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.

Federal officials have instructed at least 30 states to reinstate Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program coverage for half a million people, including children, after an errant computer program wrongly determined they were no longer eligible. It’s just the latest hiccup in the yearlong effort to redetermine the eligibility of beneficiaries now that the program’s pandemic-era expansion has expired.

Meanwhile, the federal government is on the verge of a shutdown, as a small band of House Republicans resists even a short-term spending measure to keep the lights on starting Oct. 1. Most of the largest federal health programs, including Medicare, have other sources of funding and would not be dramatically impacted — at least at first. But nearly half of all employees at the Department of Health and Human Services would be furloughed, compromising how just about everything runs there.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Officials in North Carolina announced the state will expand its Medicaid program starting on Dec. 1, granting thousands of low-income residents access to health coverage. With North Carolina’s change, just 10 states remain that have not expanded the program — yet, considering those states have resisted even as the federal government has offered pandemic-era and other incentives, it is unlikely more will follow for the foreseeable future.
• The federal government revealed that nearly half a million individuals — including children — in at least 30 states were wrongly stripped of their health coverage under the Medicaid unwinding. The announcement emphasizes the tight-lipped approach state and federal officials have taken to discussing the in-progress effort, though some Democrats in Congress have not been so hesitant to criticize.
• The White House is pointing to the possible effects of a government shutdown on health programs, including problems enrolling new patients in clinical trials at the National Institutes of Health and conducting food safety inspections at the FDA.
• Americans are grappling with an uptick in covid cases, as the Biden administration announced a new round of free test kits available by mail. But trouble accessing the updated vaccine and questions about masking are illuminating the challenges of responding in the absence of a more organized government effort.
• And the Biden administration is angling to address health costs at the executive level. The White House took its first step last week toward banning medical debt from credit scores, as the Federal Trade Commission filed a lawsuit to target private equity’s involvement in health care.
• Plus, the White House announced the creation of its first Office of Gun Violence Prevention, headed by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about a hospital bill that followed a deceased patient’s family for more than a year. If you have an outrageous or infuriating 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 they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Comparison of Hospital Online Price and Telephone Price for Shoppable Services,” by Merina Thomas, James Flaherty, Jiefei Wang, et al.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Los Angeles Times’ “California Workers Who Cut Countertops Are Dying of an Incurable Disease,” by Emily Alpert Reyes and Cindy Carcamo.

Rachel Roubein: KFF Health News’ “A Decades-Long Drop in Teen Births Is Slowing, and Advocates Worry a Reversal Is Coming,” by Catherine Sweeney.

Sandhya Raman: NPR’s “1 in 4 Inmate Deaths Happen in the Same Federal Prison. Why?” by Meg Anderson.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Diagnosis: Debt,” by Noam N. Levey and KFF Health News, NPR, and CBS staff.
• The New York Times’ “In Hospitals, Viruses Are Everywhere. Masks Are Not,” by Apoorva Mandavilli.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: More Medicaid Messiness

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: More Medicaid MessinessEpisode Number: 316Published: Sept. 27, 2023

[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 early this week, on Wednesday, Sept. 27, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Good morning. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” interview with Samantha Liss. This month’s bill is literally one that followed a patient to his family after his death. But first, the news. I want to start with Medicaid this week. North Carolina, which approved but didn’t fund its Medicaid expansion earlier this year, approved a budget this week that will launch the expansion starting Dec. 1. That leaves just 10 states that have still not expanded the program to, mostly, low-income adults, since the Affordable Care Act made it possible in, checks notes, 2014. Any other holdout states on the horizon? Florida is a possibility, right, Rachel?

Roubein: Yes. There’s only technically three states that can do ballot measures. Now North Carolina, I believe, was the first state to actually pass through the legislature since Virginia in 2018. A lot of the most recent states, seven conservative-leaning states, instead pursued the ballot measure path. In Florida, advocates have been eyeing a 2026 ballot measure. But the one issue in Florida is that they need a 60% threshold to pass any constitutional amendment, so that is pretty, pretty high and would take a lot of voter support.

Rovner: And they would need a constitutional amendment to expand Medicaid?

Roubein: A lot of the states have been going the constitutional amendment route in terms of Medicaid in recent years. Because what they found was some legislatures would come back and try and change it, but if it’s a constitutional amendment, they weren’t able to do that. But a lot of the holdout states don’t have ballot measure processes, where they could do this — like Alabama, Georgia, etc.

Raman: Kind of just echoing Rachel that this one has been interesting just because it had come through the legislature. And even with North Carolina, it’s been something that we’ve been eyeing for a few years, and that they’d gone a little bit of the way, a little bit of the way a few times. And it was kind of the kind of gettable one within the ones that hadn’t expanded. And the ones we have left, there’s just really not been much progress at all.

Rovner: I would say North Carolina, like Virginia, had a Democratic governor that ran on this and a Republican legislature, or a largely Republican legislature, hence the continuing standoff. It took both states a long time to get to where they had been trying to go. And you’re saying the rest of the states are not split like that?

Raman: Yeah, I think it’ll be a much more difficult hill to climb, especially when, in the past, we had more incentives to expand with some of the previous covid relief laws, and they still didn’t bite. So it’s going to be more difficult to get those.

Rovner: No one’s holding their breath for Texas to expand. Anyway, while North Carolina will soon start adding people to its Medicaid rolls, the rest of the states are shedding enrollees who gained coverage during the pandemic but may no longer be eligible. And that unwinding has been bumpy to say the least. The latest bump came last week when the Department of Health and Human Services revealed that more than half a million people, mostly children, had their coverage wrongly terminated by as many as 30 states. It seems a computer program failed to note that even if a parent’s income was now too high to qualify, that same income could still leave their children eligible. Yet the entire family was being kicked off because of the way the structure of the program worked. I think the big question here is not that this happened, but that it wasn’t noticed sooner. It should have been obvious — children’s eligibility for Medicaid has been higher than adults since at least the 1980s. This unwinding has been going on since this spring. How is this only being discovered now? It’s September. It’s the end of September.

Roubein: Yeah. I mean, this was something advocates who have been closely watching this have been ringing the alarm bells for a while, and then it took time. CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] had put something out, I believe it was roughly two weeks before they actually then had the roughly half a million children regain coverage — they had put out a, “OK, well, we’re exploring which states.” And lots of reporters were like, “OK, well which state is this an issue?” So yeah, the process seemed like it took some time here.

Rovner: I know CMS has been super careful. I mean, I think they’re trying not to politicize this, because they’ve been very careful not to name states, and in many cases who they know have been wrongly dropping people. I guess they’re trying to keep it as apolitical as possible, but I think there are now some advocates who worry that maybe CMS is being a little too cautious.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think from the other side too, if you’ve talked to state officials, they’re also trying to be really cautious and not criticize CMS. So it seems like both sides are not wanting to go there. But I mean some Democrats in Congress have been critical of how the effort has gone.

Rovner: Yeah. And of course, if the government shuts down, as seems likely at the end of this week, that’s not going to make this whole process any easier, right? The states will still get to do what the states are doing. Their shutdown efforts, or their re-qualification efforts, are not federally funded, but the people at CMS are.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, that’ll just throw another thorn in this as we’re getting very, very likely headed towards a shutdown at this point on the 27th. So I think that’ll be another barrier for them regardless. And I mean, most CMS money isn’t even affected by the yearly budget anyways because it’s mandatory funding, but that’ll be a barrier for sure.

Rovner: So, speaking of the government shutdown, it still seems more likely than not that Congress will fail to pass either any of the 12 regular spending bills or a temporary measure to keep the lights on when the fiscal year ends at midnight Sunday. That would lead to the biggest federal shutdown since 2013 when, fun fact, the shutdown was an attempt to delay the rollout of the Affordable Care Act. What happens to health programs if the government closes? It’s kind of a big confusing mess, isn’t it?

Roubein: Yeah, well, what we know that would definitely continue and in the short term is Medicare and Medicaid, Obamacare’s federal insurance marketplace. Medicaid has funding for at least the next three months, and there’s research developing vaccines and therapeutics that HHS, they put out their kind of contingency “What happens if there’s a shutdown?” plan. But there’s some things that the White House and others are kind of trying to point to that would be impacted, like the National Institutes of Health may not be able to enroll new patients in clinical trials, the FDA may need to delay some food safety inspections, etc.

Rovner: Sarah, I actually forgot because, also fun fact, the FDA is not funded through the rest of the spending bill that includes the Department of Health and Human Services. It’s funded through the agriculture bill. So even though HHS wasn’t part of the last shutdown in 2018 and 2019, because the HHS funding bill had already gone through, the FDA was sort of involved, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. So FDA is lumped with the USDA, the Agriculture Department, for the purposes of congressional funding, which is always fun for a health reporter who has to follow both of those bills. But FDA is always kind of a unique one with shutdown, because so much of their funding now is user fees, particularly for specific sections. So the tobacco part of FDA is almost 100% funded by user fees, so they’re not really impacted by a shutdown. Similarly, a lot of drug, medical device applications, and so forth also are totally funded by user fees, so their reviews keep going. That said, the way user fees are, they’re really designated to specific activities.

So, where there isn’t user fees and it’s not considered a critical kind of public health threat, things do shut down, like Rachel mentioned: a lot of food work and inspections, and even on the drug and medical device side, some activities that are related that you might think would continue don’t get funded.

Rovner: Sandhya, is there any possibility that this won’t happen? And that if it does happen, that it will get resolved anytime soon?

Raman: At this point, I don’t think that we can navigate it. So last night, the Senate put out their bipartisan proposal for a continuing resolution that you would attach as an amendment to the FAA, the Federal Aviation [Administration] reauthorization. And so that would temporarily extend a lot of the health programs through Nov. 17. The issue is that it’s not something that if they are able to pass that this week, they’d still have to go to the House. And the House has been pretty adamant that they want their own plan and that the CR that they were interested in had a lot more immigration measures, and things there.

And the House right now has been busy attempting to pass this week four of the 12 appropriations bills. And even if they finished the four that they did, that they have on their plate, that would still mean going to the Senate. And Biden has said he would veto those, and it’s still not the 12. So at this point, it is almost impossible for us to not at least see something short-term. But whether or not that’s long-term is I think a question mark in all the folks that I have been talking to about this right now.

