lot of these think tanks as something that could be brought up again. Including pulling back on expansion as a way that they see as really reducing federal spending, especially as they’re trying to reduce the national debt and just bring down costs in general.

Rovner: Pulling back on the federal match for expansion, more to the point.

Raman: Because Medicaid expansion is largely funded by the federal government. And so I think those are things that we could see given the history and the people that are working in those places and their connections to the former administration.

Luthra: And I do think it’s worth noting that Trump has said right now that he would not want to touch Social Security or Medicare. I think we can also put a few grains of salt, maybe some more salt, in there, because that is also what he said when he ran for president in 2016. And again, that isn’t really what he was as committed to as president. It was: What does [House Speaker] Paul Ryan want to do? What will I be willing to negotiate on? And with Trump in particular, there is such a distinction between knowing what is politically pragmatic to say in a campaign versus what is on the table as an administration, that I just think that it is incumbent on all of us to not take that with too much credibility, just in this very specific case.

Rovner: And also Social Security and Medicare sometimes need touching, saying that you’re not going to touch, leaving them on autopilot, is not a very responsible public policy. You actually do have to get under the hood occasionally and do things to these programs. But before we get to that, I want to talk a little bit more about abortion. This week, the Society of Family Planning, which is tracking the number of abortions around the U.S. in the wake of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling, reported that the volume of abortions continues to increase despite complete bans in 14 states and near-bans in several others. Shefali, how is this happening? Why is the number of abortions going up? One would think it would be going down.

Luthra: I think these numbers are really striking. They show a continuation of a trend, which is largely this increase in telehealth. More people getting abortion through, in some cases, shield law provision, living in states like Texas and getting pills mailed to them from doctors in New York. Or the fact that it is simply easier to get an abortion if you live in a state with abortion protections because telehealth is much more available right now. The numbers also do show more in-clinic care because people are traveling and overcoming great distances to get abortion.

One thing that I think is really important and that the authors had noted when this came out was these go through March. And on May 1, Florida’s abortion ban took effect, and that is one of the biggest abortion bans that we have seen since the Dobbs decision. And I think it will be really interesting to see whether the trend that we have been observing for quite some time — this steady increase and, in particular, growth of telehealth and continued travel — if that remains possible and viable when you lose a state with as many clinics and as many people as Florida had had.

Rovner: I saw Stephen Miller, the Trump adviser, on TV last night talking about “There will be no national abortion ban under Donald Trump,” which is a whole other discussion. But these numbers, and continuing to go up, must be making the anti-abortion movement crazy.

Luthra: They are losing their minds. They are deeply frustrated on two levels. They’re very concerned that people are finding ways to travel. That is not something they hoped for. And they are very concerned about telehealth in particular. And what they keep saying is they want to find some kind of legal strategy to challenge the shield law provision, but they haven’t quite figured out how. There is real talk in Texas among some of the anti-abortion activists. They’re trying to see is there a way we could pass legislation in a future session to perhaps ban internet providers from showing the websites that allow you to order medication abortion.

Something like that. All of this would be fought through the courts. All of this would be heavily litigated. But it is their No. 1 priority because it is an existential threat to abortion bans. Obviously, they are waiting to see what happens in the presidential election because if you do have an administration that is willing to restrict the ability to mail mifepristone through rehabilitating the Comstock Act — not passing a national abortion ban, but using older laws on the books — then that does some of the job for them and could very significantly put a dent in or even halt this trend.

Rovner: Well, speaking of the abortion pill, we’re seeing pressure campaigns from both sides now aimed at some of the big corporations, including Costco and Walmart, that could start selling the abortion pill in their brick-and-mortar pharmacies. This is something that the Food and Drug Administration, at least, started to make easier earlier in the Biden administration. Now we have institutional investors from blue states pushing companies to carry the drug to make it more available, or else they will divest their very large stock holdings. While we have institutional investors that represent anti-abortion groups, like the American Family Association, who are threatening to divest if the companies do start selling the abortion pills, I would not like to be on the board of any one of these big corporations right now. This seems like a rather uncomfortable place for them to be.

Luthra: Yeah, and none of this is surprising. Alice Ollstein, regular contributor to this podcast, broke a really great story, gosh, a year and a half ago now, when we saw that even CVS and Walgreens, for a time, didn’t want to distribute mifepristone in states where abortion was legal, but there were threats of litigation from attorneys general. And that has changed. The story points out that we have CVS and Walgreens carrying these pills and distributing them. But a lot of people do get medication from Costco. A lot of people do get medication from Walmart. What we’ll see is that this is just another way in which the fight over abortion, which has real meaning for so many people, just continues to play out in the corporate sector. It is something that has been true since Dobbs happened. It is just another sign of how much people care about this and the money behind it and the chaotic nature of banning a procedure in some states and heavily stigmatizing it even in others.

Rovner: The ripple effect of the Dobbs decision. I really do think the Supreme Court had no great appreciation for just how far into other facets of American life this was going to spread, which it definitely is. Well, even as abortions are going up, states with abortion bans are spending increasing amounts of taxpayer money on anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that try to talk pregnant people out of terminating their pregnancies. This is flying under the radar, I feel like. We’ve seen these crisis pregnancy centers have been around for a very long time, but what we haven’t seen is the amount of money that states are now saying, “Well see, we care about pregnant women, even though we’re banning abortion, because we’re giving all this money to these crisis pregnancy centers.”

Luthra: And I was pretty struck by just how much money we have seen states put into these centers since the Dobbs decision. The report that you highlight, Julie, found that it was almost $500 million across all these states has gone in since 2022. That’s almost half a billion dollars going into these centers. And you’re right that they do fly, in some ways, under the radar. And part of that is because it is very hard to know how they spend that money. They have very, very little accountability built in place. They are not regulated the way that health care systems are. That also means if you’re a patient and you go there for seeking health care, you are not protected by HIPAA necessarily. And you often will get “care” that can be inaccurate or misleading because, fundamentally, these institutions exist to try and deter people from getting abortions, from … staying pregnant and having children.

