One owns a for-profit insurer, a venture capital company, and for-profit hospitals in Italy and Kazakhstan; it has just acquired its fourth for-profit hospital in Ireland. Another owns one of the largest for-profit hospitals in London, is partnering to build a massive training facility for a professional basketball team, and has launched and financed 80 for-profit start-ups. Another partners with a wellness spa where rooms cost $4,000 a night and co-invests with “leading private equity firms.”

Do these sound like charities?

These diversified businesses are, in fact, some of the country’s largest nonprofit hospital systems. And they have somehow managed to keep myriad for-profit enterprises under their nonprofit umbrella — a status that means they pay little or no taxes, float bonds at preferred rates, and gain numerous other financial advantages.

Through legal maneuvering, regulatory neglect, and a large dollop of lobbying, they have remained tax-exempt charities, classified as 501(c)(3)s.

“Hospitals are some of the biggest businesses in the U.S. — nonprofit in name only,” said Martin Gaynor, an economics and public policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University. “They realized they could own for-profit businesses and keep their not-for-profit status. So the parking lot is for-profit; the laundry service is for-profit; they open up for-profit entities in other countries that are expressly for making money. Great work if you can get it.”

Many universities’ most robust income streams come from their technically nonprofit hospitals. At Stanford University, 62% of operating revenue in fiscal 2023 was from health services; at the University of Chicago, patient services brought in 49% of operating revenue in fiscal 2022.

To be sure, many hospitals’ major source of income is still likely to be pricey patient care. Because they are nonprofit and therefore, by definition, can’t show that thing called “profit,” excess earnings are called “operating surpluses.” Meanwhile, some nonprofit hospitals, particularly in rural areas and inner cities, struggle to stay afloat because they depend heavily on lower payments from Medicaid and Medicare and have no alternative income streams.

But investments are making “a bigger and bigger difference” in the bottom line of many big systems, said Ge Bai, a professor of health care accounting at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health. Investment income helped Cleveland Clinic overcome the deficit incurred during the pandemic.

When many U.S. hospitals were founded over the past two centuries, mostly by religious groups, they were accorded nonprofit status for doling out free care during an era in which fewer people had insurance and bills were modest. The institutions operated on razor-thin margins. But as more Americans gained insurance and medical treatments became more effective — and more expensive — there was money to be made.

Not-for-profit hospitals merged with one another, pursuing economies of scale, like joint purchasing of linens and surgical supplies. Then, in this century, they also began acquiring parts of the health care systems that had long been for-profit, such as doctors’ groups, as well as imaging and surgery centers. That raised some legal eyebrows — how could a nonprofit simply acquire a for-profit? — but regulators and the IRS let it ride.

And in recent years, partnerships with, and ownership of, profit-making ventures have strayed further and further afield from the purported charitable health care mission in their community.

“When I first encountered it, I was dumbfounded — I said, ‘This not charitable,’” said Michael West, an attorney and senior vice president of the New York Council of Nonprofits. “I’ve long questioned why these institutions get away with it. I just don’t see how it’s compliant with the IRS tax code.” West also pointed out that they don’t act like charities: “I mean, everyone knows someone with an outstanding $15,000 bill they can’t pay.”

Hospitals get their tax breaks for providing “charity care and community benefit.” But how much charity care is enough and, more important, what sort of activities count as “community benefit” and how to value them? IRS guidance released this year remains fuzzy on the issue.

Academics who study the subject have consistently found the value of many hospitals’ good work pales in comparison with the value of their tax breaks. Studies have shown that generally nonprofit and for-profit hospitals spend about the same portion of their expenses on the charity care component.

Here are some things listed as “community benefit” on hospital systems’ 990 tax forms: creating jobs; building energy-efficient facilities; hiring minority- or women-owned contractors; upgrading parks with lighting and comfortable seating; creating healing gardens and spas for patients.

All good works, to be sure, but health care?

What’s more, to justify engaging in for-profit business while maintaining their not-for-profit status, hospitals must connect the business revenue to that mission. Otherwise, they pay an unrelated business income tax.

“Their CEOs — many from the corporate world — spout drivel and turn somersaults to make the case,” said Lawton Burns, a management professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School. “They do a lot of profitable stuff — they’re very clever and entrepreneurial.”

The truth is that a number of not-for-profit hospitals have become wealthy diversified business organizations. The most visible manifestation of that is outsize executive compensation at many of the country’s big health systems. Seven of the 10 most highly paid nonprofit CEOs in the United States run hospitals and are paid millions, sometimes tens of millions, of dollars annually. The CEOs of the Gates and Ford foundations make far less, just a bit over $1 million.

When challenged about the generous pay packages — as they often are — hospitals respond that running a hospital is a complicated business, that pharmaceutical and insurance execs make much more. Also, board compensation committees determine the payout, considering salaries at comparable institutions as well as the hospital’s financial performance.

One obvious reason for the regulatory tolerance is that hospital systems are major employers — the largest in many states (including Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Arizona, and Delaware). They are big-time lobbying forces and major donors in Washington and in state capitals.

But some patients have had enough: In a suit brought by a local school board, a judge last year declared that four Pennsylvania hospitals in the Tower Health system had to pay property taxes because its executive pay was “eye popping” and it demonstrated “profit motives through actions such as charging management fees from its hospitals.”

A 2020 Government Accountability Office report chided the IRS for its lack of vigilance in reviewing nonprofit hospitals’ community benefit and recommended ways to “improve IRS oversight.” A follow-up GAO report to Congress in 2023 said, “IRS officials told us that the agency had not revoked a hospital’s tax-exempt status for failing to provide sufficient community benefits in the previous 10 years” and recommended that Congress lay out more specific standards. The IRS declined to comment for this column.

Attorneys general, who regulate charity at the state level, could also get involved. But, in practice, “there is zero accountability,” West said. “Most nonprofits live in fear of the AG. Not hospitals.”

Today’s big hospital systems do miraculous, lifesaving stuff. But they are not channeling Mother Teresa. Maybe it’s time to end the community benefit charade for those that exploit it, and have these big businesses pay at least some tax. Communities could then use those dollars in ways that directly benefit residents’ health.

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 Vice President Kamala Harris appears poised to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, health policy in general and reproductive health issues in particular are likely to have a higher profile. Harris has long been the Biden administration’s point person on abortion rights and reproductive health and was active on other health issues while serving as California’s attorney general.

Meanwhile, Congress is back for a brief session between presidential conventions, but efforts in the GOP-led House to pass the annual spending bills, due by Oct. 1, have run into the usual roadblocks over abortion-related issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Stephanie Armour of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Stephanie Armour
KFF Health News

@StephArmour1

Read Stephanie's stories.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race has turned attention to his likely successor on the Democratic ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. At this late hour in the campaign, she is expected to adopt Biden’s health policies, though many anticipate she’ll take a firmer stance on restoring Roe v. Wade. And while abortion rights supporters are enthusiastic about Harris’ candidacy, opponents are eager to frame her views as extreme.
• As he transitions from incumbent candidate to outgoing president, Biden is working to frame his legacy, including on health policy. The president has expressed pride that his signature domestic achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, took on the pharmaceutical industry, including by forcing the makers of the most expensive drugs into negotiations with Medicare. Yet, as with the Affordable Care Act’s delayed implementation and results, most Americans have yet to see the IRA’s potential effect on drug prices.
• Lawmakers continue to be hung up on federal government spending, leaving appropriations work undone as they prepare to leave for summer recess. Fights over abortion are, once again, gumming up the works.
• In abortion news, Iowa’s six-week limit is scheduled to take effect next week, causing rippling problems of abortion access throughout the region. In Louisiana, which added the two drugs used in medication abortions to its list of controlled substances, doctors are having difficulty using the pills for other indications. And doctors who oppose abortion are pushing higher-risk procedures, like cesarean sections, in lieu of pregnancy termination when the mother’s life is in danger — as states with strict bans, like Texas and Louisiana, are reporting a rise in the use of surgeries, including hysterectomies, to end pregnancies.
• The Government Accountability Office reports that many states incorrectly removed hundreds of thousands of eligible people from the Medicaid rolls during the “unwinding” of the covid-19 public health emergency’s coverage protections. The Biden administration has been reluctant to call out those states publicly in an attempt to keep the process as apolitical as possible.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Wright spent the past two decades in California, working with, among others, now-Vice President Kamala Harris on various health issues.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges,” by Ed Silverman, and Politico’s “Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and David Lim. 

Stephanie Armour: Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients,” by Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• States Newsroom’s “Anti-Abortion Researchers Back Riskier Procedures When Pregnancy Termination Is Needed, Experts Say,” by Sofia Resnick.
• KFF Health News’ “Louisiana Reclassifies Drugs Used in Abortions as Controlled Dangerous Substances,” by Rosemary Westwood, WWNO.
• The New York Times’ “Biden and Georgia Are Waging a Fight Over Medicaid and the Future of Obamacare,” by Noah Weiland.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Harris in the Spotlight

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Harris in the Spotlight’Episode Number: 357Published: July 25, 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, July 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Stephanie Armour, who I am pleased to say has now officially joined us here at KFF Health News. Stephanie, so great to have you back.

Stephanie Armour: Great to be back.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we will have my interview with Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Anthony previously spent two decades working on health issues in California so he’s pretty familiar with the health work of the current vice president and soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and he’ll share some of that knowledge with us. But first, this week’s news.

So it’s safe to say a lot has changed since the last time we met. In fact, it may be fair to say that just about everything has changed. President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection after all, he endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, and she proceeded to all but lock up the nomination in less than 48 hours. Obviously, this will be a huge deal for the fight over abortion and reproductive health care, which we will get to in a moment. But how is this going to impact health care, in general, as a campaign issue?

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s interesting because Kamala Harris has been a public figure for a while and has held a bunch of different offices, and so we can glean some clues as to where she is on various health care issues. But she’s been a bit hard to pin down. And when my colleagues and I were talking to a lot of folks throughout the health care industry over the past week, there were a lot of question marks on their end, so we know a few things. We know that she used the powers of the AG [attorney general] office to go after monopolies and consolidation and anticompetitive practices in California.

She did that in the insurance space, in the provider space, in the drug space, and so people are expecting that she would be maybe more aggressive on that front. We know that she did co-sponsor [Sen. Bernie Sanders’] “Medicare for All” bill, but then she also introduced her own, arguably more moderate, one that preserved private health insurance. And then, of course, abortion rights. She’s been very vocal on that front, but since becoming the presumptive nominee, she hasn’t really laid out what, if anything, she would do differently than Joe Biden. So like I said, a lot of question marks.

Rovner: Stephanie, you led our coverage of Harris’ health record. What did you learn?

Armour: Well, I think a number of the people that I’ve talked with really expect that she’ll be a standard-bearer to what Biden has already done, and I think that’s probably true. I don’t think she’s going to go back stumping for Medicare for All right now, for example. What I did find really interesting is, yes, she’s very much made abortion and reproductive rights a cornerstone of her vice presidency and, I assume, will be of her campaign. But based on where abortion is polling right now, a number of the strategists I spoke to said she really needs to do something pretty major on it in order to get a real uptick in terms of galvanizing voters, just because economy and immigration are so high. They’re saying that she really needs to do something like say that she’ll bring back legislation to restore Roe v. Wade, for example, to really make a difference. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how much that can really motivate voters when there’s so much competing for interest right now.

Cohrs Zhang: Oh, there is one other issue that I wanted to bring up. And I think especially from her time in the Senate, she didn’t sit on health care committees, but she did go out of her way to take ownership over concerns about maternal mortality. She was lead Senate sponsor of the Momnibus Act, which included a whole slew of different policies and programs that could help support mothers, especially Black mothers. And I think she has continued that interest in the White House and really championed health equity, which does, again, just draw a very stark contrast. So we haven’t seen a lot of passion or interest in the traditional health policy sense from her outside of abortion, but that is one issue she really has owned.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it has not been part of her quote-unquote “portfolio” as vice president, anything except, as I mentioned, reproductive rights, which will obviously be the biggest change from Biden to Harris. The president, as we all know, does not even like to say the word “abortion.” She, on the other hand, has been all over the issue since well before Roe got overturned and obviously particularly since then. Alice, how are advocates on both sides of this issue reacting to this switch at the top of the ticket?

Ollstein: Yeah, honestly, it’s been this interesting convergence because the pro-abortion-rights side is really jazzed. They’ve basically all rushed to endorse her and talk about how they’ve been working with her for years and really know her and trust her, and they believe she’ll be more aggressive than Biden was. But you also have the anti-abortion side being excited to have her as the villain, basically. They’ve had a hard time portraying Biden as extreme on this issue and they think they’ll have an easier time portraying Kamala Harris as extreme on abortion rights. One other thing from her record and background is her fight with the conservatives who recorded sting videos at Planned Parenthood that the anti-abortion movement still brings that up a lot. So yeah, it’ll be really interesting to see for which side this really lights a fire more because we’re hearing claims from both that it will fuel them.

Rovner: And, actually, I think it will actually fuel both sides of this. I would think that the abortion-rights groups were very — I mean everybody was pretty quick to endorse her — but the abortion-rights groups were right there right away, as were the anti-abortion groups saying she is extreme on abortion, which in some ways will fuel the abortion-right side. It’s like, “Oh good. The more the antis don’t like her, the stronger that means she is for us.” I mean, I literally could see this fueling both sides of this issue and …

Armour: Whereas you see Republicans backing away increasingly from abortion like the RNC [Republican National Committee] platform. And so it’s turning out to be still very much a hot-button issue and difficult issue for Republicans.

Rovner: So they say that the vice presidency is not very good for much, and I definitely agree with that. I mean, everybody always says, “The vice president hasn’t done anything.” Because the vice president doesn’t really have a job to do anything. Often the only time the vice president is on TV is when he or she sits behind the president at the State of the Union. But I feel like, in Harris’ case, it’s made her a much more confident and natural and comfortable campaigner. I watched her a lot when she was running for president in 2019 and 2020, and she was, to be kind, a little bit awkward; I mean she was just not one of those natural, had-that-rapport with a crowd, and I feel like that has changed a lot having watched her crisscross the country, particularly on reproductive health. Am I the only one that feels that way? I feel like people are going to see a very different vice president than they think they saw, while she was doing her due diligence as vice president.

Ollstein: Definitely, and I’ve found it interesting that it’s only been a few days since all of this went down, but I have noticed that while she has brought up abortion rights in pretty much every speech and appearance she’s given, she has not given specifics. She has not indicated if she is in the Biden camp of let’s restore Roe v. Wade, or with a lot of the rest of the movement that says Roe was never good enough, we need to aim for something much more expansive. So we didn’t know where she is on that. I mean, largely she’s been just saying, “Oh, I will stop Donald Trump from banning abortion nationally.” And using him as the foil and pledging to stop him. And so we haven’t really seen her make an affirmative case of what she would do on this front.

Rovner: Well, I think that would probably be as difficult for her as it is for the Republicans to try and figure out how far they want to go banning. Because yeah, as you mentioned, I mean, there’s a lot of the abortion-rights movement that think that restoring Roe, even if they could, is not enough because obviously under Roe, many, many types of restrictions were allowed and were in place. That is obviously not where the abortion-rights side wants to end up. And on the other side, as we’ve talked about ad nauseum, do anti-abortion forces, are they OK with state-by-state bans? Do they want a national ban? If so, what would it look like? So that will obviously continue.

Now that we have, relatively, mostly settled who’s going to be at the top of the ticket, we are once again, back to the “Who will be the VP pick?” sweepstakes. Now that we’ve finished the Republican side, we’re back to the Democratic side of the short list. We’ve all been hearing Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. They all have significant health records, but mostly on different issues. Who do you think of the people who are being mentioned would make the biggest splash on the health care scene?

Ollstein: I’ve been hearing a lot of people talk about Gov. Beshear’s record on Medicaid expansion and pushing back against work requirements, and also opposing legislation to restrict trans care. And so there’s definitely a lot there. Really, a lot of them have something there, but I’ve been hearing the most about him.

Rovner: And Mark Kelly, of course, is married to Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at a campaign event and is now a leading voice in the gun control movement. So they all seem to have slightly different major health issues. Roy Cooper in North Carolina got North Carolina to expand Medicaid, which was a very, very, very big deal with a very, very, very Republican legislature. I’m not going to ask anybody to guess who it’s going to be because I can’t imagine that any of us have any major insight into this. Whoever it turns out to be, and I imagine we’ll know in the next week or two, we will go in and examine their health care record. One of the advantages that Vice President Harris will have on the campaign trail is she gets to campaign on the Biden administration’s record, which is fairly accomplished on the health care front without the drag of being in her 80s. Somebody remind us of all the health policies the Biden administration has gotten done. Start with the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cohrs Zhang: The name of the legislation is very general, but I think President Biden, in his goodbye speech last night, did mention the drug pricing portion of that bill. He’s described it as beating Big Pharma. And I think that’s definitely something that he talked about in his State of the Union, that he wanted to expand some of those pricing mechanisms to more people, not just people in Medicare, but people in commercial health plans, too. So I think that’s been something that he has really felt passionate about and Vice President Harris now could certainly use on the campaign trail. It’s a really popular issue and, again, not a huge policy departure, but, certainly, there’s more work to be done there on Democrats’ side.

Armour: And also I think the ACA [Affordable Care Act] extensions in terms of how many more people have been eligible for coverage is something that will definitely be part of Biden’s legacy as well. And the record-low uninsurance that we saw is something I bet that will be remembered, too.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean I’ve been personally surprised at some of the things that he’s gotten done in a Congress with virtually minuscule majority. I mean, one vote in the Senate and, when the Democrats were controlling the House, it was, what, four votes in the House. That takes, I think, a certain kind of legislator to get things passed. I know people walk around and say, “Oh, the Biden administration hasn’t done anything.” And you want to pull your hair out because that’s all we’ve spent the last six years talking about, things that have actually gotten done and not gotten done.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. Well, I mean doing things and communicating well about doing things are different issues, and I think that’s going to be Vice President Harris’ challenge over the next few months.

Rovner: Yeah, and so we’ve seen, and I think the Biden administration has prevented a lot of things from happening, which is always very hard to campaign on. It’s like, “Well, if we hadn’t done this, then this might’ve happened.” I mean, I think that’s true about the pandemic. Things could have gone much, much worse and didn’t and that’s tricky to say, “Hey, we prevented things from getting even more terrible than they were.”

Ollstein: And on the drug pricing front, I mean it just always reminds me of the Affordable Care Act where the payoff is years down the road, and so selling it to voters in the moment when they’re not feeling the effects yet is really hard. So it makes sense that people aren’t aware that they got this major legal change that’s been decades in the making over the finish line because the drugs aren’t cheaper yet for a lot of people.

Rovner: That’s true. And the caps on spending haven’t really kicked in yet. It is a lot like the Affordable Care Act, which took four years from the time of passage to the time it was fully implemented.

Well, in other news, and there is some other news, Congress is back after a break for the Republican [National] Convention, although they’re about to leave again. At the top of the House’s list was passing the spending bills that they didn’t manage to pass last year. So how’s that all going, Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: I think they’ve just thrown in the towel this week, given up a bit. I think there’s been an attitude of just apathy on the Hill and especially on health care issues that the sense has been, “We’ll return to this in December when we all have a little bit more information about the dynamics going to the lame-duck session.” And I think that clearly has bled over into any will that remains to pass appropriations bills before August recess. I think they’re ready to get out there, ready to be on the campaign trail and put this on the back burner.

Rovner: Yeah, and in an election year, you basically have the six months leading up to the first convention and then almost nothing until they come back after the election. They were going gangbusters on some of these spending bills. They were getting them out of committee even though they were obviously not in the kind of shape that they were going to become law. We talked at some length about all of the riders and all of the funding cuts that the Republicans have put in some of these bills, but they couldn’t even get them through the floor. I mean, Alice we’re hung up on abortion, again!

Ollstein: Oh, as always. And it’s the exact same policy fights as last time. The fight’s going to happen in the ag[riculture] bill, around FDA [Food and Drug Administration] regulation of abortion pills. There’s going to be fights about the provisions helping veterans and active-duty service members access abortion, knowing that these appropriations bills are the only real legislation that has any chance of going anywhere. People are putting all of their policy priorities in as riders. And last round of this, there were anti-abortion provisions tacked onto basically every single spending bill, and almost all of them got stripped out in the end and did not become law. Obviously, they kept long-standing things like the Hyde Amendment, but they didn’t add the new restrictions Republicans wanted to add. That is likely to happen again. We’ll see. This could drag past the election potentially. So the dynamics, depending on the outcome of the election, could be really different than they are today.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess the House is going out and they won’t be back until September. It used to be there would be an August recess in an election year, and they would come back in September, and they would actually work until the beginning or even the middle of October. And even that seems to have gone away. Now, once they’re gone for the quote-unquote “August recess,” it’s like, bye-bye getting much of anything done.

Well, there’s also some more news on the abortion front: The on-again off-again, on-again, off-again, six-week abortion ban in Iowa appears to be on again, possibly to start as soon as next week. Alice, I think we’ve mentioned this before, but this is going to affect a lot more than just people in Iowa.

Ollstein: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we’re seeing a big erosion of access across the Midwest Great Plains, like that whole area, that whole swath, the Dakotas, et cetera. And there’s already a lot of pressure on Illinois as the destination and clinics there are already overwhelmed with folks coming in from all over. And so this will add to that. As we’ve seen when this has happened in other states, wait times can go up, shortages of providers needed to care for everyone. Telemedicine does relieve some of that, and there are these groups that mail abortion pills into any state regardless of restrictions. But not everyone is comfortable doing that or knows how to do that or wants to do that or can afford to do that. And so this is said to have a big impact, and we’ll have to see what happens.

Rovner: There were two other pieces about abortion that caught my eye this week, and they’re both about things that we’ve talked about before. One is the push by anti-abortion doctors to change medical practice. In Louisiana, the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, both of which are used for many more things than just abortion, are now on the state’s list of controlled substances. And then from States Newsroom, there’s a piece about how anti-abortion OB-GYNs are trying to get medically necessary abortions that happen later in pregnancy, switched instead to C-sections or having the pregnant person go through and induce labor and delivery. I’ve been covering this issue, as I like to say, for nearly 40 years. This is the most intense effort I’ve ever seen from inside the medical profession to actually change how medicine is practiced in terms of what’s considered the standard of care, both for things like — not even so much mifepristone the abortion pill, but misoprostol, which is used for a lot of things other than abortion.

Armour: Was it initially an ulcer medication?

Rovner: Yes, yes, misoprostol.

Armour: That’s what I thought. Yeah.

Rovner: Cytotec. It was for a long time one of the go-to ulcer medicine. And in fact, the only reason it stopped becoming the go-to ulcer medicine because, if you were pregnant and wanted to be, it could help end your pregnancy. It is known to have that as a side effect, but yes, it’s an ulcer medication.

Armour: Yeah, this is the first I had seen anywhere, and I could be wrong, but of a real push to try and change the management of late-term medical miscarriages to how it would actually be carried out, which was just very interesting and to see what they were recommending instead.

Rovner: ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has put out guidelines — forever, that’s what they do — about how to handle pregnancy problems later in pregnancy. Generally using the least invasive procedure is considered the safest and, therefore, best for the patient. And that’s not necessarily having a C-section, which is major surgery, or going through labor and delivery. People forget that it’s really dangerous to be pregnant. I mean, it’s amazing that we have all of these kids and happy parents because if you go back and look in history, a lot of women used to die in childbirth. They still do. It’s obviously not as bad as it used to be, but it is not everything-goes-fine-99%-of-the-time thing that I think a lot of people think it is.

Armour: That’s right. Yeah.

Rovner: All right, well, meanwhile, before we bid Congress goodbye for the rest of the summer, the House Oversight Committee, which is usually as partisan a place as there is in this Congress, held a hearing this week on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and there seems to be pretty bipartisan support that something needs to be done. Rachel, I keep asking this question: It seems that just about everybody on Capitol Hill wants to do something to rein in PBM drug price abuse, and yet no one ever does. So are we getting closer yet?

Cohrs Zhang: We are getting closer, I think, as we approach December. My understanding was that lawmakers were pretty close on a deal on PBMs back in March. But I think it was just a symptom of “Appropriations Bill Has to Move.” They want it to be clean. If they add one committee’s extra stuff, they have to let other committees add extra stuff, too, and it gets too complicated on deadline. But it’s wild to me that we’re still seeing new PBM reform bills at this point. But there’s just a huge, huge pile of bills at this point, everyone wants their name on it. And so I really do believe that we’re going to see something in December. I think the big question is how far some of these reforms will reach: whether they’ll be limited to the Medicare program or whether some of these will start to touch private insurance as well. I think that’s what the larger industry is waiting to see. But I think there’s a lot of appetite. I mean with congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers retiring, she’s led a package on this issue …

Rovner: She’s chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which obviously has the main jurisdiction over this in the House.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. So if we’re thinking about legacy, getting some of these things across the finish line, it does depend how dynamics change in the lame duck. But I think there is a very good chance that we’re going to see some sort of action here.

Rovner: Congressman Jamie Raskin, at that hearing, had maybe my favorite line ever about PBMs, which is, he said, “The more I hear about this, the less I understand it.” It’s like you could put that on a T-shirt.

Ollstein: That’s great. Yeah.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes.

Rovner: The PBM debate in one sentence. All right. Finally, this week we have some Medicaid news, a new report from the GAO [Government Accountability Office] finds pretty much what we already knew: that states have been wrongly kicking eligible people off of their Medicaid coverage as they were, quote, “unwinding from the public health emergency.” According to the report, more than 400,000 people lost coverage because the state looked at the household’s eligibility instead of individual eligibility. Even though Medicaid income thresholds are much higher for many people, like children and pregnant women. So if the household wasn’t eligible, possibly, even probably, the children still were. It’s a pretty scathing report. Is anybody going to do anything about it? I mean, the GAO’s recommendation was that the administration act a little more strongly and the administration says, “We already are.”

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I actually had the chance to talk with a White House official about this dynamic, and just, I think there’s only so far that they’re willing to go, and I think might talk about, in a while. I think there’s been clashes between the Biden administration and conservative states, especially on Medicaid programs, and there’s really only so much influence they can exert. And I think without provoking an all-out war, I’m personally expecting them to get much more aggressive in the last six months of their administration, if they weren’t going to do it before, when they really could have potentially made a difference and really made it a calling card in some of these states. So I’m not expecting much change from the White House on this issue.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember the administration was so sensitive about this that when we were first learning about how states were cutting people off who they shouldn’t have been, the administration said, “We’re working with the states.” And we all said, “Which states?” And they said, “We’re not going to tell you.” I mean, that’s literally how sensitive it was. They would not give us the list of the states who they said were incorrectly knocking people off the roll. So yeah, clearly this has been politically sensitive for the administration, but I’m …

Armour: And the Medicaid directors, too. They really pushed back, especially initially, about not wanting it to be too adversarial. I think the administration really took that to heart. Whether that was the right call or not remains to be seen, but there was a lot of tension around that from the get-go.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, also this week, The New York Times has a deep dive into the one remaining Medicaid work requirement in the country, Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage. In case you don’t remember, this was the program that Georgia said would enroll up to 100,000 people, except, so far it’s only managed to sign up about 4,500. It feels relevant again though, because the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which is now all over the campaign trail, would go even further than previous Republican efforts to rein in Medicaid by possibly imposing lifetime caps on coverage. Cutting Medicaid didn’t go very well in 2017 when the Republicans tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. What makes them think an even bigger cutback would be more popular now?

Armour: Well, the study’s authors say to me that if they’re not cutting Medicaid, which goes back to the original debate back when they were talking about …

Rovner: The Project 2025 authors.

Armour: Yes, authors. Right. And that goes back to the original debate of how do you define it? A little bit of sleight of hand. And the other thing is that would definitely bring back the Medicaid work requirements and some premiums for some, which also turned out not to be super-popular as well. So it does dive right into an issue. But it’s also an issue that conservatives have been, boy, working on for years and years now to try and get this accomplished.

Rovner: Oh yeah, block-granting Medicaid goes back decades.

Armour: Exactly. Yeah.

Rovner: And there’ve been various ways to do it. And then work requirements, obviously Alice, you were the queen of our work requirement coverage in Arkansas because they put in a work requirement and it didn’t go well. Remind us.

Ollstein: Yeah. So this is what a lot of experts and advocates predicted, which is that we know from years of data that pretty much everybody on Medicaid who can work is already working and those who aren’t working are not working because they are a student or they have to care for a relative or they have a disability or there are all these reasons. And so when these work requirements actually went into effect, just a lot of people who should have been eligible fell through the cracks. It was hard to navigate the bureaucracy of it all. And so even people who were working struggled to prove it and to get their benefits. And so people really point to that as a cautionary tale for other states. But this is something conservatives really believe in ideologically, and so I don’t expect it to be going away anytime soon.

Rovner: To swing back to where we started. I imagine we will see more talk about health care on the presidential campaign trail as we go forward.

All right, well that’s as much news for this week as we can fit in. Now we will play my interview with Families USA’s Anthony Wright, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Anthony Wright, the brand-new executive director of Families USA, one of the nation’s leading consumer health advocacy groups. And a big part of why we even have the ACA. Anthony is no stranger to health care battles. He spent more than 20 years heading up the group Health Access California, where he worked on a variety of health issues, large and small, and encountered someone who is suddenly very much in the news: Vice President Kamala Harris. Anthony Wright, welcome to “What the Health?”

Anthony Wright: Thank you so much for having me. I’m a longtime listener, but first-time caller.

Rovner: Awesome. So, for those who are not familiar with Families USA, tell us about the group and tell us what your immediate priorities are.