Rovner: Yeah, we will know soon enough what’s going to happen. Well, meanwhile, because there’s not enough already going on, covid is back. Well, that depends how you define back. But there’s a lot more covid going around than there was, enough so that the federal government has announced a new round of free tests by mail. And there’s an updated covid vaccine — I think we’re not supposed to call it a booster — but its rollout has been bumpy. And this time it’s not the government’s fault. That’s because this year the vaccine is being distributed and paid for by mostly private insurance. And while lots of people probably won’t bother to get vaccinated this fall, the people who do want the vaccine are having trouble getting it. What’s happening? And how were insurers and providers not ready for this? We’d been hearing the updated vaccines would be available in mid-September for months, Sarah. I mean they really literally weren’t ready.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I mean, it’s not really clear why they weren’t ready, other than perhaps they felt they didn’t need to be, to some degree. I mean, normally, I know I was reading actually because we’ve also recently gotten RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] vaccine approvals — normally they actually have almost like a year, I think, to kind of add vaccines to plans and schedules and so forth, and pandemic covid-related laws really shortened the time for covid. So they should have been prepared and ready. They knew this was coming. And people are going to pharmacies, or going to a doctor’s appointment, and they’re being told, “Well, we can give you the vaccine, but your insurance plan isn’t set up to cover it yet, even though technically you should be.” There seems like there’s also been lots of distribution issues where again, people are going to sites where they booked appointments, and they’re saying, “Oh, actually we ran out.” They’re trying another site. They’ve run out.

So, it’s sort of giving people a sense of the difference of what happens when sort of the government shepherds an effort and everybody — things are a bit simplified, because you don’t have to think about which site does your insurance cover. There is a program for people who don’t have insurance now who can get the vaccine for free, but again, you’re more limited in where you can go. There’s not these big free clinics; that’s really impacting childhood vaccinations, because, again, a lot of children can’t get vaccinated at the pharmacy. So I think people are being reminded of what normal looked like pre-covid, and they’re realizing maybe we didn’t like this so much after all.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s not so efficient either. All the people who said, “Oh, the private sector could do this so much more efficiently than the government.” And it’s like, we’re ending up with pretty much the same issues, which is the people who really want the vaccine are chasing around and not finding it. And I know HHS Secretary Becerra went and had this event at a D.C. pharmacy where he was going to get his vaccine. And I think the event was intended to encourage people to go get vaccinated, but it happened right at the time when the big front surge of people who wanted to get vaccinated couldn’t find the vaccine.

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s a big concern because we’ve had such low uptake of booster or additional covid shots over the past couple of years. So the people who are sort of the most go-getters, the ones who really want the shots, are having trouble and feeling a bit defeated. What does that mean for the people that are less motivated to get it, who may not make a second or third attempt if it’s not easy? We sort of know, and I think public health folks kind of beat the drum, that sort of just meeting people where they are, making it easy, easy, easy, is really how you get these things done. So it’s hard to see how we can improve uptake this year when it’s become more complicated, which I think is going to be a big problem moving forward.

Rovner: Yeah. Right. And clearly these are issues that will be ironed out probably in the next couple of weeks. But I think what people are going to remember, who are less motivated to go get their vaccines, is, “Oh my God, these people I know tried to get it and it took them weeks. And they showed up for their appointment and they couldn’t get it.” And it’s like, “It was just too much trouble and I can’t deal with it.” And there’s also, I think you mentioned that there’s an issue with kids who are too young to get the vaccine too, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. Still, I think people forget that you have to be 6 months to get the vaccine. If you’re under 3, you basically cannot get it in a pharmacy, so you have to get it in a doctor’s office. But a lot of people are reporting online their doctor’s office sort of stopped providing covid vaccines. So they’re having trouble just finding where to go. It seems like the distribution of shots for younger children has also been a bit slower as well. And again, this is a population where just even primary series uptake has been a problem. And people are in this weird gap now where, if you can’t get access to the new covid vaccine but your kid is eligible, the old vaccine isn’t available.

So you’re sort of in this gap where your kid might not have had any opportunity yet to get a covid vaccine, and there’s nothing for them. I think we forget sometimes that there are lots of groups of people that are still very vulnerable to this virus — including newborn babies who haven’t been exposed at all, and haven’t gotten a chance to get vaccinated.

Rovner: Yeah. So this is obviously still something that we need to continue to look at. Well, meanwhile, mask mandates are making a comeback, albeit a very small one. And they are not going over well. I’ve personally been wearing a mask lately because I’m traveling later this week and next, and don’t want to get sick, at least not in advance. But masks are, if anything, even more controversial and political than they were during the height of the pandemic. Does public health have any ideas that could help reverse that trend? Or are there any other things we could do? I’ve seen some plaintiff complaints that we’ve not done enough about ventilation. That could be something where it could help, even if people won’t or don’t want to wear masks. I mean, I’m surprised that vaccination is still pretty much our only defense.

Karlin-Smith: I think with masks, one thing that’s made it hard for different parts of the health system and lower-level kind of state public health departments to deal with masks is that the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] recommendations around masking are pretty loose at this point. So The New York Times had a good article about hospitals and masking, and the kind of guidance around triggers they’ve given them are so vague. They kind of are left to make their own decisions. The CDC actually still really hasn’t emphasized the value of KN95 and N95 respirators over surgical masks. So I think it becomes really hard for those lower-level institutions to sort of push for something that is kind of controversial politically. And a lot of people are just tired of it when they don’t have the support of those bigger institutions saying it. And some of just even figuring out levels of the virus and when that should trigger masking.

It’s much harder to track nowadays because so much of our systems and data reporting is off. So, we have this sense we’re in somewhat of a surge now. Hospitalizations are up and so forth. But again, it’s a lot easier for people to make these decisions and figure out when to pull triggers when you have clear data that says, “This is what’s going on now.” And to some extent we’re … again, there’s a lot of evidence that points to a lot of covid going around now, but we don’t have that sort of hard data that makes it a lot easier for people to justify policy choices.

Raman: You just brought up ventilation and it took time, one, for some scientists to realize that covid is also spread through ultra-tiny particles. But it also took, after that, a while for the White House to pivot its strategy to stress ventilation measures in addition to masks, and face covering. So a lot of places are still kind of behind on having better ventilation in an office, or kind of wherever you’re going.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, one would think that improving ventilation in schools would improve, not only not spreading covid, but not spreading all of the respiratory viruses that keep kids out of school and that make everybody sick during the winter, during the school year.

Roubein: I was going to piggyback on something Sarah said, which was about how the CDC doesn’t have clear benchmarks on when there should be a guideline for what is high transmission in the hospital for them to reinstate a mask mandate or whatever. But there’s also nuance to consider there. Within that there’s, is there a partial masking rule? Which is like: Does the health care staff have to wear them versus the patients? And does that have enough benefit on its own if it’s only required to one versus the other? I mean, I know that a lot of folks have called for more strict rules with that, but then there’s also the folks that are worried about the backlashes. This has gotten so politicized, how many different medical providers have talked about angst at them, attacks at them, over the polarization of covid? So there’s so many things that are intertwined there that it’s tough to institute something.

Karlin-Smith: I think the other thing is we keep forgetting this is not all about covid. We’ve learned a lot of lessons about public health that could be applicable, like you mentioned in schools, beyond covid. So if you’re in the emergency room, because you have cancer and you need to see a doctor right away. And you’re sitting next to somebody with RSV or the flu, it would also be beneficial to have that patient wearing a mask because if you have cancer, you do not need to add one of these infectious diseases on top of it. So it’s just been interesting, I think, for me to watch because it seemed like at different points in this crisis, we were sort of learning things beyond covid for how it could improve our health care system and public health. But for the most part, it seems like we’ve just kind of gone back to the old ways without really thinking about what we could incorporate from this crisis that would be beneficial in the future.

Rovner: I feel like we’ve lost the “public” in public health. That everybody is sort of, it’s every individual for him or herself and the heck with everybody else. Which is exactly the opposite of how public health is supposed to work. But perhaps we will bounce back. Well, moving on. The Biden administration, via the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the CFPB, took the first steps last week to ban medical debt from credit scores, which would be a huge step for potentially tens of millions of Americans whose credit scores are currently affected by medical debt. Last year, the three major credit bureaus, Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, agreed not to include medical debt that had been paid off, or was under $500 on their credit reports. But that still leaves lots and lots of people with depressed scores that make it more expensive for them to buy houses, or rent an apartment, or even in some cases to get a job. This is a really big deal if medical debt is going to be removed from people’s credit reports, isn’t it?

Roubein: Yeah. I think that was an interesting move when they announced that this week. Because the CFPB had mentioned that in a report they did last year, 20% of Americans have said that they had medical debt. And it doesn’t necessarily appear on all credit reports, but like you said, it can. And having that financial stress while going through a health crisis, or someone in your family going through a health crisis, is layers upon layers of difficulty. And they had also said in their report that medical billing data is not an accurate indicator of whether or not you’ll repay that debt compared to other types of credit. And it also has the layers of insurance disputes, and medical billing errors, and all that sort of thing. So this proposal that they have ends up being finalized as a rule, it could be a big deal. Because some states have been trying to do this on a state-by-state level, but still in pretty early stages in terms of a lot of states being on board. So this can be a big thing for a fifth of people.

Rovner: Yeah, many people. I’m going to give a shout-out here to my KFF Health News colleague Noam Levey, who’s done an amazing project on all of this, and I think helped sort of push this along. Well, while we are on the subject of the Biden administration and money in health care, the Federal Trade Commission is suing a private equity-backed doctors group, U.S. Anesthesia Partners, charging anti-competitive behavior, that it’s driving up the price of anesthesia services by consolidating all the big anesthesiology practices in Texas, among other things. FTC Chair Lina Khan said the agency “will continue to scrutinize and challenge serial acquisitions roll-ups and other stealth consolidation schemes that unlawfully undermine fair competition and harm the American public.” This case is also significant because the FTC is suing not just the anesthesia company, but the private equity firm that backs it, Welsh, Carson, Anderson & Stowe, which is one of the big private equity firms in health care. Is this the shot across the bow for private equity and health care that a lot of people have been waiting for? I mean, we’ve been talking about private equity and health care for three or four years now.

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s what the FTC is hoping for. They’re saying not just that we’re going after anti-competitive practices in health care, that, I think, they’re making a clear statement that they’re going after this particular type of funder, which we’ve seen has proliferated around the system. And I think this week there was a report from the government showing that CMS can’t even track all of the private equity ownership of nursing homes. So we know this isn’t the only place where doctors’ practices being bought up by private equity has been seen as potentially problematic. So this has been a very sort of activist, I think, aggressive FTC in health care in general, and in a number of different sectors. So I think they’re ready to deliberate, with their actions and warnings.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s interesting. I mean, we mostly think, those of us who have followed the FTC in healthcare, which gets pretty nerdy right there, usually think of big hospital groups trying to consolidate, or insurers trying to consolidate these huge mega-mergers. But what’s been happening a lot is these private equity companies have come in and bought up physician practices. And therefore they become the only providers of anesthesia, or the only providers of emergency care, or the only providers of kidney dialysis, or the only providers of nursing homes, and therefore they can set the prices. And those are not the level of deals that tend to come before the FTC. So I feel like this is the FTC saying, “See you little people that are doing big things, we’re coming for you too.” Do we think this might dampen private equity’s enthusiasm? Or is this just going to be a long-drawn-out struggle?