I do think that we will see more and more of this happen, and in some ways Republicans have been very overt about that. This was the focus of the March for Life. We saw a bunch of bills in Congress that Republicans put forth talking very specifically about federal funding for anti-abortion centers. This was the biggest trend we saw in statehouses this year when it came to abortion, was passing bills that would add more funding to anti-abortion centers. It’s one area where they feel like the political consequences are far less than bans because bans are unpopular and people don’t fully understand and know what these are. And so they’re not going to get as upset with you when they hear, “Oh, you put more money into these places that are supposed to help pregnant people.” Even though the reality is we don’t actually have any metrics or data that show that they do, and we do have a lot of journalism that shows that they mislead people.

Rovner: Yeah. I will put the link back to the good investigation that ProPublica did that we talked about a couple of weeks ago about how all the money in Texas is impossible to track, basically. All right, well, the Senate last week followed the House’s lead and recessed until early September, which leaves them just a few legislative days when they get back to either finish up all 12 of the regular spending bills — spoiler, that is not going to happen — or else pass some sort-of continuing resolution to keep the government open after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. Sandhya, they went into this — we’ve said this before — with so much optimism from the Republicans: “We’re going to get these all done before Oct. 1.” Where are we?

Raman: So, at this point, we’ve gotten some work done, but it’s very unlikely we would have things done before the end of September. So the House was on track initially to vote on the House floor on their Labor HHS [Health and Human Services] spending bill, but it got derailed after there were some issues with another bill, the energy-water bill, and after they’d fallen short on their legislative branch spending bill, they recessed early.

Rovner: We should point out that while “Labor-H” is always hard to pass, those other ones tend not to be … those are ones that usually go through.

Raman: Yeah, Labor H generally is done near the end of the whole slate just because it is notoriously one of the trickier ones to get all the agreement on. And it is the biggest nondefense spending bill. So it takes longer, and so less far along on the progress with that, and we’re in August recess, both chambers are out. We won’t see any progress until September. Before the Senate left, they did advance their spending bill on the committee level. That went a lot differently than the House’s markup. So we had three people opposed, but everyone else was pretty much in agreement. A lot less eventful. It wasn’t focused on amendment debate and it was bipartisan, which is a big thing.

So we will see it when they come back, if they gravitate a little bit more towards this, if they’re shifting a little bit in between the two bills. But I think another thing to keep in mind is they have so little time this year to get so much done. They have so much recess this year for the election that it really puts a crunch on their timeline. And then there are certain people advocating that if this person wins, if that person wins, should we do a shorter-term plan spending bill so that we can get our priorities in if this party’s in control, this party has more control. So it’s a difficult situation.

Rovner: Yeah. Here we are basically heading into the home stretch for the spending bills with a gigantic question mark. As usual. Every year they say, “This won’t happen next year.” Every year this happens next year. Well, meanwhile, this is our midyear reminder that Congress also has to pass a bunch of other bills to do things like preventing some pretty big cuts to Medicare physician pay, to keep community health centers and safety-net hospitals up and running, and they have to do all this by the end of the year. I assume we’re still looking at a postelection, lame-duck session to try to wrap everything together.

Raman: I think that’s what we’re looking at. The big priority is going to be to get the government funded. And I think. as with previous years, will we get some of these other things tacked onto there? Will we get extension of telehealth flexibilities or some of the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform or some of the other things that we’ve been discussing at the committee level and hoping to get across the finish line? But it’s really difficult, I think, to get some of those things done until we have this broader package. And I think it’s important that some of the times when we get the broader package, it can help pay for other of the programs that we’ve been considering at the committee level.

Rovner: That was just what I was going to say. The PBM reform, in particular, saves money. Gee, you can prevent the physician pay cut and fund community health centers.

Raman: Yeah. So I think a lot of it will depend on how quickly they’re able to get to an agreement. And if you look at the differences between the House and the Senate bills, it’s billions of dollars. I think just on health spending, it was like almost a $16 billion difference in the top line number between the bills. So getting to some sort of middle ground is going to take some time to get there.

Rovner: Well, before we leave the Hill for the rest of the summer, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where Democrats and Republicans have not always seen eye to eye under Chairman Bernie Sanders, actually came together last month to open an investigation into, and issue a subpoena to, the CEO of Steward Health Care. You may remember we talked about Steward back in May. It’s a Dallas-based, physician-owned hospital group that was sold to a private equity firm, which promptly sold the real estate the hospitals were sitting on, forcing them to then pay rent. Then the private equity group basically cashed out. And now the hospitals are floundering financially, which is threatening patient care in several states. This is the first time the committee has issued a subpoena since 1981. I did not know that before this week. And it’s kind of a big deal. This is the first, I think, I feel like, big investigation, at least among this committee, about the consequences of private equity in health care.

Raman: Yeah, I would say that, and especially because this is bipartisan. And I think there have been so many bipartisan issues over the past couple of years that it has been difficult to get the chairman and the ranking member to see eye to eye on or to prioritize in the same order. And so I really do think it is a big deal to be able to issue that subpoena and have the CEO come in in September.

Rovner: Yeah, this will be interesting. [Sen.] Bernie Sanders made a big point of dragging up some of the drug company CEOs who said pretty much what we expected them to say. But this is a little bit of a different situation and there’s a bunch of senators from both parties who have hospitals in their states that are now being threatened by the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care, so we’ll see how that goes. Speaking of profiteering in health care, we have two really excellent stories this week on pretty much the same subject: Stat News as part of its continuing investigation into the way UnitedHealthcare is squeezing extra money out of the Medicare program, particularly the Medicare Advantage program, has a piece on the use of a questionable test that’s used to diagnose peripheral artery disease, which can dramatically increase the Medicare Advantage payment for a patient who has it, just kind of coincidentally.