Wright: So, Families USA has been a longtime voice for health care consumers in Congress, at the administration, working nationally for the goal of quality, affordable, equitable health care for all Americans. I’m pleased to take on that legacy and to try to uplift those goals. I’m also particularly interested in continuing to uplift and amplify the voices of patients in the public in health policy debates. It’s opaque to try to figure out how normal people engage in the federal health policy discussions so that health reforms actually matter to them. I would like families to do more to provide pathways so that they have an effective voice in those policy discussion tables. There’s so many policy debates where it’s the fight between various parts of the industry, when, in fact, the point of the health care system is patients, is the public, and they should be at the center of these discussions.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m embarrassed to admit that we spend an enormous amount of time talking about the players in the health care debate that are not patients. They are basically the people who stand to make money from it. What’s your biggest priority for this year and next?

Wright: Yeah, I want to take some of the lessons that I’ve learned over the 22 years of working in California, where we had the biggest drop of the uninsured rate of all 50 states, mostly working to implement and improve the Affordable Care Act. And I recognize that some of those lessons will have to be adopted and changed for the different context of [Washington,] D.C., or the 49 other states. But there is work that we can do, and we should do, moving forward. There are things on the plate right now. For example, in the next year, the additional affordability assistance that people have in the exchanges is set to expire. And so we can either have a system where everybody has a guarantee that their premiums are capped at 8.5% of their income or less on a sliding scale, or we can let those enhanced tax credits expire and to have premiums go up by hundreds, or for many people, thousands of dollars literally in the next year or so.

So that’s a very important thing that will be on the ballot this fall, along with a number of other issues and we want to highlight that. But frankly, I’m also interested in the work around expanding coverage, including in those 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid yet. In California, we’ve done a lot of work on health equity dealing with racial and ethnic disparities and just meeting the specific needs of specific communities. That was an imperative in California with the diversity and the size and scale of that state. But there’s more we can do both in California, but nationally, with regard to that. And then I think there’s more to work on costs with regard to just how darn expensive health care is and how do we fix the market failures that lead to, not just high, but irrational and inflated health prices.

Rovner: So obviously a big part of what you will or won’t be able to do next year depends on who occupies the White House and who controls Congress. You’re from California and so is Vice President Harris. Tell us about her record on health care.

Wright: Yeah, she actually has a significant record, mostly from her time as attorney general of California. She didn’t have much of a portfolio as district attorney, but when she did become the attorney general — attorney generals have choices about where they focus their time and she made a point to focus more on health care and start an evolution of the attorney general being more involved in health care issues — on issues like reviewing mergers of hospitals and putting conditions to make sure that emergency rooms stayed open, that hospitals continued their commitments to charity care. She worked on broader issues of consolidation, for example, joining the [U.S.] Justice Department in opposing the merger of Anthem and Cigna.

And she took on, whether it’s the insurers or the drug companies or the hospital chains, on issues of pricing and anticompetitive practices, whether it was Bayer and Cipro and other drug companies with regard to pay-for-delay practices, basically schemes to keep the price of drugs inflated. Or on the issue of high hospital prices. She began the investigations that led to a landmark Sutter settlement where that hospital chain paid $575 million in fines, but also agreed to a series of conditions with regard to no longer engaging in anticompetitive contracting practices. And that kind of work is something that we worked on with her, and I think is really relevant to the moment we’re in now where we really do see that consolidation is one of the major drivers of why health care prices are so high. And that kind of experience that she could talk about as she talks about health care costs broadly, medical debt, and some of the issues that are on the campaign trail today.

Rovner: So, obviously, with the exception of reproductive health, health in general has not been a big part of the campaign this year. Do you think it’s going to get bigger now that Harris is at the head of the ticket?

Wright: One of the things that I’m happy with is that, after several weeks where the conversation has much been about the campaign processes, we can maybe focus back on policy and the very real issues that are at stake. Our health care is on the ballot, whether it is reproductive health and abortion care, but also there’s a very easy leap to also talk about the threats, not just to reproductive health, but also to the Affordable Care Act, to Medicaid, to Medicare. There’s very different visions and records of the last two administrations with regard to the Affordable Care Act, whether to repeal it or build upon it, on Medicaid and whether to bolster it or to block-grant it. And even on the question of something like prescription drug negotiation, whether we took some important steps under the Inflation Reduction Act. Do we now expand that authority to cover more drugs for more discounts for more people? Or do we give up that authority to negotiate for the best possible price?

Those are very key issues that are at stake in this election. We are a nonpartisan, non-endorsing organization, but we do want to make sure that health care issues are on people’s minds, and also, frankly, policymakers to make some commitments, including on something like what I was talking about earlier with those enhanced tax credits. Again, at a time when people are screaming about affordability, but we know that they’ve been actually screaming about health care affordability for not just years but decades. And that’s a very specific, concrete thing that literally means hundreds or thousands of dollars in people’s pockets.

Rovner: So then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was a supporter of Medicare for All in 2020 when she ran. Do you expect that that may have changed, as she’s learned how hard it is even to make incremental change? I haven’t seen anybody ask her yet what her feeling is on systemic health reform.

Wright: I mean, she had a modified proposal that I think was trying to both take seriously the question of how do we get to universal coverage while also recognizing the politics and procedural barriers that exist. And so I think there’s a practical streak of how do we get the most help to the most people and help change, frankly, the financial incentives in our system, which are right now just to get bigger, not to get better. And so I think that there’s some very practical questions on the table right now, like these tax credits, this cap on how much a percentage of your income should go for premium. That’s something that’s front of mind because it literally expires next year. So it’s something that maybe gets dealt with in a lame duck, but hopefully early in the next year, since rates need to be decided early. And so those are the immediate things.

But I do think she’s also, in her record — I’m not going to talk about what may be — but in her record, she’s been supportive of the Affordable Care Act. I mean our biggest actual engagement with then-U.S. Sen. Harris was at a time when we all thought that the Affordable Care Act was a goner. It would be repealed and replaced. She was willing to be loud and proud at our rallies, in front of a thousand people, in front of a Los Angeles public hospital, talking about the need to defend the Affordable Care Act and protections for people with preexisting conditions. And she came again in July and just at a time where we needed that forceful defense of the Affordable Care Act. She was there and we very much appreciated that. I think she would continue to do that as well as want to work to build upon that financing and framework to make additional gains forward.

Rovner: This being Washington, everybody’s favorite parlor game this week is handicapping the vice presidential sweepstakes. And who about-to-be-candidate Harris is going to choose to be her running mate. Are any of the big names in contention more or less important in terms of their health care backgrounds?

Wright: I have my credentials to talk about the Californian on the ticket. I probably have less there. I do know that some of those governors and others have their own records of trying to take the framework of the ACA and adapt it to their state. And I think that would be a useful thing to continue to move forward on the trail. I’m not in a position, again, as a non-endorsing organization, we’re focused on the issues.

Rovner: You’re agnostic about the vice presidential candidate.

Wright: You’re right, I think the point is how can we make sure that people recognize what is at stake for the health care that they depend on and, frankly, the financial piece of it. Affordability has been something that has been talked about a lot and there is no greater source of economic anxiety and insecurity than the health care bill. A hospital bill is the biggest bill that anybody will get in their entire life. So how do you deal with it? And whether it’s a conversation about medical debt and how you deal with it, or what kind of tax credits we can provide to provide some security that you don’t pay more than the percentage of your income. Or how do you deal with the root causes of the market failures in our health care system, whether it’s consolidations and mergers or anticompetitive practices. Those are the things that I think we should have a bigger conversation in this campaign cycle about.

Rovner: Hopefully we’ll be able to do this again as it happens. Anthony Wright, thank you so much.

Wright: Thank you.

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. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week?

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. There’s a lot of good health journalism out there, but I have to highlight a new project from my colleagues. Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence are looking into UnitedHealth’s business practices, and there’s been a lot of buzz about UnitedHealthcare on the Hill, and the first part of their investigation is headlined “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients.” It focuses on the trend that UnitedHealth has been acquiring so many physician practices and looks at the incentives of what actually happens when an insurer owns a physician practice.

What pressures are they putting on? What’s the patient experience? What’s the physician experience? Their physicians on the record were telling them about their experiences: having to turn through patients; feeling pressure to make patients look sicker on paper so UnitedHealth could get more money from the federal government to pay for them. And just, I mean, the documentation here is just really superb reporting. It’s part one of a series. And I think reporting like this really helps inform Washington about how these things are actually playing out and what’s next in terms of whether action should be taken to rein these practices in.

Rovner: I feel like the behemoth that is UnitedHealthcare is going to keep a lot of health reporters busy for a very long time to come. Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. So there’s been a lot of news on the PrEP front recently. That’s the drug that prevents transmission of HIV. And so basically two steps forward, one step back. I chose this piece from Stat News [“A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges”], about a new form of PrEP that is an injection that you get just twice a year that has proven wildly effective in clinical trials. And so folks are really excited about that, and I think it could really make a difference because, as with birth control and as with lots of other medication, the effectiveness rate is only if you use it perfectly, which, you know, we’re humans. And humans don’t always adhere perfectly. And so something like just a couple injections a year that you could get from your doctor would go a long way towards compliance and making sure people are safe with their medications.

But my colleague and I also scooped this week that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is ending one of its big PrEP distribution programs [“Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down”]. It’s called Ready, Set, PrEP. It debuted under the Trump administration in 2019. And the reason given by HHS for it ending — which, by the way, they were very quiet about and didn’t even tell a lot of providers that it was ending — they said it was because there are all these other ways people can get PrEP now, that didn’t exist back then, like generic versions. And while that’s true, we also heard from a lot of advocates who said the program was just really flawed from the start and didn’t reach even a fraction of the people it should have reached. And so we’ll continue to dig on that front.

Rovner: Good stories. Stephanie.

Armour: Yes. I picked the story by Dylan Scott on Vox about “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage.” And it looks at Michael Bloomberg, who is donating a billion dollars to Johns Hopkins to try to pay for medical school for students there. The idea being that, “Look, there’s this doctor shortage and what can we do to help?” And what’s really interesting about the story is it goes beyond just the donation to look at the fact that it’s not really that there’s a doctor shortage, it’s that we don’t have the right kind of doctors and it’s the distribution. Where you don’t have nearly what we need when it comes to psychiatrists, for example. And there’s a real dearth of physicians in areas that are rural or in the Midwest. So I think what it raises is what resources do we want to spend and where? What other steps can we do that would really help drive doctors to where they’re most needed? So it’s a good story. It’s worth a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it is a good story. It is a continuing problem that I continue to harp on. But we now have quote-unquote “free medical school,” mostly in really urban, really expensive places.

Armour: Yes.

Rovner: New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore. That’s nice for the doctors who will now graduate without $200,000 in medical debt. But yeah, as Dylan points out, it’s not exactly solving the problem that we have. Well, I went cute this week. My extra credit this week is from NPR. It’s called “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman. Now, we’ve known for a fairly long time that dogs’ sensitive noses can detect physical changes in their humans. That’s how alert dogs for epilepsy and diabetes and other ailments actually work.

But what we didn’t know until now is that if a dog smells a person’s stress, it can change the dog’s emotional reaction. It was a complicated experiment that you can read about if you want, but as somebody who competes with my dogs, and who knows how differently they act when I am nervous, this study explains a lot.

All right, 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. Alice, where are you?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs on X.

Rovner: Stephanie.

Armour: @StephArmour1.

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 head of Health Access California, one of the state’s most influential consumer groups, changed course only after he and his allies extracted a deal to increase subsidies for people in need.

The plan was ultimately blocked by Democrats who wanted the state to adopt a single-payer health care system instead. Yet the moment encapsulates classic Anthony Wright: independent-minded and willing to compromise if it could help Californians live healthier lives without going broke.

This summer, Wright will assume the helm of the health consumer group Families USA, taking his campaign for more affordable and accessible health care to the national level and a deeply divided Congress. In his 23 years in Sacramento, Wright has successfully lobbied to outlaw surprise medical billing, require companies to report drug price increases, and cap hospital bills for uninsured patients — policies that have spread nationwide.

“He pushed the envelope and gave people aspirational leadership,” said Jennifer Kent, who served as Schwarzenegger’s head of the Department of Health Care Services, which administers the state Medicaid program. The two were often on opposing sides on health policy issues. “There was always, like, one more thing, one more goal, one more thing to achieve.”

Recently, Wright co-led a coalition of labor and immigrant rights activists to provide comprehensive Medicaid benefits to all eligible California residents regardless of immigration status. The state funds this coverage because the federal government doesn’t allow it.

His wins have come mostly under Democratic governors and legislatures and when Republican support hasn’t been needed. That will not be the case in Washington, D.C., where Republicans currently control the House and the Senate Democratic Caucus has a razor-thin majority, which has made it extremely difficult to pass substantive legislation. November’s elections are not expected to ease the partisan impasse.

Though both Health Access and Families USA are technically nonpartisan, they tend to align with Democrats and lobby for Democratic policies, including abortion rights. But “Anthony doesn’t just talk to his own people,” said David Panush, a veteran Sacramento health policy consultant. “He has an ability to connect with people who don’t agree with you on everything.”

Wright, who interned for Vice President Al Gore and worked as a consumer advocate at the Federal Communications Commission in his 20s, acknowledges his job will be tougher in the nation’s capital, and said he is “wide-eyed about the dysfunction” there. He said he also plans to work directly with state lawmakers, including encouraging those in the 10, mostly Republican states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to do so.

In an interview with California Healthline senior correspondent Samantha Young, Wright, 53, discussed his accomplishments in Sacramento and the challenges he will face leading a national consumer advocacy group. His remarks have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Is there something California has done that you’d like to see other states or the federal government adopt?

Just saying “We did this in California” is not going to get me very far in 49 other states. But stuff that has already gone national, like the additional assistance to buy health care coverage with state subsidies, that became something that was a model for what the federal government did in the American Rescue Plan [Act] and the Inflation Reduction Act. Those additional tax credits have had a huge impact. About 5 million Americans have coverage because of them. Yet, those additional tax credits expire in 2025. If those tax credits expire, the average premium will spike $400 a month.

Q: You said you will find yourself playing defense if former President Donald Trump is elected in November. What do you mean?

Our health is on the ballot. I worry about the Affordable Care Act and the protections for preexisting conditions, the help for people to afford coverage, and all the other consumer patient protections. I think reproductive health is obviously front and center, but that’s not the only thing that could be taken away. It could also be something like Medicare’s authority to negotiate prices on prescription drugs.

Q: But Trump has said he doesn’t want to repeal the ACA this time, rather “make it better.”

We just need to look at the record of what was proposed during his first term, which would have left millions more people uninsured, which would have spiked premiums, which would have gotten rid of key patient protections.

Q: What’s on your agenda if President Joe Biden wins reelection?

It partially depends on the makeup of Congress and other elected officials. Do you extend this guarantee that nobody has to spend more than 8.5% of their income on coverage? Are there benefits that we can actually improve in Medicare and Medicaid with regard to vision and dental? What are the cost drivers in our health system?

There is a lot we can do at both the state and the federal level to get people both access to health care and also financial security, so that their health emergency doesn’t become a financial emergency as well.

Q: Will it be harder to get things done in a polarized Washington?

The dysfunction of D.C. is a real thing. I don’t have delusions that I have any special powers, but we will try to do our best to make progress. There are still very stark differences, whether it’s about the Affordable Care Act or, more broadly, about the social safety net. But there’s always opportunities for advancing an agenda.

There could be a lot of common ground on areas like health care costs and having greater oversight and accountability for quality in cost and quality in value, for fixing market failures in our health system.

Q: What would happen in California if the ACA were repealed?

When there was the big threat to the ACA, a lot of people thought, “Can’t California just do its own thing?” Without the tens of billions of dollars that the Affordable Care Act provides, it would have been very hard to sustain. If you get rid of those subsidies, and 5 million Californians lose their coverage, it becomes a smaller and sicker risk pool. Then premiums spike up for everybody, and, basically, the market becomes a death spiral that will cover nobody, healthy or sick.

Q: California expanded Medicaid to qualified immigrants living in the state without authorization. Do you think that could happen at the federal level?

Not at the moment. I would probably be more focused on the states that are not providing Medicaid to American citizens [who] just happen to be low-income. They are turning away precious dollars that are available for them.

Q: What do you take away from your time at Health Access that will help you in Washington?

It’s very rare that anything of consequence is done in a year. In many cases, we’ve had to run a bill or pursue a policy for multiple years or sessions. So, the power of persistence is that if you never give up, you’re never defeated, only delayed. Prescription drug price transparency took three years, surprise medical bills took three years, the hospital fair-pricing act took five years.

Having a coalition of consumer voices is important. Patients and the public are not just another stakeholder. Patients and the public are the point of the health care system.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

In what will certainly be remembered as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week overruled a 40-year-old legal precedent that required judges in most cases to yield to the expertise of federal agencies. It is unclear how the elimination of what’s known as the “Chevron deference” will affect the day-to-day business of the federal government, but the decision is already sending shockwaves through the policymaking community. Administrative experts say it will dramatically change the way key health agencies, such as the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, do business.

The Supreme Court also this week decided not to decide a case out of Idaho that centered on whether a federal health law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care overrides the state’s near-total ban on abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled broadly that courts should defer to the decision-making of federal agencies when an ambiguous law is challenged. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts, not federal agencies, should have the final say. The ruling will make it more difficult to implement federal laws — and draws attention to the fact that Congress, frequently and pointedly, leaves federal agencies much of the job of turning written laws into reality.
• That was hardly the only Supreme Court decision with major health implications this week: On Thursday, the court temporarily restored access to emergency abortions in Idaho. But as with its abortion-pill decision, it ruled on a technicality, with other, similar cases in the wings — like one challenging Texas’ abortion ban.
• In separate rulings, the court struck down a major opioid settlement agreement, and it effectively allowed the federal government to petition social media companies to remove falsehoods. Plus, the court agreed to hear a case next term on transgender health care for minors.
• The first general-election debate of the 2024 presidential cycle left abortion activists frustrated with their standard-bearers — on both sides of the aisle. Opponents didn’t like that former President Donald Trump doubled down on his stance that abortion should be left to the states. And abortion rights supporters felt President Joe Biden failed to forcefully rebut Trump’s outlandish falsehoods about abortion — and also failed to take a strong enough position on abortion rights himself.

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 “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs,” by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. 

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,” by Lisa Rein.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell,” by Ruth Reader.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “Inside the $100 Million Plan To Restore Abortion Rights in America,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision,” by Dima M. Qato, Rebecca Myerson, Andrew Shooshtari, et al.
• JAMA Health Forum’s “Changes in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision,” by Jacqueline E. Ellison, Brittany L. Brown-Podgorski, and Jake R. Morgan.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy,” by Alison Gemmill, Claire E. Margerison, Elizabeth A. Stuart, et al.

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies’Episode Number: 353Published: June 28, 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 the 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 Friday, June 28, at 10:30 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 video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s episode from Aspen Ideas: Health. This week we’re back in Washington with tons of breaking news, so let’s get right to it. We’re going to start at the Supreme Court, which is nearing, but not actually at, the end of its term, which we now know will stretch into next week. We have breaking news, literally breaking as in just the last few minutes: The court has indeed overruled the Chevron Doctrine. That’s a 1984 ruling that basically allowed experts at federal agencies to, you know, expert. Now it says that the court will get to decide what Congress meant when it wrote a law. We’re obviously going to hear a lot more about this ruling in the hours and days to come, but does somebody have a really quick impression of what this could mean?

Ollstein: So this could prevent or make it harder for health agencies, and all the federal agencies that touch on health care, to both create new policies based on laws that Congress pass and update old ones. Things need to be updated; new drugs are invented. There’s been all these updates to what Obamacare does and doesn’t have to cover. That could be a lot harder going forward based on this decision. It really takes away a lot of the leeway federal agencies had to interpret the laws that Congress passed and implement them.

I think kicking things back to courts and Congress could really slow things down a lot, and a lot of conservatives see that as a good thing. They think that federal agencies have been too untouchable and not have the same accountability mechanisms because they’re career civil servants who are not elected. But this has health policy experts … Honestly, we interviewed members of previous Republican administrations and Democratic administrations and they’re both worried about this.

Rovner: Yeah, going forward, if Donald Trump gets back into the presidency, this could also hinder the ability of his Department of Health and Human Services to make changes administratively.

Knight: These agencies are stacked with experts. This is what they work on. This is what they really are primed to do. And Congress does not have that same type of staffing. Congress is very different. It’s very young. There’s a lot of turnover. There are experienced staffers, but usually when they’re writing these laws, they leave so much up to interpretation of the agency because they are experts.

So I think pushing things back on Congress would really have to change how Congress works right now. When I talked to experts, we would need staffers who are way more experienced. We would need them to write laws that are way more specific. And Congress is already so slow doing anything. This would slow things down even more. So that’s a really important congressional aspect I think to note.

Rovner: I think when we look back at this term, this is probably going to be the biggest decision. Joanne, you want to add something before we move on?

Kenen: We’re recording. We don’t know if immunity just dropped, which is all still going to be, not a health care decision but an important decision of the country. I’ve got SCOTUSblog on my other screen. Here’s a quote from [Justice Elena] Kagan’s dissent. She says, because it’s very unfocused for what we do on this podcast, “Chevron has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds, to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest.” So two of the three of us. Financial markets affect the health industry as well.

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

Kenen: But I think that what the public doesn’t always understand is how much regulatory stuff there is in Washington. Congress can write a 1,000-page law like the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. I’ve never counted how many pages of regulation because I don’t think I can count that high. It’s probably tens of thousands.

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

Kenen: Right. And that every one of those, there’s a lobbying fight and often a legal fight. It’s like the coloring book when we were kids. Congress drew the outline and then we all tried to scribble within the lines. And when you go out of the lines, you have a legal case. So the amount of stuff, regulatory activity is something that the public doesn’t really see. None of us have read every reg pertaining to health care. You can’t possibly do it in a lifetime. Methuselah couldn’t have done it. And Congress cannot hire all the expert staff and all the federal agencies and put them in; they won’t fit in the Capitol. That’s not going to happen. So how do they come to grips with how specific are they going to have to be? What kind of legal language can they delegate some of this to agency experts. We’re in really uncharted territory.

Rovner: I think you can tell from the tones of all of our voices that this is a very big deal, with a whole lot of blanks to be filled in. But for the moment …

Kenen: Maybe they’ll just let AI do it.

Rovner: Yeah, for the moment, let’s move on because, until just now, the biggest story of the week for us was on Thursday. We finally got a decision in that case about whether Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion can override a federal law called EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires doctors in emergency rooms to protect a pregnant woman’s health, not just her life. And much like the decision earlier this month to send the abortion pill case back to the lower courts because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, the court once again didn’t reach the merits here. So Alice, what did they do?

Ollstein: So like you said, both on abortion pills and on EMTALA, the court punted on procedural issues. So it was standing on the one and it was ripeness on the other one. This one was a lot more surprising. I think based on the oral arguments in the mifepristone case, we could see the standing-based decision coming. That was a big focus of the arguments. This was more of a surprise. This was a majority of justices saying, “Whoops, we shouldn’t have taken this case in the first place. We shouldn’t have swooped in before the 9th Circuit even had a chance to hear it. And not only take the case, but allow Idaho to fully enforce its law even in ways that people feel violate EMTALA in the meantime.” And so what this does temporarily is restore emergency abortion access in Idaho. It restores a lower-court order that made that the case, but it’s not over.

Rovner: Right. It had stayed Idaho’s ban to the extent that it conflicted with EMTALA.

Ollstein: So this goes back to lower courts and it’s almost certain to come back to the Supreme Court as early as next year, if not at another time. Because this isn’t even the only major federal EMTALA case that’s in the works right now. There’s also a case on Texas’ abortion ban and its enforcement in emergency situations like this. And so I think the main reaction from the abortion rights movement was temporary relief, but a lot of fear for the future.

Rovner: And I saw a lot of people reminding everybody that this Texas ruling in Idaho, now the federal law is taking precedence, but there’s a stay of the federal law in the 5th Circuit. So in Texas, the Texas ban does overrule the federal law that requires abortions in emergency circumstances to protect a woman’s health. That’s what the dispute is basically about. And of course, you see a lot of legal experts saying, “This is a constitutional law 101 case that federal law overrides state law,” and yet we could tell by some of the add-on discussion in this case, as they’re sending it back to the lower court, that some of the conservatives are ready to say, “We don’t think so. Maybe the federal law will have to yield to some of these state bans.” So you can kind of see the writing on the wall here?

Ollstein: It’s really hard to say. I think that you have some justices who are clearly ready to say that states can fully enforce their abortion bans regardless of what the federal government’s federal protections are for patients. I think they put that out there. I think the case is almost certain to come back to them, and there was clearly not a majority ready to fully side with the Biden administration on this one.

Rovner: And clearly not a majority ready to fully side with Idaho on this one. I think everything that I saw suggested that they were split 3-3-3. And with no majority, the path of least resistance was to say, “Our bad. You take this back lower court. We’ll see when it comes back.”

Ollstein: It was a very unusual move, but some of the justification made sense to me in that they cited that Idaho state officials’ position on what their abortion ban did and didn’t do has wavered over time and changed. And what they initially said when they petitioned to the court is not necessarily exactly what they said in oral arguments, and it’s not exactly what they have said since. And so at the heart here is you have some people saying there’s a clear conflict between the patient protections under EMTALA — which says you have to stabilize anyone that comes to you at a hospital that takes Medicare — and these abortion bans, which only allow an abortion when there’s imminent life-threatening situation. And so you have people, including the attorney general of Idaho, saying, “There is no conflict. Our law does allow these emergency abortions and the doctors are just wrong and it’s just propaganda trying to smear us. And they just want to turn hospitals into free-for-all abortion facilities.” This is what they’re arguing. And then you have people say …

Rovner: [inaudible 00:11:12] … in the meanwhile, we know that women are being airlifted out of Idaho when they need emergency abortions because doctors are worried about actually performing abortions …

Ollstein: Correct.

Rovner: And possibly being charged with criminal charges for violating Idaho’s abortion ban.

Ollstein: Sure, but I’m saying even amongst conservatives, there are those who are saying, “There’s no conflict between these two policies. The doctors are just wrong either intentionally or unintentionally.” And then there’s those who say there is a conflict between EMTALA and state bans, and it should be fine for the state to violate EMTALA.

Rovner: No. Obviously this one will continue as the abortion pill case is likely to continue. Well, also in this end-of-term Supreme Court decision dump, an oddly split court with liberals and conservatives on both sides, struck down the bankruptcy deal reached with Purdue Pharma that would’ve paid states and families of opioid overdose victims around $6 billion, but would also have shielded the company’s owners, the Sackler family, from further legal liability. What are we to make of this? This was clearly a difficult issue. There were a lot of people even who were involved in this settlement who said the idea of letting the Sackler family, which has hidden billions of dollars from the bankruptcy settlement anyway, and clearly acted very badly, basically giving them immunity in exchange for actually getting money. This could not have been an easy… obviously was not an easy decision even for the Supreme Court.

Kenen: No, it wasn’t theoretical. The ones who opposed blowing up the agreement were very much, “This is going to add delay any kind of justice for the families and the plaintiffs.” It was not at all abstract. It was like there are a lot of people who aren’t going to get help. At least the help will be delayed if this money doesn’t start flowing. So I was struck by how practical, relating to the families who have lost people because of the actions of Purdue. But the other side was, also that was much more a clear-cut legal issue, that people didn’t give up their right to sue. It was cutting off the right to sue was imposed on potential plaintiffs by the settlement. So that was a much more legalistic argument versus, it was a little bit more real world, but they need the help now. And including some of the conservatives. This is an interesting thing to read. This was painstaking. This is a huge settlement. It took so long. It had many, many moving parts. And I don’t know how you go back and put it together again.

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

Kenen: I don’t know if they have to start entirely from scratch. You’d have to be nuts to get the Sacklers to say, “OK, we’ll be sued,” which they’re obviously you’re not going to. Is somebody going to come up with a “Split the difference, let’s get this moving and we won’t sue anymore?” I don’t know. But I don’t know that you have to start 100% from scratch, but you’re surely not anywhere near a finish line anymore.

Rovner: That’s big Supreme Court case No. 3 for this week. Now let’s get to big Supreme Court case No. 4. Earlier this week, the court turned back a challenge that the government had wrongly interfered with free speech by urging social media organizations to take down covid misinformation. But again, as with the abortion pill case, the court did not get to the merits. But instead, they ruled that the states and individuals who sued did not have standing. So we still don’t know what the court thinks of the role of government in trying to ensure that health information is correct. Right?

Knight: Right. And I thought it was interesting. Basically the White House was like, “Well, we talked to the tech companies, but it was their decision to do this. So we weren’t really mandating them do this.” I think they’re just being like, “OK, we’ve left it up to the tech companies. We haven’t really interfered. We’re just trying to say these things are harmful.” So I guess we’ll have to see. Like you said, they didn’t take it up on standing, but overall, conservatives that were saying, “This was infringing on free speech.” It was particularly some scientists, I think, that promoted the herd immunity theory, things like that.

So I think they’re obviously going to be upset in some way because their posts were depromoted on social media. But I think it just leaves things the way they are, the same way. But it would be interesting, I guess, if Trump does go to the White House, how that might play out differently?

Rovner: This court has been a lot of the court deciding not to decide cases, or not to decide issues. Sorry, Alice, go ahead.