Roubein: I could see it being more of a long-drawn-out struggle because even if they’re showing it as an example, there’s just so many ways that this has been done in so many kind of sectors as you’ve seen. So I think it remains to be seen further down the line as this might happen in a few different ways to a few different folks, and how that kind of plays out there. But it might take some time to get to that stage.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say it’s always worth also thinking about just the size and budget of the FTC in comparison to the amount of private actors like this throughout the health system. So I mean, I think that’s one reason sometimes why they do try and kind of use that grandstanding symbolic messaging, because they can’t go after every bad actor through that formal process. So they have to do the signaling in different ways.

Raman: I think probably as we’ve all learned as health reporters, it takes a really long time for there to be change in the health care system.

Rovner: And I was just going to say, one thing we know about people who are in health care to make money is that they are very creative in finding ways to do it. So whatever the rules are, they’re going to find ways around them and we will just sort of keep playing this cat and mouse for a while. All right, well finally this week, a story that probably should have gotten more attention. The White House last week announced creation of the first-ever Office of Gun Violence Prevention to be headed by Vice President Kamala Harris. Its role will be to help implement the very limited gun regulation passed by Congress in 2022, and to coordinate other administration efforts to curb gun violence. I know that this is mostly for show, but sometimes don’t you really have to elevate an issue like this to get people to pay attention, to point out that maybe you’re trying to do something? Talk about things that have been hard for the government to do over the last couple of decades.

Raman: It took Congress a long time to then pass a new gun package, which the shooting in Uvalde last year ended up catalyzing. And Congress actually got something done, which was more limited than some gun safety advocates wanted. But it does take a lot to get gun safety reform across the finish line.

Rovner: I know. I mean, it’s one of those issues that the public really, really seems to care about, and that the government really, really, really has trouble doing. I’ve been covering this so long, I remember when they first banned gun violence research at HHS back in the mid-1990s. That’s how far back I go, that they were actually doing it. And the gun lobby said, “No, no, no, no, no. We don’t really want these studies that say that if you have a gun in the house, it’s more likely to injure somebody, and not necessarily the bad guy.” They were very unhappy, and it took until three or four years ago for that to be allowed to be funded. So maybe the idea that they’re elevating this somewhat, to at least wave to the public and say, “We’re trying. We’re fighting hard. We’re not getting very far, but we’re definitely trying.” So I guess we will see how that comes out.

All right, well that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Sam Liss, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Samantha Liss, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Welcome.

Liss: Hi.

Rovner: This month’s bill involves a patient who died in the hospital, right? Tell them who he was, what he was sick with, and about his family.

Liss: Yeah. So Kent Reynolds died after a lengthy hospital stay in February of 2022. He was actually discharged after complications from colon cancer, and died in his home. And his widow, Eloise Reynolds, was left with a series of complicated hospital bills, and she reached out to us seeking help after she couldn’t figure them out. And her and Kent were married for just shy of 34 years. They lived outside of St. Louis and they have two adult kids.

Rovner: So Eloise Reynolds received what she assumed was the final hospital bill after her husband died, which she paid, right?

Liss: Yeah, she did. She paid what she thought was the final bill for $823, but a year later she received another bill for $1,100. And she was confused as to why she owed it. And no one could really give her a sufficient answer when she reached out to the hospital system, or the insurance company.

Rovner: Can a hospital even send you a bill a year after you’ve already paid them?

Liss: You know what, after looking into this, we learned that yeah, they actually can. There’s not much in the way that stops them from coming after you, demanding more money, months, or even years later.

Rovner: So this was obviously part of a dispute between the insurance company and the hospital. What became of the second bill, the year-later bill?

Liss: Yeah. After Eloise Reynolds took out a yardstick and went line by line through each charge and she couldn’t find a discrepancy or anything that had changed, she reached out to KFF Health News for help. And she was still skeptical about the bill and didn’t want to pay it. And so when we reached out to the health system, they said, “Actually, you know what? This is a clerical error. She does not owe this money.” And it sort of left her even more frustrated, because as she explained to us, she says, “I think a lot of people would’ve ended up paying this additional amount.”

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? What do you do if you suddenly get a bill that comes, what seems, out of nowhere?

Liss: The experts we talked to said Eloise did everything right. She was skeptical. She compared, most importantly, the bills that she was getting from the hospital system against the EOBs that she was getting from her insurance company.

Rovner: The explanation of benefits form.

Liss: That’s right. The explanation of benefits. And she was comparing those two against one another, to help guide her on what she should be doing. And because those were different between the two of them, she was left even more confused. I think folks that we spoke to said, “Yeah, she did the right thing by pushing back and demanding some explanations.”

Rovner: So I guess the ultimate lesson here is, if you can’t get satisfaction, you can always write to us.

Liss: Yeah, I hate to say that in a way, because that’s a hard solution to scale for most folks. But yeah, I mean, I think it points to just how confusing our health care system is. Eloise seemed to be a pretty savvy health care consumer, and she even couldn’t figure it out. And she was pretty tenacious in her pursuit of making phone calls to both the insurance company and the hospital system. And I think when she couldn’t figure that out, and she finally turned to us asking for help.

Rovner: So well, another lesson learned. Samantha Liss, thank you very much for joining us.

Liss: Thanks.

Rovner: Hey, “What the Health?” listeners, you already know that few things in health care are ever simple. So, if you like our show, I recommend you also listen to “Tradeoffs,” a podcast that goes even deeper into our costly, complicated, and often counterintuitive health care system. Hosted by longtime health care journalist and friend Dan Gorenstein, “Tradeoffs” digs into the evidence and research data behind health care policies and tells the stories of real people impacted by decisions made in C-suites, doctors’ offices, and even Congress. Subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at a story in the Los Angeles Times, “California Workers Who Cut Countertops Are Dying of an Incurable Disease,” by Emily Alpert Reyes and Cindy Carcamo. Hopefully I didn’t mispronounce her name. They wrote a really fascinating but sad story about people working in an industry where they’re cutting engineered stone countertops for people’s kitchens and so forth. And because of the materials in this engineered product, they’re inhaling particles that is basically giving people at a very young age incurable and deadly lung disease. And it’s an interesting public health story about sort of the lack of protection in place for some of the most vulnerable workers. It seems like this industry is often comprised of immigrant workers. Some who kind of essentially go to … outside a Home Depot, the story suggests, or something like that and kind of get hired for day labor.

So they just don’t have the kind of power to sort of advocate for protections for themselves. And it’s just also an interesting story to think about, as consumers I think people are not always aware of the costs of the products they’re choosing. And how that then translates back into labor, and the health of the people producing it. So, really fascinating, sad piece.

Rovner: Another product that you have to sort of … I remember when they first were having the stories about the dust in microwave popcorn injuring people. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: So my extra credit this week is from NPR and it’s by Meg Anderson. And it’s called “1 in 4 Inmate Deaths Happen in the Same Federal Prison. Why?” This is really interesting. It’s an investigation that looks at the deaths of individuals who died either while serving in federal prison or right after. And they looked at some of the Bureau of Prisons data, and it showed that 4,950 people had died in custody over the past decade. But more than a quarter of them were all in one correctional facility in Butner, North Carolina. And the investigation found out that the patients here and nationwide are dying at a higher rate, and the incarcerated folks are not getting care for serious illnesses — or very delayed care, until it’s too late. And the Butner facility has a medical center, but a lot of times the inmates are being transferred there when it was already too late. And then it’s really sad the number of deaths is just increasing. And just, what can be done to alleviate them?

Rovner: It was a really interesting story. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, the headline is “A Decades-Long Drop in Teen Births Is Slowing, and Advocates Worry a Reversal Is Coming,” by Catherine Sweeney from WPLN, in partnership with KFF Health News. And she writes about the national teen birth rate and how it’s declined dramatically over the past three decades. And that, essentially, it’s still dropping, but preliminary data released in June from the CDC shows that that descent may be slowing. And Catherine had talked to doctors and other service providers and advocates, who essentially expressed concern that the full CDC dataset release later this year can show a rise in teen births, particularly in Southern states. And she talked to experts who pointed to several factors here, including the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, intensifying political pushback against sex education programs, and the impact of the pandemic on youth mental health.

Rovner: Yeah. There’ve been so many stories about the decline in teen birth, which seemed mostly attributable to them being able to get contraception. To get teens not to have sex was less successful than getting teens to have safer sex. So we’ll see if that tide is turning. Well, I’m still on the subject of health costs this week. My story is a study from JAMA Internal Medicine that was conducted in part by Shark Tank panelist Mark Cuban, for whom health price transparency has become something of a crusade. This study is of a representative sample of 60 hospitals of different types conducted by researchers from the University of Texas. And it assessed whether the online prices posted for two common procedures, vaginal childbirth and a brain MRI, were the same as the prices given when a consumer called to ask what the price would be. And surprise. Mostly they were not. And often the differences were very large. In fact, to quote from the study, “For vaginal childbirth, there were five hospitals with online prices that were greater than $20,000, but telephone prices of less than $10,000. The survey was done in the summer of 2022, which was a year and a half after hospitals were required to post their prices online.” At some point, you have to wonder if anything is going to work to help patients sort out the prices that they are being charged for their health care. Really eye-opening study.

All right, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin, or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

Emmarie Huetteman, associate Washington editor, previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail.

The annual U.S. Census Bureau report this week revealed a drop in the uninsured rate last year as more working-age people obtained employer coverage. However, this year’s end of pandemic-era protections — which allowed many people to stay on Medicaid — is likely to have changed that picture quite a bit since. Meanwhile, reports show even many of those with insurance continue to struggle to afford their health care costs, and some providers are encouraging patients to take out loans that tack interest onto their medical debt.

Also, a mystery is unfolding in the federal budget: Why has recent Medicare spending per beneficiary leveled off? And the CDC recommends anyone who isat least 6 months old get the new covid booster.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Census Bureau reported this week that the uninsured rate dropped to 10.8% in 2022, down from 11.6% in 2021, driven largely by a rise in employer-sponsored coverage. Since then, pandemic-era coverage protections have lapsed, though it remains to be seen exactly how many people could lose Medicaid coverage and stay uninsured.
• A concerning number of people who have insurance nonetheless struggle to afford their out-of-pocket costs. Medical debt is a common, escalating problem, exacerbated now as hospitals and other providers direct patients toward bank loans, credit cards, and other options that also saddle them with interest.
• Some state officials are worried that people who lose their Medicaid coverage could choose short-term health insurance plans with limited benefits — so-called junk plans — and find themselves owing more than they’d expect for future care.
• Meanwhile, a mystery is unfolding in the federal budget: After decades of warnings about runaway government spending, why has spending per Medicare beneficiary defied predictions and leveled off? At the same time, private insurance costs are increasing, with employer-sponsored plans expecting their largest increase in more than a decade.
• And the push for people to get the new covid booster is seeking to enshrine it in Americans’ annual preventive care regimen.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “The Shrinking Number of Primary Care Physicians Is Reaching a Tipping Point,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: MedPage Today’s “Rural Hospital Turns to GoFundMe to Stay Afloat,” by Kristina Fiore.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “How Columbia Ignored Women, Undermined Prosecutors and Protected a Predator for More Than 20 Years,” by Bianca Fortis and Laura Beil.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Congressional Budget Office’s “Raising the Excise Tax on Cigarettes: Effects on Health and the Federal Budget.”