Along similar lines, The Wall Street Journal has a story looking at how not just United, but other major Medicare Advantage insurers, including Humana and Aetna, are using the same test, often provided during a “free home visit” by a nurse practitioner, and scoring those very same extra Medicare Advantage payments. Now, I’m old enough to remember when the biggest knock on Medicare Advantage was that, because it had fixed payments, it gave insurers an incentive to skimp on care. So we had lots of patients who couldn’t get care that they needed. Now that the payments are risk-adjusted, there’s an incentive for insurers to give too much care, or at least to suggest that patients need more care than they do; like that maybe they have peripheral artery disease when they don’t, really. Are there any suggestions floating around how to fix this? Shefali, you were alluding to this, that Medicare Advantage, in particular, can be a little bit of a sinkhole for federal funds.

Luthra: I think this is something that we have struggled with for a long time, right. And I think I was always thrilled to see a Bob Herman byline and we get another one on this Stat story. And one thing that he has written about so compellingly is that the sheer power that health care providers have. And I think we just can’t really ignore the role that they play then in being able to get all of this federal money into their system for things that we don’t necessarily need. And that’s not an easy thing to address politically because people like their hospitals. And even when you hear from lawmakers who want to talk about better regulation of hospitals, they really only talk about for-profit hospitals. Even though if you were to go to a for-profit or not-for-profit, you might see some similarities in how they approach what they bill for. And this is something that we haven’t figured out a good solution to because of how our politics work. But I’m really grateful that we get more reporting like this that helps remind us just how skewed the incentives are in our system.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to blame them. These are for-profit companies that have shareholders, and their job is to figure out how to make money for their shareholders. And they do it extremely well. But the money that they’re making is coming from U.S. taxpayers, and there are patients who are caught in the middle. It’s been a thorny issue. This has been what we’ve been fighting about with Medicare for Medicare’s entire 59 years of its existence. So that will continue while we try to figure out everything else, like making this year’s budget work. Finally this week, we reported in July how Michael Bloomberg gave his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, another billion dollars that will, among other things, eliminate medical school tuition for most of its student body. We pointed out at the time that the schools that have gone tuition-free have not actually succeeded either in getting more students to go into primary care.

There’s the concern that if you have a lot of debt, you’re going to want to go into a specialty to pay it off. Nor has it enabled more students of color to become doctors. So now Bloomberg is making his philanthropy a little bit more direct. He’s giving a combined $600 million to the four historically Black colleges and universities that have their own medical schools, including Howard [University] here in D.C., in hopes of more directly addressing equity issues that go along with patients not being able to get culturally sensitive care. HBCUs educate the vast majority of the nation’s Black doctors, so is this finally a step in the right direction with the medical education and health equity?

Raman: I would argue it is. Like you said, if you look at the data, the American Association of Medical Colleges [Association of American Medical Colleges] said half of Black doctors graduate from one of these schools. And that could really increase some of the uptake of preventative care and trust in medicine in the Black community who, I think they’ve done some polling, that are more comfortable a lot of times with other Black doctors. And I think that another point was the money is also starting another medical school to increase that pipeline as well. And that is another big thing where it’s broadening the pipeline, but also just really feeding into these goals, should be big over time.

Rovner: A continuing effort, I think there. All right, well, that is the news for this week. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, you got yours picked first this week. Why don’t you tell us about your extra credit?

Raman: So I chose, “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them.” And it’s by Hope Hodge Seck at The War Horse. And it is just a really excellent piece looking at some of the concerns that amputee vets have been having and what the shortcomings are in the care from the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], not having bills paid for some of the prosthetics or just delays in receiving them. And one interesting issue that was brought up there is that VA care for post-9/11 amputee veterans doesn’t take into account some of the needs for that population. They’re very different from maybe the needs of senior veterans. And it goes into more about how Capitol Hill is hearing some of these concerns. But read the story and learn more.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: This is from KFF Health News. It is by Stephanie Armour. It is on a topic we discussed earlier on this podcast. The headline is “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion.” And what I love about this piece is it does a great job going into detail about the reproductive health ideas and agenda that is outlined in Project 2025. But I also really love that it ties that to the people who are involved in Trump World. Right? And it talks about who are the people who wrote this. Roger Severino, obviously a huge name, very anti-abortion, was involved in Trump’s HHS when he was president last time, and …

Rovner: Did the Office for Civil Rights.

Luthra: Exactly, which has huge implications for abortion policy and reproductive health policy. And I think that Stephanie does a really great job of getting into the political back and forth that has emerged over Project 2025, in which Trump himself has tried to distance himself from the document, from what it outlines and what it says. But that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when we look at the authors because it is largely people who have worked for Trump, have advised him, and are likely to have influential roles coming forward. There’s also some ties between JD Vance and the folks at [The] Heritage [Foundation] and Project 2025 that really solidifies the notion that this is something that could be very influential in dictating what our country would look like under a Trump-Vance presidency. And I appreciate Stephanie’s work in clarifying what it says.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my extra credit this week is a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. It’s from the Cambridge [Health] Alliance at Harvard and is called “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons.” And it looks at something that I didn’t even know existed: copays required in prisons for prison inmates in order to obtain medical care. The study found, not surprisingly, that copays can be equal to more than a week’s wage for some inmates, who often make just pennies an hour for the work that they do behind bars. And that many inmates end up going without needed care because they can’t afford said copays.

It’s pretty eye-opening and I hope it gets some attention. OK, that is our 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 technical guru, 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, I’m @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: @shefalil.

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.

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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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.