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think it is pretty similar to the abortion pill case in one key way, which is that it’s the court saying, “Look, the connection between the harm you think you suffered and the entity you are accusing of causing that suffering, that connection is way too tenuous. You can’t prove that the Biden administration voicing concerns to these social media companies directly led to you getting shadow-banned or actual banned,” or whatever it is. And the same in the abortion pill case, the connection between the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approving the drug and regulating the drug and these individual doctors’ experiences is way too tenuous. And so that’s something to keep in mind for future cases that, we’re seeing a pattern here.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m not suggesting that the court is directly trying to duck these issues. These are legitimate standing cases and important legal precedents for who can sue in what circumstance. That is the requirement of constitutional review that first you have to make sure that there’s both standing in a live controversy and there’s all kinds of things that the court has to go through before they get to the merits. So more often than not, they don’t get there.

Well, meanwhile, we have our first hot-button, Supreme Court case slotted in for next term. On Monday, the court granted “certiorari” [writ by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court] to a case out of Tennessee where the Biden administration is challenging the state’s ban on transgender care for minors. It was inevitable that one of these cases was going to get to the high court sooner or later, right?

Kenen: Yeah, I think it’s not a surprise, the politics of it and the techniques or tools used by the forces that are against the treatment for minors. It’s very similar to the politics and patterns of the abortion case, of turning something into an argument that it’s to protect somebody. A lot of the abortion requirements and fights were about to protect the woman. Ostensibly, that was the political argument. And now we’re seeing we have to protect the children so that it’s the courts, as opposed to families and doctors, who are, “protecting the children.”

There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what these treatments do and who gets them and at what age;  that they’re often described as mutilation and irreversible. For the younger kids, for preteen, middle school age-ish, early teens, nothing is irreversible. It’s drugs that if you stop them, the impact goes away. But it has become this enormous lightning rod for the intersection of health and politics. And I think we all have a pretty good guess as to where the Supreme Court’s going to end up on this. But you’re sometimes surprised. And also, there could be some …

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

Kenen: There could be some kind of moderation, too. It could be a certain … they don’t have to say all … it depends on how clinical they want to get. Maybe they’ll rule on certain treatments that are more less-reversible than a puberty blocker, which is very reversible, and some kind of safeguards. We don’t know the details. We’re not surprised that it ended up … and we know going in, you could have a gut feeling of where it’s likely to turn out without knowing the full parameters and caveats and details. They haven’t even argued it yet.

Rovner: This is a decision that we’ll be waiting for next June.

Kenen: Right. Well, could not. Maybe it’s so clear-cut, it’ll be May. Who knows, right?

Rovner: Yeah, exactly. All right, well, moving on. There was a presidential debate last night. I think it was fair to say that it didn’t go very well for either candidate, nor for anybody interested in what President Biden or former President Trump thinks about health issues. What did we learn, if anything?

Ollstein: Well, I was mainly listening for a discussion of abortion and, boy was it all over the place. What I thought was interesting was that both candidates pissed off their activist supporters with what they said. I was texting with a lot of folks on both sides and conservatives were upset that Trump doubled down on his position that this should be entirely left to states, and they disagree. They want him to push for federal restrictions if elected.

And on the left, there was a lot of consternation about Biden’s weird, meandering answer about Roe v. Wade. He was asked about abortions later in pregnancy. One, neither he nor the moderators pushed back on what Trump’s very inflammatory claims about babies being murdered and stuff. There was no fact-checking of that whatsoever. But then Biden gave a confusing answer, basically saying he supports going to the Roe standard but not further, which is what I took out of it. And that upset a lot of progressives who say Roe was never good enough. For a lot of people, when Roe v. Wade was still in place, abortion was a right in name only. It was not actually accessible. States could impose lots of restrictions that kept it out of reach for a lot of people. And in this moment, why should we go back to a standard that was never good enough? We should go further. So just a lot of anxiety on both sides of this.

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Trump seemed to say that he would leave the abortion pill alone, which jumped out at me.

Kenen: But that was a completely … CNN made a decision not to push back. They were going to have online fact-checking. Everybody else had online fact. … And they didn’t challenge. And I guess they assumed that the candidates would challenge each other, and Biden had a different kind of challenging night. Trump actually said that the previous Supreme Court had upheld the use of the abortion drug and that it’s over, it’s done. That was not a true statement. The Supreme Court rejected that case, as Alice just explained, on standing. It’s going to be back. It may be back in multiple forms, multiple times. It is not decided. It is not over, which is what Trump said, “Oh, don’t worry about the abortion drug. The Supreme Court OK’d it.” That’s not what the Supreme Court did, and Biden didn’t counter that in any way.

And then Biden, in addition to the political aspect that Alice just talked about, he also didn’t describe Roe, the framework of Roe, particularly accurately. And, as Alice just pointed out, the things that Trump said were over-the-top even for Trump, and that they went unchallenged by either the moderators or President Biden.

Rovner: I was a little bit surprised that there wasn’t anything else on health care or there wasn’t much else.

Knight: Biden tried to hit his health care talking points and did a very terrible job. Alice had a really good tweet getting the right. … He initially said wrong numbers for the insulin cap, for the cap on out-of-pocket for Medicare beneficiaries, how much they can spend on prescription drugs. He got both of those wrong. I think he got insulin right later in the night. And then the very notably, “We will beat Medicare.” That was just unclear what he even meant by that. Maybe it was about drug price negotiations, I’m sure. So he was trying, but just could not get the facts right and I don’t think it came across effective in any way. And health care does do really well for Democrats. Abortion does really well for Democrats. So he was not effective in putting those messages.

I also noticed the moderators asked a question about opioids, addressing the opioid epidemic. Trump did not answer at all, pivoted to I think border or something like that. I don’t think Biden really answered either, honestly. So that was an opportunity for them to also talk about addressing that, which I think is something they could both probably talk about in a winning way for both. But I thought it was mentioned more than I expected a little bit. I thought they may want to talk about it at all. So it was still not much substantive policy discussion on health care.

Kenen: Biden tried to get across some of the Democratic policies on drug prices and polls have shown that the public doesn’t really understand that is actually the law in going forward. So if any attempt to message that in front of a very large audience was completely muddled. Nobody listening to that debate would’ve come out — unless they knew going in — they would’ve not have come out knowing what was in the law about Medicare price negotiations. They would’ve gotten four different answers of what happened with insulin, although they probably figured something good, helpful happened. And a big opportunity to push a Democratic achievement that has some bipartisan popularity was completely evaporated.

Rovner: I think Biden did the classic over-prepare and stuff too many talking points into his head and then couldn’t sort them all out in the moment. That seemed pretty clear. He was trying to retrieve the talking point and they got a little bit jumbled in his attempt to bring them out. Well, back to abortion: Alice, you got a cool scoop this week about abortion rights groups banding together with a $100 million campaign to overturn the overturn of Roe. Tell us about that?

Ollstein: Yeah, so it’s notable because there’s been so much focus on the state level battles and fighting this out state by state, and the ballot initiatives that have passed at the state level and restored or protected access have been this glimmer of hope for the abortion rights movement. But I think there was a real crystallization of the understanding that that strategy alone would leave tens of millions of people out in the cold because a lot of states don’t have the ability to do a ballot initiative. And also, if there were to be some sort of federal restrictions imposed under a Trump presidency or whatever, those state level protections wouldn’t necessarily hold. So I think this effort of groups coming together to really spend big and say that they want to restore federal protections is really notable.

I also think it’s notable that they are not committing to a specific bill or plan or law they want to see. They are keeping on the, “This is our vision, this is our broad goal.” But they’re not saying, “We want to restore Roe specifically, we want to go further,” et cetera. And that’s creating some consternation within the movement. I’ve also, since publishing the story, heard a lot of anxiety about the level of spending going to this when people feel that that should be going to direct support for people who are suffering on the ground and struggling to access abortion. Right now you have abortion funds screaming that they’re being stretched to the breaking point and cannot help everyone who needs to travel out of state right now. So, of course, infighting on the left is a perennial, but I think it’s particularly interesting in this case.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, we have a trio this week of examples of what I think it’s safe to call unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe. First, a study in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics this week, found that in the first year abortion was dramatically restricted in Texas — remember, that was before the overturn of Roe — infant deaths rose fairly dramatically. In particular, deaths from congenital problems rose, suggesting that women carrying doomed fetuses gave birth instead of having abortions. What’s the takeaway from seeing this big spike in infant mortality?

Ollstein: So I’ve seen a lot of anti-abortion groups trying to spin this and push back really hard on it. Specifically picking up on what you just said, which is that a lot of these are fatal fetal anomalies. And so they were saying, “Were abortion still legal, those pregnancies could have been terminated before birth.” And so they’re saying, “There’s no difference really, because we consider that an infant death already. So now it’s an infant death after birth. Nothing to see here.”

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

Ollstein: Yeah, that is the response I’m seeing on the right. On the left, I am seeing arguments that anyone who labels themselves pro-life should think twice about the impact of these policies that are playing out. And like you said, we’re only just beginning to get glimmers of this data. In part because Texas was out in front of everybody else, and so I think there’s a lot more to come.

The other pushback I’ve seen from anti-abortion groups is that infant mortality also rose in states where abortion remains legal. So I think that’s worth exploring, too. Obviously, correlation is not always causation, but I think it’s hard when you’re getting the data in little dribs and drabs instead of a full complete picture that we can really analyze.

Rovner: Well, in another JAMA study, this one in JAMA Network Open, they found that the use of Plan B, the morning-after birth control pill, fell by 60% in states that implemented abortion bans after the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision. Now, for the millionth time, Plan B is not the same as the abortion pill. It’s a high-dose contraceptive. But apparently, a combination of the closure of family planning clinics in states that impose bans, which are an important source of pills for people with low incomes who can’t afford over-the-counter versions, and misinformation about the continuing legality of the morning-after pill, which continues to be legal, contributed to the decline. At least that’s what the authors theorize. This is one of many ironies in the wake of Dobbs; that states with abortion bans may well be ending up with more unintended pregnancies rather than fewer.

Ollstein: Well, one trends that could be feeding this is that some of the clinics where people used to go to to access contraception, also provided abortion and have not been able to keep their doors open in a post-Roe environment. We’ve seen clinics shutting down across the South. I went to Alabama last year to cover this, and there are clinics there that used to get most of their revenue from abortion, and they’re trying to hang on and provide nonabortion gynecological services, including contraception, and the math just ain’t mathing, and they’re really struggling to survive.

And so this goes back to the finger-pointing within the movement about where money should be going right now. And I know that red state clinics that are trying to survive feel very left behind and feel that this erosion of access is a result of that.

Kenen: Julie, and also to put in, even before Dobbs, it was not easy in many parts of the country for low-income women to get free contraception. There are states in which clinics were few and far between. Federal spending on Title X has not risen in many years.

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

Kenen: Right. Alice knows this, and maybe I’ve said on the podcast, I once just pretty randomly with me and my cursor plunked my cursor down on a map of Texas and said, “OK, if I live here, how far is the nearest clinic?” And I looked at the map of the clinics and it was far, it was something like 95 miles, the nearest one. So we had abortion deserts. We’ve also had family planning deserts, and that has only gotten worse, but it wasn’t good in the first place.

Rovner: Well, finally, and for those who really want to make sure they don’t have unintended pregnancies, according to a study in a third AMA journal, JAMA Health Forum, the number of young women aged 18 to 30 who were getting sterilized doubled in the 15 months after Roe was overturned. Men are part of this trend, too. Vasectomies tripled over that same period. Are we looking at a generation that’s so scared, they’re going to end up just not having kids at all?

Kenen: Well, there are a lot of kids in this generation who are saying they don’t want to have kids for a variety of reasons: economic, climate, all sorts of things. I think that I was a little surprised to see that study because there are safe long-acting contraceptives. You can get an IUD that lasts seven to nine years, I think it is. I was a little surprised that people were choosing something irreversible because.. I do know young people who… You’re young, you go through lots of changes in life, and there is an alternative that’s multiyear. So I was a little surprised by that. But that’s apparently what’s happening. And it’s for… This generation is not as… What are they, Gen[eration] Z? They’re not as baby-oriented as their older brothers and sisters even.

Knight: Well, that age range is millennial and Gen Z. But I don’t know. I’m a millennial. I think a lot of my friends were not baby-oriented. So I think that’s probably a fair statement to say. But it is interesting that they wouldn’t choose an IUD or something like that instead. But I do think people are scared. We’ve seen the stories of people moving out of states that have really strict abortion bans because they are so concerned on what kind of medical care they could have, even if they think they want to get pregnant. And sometimes you don’t have a healthy pregnancy and then need to get an abortion. So I’m sure it has something to do with that but…

Rovner: Yeah, it’s one of those trends to keep an eye out for. Well, moving on, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has been busy these past couple of weeks. First, he published an op-ed in The New York Times calling for a warning label for social media that’s similar to the one that’s already on tobacco products, warning that social media has not been proven safe for children and teenagers. Of course, he doesn’t have his own authority to do that. Congress would have to pass a law. Any chance of that? I know Congress is definitely into the “What are we going to do about social media” realm.

Kenen: But talking about it and doing something or thinking, it’s a long way. Is this as, compared to his other topic of the week, which was gun safety? He’s got a lot more bipartisan …

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

Kenen: … He’s got a lot more bipartisan support for the concern about health of young people and what social media is. What is social media? Social media is mixed. There are good things and bad things, and what is that balance? There is a bipartisan concern. I don’t know that that means you get to the labeling point. But the labeling point is one thing. That the larger concept of concern about it, and recognition about it, and what do we do about it, is bipartisan up to a point. How do you even label? What do you label? Your phone? Your computer? I’m not sure where the label goes. Your eyelids? [inaudible 00:33:07]

Knight: Right. Well, tech bills in Congress in general are like… Even though TikTok was surprisingly able to get done in the House. But TikTok lobby was big. But there would be a big social media lobby, I’m sure, against that. I guess there is bipartisan support. I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve asked members about, but I think that would be pretty far off from a reality actually happening.

Rovner: Well, also this week, as Joanne mentioned, the surgeon general issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory, declaring gun violence a public health crisis, calling for more research funding on gun injuries and deaths, universal background checks for gun buyers, and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. I feel like the NRA [National Rifle Association] has lost some of its legendary clout on Capitol Hill over the past few years, thanks to a series of scandals, but maybe not enough for some of these things. I feel like I’ve heard these suggestions before, like over the last 25 or 30 years.

Kenen: I think one of the interesting things about Vivek Murthy is he came to public prominence on gun safety and guns in public health before people were really talking about guns in public health. I forgot what year it was — 2016, 2017, whenever Obama first nominated him. Because remember, this is his second run as surgeon general. It was an issue that he had spoken about and had made a signature issue, and as he became a more public figure before the nomination. And then he went silent on it. He had trouble getting confirmed. He didn’t do anything about it. We never really heard … as far as I can recollect, we never even heard him talk about it once. Maybe there was a phrase or two here or there. He certainly didn’t push it or make it a signature issue.

Right now, he’s at the end of the last year with the Biden administration. Some kind of arc is being completed. He’s a young man, there’ll be other arcs. But this arc is winding down and the president cares about gun violence. Congress actually did, not the full agenda, but they did something on it, which was unusual. And I think that this is his chance to use his bully pulpit while he still has it in this particular perch to remind people that we do have tools. We don’t have all the solutions to gun violence. We do not understand everything about it. We do not understand why some people go and shoot a movie theater or a school or a supermarket or whatever, and there are multiple reasons. There are different kinds of mass killers. But we do know that there are some public health tools that do work. That red flag laws do seem to help. That safe gun storage … There are things that are less controversial than a spectrum of things one can do.

Some of them have broader support, and I think he is using this time — not that he expects any of these things to become law in the final year of the Biden administration — but I think he’s using it. This is bully pulpit. This is saying, “Moving forward, let’s think about what we can come to agreement on and do what we can on certain evidence-based things.” Because there’s been a lot of work in the last decade or so on the public health, not just the criminal… Obviously, it’s a legal and criminal justice issue. It’s also a public health issue, and what are the public health tools? What can we do? How do we treat this as basically an epidemic? And how can we stop it?

Rovner: Finally this week, since we didn’t really do news last week, there have been a couple of notable stories we really ought to mention. One is a court case, Braidwood v. Becerra. This is the case where a group of Christian businesses are claiming that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provisions that require them to provide no cost-sharing access to products, including HIV preventive medication, violates their freedom of religion because it makes them complicit in homosexual behavior. Judge Reed O’Connor, district court judge — if that name is familiar, it’s because he’s the Texas judge who tried to strike down the entire ACA back in 2018. Judge O’Connor not only found for the plaintiffs, he tried to slap a nationwide injunction on all of the ACA’s preventive services, which even the very conservative 5th Circuit appeals court struck down. But meanwhile, the appeals court has come up with its ruling. Where does that leave us on the ACA preventive services?

Ollstein: It leaves us right where we were when the 5th Circuit took the case because they said that, “We’re going to allow the lower court ruling to be enforced just for the plaintiffs in the meantime, but we’re not going to allow the entire country’s preventive care coverage to be disrupted while this case moves forward.” And so that basically continues to be the case. Some of the arguments are getting sent back down to the lower court for further consideration. And we still don’t know whether either side will appeal the 5th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

Rovner: But notably, the appeals court said that U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, is basically illegally constituted because it should be nominated by the president, approved by the Senate, which it is not. That could in the long run be kind of a big deal. This is a group of experts that supposedly shielded from politics.

Kenen: Yeah, I don’t think this story is over either. It is for now. Right now we’re at the status quo, except for this handful of people who brought recommendations on all sorts of health measures, including vaccination and cancer screenings and everything else. They stand. They’re not being contested at this moment. How that will evolve under the next administration and this court remains to be seen.

Rovner: Finally, finally, finally, to end on a bit of a frustrating note, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has found that two decades after it first called out some of the most egregious inequities in U.S. health care, not that much has changed. Joanne, this has been a very high-profile issue. What went wrong?

Kenen: Well, I think this report got very little attention probably because it’s like, oh, reports aren’t necessarily news stories. And it was like nothing changed, so why do we report it? But I think when I read the report — and I did not get through all 375 pages yet, but I did read a significant amount of it and I listened to a webinar on it — I think what really struck me is how we’re not any better than we really were 20 years ago. And what really was jarring is the report said, “And we actually know how to fix this and we’re not doing it. And we have the scientific and public health and sociological knowledge. We know if we wanted to fix it, we could, and we haven’t. Some of that is needing money and some of it is needing will.” So I thought the bottom line of it was really quite grim. If we didn’t know how bad it was, if the general public didn’t know how bad it was, the pandemic really should have taught them that because of the enormous disparities, and we’re back on this glide path toward nothing.

Rovner: I do think at very least, it is more talked about. It’s a little higher profile than it was, but obviously you’re right.

Kenen: They didn’t say no gains in any… I mean, the ACA helped. There are people who have coverage, including minorities, who didn’t have it before. That was one of the bright spots. But there’s still 10 states where it hasn’t been fully implemented. It was a pretty discouraging report.

Rovner: All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now it is 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. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: Sure. So I was reading a story in The New York Times about PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers]. It was called “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs.” It’s by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. And so it kind of is basically an investigation into PBM practices. It was interesting for me because I cover health care in Congress, and so it’s always the different industries are fighting each other. And right now, one of the biggest fights is about PBMs. And for those that don’t know, PBMs negotiate with drug companies, they’re supposed to pay pharmacies, they help patients get their medications. And so they’re this middleman in between everyone. And so people don’t really know they exist, but they’re a big monopoly. There’s only three of them, really big ones in the U.S. that make up 80% of the market. And so they have a lot of control over things.

Pharma blames them for high drug prices and the PBMs blame pharma. So that’s always a fun thing to watch. There actually is quite a bit of traction in Congress right now for cracking down on PBM practices. Basically, The Times reporters interviewed a bunch of people and they came away with saying that PBMs …

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

Knight: Yeah, and they came away with a conclusion that PBMs are causing higher drug prices and they’re pushing patients towards higher drugs. They’re charging employers of government more money than they should be. But it was interesting for me to watch this play out on Twitter because the PBM lobby was, of course, very upset by the story. They were slamming it and they put out a whole press release saying that it’s anecdotal and they don’t have actual data. So it was interesting, but I think it’s another piece in the policy puzzle of how do we reduce drug prices? And Congress thinks at least cracking on PBMs is one way to do it, and it has bipartisan support.

Rovner: And apparently this story is the first in a series, so there’s more to come.

Knight: Yes, I saw that. Yeah, more to come, so it’ll be fun. I also just noticed as I was just pulling it up on my phone and they had closed the comment section. It was causing some robust debate.

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

Kenen: I should just say that after I read that story in The Times that same day, I think I got a phone call from a relative, a copay that had been something like $60 for 30 days is now $1,000. And this relative walked away without getting the drug because that’s not OK. So anyway, my extra credit [“Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,”] is from The Washington Post. Lisa Rein posted an investigation a couple of years ago, and this was the coda of the Social Security Administration finally followed through on what that investigation revealed. And Lisa wrote about the move, how it’s being addressed. That to get disability benefits, you have to be unemployable basically. And the Social Security Administration had a list of … it’s called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It had not been updated in 47 years. So disabled people were being denied Social Security disability benefits because they were being told, well, they could do jobs like being a nut sorter or a pneumatic tube operator or a microfilm something or other. And these jobs stopped existing decades ago.

So the Social Security Administration got rid of these obsolete jobs. You’re no longer being told, literally, to go store nuts. If you are, in fact, legitimately disabled, you’ll now be able to get the Social Security disability benefits that you are, in fact, qualified for. So thousands of people will be affected.

Rovner: No one can see this, but I’m wearing my America Needs Journalists T-shirt today. Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a piece [“Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell”] by my colleague Ruth Reader, about a county in Ohio that, with some federal funds, implemented all of these policies to reduce opioid overdoses and deaths, and they had a lot of success. Overdoses went down 20% there, even as they went up by a lot in most of the country. But bureaucracy and expiring funding means that those programs may not continue, even though they’re really successful. The federal funding has run out. It is not getting renewed, and the state may not pick up the slack.

So it’s just a really good example. We see this so often in public health where we invest in something, it works, it makes a difference, it helps people, and then we say, “Well, all right, we did it. We’re done.” And then the problems come roaring back. So hopefully that does not happen here.

Rovner: Alas. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post. It’s called “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States.” It’s by Fenit Nirappil. I hope I’m pronouncing that right. In some ways, it’s a response to criminals who have obviously long used masks, and also to protesters, particularly those protesting the war in Gaza. But it’s also a mark of just how intolerant we’ve become as a society that people who are immunocompromised or just worried about their own health can’t go out masked in public without getting harassed. The irony, of course, is that this is all coming just as covid is having what appears to be now its annual summer surge, and the big fight of the moment is in North Carolina where the Democratic governor has vetoed a mask ban bill, that’s likely to be overridden by the Republican legislature. Even after covid is no longer front and center in our everyday lives, apparently a lot of the nastiness remains.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comment or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at Twitter, which the Supreme Court has now decided it’s going to call Twitter. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: I’m at Twitter, @JoanneKenen. And I’m on Threads @joannekenen1, and I occasionally decided I just have better things to do.

Rovner: It’s all good. 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 presidential election is less than five months away, and while abortion is the only health policy issue expected to play a leading role, others are likely to be raised in the presidential and down-ballot races. This election could be critical in determining the future of key health care programs, such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” taped at the Aspen Ideas: Health festival in Aspen, Colorado, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call join Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, to discuss what the election season portends for top health issues.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Policies surrounding abortion — and reproductive health issues, in general — likely will dominate in many races, as Democrats try to exploit an issue that is motivating their voters and dividing Republican voters. The topics of contraception and in vitro fertilization are playing a more prominent role in 2024 than they have in past elections.
• High prescription drug prices — which, for frustrated Americans, are a longtime symbol, and symptom, of the nation’s dysfunctional health care system — have been a priority for the Biden administration and, previously, the Trump administration. But the issue is so confusing and progress so incremental that it is hard to say whether either party has an advantage.
• The fate of many major health programs will be determined by who wins the presidency and who controls Congress after this fall’s elections. For example, the temporary subsidies that have made Affordable Care Act health plans more affordable will expire at the end of 2025. If the subsidies are not renewed, millions of Americans will likely be priced out of coverage again.
• Previously hot-button issues like gun violence, opioid addiction, and mental health are not playing a high-profile role in the 2024 races. But that could change case by case.
• Finally, huge health issues that could use public airing and debate — like what to do about the nation’s crumbling long-term care system and the growing shortage of vital health professionals — are not likely to become campaign issues.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections’Episode Number: 352Published: June 21, 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 the 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 at KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. I am joined tonight by a couple of our regular panelists: Margot Sanger-Katz, The New York Times.

Sanger-Katz: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good evening everyone.

Rovner: For those of you who aren’t regular listeners, we have a rotating panel of more than a dozen health policy reporters, all of whom just happen to be women, and every week we recap and analyze the week’s top health news. But tonight we’ve been given a slightly different assignment to talk about how health policy is likely to shape the 2024 elections and, vice versa, how the elections are likely to shape health policy.

So, this is actually my 10th presidential election season as a health reporter, which is terrifying, and I can say with some experience that health is one of those issues that’s always part of the political debate but is relatively rarely mentioned when pollsters ask voters what their top issue is. Of those of you who went to the pollsters session this afternoon might’ve seen that or said we’re not going to… it’s not going to be a health election this year.

This year, though, I think will be slightly different. As you’ll hear, I’ve divided these issues into three different buckets: Those that are likely to be pivotal or very important to how people vote; those that are likely to come up over the next few months in the presidential and/or congressional and Senate races; and finally, a couple of issues that aren’t as likely to come up but probably should. It would be good to have a debate about them.

So we will start with the political elephant in the room: reproductive health. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago next week, abortion has been front and center in just about every political contest, usually, though not always, with the abortion-right side prevailing. How do you two see abortion playing out both at the presidential and congressional level these next couple of months?

Raman: I see it playing out in kind of two different ways. We see already at the presidential level that President Joe Biden has been really going in, all in, that this is his No. 1 issue, and I think this will continue to play out, especially next week with the anniversary of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision.

And a lot of the Democrats in the Senate have kind of been taking lead from that and also really amping up the issue. They’ve been doing kind of messaging votes on things within the reproductive health spectrum and it seems like they’re going to continue that in July. So we’re going to see it really focused on there. On the Republican side, they’ve been not focused on this issue as much.

Rovner: They’ve been ducking this issue.

Raman: Yes, they’ve been ducking this issue, so I think it’ll just be continued to be downplayed. They’ve really been going in on immigration more than any other of the issues that they’ve got this year.

Sanger-Katz: If you look at the public polling, abortion is one of really the only issues where the Democrats and Joe Biden seem to have a real advantage over the Republicans and Donald Trump. And so I think that that tells you that they’re going to have to be hitting it a lot. This is an issue where the voters are with the Democrats. They trust Biden more. They agree more with the policies the Democrats are promoting around reproductive health care. So it’s just impossible for me to imagine a scenario in which we don’t see Democrats kind of up and down the ticket really taking advantage of this issue, running ads on it, talking about it, and trying to really foreground it.

I think for Biden, in particular, it’s a hard issue. I think he has always had some personal ambivalence about abortion. He’s a Catholic. He, early in his career, had opposed certain abortion rights measures that other Democrats had endorsed, and you can kind of see him slowly getting comfortable with this issue. I think he said the word abortion for the first time just in the last six months. I think I would anticipate a real ramping up of discussion of this issue among Democrats. The other dynamic that I think is pretty important is that there are a number of states that have ballot initiatives to try to kind of permanently enshrine abortion rights into state constitutions.

And some of those are in states that are not pivotal to the election, and they will be important in those states, and for those state senate races and governor races and other things, because they may pull in more of these voters who care a lot about reproductive rights. But there are some of these ballot measures that are in pivotal states for the presidential race, the kind of battleground states that we’re all watching. And so there’s a big emphasis on those as well. And I think there’s some interesting tensions with those measures because abortion rights actually are valued by people across the political spectrum.

So I think we tend to think of this as a Democrat-Republican issue where Republicans want to restrict abortion rights, and Democrats want to promote them. But we’re seeing in the public polling now that’s not really true. There are a lot of Republicans that are uncomfortable with the kind of abortion bans that we’re seeing in certain parts of the country now. So it’s this question: Are they going to come out and vote and split their ticket where they’ll vote for constitutional measure to protect abortion rights and still vote for President Trump? Or will the abortion issue mobilize them so much that they will vote across the board as Democrats?

And I think that’s a big question, and I think it’s a big challenge. In fact, for many of the people that are running these campaigns to get these ballot measures passed, how much they want to kind of lean into the Democratic messaging and try to help prop up Democratic candidates in their state. And how much they want to just take a step back and try to get Republicans to support their particular measure, even if it doesn’t help Democratic candidates on the ticket.

Rovner: Well, of course, it’s not just abortion that’s on the ballot, literally and figuratively. There’s a not-insignificant portion of the anti-abortion movement that not only wants to ban abortion nationwide but wants to establish in law something called personhood. The concept that a person with full legal rights is created at fertilization.

That would result in outlawing many forms of contraception, as well as if we have seen rather vividly this spring, IVF. Unlike abortion, contraception and IVF are very widely supported, not nearly as divisive as abortion itself is. Are we potentially looking at a divorce between the Republican Party and its longtime absolutist, anti-abortion backers?

Raman: I think that Republicans have been toeing the line on this issue so far. We’ve seen them not support some of the Democrats’ bills on the state level, the federal level, that are related to IVF, but at the same time, kind of introducing their counterparts or issuing broad statements in support of IVF, in support of contraception. Even just like a couple of weeks ago, we had Sen. Rick Scott of Florida release an IVF-themed full ad.