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• U.S. Census Bureau’s “Health Insurance Coverage of U.S. Workers Increased in 2022,” by Rachel Lindstrom, Katherine Keisler-Starkey, and Lisa Bunch.
• The Commonwealth Fund’s “Can Older Adults with Employer Coverage Afford Their Health Care?” by Lauren A. Haynes and Sara R. Collins.
• KFF Health News’ “What One Lending Company’s Hospital Contracts Reveal About Financing Patient Debt,” by Noam N. Levey.
• The New York Times’ “A Huge Threat to the U.S. Budget Has Receded. And No One Is Sure Why,” by Margot Sanger-Katz, Alicia Parlapiano, and Josh Katz.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Health-Insurance Costs Are Taking Biggest Jumps in Years,” by Anna Wilde Mathews.
• The New York Times’ “The N.Y.C. Neighborhood That’s Getting Even Thinner on Ozempic,” by Joseph Goldstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Underinsured Is the New Uninsured

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Underinsured Is the New Uninsured

Episode Number: 314

Published: Sept. 14, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a Washington editor for KFF Health News. I’m filling in for Julie [Rovner] this week, who’s on vacation. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 14, at 11 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. We’re joined today by video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Huetteman: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi there.

Huetteman: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Huetteman: No interview this week, so let’s get right to the news. The percentage of working-age adults with health insurance went up last year, according to the annual Census report out this week. As a result, the uninsured rate dropped to 10.8% in 2022. But lower uninsured rates may be obscuring another problem: the number of people who are underinsured and facing high out-of-pocket costs. The Commonwealth Fund released a report last month on how difficult it is for many older adults with employer coverage to afford care. And recent reporting here at KFF Health News has probed how medical providers are steering patients toward bank loans and credit cards that saddled them with interest on top of their medical debt. So, the number of people without insurance is dropping. But that doesn’t mean that health care is becoming more affordable. So what does it mean to be underinsured? Are the policy conversations that focus on the uninsured rate missing the mark?

Sanger-Katz: So, two things I would say. One is that I even think that the Census report on what’s happening with the uninsured is obscuring a different issue, which is that there’s been this artificial increase in the number of people who are enrolled in Medicaid as a result of this pandemic policy. So the Congress said to the states, if you want to get extra money for your Medicaid program through the public health emergency, then you can’t kick anyone out of Medicaid regardless of whether they are no longer eligible for the program. And that provision expired this spring. And so this is one of the big stories in health policy that’s happening this year. States are trying to figure out how to reevaluate all of these people who have been in their Medicaid program for all these years and determine who’s eligible and who’s not eligible. And there’s been quite a lot of very good reporting on what’s going on. And I think there’s a combination of people who are losing their Medicaid coverage because they really genuinely are no longer eligible for Medicaid. And there also appears to be quite a large number of people who are losing their Medicaid coverage for administrative hiccup reasons — because there’s some paperwork error, or because they moved and they didn’t get a letter, or some other glitch in the system. And so when I looked at these numbers on the uninsured rate, in some ways what it told us is we gave a whole bunch of people insurance through these public programs during the pandemic and that depressed the uninsured rate. But we know right now that millions of people have lost insurance, even in the last few months, with more to come later this year. And so I’m very interested in the next installment of the Census report when we get back to more or less a normal Medicaid system, how many people will be without insurance. So that’s just one thing. And then just to get to your question, I think having insurance does not always mean that you can actually afford to pay for the health care that you need. We’ve seen over the last few decades a shift towards higher-deductible health care plans where people have to pay more money out-of-pocket before their insurance kicks in. We’ve also seen other kinds of cost sharing increase, where people have to pay higher copayments or a percentage of the cost of their care. And we’ve also seen, particularly in the Obamacare exchanges, but also in the employer market, that there’s a lot of insurance that doesn’t include any kind of out-of-network benefit. So it means, you know, if you can go to a provider who is covered by your insurance, your insurance will pay for it. But if you can’t find someone who’s covered by your insurance, you could still get hit with a big bill. The sort of surprise bills of old are banned. But, you know, the doctor can tell you in advance, and you can go and get all these medical services and then end up with some big bills. So whether or not just having an insurance card is really enough to ensure that people have access to health care remains an open question. And I think we have seen a lot of evidence over recent years that even people with insurance encounter a lot of financial difficulties when they get sick and often incur quite a lot of debt despite having insurance that protects them from the unlimited costs that they might face if they were uninsured.

Huetteman: Joanne.

Kenen: I would say two big things. The uninsurance rate, which we all think is going to go up because of this Medicaid unwinding, it’s worth stopping and thinking about. It’s what? 7.9[%]? Was that the number?

Huetteman: It was 10.8, was the uninsured rate last year.

Sanger-Katz: It depends if you look at any time of the year or all of the year.

Kenen: Back when the ACA [Affordable Care Act] was passed, it was closer to something like 18. So in terms of really changing the magnitude of the uninsurance problem in America, the work isn’t done. But this is a really significant change. Secondly, some aspects of care are better — or within reach because the ACA made so many preventive and primary care services free. That, too, is a gain. Obviously, through the medical debt, which KFF [Health News] now has done a great job — oh, and believe me, and other reporters, you’ve done an amazing job, story after story. You know, the “Bill of the Month” series that you edited, it’s … but they’re not isolated cases. It’s not like, oh, this person ran into this, you know, cost buzz saw. There’s insane pricing issues! And out-of-pocket and, you know, deductibles and extras, and incredibly hard to sort out even if you are a sophisticated, insured consumer of health care. Pricing is a mess. There have been changes to the health care market, in terms of consolidation of ownership, more private equity, bigger entities that just have created … added a new dimension to this problem. So have we made gains? We’ve made really important gains. Under the original ACA passed under the Obama administration and the changes, the access and generosity of subsidy changes that the Biden administration has made, even though they’re time-limited, they have to be renewed. But, you know, are people still being completely hit over the head and every other body part by really expensive costs? Yes. That is still a heartbreaking and really serious problem. I mean, I can just give one tiny incident where somebody … I needed a routine imaging thing in network. The doctor in that hospital wasn’t reachable. I had my primary care person send in the order because she’s not part of that health care system. She’s in network. The imaging center is in network. The doctor who told me I needed this test is in network. But because the actual order came from somebody not in their hospital and in … on the Maryland side of the line, instead of the D.C. side of the line, the hospital imaging center decided it was going to be out of network. And because she’s not ours and wanted to charge me an insane amount of money. I sorted it out. But it took me an insane amount of time and I shouldn’t have needed to do that.

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s absolutely true.

Kenen: I could have paid it, if I had to.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And as you noted, I do edit the “Bill of the Month” series. And we see that with all kinds of patients, even the most enterprising patients can’t get an answer to simple questions like, is this in network or out of network? Why did I get this bill? And it’s asking way too much of most people to try and fit that into the rest of the things that they do every day. You know, Margot brought up the Medicaid unwinding. Well, let’s speaking of insurance, let’s catch up there for a moment because there was a little news this week. We’re keeping an eye on those efforts to strip ineligible beneficiaries from state Medicaid rolls since the covid-19 public health emergency ended. Now, some state officials are worried that people who lose coverage could opt to replace it with short-term insurance plans. You might know them as “junk plans.” They often come with lower price tags, but these short-term plans do not have to follow the Affordable Care Act’s rules about what to cover. And people in the plans have found themselves owing for care they thought would be covered. The Trump administration expanded these plans, but this summer the Biden administration proposed limiting them once more. Remind us: What changes has Biden proposed for so-called junk plans and for people who lose their coverage during the Medicaid unwinding? What other options are available to them?

Sanger-Katz: So the Biden administration’s proposal was to basically return these short-term plans to actual short-term coverage, which is what they were designed to do. Part of what the Trump administration did is they kept this category of short-term plans. But then they said basically, well, you can just keep them for several years. And so they really became a more affordable but less comprehensive substitute for ACA-compliant insurance. So the Biden administration just wants to kind of squish ’em back down and say, OK, you can have them for like a couple of months, but you can’t keep them forever. I will say that a lot of people who are losing their Medicaid coverage as a result of the unwinding are probably pretty low on the income scale, just as a result of them having qualified for Medicaid in the first place. And so a very large share of them are eligible for free or close-to-free health plans on the Obamacare exchanges. Those enhanced subsidies that Joanne mentioned, they’re temporary, but they’re there for a few years. They really make a big difference for exactly this population that’s losing Medicaid coverage. If you’re just over the poverty line, you can often get a free plan that’s a — this is very technical, but — it’s a silver plan with these cost-sharing wraparound benefits. And so you end up with a plan where you really don’t have to pay very much at the point of care. You don’t have to pay anything in a premium. So I think, in general, that is the most obvious answer for most of these people who are losing their Medicaid. But I think it is a challenge to navigate that system, for states to help steer people towards these other options, and for them to get enrolled in a timely way. Because, of course, Obamacare markets are not open all the time. They’re open during an open enrollment period or for a short period after you lose another type of coverage.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And a lot of these states actually have efforts that are normally focused on open enrollment right now. And some officials say that they are redirecting those efforts toward helping these folks who are losing their Medicaid coverage to find the options, like those exchange plans that are available for zero-dollar premiums or low premiums under the subsidies available.

Kenen: I have seen some online ads from HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], saying, you know, “Did you lose your Medicaid?” and it’s state-specific — “Did you lose your Medicaid in Virginia?” I don’t live in Virginia, so I’m not sure why I’m getting it. My phone is telling me the Virginia one. But there is an HHS [ad], and it is saying if you lost your Medicaid, go to healthcare.gov, we can help. You know, we may be able to help you. So they are outreaching, although I’m afraid that somebody who actually lost it in Virginia might be getting an ad about Nebraska or whatever. I live close to Virginia. It’s close enough. But there is some effort to reach people in a plain English, accessible pop-up on your phone, or your web browser, kind of way. So I have seen that over the last few weeks because the special enrollment period, I mean, most people who are no longer eligible for Medicaid are eligible for something, and something other than a junk plan. Some of them have insurance at work now because the job market is better than it was in 2020, obviously. Many people will be eligible for these highly subsidized plans that Margot just talked about. Very few people should be left out in the cold, but there’s a lot of work to be done to make those connections.