The change at the top of the likely Democratic presidential ticket is prompting both abortion rights and anti-abortion organizations to recalibrate their campaigns, even as they fight over finalizing fall ballot proposals in many states.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s campaign is trying to distance itself from “Project 2025,” the controversial plan reportedly designed for the next GOP administration and put together by the conservative Heritage Foundation and former Trump administration officials. Although the head of the project’s policy arm was pushed out this week, the part of the project creating a database of Trump loyalists to staff a potential new administration remains up and running.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris is promising to “restore reproductive freedom” if elected president; her campaign says that means restoring the constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. Despite that goal having slim prospects in Congress, some abortion rights supporters are hoping the federal government would expand abortion access even beyond Roe under her presidency.
• President Joe Biden this week recommended a sweeping overhaul of the Supreme Court, including term limits for justices. Famously an institutionalist, Biden stopped short of embracing the progressive call to add more justices to the high court. Nonetheless, his proposal has been considered politically dangerous, even as the conservative-tilted court has overturned its own precedents and shrugged at its ethics policies — and shifts in the national conversation about the court could have a long-term effect.
• The Trump campaign’s attempts to distance itself from the controversial ideas of Heritage’s Project 2025 are more savvy marketing than anything: Even without adopting the document, the conservative policy personnel behind it could well become the conservative policy personnel of a second Trump administration.
• GOP state officials and anti-abortion groups are launching their next attempts to block potential abortion rights victories at the ballot box. The next few weeks will reveal whether voters in certain influential states — like Arizona and Florida — weigh in on abortion this fall.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment about a preauthorized surgery that generated a six-figure bill.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Online Portals Deliver Scary Health News Before Doctors Can Weigh In,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “A Lab Test That Experts Liken to a Witch Trial Is Helping Send Women to Prison for Murder,” by Duaa Eldeib.  

Lauren Weber: The Tributary’s “Testimony: Florida Wrongly Cut People From Medicaid Due to ‘Computer Error,’ Bad Data,” by Charlie McGee.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KFF Health News’ “Why Many Nonprofit (Wink, Wink) Hospitals Are Rolling in Money,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal; and The Hollywood Reporter’s “New York’s Largest Hospital System Is Setting Its Sights on the Entertainment Business,” by Alex Weprin. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

Politico’s “States Break Out New Tactics To Thwart Abortion Ballot Measures,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Abortion Heats Up Presidential Race 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Abortion Heats Up Presidential Race’Episode Number: 358Published: Aug. 1, 2024

[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.] 

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer. And it’s not a political ad. But it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos, and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday, we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power, and your power to change a status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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, Aug. 1, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might change by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Lauren Weber, of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a woman who had a cochlear implant surgery that was preapproved by her insurer, but still, and say it with me, got an enormous bill anyway. But first, this week’s news.

We’re going to start this week with presidential politics, because I think everyone, or at least me, is still kind of processing the idea that the race is no longer Biden versus Trump, but Harris versus Trump. One thing we have already seen from Vice President [Kamala] Harris is a new focus on reproductive rights. As we mentioned last week, Iowa’s six-week abortion ban took effect this past Monday, making it the 22nd state to impose what the vice president is now calling a “Trump abortion ban,” referring to total bans as well as restrictions that wouldn’t have been allowed under Roe [v. Wade]. Alice, how are abortion rights groups refocusing themselves now that Harris, rather than Biden, is at the top of the ticket?

Ollstein: Well, in one sense, a lot has changed, and in another sense, nothing has changed. I mean, these groups were already holding events with Harris around the country. They stressed that when they endorsed Biden, they also endorsed Harris. They endorsed the ticket, and so it wasn’t a surprise or much of an internal discussion to decide to come out strong and endorse. What’s been sort of interesting for me is the politics and the messaging versus the policy on this front. So these activist groups were really excited about Harris and were saying that they’re confident that she’s going to both campaign and govern more aggressively in favor of abortion rights. And we haven’t really seen concrete signs that that’s the case. We wrote about how she was giving these speeches in her first week as the candidate at the top of the ticket, saying, “I’m going to restore reproductive freedom.” And she kept saying that over and over. And I saw that that became a Rorschach test for a lot of people. And some people said, “Oh, that is code for she’s going to go beyond Roe v. Wade.”

I saw a lot of projection on that front. But when we got the campaign to confirm, they said, “No, she means Roe v. Wade.” So she’s endorsing the exact same policy that Biden was endorsing, which a lot of abortion rights groups say is not good enough. They point out that many people were denied abortions under Roe v. Wade. States could impose all these restrictions, they could have bans on abortions later in pregnancy, they could have restrictions throughout pregnancy, they put clinics out of business, etc. And so the hopes that she would really advocate for going beyond restoring Roe v. Wade have sort of fizzled. Although there’s also a divide between sort of the big mainstream groups and the smaller, scrappier, more sort-of-militant progressive groups.

Rovner: It’s kind of the mirror image of what’s going on on the anti-abortion side.

Ollstein: Absolutely, absolutely. You have hard-liners and then you have more politically pragmatic, “Let’s just get done what we can get done.” And a lot of this conversation is theoretical because the likelihood of a Congress willing to pass either restoring Roe v. Wade, or going further, is very slim. What the administration could do on the executive front is also curtailed by recent Supreme Court opinions on Chevron. So, some of this is theoretical. It’s not totally clear to me what Kamala Harris would do on abortion rights that Biden has not already done. And it seems that a lot of this race is pledging to stop Donald Trump from undoing those things and imposing restrictions.

Rovner: So it looks like another issue that Harris is appearing to be highlighting is medical debt, something she’s been working on as vice president. The federal government this week approved a novel program out of North Carolina that would raise Medicaid rates for hospitals that forgive patient medical debt, as well as automatically enroll eligible low-income patients in financial assistance programs.

Now, there was a study a couple of months back that showed that forgiving medical debt after it’s gone to collections doesn’t actually help people all that much. Their credit rating is still a mess, and they still can’t afford a lot of things. What does seem to help is preventing those debts in the first place. So is this project — which includes some of these things like enrolling people automatically in assistance programs — maybe the beginning of an effort to address this debt further upstream?

Weber: I think, theoretically, it’s the beginning of an effort, but if you read the fine print, none of the hospitals have signed on yet, from what I understand. So, when you’ve got the hospital association saying, “Oh, we’re working on it,” but no one signed on, I don’t know that you have a deal yet. I mean, that remains to be seen. Obviously, this is something that they’re really hoping to get done. But if you don’t have hospital buy-in — which is the major player here — and the hospitals in lobbyists-speak are saying things like, “We think the insurers and other parts of the health care system should be involved,” I’m just hesitant to comment on the longevity of this project before these people actually sign on the dotted line.