And so we have a lot of messaging on this, but I think at the same time a lot of these are tiptoeing the line in that they might not add any new protections. They might not codify protections for any of these procedures. They might just issue support or not address some of the other issues there that people have been going back and forth with the personhood issue.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is a big challenge for the Republican Party, not just over the course of this particular election cycle, but I think thinking further into the future. The pro-life movement has been such a pivotal group of activists that have helped elect Republicans and have been so strongly allied with various other Republican interest groups across the last few decades. And you can see that those activists helped overturn Roe after nearly 50 years of having a constitutional right to abortion.

Many of them don’t want to give up there. They really want to abolish abortion. They think it’s a morally abhorrent and something that shouldn’t happen in this country. And they’re concerned that certain types of contraception are similar to abortion in certain ways and that IVF is also morally abhorrent. And we saw recently with the [Southern] Baptist Convention that there was a vote basically to say that they did not support in vitro fertilization and assisted reproductive technologies.

Yet, at the same time, you can see in public polling and in the way that the public responds to these kinds of messages that the activists are way out further than the typical voter and certainly way out further than the typical Republican voter. And there’s this interesting case study that happened a few months ago where the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling — the implications of which suggested that IVF might be imperiled in that state — and it was kind of uncertain what the result that would be.

And what happened, in fact, is that Republicans and the Alabama State Legislature and the Republican governor of Alabama, many of whom had sort of longtime pro-life connections and promises, immediately passed a bill to protect in vitro fertilization because they saw that it was something that their voters really cared about and that’s something that could really hurt them politically if they were being seen as being allied with a movement that wanted to ban it.

But the activists in this movement are really important part of the Republican coalition, and they’re very close to leadership. And I think this is going to be a real tension going forward about how does the party accommodate itself to this? Do they win hearts and minds? They figure out a way to get the public on their side? Or do they kind of throw over these people who have helped them for so long, and these ideological commitments that I do think that many Republican politicians really deeply do hold?

Rovner: How much wild card is Donald Trump can be in this? He’s been literally everywhere on this issue, on reproductive rights in general. He is not shy about saying he thinks that abortion is a loser of an issue for Republicans. He wants to just continue to say, “Let the states do whatever they want.”

But then, of course, when the states do things like perhaps ban IVF — that I would think would even make Donald Trump uncomfortable — he seems to get away with being anywhere he wants with these very strong evangelical and pro-life groups who have supported him because, after all, he appointed the two Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe. But I’m wondering if, down-ballot, how all these other candidates are going to cope with the forever sort of changing position of the head of their ticket.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s pretty interesting. I was talking with a colleague about this recently. It seems like Trump’s strategy is to just have every position. If you look at his statements, he said just about every possible thing that you could possibly say about abortion and where he stands on it. And I think it’s actually quite confusing to voters in a way that may help him because I think if you’re only looking for the thing that you want to hear, you can find it.

If you’re someone who’s really a pro-life activist who cares a lot about restricting abortion, he brags about having been responsible for overturning Roe. And if you’re someone who really cares about protecting IVF, he’s said that he wants that. If you’re someone who want… lives in a state that has… continues to have legal abortion, he said, “We’re going to leave that up to the states.”

If you’re in a state that has banned abortion, that has very extreme bans, he said something that pleases you. And so, I don’t know. I did a story a few weeks ago where I interviewed voters who had been part of a New York Times/Siena poll, and these were voters who, they were asked a question: Who do you find responsible for the Dobbs decision for the overturning of Roe v. Wade? And these were voters who supported abortion rights but thought that Joe Biden was responsible. And there’re like… it’s not a lot of people, but it’s …

Rovner: But it’s like 20%, isn’t it?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it’s like 10[%], 15% of voters in battleground states, people whose votes are really going to matter and who support abortion rights. They don’t know who was responsible. They don’t really understand the dynamics of where the candidates are on this issue. And I think for those of us who are very politically engaged and who are following it closely, it’s kind of hard to imagine. But they’re just a lot of people who are not paying close attention.

And so I think that makes Trump being everywhere on the issue, it makes it easier for those people to not really engage with abortion. And I think that’s again why I think we’re going to see the Biden campaign and other Democrats kind of hitting it over and over and over again. “This is Trump’s fault. We are going to protect abortion rights.” Because I think that there are a lot of voters who don’t really know what to make of the candidates and don’t know what to make of Trump on this particular issue.

Rovner: Well, Sandhya, they keep trying to bring it up in Congress, but I don’t think that’s really breaking through as a big news story.

Raman: No, and I think that for Congress, we’ve seen the same thing this year, but we’ve also seen it in previous years where they coalesce around a certain week or a certain time and bring up different bills depending on who’s in control of that chamber to message on an issue. But it hasn’t really moved the needle either way that we get similar tallies, whether it was this year or three years ago or 10 years ago.

One thing that I think activists are really looking at on the pro-life side is just really Trump’s record on these issues. Regardless of what he’s saying this week or last week or in some of these different interviews that’s a little all over the place. They’ve pointed to a lot of things that he’s done, like different things that he’s expanded more than previous Republican presidents. And for them, that might be enough.

That’s if it’s just the dichotomy of Biden versus Trump, that to get to their end goal of more pro-life policies, then Trump is the easy choice. And in the past years, the amount of money that they have poured into these elections to just really support issues… candidates that are really active on these issues, has grown astronomically. So I don’t know that necessarily if he does make some of these statements it’s going to make a huge difference in their support.

Sanger-Katz: And I think it also comes back to Julie’s opening point, which is I think abortion is an issue on which the Democrats have a huge edge, and I do think it is an issue that is very mobilizing for certain types of voters. But I also think that this is an election in which a lot of voters, whatever their commitments are on abortion, may be deciding who to vote for based on another set of issues. Those people that I talked to who were kind of confused about abortion, they really cared a lot about the economy.

They were really concerned about the cost of groceries. And so I think for those people, they may have a preference on abortion. If they could sort of pick each individual issue, they might pick something different. But I think the fact that they supported abortion rights did not necessarily mean that even if they really understood where the candidates were that they were necessarily going to vote for Joe Biden. I think a lot of them were going to vote for Donald Trump anyway because they thought he was better on the issues that were affecting their daily lives more.

Rovner: Well, Margot, to your point about voters not knowing who’s responsible for what, I think another big issue in this campaign is going to be prescription drug prices. As we know, drug prices are kind of the stand-in for everything that’s currently wrong with the nation’s health care system. The system is byzantine. It can threaten people’s health and even their lives if they can’t afford it.

And just about every other country does it better than we do. Interestingly, both President Biden and former President Trump made drug prices a top health priority, and both have receipts to show what they have done, but it’s so confusing that it’s not clear who’s going to get credit for these things that have gotten done.

Trump said that Biden was lying when Biden said that he had done the insulin cap for Medicare, which in fact was done by the Democrats, although Trump had done sort of a precursor to it. So, who wins this point, or do you think it’s going to end up being a draw? Because people are not going to be able to figure out who was responsible for which parts of this. And by the way, we haven’t really fixed it anyway.

Raman: I would say it was a draw for two reasons. I think, one, when we deal with something like drug prices, it takes a while for you to see the effects. When we have the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that made it so that we can negotiate the price of some drugs under Medicare, the effects of that are over a long tailwind. And so it’s not as easy to kind of bring that up in political ads and that kind of thing when people aren’t seeing that when they go to the pharmacy counter.

And I think another thing is that for at least on the congressional level, there’s been a little bit of a gap in them being able to pass anything that kind of moves the point along. They made some efforts over the past year but weren’t able to get it over the finish line. I think it’s a lot more difficult to say, “Hey, we tried but didn’t get this done” without a … as a clear campaign message and to get votes on that.

Sanger-Katz: I also think it’s this issue that’s really quite hard because — setting aside $35 insulin, which we should talk about — most people have insurance, and so the price of the drug doesn’t always affect them in a direct way. A lot of times, when people are complaining about the high cost of drugs, they’re really complaining about the way that their insurance covers the drug. And so the price of the drug might, in fact, be astronomical, but it’s the $100 copayment that people are responding to.

And so it could be that the government is taking all these actions, or the companies by themselves, and the price has gone down, but if you’re still paying that $100 copayment, you’re not really experiencing the benefits of that change. So I do think that the Democrats and Joe Biden have done two things that are helpful in that regard. So, one, is this $35 cap on copayments for insulin. So that’s just for people in Medicare, so it’s not everyone. But I do think that is… it’s a great talking point. You can put that on an ad. It’s a real thing.

People are going to go to the pharmacy counter, and they’re not going to pay more than that. It’s easy to understand. The other thing that they did, and I think this is actually harder to understand, is they redesigned the drug benefit for people who have Medicare. So it used to be in Medicare that if you had a really expensive set of drugs that you took, like, say, you had cancer and you were taking one of these newer cancer drugs that cost tens of thousands dollars a year, you could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars a year out of your own pocket, on top of what your insurance covered.

If you took less-expensive drugs, your insurance kind of worked the way it works for people in the commercial market where you have some copayments, not that you don’t pay anything, but it wasn’t sort of unlimited. But for really high-cost drugs in Medicare, people in Medicare were on the hook for quite a lot of money, and the Inflation Reduction Act changed that. They changed the Medicare drug benefit, and now these people who have these really expensive health conditions have a limit. They only have to pay a couple of thousand dollars a year.

Rovner: But it doesn’t start until next year.

Sanger-Katz: But it doesn’t start until next year. So I just think a lot of this stuff around drug prices is, people feel this sense of outrage that the drugs are so expensive. And so I think that’s why there’s this huge appetite for, for example, having Medicare negotiate the price of drugs. Which is another thing that the Inflation Reduction Act enabled, but it’s not going to happen in time for the election.

But I don’t think that really hits people at the pharmacy counter. That is more the benefits of that policy are going to affect taxpayers and the government. They’re not going to affect individual people so much. And I think that’s part of why it’s such a hard issue. And I think that President Trump bumped up against this as well.

His administration was trying all of these little techniques deep in the works of the drug pricing and distribution system to try to find ways to lever down the prices of drugs. And some of them worked, and some of them didn’t. And some of them got finalized, and some of them didn’t. But I think very few of them had this obvious consumer impact. And so it was hard for them to go to the voters and say, “We did this thing. It affected your life.”

Rovner: I see some of these ads, “We’ve got to do something about the PBMs [Pharmacy Benefit Managers].” And I’m like, “Who’s this ad even aimed at? I cover this for a living, and I don’t really understand what you’re talking about.” I wonder, though, if some… if candidates really on both sides, I mean, this is a unique election in that we’ve got two candidates, both of whom have records behind them.

I mean, normally, you would have at least one who’s saying, “This is what I will do.” And, of course, when it comes to drug prices, the whipping boy has always been the drug companies. And I’m wondering if we’re not going to see candidates from both parties at all levels just going up against the drug companies because that’s worked in the past.

Raman: I think it’s kind of a difficult thing to do when I think so many candidates, congressional level especially, have good relationships with pharmaceutical companies as some of the top donors for their campaigns. And so there’s always that hesitation to go too hard on them when that is helping keep them in office.

So it’s a little bit more difficult there to see teeth-out going into an ad for something like that. I think when we go back to something like PBMs where it seems like everyone in Congress just has made that kind of the bully of this past couple years, then that might be something that’d be easier to throw into ads saying, “I will go after PBMs.”

Sanger-Katz: I think we’re likely to see, especially in congressional races, a lot of candidates just promising to lower your drug prices without a whole lot of detail under that.

I don’t know that it’s necessarily going to be like the evil pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t think it’s going to be detailed policy proposals for all the reasons I just said: because it’s complicated; doesn’t always affect people directly; it’s hard to understand. But I think it will be a staple promise that we’ll particularly see from Democrats and that I expect we will hear from President Trump as well because it’s something that has been part of his kind of staple of talking points.

Rovner: So let’s move on to some of the issues that are sort of the second-tier issues that I expect will come up, just won’t be as big as immigration and abortion. And I want to start with the Affordable Care Act. I think this is the first time in a presidential election year that it seems that the continuing existence of the ACA is no longer in question. If you disagree, do let me know, but that’s not to suggest …

Sanger-Katz: Maybe last time.

Rovner: Little bit. That’s not to suggest, though, that the fate of the Affordable Care Act is not also on the line in this election. The additional subsidies that the Democrats added in the Inflation Reduction Act, which will sunset at the end of next year unless they are renewed, are responsible in large part for the largest percentage of Americans with health insurance ever measured.

And conversely, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enrollment would fall by an immediate 20% if the subsidies are allowed to expire. It’s hard to see how this becomes a campaign issue, but it’s obviously going to be really important to what… I mean who is elected is going to be really important to what happens on this issue, and it’s a lot of people.

Raman: Using the subsidies as a campaign point is a difficult thing to do. It’s a complicated issue to put in a digestible kind of ad thing. It’s the same thing with a lot of the prescription drug pricing policies where, to get it down to the average voter, is hard to do.

And I think had we not gotten those subsidies extended, we would’ve seen people more going into that in ads. But when it’s keeping the status quo, people aren’t noticing that anything has changed. So it’s an even more difficult thing to kind of get across.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is one of, in health care, one of the highest-stakes things. That I feel like there’s just a very obvious difference in policy depending on who is elected president. Whereas a lot of the things that we’ve talked about so far, drug prices, abortion, a little harder to predict. But just to get out of the weeds for a second, Congress increased the amount of money that poor and middle-class people can get when they buy their own health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. And they also made it possible for way more people to get health insurance for free.

So there are a lot of Americans who were uninsured before who now have insurance that they don’t pay a single dollar for. And there are also a lot of Americans that are higher, the kind of people that were disadvantaged in the early years of Obamacare, sort of self-employed people, small business owners who bought their own insurance and used to just have sort of uncapped crazy premiums. People who earn more than $100,000 a year now have financial assistance for the first time ever. And that policy has been in place for several years, and we’ve seen record enrollment.

There’s lots more people with insurance now, and their insurance is more affordable than it’s ever been. And those things are, of course, related. I think it’s almost definitely going to go away if Trump is elected to the presidency and if Republicans take at least one house of Congress because basically it’s on a glide path to expiration. So if nothing is done, that money will go away. What needs to happen is for Congress to pass a new law that spends new money to extend those subsidies and for a president to sign it.

And I just think that the basic ACA, the stuff that passed in 2010, I think is relatively safe, as Julie says. But lots of people are going to face much more expensive insurance and maybe unaffordable insurance. And again, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] projects that a lot of people will end up giving up their insurance as a result of those changes if these policies are allowed to expire. And so I don’t know. I think we don’t see candidates talking about it very much. But I don’t actually think it’s that hard to message on. You could just say, “If you vote for this guy, your insurance premiums are going to go up by 50% or whatever.”

That doesn’t seem like a terrible message. So I do wonder if we’ll see more of that, particularly as we get closer to the election. Because it does feel like a real pocketbook issue for people. The cost of health care, the cost of health insurance, like the cost of drugs, I think, is something that really weighs on people. And we’ve seen in these last few years that making insurance cheaper has just made it much more appealing, much more accessible for people. There’s lots more Americans who have health insurance now, and that’s at risk of going away.

Rovner: Well, also on the list of things that are likely to come up, probably not in the presidential race, but certainly lower down on the ballot, is gender-affirming care. Republicans are right now are all about parental control over what books their children read and what they’re taught in school, but not apparently about medical care for their children.

They want that to be determined by lawmakers. This is very much a wedge issue, but I’m wondering for which side. I mean, traditionally, it would’ve been the conservatives and the evangelicals sort of pushing on this. But as abortion has sort of flip-flopped in importance among voters, I’m wondering where this kind of falls into that.

Raman: I think that the messaging that I’ve seen so far has still prominently been from Republicans on this issue. Whether or not it’s bills that they’ve been introducing and kind of messaging on in Congress or just even in the ads, there’s still been a lot of parental safeguards and the language related to that with relation to gender-affirming care. I have not actually seen as many Democratic ads going super into this. I think they have been way more focused on abortion.

I’m thinking back to, I saw a statistic that 1 in 4 Democratic ads go into abortion, which is really high compared to previous years. And so I don’t know that it will be as big of an issue. I even see some people kind of playing it down because the more attention it gets, sometimes it rallies people up, and they don’t… It’s kind of the flip of Republicans not wanting to bring attention to the abortion issue. And I think a lot of Democrats are trying to shy away so that some of these things aren’t elevated, that we aren’t talking about some of the talking points and the messaging that Republicans are bringing up on the same thing.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it feels to me almost like a mirror image of the abortion issue in the sense that the Democrats have this challenge where their activists are out in front of their voters. There clearly are parts of the Democratic coalition that are really concerned about transgender rights and wanting to protect them and are very opposed to some of the action that we’re seeing at the state and local level, both in terms of what’s happening in schools, but also regulation of medical care. But I think voters I think are less comfortable with transgender rights.

Even Democratic voters, you see sort of there’s more of a generational split on this issue than on some of these other issues where I think older voters are just a little bit less comfortable. And so I do think that it is an issue where — particularly certain parts of it like transgender athletes — that seems to be an area where you see the Republican message really getting more traction among certain subsets of Democratic voters. And I think it’s a hard issue for Democrats except in the places where there’s really broad acceptance.

Rovner: So I want to move on to the things that are less likely to come up, but probably should. We’re going to start with Medicaid. During the pandemic, it grew to cover over 90 million Americans. That’s like a third more than Medicare, which most people still think of as the largest government health program.

But as states pare back their roles after the expiration of the public health emergency, it seems that lots of people — particularly children, who are still eligible — are getting dropped nonetheless. During the fight over repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017, it was the fate of Medicaid in large part that saved the program.

Suddenly, people realized that their grandmother was getting Medicaid and that one out of every three births, maybe one of every two births, is paid for by Medicaid. But now it seems not so much. Has Medicaid gotten invisible again in national politics?

Raman: I think, in a way, it has. I mean, it doesn’t mean that it’s any less important, but I haven’t seen as big of a push on it, as many people talking about it. And I think it is more of a tricky thing to message on at this point, given that if you look at where the states that have been disenrolling a lot of people, a lot of the ones that are near the top, are blue states.

California is a bigger population, but it’s also the one where they’ve disenrolled the most people. And so messaging on this is going to be difficult. It’s a harder thing to kind of attack your opponent on if this is something that is also being … been difficult in your state. It’s something that states have been grappling with even before we even got to this point.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is another issue where, I think, the stakes of the election are actually quite high. I do think it’s relatively invisible as an issue. I think part of the reason is that we don’t really see the Republicans talking about it, and I think the Democrats don’t really know how to message on it. I think they were really good at, “We’re going to protect you. We’re going to prevent the Republicans from taking this away from you.” But I think they don’t have a good affirmative message about, “How we love this program and we want to support and extend it.”

I don’t think voters are really responding to that. But if you look at what President Trump did in his first administration, he had budgets every single year that proposed savage cuts to Medicaid, big changes to the structure and funding of the program. Those did not get enacted into law. But even after Obamacare repeal was abandoned, you did not see the Trump budgets and the Trump administration, economic officials and health officials, abandoning those plans to make significant cuts to Medicaid.

And I think there are quite a lot of people in the Republican health policy world who think that Medicaid is sort of a bloated and wasteful program that needs to be rethought in a kind of fundamental way, needs to be handed back to the states to give them more fiscal responsibility and also more autonomy to run the program in their own way. I think we will see that again. I also think it’s very hard to know, of course, I feel like anytime… whoever’s in power is always less concerned about the deficit than they are when they are running for election.

But something we haven’t talked about because it’s not a health care issue, is that the expiration of the Trump tax reform bill is going to come up next year, and all of our budget projections that we rely on now assume that those tax cuts are going to expire. I think we all know that most of them probably are not going to expire regardless of who is elected. But I think if Trump and the Republicans take power again, they’re going to want to do certainly a full renewal and maybe additional tax cuts.

And so I think that does put pressure, fiscal pressure on programs like Medicaid because that’s one of the places where there’s a lot of dollars that you could cut if you want to counterbalance some of the revenues that you’re not taking in when you cut taxes. I think Medicaid looks like a pretty ripe target, especially because Trump has been so clear that he does not want to make major cuts to Medicare or to Social Security, which are kind of the other big programs where there’s a lot of money that you could find to offset major tax cuts if you wanted to.

Rovner: Yet, the only big program left that he hasn’t promised not to cut, basically. I guess this is where we have to mention Project 2025, which is this 900-page blueprint for what could happen in a second Trump term that the Trump campaign likes to say, whenever something that’s gets publicized that seems unpopular, saying, “It doesn’t speak for us. That’s not necessarily our position.”

But there’s every suggestion that it would indeed be the position of the Trump administration because one of the pieces of this is that they’re also vetting people who would be put into the government to carry out a lot of these policies. This is another one that’s really hard to communicate to voters but could have an enormous impact, up and down, what happens to health.

Sanger-Katz: And I think this is true across the issue spectrum that I think presidential candidates, certainly congressional candidates and voters, tend to focus on what’s going to happen in Congress. What’s the legislation that you’re going to pass? Are you going to pass a national abortion ban, or are you going to pass a national protect-abortion law? But actually, most of the action in government happens in regulatory agencies. There’s just a ton of power that the executive branch has to tweak this program this way or that.

And so on abortion, I think there’s a whole host of things that are identified in that Project 2025 report that if Trump is elected and if the people who wrote that report get their way, you could see lots of effects on abortion access nationwide that just happened because the federal agencies change the rules about who can get certain drugs or how things are transported across state lines. What happens to members of the military? What kind of funding goes to organizations that provide contraception coverage and other related services?

So, in all of these programs, there’s lots of things that could happen even without legislation. And I think that always tends to get sort of undercovered or underappreciated in elections because sort of hard to explain, and it also feels kind of technical. I think, speaking as a journalist, one thing that’s very hard is that this Project 2025 effort is kind of unprecedented in the sense that we don’t usually have this detailed of a blueprint for what a president would do in all of these very detailed ways. They have, I mean, it’s 100…

Rovner: Nine-hundred …

Sanger-Katz: … 900-page document. It’s like every little thing that they could do they’ve sort of thought about in advance and written down. But it’s very hard to know whether this document actually speaks for Trump and for the people that will be in leadership positions if he’s reelected and to what degree this is sort of the wish casting of the people who wrote this report.

Rovner: We will definitely find out. Well, kind of like Medicaid, the opioid crisis is something that is by no means over, but the public debate appears to have just moved on. Do we have short attention spans, or are people just tired of an issue that they feel like they don’t know how to fix? Or the fact that Congress threw a lot of money at it? Do they feel like it’s been addressed to the extent that it can be?

Raman: I think this is a really difficult one to get at because it’s — at the same time where the problem has been so universal across the country — it has also become a little fragmented in terms of certain places, with different drugs becoming more popular. I think that, in the past, it was just so much that it was the prescription opioids, and then we had heroin and just different things. And now we have issues in certain places with meth and other drugs. And I think that some of that attention span has kind of deviated for folks. Even though we are still seeing over 100,000 drug-related deaths per year; it hasn’t dipped.

And the pandemic, it started going up again after we’d made some progress. And I’m not sure what exactly has shifted the attention, if it’s that people have moved on to one of these other issues or what. But even in Congress, where there have been a lot of people that were very active on changing some of the preventative measures and the treatment and all of that, I think some of those folks have also left. And then when there’s less of the people focused on that issue, it also just slowly trickles as like a less-hyped-up issue in Congress.

Sanger-Katz: I think it continues to be an issue in state and local politics. In certain parts of the country I think this is a very front-of-mind issue, and there’s a lot of state policy happening. There’s a lot also happening at the urban level where you’re seeing prosecutors, mayors, and others really being held accountable for this really terrible problem. And also with the ancillary problems of crime and homelessness associated with people who are addicted to drugs. So, at the federal level, I agree, it’s gotten a little bit sleepy, but I think in certain parts of the country, this is still a very hot issue.

And I do think this is a huge, huge, huge public health crisis that we have so many people who are dying of drug overdoses and some parts of the country where it is just continuing to get worse. I will say that the latest data, which is provisional, it’s not final from the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], but it does look like it’s getting a little bit better this year. So it’s getting better from the worst ever by far. But it’s the first time in a long time that overdoses seem to be going down even a little. So I do think there’s a glimmer of hope there.

Raman: Yeah. But then the last time that we had that, it immediately changed again. I feel like everyone is just so hesitant to celebrate too much just because it has deviated so much.

Sanger-Katz: It’s definitely, it’s a difficult issue. And even the small improvements that we’ve seen, it’s a small improvement from a very, very large problem, so.

Rovner: Well, speaking of public health, we should speak of public health. We’re still debating whether or not covid came from a wet market or from a lab leak, and whether Dr. [Anthony] Fauci is a hero or a villain. But there seems to be a growing distrust in public health in general. We’ve seen from President Trump sort of threatened to take federal funds away from schools with vaccine mandates.

The context of what he’s been saying suggests he’s talking about covid vaccines, but we don’t know that. This feels like one of these issues that, if it comes up at all, is going to be from the point of view of do you trust or do you not trust expertise? I mean, it is bigger than public health, right?

Raman: Yeah. I think that… I mean, the things that I’ve seen so far have been largely on the distrust of whether vaccines are just government mandates and just ads that very much are aligning with Trump that I’ve seen so far that have gone into that. But it does, broader than expertise.

I mean, even when you go back to some of the gender-affirming care issues, when we have all of the leading medical organizations that are experts on this issue speaking one way. And then we having to all of the talking points that are very on the opposite spectrum of that. It’s another issue where even if there is expertise saying that this is a helpful thing for a lot of folks that it’s hard to message on that.

Sanger-Katz: And we also have a third-party candidate for the presidency who is, I think, polling around 10% of the electorate — and polling both from Democratic and Republican constituencies — whose kind of main message is an anti-vaccine message, an antipublic health message.

And so I think that reflects deep antipublic health sentiments in this country that I think, in some ways, were made much more prominent and widespread by the covid pandemic. But it’s a tough issue for that reason.

I think there is a lot of distrust of the public health infrastructure, and you just don’t see politicians really rushing into defend public health officials in this moment where there’s not a crisis and there’s not a lot of political upside.

Rovner: Finally, I have a category that I call big-picture stuff. I feel like it would be really refreshing to see broad debates over things like long-term care. How we’re going to take care of the 10,000 people who are becoming seniors every day. The future solvency of Medicare. President Trump has said he won’t cut Medicare, but that’s not going to help fix the financial issues that still ail at end, frankly, the structure of our dysfunctional health care system.

Everything that we’ve talked about in terms of drug prices and some of these other things is just… are all just symptoms of a system that is simply not working very well. Is there a way to raise these issues, or are they just sort of too big? I mean, they’re exactly the kinds of things that candidates should be debating.

Raman: That is something that I have been wondering that when we do see the debate next week, if we already have such a rich background on both of these candidates in terms of they’ve both been president before, they have been matched up before, that if we could explore some of the other issues that we haven’t had yet. I mean, we know the answers to so many questions. But there are certain things like these where it would be more refreshing to hear some of that, but it’s unclear if we would get any new questions there.

Rovner: All right. Well, I have one more topic for the panel, and then I’m going to turn it over to the audience. There are folks with microphones, so if you have questions, be thinking of them and wait until a microphone gets to you.

One thing that we haven’t really talked about very much, but I think it’s becoming increasingly important, is data privacy in health care. We’ve seen all of these big hacks of enormous storages of people’s very personal information. I get the distinct impression that lawmakers don’t even know what to do. I mean, it’s not really an election issue, but boy, it almost should be.

Sanger-Katz: I did some reporting on this issue because there was this very large hack that affected this company called Change Healthcare. And so many things were not working because this one company got hacked. And the impression I got was just that this is just an absolute mess. That, first of all, there are a ton of vulnerabilities both at the level of hospitals and at the level of these big vendors that kind of cut across health care where many of them just don’t have good cybersecurity practices.

And at the level of regulation where I think there just aren’t good standards, there isn’t good oversight. There are a lot of conflicting and non-aligned jurisdictions where this agency takes care of this part, and this agency takes care of that part. And I think that is why it has been hard for the government to respond, that there’s not sort of one person where the buck stops there. And I think the legislative solutions actually will be quite technical and difficult. I do think that both lawmakers and some key administration officials are aware of the magnitude of this problem and are thinking about how to solve it.

It doesn’t mean that they will reach an answer quickly or that something will necessarily pass Congress. But I think this is a big problem, and the sense I got from talking to experts is this is going to be a growing problem. And it’s one that sounds technical but actually has pretty big potential health impacts because when the hospital computer system doesn’t work, hospitals can’t actually do the thing that they do. Everything is computerized now. And so when there’s a ransomware attack on a main computer electronic health record system, that is just a really big problem. That there’s documentation has led to deaths in certain cases because people couldn’t get the care that they need.

Rovner: They couldn’t … I mean, couldn’t get test results, couldn’t do surgeries. I mean, there was just an enormous implications of all this. Although I did see that there was a hack of the national health system in Britain, too. So, at least, that’s one of the things that we’re not alone in.

Sanger-Katz: And it’s not just health care. I mean, it’s like everything is hackable. All it takes is one foolish employee who gives away their password, and you think, often, the hackers can get in.

Raman: Well, that’s one of the tricky parts is that we don’t have nationally, a federal data privacy law like they do in the E.U. and stuff. And so it’s difficult to go and hone in on just health care when we don’t have a baseline for just, broadly … We have different things happening in different states. And that’s kind of made it more difficult to get done when you have different baselines that not everyone wants to come and follow the model that we have in California or some of the other states.

Rovner: But apparently Change Healthcare didn’t even have two-factor authentication, which I have on my social media accounts, that I’m still sort of processing that. All right, so let’s turn it over to you guys. Who has a question for my esteemed panel?

[Audience member]: Private equity and their impact on health care.