Huetteman: Absolutely. Absolutely. And going back to the Census report for a second, it had noted that a big part of the increase in coverage came from employer-sponsored coverage among working-age adults, although we have, of course, seen those reports that say … and then they try to afford their health care costs. And it’s really difficult for a lot of them, even when they have that insurance, as we talked about. All right. So let’s move on. The New York Times is reporting a mystery unfolding in the federal budget. And I’d like to call it “The Case of Flat Medicare Spending.” After decades of warnings about runaway government spending, a recent Times analysis shows that spending per Medicare beneficiary has actually leveled off over more than a decade. Meanwhile, The Wall Street Journal reports that private health insurance costs are climbing. Next year, employer-sponsored plans could see their biggest cost increase in more than a decade, and that trend could continue. So what’s going on with insurance costs? Let’s start with Medicare. Margot, you were the lead reporter on the Times analysis. What explains this Medicare spending slowdown?

Sanger-Katz: So part of the reason why I have found it to be a somewhat enjoyable story is that I think there is a bit of a mystery. I talked to lots of people who have studied and written about this phenomenon over the years, and I think there was no one I talked to who said “I 100% understand what is going on here. And I can tell you, here’s the thing.” But there are a bunch of factors that I think a lot of people think are contributing, and I’ll just run through them quickly. One of them is Medicare is getting a little younger. The baby boomers are retiring generally, like, 65-year-olds are a little cheaper to take care of than 85-year-olds. So as the age mix gets younger, we’ve seen the average cost of taking care of someone in Medicare get a little smaller. That’s like the easiest one. I think another one is that Obamacare and other legislative changes that Congress has passed during this period have just mechanically reduced the amount of money that Medicare is spending. So the two most obvious ways are, in the Affordable Care Act, Congress took money away from Medicare Advantage plans, paid them a smaller premium for taking care of patients, and they also reduced the amount that hospitals get every year, as what’s called a productivity adjustment. So hospitals get a little raise on their pay rates every year. And the legislation tamped that down. There was also, some listeners may remember, the budget sequester that happened in 2011, 2012, where there was kind of a haircut that Medicare had to take across the board. So there have been these kind of legislative changes. They explain like a little bit of what is going on. And now I think the rest of it really has to do with the health care system itself. And part of that seems to be that this has been a period of relatively limited technological improvement. So, you know, for years medicine just kept getting better and better. We had these miracle cures, we had these amazing surgeries. We, you know, especially like in the area of cardiovascular disease, just enormous advances in recent decades where, you know, first bypass surgery and then stents and then, you know, drugs that could prevent heart attacks. And so I think, you know, health care spending kept climbing and climbing in part because there was better stuff to spend it on. It was expensive, but it really improved people’s health. And in recent years, there’s just been a little less of that. There have clearly been medical advances, particularly in the pharmaceutical space. You know, we have better treatments for cancer, for certain types of cancers, than we had before and for other important diseases. But these expensive innovations tend to affect smaller percentages of people. We haven’t had a lot of really big blockbusters that everyone in Medicare is taking. And so that seems to explain some of the slowdown. And then I think the last piece is, like, kind of the piece that’s the hardest to really explain or pin down, but it seems like there’s just something different that doctors and hospitals are doing. They’re getting more efficient. They’re not always buying the latest and greatest thing, if there’s not evidence to support it. They’re reducing their medical errors. And, you know, I think Obamacare probably gets a share of the credit here. It really created a lot of changes in the way we pay for medical care and in the Medicare program itself. And it created this innovation center that’s supposed to test out all of these different things. But I think also over the same period, we’ve seen the private sector make many of the same moves. You know, private insurers have gotten a little bit more stingy about covering new technologies without evidence. They’ve tended to pay physicians and hospitals in bundles, or paying them incentives for quality, not paying them for certain types of care that involve errors. And so a lot of people I talked to said that they think the medical system is reacting to all of the payers crunching down on them. And so they’re just not being quite as aggressive and they’re trying to think more about value, which I feel like is like kind of a lame buzzword that often doesn’t mean anything. But I think, you know, it’s a way of thinking about this change. And, you know, that’s the kind of thing, if culturally that endures, you know, could continue into the future. Whereas some of these other factors, like the demographics, the lack of technological development, those — the Obamacare, which was kind of a one-time legislative change, you know — those things may not continue into the future, which is why the fact that we’ve had 15 years of flat Medicare spending is no guarantee that Medicare spending won’t spike again in the future. And I think you were right to point to what’s happening in the private sector, because private sector insurance premiums also have been like a little bit on the flat side through this period. And I think there is potential for them to take off again.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And that’s what The Wall Street Journal’s reporting had just said, that the health care costs for coming into next year are climbing. Let’s talk about that for a minute. Why are private insurance costs rising as Medicare spending levels off? One of the things that I noticed is we talked about technological innovation. Pharmaceutical innovation seems to be one of the things that’s contributing to rising private health insurance costs and elsewhere, in particular, those weight-loss drugs I know.

Kenen: And the Alzheimer’s drugs.

Huetteman: And the Alzheimer’s drugs.

Kenen: Eventually they’ll become more widely available. Sarah knows way more than the rest of us.

Karlin-Smith: The Alzheimer’s drugs will probably be less of an issue for the private health insurance population. But certainly weight-loss drugs are something that private insurers are worried about what percentage of the population they will cover with these drugs. And I think insurance companies, they have to balance that … difficult balance between what percentage of the drug cost rate you put on patients and what do you build into premiums. And sometimes there’s only so much flexibility they can have there. So I think that’s a big reason for what you’re seeing here.

Huetteman: Yeah, absolutely.

Sanger-Katz: I think the weight-loss drugs are interesting because they kind of are, potentially, an example of the kind of technology that is both expensive and good for public health, right? So, you know, when we have all these improvements in cardiac disease, like, that was great. People didn’t have heart attacks. They didn’t have disability in old age. They lived longer lives. That was great. But it cost a ton of money. And I think because we have been going through this period in which costs have been kind of level, and there hasn’t been a lot of expensive breakthrough technology, we haven’t had to weigh those things against each other in the way that we might now, where we might have to say, OK, well, like, this is really expensive, but also, like, it has a lot of benefits. and how do we decide what the right cost benefit is as a society, as an employer, as a public insurance program? And I think we’re going to see a lot of payers and economists and other analysts really thinking hard about these trade-offs in a way that they, I think, haven’t really been forced to do very much in the last few years with … I mean, maybe with the possible exception of those breakthrough therapies for hepatitis C —also expensive, huge public health benefit. And it was a struggle for our system to figure out what to do with them.

Kenen: But, like the statins, which, you know, revolutionized heart health, these drugs that are useful for both diabetes and … weight loss, the demand of people who just want them because they want to lose those 20 pounds, insurers are not — Medicare at least is not — covering it. Insurers have some rules about “Are you pre-diabetic?” and etc., etc., but they cost a lot of money and a lot of people want to take them. So I think they’re clearly great for diabetes. They clearly are a whole new class of drugs that are going to do good things. We still don’t. … There’s still questions about who should be using them for the rest of their lives, for weight control, etc., etc. Yes, there are going to be benefits, but this era of … what is the typical cost per month, Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: The list price of these drugs are thousands of dollars per month. But I think to your point, Joanne, though, the trouble for insurance companies who are figuring out how to cover this is they’re starting to get more research that there are these actual health benefits outside of just weight loss. And once you start to say, you know, that these drugs help prevent heart attacks and have hard evidence of that, it becomes harder for them to deny coverage. I think to Margot’s point of the long-term benefits, you might see to health because of it, we get back to another issue in the U.S. health system is, which is these private health insurance companies might essentially basically be footing the bill for benefits that Medicare is going to reap, not necessarily the insurance companies, right? So if somebody, you know, doesn’t have a heart attack at 50 because they’re on these drugs, that’s great. But if the savings is actually going to Medicare down the line, you know, the private health insurer doesn’t see the benefit of that. And that’s where some of the tensions you get into it in terms of, like, how we cover these products and who we give them to.

Kenen: Because that trade-off: quality of life and longevity of life. That’s what health is about, right? I mean, is having people live healthy, good lives, and it costs money. But there’s this issue of the drug prices have gotten very high, and hepatitis C is a perfect example. I mean, now it’s like we were freaked out about $84,000 in, you know, 2013, 2015, whenever that came out. You know, now that looks quaint. But that price was still so high that we didn’t get it to people. We could have wiped out hepatitis C or come damn close to wiping out hepatitis C, but the price the drug was an obstacle. So we’re still, I mean, there’s a big White House initiative now, you know, there’s creative … the Louisiana model of, you know, what they call the Netflix model where, you know, you have a contract to buy a whole ton of it for less per unit. I mean, these are still questions. Yes. I mean, we all know that certain drugs make a big difference. But if they’re priced at a point where people who need them the most can’t get them, then you’re not seeing what they’re really invented for.

Sanger-Katz: Oh, I was just going to say, I think that part of what interests me about this particular class of drugs and the debates that we are likely to have about them, and there are, you know, the way that they’re going to be adopted into our health care system is that setting aside the diabetes indication for a moment, the idea of drugs that effectively treat obesity, I think obesity is a very stigmatized disease in our country. And in fact, Medicare has statutory language that says that Medicare cannot cover drugs for weight loss. So it would actually require an act of Congress for these drugs to be approved for that purpose in Medicare. And in Medicaid, in general, states are required to cover FDA-approved drugs. You know, they can put some limitations, but they’re supposed to cover them. Again, there is a special statutory exclusion for weight-loss drugs where the states really have discretion they don’t have for a cancer drug, for a drug for diabetes, a drug for other common diseases. And so I do think that, you know, a lot of this debate is colored by people’s prejudices against people who have obesity, and the way that our medical care system has thought about them and the treatment for their disease over time. And I’m curious about that aspect of it as well. I mean, of course, I think that Joanne is absolutely right that we do not know long term how these drugs are going to help people with obesity, whether it’s really going to reduce the burden of disease down the road for them, whether it’s going to have other health consequences in an enduring way. You know, I think there are unknowns, but I think if you take the most optimistic possible look at these drugs, that there’s quite a lot of evidence that they really do improve people’s health. And if we treat these drugs differently than we would an expensive drug for an infectious disease like hepatitis C or different from an expensive drug for cancer diseases that are less stigmatized, I think that would maybe be a little bit sad.