Rovner: And it’s important to remember that hospitals are supposed to be doing this anyway. Nonprofit hospitals, at least, are supposed to be doing this anyway. That’s one of the things that they keep their nonprofit status for. And yet we have seen, obviously, rather painfully, over particularly more in this last decade or so, that that’s just not happening. And people are ending up with these big bills, and they’re being sent to collections, and their credit ratings are being ruined, and makes it harder for them to find a place to live, or in some cases get a job. I mean, this spin-out from unpaid medical debt is not great, and affects many other parts of people’s lives.

OK, well meanwhile, President Biden, who is still president for another five and a half months, this week proposed a pretty sweeping overhaul of the Supreme Court, including term limits and enforceable ethics requirements. This obviously isn’t going to happen while he’s still in office, but it lays down a marker going forward for Democrats. I know President Biden was very resistant to calls for major Supreme Court change earlier in his term. I guess some of the scandals that we’ve been hearing about with some of these Supreme Court justices have perhaps made him soften a little bit towards doing something.

Ollstein: I mean, this has kind of bubbled up for a while, and you’ve slowly seen more members of Congress endorsing these kinds of reforms. Biden has, he’s famously an institutionalist. He was resistant to calling for the end of the Senate filibuster. He was resistant to some of these big reforms. He sort of convened committees to study the issue and sort of kick it down the road a bit. But I think in the context of some of this was starting to be announced when he was attempting to save his own presidential candidacy and was shoring up support from progressives on that front. But there is not a Congress, and there is not likely to be a Congress, willing to pass these reforms. And so I think the shift in conversation is still important. And I think some of these reforms that were once considered crazy, fringe ideas are now being taken more seriously by top-level folks. Still, obviously a long way to go. But like you said, all of the scandals around ethics at the Supreme Court have really highlighted and brought this to the fore.

Karlin-Smith: It does seem notable to me that even though he did sort of tease this a little bit as he was still trying to save his campaign, he really didn’t lean into it until he was in this lame-duck period. And that gives you that sense of, it felt politically dangerous a bit to go this far, and gives you a sense of where we are on it. And that he has not brought up what I think some people on the left would like Democrats to think about, which is adding more justices to the Supreme Court, which could be something that I think might have a bigger impact. And there is some justification for that given that the expansion of the circuit court system and so forth over the years. So I think those are two big markers for me that give a sense of, there’s progress in this area, but for people that really want to see major reform, we’re a long way off from that.

Rovner: Yeah. It bears noting that the way that the term-limit proposal is structured, every president would get two appointments, because it would be 18 years and they would be staggered. So you wouldn’t have sort of the odd situation we’re in now, where Democrats have been in the presidency, in the nominating form, for more years than Republicans, and yet there’s now a 6 to 3, basically Republican-appointed majority, on the court. But as Alice says, I don’t think anybody thinks this is going to happen. Somewhat like medical debt, this is going to be a political talking point for this fall.

So, in Republican political news, the head of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 resigned this week, as top staff at the Trump campaign tried to distance their candidate from some of the really-out-there proposals in the 900-page blueprint for the next Republican administration. But while the policy part of Project 2025 may or may not be winding down, we’ve heard differing ideas about the personnel part of the project. The presidential personnel database, which is arguably even more important, remains up and running. Trump has said he wants to remove civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal workers and replace them with people loyal to him and his agenda. And Project 2025 is presumably going to have those people ready, and waiting, and vetted. Sarah, just as an example, what could this mean in an agency like the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]?

Karlin-Smith: The FDA has a pretty small amount of political appointees and so forth, but it could kind of impact tenure of people higher up in senior positions and their ability to stay in them. And even if it doesn’t impact, even if the Trump administration didn’t necessarily go after them directly, I have heard reports from people that suggest it might initiate a series of people leaving, and then trickle-down effect there. And it really makes career positions a lot less secure, in part because it could give a lot of ammunition to basically move people around to jobs they don’t want to be in, or don’t like.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean we saw this during the Trump administration, just with the Trump administration picked up the Bureau of Land Management, moved it to Colorado, and a lot of people quit their jobs. There was, I think a piece of the Ag[riculture] Department that they moved to Kansas City. And civil servants — we’re not talking about these top political appointees — civil servants have wives and spouses, and kids in school, and it’s hard for them to just sort of up and say, “I’m going to move to another part of the country,” without really very much warning.

Weber: If anybody’s wondering, they should probably pick up Michael Lewis’ The Fifth Risk. I would highly recommend it as a very interesting book that gets at what happens if you eliminate career federal employees that you have no idea how important their job is because they operate in the background. So, it’s really helpful background. I just wanted to also add, I think we have to read aloud what the Trump campaign said about Project 2025, which is reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence of President Trump in his campaign: it will not end well with you. Which I found to be just a particularly savvy bit of marketing. Because I mean, the president, former President Trump, has made it very clear that he’s not going to give positions on things that he thinks could cost him votes, which is what I think this statement is from. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not going to take Project 2025’s guidebook by letter and key. I find this messaging moment to be very interesting.

Rovner: The people who wrote Project 2025 are people who are currently loyal to President Trump. Many of them are former Trump appointees, or people who worked for Trump. Basically what this is is a much more sophisticated preparation for if he gets back into office than he had in 2016 when he famously said he didn’t think he was going to win. And it took them months, and in some cases years, to actually get people into the administration.

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s become this interesting double-edged sword. Because like you said, when he was elected in 2016, they were clearly unprepared. And when they attempted to do all of these rule changes at federal agencies, a lot of them got blocked in court. They weren’t really ready for prime time. And so this was an attempt to have all of the groundwork laid, so that they could have this sort of blitz to remake federal law as soon as they entered office and have the loyal personnel ready to execute it. But it’s now backfiring politically, and Trump has always sort of been sensitive to portrayal of any group or person being the ideas generator and not himself. I’m thinking of “No puppet” from … if people remember that.

So any sort of portrayal of him as the mouthpiece or the puppet of some other group has always really sort of triggered him. And so you see him lashing out now and saying, “I have nothing to do with this group.” Even though, like you said, this group has lots and lots and lots of ties to him. And the repeated disavowals show that this is a sensitive point for them. But like Lauren said, there’s no sign this is stopping or severing ties to them in the future.