Rovner: Funny, one of those things that I had written down but didn’t ask.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is a really interesting issue because we have seen a big growth in the investment of private equity into health care, where we’re seeing private equity investors purchasing more hospitals, in particular, purchasing more doctors’ practices, nursing homes. You kind of see this investment across the health care sector, and we’re just starting to get evidence about what it means. There’s not a lot of transparency currently. It’s actually pretty hard to figure out what private equity has bought and who owns what.

And then we really don’t know. I would say there’s just starting to be a little bit of evidence about quality declines in hospitals that are owned by private equity. But it’s complicated, is what I would say. And I think in the case of medical practices, again, we just don’t have strong evidence about it. So I think policymakers, there are some who are just kind of ideologically opposed to the idea of these big investors getting involved in health care. But I think there are many who are… feel a little hands-off, where they don’t really want to just go after this particular industry until we have stronger evidence that they are in fact bad.

Rovner: Oh, there’ve been some pretty horrendous cases of private equity buying up hospital groups, selling off the underlying real estate. So now that the… now the hospital is paying rent, and then the hospitals are going under. I mean, we’ve now seen this.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, there’s… No, there’s… There have clearly been some examples of private equity investments in hospitals and in nursing homes that have led to really catastrophic results for those institutions and for patients at those places. But I think the broader question of whether private equity as a structure that owns health care entities is necessarily bad or good, I think that’s what we don’t know about.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, there’s an argument that you can have the efficiencies of scale, and that there may be, and that they can bring some business acumen to this. There are certainly reasons that it made sense when it started. The question is what the private equity is in it for.

Is it there to try to support the organization? Or is it there to do what a lot of private equity has done, which is just sort of take the parts, pull as much value as you can out of them, and discard the rest, which doesn’t work very well in the health care system.

Sanger-Katz: I also think one thing that’s very hard in this issue — and I think in others that relate to changes in the business structure of health care — is that it’s, like, by the time we really know, it’s almost too late. There’s all of this incredible scholarship looking at the effects of hospital consolidation, that it’s pretty bad that when you have too much hospital concentration; particularly in individual markets, that prices go up, that quality goes down. It’s really clear. But by the time that research was done so many markets were already highly consolidated that there wasn’t a way to go back.

And so I think there’s a risk for private equity investment of something similar happening that when and if we find out that it’s bad, they will have already rolled up so much of medical practice and changed the way that those practices are run that there’s not going to be a rewind button. On the other hand, maybe it will turn out to be OK, or maybe it will turn out to be OK in certain parts of the health care system and not in others. And so there is, I think, a risk of over-regulating in the absence of evidence that it’s a problem.

Raman: Yeah. And I would just echo one thing that you said earlier is that about the exploratory stages. Everything that I can rack my brain and think of that Congress has done on this has been very much like, “Let’s have a discussion. Let’s bring in experts,” rather than like really proposing a lot of new things to change it. I mean, we’ve had some discussion in the past of just changing laws about physician-owned practices and things like that, but it hasn’t really gone anywhere. And some of the proponents of that are also leaving Congress after this election.

Rovner: And, of course, a lot of this is regulated at the state level anyway, which is part of the difficulty.

Sanger-Katz: And there is more action at the state level. There are a bunch of states that have passed laws that are requiring more transparency and oversight of private equity acquisitions in health care. That seems to be happening faster at the state level than at the federal level.

Raman: And so many times, it trickles from the state level to the federal level anyway, too.

Rovner: Maybe the states can figure out what to do.

Sanger-Katz: Yes.

Rovner: More questions.

[Audience member]: Oh, yeah. I have a question about access to health care. It seems that for the past few years, maybe since covid, almost everybody you talked to says, “I can’t get an appointment with a doctor.” They call, and it’s like six months or three months. And I’m curious as to what you think is going on because … in this regard.

Raman: I would say part of it is definitely a workforce issue. We definitely have more and more people that have been leaving due to age or burnout from the pandemic or from other issues. We’ve had more antagonism against different types of providers that there’ve been a slew of reasons that people have been leaving while there’s been a greater need for different types of providers. And so I think that is just part of it.

Rovner: I feel like some of this is the frog in the pot of water. This has been coming for a long time. There have been markets where people have… people unable to get in to see specialists. You break your leg, and they say, “We can see you in November.” And I’m not kidding. I mean, that’s literally what happens. And now we’re seeing it more with primary care.

I mean that the shortages that used to be in what we called underserved areas, that more and more of the country is becoming underserved. And I think because we don’t have a system. Because we’re all sort of looking at these distinct pieces, I think the health care workforce issue is going kind of under the radar when it very much shouldn’t be.

Sanger-Katz: There’s also, I think, quite a lot of regional variation in this problem. So I think there are some places where there’s really no problem at all and certain specialties where there’s no problem at all. And then there are other places where there really are not enough providers to go around. And rural areas have long had a problem attracting and retaining a strong health care workforce across the specialties.

And I think in certain urban areas, in certain neighborhoods, you see these problems, too. But I would say it’s probably not universal. You may be talking to a lot of people in one area or in a couple of areas who are having this problem. But, as Julie said, I think it is a problem. It’s a problem that we need to pay attention to. But I think it’s not a problem absolutely everywhere in the country right now.

Rovner: It is something that Congress… Part of this problem is because Congress, in 1997, when they did the Balanced Budget Act, wanted to do something about Medicare and graduate medical education. Meaning why is Medicare paying for all of the graduate medical education in the United States, which it basically was at that point? And so they put in a placeholder. They capped the number of residences, and they said, “We’re going to come back, and we’re going to put together an all-payer system next year.”

That’s literally what they said in 1997. It’s now 27 years later, and they never did it, and they never raised the cap on residencies. So now we’ve got all these new medical schools, which we definitely need, and we have all of these bright, young graduating M.D.s, and they don’t have residencies to go to because there are more graduating medical school seniors than there are residency slots. So that’s something we’re… that just has not come up really in the past 10 years or so. But that’s something that can only be fixed by Congress.

Raman: And I think even with addressing anything in that bubble we’ve had more difficulty of late when we were… as they were looking at the pediatric residency slots, that whole discussion got derailed over a back-and-forth between members of Congress over gender-affirming care.

And so we’re back again to some of these issues that things that have been easier to do in the past are suddenly much more difficult. And then some of these things are felt down the line, even if we are able to get so many more slots this year. I mean, it’s going to… it takes a while to broaden that pipeline, especially with these various specialized careers.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re on a trajectory for this to get worse before it gets better. There’s a question over here.

[Audience member]: Hi. Thanks so much. I feel like everybody’s talking about mental health in some way or another. And I’m curious, it doesn’t seem to be coming at the forefront in any of the election spaces. I’m curious for your thoughts.

Raman: I think it has come up some, but not as much as maybe in the past. It has been something that Biden has messaged on a lot. Whenever he does his State of the Union, mental health and substance use are always part of his bipartisan plan that he wants to get done with both sides. I think that there has been less of it more recently that I’ve seen that them campaigning on. I mean, we’ve done a little bit when it’s combined with something like gun violence or things like that where it’s tangentially mentioned.

But front and center, it hasn’t come up as much as it has in the past, at least from the top. I think it’s still definitely a huge issue from people from the administration. I mean, we hear from the surgeon general like time and time again, really focusing on youth mental health and social media and some of the things that he’s worried about there. But on the top-line level, I don’t know that it has come up as much there. It is definitely talked about a lot in Congress. But again, it’s one of those things where they bring things up, and it doesn’t always get all the way done, or it’s done piecemeal, and so …

Rovner: Or it gets hung up on a wedge issue.

Raman: Yep.

Sanger-Katz: Although I do think this is an issue where actually there is a fair amount of bipartisan agreement. And for that reason, there actually has been a fair amount of legislation that has passed in the last few cycles. I think it just doesn’t get the same amount of attention because there isn’t this hot fight over it. So you don’t see candidates running on it, or you don’t see people that…

There’s this political science theory called the Invisible Congress, which is that sometimes, actually, you want to have issues that people are not paying attention to because if they’re not as controversial, if they’re not as prominent in the political discourse, you can actually get more done. And infrastructure, I think, is a kind of classic example of that, of something like it’s not that controversial. Everybody wants something in their district. And so we see bipartisan cooperation; we got an infrastructure bill.

And mental health is kind of like that. We got some mental health investments that were part of the pandemic relief packages. There was some mental health investment that was part of the IRA, I believe, and there was a pretty big chunk of mental health legislation and funding that passed as part of the gun bill.

So I do think there’s, of course, more to do it as a huge problem. And I think there are probably more creative solutions even than the things that Congress has done. But I think just because you’re not seeing it in the election space doesn’t mean that there’s not policymaking that’s happening. I think there has been a fair amount.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny. This Congress has been sort of remarkably productive considering how dysfunctional it has been in public. But underneath, there actually has been a lot of lawmaking that’s gone on, bipartisan lawmaking. I mean, by definition, because the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. And I think mental health is one of those issues that there is a lot of bipartisan cooperation on.

But I think there’s also a limit to what the federal government can do. I mean, there’s things that Congress could fix, like residency slots, but mental health is one of those things where they have to just sort of feed money into programs that happen. I think at the state and local level, there’s no federal… Well, there is a federal mental health program, but they’re overseeing grants and whatnot. I think we have time for maybe one more question.

[Audience member]: Hi. To your point of a lot of change happens at the regulatory level. In Medicaid one of the big avenues for that is 1115 waivers. And let’s take aside block granting or anything else for a minute. There’s been big bipartisan progress on, including social care and whole-person care models. This is not just a blue state issue. What might we expect from a Trump administration in terms of the direction of 1115s, which will have a huge effect on the kind of opportunity space in states for Medicaid? And maybe that we don’t know yet, but I’m curious. Maybe that 900-page document says something.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think that’s an example of we don’t know yet because I think the personnel will really matter. From everything that I know about President Trump, I do not think that the details of Medicaid 1115 waiver policy are something that he gets up in the morning and thinks about or really cares that much about. And so I think …

Rovner: I’m not sure it’s even in Project 2025, is it?

Sanger-Katz: I think work requirements are, so that was something that they tried to do the last time. I think it’s possible that we would see those come back. But I think a lot really depends on who is in charge of CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and Medicaid in the next Trump administration and what are their interests and commitments and what they’re going to say yes and no to from the states. And I don’t know who’s on the shortlist for those jobs, frankly. So I would just put that in a giant question-mark bin — with the possible exception of work requirements, which I think maybe we could see a second go at those.

Raman: I would also just point to his last few months in office when there were a lot of things that could have been changed had he been reelected; where they wanted to change Medicaid drug pricing. And then we had some things with block grants and various things that had we had a second Trump presidency we could have seen some of those waivers come to a fruition. So I could definitely see a push for more flexibility in asking states to come up with something new that could fall for under one of those umbrellas.

Rovner: Well, I know you guys have more questions, but we are out of time. If you enjoyed the podcast tonight, I hope you will subscribe. Listen to “What the Health?” every week. You can get it wherever you get your podcast. So good night and enjoy the rest of the festival. Thanks.

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).

Medicaid — the state-federal health insurance program for low-income and disabled Americans — has cut more than 22 million recipients since spring 2023.

One of them was the son of Ashley Eades. Her family lost their Medicaid coverage in the “unwinding” of protections that had barred states from dropping people for years during the covid pandemic.

Many families, including Ashley’s, still qualify for Medicaid but lost it for “procedural reasons.” Basically, missing paperwork.

The unwinding process has been messy.

In this episode, host Dan Weissmann talks with Ashley about the months she spent fighting to get her son reenrolled in 2023 to get an on-the-ground look at how the unwinding is affecting families.

Then, Dan hears from staff at the Tennessee Justice Center, Joan Alker of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, and KFF Health News correspondent Brett Kelman, who has been covering Medicaid in Tennessee for years.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

‘An Arm and a Leg’: Medicaid Recipients Struggle To Stay Enrolled

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there. You know what we have NEVER talked about on this show? Medicaid. The big, federally-funded health insurance program for folks with lower incomes. And I did not realize: That’s been a huge omission. Because it turns out, Medicaid covers a TON of people. Like about a quarter of all Americans. And about forty percent of all children. That’s four out of every ten kids in this country who are insured by Medicaid. 

And this is the perfect time to look at Medicaid because– well: tens of millions of people are losing their Medicaid coverage right now. It seems like a lot of these people? Well, a lot of them may actually still qualify for Medicaid. 

This is all kind of a “Back to the Future” moment, which started when COVID hit: The feds essentially hit pause on a thing that used to happen every year– requiring people on Medicaid to re-enroll, to re-establish whether they were eligible. And back then, tons of people got dropped every year, even though a lot of them probably still qualified. 

The pause lasted through the COVID “public health emergency,” which ended in spring 2023. Since then, states have been un-pausing: Doing years and years of re-enrollments– and un-enrollments– all at once. People call it the “unwinding.” And it’s been messy. And, another thing I’ve been learning: Medicaid operates really differently from one state to another. It even has different names. In California, it’s called Medi-Cal. In Wisconsin, it’s BadgerCare. And this unwinding can look completely different from one state to the next.

We’re gonna look mostly at one state– Tennessee, where the program is called TennCare. And in some ways, according to the numbers on the unwinding, TennCare is… kinda average. 

But the problems some people have had, trying to keep from getting kicked off TennCare? Before this unwinding and during it? They sound pretty bad. We’re gonna hear from one of those people– a mom named Ashley Eades. 

Ashley Eades: Yeah. TennCare. Put me through the wringer, I tell you what. 

Dan: We’ll hear how Ashley spent months fighting to keep her son Lucas from getting kicked off TennCare. And we’ll hear from some folks who can help us put her story in perspective. Including folks who helped Ashley ultimately win her fight. Folks who are fighting– in Tennessee and around the country– to keep programs like TennCare from putting people like Ashley through the wringer. 

This is An Arm and a Leg– a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So the job we’ve chosen around here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and to bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering, and useful. Ashley Eades is a single mom in Nashville. She works in the kitchen at Red’s Hot Chicken, near Vanderbilt University. 

Ashley Eades: We’re just like every other person in Nashville trying to say they got the best hot chicken. 

Dan: Ashley buys her insurance from the Obamacare marketplace, but her son Lucas– he’s 12 — is on TennCare. In April 2023, Ashley got a notice from TennCare saying, “It’s time to renew your coverage!” Meaning Lucas’s coverage. Meaning, welcome to the unwinding! When I talk with Ashley, she uses one word about a half-dozen times: 

Ashley Eades: it just was a nightmare. It was a nightmare. So that was the nightmare. A terrible nightmare you can’t wake up from. Oh my god, that was a nightmare. 

Dan: So: After Ashley filled out the renewal packet, she got another notice, saying “We need more information from you.” TennCare wanted proof of “unearned income”– like bank statements, or a letter saying she was entitled to something like workers compensation– or a court-ordered payment. But Ashley didn’t have any unearned income. Lucas’s dad was supposed to pay child support, but– as Ashley later wrote to state officials– he didn’t have regular employment so couldn’t pay. 

Ashley says she called TennCare for advice and got told, “Never mind. There’s nothing to send, so you don’t have to send us anything.” Which turned out to be wrong. A few weeks later, in May, TennCare sent Ashley a letter saying “Why your coverage is ending.” 

It gave two reasons: First, it said “We sent you a letter asking for more facts… but you did not send us what we needed.” It also said “We’ve learned that you have other insurance” for Lucas. But she didn’t. And not having insurance for Lucas was going to be an immediate problem. He got diagnosed with epilepsy a few years ago, and he needed ongoing treatment. 

Ashley Eades: he was on three different medications. I mean, that alone would cost me about $1,500 a month with no health insurance. And this is anti-seizure medication. Like we can’t just stop it 

Dan: Yeah. Ashley says she did everything she could think of: mailed in paper forms, submitted information online, and made a lot of phone calls.

Ashley Eades: like back and forth on the phone with people I don’t even know who Italked to, just dozens and dozens of people I talked to. And every single time it was go through the same story over and over and over and over and over again and just get transferred Put on holds, you know disconnected yelled at, told I’m wrong like 

Dan: It went on for months. She reapplied. She was approved. Then she was un-approved. She appealed. The appeal was denied. Then, in July, the full nightmare: Lucas ended up in the emergency room after a seizure. While he was officially uninsured. 

Ashley Eades: I just didn’t know what to do. Like, I was shutting down mentally. 

Dan: And then, out of nowhere, a relative mentioned that a nonprofit called the Tennessee Justice Center had helped *her* out with a TennCare application. Ashley called the group right away. 

Ashley Eades: and I’m not a spiritual person, but they were like a fudging godsend. You know what I mean? Like, it was amazing

 Dan: A client advocate named Luke Mukundan looked at all of TennCare’s letters to Ashley and confirmed one thing right away: Ashley wasn’t wrong to be confused. 

Ashley Eades: He’s like going through all of these letters and he’s like, it doesn’t even make sense 

Dan: Later I talked with Luke, on kind of a lousy Zoom connection. But he said to me: This was confusing, even to him. 

Luke Mukundan: she was providing the information that they asked for, um, 

Dan: But they kept asking the same questions. And they kept saying that her son had some other insurance. 

Luke Mukundan: when I knew and she knew that wasn’t the case

Dan: Luke’s boss at the Tennessee Justice Center, Diana Gallaher, told me she wasn’t surprised that Ashley got confused by that early question about un-earned income. She says the process can be really confusing. 

Diana Gallaher: Heck, I get confused. I still, I’ll look at a question and say, you know, wait, what are they asking? How do I answer this one? 

Dan: And you’ve been doing this for a while, right? 

Diana Gallaher: Oh, yeah. Yeah. 

Dan: How long have you been doing this? 

Diana Gallaher: Since 2003, 2004. 

Dan: More than twenty years. Of course, Ashley’s been going through this process at an especially rough time: The unwinding. When so many people were going through this process at once. 

For instance, Luke and Diana say the help lines at TennCare were super-jammed– like, it wasn’t unusual to spend 45 minutes or an hour on hold. 

By the time Ashley found the Tennessee Justice Center, it was August. She’d been fighting alone for months. Luke helped Ashley with a new appeal. And on September 22, TennCare sent Ashley an update. Her son is approved. “You qualify for the same coverage you had before,” it says. “And you’ll have no break in coverage.” 

So Ashley’s “nightmare” was one person’s experience of the unwinding. But it’s not a one-off: According to reports from KFF and Georgetown University, more than two-thirds of the people who lost Medicaid in the last year were disenrolled, like Ashley, for what are called “procedural reasons.” Missing paperwork.

Now, some of those people who got dropped for “procedural reasons” probably didn’t even try to renew Medicaid because they didn’t need it anymore. They had new jobs that came with insurance.

But we know those folks are in a minority. Researchers at KFF– the parent group of our journalist pals at KFF Health News– did a survey of folks who got dropped from Medicaid. Most of them– seventy percent– ended up either uninsured or, the biggest group, back on Medicaid. And again, more than two-thirds of the folks who got dropped were cut for “procedural reasons”– paperwork. Like Ashley’s son Lucas. 

So, when a lot of people can’t renew their Medicaid for “procedural” reasons, it seems worth looking at that procedure. And what’s happening in the unwinding isn’t actually a new phenomenon. It’s just un-pausing an old procedure– a system that always had these problems. And that’s really clear in Tennessee, because people in Tennessee have been documenting– and fighting– these problems for a long time. 

Next up: Taking TennCare to court. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is a co-production of Public Road Productions and KFF Health News. The folks at KFF health news are amazing journalists– and in fact, we’re about to hear from one of them, right now. 

Brett Kelman: My name is Brett Kelman. 

Dan: Brett’s an enterprise correspondent with KFF Health News 

Brett Kelman: And I report from the city of Nashville, where I have lived for about seven years. 

Dan: Brett came to Nashville initially to cover health care for the local daily, the Tennessean. Which meant he heard about Medicaid– about people losing medicaid– a lot. 

Brett Kelman: You hear two versions of the same story. You hear patients who get to the doctor’s office and suddenly discover they don’t have Medicaid when they used to, and they thought they still did. And then you hear the other side of that coin. You hear doctors, particularly a lot of pediatricians, where their patients get to their office and then discover in their waiting rooms they don’t have Medicaid. 

Dan: And by the way– you noticed how Brett said he heard especially from pediatricians about this issue in Tennessee. That’s because Tennessee is one of the states that never expanded Medicaid after the Affordable Care Act took effect. In those states, Medicaid still covers a lot of kids but a lot fewer adults than other states. Docs treating patients with Medicaid– a lot of them are gonna be pediatricians. 

So, Brett’s hearing all of this seven years ago– the before-time. Before the unwinding. Before COVID. People kept losing Medicaid and not knowing about it until they got to the doctor’s office. And Brett wanted to know: how did that happen? He and a colleague ended up doing a huge investigation. And came back with a clear finding: 

Brett Kelman: Most of the time, when people lose their Medicaid in Tennessee, it is not because the state looked at their finances and determined they aren’t qualified. Paperwork problems are the primary reason that people lose Medicaid coverage in Tennessee. 

Dan: Brett and his reporting partner used a public-records request to get a database with the form letters sent to about three hundred thousand people who needed to renew their Medicaid coverage. 

Brett Kelman: And what we determined was that, you know, 200,000 plus children, had been sent a form letter saying that they were going to lose their Medicaid in Tennessee, again, not because the state determined they were ineligible, but because they couldn’t tell. 

Dan: About two thirds of people in that database got kicked off Medicaid for “procedural reasons”– paperwork issues. This is years before the current “unwinding” but that two-thirds number, it’s pretty similar to what we’re seeing today.

Brett Kelman: And, you know, that raises a lot of questions about if we’re doing the system correctly, because do we really want to take health care away from a family who is low income? Because somebody messed up a form or a form got lost in the mail. 

Dan: Around the time Brett published that story in 2019, the Lester family found out that they had lost their Medicaid– because a form had gotten lost in the mail. It took them three years to get it back. Brett met them at the end of that adventure 

Brett Kelman: they were a rural Tennessee family, a couple of rambunctious boys who seemed to injure themselves constantly. And honestly, I saw him almost get hurt while I was there doing the interview. One of the young boys had. Climbed up to the top of a cat tower. And I believe jumped off as I was interviewing his parents and I could see the insurance, I could see the medical claims racking up before my eyes. 

Dan: In 2019, one of the boys had broken his wrist jumping off the front porch. And when the Lesters took him to the doctor, that’s when they learned they’d been cut from Medicaid. Over the next three years, they racked up more than a hundred thousand dollars in medical debt– dealing with COVID, with more injuries, with the birth of another child. Finally, the Tennessee Justice Center helped them get Medicaid back– and figure out what had gone wrong. 

Brett Kelman: And when it all came down to it, we eventually determined that this paperwork that their health insurance hinged on, the health insurance that they were entitled to, they had lost it because the state had mailed that paperwork to the wrong place. 

Dan: Oh, and where had the state been mailing that paperwork to? A horse pasture. 

Brett Kelman: It wasn’t far from their house, but there was certainly no one receiving mail there 

Dan: Was there like a mailbox for the horses? Like where did they, where did it even go? Get left. 

Brett Kelman: I don’t remember if there was a mailbox for the horses. I don’t think so. I mean, if you think about this chain of events, they were sent paperwork they were supposed to fill out and return to keep their health insurance, but it went to the horse pasture, so they didn’t fill it out. Then they were sent a letter saying, Hey, you never filled out that paperwork. We’re gonna take your health insurance away. But it went to the horse pasture, so they didn’t fix it, and then they were sent paperwork saying, we’ve cut off your health insurance. You won’t have health insurance as of this date But it was sent to the horse pasture, so they didn’t know about it. 

Dan: And their three-year fight to get Medicaid back took place AFTER Brett published his initial story. So, some things, it seemed, hadn’t changed a whole lot. But one thing had happened: In 2020, the Tennessee Justice Center had filed a class-action lawsuit, demanding that TennCare re-enroll about a hundred thousand people who had gotten cut off– the lawsuit alleges, without due process. Here’s Brett’s take: 

Brett Kelman: And yes, I recognize that there could just have a Medicaid recipient who is not on top of this and ignores the paperwork and lets it rot in a pile of mail on their kitchen counter. I have some mail like that. I’m not going to pretend like I have never done this, but how do you tell the difference between that person and somebody who never got this paperwork that their child’s health care hinges upon? 

Dan: This exact question comes up in the lawsuit. In a filing, the state’s lawyers say TennCare does not owe a hearing to anybody who says they just didn’t get paperwork. “The simple reason for this policy is that it is well known that mail is ordinarily delivered as addressed, TennCare enrollees have a responsibility to keep the program apprised of address changes (as explained to them in TennCare’s notices), and it is exceedingly common for individuals who have missed a deadline to claim they did not receive notice.” 

Class action lawsuits move slowly. This one, filed more than four years ago, only went to trial recently. A judge’s decision is … pending. In a post-trial filing, the Tennessee Justice Center tells the stories of 17 people cut off from Medicaid allegedly due to errors by TennCare. 

In TennCare’s filings, the state’s lawyers say, in effect: None of this proves there’s a systemic problem. And as a couple people have said to me: You don’t have to set out to build a bad system. If you don’t take care to build a good one, your system will definitely have problems.

 We sent TennCare a long note about what we’ve been learning: About Brett Kelman’s reporting, about the class-action lawsuit, and about what happened to Ashley Eades. We asked them for any comment– or to let us know if they thought we’d gotten anything wrong. We haven’t heard back from them. 

So, let’s zoom out a little bit to look at how these systems are working across 50 states. The person to talk to here is Joan Alker. She’s a professor at Georgetown, and she runs the university’s Center for Children and Families. 

Joan Alker: Yeah, Medicaid really is my jam. I have been working on Medicaid issues for about 25 years now, which is a little frightening. 

Dan: So of course she and her colleagues have been tracking how all 50 states have been dealing with the unwinding, compiling all kinds of data. When we talked, they’d just updated a ticker showing how many kids have been dropped in each state. 

Joan Alker: We just hit 5 million net child Medicaid decline just today. Um, so that’s very troubling. 

Dan: And according to Joan Alker’s report, kids were even more likely to be dropped for “procedural reasons”– paperwork issues– than adults. 

Joan Alker: Most of these children are probably still eligible for Medicaid and many of them won’t have another source of coverage. And that’s what I worry a lot about. 

Dan: But it varies a TON. A couple states– Maine and Rhode Island– actually have MORE kids enrolled than when the unwinding started. A half-dozen others have dropped very few kids. 

Joan Alker: But then we had some states that went out really assertively and aggressively to, um, to To have fewer people enrolled in Medicaid 

Dan: Her numbers show that Texas is a standout. They’ve got one point three million fewer kids enrolled in Medicaid than they did before the unwinding… Tennessee– with all the problems documented by Brett Kelman and the Tennessee Justice Center– is kind of around the middle of the pack. 

Joan Alker: Unfortunately, this is the norm. Right? When you look at the number of disenrollments nationwide, the average for procedural red tape reasons is 70%. Only 30 percent of those people losing Medicaid nationwide have lost it because they’ve clearly been determined to be ineligible. 

Dan: Obviously, Joan Alker is not happy about this. But she is also not hopeless! The unwinding has been an example of what happens– what can happen– when you require people to renew their enrollment every year. But now some states are experimenting with … not requiring that anymore, at least not for young kids. 

Joan Alker: …because we know so many of them are going to remain eligible. They’re cheap to insure. They’re not where the money is being spent in our healthcare system. But they need regular care. 

Dan: Oregon, Washington, and New Mexico now keep kids enrolled through age six. Another seven states are aiming to do the same. 

Joan Alker: This is an idea that we’ve been promoting for like 15 years and we were kind of crying out in the wilderness for a long time, but it’s breaking through now 

Dan: I’m not gonna lie. There’s a ton that’s not gonna get fixed with Medicaid anytime soon. We don’t know yet how the judge in the Tennessee Justice Center’s class-action lawsuit is gonna rule. But seeing these fights, it reminds me of something I’ve said before on this show: We are not gonna win them all. But we don’t have to lose them all either.

By the way, a little news about Ashley Eades– our mom in Nashville, who fought to keep her son on TennCare. 

Ashley Eades: Last year, I started going back to school, and I’m going to school full time, and I’m working full 

Dan: Oh my gosh! 

Dan: And she’s home-schooling Lucas. 

Ashley Eades: I was like, “we’re going to go to school together, buddy.” Like, we share a desk, you know, and he’s like in class and I’m in class. 

Dan: Wow 

Ashley Eades: I had to get creative. um, so, yeah, I’m like, working this really crappy, stinky job and going to school 

Dan: And it’s working out. 

Ashley Eades: I, um, made Dean’s List this semester, like got straight A’s. 

Dan: Yeah! 

Dan: Ashley wants to go to Medical school. I thought you’d want to know. 

Before we go, I just want to say THANK YOU. In our last episode, we asked you to help us understand sneaky facility fees, by sending your own medical bills, and you have been coming through in a big way. We’ve heard from more than 30 people at this point. Some of you have been annoyed by these fees for years– a couple of you have told us about driving 30 or 40 miles across town, hoping to avoid them. And we’ve been hearing from folks inside the medical billing world, offering us some deeper insight. And I could not be pleased-er. Thank you so much! 

If you’ve got a bill to share, it’s not too late to pitch in, at arm-and-a-leg-show, dot com, slash FEES. I’ll catch you in a few weeks. Till then, take care of yourself. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Ellen Weiss. Thanks this time to Phil Galewitz of KFF Health News, Andy Schneider of Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families, and Gordon Bonnyman of the Tennessee Justice Center for sharing their expertise with us. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and blue dot sessions. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. Gabe Bullard is our brand-new engagement editor. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager. 