Karlin-Smith: I mean certainly the reason why the initial restrictions in Medicare and other programs are baked in goes back to stigma to some degree. But also, I mean … because they were thinking of these as weight-loss drugs and sort of vanity treatments people would only be using for vanity. And at that time, the drugs that were available did not work quite as well and had a lot of dangers and certainly did not show any of these other health benefits that we’re starting to see with this new class of medicine. So I think that would be the hope that, you know, as the science and the products shift, as well as our medical understanding around what causes obesity, what doesn’t cause obesity, how much of it is … right, again, just as medical as any other condition and not all about a person’s behavior. And I think we will see that the benefits of some of these drugs for certain people, in particular, are probably a lot bigger than maybe the benefits of certain cancer treatments that we pay a lot more money for. The challenge is going to be the amount of people and the amount of time they are going to be on these drugs, right? You know, if you’re talking about these hepatitis C drugs, I think one reason they didn’t shock the budgets in the way people were expecting, besides the fact that, unfortunately, we didn’t get them to everybody, is they’re actually really short-term cures, right? I think it’s like 10 weeks or something.

Kenen: Some are like eight.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Ballpark. And with the obesity drugs, what we know … these new drugs so far is that you seem like you have to consistently take them. Once you get off them, the weight comes back. And then the assumption would be you lose all those health benefits. So we’re talking about a high-cost drug on a chronic basis that our system can’t afford.

Kenen: Margot, do you know? I mean, my guess is that the ban on covering weight-loss drugs was written into MMA [the Medicare Modernization Act] in 2003. That’s my guess. I don’t know if anyone …

Sanger-Katz: That’s right. Yeah. It was part of the creation of the drug benefit program.

Kenen: So I think that you’re totally right that it’s what both of you said. You know, we tended to say it was someone’s fault, like they didn’t have enough willpower. Or they, you know, didn’t do what they were supposed to do. And there was stigma and we thought about it diffrently. I also think the science, you know, Sarah alluded to this, I think the science of obesity has really changed, that we didn’t talk about it — even though obesity experts — really didn’t talk about it as a disease a generation ago. We thought of it as maybe as a risk factor, but we didn’t think of it as a disease in and of itself. And we now do know that. So I think that the coverage issues are going to change. But what are the criteria? How fast do they change, for who do they change? Do you really want to put somebody on a drug because they want to lose 10 or 15 punds, which is … versus someone who really has struggled with weight and has physical risk factors because of it, including, you know, heart disease, diabetes, all these other things we know about. I mean, I just think we don’t know. I mean, there was a piece in the Times about the Upper East Side of Manhattan is like this beehive of people taking these weight loss drugs because they can afford it, but they’re also thinner than the rest of the population. So it becomes, you know, a luxury good or another disparity.

Sanger-Katz: If insurance won’t cover these drugs ,of course, rich people are going to take them more than people of limited means. Right? Like, I think you can only really test the hypothesis of, like, who are these drugs meant to reach once … if you have coverage for them, right? I thought that story was very good, and it did reveal something that’s happening. But I also thought … it felt like it was focusing on the idea that that rich people were taking these drugs just for vanity. And I think …

Kenen: Some of them, not all clearly some of them.

Sanger-Katz: Some of them are, of course. But I thought the thing that was less explored in that story is all of the people in poor neighborhoods of New York who were not accessing those drugs. Was it because they couldn’t find any way to get them?

Kenen: Right, and some of them were pre-diabetic. Some of them. I mean, the other thing is people who are overweight are often pre-diabetic. And that is an indication. I mean, you can … it’s in flux. It’s going to change over the coming months, you know, but what a cost and how those benefits paid off and who’s going to end up paying and where the cost shifting is going to come, because there is always cost shifting. We just don’t know yet. But these drugs are here to stay. And there are questions. There are a lot of questions. The mounting evidence is that they are going to be a benefit. It’s just, you know, what do we pay for them? Who gets them? How long do the people stay on them, etc., etc., etc.

Sanger-Katz: And just to come back to Emmarie’s first question, like, what is this going to mean for our insurance premiums, right? With something like 40% of adults in the United States have obesity. If we start to see more and more people taking these drugs to treat this disease, all of us are going to have to pay for that in some way. And, you know, that affects overall health care.

Huetteman: Absolutely. Well, let’s move to the week’s big covid news now. This week, the FDA approved a new booster, which comes amid an uptick in cases and concerns about a surge this fall and winter. Before the CDC made its recommendations, though, there was debate over whether the booster should be recommended only for a couple of higher-risk groups. So who does the CDC say should get the shot? And what’s the response been like from the health care community so far?

Karlin-Smith: So the CDC decided their advisers and the CDC themselves to recommend the shot for everybody. That really didn’t surprise me because I think that was the direction FDA wanted to go as well. I think the majority came down to the fact that a broad recommendation would be the best for health equity and actually ensuring the people we really want to get the shots get them. If you start siphoning off the population and so forth, it actually might prevent people that really should get the shots from getting it. I think the booster debate has actually been really similar since we started approving covid boosters, which is that the companies that provided for the boosters is not the same as the original data they presented to get the vaccines approved. So we don’t have as much understanding with the type of rigorous research some people would like to know: OK, what is the added benefit you’re getting from these boosters? We know they provide some added benefit of protection for infection, but that’s very short-lived. And then I think there’s … people have differences of opinions of how much added protection it’s giving you from severe disease and death. And so there are factions who argue, and I think Paul Offit has become one of the most known and vocal cheerleaders of this mindset, which is that, well, actually, if you’ve already had, you know, two, three, four shots, you’ve already had covid, you’re probably really well protected against the worst outcomes. And these shots are not really going to do that much to protect you from an infection. “So why take them anymore?” — essentially, is sort of his mindset. And there are people that disagree. I think the thing that probably might help change mindsets is, at least in this country, probably not going to happen, which is, you know, more rigorous outcomes research here. But I think the sentiment of the CDC and its advice has been, well, these shots are extremely low risk and there’s at least some added benefit. So for most people, the risk-benefit balance is: Get it. And if you make it kind of simple, if you say, OK, you know, everybody, it’s time to get your next covid booster, the feeling is that will get the most people in the U.S. to go out and do it. Unfortunately, most covid booster recommendations have been fairly broad — the last, at least, and that hasn’t translated. But we’ll see. This is actually the first time that everyone, except for babies under 6 months — because you can’t start your covid vaccination until then —everybody is really included in the booster recommendation at the same time. In previous rounds, particularly for younger kids, it was more staggered. So this will be the simplest recommendation we have yet.

Kenen: And that’s part of the public health strategy, is to not talk about it so much as boosters, just as an annual shot. The way you get an annual flu shot. I mean, most people don’t get them. But the idea is that to normalize this, you know, you get an annual flu shot, you get an annual covid shot, for certain age groups you get annual RSV now that’ll be available. But that’s not for everybody. I mean, I think they really want to make this simple. OK, it’s fall, get your covid shot. We don’t think uptake is going to be real high. It hasn’t been for boosters. But in terms of trying to change, this is just, you know, this is one of those things to add to your to-do list this year and to, sort of, less “pandemicize” it. I don’t think that’s a word. But, you know, everyone will forgive me. And more just, you know, OK, you know, this is one of the things you got to do in the fall. Maybe “pandemicize” is a word or maybe it should be.

Sanger-Katz: I like it. Maybe we should use it.

Huetteman: Pandemicize your care.

Kenen: Right. You know, it’s part of your preventive care and just … I mean, good luck trying to de-politicize it. But that’s part of it. I mean, the CDC director, Mandy Cohen, she wrote an op-ed this week and it was all about, you know, I’m a doctor, I’m the CDC director, and I’m a mom. And, you know, my family is going to get it. You know, Ashish Jha was tweeting about how he’s going to get it, his elderly parents are going to get theirs as soon as possible, etc., etc. So it’s not going to be … the hard-core people who really don’t want these shots and haven’t taken the shots and believe the shots cause more harm than good, etc. It won’t change a lot of their minds. But there are a lot of people who are uncertain in the middle and their minds can be changed. And they have … they were changed in the initial round of shots. So that’s who the messaging is … it’s sort of a reminder to people who take the shots and an invitation to those who … haven’t been getting boosted that just start doing this every year.

Karlin-Smith: And it is important to emphasize when the boosters have been tweaked and, you know, updated to try to match as close as they possibly can the current version of the virus. The virus has evolved and shifted a lot over time to the point where even these boosters, you know, they can’t quite keep up with the virus. But the idea is that we’re helping broaden everybody’s protection by keeping it as up to date with the science. So I think that’s an important element of that, that people don’t appreciate. They’re not just giving you the exact same shot over and over again. They’re trying to, like we do with the flu vaccine every year, be as close to what is circulating as possible.

Kenen: And there’s a new, new, new, new variant that looked very — do I have enough “news” in there? — that looked, and I don’t remember the initials; I can’t keep track — that is really quite different than the other ones. And there was a lot of initial concern that this vaccine would not work or that we wouldn’t … that our protection would not work against that. The follow-up research is much more reassuring that the fall shot will work against that. But that one really is different, and it’s got a lot of mutations. And, you know, we don’t know yet how … some of these things come and go pretty quickly. I mean, who remembers Mu? That one people were very worried about and it seemed quite dangerous and luckily it didn’t take root. You know, people don’t even know there was a Greek letter called Mu. M-u, not m-o-o, in case anyone’s wondering. If relatives ask me if they should take it, the two things that struck me in reading about it are, yes, it works against this new variant, and we’re not really sure what are the new, new, new, new, new, new, new, new ones. And also, I mean, there’s some research that it does protect against long covid. And I think that’s a big selling point for people. I think there are people who still, with reason, worry about long covid, and that vaccination does provide some protection against that as well.

Huetteman: That’s a great point. I mean, anecdotally, you talk to your friends who’ve had covid, there’s going to be at least a few of them who say they haven’t quite felt like themselves ever since they had covid. And I think that is one of the things that really motivates people who aren’t in those higher-risk categories, to think about whether they need the booster or not.

Kenen: Yeah, and also the myocarditis … Sarah, correct …  you follow this more closely than I do, so correct me if I’m wrong here, but I believe that they’re finding that the myocarditis risk in the newer formulations of the vaccine has dropped, that it is not as much of a concern for young men. And covid itself can cause myocarditis in some individuals. Did I get that right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think that that’s right. The general sense has been that the risk was more with the initial shots, and it seems to have gone down. I think that there are people that still worry about particular age groups of, like, young men in certain age groups, that maybe for them the benefit-risk balance with the myocarditis risk is, you know, might be a little bit different. And that’s where a lot of the pushback comes through. But right, like you said, there is a fairly high … there’s myocarditis risk from covid itself that needs to be balanced.

Huetteman: Well, OK. That’s this week’s news. Now we’ll take a quick break and then we’ll come back with extra credits.