Rovner: And of course, Trump rather famously wants to preserve his ability to say different things to different audiences at different times. Sometimes he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. In fact, frequently he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. He’s thinking aloud, that’s sort of his thing. So he can pretend to be all things to all people. And having things written down, like Project 2025, sort of hamper his ability to do that. I think we all agree that the fact that this guy stepped down does not mean that this is not going to be what’s very much the plan for the administration, assuming he gets back into office.

Well, speaking of former President Trump, on Wednesday he took the stage at the National Association of Black Journalists conference in Chicago. And let us say, it was not very pretty. On abortion, he repeated his false claim that Democrats support abortion in the ninth month and even after birth. That’s murder, people. And he tried to make it clear that the issue is now successfully back to the states to decide, which is what he said he wanted. But Alice, you have a story this week about how anti-abortion forces in several different states are working hard to keep voters from getting to express their views on abortion-related ballot questions. So, what’s sort of the rundown here?

Ollstein: We’ve seen the states that are working to put this on the ballot. They’ve already overcome several waves of lawsuits and attempts by state legislatures to pass new rules, making the ballot initiative process more difficult. And so now we’re nearing the deadline, and we’re seeing a new blitz of efforts, both from Republican state officials and outside anti-abortion groups, to keep these off the ballot, or sort of put a thumb on the scale in terms of inserting wording that is favorable to the anti-abortion side. Inserting cost estimates saying, “Oh, if this passes, it’ll cost the state so much in litigation.” That’s happening in Florida.

And so I think the next few weeks, the certification deadlines, a lot of them are in late August so the next few weeks will be really crucial to see if these will or will not get on the ballot. In certain states, they could also have ripple effects on other political races by spurring higher turnout potentially. You see Democrats hoping that’s the case. But we’re seeing things are not yet settled in a lot of really major states — Arizona, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, Florida — so wanting to keep a close eye on these fights. Obviously, all of the ones that have happened so far over the past two years have been victories for the pro-abortion-rights side. And knowing that, and anticipating that will continue, you see anti-abortion forces really mobilizing to make sure these votes don’t happen in the first place.

Weber: And as you pointed out, I mean, this is obviously important because this is a turnout election, especially now with the new Harris-Trump dynamic. And so all of these battles that are down-ticket have so much more emphasis now with what we’re looking at, especially as new poll results show this election could be pretty tight. We’ll still see. Obviously, there’s still a lot of adjustment to be done. But I think these battles that Alice reported on are so critical, because they have so much more reverberation than even just the abortion reverberation, but in the possible turnout that could drive other factors.

Rovner: In some of these very swingy states, too. Well, one final interesting piece of news on the reproductive health front this week. A patient in Kansas is suing the University of Kansas Health System for denying her an emergency abortion in 2022 in violation of the federal EMTALA law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This appears to be the first such lawsuit of its type, and the patient is seeking not just financial compensation — her water broke early and she ended up having to go to another state — but she wants the hospital to admit that it violated both federal and Kansas law so that this doesn’t happen to anybody else. Do we expect to see more of these kinds of actions? And somebody remind us what EMTALA does and doesn’t do, and how the fight over this is still live because Supreme Court decide the case out of Idaho anyway.

Ollstein: Yeah. So we have seen some other patients sue over being turned away from hospitals. But what I think is really interesting is that the Biden administration pledged really aggressive enforcement of EMTALA. But yet you’re not seeing this lawsuit come from the administration, you’re seeing it come from a patient, an outside advocacy group. So I think that’s really notable. Maybe the Biden administration is doing more behind the scenes that we don’t know about. I’ve tried to ask them and they have not said. Like you said, the Supreme Court punted on this issue of the intersection between federal patient protections under EMTALA and state abortion bans and where to draw the line. And which one takes precedence when they’re in conflict, or whether they’re in conflict, is also up for debate.

So we could see more of this, but we’ve also seen over the past two years that a lot of patients don’t want to put themselves out there like this and become a public figure in the face of a lawsuit for very understandable reasons in this really painful moment. And so I think that’s why you see groups wanting the administration to do more on the front end to prevent this from happening, rather than patients having to take this on after it happens to them in a devastating way.

Rovner: I have also talked to people in the administration who have suggested to me that they are in fact doing more on this. Although Alice, as you say, we haven’t really seen it publicly. But I mean, I had somebody approach me to make it known that this is something that they are extremely concerned about. There is some reporting out this week from my former colleague, Joan Biskupic, who covers the Supreme Court for CNN, about speculation about that Idaho case was exactly correct. They took the case and they didn’t decide it. They sent it back to the lower court, because they had split 3-3-3. That the liberals wanted to dismiss the case entirely. The three hard-line conservatives wanted to find that Idaho did not have to provide abortions in emergency cases unless the life, rather than both the life and the health, were threatened. And that Chief Justice [John] Roberts and Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh and [Justice] Amy Coney Barrett were concerned and were stuck in the middle.

And the deal that they struck was to put back the stay that had kept the Iowa law from taking effect, but send it back to the lower court, which, of course, is what they ended up doing. So, as we said at the time, this case continues to go on. There is still not sort of a judicial decision about the situations in which hospitals have to provide emergency abortions for people in these cases that are health-threatening, and/or life-threatening, but not imminently life-threatening, which is what we’ve been seeing. So this is obviously something that’s going to continue.

All right, moving on. Medicare and Medicaid turned 59 this week, making the program almost old enough to qualify for benefits. And as of today, we are exactly a month away from the first 10 negotiated drug prices being officially unveiled. Sarah, what are you hearing about how this is going? I think there was another court case this week that pharma lost. So I mean, this is definitely going forward, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. Novo Nordisk joined the slew of losses for the industry here. There are appeals, but I don’t think anybody is expecting anything to change the dynamic leading up to the announcements around this first set of drugs. The thing to remember is, and a number of the pharma companies that have drugs impacted have been speaking about the dynamics on their financial earnings calls, which just sort of are happening around now for this quarter of the year, and have kind of made some suggestions that have gone headlines like, “Oh, it’s not so bad, it’s fine.” But there’s sort of these caveats that, like, “We still hate the law!” And it’s still problematic. And I think it’s important to kind of understand the dynamics here. So one thing is this first set of drugs that’s going for negotiations are older drugs, just based on the way the law was written. The things around the money, and how long they have to be on the market. When you start a program like this, the first drugs are going to be older. So they’ve been on the market longer than drugs that’ll come up as part of the program in the past. A lot of them have competition, brand competition, are actually in some ways competitors to each other. So there’s a sense that Medicare Part D private plans are already getting pretty significant discounts through that private process.