And Armand a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show. 

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN. org. Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially– you can join in any time at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support– thanks for pitching in if you can, and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” 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).

Vincent Wasney and his fiancée, Sarah Eberlein, had never visited the ocean. They’d never even been on a plane. But when they bought their first home in Saginaw, Michigan, in 2018, their real estate agent gifted them tickets for a Royal Caribbean cruise.

After two years of delays due to the coronavirus pandemic, they set sail in December 2022.

The couple chose a cruise destined for the Bahamas in part because it included a trip to CocoCay, a private island accessible to Royal Caribbean passengers that featured a water park, balloon rides, and an excursion swimming with pigs.

It was on that day on CocoCay when Wasney, 31, started feeling off, he said.

The next morning, as the couple made plans in their cabin for the last full day of the trip, Wasney made a pained noise. Eberlein saw him having a seizure in bed, with blood coming out of his mouth from biting his tongue. She opened their door to find help and happened upon another guest, who roused his wife, an emergency room physician.

Wasney was able to climb into a wheelchair brought by the ship’s medical crew to take him down to the medical facility, where he was given anticonvulsants and fluids and monitored before being released.

Wasney had had seizures in the past, starting about 10 years ago, but it had been a while since his last one. Imaging back then showed no tumors, and doctors concluded he was likely epileptic, he said. He took medicine initially, but after two years without another seizure, he said, his doctors took him off the medicine to avoid liver damage.

Wasney had a second seizure on the ship a few hours later, back in his cabin. This time he stopped breathing, and Eberlein remembered his lips being so purple, they almost looked black. Again, she ran to find help but, in her haste, locked herself out. By the time the ship’s medical team got into the cabin, Wasney was breathing again but had broken blood vessels along his chest and neck that he later said resembled tiger stripes.

Wasney was in the ship’s medical center when he had a third seizure — a grand mal, which typically causes a loss of consciousness and violent muscle contractions. By then, the ship was close enough to port that Wasney could be evacuated by rescue boat. He was put on a stretcher to be lowered by ropes off the side of the ship, with Eberlein climbing down a rope ladder to join him.

But before they disembarked, the bill came.

The Patient: Vincent Wasney, 31, who was uninsured at the time.

Medical Services: General and enhanced observation, a blood test, anticonvulsant medicine, and a fee for services performed outside the medical facility.

Service Provider: Independence of the Seas Medical Center, the on-ship medical facility on the cruise ship operated by Royal Caribbean International.

Total Bill: $2,500.22.

What Gives: As part of Royal Caribbean’s guest terms, cruise passengers “agree to pay in full” all expenses incurred on board by the end of the cruise, including those related to medical care. In addition, Royal Caribbean does not accept “land-based” health insurance plans.

Wasney said he was surprised to learn that, along with other charges like wireless internet, Royal Caribbean required he pay his medical bills before exiting the ship — even though he was being evacuated urgently.

“Are we being held hostage at this point?” Eberlein remembered asking. “Because, obviously, if he’s had three seizures in 10 hours, it’s an issue.”

Wasney said he has little memory of being on the ship after his first seizure — seizures often leave victims groggy and disoriented for a few hours afterward.

But he certainly remembers being shown a bill, the bulk of which was the $2,500.22 in medical charges, while waiting for the rescue boat.

Still groggy, Wasney recalled saying he couldn’t afford that and a cruise employee responding: “How much can you pay?”

They drained their bank accounts, including money saved for their next house payment, and maxed out Wasney’s credit card but were still about $1,000 short, he said.

Ultimately, they were allowed to leave the ship. He later learned his card was overdrafted to cover the shortfall, he said.

Royal Caribbean International did not respond to multiple inquiries from KFF Health News.

Once on land, in Florida, Wasney was taken by ambulance to the emergency room at Broward Health Medical Center in Fort Lauderdale, where he incurred thousands of dollars more in medical expenses.

He still isn’t entirely sure what caused the seizures.

On the ship he was told it could have been extreme dehydration — and he said he does remember being extra thirsty on CocoCay. He also has mused whether trying escargot for the first time the night before could have played a role. Eberlein’s mother is convinced the episode was connected to swimming with pigs, he said. And not to be discounted, Eberlein accidentally broke a pocket mirror three days before their trip.

Wasney, who works in a stone shop, was uninsured when they set sail. He said that one month before they embarked on their voyage, he finally felt he could afford the health plan offered through his employer and signed up, but the plan didn’t start until January 2023, after their return.

They also lacked travel insurance. As inexperienced travelers, Wasney said, they thought it was for lost luggage and canceled trips, not unexpected medical expenses. And because the cruise was a gift, they were never prompted to buy coverage, which often happens when tickets are purchased.

The Resolution: Wasney said the couple returned to Saginaw with essentially no money in their bank account, several thousand dollars of medical debt, and no idea how they would cover their mortgage payment. Because he was uninsured at the time of the cruise, Wasney did not try to collect reimbursement for the cruise bill from his new health plan when his coverage began weeks later.

The couple set up payment plans to cover the medical bills for Wasney’s care after leaving the ship: one each with two doctors he saw at Broward Health, who billed separately from the hospital, and one with the ambulance company. He also made payments on a bill with Broward Health itself. Those plans do not charge interest.

But Broward Health said Wasney missed two payments to the hospital, and that bill was ultimately sent to collections.

In a statement, Broward Health spokesperson Nina Levine said Wasney’s bill was reduced by 73% because he was uninsured.

“We do everything in our power to provide the best care with the least financial impact, but also cannot stress enough the importance of taking advantage of private and Affordable Care Act health insurance plans, as well as travel insurance, to lower risks associated with unplanned medical issues,” she said.

The couple was able to make their house payment with $2,690 they raised through a GoFundMe campaign that Wasney set up. Wasney said a lot of that help came from family as well as friends he met playing disc golf, a sport he picked up during the pandemic.

“A bunch of people came through for us,” Wasney said, still moved to tears by the generosity. “But there’s still the hospital bill.”

The Takeaway: Billing practices differ by cruise line, but Joe Scott, chair of the cruise ship medicine section of the American College of Emergency Physicians, said medical charges are typically added to a cruise passenger’s onboard account, which must be paid before leaving the ship. Individuals can then submit receipts to their insurers for possible reimbursement.

More from Bill of the Month

• Sign Here? Financial Agreements May Leave Doctors in the Driver’s Seat

  Apr 30, 2024

• A Mom’s $97,000 Question: How Was Her Baby’s Air-Ambulance Ride Not Medically Necessary?

  Mar 25, 2024

• Without Medicare Part B’s Shield, Patient’s Family Owes $81,000 for a Single Air-Ambulance Flight

  Feb 27, 2024

More from the series

He recommended that those planning to take a cruise purchase travel insurance that specifically covers their trips. “This will facilitate reimbursement if they do incur charges and potentially cover a costly medical evacuation if needed,” Scott said.

Royal Caribbean suggests that passengers who receive onboard care submit their paid bills to their health insurer for possible reimbursement. Many health plans do not cover medical services received on cruise ships, however. Medicare will sometimes cover medically necessary health care services on cruise ships, but not if the ship is more than six hours away from a U.S. port.

Travel insurance can be designed to address lots of out-of-town mishaps, like lost baggage or even transportation and lodging for a loved one to visit if a traveler is hospitalized.

Travel medical insurance, as well as plans that offer “emergency evacuation and repatriation,” are two types that can specifically assist with medical emergencies. Such plans can be purchased individually. Credit cards may offer travel medical insurance among their benefits, as well.

But travel insurance plans come with limitations. For instance, they may not cover care associated with preexisting conditions or what the plans consider “risky” activities, such as rock climbing. Some plans also require that travelers file first with their primary health insurance before seeking reimbursement from travel insurance.

As with other insurance, be sure to read the fine print and understand how reimbursement works.

Wasney said that’s what they plan to do before their next Royal Caribbean cruise. They’d like to go back to the Bahamas on basically the same trip, he said — there’s a lot about CocoCay they didn’t get to explore.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

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.

A new analysis finds that graduating medical students were less likely to apply this year for residency training in states that ban or restrict abortion. That was true not only for aspiring OB-GYNs and others who regularly treat pregnant patients, but for all specialties.

Meanwhile, another study has found that more than 4 million children have been terminated from Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program since the federal government ended a covid-related provision barring such disenrollments. The study estimates about three-quarters of those children were still eligible and were kicked off for procedural reasons.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine, and Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• More medical students are avoiding applying to residency programs in states with abortion restrictions. That could worsen access problems in areas that already don’t have enough doctors and other health providers in their communities.
• New threats to abortion care in the United States include not only state laws penalizing abortion pill possession and abortion travel, but also online misinformation campaigns — which are trying to discourage people from supporting abortion ballot measures by telling them lies about how their information might be used.
• The latest news is out on the fate of Medicare, and a pretty robust economy appears to have bought the program’s trust fund another five years. Still, its overall health depends on a long-term solution — and a long-term solution depends on Congress.
• In Medicaid expansion news, Mississippi lawmakers’ latest attempt to expand the program was unsuccessful, and a report shows two other nonexpansion states — Texas and Florida — account for about 40% of the 4 million kids who were dropped from Medicaid and CHIP last year. By not expanding Medicaid, holdout states say no to billions of federal dollars that could be used to cover health care for low-income residents.
• Finally, the bankruptcy of the hospital chain Steward Health Care tells a striking story of what happens when private equity invests in health care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient who went outside his insurance network for a surgery and thought he had covered all his bases. It turned out he hadn’t. If you have an outrageous or incomprehensible medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: The Nation’s “The Abortion Pill Underground,” by Amy Littlefield.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “In Medicine, the Morally Unthinkable Too Easily Comes to Seem Normal,” by Carl Elliott.

Anna Edney: ProPublica’s “Facing Unchecked Syphilis Outbreak, Great Plains Tribes Sought Federal Help. Months Later, No One Has Responded,” by Anna Maria Barry-Jester.

Lauren Weber: Stat’s “NYU Professors Who Defended Vaping Didn’t Disclose Ties to Juul, Documents Show,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Medical Residents Are Increasingly Avoiding States With Abortion Restrictions,” by Julie Rovner and Rachana Pradhan.
• CNBC’s “Abortion Bans Drive Away up to Half of Young Talent, New CNBC/Generation Lab Youth Survey Finds,” by Jason Gewirtz.
• The Washington Post’s “Texas Man Files Legal Action To Probe Ex-Partner’s Out-of-State Abortion,” by Caroline Kitchener.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Newly Minted Doctors Are Avoiding Abortion Ban States

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 9, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed 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: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient went out of network for surgery and thought he did everything right. Things went wrong anyway. But first, this week’s news. We are going to start again with abortion this week with a segment I’m calling, “The kids are all right, but they don’t want to settle in states with abortion bans.”

This morning we got the numbers from the Association of American Medical Colleges on the latest residency match. And while applications for residency positions were down in general — more on that in a minute — for the second year in a row, they were down considerably more in states with abortion bans, and to a lesser extent, in states with other abortion restrictions, like gestational limits. And it’s not just in OB-GYN and other specialties that interact regularly with pregnant people. It appears that graduating medical students are trying to avoid abortion ban states across the board. This could well play out in ways that have nothing to do with abortion but a lot more to do with the future of the medical workforce in some of those states.

Edney: I think that’s a really good point. We know that even on just a shortage of primary care physicians and if you’re in a rural area already and you aren’t getting enough of those coming — because you could end up dealing with these issues in primary care and ER care and many other sections where it’s not just dealing with pregnant women all the time, but a woman comes in because it’s the first place she can go when she’s miscarrying or something along those lines. So it could lower the workforce for everybody, not just pregnant women.

Rovner: A lot of these graduating medical students are of the age where they want to start their own families. If not them, they’re worried about their partners. Somebody also pointed out to me — this isn’t even in my story — that graduating medical students tend to wait longer to have their children, so they tend to be at higher risk when they are pregnant. So that’s another thing that makes them worry about being in states where if something goes wrong, they would have trouble getting emergency care.

Weber: I would just add, I mean, you know, a lot of these states also overlap with states that have severe health professional shortages as well. You know, my reporting in St. Louis for KFF Health News — we did a lot of work on how there are just huge physician shortages to start with. So the idea that you’re combining massive gaps in primary care or massive gaps in reproductive health deserts with folks that are going to choose not to go to these places is really a double whammy that I don’t necessarily think people fully grasp at this current point in time.

Rovner: I promised I would explain the reason that applications are down. This is something that’s happening on purpose. There are still more graduating medical students from MD programs and DO [Doctor of Osteopathy] programs and international medical graduates than there are residency slots, but graduating students had been applying to literally dozens and dozens of residencies to make sure they got matched somewhere, and they’re trying to deter that. So now I think students are applying to an average of 30 programs instead of an average of 60 programs.

That’s why it takes so long for them to crunch the numbers because everybody’s doing multiple applications in multiple states and it’s hard to sort the whole thing out. Of course, it may be that they don’t need all of those doctors. Because according to a separate survey from CNBC and Generation Lab, 62% of those surveyed said they probably wouldn’t or definitely wouldn’t live in a state that banned abortion. Seriously, at some point, these states are going to have to balance their state economies against their abortion positions. Now we’re talking about not just the medical workforce, but the entire workforce, at least for younger people.

Edney: Yeah. I was thinking about this recently because during the pandemic you had tech or Wall Street companies looking at Texas or Florida for where they wanted to move their headquarters or move a substantial amount of their company. And then when Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] happened, how is the workforce going to play out? I’m curious what that ends up looking like because many of the people that might want to work for those companies might not want to live there in those states, and I think it could affect how the country is made up at some point. I think what’s still to play out is that over 60% that wouldn’t want to move to a state with abortion restrictions, whether that is something that plays out or whether some people say, “Well, that job’s really good, so maybe I do want to go make a lot more money in this place or whenever.” I’m curious how all of this I think, you know, over the next five years or something, plays out.

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, at some point, this something is better than nothing, that’s true of the residency numbers, too. If the only place you can match is in a state that you’d rather not go, I think most people would rather go somewhere than not be able to pursue their career, and I suspect that’s true for people in other lines of work as well. Well, meanwhile, anti-abortion states are continuing to push the envelope as far as they can. In Louisiana, legislation is moving, it passed the Senate already, to criminalize the act of ordering abortion pills from out of state. It’s scheduling mifepristone and misoprostol in the same category as opioids and other addictive drugs.

Simple possession of either abortion drug without a prescription could result in a $5,000 fine or five years in prison. And in a wild story out of Texas, the ex-partner of a woman who traveled to Colorado for an abortion is attempting to pursue wrongful death claims against anyone who helped her, by helping her with travel or providing money or anything else associated with the abortion. Both of these cases seem like they’re trying to more chill people from attempting to obtain abortions than they are really actually pursuing legal action, right?

Kenen: Well, in that case, he’s pursuing legal action. We don’t know how that’s playing out, but I mean, it’s this accumulation of barriers and threats and making it both more difficult and more risky to obtain an out-of-state abortion or obtain medication abortion in-state. But there’s a big thicket and a lot of it, because it’s in court and it takes years to straighten things out, we don’t know what the final landscape’s going to look like, but obviously the trend is toward greater restriction.

Rovner: And I would point out that the lawyer who’s representing the ex-partner who’s trying to find everyone involved with the ex-partner’s abortion is the lawyer who brought us SB 8 [Senate Bill 8] the law, the “bounty hunter law,” that makes it a crime for people to aid and abet somebody getting an abortion in Texas. Lauren.

Weber: Yeah. I just would add too that tactics like this, whether or not — however they do play out in court, they do have a deterrence effect, right? There’s no way to absolutely tell someone XYZ is legally safe or not. At the end of the day, that can lead to a heck of a lot of misinformation, misconceptions, and different life choices. So I mean, I think the different things that Joanne and Julie are describing lead to people making different choices as all this plays out.

Kenen: I think one of the stories that Julie shared this week — there was an interesting little aside about disinformation, which is the petition to get an abortion rights ballot initiative in, I think it was Missouri. And one of the things in that article was that the anti-abortion forces were telling people that if you sign this petition, you’re vulnerable to identity theft. Now, so that is not true, but it’s just like this misinformation world we’re living in is spilling over into things like, you know, democratic issues of, “Can you get something on the ballot in your state?” It may lose. Missouri is a very conservative state. I don’t know what the threshold is for passage there. I don’t know that it’s as high as the 60% in Florida. But who knows what’s going to happen?

Rovner: That story was interesting, though, because it was the anti-abortion groups were trying to get people not just to not sign the petition.

Kenen: Unsign.

Rovner: Right. They were trying to get people to take their signatures off. And when all was said and done, they had twice as many signatures as they needed to get it on the ballot, so it will be on the ballot. I don’t know either what the threshold is in Missouri ’cause they were playing with that. Lauren, do you know?

Weber: I don’t know what the threshold is, but I will say what I found interesting about that story was that they said they were going to activate the Catholic Church. And as someone who is Catholic and went to Mass during the Missouri eras of Todd Akin and the stem cell fights, activating the Catholic Church could be very effective on changing how the abortion ballot plays out because I’ve seen what that looks like. So I’ll be very curious to see how that plays out in the weeks and months to come.

Kenen: Right. States doing physician-assisted suicide, aid-in-dying bills, have also — people fighting them have activated the church and they’re quite effective.

Rovner: Yeah. But I think Ohio also activated the Catholic Church and it didn’t work out. So I mean, we obviously know from polling Catholics, they’re certainly in favor of contraception and more American Catholics are in favor of abortion rights than I think their priests would like to know, at least that’s what they tell pollsters.

Edney: I also think that activating the church, whatever church it is, is at least a above-the-board tactic where in a lot of ways you never know, but this was so scary because they’re really going out and, not assaulting, but like verbally trying to keep these people from even being able to get signatures, saying that why should we let people vote on something that’s bad for them. Like not giving the electorate the right to make their voices heard. It was pretty scary to see that because of things like Ohio and other abortion rights movements that won that this is what they’re resorting to to try to make sure Missouri goes a different way.

Rovner: Yeah. I think this is going to be a really interesting year to watch because there are so many of them. Well, in abortion travel news, a federal district judge in Alabama green-lighted a suit by abortion rights groups against the state’s attorney general, who was threatening to prosecute those who “aid and abet” Alabama residents trying to leave the state for an abortion. “The right to interstate travel is one of our most fundamental constitutional rights,” Judge Myron Thompson wrote. On the other hand, Idaho was in federal appeals court in Seattle this week arguing just the opposite. They want to have an injunction lifted on its law that would make it a crime to help a minor cross state lines for an abortion. So I guess this particular fight about whether states can have control over their residents’ trying to leave the state for reproductive health care is a fight that’s going to continue for a while.

Edney: I mean, I think that — and sure it’ll continue for a while — you know, my thought when hearing about these cases is sort of just like, I know people that, when there wasn’t really gambling in Maryland, that would get in the bus and the seniors would all go to Delaware and go to the casino and go gambling. Like, we do this all the time. We go to other states for other things — for alcohol, in some cases. It’s just interesting that now they’re trying to make sure that people can’t do that when it comes to women’s rights.

Rovner: Yeah. I know. I mean, there are lots of things that are legal in some states and not legal in others.

Edney: Right.

Rovner: This seems to be, again, pushing the envelope to places we have not yet seen. Well, moving on, it is May, which means it’s time for the annual report of the Medicare and Social Security trustees about the financial solvency of the trust funds, and the news is good, sort of. Medicare’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund can now pay full benefits until 2036. That’s five years more than the trustees estimated last year, thanks largely to a strong economy, more people paying payroll taxes, and fewer people seeking expensive medical care. But of course, Washington being Washington, good news is also bad news because it makes it less likely that Congress will take on the distasteful task of figuring out how to keep the program solvent for the long term. Are we ever going to get to this or is Congress just going to kick the can down the road until it’s like next year that the trust fund’s going bankrupt?

Kenen: I mean, of all the can-kicking — you know, we’ve used that phrase about Congress frequently — this is the distillation of the essence of kicking the can when it comes to entitlements, right? Both Social Security and Medicare need congressional action to make them viable and sustainable and secure for decades, not years, and we don’t expect that to happen. I mean, even when things are less partisan than they are now, because obviously we’re in a hyperpartisan era, even when Washington functioned better, this was still a kick-the-can issue. Not only was it kick the can, but everybody fought over how to kick the can and where to kick the can and who could kick it furthest. So five extra years is a long time. I mean, it is. But again, the economy changes. Tax revenues change. It’s a cyclical economy. Next year, we could lose the five years or lose two years or gain one year. Who knows? But in terms of a sustained, bipartisan, sensible — no, I’m not holding my breath, because I would get very, very red, very fast.

Rovner: Yeah. And also, I mean, the thing about fixing both Medicare and Social Security is that somebody has to pay more. Either there will be fewer benefits or more taxes, or in the case of Medicare, providers will be paid less. So somebody ends up unhappy. Usually in these compromises, everybody ends up a little bit unhappy. That’s kind of the best possible world. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah. I mean, I just wanted to add that if it goes insolvent by 2036, it’s not looking very good for my ability to access these programs.

Kenen: But they always fix it. They always fix it. They just fix it at the last minute.

Weber: That’s true. I mean, I think that’s a fair point, but I do think overall, the concern, it does seem like something will have to change. I don’t think that when I — hope, God willing — live long enough to access this Medicare benefits, that I think they’ll look very different. Because when there is a compromise or there is something like this, there’s just no way the program can continue as it is, currently.

Kenen: The other thing though is this Medicare date probably means there’ll be less campaign. You know, it was beginning to bubble up a little bit on the presidential campaign. I mean, there were plenty of other health care issues to fight about, but it probably means that there’ll be a little bit of token talk about saving Medicare and so forth, but unlikely that there will become a really hot-button issue with either Trump or Biden putting out a detailed plan about it. There’ll be some verbal, “Yes, I’ll protect Medicare,” but I don’t think it’ll be elevated. If it was the other way, if it had lost five years or lost three years, then we would’ve had yet another Medicare election. I think probably we won’t.

Rovner: Yeah. I think that’s exactly right. If the insolvency date had gotten closer, it would’ve been a bigger issue.

Kenen: And remember that the trend toward Medicare Advantage, which is more than people had anticipated, I mean, it is revolutionizing what Medicare looks like. It’s more than half the people now. So there’s many, many sub-cans to kick on that, with private equity and access and prior authorization. I mean, there’s a million things going on there, and payment rates and everything, but that is a slow-motion, dramatic change to Med[icare], not so slow, but that is a dramatic change to Medicare.

Rovner: We’re figuring out how to do sort of a special episode just on Medicare Advantage because there’s so much there. But meanwhile, let’s catch up on Medicaid, ’cause it’s been a while. As one of my colleagues put it on Slack this week, it was a swing and a miss in Mississippi, where some pretty serious efforts to expand Medicaid came to naught as the legislature closed the books on its 2024 session last week. Mississippi is one of the 10 remaining states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which could expand health coverage to an estimated 200,000 low-income residents there who lack it now. It feels like these last states, mostly in the South, are going to hold out as long as they can, even though they’re basically giving up a gigantic handout from the federal government.

Edney: It’s billions of dollars they’re leaving on the table and it doesn’t really make sense. This seemed to maybe come down to a work requirement. Maybe there was more there. It was more of a poison pill in that Senate bill instead, but it doesn’t seem to make sense. I mean, even one of the earlier bills the Senate in Mississippi had come up with would have left billions of dollars on the table as well. So I think the idea of this being the central part of Obamacare is still strong in some places.

Kenen: And it also is worth pointing out that these are states not just with the gap in coverage, but most of these states don’t have great health status. They have a lot of chronic disease, a lot of obesity, a lot of addiction, a lot of diabetes, etc. The se are not the healthiest states in the country. You’re not just leaving money on the table; you’re leaving an opportunity to get people care on the table and —

Rovner: And exacerbating health inequities that we already have.

Kenen: Yes. Yes. And when North Carolina decided to, which took many years of arguing about it — that’s a purple state; there were some people who thought it would be a domino: OK, North Carolina stopped holding out; the rest of the South will now. I, never having reported in North Carolina on that, you know, having spent time in the state, I never thought it was a domino. I thought it was just something that went on in North Carolina. Do I think eventually most or all of them will accept Medicaid? Yes. But, you know, we’ve mentioned this before: It took almost 20 years for the original Medicaid to go to all 50 states.

And it’s not just — because North Carolina is North Carolina and South Carolina is different. They have different dynamics. And it’s not over by any means, and there’s no … Mississippi got close. Are they going to pick up where they left off and sort it out next year? Who knows? There’s elections between now and then. We don’t know what the makeup and who is the driver of this, and which chamber there, and who’s retiring, and who’s going to get reelected. We just don’t know exactly. It’s not going to be a dramatic shift, but in these close fights, a couple of seats shifting in state government can change things.

Rovner: That’s what happened in Kansas, although Wyoming came close, I think it was a couple of years ago, and then there I haven’t seen any action either, so.

Kenen: You still hear talk about Wyoming considering it. Like, that’s not off the … I don’t think any of us would be totally shocked if Wyoming is the next one, but I mean it didn’t happen this year, so.

Rovner: Well the other continuing Medicaid story is the “unwinding,” dropping those from coverage who were kept on during the pandemic emergency by a federal requirement. A new report from the Georgetown Center for Children and Families finds that as of the end of 2023, the number of children covered by Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program was down by 10%, or about 4 million. Yet an estimated three-quarters of those kids are actually still eligible. They were struck from the rolls because of a breakdown in paperwork. Texas alone was responsible for more than a million of those disenrollments, a quarter of the total. Texas and Florida together accounted for nearly 40% of those dropped. And Texas and Florida are also the largest states that haven’t expanded Medicaid to the working poor. At some point the problem with the uninsured is going to be back on our radar, right? I mean, we haven’t talked about it for a while because we haven’t sort of needed to talk about it for a while because uninsurance rate has been the lowest it’s been since we’ve been keeping track.

Weber: I just can’t get over that three-quarters of kids lost their coverage due to paperwork issues. I mean, I know we talk about it many times on this podcast, but just to go back to it again: I miss mail. We all miss mail. I’m not someone also that’s moving frequently. That would make it easier to miss mail. I mean, that is just …

Kenen: You speak English.

Weber: Yeah, and I speak English. That is a wild stat, that 75% of these children lost this coverage because of paperwork issues. And as that report discusses, you know, some states did work to mitigate that and other states worked to not mitigate it. And I think that’s an important distinction to be clear about.

Rovner: And I will link to the report because the report shows the huge difference in states, the ones that sort of did it slowly and carefully. I think the part of it that made my hair stand on end was not so much the kids who came off because, you know, the whole family did, because the paperwork issues, but it’s the kids, particularly kids in CHIP who were still eligible when their parents aren’t. And there were some states that just struck families entirely because the parents were no longer eligible without realizing in their own state that parents’ eligibility and kids’ eligibility isn’t the same. And that apparently happened in a lot of cases. And I think the federal government tried to intercede in some of those because those were kids who, by definition of how these programs work, would still be eligible when their parents were not.

Kenen: The one thing it’s always good to remind people that, I mean, this is an extraordinary mess. I mean, it’s not the unwinding, it’s the unraveling. But unlike employer-sponsored insurance and the Obamacare exchanges, there’s no enrollment season for Medicaid. You can get in if you qual … so it can be the unwinding could be rewound. If a child gets sick and they are in an ER or they’re in a hospital or in a doctor’s or whatever, they can get back in quickly. It is a 365-day, always-open, for both Medicaid and CHIP in I believe every state. There may be an exception I’m not aware of, but I think it’s everywhere.

Rovner: I think it’s everywhere. I think it’s a requirement that it’s everywhere.

Kenen: I think it’s federal, right. So yes, it’s a mess, but unlike many messes in health care, it is a mess that can be improved. Although of course not everybody knows that and somebody will be afraid to go to the doctor ’cause they can’t pay, etc., etc. I’m not minimizing what a mess it is. But if you get word out, you can get word out to people that, you know, if you’re sick, go to the doctor. You’re still being taken care of.

Rovner: And also when people do go to the doctor, at the same time they’re told, uh-oh, your Medicaid’s been canceled, they can be reenrolled if they’re still eligible.

Kenen: Yeah, right. I mean, community health clinics know that. Hospitals know that. I don’t know that all private physicians’ offices know that, but …

Rovner: Although they should —

Kenen: They should.

Rovner: — because that’s how they’ll get paid.

Kenen: They should.

Rovner: So I suspect — providers have an incentive to know who’s eligible because otherwise they’re not going to get paid.

Kenen: So that should be the next public campaign. If you lost your Medicaid, here’s how you get it back. And we don’t see enough of that.

Rovner: Last week we talked about a lot of health-related regulations the Biden administration is trying to finalize. If it seems they’re all happening at once, there is an actual reason for that. It’s called the Congressional Review Act. Basically the CRA lets a new Congress and administration easily undo regulations put in place by an earlier administration towards the end of a presidential term. Basically that means any regulations the Biden administration doesn’t want easily overturned by the next Congress and president, should it return to Republican hands, those regulations need to be completed roughly by the end of this month. Towards that end, and as I said, speaking of looking at the problem of the uninsured, last week the administration finalized a rule that would give people here under DACA, that’s the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals immigration program, access to subsidized coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

These are about 100,000 so-called Dreamers, those who are not here legally but were brought over as children. In general, those who are not in the country legally are not able to access Affordable Care Act coverage. That was a gigantic fight when the Affordable Care Act was being passed. In some ways, though, I feel like this addition of Dreamers to the ACA is an acknowledgement that they’re not going to get full legal status anytime soon, which has also been a fight that’s been going on for years and years.