Julie Rovner: Hey, “What the Health?” listeners, you already know that few things in health care are ever simple. So, if you like our show, I recommend you also listen to “Tradeoffs,” a podcast that goes even deeper into our costly, complicated, and often counterintuitive health care system. Hosted by longtime health care journalist and friend Dan Gorenstein, “Tradeoffs” digs into the evidence and research data behind health care policies and tells the stories of real people impacted by decisions made in C-suites, doctors’ offices, and even Congress. Subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. So I looked at a MedPage Today page by Kristina Fiore that talks about a GoFundMe campaign that was started by a small rural hospital in Pennsylvania. They’re trying to raise $1.5 million to basically keep the hospital open. It’s the only hospital in the county. It’s a small critical-access hospital. And I think people who follow health care and health policy in the U.S. are probably used to seeing GoFundMe campaigns for individual health care, as we talked about earlier in the episode, right? The unaffordability that can happen even for people with good insurance if you … depending on your medical situation. But this situation, I thought, was really unique, a whole hospital, which is, I guess, community-owned, and they’re essentially turning to the internet to try and stay open. And it touches on some of the payment differences in how rural hospitals make their money, or the payment rates they get reimbursed versus more urban hospitals. Other issues it brings up is just, you know, how do you keep an institution open that’s serving a relatively small population of people? So, you don’t necessarily want to have people going to the hospital, but they’re basically arguing that if we don’t get this amount of people in our ER per day, we can’t stay open. But then that means you don’t have an ER for anybody. And I think it’s just worth looking at, looking at the facts they put on their GoFundMe page, just thinking about, you know, what this says about various policies in the U.S. health system. And, unfortunately for them right now, they’re well short of their $1.5 billion goal.

Huetteman: Yeah, it’s amazing to see this get translated into an institution-saving effort as opposed to an individual-saving effort. Joanne, you want to go next?

Kenen: Sure. This is a story that it was by Bianca Fortis from ProPublica, Laura Biel, who wrote this for ProPublica and New York Magazine, and also Laura, who’s a friend of mine, also has a fabulous podcast called “Exposed.” And in this case, I want to mention the photographer, too, because if you click on this, it’s quite extraordinary visuals. Hannah Whitaker from New York Magazine. And the title is “How Columbia …” — and this is the university, not the country — “How Columbia Ignored Women, Undermined Prosecutors and Protected a Predator for More Than 20 Years.” This is an OB-GYN who was abusing his patients, and it’s hundreds, hundreds that have been identified and known. We knew about him because some of the patients had come forward, including Evelyn Wang, who was Andrew Wang — is Andrew Wang’s wife, the presidential candidate last cycle. But we didn’t know this. You know, first of all, it’s even bigger than we knew three years ago, and he has been prosecuted — finally. But it took 20 years. And this is really more of a story about how the medical system, the health care system, had warning after warning after warning after warning, and they didn’t do anything. And also, many of the people who tried to give the warnings, some of the employees, including the medical assistants, and the nurses, and the receptionists, knew what was going on. And they thought that they, as lower-level women going up against a white male doctor, wouldn’t be believed. And they didn’t even try. They just felt like he’s the guy, he’s the doctor. I’m the, you know, I’m the nurse. They won’t listen to me. So that was another subtheme that came out to me. I had known vaguely about this. It’s really long, and I read every word. It’s a really horrifying saga of an abdication of responsibility to women who were really harmed. Vulnerable women who were really harmed.

Huetteman: Yeah, it’s a really troubling story, but it’s an important piece of journalism. And I advise that people give it a little time. Margot, would you like to go next?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah. So this is a very nerdy, deep cut. I wanted to talk about a CBO [Congressional Budget Office] report from 2012 called “Raising the Excise Tax on Cigarettes: Effects on Health and the Federal Budget.” So when I published this article about how Medicare spending has sort of flattened out, we got so many reader comments and emails and tweets and several people asked, “Could it be that the decline in smoking has led to lower costs for Medicare?” And that caused me to do some reporting and to read this paper. And I think the finding, the sort of counterintuitive finding that I will tell you about in a minute, from the CBO really speaks to some of the discussion that we were having earlier about these obesity drugs, which is that there are many beneficial preventive therapies in health care that are great for people’s health. They make them healthier, they have happier lives, they live longer, they have less burden of disease, but they are not cost-effective in the sense that they reduce our total spending on health care. And the simplest way to think about this is that if everyone in America just died at age 65, Medicare’s budget would look amazing. You know, it would be great. We would save so much money if we could just kill everyone at age 65. But that’s not what the goal of Medicare is. It’s not to save the maximum amount of money. It’s to get a good value, to improve people’s life and health as much as possible for a good value. And so this report was looking at what would happen if we had a really effective policy to reduce smoking in the United States. They looked at a tax that they estimated would reduce the smoking rate by a further 5 percentage points. And what they found is that it would cost the government more money, that people would be healthier, they would live longer lives, more of them would spend more years in Medicare, and they would end up having some other health problem that was expensive that they weren’t going to have before. And also they would collect a lot of Social Security payments because they would live a lot longer. And so I found it so stunning because the economics of it, I think, make a lot of sense. And when you think about it, it’s true. But it does go to show how, I think, that sometimes when we, and when politicians, talk about preventive health care, they always talk about it like it’s a win-win. You know, this is going to be great for people and it’s going to save money. And I think that in health care, many times things that are good and beneficial improve health and they cost money and we have to decide if it’s worth it.

Huetteman: Absolutely. That’s great. Thank you. My extra credit this week comes from KFF Health News. Dr. Elisabeth Rosenthal, our senior contributing editor, writes: “The Shrinking Number of Primary Care Physicians Is Reaching a Tipping Point.” And we’ve seen some great coverage lately on the disappearance of the primary care doctor in this country. And Dr. Rosenthal also offers some solutions to this yawning gap in our health care system. She reports that the percent of U.S. doctors that have moved into primary care is now at about 25%, which is much lower than in previous decades. And one point she makes, in particular, about a problem that’s leading to this is the payment structure that we have in our country favors surgeries and procedures, of course, not diagnostic tests, preventative care, when it comes to reimbursing doctors. And of course, this lack of primary care doctors has implications for our overall health, both individually and as a country. So I recommend that you give that article a little bit of your time this week.

All right. That’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @emmarieDC. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Huetteman: Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on Twitter, @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Huetteman: And Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz in all the places.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Terry Byrne
Copy chief

Gabe Brison-Trezise
Deputy copy chief

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.

In this special episode, host Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, interviews three noted health policy experts.

Amy Finkelstein is a health economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and co-author of “We’ve Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care,” which posits a new approach to universal health insurance. Sylvia Morris is a physician and one of the co-authors of “The Game Plan: A Woman’s Guide to Becoming a Doctor and Living a Life in Medicine,” in which five former medical school classmates share things they wish they had known earlier about how to thrive in what is still a male-dominated profession. And Michael LeNoir is a pediatrician, allergist, former broadcaster, and health educator in the San Francisco Bay Area who founded the African American Wellness Project, aimed at helping historically underserved African American patients better participate in their own care.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: 3 Health Policy Experts You Should Know

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, 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. Normally I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. But today we have a very special episode. Rather than our usual news wrap, we have three separate interviews I did earlier this month with three very interesting guests: author and health economist Amy Finkelstein, author and physician Sylvia Morris, and physician and medical educator Michael LeNoir. So let’s get right to it.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Amy Finkelstein, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, noted health policy wonk, and one of my favorite people in health care. She’s got a new book, just out, called “We’ve Got You Covered: Rebooting American Health Care.” Amy Finkelstein, welcome to “What the Health?”

Amy Finkelstein: Thanks so much for having me on, Julie.

Rovner: So it’s been a minute since large-scale health system reform was on the national agenda — I think, even in the research community — which is in some ways odd because I don’t think there’s ever been as much unanimity that the health system is completely dysfunctional as there is right now. But I’m starting to see inklings of ideas bubbling up. I interviewed Kate Baicker, your former partner in research, a couple of months ago, and I don’t know if you saw it, but there’s a new Republican health reform plan just out from the Hoover Institution. Why is now the time to start talking about this again?

Finkelstein: I mean, I think the right question is why haven’t we been talking about it all along? I think it’s, unfortunately, always timely to talk about how to fix the incredibly rooted rot in our health care quote-unquote “system.”

Rovner: Why has it been so hard to reach any consensus about how health insurance should work? We don’t … I mean, we’re at a point even in the United States where we don’t all agree that everyone should have health insurance.

Finkelstein: So it’s a really good question. I think my co-author, Liran Einav, who’s my long-term collaborator, and I came to realize in writing this book is that we weren’t getting the right answers and consensus on them because we weren’t asking the right questions, both as researchers and in the public policy discourse. There’s a lot of discussion of “What do you think of single-payer?” or “Should we have a public option?” or “What about health savings accounts?” But what we came to realize, and it’s kind of idiotically obvious once we say it, but it still unfortunately bears saying: You can’t talk about the solution until you agree on what is the goal. What are we trying to do in health policy and health policy reform? And there are, of course, many admirable reasons to want health policy reform, or government intervention, more generally, in health policy. You can think, and this is what we’ve worked on for many years, that, you know, Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” doesn’t work that well in medical marketplace. You can be interested in making sure that we try to improve population health. You can think that health care is a human right. There are many possible reasons. What we came to realize in working on this book, and what then provided startling clarity and, hopefully, ultimately consensus on the solution, is that while all of these may be admirable goals, none of them are actually the problem that we have been trying but failing to solve with our health policy for the last 70-plus years. What becomes startlingly clear when you look at our history — and it’s the same in other countries as well, they’ve just succeeded more than we have — is that there is a very clear commitment, or a social contract, if you will, that we are committed that people should have access to essential medical care regardless of their ability to pay. Now, that may sound absurd in the only high-income country without universal health coverage, but as we discuss in our book, that represents our failure to fulfill that commitment, not its absence. And as we describe in great detail, it’s very clear from our history of policy attempts that there is a strong commitment to do this. This is not a liberal or a conservative perspective. It’s, as we discuss, an innate and in some sense psychological or moral impulse. And once you recognize this, as people have across the political spectrum, fundamentally we’re not going to ever consciously deny access to essential medical care for people who lack resources, and that an enormous number of our existing policies have been a backhanded, scrambling, not coherently planned attempt to get there. And I’m not just talking about the requirement that people can’t be turned away from the emergency room. If you look at all of these public policies we have to provide health insurance if you’re poor, if you’re young, if you’re old, if you’re disabled, if you’re a veteran, if you have specific diseases — there’s a program for low-income women with breast and cervical cancer. There’s a program for people with tuberculosis, for people with AIDS, for people with kidney failure. All of these arose out of particular political circumstances and salient moments where we felt compelled to act. It becomes very clear that we’re committed to doing this, and then a solution then becomes startlingly simple, once we agree. And, hopefully, if you don’t already, our book will convince you that whether or not you support this mission, it’s very clear it is the mission we’ve adopted as a society. Then the solution becomes startlingly simple.