So I think there’s not a ton of optimism in some ways that the government can do much better. And it’s going to be very hard to figure out whether they did or didn’t. Again, because so much of this is not transparent, right? We don’t actually know. Every Part D plan is going to have different discounts. And even one of the things that’s said is could we look at what other countries are paying compared to what the government gets. Well, even when many of these country systems negotiate discounts, we have a sense they’re getting better discounts than the U.S., but we don’t actually know what they are. So lack of transparency makes it hard.

So, it’s going to be a little bit of, I think, like this thing where the headlines are going to be a bit confusing for people to parse. That doesn’t mean that there may not be savings for taxpayers. There may not be savings for some consumers when they get their copay. But I think we’re going to have to wait and see later on as this law progresses what happens when drugs actually get thrown into the mix earlier on in their life cycle, and when we get what are known as Medicare Part B drugs, which are the drugs that you get at a doctor’s office administered to you, like say, an expensive chemotherapy or something. With those drugs, there really is no negotiation system going on now in the private sector, the government just pays a set formula that people say inflates the cost of drugs.

So, it’s going to be interesting to watch. Democrats are certainly going to highlight this. There’s some thought process they’ll actually try and time the government announcements to the Democratic [National] Convention. But I think it’s going to be really hard for people initially to make clear claims as to whether this is a success or a failure. And certainly industry is going to keep going after the law, particularly on the idea that just even this threat of government negotiation down the line impacts the amount of money and investment that goes into new innovation and treatments for people down the road.

Rovner: Well, I mean, obviously this was sort of a big deal for the administration. So one would think that they would want to have a chance. And of course, I think the first is the Friday before Labor Day. So it’s not the biggest news week in general. So yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to do something a little bit beforehand.

OK, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my Bill of the Month interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague, Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR Bill of the Month. Libby, of course, is the person who launched this entire project in the first place more than six years ago. Libby, welcome back to “What the Health?”

Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me again.

Rovner: So, tell us about this month’s patient. Who she is, where she’s from, and what kind of medical care she got.

Rosenthal: Well, her name is Caitlyn Mai, and she’s this wonderful woman from Oklahoma who, basically she needed a cochlear implant, because she’s had single-sided deafness since an infection when she was 12. And people will go like, “Single-sided deafness, what’s the big deal? She has one hearing ear.” But she couldn’t locate where things were, she couldn’t have conversations because she didn’t know who was talking. So actually, over time it’s become a real impediment in school and in work life. She got approved to have a cochlear implant. She was so excited, because it really would change her life. And she gets the implant: It’s magic. She can suddenly find her phone if it’s lost when it rings. And she’s so excited, except then she gets a bill for $139,000.

Rovner: Yeah. So let’s go back a second. As you have advised us so many, many times, she did all of her homework before the surgery …

Rosenthal: Totally.

Rovner: … checking to make sure she had the paperwork for the prior authorization from her insurance company, and checking to make sure that the hospital and all of the doctors were in-network. And as you say, the bill came! So what happened here?

Rosenthal: Well, the problem is we say, “Oh, the patient’s not responsible, there’s prior authorization,” blah, blah, blah, but there’s no problem in trying. You generate a bill, you send it to a patient, it scares the pants off of them. She said she had to leave work she was so upset. And my first piece of advice, which I would never give people in any other part of their lives is, “Don’t pay the bill.” You get a bill, it says you owe $139,000. Of course, she couldn’t pay it. And I believe it also said, “Hey, if you don’t have $139,000, you can pay it off with $19,000-a-month payments.”

And this is a young woman, getting started in life, newly married. And I guess $19,000 a month wasn’t a viable alternative. So Caitlyn starts doing what many patients do, and we’ve seen this more and more in Bill of the Month: She calls the hospital, she calls the insurer. She’s like the referee. Like, the insurer says they didn’t do the billing codes right. She calls the hospital and says, “Oh, you didn’t give us an itemized bill. Can you generate one?” She calls the insurance, says they’re generating an itemized bill. They go back and forth, and back and forth. Then the itemized bill isn’t right, it contains the wrong codes. And in the meantime, for three months, or four months even, she’s getting these bills that say what you owe now: “prompt payment,” “discount,” and “overdue.” And many patients now are in the terrifying position of playing go-between between their provider and their insurance.

She actually said to the provider, “Send me an itemized bill. Send it to me and I will send it to the right person at the insurance company.” And she said to them, “Look, I’ve done all your work for you. Now just figure it out, you guys.” And, in the meantime, she wasn’t actually sent to collections, but threats were made and it was scary. And she spent endless amounts of time. She works for a nonprofit. She’s lucky, she has a job where she can play this kind of go-between role. But really it should be the provider and the insurer that work it out when you have preauth[orization]. There was no reason why any bills should be sent. And that’s one of my mantras. While you’re working this stuff out, don’t send patient bills, because they’re not responsible for this stuff.

Rovner: Well, that’s the whole point of Congress passing the No Surprises Act, that was supposed to take the patient out of the middle. Why is the patient still in the middle?

Rosenthal: Well, because the No Surprises Act did a lot of great things. It held the patient harmless. And this is actually not a surprise bill, it’s a slightly different issue. But even with the No Surprises Act and with surprise bills, it never said you can’t try. And that’s the problem. Americans are good bill-paying citizens. You send people a bill, and they think, “Wow, I guess I owe it.” So what should be added to the No Surprises Act — and I’m not supposed to use the word should — is you can’t send a bill until the insurer and the provider work it out. I know my mailbox is filled with medical bills that I know I don’t owe, right? But the mantra of the provider is, “Well, there’s no harm in trying. Let’s see if someone pays.”