Kenen: Yes. And I was wondering, like, who’s going to sue to stop this or introduce legislation? I mean, somebody will do something. I’m not sure what yet. I mean, I would be surprised if nobody tries to block this because there’s obviously controversy about normalizing the status of the Dreamers or the DACA population and it’s been going on for years. We’ll see. I mean, it’s just another, I mean, immigration is such a flash point in this year’s election. Maybe people will say, “OK, this portion of the Dreamers has legal status and they can get health insurance” and people won’t fight about it. But usually nowadays people fight about — I mean, if the intersection of health care and immigration, I would think somebody will fight about it.

Rovner: Yeah. I would, too. And also, I mean obviously the people who are preventing legislation from getting through to legalize the Dreamers’ status, there seems to be, I believe, there is overwhelming support in both houses, but not quite enough to get it through. I suspect those people on the other side might not be very happy about this. Well, finally this week in business, or more specifically this week in private equity in health care, the multistate hospital chain Steward Health [Care] filed for bankruptcy this week, putting up for sale all 31 of its hospitals, which normally wouldn’t be really big news. Lots of hospitals are having trouble keeping their doors open. But in this case, we’re talking about a chain that was pretty large and stable until it was bought by Cerberus Capital Management, a private equity firm.

Cerberus sold off the land the hospitals were on, requiring them to pay rent to yet another company, and then Cerberus got out. The details of the many transactions that took place are still kind of murky, but it appears that many investors did quite well, including acquisitions of some private yachts, while the hospitals, well, did not do so well. This all has yet to play out fully. But this seems to be pretty much how private equity often works, right? They buy something, take the profit that they can, and leave the rest to the whims of the marketplace, or in this case billions of dollars in debt now owed by these hospitals.

Weber: Yeah. I mean, I think when you look at private equity the question is always when is the multipliers going to run out? Like, when are you going to run out of things to sell to get the multipliers out? And the question is, when you do this with health care, you know, we’ve seen some emerging research show that the patient outcomes for private equity-owned health care systems can be impacted by infection rates and so on. And I mean, I thought it was particularly interesting at the end of this Wall Street Journal story, they also noted how UnitedHealthcare, there is some investigations over —

Rovner: They’re tangentially involved.

Weber: They’re tangentially involved, but the government appeared — the story seems to allude to the government is interested in whether there’s some antitrust concerns on selling the doctors’ practices, which is obviously an ongoing issue as well as we talk about health care and acquisitions and consolidation in the country. So, 31 hospitals’ being insolvent is a lot of hospitals in a lot of states.

Rovner: Yeah. And I mean, the idea, I think, was that one of the ways they were going to pay off some of their debts was by selling the doctor practices to United. United, of course, now under the microscope for antitrust, might not be such an eager buyer, which leaves Steward holding the bag again with all of this debt. They owe literally billions of dollars to this company that now owns the land that their hospitals are on. It is quite the saga.

Kenen: It’s very complicated. I mean, I had to read everything more than once to understand it, and I’m not sure I totally understood all of it. It’s also sort of like the, you know, if you were writing, if you were teaching business school about what can go wrong when private equity buys a health system, this would be your final exam question. It is very complicated, extremely damaging, and the critics of PE in health care — I mean this is everything they warn about. And I would also, since all of us are journalists, I mean the same thing is going on with private equity in owning newspapers or newspaper chains: wreckage. Not everyone is a bad actor. There’s wreckage in health care and there’s wreckage in the media.

Rovner: Yeah. We will watch this one to see how it plays out. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Katheryn Houghton and then we will be back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague, in person, here in our Washington, D.C., studio, Katheryn Houghton, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about an out-of-network surgery the patient knew would be expensive, but not how expensive it would be. Welcome, Katheryn.

Houghton: Hi.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what kind of treatment he got.

Houghton: So I spoke with Cass Smith-Collins. He’s a 52-year-old transgender man from Vegas, and he wanted to get surgery to match his chest to his gender identity, so he got top surgery.

Rovner: This was a planned surgery and he knew he was going to go out of network. So what kind of steps did he take in preparation to make sure that the surgery would be at least partially covered by his health insurance?

Houghton: Well, he actually took a really key step that some patients miss, and it’s making sure that you get prior authorization from insurance, so a letter from them saying we’re going to cover this. And he got that. He also talked with his surgeon beforehand, saying what do I need to do to make sure we can submit a claim with insurance? And he signed paperwork saying how that would happen.

Rovner: Then, as we say, the bill came. What went awry?

Houghton: Yeah. Or in this case the reimbursement didn’t come. For Cass’ case there are two key things that kind of went awry here. First off, covered doesn’t necessarily mean the entire bill. So what insurance says is a fair price is not going to match up with what the surgeon always says is a fair price. So when Cass saw that his procedure was covered, it didn’t say the entire amount. It didn’t say how much was covered. The second thing is that that provider agreement that he signed with the surgeon beforehand actually says you’re not guaranteed reimbursement. And that provider agreement also stated there are two different bills here. One is the cost that Cass paid up-front for his surgery, and the other was the bill submitted to insurance.

Rovner: And how much money are we actually talking about here?

Houghton: We’re talking about $14,000. And he expected to get about half of that back.

Rovner: Because he assumed that when he got to his out-of-network maximum the insurance would cover, right?

Houghton: Exactly.

Rovner: And that’s not what happened.

Houghton: Not at all.

Rovner: How much did the surgeon end up charging for the surgery and what did his insurance say about that?

Houghton: If you’re looking at both bills, the surgeon charged more than $120,000 for the surgery and insurance said ah, no, we’re not going to cover that. And it was a little over $4,000 that insurance said, this is the fair price.

Rovner: So that’s a big difference.

Houghton: A very big difference.

Rovner: Was Cass expected to pay the rest?

Houghton: He could have. The agreement that he signed actually said that he could be on the hook for whatever insurance didn’t cover. That being said, he didn’t get a bill this time around.

Rovner: So what eventually happened?

Houghton: So eventually, when KFF Health News started asking questions about this, insurance increased how much that they paid the provider. And with that increased reimbursement, which was $97,000, the provider gave Cass a reimbursement of about $7,000.

Rovner: So he ended up paying about $7,000 out-of-pocket.

Houghton: It was more towards the line of what he was expecting to pay for this.

Rovner: Right. I was just going to say that was about what his out-of-pocket maximum was. But in this case he was kind of just lucky, right?

Houghton: Yes. I mean the paperwork that he signed in advance — it was really confusing paperwork. We had several experts look over this and say, yeah, there are things in this we don’t fully understand what it means.

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? A lot of people want to go to a particular provider who may be very good at what they do but don’t take insurance. Is there any way that he could have better prepared for this financially or that somebody looking at a similar kind of situation and doesn’t want to end up having someone say, oh, you owe us $80,000?

Houghton: Right. Yeah. So for this case it was really important for Cass to go to a surgeon that he felt like he could trust. And so if you do have that out-of-network provider, there are a few steps you can actually take. There’s still no guarantees, but there are steps. First off, patients should always ask their insurance company what covered actually means. Are you talking the entire bill here? Are you talking just a portion of it? Try to get that outlined. You can also ask your insurance company to spell out the dollar amount that they’re willing to pay for this. That’s a really helpful step. And lastly, on the provider side, you can also say, “Hey, whatever insurance deems as a fair payment, can we count that as the total bill?” You can always ask that. They’re not required, but it’s worth checking.

Rovner: Yeah. So at least you go in with your eyes open knowing what your maximum is going to be.

Houghton: Exactly. Especially if you’re paying out-of-pocket to begin with. You really want to know what is insurance reimbursing for this? What is the provider going to charge me more at the end of this?

Rovner: Well, I’m glad this one had a happy ending. Katheryn Houghton, thank you very much.

Houghton: Thank you so much.

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. Anna, why don’t you go first this week?

Edney: Sure. So mine is from ProPublica by Anna Maria Barry-Jester and it’s “Facing Unchecked Syphilis Outbreak, Great Plains Tribes Sought Federal Help. Months Later, No One Has Responded.” And I think we have even heard over the last few years the story of syphilis rates rising and in this specific look at the Great Plains, there are Native Americans there, that the syphilis rates are even worse. And this is resulting in deaths of babies, like wanted children. And it seems like the federal government has been pretty lackluster in its response, to put it mildly, sending a few CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] workers for a couple of weeks, and the tribes have been asking for basically a national emergency so they can get more help. And they’ve gone straight to HHS [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Xavier] Becerra, and at least in the last several weeks as this was being reported, they haven’t gotten any response or any help. So I think it’s an important story to spread far and wide.

Rovner: It is. Joanne?

Kenen: There was a very interesting op-ed in The New York Times this week by Dr. Carl Elliott, who is a physician and bioethicist at the University of Minnesota: “In Medicine, the Morally Unthinkable Too Easily Comes to Seem Normal.” It’s a little hard to summarize, but it’s very subtle. It’s the culture of medicine, of being a medical student or a resident, and the things you see, so much of what you see, shocks you anyway because it’s something you have to get used to. But there are outrages. He begins, the opening anecdote is a woman is unconscious and anesthetized before her surgery and the doctor in charge invites all the med students to come and like, “Oh, why don’t you come touch her cervix? She’ll never know. See what it’s like.”

And to that, to really the larger, even larger questions about how did Willowbrook [State School] survive for all those years? How did the Tuskegee studies go on for all those years? You know, at what point, what are the sort of cultural and peer pressure and dynamics of these outrages, big and large, becoming normalized? And, you know, as we know, like recently HHS just said you have to have a written consent for a pelvic exam, particularly if you’re going to be unconscious. But that’s only one example — it was a very disturbing piece actually.

Rovner: Yeah. It really was. Lauren?

Weber: I chose Nicholas Florko’s piece on how “NYU Professors Who Defended Vaping Didn’t Disclose Ties to Juul, Documents Show,” in Stat. Great piece. He dug through a bunch of the Juul legal documents that have been revealed to show how two prominent NYU public health professors were communicating with Juul about their comments in both a congressional hearing and then public comments to many, many journalists defending vaping and saying that, you know, it had public health benefits because it got people off of cigarettes. And it raises up a lot of thorny questions about conflict of interest. These public health officials say they were not paid by Juul, but they did accept dinners. And the question is, you know, a lot of the studies they submitted, one of them they even sent to Juul. It’s a lot of thorny questions about academic review and disclosures. It’s a great piece, too, and a warning for all journalists of who are you interviewing, what are their ties, and what are the disclosures that they may or may not be sharing? It was a great story.

Rovner: Yeah. Super thought-provoking. I will say, every time I speak — and we don’t take money for speaking — all of my speeches are for free. But I constantly, you know, they now have to fill out that, “Do you have any conflicts of interest?” And it’s like, no, I don’t take any money from any industry. But it’s all basically self-reported, and I think that’s one of the big problems with this whole issue. Well, my story this week is from The Nation. It’s by Amy Littlefield. It’s called “The Abortion Pill Underground.” And it’s not the first story like this, but it’s a very comprehensive look at the fight that’s shaping up between blue states that are passing shield laws to protect doctors who are providing abortion medication to patients in red states where, as we discussed earlier, prosecutors would like to reach back to punish those blue-state providers. It’s a fairly small group of providers operating in what is still a legally gray area.

As we mentioned, this is all still under — in court, in various places at various levels — but I do think it’s one of the next big battles that are shaping up in reproductive health. It’s a really good piece. 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 Twitter, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Joanne, are you hanging anywhere on social media?

Kenen: A little bit on Twitter @JoanneKenen, not even that much. But more on Threads @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Anna?

Edney: @annaedney on Twitter and @anna_edneyreports on Threads.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still only on Twitter, @LaurenWeberHP. HP is for health policy.

Rovner: Don’t apologize. You can find us all if you really want to. 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).

When Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, got hit by a cyberattack this winter, a big chunk of the nation’s doctors, pharmacists, hospitals, and therapists stopped getting paid. The hack also limited health providers’ ability to share medical records and other information critical to patient care.

The cyberattack revealed an often overlooked part of how health care is paid for in the United States and raised concerns for antitrust advocates about how large UnitedHealth has grown.

Host Dan Weissmann speaks with reporters Brittany Trang of Stat News and Maureen Tkacik of The American Prospect about their reporting on the hack and what it says about antitrust enforcement of health care companies.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: The Hack

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there. 

Brittany Trang is a reporter at STAT News– that’s a health care news outlet. We talked with Brittany’s colleague Bob Herman in our last episode. Like Bob, she’s been covering the business of health care. 

And for Brittany, this story starts with Bob flagging a story to their team. He… 

Brittany Trang: Dropped a link in the chat that said like, hey guys, I think we should write about this, question mark, and nobody replied, 

Dan: The story was about a cyber-attack against a company called Change Healthcare. 

Brittany Trang: I was like that sounds like a startup and I was like who cares about some sort of health tech startup 

Dan: But Bob kept bringing it up. 

Brittany Trang: And I finally clicked on the link, and I was like, oh no, this is a big deal. This touches most of the American healthcare system. 

Dan: Yeah, and it’s no joke. Change Healthcare is what’s called a data clearinghouse. And it’s a big one. It’s an important part of health care’s financial plumbing. Someone had gone in and basically hijacked their computer system and said, Unless we get $22 million dollars, we’re not giving it back. So Change went offline, and a huge chunk of the country’s Pharmacists, doctors, therapists, hospitals just stopped getting paid. And Change Healthcare stayed offline for weeks and weeks. As we record this, seven weeks in, big parts of it remain offline. And here’s this other thing: Change Healthcare is not a startup. It’s been around for like 20 years. And in late 2022, Change got purchased by another company– a company that’s starting to become a real recurring character on this show: UnitedHealth Group.

You may remember: They’re the country’s biggest insurance company AND they’ve got their hands in just about every other part of health care, in a big way. For instance, they’re the very biggest employer of physicians in the country, by a huge margin. They’ve got their own bank, which– among other things– offers payday loans to doctors. And they have a huge collection of companies that do back-end services. In our last episode we heard about Navi Health— and how, under United’s ownership, insurance companies have been using NaviHealth’s algorithm to cut off care for people in nursing homes. [Boy, yeah– that was a fun story…] And as we’ve been learning: When one company like this gets so big, their problems– like this cyber-attack– become everybody’s problem. And in this case, everybody’s problem seems to create an opportunity for United. We’ll break down how THAT could possibly work, but obviously it doesn’t seem like the way a lot of us would WANT things to work.. And we’ll end up talking about what we can maybe do about it. Not “we” as in a bunch of individuals trying to tackle an opponent this big. Good luck with that. But “we” as in the “We the people” of the United States Constitution. We may already be on the case. 

This is An Arm and a Leg– a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and bring you a show that’s entertaining, empowering, and useful. 

We’ll start with an attempt to answer what you’d think would be a simple question: What does Change Healthcare do?

Here’s Brittany Trang from STAT News again. 

Brittany Trang: It’s kind of like Visa or Mastercard or something. Like, when you go to the grocery store and you pay with a credit card, you are not putting your money directly into the pockets of the grocery store. There’s a middleman in there and change is that middleman, but for a ton of different things.

Dan: Like insurance claims. Brittany says hospitals and doctors offices often don’t submit claims directly to insurance companies. They send the claim to a middleman like Change. And then Change figures out where that claim needs to go next. Like: I’m sending a bunch of mail– I put it all in one mailbox, and the post office figures out how to get it where it goes. Except of course, there’s no paper here, no envelopes, no physical packages: All those claims are basically data. Which is why a company like Change is called a data clearinghouse. And even if a given provider uses some other clearinghouse– and of course there are others– Change may still be involved. Because INSURANCE companies like Aetna also use Change as a place to COLLECT claims from providers. On that side, Change is kind of like a post-office box. But claims are just one of the types of data that Change handles. For instance… 

Brittany Trang: when you went to the pharmacy counter or when you would check in at the doctor’s office and they take your insurance information and figure out like what you’re going to pay for this visit. Both of those processes were messed up. 

Dan: Yeah, and there’s more! Prior authorizations– like when your doctor checks in advance to make sure your insurance company is OK with paying for whatever. Those all go through companies like Change. So, if change is offline, do they do your MRI, or your surgery– and just hope it doesn’t get denied when Change comes back? And once claims get approved, data for payments goes through Change too. So payments– a lot of payments– just stopped going out. Here’s Brittany Trang. 

Brittany Trang: it’s just kind of flabbergasting how big this is. This collapsed most of healthcare in some way or another. 

Dan: Overall, the numbers are wild: Change reportedly processes 1.5 trillion dollars a year in claims. Maybe a third of everything that happens in healthcare. According to the American Hospital Association, 94 percent of hospitals said they were affected. Some more than others. Not all providers use Change as their primary clearinghouse. But lots do. And for them, everything just stopped. 

Brittany Trang: I talked to one provider she’s like, Oh, I can, I can talk. I’m, here today and tomorrow before we close. And I was like, before we close for spring break. And she said, no, we have 3 and 13 cents left in our bank account. Brittany says that provider got a last minute reprieve– an emergency loan from United. There have been two or three rounds of these loans so far, plus some advance payments from Medicare. But as the outage has dragged on– it started in February, and we’re recording this seven weeks later– it’s hard to know if those are going to be enough. At the end of March, I talked with Emily Benson. She runs a therapy practice in a Minneapolis suburb. Eight clinicians, mostly treating kids. She says the practice does maybe 70 or 80 thousand dollars worth of business a month. But then in February… Emily Benson: essentially everything went dark for us. 

Dan: United publicly acknowledged the Change hack on February 21st. But Emily Benson says she didn’t actually get a heads-up until almost a week later. 

Emily Benson: a lot of alarm bells went off, that was the end of the month. And so a lot of payments came due 

Dan: Her rent. Paychecks for her colleagues, and herself. 

Emily Benson: I mean, I was in a panic. Y’know, I didn’t know where I was going to go. 

Dan: She says she usually gets two payments a week from insurance, with everything passing through Change. But it’s not just the payments from insurance. Change also provides the documents that say how much an insurance company is GOING to pay for any given claim. 

Emily Benson: That’s a critical document because that tells me what does the family owe us. And then the beneficiary is also going to get that information. So they’re not surprised by what we charge them. So now every week we’re stacking up and stacking up these amounts that the family’s going to owe us. 

Dan: By the time we talked, Emily Benson had gotten two loans from United. About 40,000 each: maybe a month’s worth of billing for her, between the two loans. 

Emily Benson: That first one was wiped out. Pretty quickly because now we’re on week five I’m working on the second, um, installment that I got from united. But, you know, that’s half gone now too. So I don’t know what the next step is. We’re nowhere near. Getting claims processing yet and so. I’m kind of panicking Yeah. 

Emily Benson: it looks like the terms are within 45 days. You have to pay back that temporary loan. How am I going to do that if I don’t have claims coming? 

Dan: God. 

Emily Benson: I’m still panicking. 

Dan: I’ll bet. Oh my God. You’re very, you’re very calm for somebody in this situation. 

Emily Benson: Well, you know, I’ve had a lot of therapy of my own. That’s how you become a therapist. So panicking doesn’t help anyone. 

Dan: I guess that’s, I’ll take that under advisement. 

Dan: So, to pay back those loans– which are supposed to be repaid within 45 days– Emily Benson is gonna have to start getting paid again. As we spoke, she’d had been living without systems for filing claims and getting paid for five weeks. And even when those systems get moving again, she’s not gonna see all that money right away.

Emily Benson: Imagine the backlog and the clog. Five weeks worth of insurance claims I mean, we’re looking at a major traffic jam.

Dan: Oh myGod.Andif everybody were to work double time for the next five weeks, then it would be 10 weeks. But people can’t really work double time. 

Emily Benson: When you say that out loud, 

Dan: Sorry. 

Emily Benson: I don’t feel as grounded, 

Dan: I’m so sorry. 

Emily Benson: but, but, but it’s probably realistic. 

Dan: Other news outlets are talking to providers like Emily Benson all over the country. We’re recording this in mid-April. United hasn’t responded to our questions on this story, but their website says “We’re determined to make this right.” It says they’ve put out 4 point 7 billion dollars in emergency loans to providers so far. And it says that for the vast majority of Change Healthcare’s services, a restoration date is “still pending.” We have no idea what’s going to happen. What it’ll mean for our doctors, our therapists, our local hospitals. And look, there are elements of this story that go beyond health care. How many of us have personal health information– maybe financial information– that got seized by who the heck knows who in this? And yes, United’s getting some heat. They got a list of pointed questions from U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin. Their CEO is supposed to testify in a Senate hearing at the end of April. But as we’ll get into in a minute, this disaster– United’s disaster– could turn out to have a silver lining– for United: An opportunity to keep on growing. And that opportunity arises precisely because they’re so big, and doing so much business in so many parts of the medical-industrial complex. Which doesn’t sound great. It raises questions about the, uh, potential downsides for a lot of people, when individual companies get this freaking big. And it raises questions about what we can maybe do about it. And the answer is: Maybe more than we think. That’s all coming right up. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health care in America. Their reporters do amazing work, and we’re honored to be in cahoots with them. So, as we’ve seen, a company like United is so big that their problems become everybody’s problem. And at least in one case that I’ve seen so far, everybody’s problem can become United’s opportunity. That’s what happened in Oregon, and a reporter from Washington, DC, was in a position to make it a national story. 

Maureen Tkacik: My name is Maureen Tkacik, but you can call me Mo and I am the Investigations Editor at the American Prospect, and a Senior Fellow at the American Economic Liberties Project. 

Dan: The Prospect is a politically-progressive news magazine, and the Economic Liberties Project is a non-profit that pushes an anti-monopoly agenda. A lot of Mo’s reporting looks at how financial behemoths are looking like monopolists– especially in health care. So… 

Maureen Tkacik: have come to know United Healthcare, pretty well, over past, year or so, 

Dan: Looking at, for instance, how they gobble up medical practices. And as we mentioned, that kind of gobbling has made United the biggest employer of physicians in the country– by huge margins– in just the last few years. About one doc in ten now works for them, as employees or “affiliates.” As we’ve reported before, big players– like United, like big hospital systems, and like private equity groups– have been gobbling up medical practices for years. And: that kind of consolidation often leads to us paying more– and often for lousier healthcare. Moe Tkacik has been reporting on that kind of gobbling– and recently, she’d been looking at how the state of Oregon had been trying to slow it down. Then, in January 2024, a good-size medical group in Corvallis, Oregon said they were ready for United to gobble them up. The group is called the Corvallis Clinic, and it’s got more than a hundred docs. But United and the Clinic would have to go through a whole process to get approval from state regulators. That process includes: regulators asking the public for comments on the transaction. And in this case… 

Maureen Tkacik: they were. inundated with comments. 

Dan: Like 378 of them in just a few weeks. And the comments were overwhelmingly AGAINST the sale. In February, the regulators sent United and Corvallis a 5-page list of conditions under which they might approve a deal. A source of Moe’s sent me the document, which he got through a public-records request. The conditions are like, to not reduce service levels in the community for at least 10 years. To keep accepting non-United insurance. And to submit to a lot of monitoring. Then, as negotiations were starting, Change Healthcare went offline. And in early March, Moe got a tip: The clinic and United were gonna make an end run around this process. She talked with an anonymous insider at the clinic. Who told her: It turns out that all of the clinic’s billing had been connected to Change. 

Maureen Tkacik: So we’re talking about just a calamitous cash crunch. Their revenue came to a standstill 

Dan: And by the time Moe’s insider source learned what was up– this had been going on for two weeks. 

Maureen Tkacik: this source said that , Thursday, they all had a meeting and they were not sure they were going to be able to open their doors the following Monday. 

Dan: That was Thursday March 7. The next day, March 8th, lawyers for Corvallis Clinic filed an application for an emergency exemption from the normal review process. A week later, they got that exemption. And this time regulators had not demanded any conditions. As Moe’s story laid out, United’s problem– the Change Healthcare hack– became everybody’s problem, including Corvallis. And their problem seemed to have become United’s opportunity. To gobble up the practice without having to agree to any conditions from pesky regulators. And a postscript to the Corvallis Clinic story: Shortly after regulators approved that deal, United sent notices to thousands of patients at another clinic it had taken over in nearby Eugene, saying basically: We don’t have a doctor for you anymore. Goodbye and good luck. News reports said that clinic had lost more than 30 doctors since United took over. And among the public comments urging regulators to kibosh the Corvallis clinic, a bunch of people cited lousy experiences at that Eugene clinic under United’s ownership. This is the kind of thing that Moe Tkacik and her colleagues at the American Economic Liberties Project– and what’s become a kind of anti-monopoly movement– want to change. And here’s where this episode becomes maybe just a little less of a horror story, and maybe a little more of an action movie. Because the anti-monopoly movement has gotten a big backer in the last three years: The Biden Administration. In 2017, a woman named Lina Khan made a name for herself in legal circles when she published a paper arguing that Amazon had become the kind of super-dominant company that antitrust laws were designed to constrain. Lina Khan was a law student when she published that paper. In 2021, Joe Biden appointed her to lead the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC and the Department of Justice split the job of antitrust enforcement, and they’ve both become super-aggressive. They’ve filed big lawsuits against Google, Amazon, and– in March of this year– Apple. And gotten a fair amount of attention. As we were writing up this episode, Jon Stewart interviewed Lina Khan on “The Daily Show.” And here’s how she described her approach in that conversation. 

LK: We’ve really focused on how companies are behaving. Are they behaving in ways that suggest they can harm their customers, harm their suppliers, harm their workers, and get away with it? And that type of too big to care type approach is really what ends up signaling that a company has monopoly power because they can start mistreating you, but they know you’re stuck. 

Dan: Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that Lina Khan’s allies– antitrust folks at the Department of Justice are investigating United. Neither the Justice Department nor United has commented on that report. Meaning: Nobody’s denied it. So far, some of the Biden administration’s antitrust lawsuits have pan out, and some haven’t. Actually, in 2021, the Justice Department sued to prevent UnitedHealth Group from buying Change Healthcare. That one, they lost. But when the sued to block Penguin Random House from buying another giant publisher, Simon and Schuster, they won. And as Lina Khan told Jon Stewart, she and her colleagues aren’t just suing to prevent mergers. They sued to get infamous Pharma Bro Martin Skhreli banned for life from the pharma trade. And they won. And they’re looking at other ways big companies, especially in health care, screw people. 

LK: Just to give you one example, inhalers. They’ve been around for decades, but they still cost hundreds of dollars. So our staff took a close look and we’ve realized the, some of the patents that had been listed for these inhalers were improper. There were bogus. And so we sent hundreds of warning letters around these patents. And in the last few weeks, we’ve seen companies deal list these patents and three out of the four major manufacturers have now said, Within a couple of months, they’re going to cap how much Americans pay to just 35. 

Dan: I think we should start paying a lot more attention to what Lina Khan and her colleagues are up to– and what their chances are. I’ve started reading up, and getting in touch with folks who are in this fight, and who are watching it closely. Because this is looking like the kind of action movie I kind of like. Meanwhile, I’m posting a link to Jon Stewart’s interview with Lina Khan wherever you’re listening to this. I’ll have a few other links for you in our newsletter– you can sign up for that at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, newsletter. And I’ll catch you in a few weeks. Till then, take care of yourself. 

This episode of an arm and a leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta, and edited by Ellen Weiss. Big thanks this time to the novelist, journalist and activist Cory Doctorow, who has been writing about the antitrust revival for years, breaking down complex, technical stories in clear, accessible ways. Thanks to professor Spencer Waller from the Loyola University Chicago law school for talking about antitrust with me. And thanks to Dr. John Santa in Oregon– for sharing material he got via a public-records request to the state, and for his observations. Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. Our music is by Dave Weiner and blue dot sessions. Extra music in this episode from Epidemic Sound. Gabrielle Healy is our managing editor for audience. She edits the first aid kit newsletter. Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations. Sarah Ballama is our operations manager. And Armand a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in depth journalism about healthcare in America and a core program at KFF, an independent source of health policy research, polling and journalism. Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He’s editorial liaison to this show. And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN. org. Finally, thanks to everybody who supports this show financially– you can join in any time at arm and a leg show dot com, slash, support– and thanks for listening.

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” 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 Arizona Supreme Court shook up the national abortion debate this week, ruling that a ban originally passed in 1864 — before the end of the Civil War and decades before Arizona became a state — could be enforced. As in some other states, including Florida, voters will likely have the chance to decide whether to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution in November.

The Arizona ruling came just one day after former President Donald Trump declared that abortion should remain a state issue, although he then criticized the ruling as having gone “too far.”

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Former President Donald Trump’s remarks this week reflect only the latest public shift in his views on abortion access. During an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” in 1999, he described himself as “very pro-choice,” but by the 2016 presidential campaign, he had committed to nominating conservative Supreme Court justices likely to overturn the constitutional right to an abortion. Trump later blamed Republican losses in the 2022 elections on the overturning of that right.
• Arizona officials, as well as doctors and patients, are untangling the ramifications of a state Supreme Court ruling this week allowing the enforcement of a near-total abortion ban dating to the Civil War. Yet any ban — even one that doesn’t last long — can have lasting effects. Abortion clinics may not survive such restrictions, and doctors and residents may factor them into their decisions about where to practice medicine.
• Also in abortion news, an appeals court panel in Indiana unanimously ruled that the state cannot enforce its abortion ban against a group of non-Christians who sued, siding with mostly Jewish plaintiffs who charged that the ban violates their religious freedom rights.
• A discouraging new study finds that paying off an individual’s medical debt once it has reached collections doesn’t offer them much financial — or mental health — benefit. One factor could be that the failure to pay medical debt is only a symptom of larger financial difficulties.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Molly Castle Work, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about an air-ambulance ride for an infant with RSV that his insurer deemed not to be medically necessary. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to send us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Your Dog Is Probably on Prozac. Experts Say That Says More About the American Mental Health Crisis Than Pets,” by Sarah Owermohle.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: KFF Health News’ “Ten Doctors on FDA Panel Reviewing Abbott Heart Device Had Financial Ties With Company,” by David Hilzenrath and Holly K. Hacker.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Texas Tribune’s “How Texas Teens Lost the One Program That Allowed Birth Control Without Parental Consent,” by Eleanor Klibanoff.

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “As Obesity Rises, Big Food and Dietitians Push ‘Anti-Diet’ Advice,” by Sasha Chavkin, Caitlin Gilbert, Anjali Tsui, and Anahad O’Connor.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Live Action’s “Hi, My Name’s Olivia” video.
• The New York Times’ “Insurers Reap Hidden Fees by Slashing Payment. You May Get the Bill,” by Chris Hamby.
• The Nation Bureau of Economic Research’s “The Effects of Medical Debt Relief: Evidence From Two Randomized Experiments,” by Raymond Kluender, Neale Mahoney, Francis Wong, and Wesley Yin.
• USA Today’s “The Database You Don’t Want to Need: Check to See if Your Health Data Was Hacked,” by Cecilia Garzella.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Arizona Turns Back the Clock on Abortion Access

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 11, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back from her leave Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, happy to be here.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my KFF Health News colleague Molly Work about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about yet another very expensive air-ambulance ride that an insurer deemed “unnecessary.” As you will hear, that is hardly the case.

But first, this week’s news, and there is lots of it. We start again this week with abortion because, again, that’s where the biggest news is. I want to do this chronologically because there were a lot of things that happened and they all built on each piece before them. So on Monday, former President [Donald] Trump, as promised, issued his long-awaited statement on abortion, a four-minute video posted on his platform Truth Social, in which he took credit for appointing the justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but then kind of declared the job done because abortion is now up to the individual states. And while he didn’t say so directly, that strongly suggested he would not be supporting efforts by anti-abortion groups to try to pass a federal 15-week ban, should Republicans retake the presidency and both houses of Congress. That alone was a big step away from some of his strongest anti-abortion supporters like the SBA List [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America], which helped got him elected in 2016, right, Alice? I see you nodding.

Ollstein: Yes. He kind of left himself some wiggle room. He made a statement that, at first, people could sort of read into it what they wanted. And so you had several anti-abortion groups going, “Well, he didn’t advocate for a national ban, but he also didn’t rule it out.” But then, as I’m sure we’ll get to, he was asked follow-up questions and he kind of did rule it out. He kind of did say, “No, I wouldn’t sign a national ban if it were presented to me.” And so the little crumbs of hope anti-abortion groups were picking up on may or may not be there. But it was both notable for what he did say and what he didn’t say. There are still a lot of unanswered questions about what he would do in office, both in terms of legislation, which is really a remote possibility that no one thinks is real, but he didn’t say anything.

Rovner: It would need 60 votes in the Senate.

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: Legislation.

Ollstein: Exactly. And no one really on the right or left thinks that is going to happen, but he didn’t say anything about what he would do with executive powers, which, as we’ve discussed, could go a long, long way towards banning abortion nationwide.

Rovner: One of the things that sort of fascinates me, I’ve been covering abortion for a long time, longer than some of you have been alive, and I have seen lots of politicians switch sides on this. I mean, Joe Biden started out as very anti-abortion, now very in favor of abortion rights. So I’ve seen politicians go both ways, but the general rule has always been you get to switch once. You get to either go from being pro-life to pro-choice or being pro-choice to pro-life. You don’t get to go back and forth and yet that seems to be very much what Trump has done. He seems to have taken every conceivable position there is on this extraordinarily binary issue and gotten away with it.

Ollstein: One last thing I wanted to flag in the statement was that he kind of said the quiet part out loud and that he directly said that this is about winning elections. So he’s saying, “This is what we need to say in order to win,” which leaves open what he really believes or what he really would do.

Roubein: Yeah, I mean, going back to Trump’s shifting view on abortion, because that’s really important and that’s something that the anti-abortion movement is sort of looking towards. I mean, in 1999 in an interview in “Meet the Press,” he called himself “very pro-choice,” and then we kind of saw by 2016, he had committed to naming justices who had anti-abortion views. And as Alice mentioned then, after the midterms in 2022, he blamed Republican losses on that.

Rovner: Yeah, I assume that makes it hard for people who try to follow him. I know [Sen.] Lindsey Graham came out, Lindsey Graham, who’s been sort of the major backer of the 15-week abortion ban in Congress for some time now, and suddenly Lindsey Graham, who has been nothing but loyal to Trump, finds himself on the other side of a big, important issue. I mean, Trump seems to get away with it. The question is, are his followers going to get away with having different positions on this?

Cohrs Zhang: Oh, I also just wanted to say that I think it’ll be interesting to see who Trump chooses as his running mate on this because obviously his opinion and his position is very important, but I think we saw kind of last time around with him leaning on Mike Pence a little bit for credibility with the anti-abortion movement. So I think it’ll be interesting to see whether he chooses someone again who can mend some of these relationships or whether he’s just going to carry on and make those decisions himself and lean less on his VP.

Rovner: Well, let’s move on to Tuesday because on Tuesday the Trump abortion doctrine got a pretty severe test from the Arizona Supreme Court, which ruled that an almost absolute abortion ban that was passed in 1864, before Arizona was a state, before the end of the Civil War, can be enforced. Alice, what’s this law and when might it take effect?

Ollstein: So the Supreme Court kicked some of those issues back down to the lower court and so it’s still being worked out. Currently, abortion is banned after 15 weeks of pregnancy. The total ban could go into effect in a little over a month, but it’s really uncertain. And so you’re seeing a lot of the same fear and confusion that we saw in the immediate aftermath of Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], where providers and patients don’t know what’s legal and whether they can provide or receive care and are, in some instances, over-complying and holding off on doing things that are still legal.

And so just a great example of how Trump and these national political figures, they can take whatever position they want, but that often gets overtaken by events. And so you saw Trump come out and say, “States should decide.” This is arguably an instance of states deciding, although the Supreme Court upholding a law from when no one was currently alive, was part of that, the law was implemented when women couldn’t vote, when Arizona wasn’t even a state yet. So whether this is an example of “will of the people,” that can be debated. But this is an example of “leave it to states.” And then Trump was asked about the Arizona decision, whether it went too far, and he said “Yes, it did go too far.” So it’s like should states be allowed to decide or not?

Rovner: It’s like, “Leave it to states unless they go too far.”

Roubein: And who decides what too far is, because a lot of anti-abortion groups were very complimentary of the Arizona ruling and said it was the right thing to do. So depends who you ask.

Rovner: So this obviously scrambles politics beyond just the presidential race, although I think it’s pretty clear to say that it puts Arizona, which had been teetering as being sort of purple state-ish, right back in play, but it’s going to affect things down the ballot and in other states, right?

Ollstein: I mean just looking at Arizona, I mean abortion rights and Democrats have really been pushing ballot measures here, and, I think as Julie was alluding to, there’s a ballot measure effort in Arizona, and I believe the organizers have said that they have enough signatures to qualify, then there’s steps to actually qualifying. So that’s going to really put a spotlight on Arizona. But, we’ve seen ballot measures in other states, Florida. Democrats really want Florida to be in play now that there’s been a Florida state Supreme Court ruling and there’s a ballot measure there. The threshold’s higher, it’s 60%, but all around the country it’s going to be putting increasing emphasis on this ballot measure effort.

Rovner: So the Republicans now really have no place to hide. I saw there was a Senate candidate in Wisconsin who had been very completely anti-abortion, now seems to be a lot less anti-abortion. I mean Republicans have spent a lot of time putting Democrats on the spot about not wanting to be specific on their abortion position, and that’s what leads to the, “You support abortion up until the ninth month,” which isn’t a thing. But now I feel like it’s a chance for Democrats to turn this on Republicans saying, “Now you have to say exactly what your position is rather than just you are ‘anti-abortion’ or ‘100% pro-life,’ which for many, many elections was plenty and all the candidates needed to say.

Cohrs Zhang: Just as we talk about all of these different, how this is playing out, certainly I think the instance you brought up was an example of a position on the larger issue of what a candidate is going to support generally, but I think there are these kind of tangential local issues too that candidates are going to have to take positions on. I think if we look back, like IVF, that’s something that candidates have never really had to weigh in on, and I think it is going to become local in a new way, which just seeing all these offshoot rulings and court decisions. And I think that it was an excellent catch, and, certainly, it’ll be interesting to see how candidates move across the spectrum as we see some more and more extreme local cases coming up even beyond the national standard.

Rovner: And as Alice points out, this is more than just political. This affects health care on the ground. Doctors either not wanting to train in states that have strict bans or doctors in some cases picking up and leaving states, not wanting to be threatened with jail or loss of license. So that affects what other kinds of women’s health care is available. Alice, you wanted to add something?

Ollstein: Yeah, I’ve been seeing a lot of people saying, both with the Florida ruling and with the Arizona ruling, so in both of these instances, a very sweeping abortion ban is expected to go into effect, but then there’s going to be a ballot referendum in the fall where voters will have the opportunity to get rid of those bans. And so you’re seeing a lot of people saying, “OK, well this is only temporary. Voters will be so outraged over this that they’ll vote to support these ballot measures to overturn it.” But I think it’s important to remember that a lot of the impacts will linger for a long time if these clinics can’t hang on even a few months under a near-total ban and shut their doors. You can’t just flip a switch and turn that back on. It’s incredibly hard to open a new abortion clinic.

Rovner: Or even to reopen one that you’ve closed down “temporarily.”

Ollstein: Exactly. And like you said, medical students and residents and doctors are making decisions about where to live and where to practice that could have impacts that last for years and years. And so people saying, “Oh, well, it’s not that important if these bans go into effect now because in November voters will have their say.” Even a few months can have a very long effect in a state.

Rovner: Yeah. I just want to continue to reiterate this is about more than politics. This is actually about health care on the ground.

Well, in other abortion news, a three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled last week that the state cannot enforce its abortion ban against a group of plaintiffs who are non-Christians and charge that the ban violates their freedom of religion because some religions, notably Judaism but others too, include tenets that prioritize the life and health of the pregnant woman over that of the fetus. This is obviously not the last word on this case. It could still go to the Indiana Supreme Court or even the U.S. Supreme Court, but it does seem significant. I think it’s the first decision we’ve seen on one of these cases, and it was unanimous. And interestingly, it turns a lot of the recent decisions protecting religious freedom for Christians right back on those who would ban abortion. Alice, there are more of these … awaiting hearing, right?

Ollstein: Yes. There’s ones going on really around the country that are testing these legal theories, and part of it is that state-level religious freedom laws are often more expansive and protective than federal religious freedom laws. And so they’re leaning on that. And yeah, it’s a really fascinating test case of, were these religious freedom laws intended to only protect one particular religion that has hegemonic power in the United States right now or were they designed to protect every one of every religion? And I think Judeo-Christian values is a term that’s thrown out a lot, and this really shows that there are very different beliefs when it comes to pregnancy and abortion and which life to prioritize between the mother and the child. And when it even counts as an abortion, when it even counts as life beginning, that is a lot more muddled.

And look, in this case it was led by Jewish plaintiffs challenging, but I’ve been tracking cases that draw from many different religions, and these protections even apply to avowed atheists in some instances. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on. In addition to Indiana, the other case I’ve been following most closely is in Missouri, so it’ll be really fascinating to see what happens.

Rovner: There was one in Kentucky, too. Did anything ever happen with that one? I think that was the first one we talked about.

Ollstein: They’re still waiting.

Rovner: Like two years ago.

Ollstein: Yeah. The wheels of justice turn slowly.

Rovner: Indeed, they do. Well, finally, Tennessee is on the verge of enacting a bill that would require students to be shown a three-minute video on fetal development and strongly recommends one made by the anti-abortion group Live Action. Not surprisingly, medical experts say the video is inaccurate and manipulative. I will post a link to it so you can watch it and judge for yourself. What jumped out to me in this story is that one Tennessee lawmaker, himself a physician, said, and I quote, “Whether all of the exact details are correct, I don’t think that is important.” Is that where we have come with this debate these days, that facts are no longer important?

Cohrs Zhang: I mean, I thought it was interesting that there was an amendment rejected that would’ve allowed parents to opt out of it. And I just feel like there’s so many permission slips in schools these days for any book or movie that something like this would be mandated is just kind of like an interesting twist on that. So again, we’ll be interested to see if it actually takes effect, but …

Rovner: I mean, it’s a pretty benign video. It’s basically purporting to show fetal development from the moment of fertilization up to birth. The big complaint about it is it’s misleading on the timing because it’s counting from a different place than doctors count from. It’s counting from the moment of fertilization. Doctors generally count pregnancy from the last missed period because it’s hard to tell. You don’t know when the moment of fertilization was. But when we talk about first trimester or however many weeks, medically you’re talking about weeks since last missed period. So this makes everything look like it happened earlier than it actually does in common parlance. Have I explained that right, Alice?

Ollstein: Yes. And we are seeing efforts on this front both to make these educational mandates for students, but we’re also seeing them mandated for doctors’ education in some states as well. Part of this is to address what everyone on all sides acknowledges is a problem, which is that doctors don’t understand when the exemptions to these abortion bans apply in terms of life and health of the parent coming into play. Oftentimes these bans are written with nonmedical language talking about serious threats. What’s serious? Talking about harm to a major bodily function. What’s major? So, you are seeing doctors holding off from providing abortions even in cases that they think should be exempt, these emergency situations, and so anti-abortion groups are pushing these bills mandating certain curricula for doctors to try to address this confusion. The medical groups I’ve spoken to don’t think this is a solution, but it’s interesting as an attempt.

Rovner: In some states, it has to be an affirmative defense. So as you, a doctor, consider an emergency, you perform the abortion and then instead of not getting charged, you get charged and you have to go hire a lawyer and go to court and say, “I decided that this was an emergency.” And that’s not something that’s very attractive to doctors either. And Rachel, you wanted to add …

Roubein: Oh yeah, I was just going to say I think one of the things that stuck out to me about this particular video, one of my colleagues, Dan Rosen, so I [inaudible 00:16: 52] in February, and he said that this is Live Action, which is the group that came under the spotlight in 2011 for releasing undercover videos seeking to discredit Planned Parenthood, but Live Action had been playing the Baby Olivia to legislative audiences, including at an influential conservative group, American Legislative Exchange Council. So just kind of looking at who’s kind of seeking to get this video into classrooms.

Rovner: All right, well now it is time for our weekly dive into why health care costs so darn much. We begin with a fascinating and infuriating investigation from The New York Times about another one of those third-party contractors most of us had never heard of, kind of like Change Healthcare before it got hacked. This one is called MultiPlan, and its job is to recommend how much insurers and/or employers, in self-insured plans, should pay providers. Except it turns out that MultiPlan has an incentive to pay providers less than they charge. It pockets part of the “savings.” And in most of the cases, these out-of-network charges are not covered by the surprise-billing law. I think because patients know they are going out-of-network, that part is not entirely clear to me. And of course, often patients have no other available providers, so they have no choice but to go out-of-network.

Sometimes indeed providers do overcharge outrageously. We’ve talked about that a lot. But in this case, it seems that a lot of these recommendations are to underpay outrageously. The firm told one therapist that her fair payment should be half of what Medicaid pays. Medicaid, traditionally the lowest payer of everyone. I feel like this story’s going to have legs, as they say. Apparently, the American Hospital Association has already asked the U.S. Department of Labor to investigate MultiPlan. Why do I feel like we’re all pawns in this huge competition between health care providers and insurers about who can pay who less or more and pocket the differences?

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think we first heard about MultiPlan, kind of in the conversation around surprise billing, because that was just a different category of these out-of-network bills where patients were getting stuck in the middle. And I think over time we’ve seen more stories come out about loopholes in those protections. And this is another example where MultiPlan is … they have to fix their business model. And the arbitration process for these surprise bills is so backed up, in these certain cases, which are more emergency care, I think, and if patients don’t necessarily have control or knowledge of their provider being out-of-network.

But certainly, people, if you’re looking for a certain specialist or want to go to a certain place to have a procedure done, then you may just elect an out-of-network provider. And I think the part I found really interesting about this reporting, that I think we’ve seen reflected in larger trends on business reporting, is really understanding these business models better and the incentives. And I love the graphics, I think, where you’re showing that if MultiPlan can lowball these providers and manage to squeeze a little bit more of a discount for payers, then they’re taking a cut of that discount, and patients can be left on the hook for these too.

So I think, as with anything, these surprise-billing protections are going to be an iterative process. And certainly I think there’s more to be done in so many different individual cases to protect patients from some of these games that providers and insurers are engaged in and the firms that kind of specialize in brokering these negotiations.

Rovner: It feels very whack-a-mole, every time they sort of put a band-aid on one problem, another one pops up, that it’s just sort of this is what happens when a fifth of your economy goes to health care is that everybody says, “Oh, I can make money doing X.” And then, there’s an awful lot of people making money doing X, which is not necessarily having anything to do with providing or receiving medical care.

Cohrs Zhang: Absolutely. And correct me if I’m wrong, I think MultiPlan, it may be publicly traded as well. So if you look at some of these incentives here to kind of meet those quarterly targets and how that aligns with patients, I think that’s also just something we keep in mind.

Rovner: And there was private equity involved on both sides, too, which I didn’t even want to try to explain. You should really read the story, which is really very complicated and very well explained. Because this is how it works: They make it complicated so you can’t figure out what’s going on.

Well, meanwhile, in a sad payment story of the week, a new study has found that paying off people’s medical debt doesn’t actually fix their financial problems. According to a National Bureau of Economic Research working paper, paying off debts that have already gone to collection did not improve the financial status of the people who owed the money, nor their mental health, nor did it make it more likely that they would be able to pay future medical bills. One thing it did do was help their credit ratings. The researchers said that they hope maybe paying off debt before it reaches the collection status might be more helpful, but that would also be more expensive. What makes it easy to pay off medical debt after it’s gone to collections is they sell it for pennies on the dollar. And of course, the U.S. is already moving towards taking medical debt off of people’s credit report. So obviously we’re talking about patients getting stuck with these huge bills and they end up with this medical debt and now we can’t seem to figure out how to fix the medical debt problem either.

Cohrs Zhang: When I first saw the study, obviously I trust that Sarah Kliff edited her studies, but I scrolled right down to the conflict-of-interest section to see who funded this. And yeah, it was a very depressing study. But I think it’s important to keep in mind that a failure to pay medical debt is a symptom of larger economic problems. Certainly there may be cases where medical debt is the only outstanding debt somebody has or is a shocking surprise or is a lien on their home, something like that that might have just these massive consequences.

But I think one of the points that was brought up in the story was that when you have medical debt, sure, you have collections calls, you have bad impact on your credit, but you’re not getting evicted from your home. And we’ve heard about cases where providers have held outstanding balances against patients, but I don’t think that’s a general practice. You’re supposed to be seen if you go in for medical care. So I think just like the day-to-day challenges of poverty, of debt, are so overwhelming that it is a little discouraging to hear that these individual payments may not have changed someone’s life. But I think there may be anecdotal cases that would be different from that larger trend, but it was not an encouraging study.

Rovner: No. And speaking of conflict of interest, there was the opposite of conflict of interest. It was conducted in part by the group RIP Medical Debt, which was created to help pay off people’s medical debt. And they did say, obviously there are cases in this does make huge differences in individual people’s lives. It was just that, overall, apparently the model by which they are paying off people’s debt is not helping them as much as I guess they had hoped to. So they have to look on to other things.

Moving on to this week in health data security, or lack thereof, it seems that another cyberattack group is trying to get Change Healthcare to pay ransom. This is after the company reportedly paid $22 million. So it seems that after paying, the company didn’t get all of its stolen records back. Meanwhile, it seems that even though we’re not hearing as much about this as we were, there are still lots of providers that aren’t getting paid. I mean, Rachel, this thing as we predicted, has a really long tail.

Roubein: Absolutely does. Yeah, I think we’re seeing these multiple ransomware groups trying to extort money out of UnitedHealthcare. I mean, they have deep pockets. It’s such a mess. I think, who’s to say what’s true about what data they have as well. So it’s kind of hard to report on these kind of things. And I think only UnitedHealthcare has the answers to those questions. But I think we are going to see some more congressional oversight on this issue. I know providers, hospitals, and physician groups were absolutely using these arguments on Capitol Hill during the appropriations negotiations. They’re saying, “We’re in such financial distress.” Going to their lawmakers talking about how it wouldn’t be a good idea to cut provider payments or implement site-neutral payments for hospitals, all these long-term things that lawmakers have been thinking about. There were other political problems, too, but I think it’s definitely seeped into Washington how difficult this has been, how cumbersome some of the workarounds are for providers, large and small, I think who are trying to work around this fiasco.

Rovner: Yeah, I read one story, I mean it really does feel like a spy movie that they’re assuming that maybe the company that got the ransom that was supposed to split it with the company that actually did the hacking didn’t and made off with the money. And now the company that actually did the hacking is trying to get its own ransom and oh my goodness. I mean, again, this is what happens when a fifth of the economy goes through the health care system. But I mean, I want to keep on this story because this story really does keep on impacting the back-room goings-on, which keep the health care system functioning in some ways.

And while we are on the subject of health care data breaches, USA Today has now a searchable tool for you to find out if you’re one of the 144 million Americans whose medical information was stolen or exposed in the last year. Yay? I think? I suppose this is a necessary evil. It’s hard for me to imagine 10 years ago. It’s like, “Wow, you can take some time and find out if your medical information’s been exposed.”

Roubein: It’s better than not knowing because you can change your passwords, you can do some credit monitoring, you could protect your information in some ways. But it’s not the same as better protections for the breaches happening in the first place.

Rovner: I know Congress is talking about a privacy bill, but apparently it is in truly embryonic stages at this point because I don’t think Congress really knows what to do about this either. They just know that they probably should do something.

All right, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my bill of the month interview with Molly [Castle] Work. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Molly Work, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Molly, thanks for joining us.

Molly Castle Work: Thanks so much, Julie.

Rovner: So this month’s bill, like last month’s bill, is for an air-ambulance ride, a bill that should have been prevented by the federal No Surprises Act. But we’ll get to that in a minute. First, who is our patient this month?

Work: So our patient is Amari Vaca. He was a 3-month-old baby at the time from Salinas, California.

Rovner: And what happened to him?

Work: When Amari was a 3-month-old baby, he had issues with his breathing. His mother took him to a local ER and pretty quickly his team of doctors decided that he needed more specialized care at a larger hospital in San Francisco. So they organized an emergency transport.

Rovner: Via helicopter, yes?

Work: It was actually by air ambulance. So like a small airplane.

Rovner: Ah. OK. And before we get too far, he’s OK now, right?

Work: Yes, he is OK. Unfortunately, he was transported to the hospital. He was there for three weeks. They diagnosed him with RSV, but he’s fortunately doing well, now.

Rovner: Well, and then as we say, the bill came. And how much was it?

Work: It was $97,599.

Rovner: Of which the insurance paid how much?

Work: Zero.

Rovner: Now, as I mentioned at the top, the federal surprise-billing law should have prevented the patient from getting a big bill like this, except it didn’t in this case. So why not?

Work: Yeah, so this was really interesting. Cigna, which was Amari’s health plan at the time, decided that the care was not medically necessary. Their argument was that he could have taken a ground ambulance. There was nothing to prove that he had to take this emergency airplane. And so, because of this, Cigna was able to avoid No Surprises Act and they didn’t pay for any of the bill.

Rovner: And, therefore, the patient was left on the hook.

Work: Yes. Amari and his family were left on the hook for the entire bill.

Rovner: So this feels like something that should have been taken care of with a phone call. The insurer calls the doctor and says, “Hey, why’d you order an air ambulance when the hospital’s only 100 miles away?” And the doctor says, “Because it was an infant on a ventilator.” But that would’ve been too easy, right?

Work: Yeah, exactly. There’s a lot of issues with this. First off, one of the best things about No Surprises Act is it’s supposed to take patients out of this. It’s supposed to make it so health plans and providers deal with all these negotiations before it even goes to a patient. But because of how this was handled, instead, Amari’s family is having to do all these negotiations. They’re the ones who are writing letters, using his medical records, to Cigna, and doing multiple appeals.

Rovner: And so far, has there been any progress or is the bill still outstanding?

Work: It’s still outstanding. His mother, Sara, has done two internal appeals. So that means she applied to have the bill changed within Cigna. They denied her both times. Right now she’s working on an external appeal, where an outside provider helps evaluate, and she’s still waiting to hear back on that.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, obviously you take your critically ill child to a hospital, and they say he has to go, he needs a higher level of care, and recommends an air ambulance. Are you supposed to say, “Wait, I have to call my insurer first to make sure they’re not going to deem this medically unnecessary?”

Work: Yeah, that’s what’s so frustrating because obviously if any of us were in that situation, we would’ve done the same thing. If our baby was sick, we would do the emergency air ambulance, or what we would do what the doctors told us to do. I think what I’ve been hearing from people is that, first off, hospitals should become better acquainted with what plans cover. Of course, we can only hope. But the hospital, for example, should have checked which air-ambulance providers are covered by Cigna before they made the call, because the one they did call was out-of-network for Amari’s family. As patients, what you can really do is you just need to advocate for yourself. It’s easy to be intimidated, but there are lots of times that hospitals just get the medical bill wrong or insurance companies. So do what Sara is doing and appeal. If internal appeals don’t work, go push for that external appeal as well.

Rovner: Yes, these days it helps to know your rights and to try to exercise them when you have them. Molly Work, thank you so much.

Work: Thank you so much, Julie.

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. Rachel, Rachel Zhang. Why don’t you go first this week? Yep. We have both Rachels.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. Confusing. So I chose a story in KFF Health News actually, and the headline is “Ten Doctors on FDA Panel Reviewing Abbott Heart Device Had Financial Ties With Company.” And I think this was just a really illuminating explanation of some of the loopholes in conflict-of-interest disclosures with FDA advisory committees. There’s a lot of controversy over what role these committees should play, when they should meet. But we’re seeing them play some very high-profile roles in drug approvals as well. But we have a medical device reporter on our team, and we just think it’s such an important coverage area as we’re looking at the money that the medical device industry spends. And I mean, you’re looking at some of these advisory board members who’ve received, on Open Payments, $200,000 from this company, and they’re not disclosing it because it’s not directly related to this individual device.

And I think it’s fair to say that some of them argued, “It was for a clinical study. The university got the money. I wasn’t spending it on a fancy car or something.” But nonetheless, I think there’s a good argument in this piece for some more stringent requirements for conflict of interest, especially if this data is publicly available.

Rovner: Yes, I was kind of taken this week about how very many good stories there were about investigations into conflicts of interest. Speaking of which, Rachel, other Rachel, why don’t you go next?

Roubein: My extra credit this week is titled “As Obesity Rises, Big Food and Dietitians Push ‘Anti-Diet’ Advice” and it’s a joint investigation by The Washington Post and The Examination, which is a new nonprofit newsroom that’s specializing in global health. And I thought it was a really fascinating window into the food industry and its practices at a time when the FDA and its commissioner wants to crack down, make front-of-package labeling more prevalent. And so basically the story dives into this anti-diet movement, which began as an effort to combat weight stigma and unhealthy obsession with thinness. And the movement has now become kind of a behemoth on social media, and basically food marketers are kind of trying to cash in here. The story kind of focused on one company in particular, General Mills, and its cereal, and the investigation found that the company launched a multipronged campaign to capitalize on the anti-diet movement and giveaways to registered dietitians who promote the cereals online. And I just thought it was kind of a fascinating exploration of all of these dynamics.

Rovner: Yes. Good journalism at work. Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah, I have a story from the Texas Tribune [“How Texas Teens Lost the One Program That Allowed Birth Control Without Parental Consent“] by Eleanor Klibanoff about the impact of the court ruling that said that Title X federal family planning clinics that all across the country have a policy of dispensing contraception, prescribing contraception to teens, whether or not they have parental consent, and doing that in a … advancing privacy and protecting them in that way. There was just a recent court ruling that said, just in Texas, the state’s parental consent laws override that. And they found that at a lot of these clinics, instances of teens coming in and seeking contraception have really fallen off. These are teens, the story documents, who don’t feel comfortable going to their parents. There’s instances of parents even getting violent with their kids when they find out about this. And so it really shows the effect of this, and this is something we should be continuing to track because it went to the 5th Circuit and it could go to the Supreme Court. We don’t know yet.

Rovner: Yeah, we talked about this case a couple of weeks ago. It was another of those cases that was very much aimed at a particular judge that they were confident would rule in their favor, who indeed did rule in their favor.

All right, well, my extra credit this week is not an investigation, it’s just a story I really liked from Stat News from Rachel’s colleague Sarah Owermohle, and it’s called “Your Dog Is Probably on Prozac. Experts Say That Says More About the American Mental Health Crisis Than Pets.” And full disclosure, that is one of my dogs in the background messing with a bone. My dogs are not on Prozac, but I am, and we are all three the better for it. It’s a serious story, though, about how our mental health impacts that of our pets, not just vice versa, and about how so few new medicines there are for anxiety and depression. And as an officer of a dog training club, I will say that it’s more than humans’ projections. We are definitely seeing more dogs with behavioral issues than at any time that I can remember, and I’ve owned dogs all my life.

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. You can still find me mostly at X. Alice, where are you these days?

Ollstein: I’m at @AliceOllstein on X, and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel Zhang?

Cohrs Zhang: I’m at @rachelcohrs on X and also spending more time on LinkedIn these days. 

Rovner: Rachel Roubein?

Roubein: @rachel_roubein 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).