Rovner: Eventually, she did get this worked out.

Rosenthal: She did get this worked out after hours of her time playing go-between, and many hours spent terrified that she would end up somehow having to foot this bill. Once again, the treatment is miraculous. The bills are not miraculous. I mean, they’re miraculous, but in a really different way. They’re horrifying.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, we’ve given all the advice, “Don’t pay the first bill. Do your homework in advance.” Is there anything else that you can do to avoid getting six-figure bills for preauthorized surgery?

Rosenthal: Well, there is that “don’t pay your bill” advice, and “don’t be scared by the prompt payment discount,” which she had, too. But I think, unfortunately, you have to be the go-between often. And that’s a terrible position for Americans to be in, because it’s really an equity issue. You and I have jobs and knowledge where we can navigate between these two warring parties, essentially, being the peacemaker. And Caitlyn was lucky she had that kind of job. But many Americans don’t have 20 hours to spend on the phone to avoid a huge bill, and they end up in collections if it’s huge. Or if it’s a small bill — and I’ve done this, and I feel like I’m so angry when I do — if it’s a small bill, you’re like, “All right, fine. I’ll just pay it to get this over with.” Even though I know I don’t owe it.

So I do think there should be a policy that you can’t try to send bills to patients that they don’t owe. They know the patients don’t owe these bills. But like I said, there’s no harm in trying, and there’s no HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] police force out there saying, “You shouldn’t do this.” So, it should have been part of the act, but I think the health care system is endlessly agile in figuring out ways to get around laws that Congress has passed to rein in some of their more outrageous practices.

Rovner: As I like to say, full employment for health care reporters. Libby Rosenthal, thank you so much.

Rosenthal: Take care, Julie. Thanks.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at a piece from Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Why Many Nonprofit (Wink, Wink) Hospitals Are Rolling in Money.” And we sort of alluded to this in the conversation around medical debt. But nonprofit hospitals are supposed to, as part of their nonprofit status, be providing certain sorts of commitments to how they serve patients and our greater society. And over the years, they have morphed from looking not much like nonprofits in many ways. And her lead sort of talks about the various for-profit businesses that they have acquired and lumped under their umbrella, and how that affects what they’re doing. And some of them do not even necessarily seem completely connected to health care.

And just, again, it raises this issue of if you’re going to have this nonprofit status you should be fulfilling that other end of the commitment for not paying taxes. And if you don’t, perhaps we need to rethink that, if we are not getting the charity care and the other commitments to society, is health that we should get. And I wanted to flag, it was a Hollywood Reporter article [“New York’s Largest Hospital System Is Setting Its Sights on the Entertainment Business,”] that I had seen last week about Northwell [Health] Hospital getting into the movie and filmmaking business. And that just gives you a crazy example of what some of these nonprofit systems are doing. And I think it’s why it’s become so egregious and people have been making marks about it.

Rovner: Congress has been talking about the “nonprofit” health entities, particularly hospitals, since the 1990s. It goes along with drug prices, this sort of evergreen issue on Capitol Hill. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: Yeah. I have something from The Tributary called “Testimony: Florida Wrongly Cut People From Medicaid Due to ‘Computer Error,’ Bad Data.” It’s a story we’ve heard over and over again, but I will just note that highlighted in this story is the company Deloitte, who my former colleagues, who I love dearly at KFF News, Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss, had a great investigation on just, I think, a month ago? So, I think that you see these stories about people being removed from Medicaid rolls. And to be clear, this was in Florida, and I believe it was a bunch of moms who were removed the year after they gave birth. So, these are serious consequences for “computer errors.” And I mean, we have no idea the catastrophic impact these could have had. But I think it’s important to keep an eye on this, and I know Racha and Sam certainly have. And pretty wild stuff to see continued reporting on that.

Rovner: We’ve seen a continuing software programs that went in and thought that they would sort of efficiently look at household income, and to determine whether people were still eligible. And forgot that when they were programming it, that eligibility varies by income, depending on whether you’re a kid, or a pregnant woman, or a mom who’s just given birth. That those eligibility amounts are not the same, and that you can’t just go in and say, “You’re over a certain cutoff, you’re off.” So we’re continuing to see this in the continuing unwinding. Alice.

Ollstein: So, I have a really interesting piece from ProPublica about something I had never heard about. It’s called “A Lab Test That Experts Liken to a Witch Trial Is Helping Send Women to Prison for Murder.” So this is about a forensic practice that some states and counties use for determining whether a baby was stillborn, or that the mother ended the baby’s life after it was born alive. Sorry if this is graphic, folks, but it involves removing the lungs and seeing if they float or not. The reasoning being that that will help you determine if the baby was born alive and took a breath before it died, or if it was stillborn. But we’ve been learning about a lot of forensic “tests.” This is pseudoscience. It is really inaccurate. There are many ways that this could inaccurately convict someone of murder when, in fact, they suffered a stillbirth. So I think people think it’s scientific, it’s unbiased, but science is more complicated than that. So this was a really fascinating story.

Rovner: Yeah, this is something that’s been around for a good while. I became aware of it in, I think, the 2010s, when it was used to convict someone who, I believe her conviction was eventually overturned.

Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post by Fenit Nirappil, and it’s called “Online Portals Deliver Scary Health News Before Doctors Can Weigh In.” It’s about a likely unintended impact of the transparency provisions of the 2016 [21st Century] Cures Act, requiring that patients be given access to test results as soon as they’re available, even before their doctors in many cases. Doctors are lobbying for a change in the regulations so they can at least have time to review the results first, so patients don’t open up a portal and find out that they have cancer. But the Biden administration, at least so far, says it’s the patient’s own information and that the patients have a right to it.

The story’s a really very nuanced look at how the solution to just about every problem in health policy inevitably creates problems of its own.

OK, that is our 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 technical guru, 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. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP on X. “HP” is for health policy.

Rovner: Alice.

Weber: @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.

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).