Rovner: And the solution is …?

Finkelstein: Universal, automatic, basic coverage that’s free for everyone with the option — for those who want to and can afford it — to buy supplemental coverage. So the key is that the coverage be automatic, right? We’ve tried mandating that people have coverage … requiring it doesn’t make it so. In fact, a really sobering fact is that something like 6 out of 10 of the people who currently lack insurance actually are eligible for either free or heavily discounted coverage. They just don’t have it. And that’s because there’s a very, very complicated series of paths by which you can navigate coverage, depending, again, on your specific circumstances: age, income, disease, geography, disability, what have you. Once you have patches like this, you’ll always have gaps in the seam. So that’s why it has to be universal and automatic. We also argue that it has to be free, something that may get us kicked out of the economists’ club because, as economists for generations, we’ve preached that patients need some skin in the game, some copays and deductibles, so they don’t use more care than they actually really need. And in the context of universal coverage, we take that back. It was kind of a really sobering moment for us. We’ve written enormously on this issue in the past. We weren’t wrong about the facts. When people don’t have to pay for their medical care, they do use more of it. We stand by that research. And that of many other …

Rovner: This goes back to Rand in the 1970s, right?

Finkelstein: Exactly. And the Oregon Health Insurance Experiment, which I ran with Kate Baicker, whom you mentioned earlier. It’s just that the implications we drew from that we’re wrong — that if we actually are committed to providing a basic set of essential medical care for everyone, the problem is, even with very small copays, there will always be people who can’t afford the $5 prescription drug copay or the $20 doctor copay. And there’s actually terrific recent work by a group of economists — Tal Gross, Tim Layton, and Daniel Prinz — that show this quite convincingly. So what we’ve seen happen when we look at other high-income countries that have followed the advice of generations of economists going back, as you said, to Rand, and introduced or increased cost sharing in their universal basic coverage system to try to reduce expenses, it’s extraordinary. Time and time again, these countries introduced the copays with one hand and introduced the exceptions simultaneously with the other — exceptions for the old, the young, the poor, the sick, veterans, disabled. Sound familiar? It’s the U.S. health insurance in a microcosm applied to copays. And so what you see happen, for example, in the U.K., that was famously, you know, free at the point of service when it was started in 1948, but then, bowing to budgetary pressures and the advice of economists introduced, for example, a bunch of copays and prescription drugs. They then introduced all these exceptions. The end result is that currently 90% of prescriptions in the U.K. are actually exempted from these copays. So it’s not that copays don’t reduce health care spending. They do. That economic research is correct. It’s that they’re not going to do that when they don’t exist. All we do is add complexity with these patches. So that’s, I think, the part that we can get up and stand up and say and get a lot of cheers and applause. But I do want to be clear, it’s not all rainbows and unicorns. We do insist that this universal, automatic, free coverage be very basic. And that’s because our social contract is about providing essential medical care, not about the high-end experience that obviously everyone would like, if it were free. And so …

Rovner: And that’s exactly where you get into these fights about how — even, we’re seeing, you know, with birth control and pretty much any prescription drug — you have to offer one drug, but there are other drugs that might be more expensive, and insurance plans, trying to save money, don’t want to offer them. You can see already where the tension points are going to end up. Right?

Finkelstein: Exactly. And every other country has dealt with this, which is why we know it can be done. But they do one thing that is startlingly absent from U.S. health policy. Besides the universal coverage part, they also have a budget. And it’s kind of both incredibly banal and incredibly radical to say, “We should have a budget in our U.S. health care policy as well.” Everything else has a budget. When school districts make education policy, they do it given a budget and they decide how to make tough choices and allocate money across different types of programming. Or they decide to raise taxes, and go to the voters to raise taxes to fund more. We don’t have a budget for health care in the U.S. When people talk about the Medicare budget, they’re not actually talking about a budget in the sense that when I give my kids an allowance, that’s their budget, and they have to decide which toy to buy or which candy to purchase. When we talk about the Medicare budget, we just mean the amount we have spent or the amount that Medicare will spend. There’s no actual constraint, and that has to change. And only then can we have those tough conversations, as every other country does, about what’s going to be provided automatically and for free, and what’s obviously nice and desirable, but not actually part of essential medical care and our social contract to provide it.

Rovner: But, of course, the big response to this is going to be — and I’ve covered enough of these debates to know — you’re going to ruin innovation if we have a budget, if we limit what we can pay, the way every other country does, that we’re not going to have breakthrough drugs or breakthrough medical devices or breakthrough medical procedures, and we’re all going to be the worse for it.

Finkelstein: That, I think, is a very real concern, but it’s not a problem for us, because if that’s the concern, when the next administration adopts our policy, they can set a higher budget. Right? If we think that we want to induce innovation, and the way to do that is through higher prices for medical care, then we can decide to pay more for it — or we can decide, oh, my goodness, right, get it coming and going. On the other hand, we don’t want to raise taxes. We don’t want to spend even more of public money on health care. OK, well, then we’ll decide on less innovation. That’s in some sense separable from universal, automatic, basic free coverage. We can then decide what level we want to finance that at. And also, to be clear, we fully expect, in the context of our proposal, that about two-thirds of Americans would buy supplemental coverage that would get you access to things that aren’t covered by basic or greater choice of doctor or shorter wait times. And so that, again, might also — but that would be privately financed, not publicly financed — but that would also help with the innovation angle.

Rovner: And this is not a shocking thing. This is exactly how Switzerland works, right?

Finkelstein: Yeah, the somewhat sobering or, dare I say, humbling realization we came to is that, as I said, we very much thought about this — I guess, as academics — from first principles, you know, what is the objective that we’re trying to achieve it? And given that, how do we achieve it? But once we did that and we looked around the rest of the world — right? — it turns out that’s actually what every other high-income country has done, not just Switzerland, but all of them have some version. And they’re very different on the details, but some version of automatic, universal, basic coverage with the ability to then supplement if you want more. So, with many things when you do research on them and then you run into the man on the street and they say, “Isn’t this simple? Can’t we just do what every other country does?” When it comes to health care delivery and how to cut waste and overuse and deal with underuse in the health care system, the man on the street is, unfortunately, wrong. And we have a lot more work to do to figure out how we can get more bang for our health care buck. But it turns out they were right all along. And we, or I and my co-author and many other, I think, academic economists and policymakers, just didn’t realize it, that actually the coverage problem has a really, really simple solution. And that’s the key message of our book.

Rovner: So one of the things that’s stuck with me for 15 years now is a piece that Atul Gawande wrote in The New Yorker just before the debate on the Affordable Care Act about how, yes, every other country has this, but, in fact, every other country had some kind of event that triggered the need to create a system. You know, in England, it was coming out of World War II. Every country had some turning point. Is there going to be some turning point for the U.S. or are we just going to have to sort of knuckle under and do this?

Finkelstein: So we deliberately steer clear of the politics in most of the book because our view is the question you started with, like, “Why can’t we agree?” So let’s at least … can we agree on the solution before we figure out how to achieve it? But, of course, in the epilogue, we do discuss this, you know, how could we get there? And I guess the main lesson that we take away from our read of history is that universal health insurance was neither destined to happen in every other country, nor destined not to happen in the U.S. We talk about several incredibly near-misses in the U.S. Probably the closest we got was in the early 1970s, when both the Republican Nixon administration and the Democratic Congress under Kennedy had competing proposals for universal coverage on the table. They were actually arguing over whether there should be copays when there are different accounts of whether the Democrats got overly optimistic with Watergate looming and thought they could get more, or some senator got drunk and had a car accident and Ways and Means got derailed. But we had a near-miss there. But also, and to your point about the U.K., more soberingly, if you look at the history of other countries, it wasn’t easy there. I mean, the British Medical Association threatened to go on strike before the implementation of the National Health Service in 1948. So, despite that, you know, now it’s … the National Health Service is as popular as the British monarchy — or actually more popular, perhaps …

Rovner: [laughs] Probably more!

Finkelstein: … and is beloved by much of the British population. But if you look at the narrative that this was destined to come out of the postwar consensus, the Labour leader, [Aneurin “Nye”] Bevan, who was pushing for it on the eve of its enactment, described the Tories as, quote, “lower than vermin for their opposition to it.” I mean, it was just … and similarly in Canada, when Saskatchewan was the first province to get universal medical insurance, there the doctors did go on strike for over three weeks. So this idea that every other country just had their destiny, their moment, when it clearly came together, and we were destined not to have it? Neither seems to be an accurate reading of history.

Rovner: Well, it’s a wonderful read. And I’m sure we’ll come back and talk again as we dive back into this debate …

Finkelstein: I’d love to.

Rovner: … which I’m sure we’re about to do. Amy Finkelstein, thank you so much for joining us.

Finkelstein: Thank you so much for having me.

Rovner: Hey, “What the Health?” listeners. You already know that few things in health care are ever simple. So, if you like our show, I recommend you also listen to “Tradeoffs,” a podcast that goes even deeper into our costly, complicated, and often counterintuitive health care system. Hosted by longtime health care journalist and friend Dan Gorenstein, “Tradeoffs” digs into the evidence and research data behind health care policies and tells the stories of real people impacted by decisions made in C-suites, doctors’ offices, and even Congress. Subscribe wherever you listen to your podcasts.

Next, we have Sylvia Morris, one of a group of friends who are women physicians who want to make it easier for the next generation of women physicians.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Sylvia Morris. She’s an internist from Atlanta and one of five authors of a new book called “The Game Plan: A Woman’s Guide to Becoming a Doctor and Living a Life in Medicine.” Dr. Morris, welcome to “What the Health?”

Sylvia Morris: Thank you so much for having me.

Rovner: So why does there even need to be a book about being a woman in medicine? Aren’t medical schools more than half women students these days?

Morris: They are. But when you look at some of the specialties, and once you get out into practice, women leaders are still not as plentiful. They are not 50%. So, we just wanted to write from our perspective some tips and tools of the trade.

Rovner: So before we talk about the book, tell us about how you and your co-authors got together. It is rare to find a book that has five listed authors.

Morris: Exactly. So we actually went to med school together. We were classmates at Georgetown, and we met, I will say, in the early ’90s, shall we say? 1992, 1993. And after we finished med school, as well as training, we started doing girls’ trips. Our first one was, like, to Las Vegas and then subsequently have just really evolved. And probably 10 years ago, we were sitting around in Newport Beach and we thought, you know what? We should figure out something to do to really, to give back, but also to share information that we didn’t have. I am a first-generation physician. Several of my co-authors are as well. And it would have been nice for someone to say, “Hey, Doc, maybe you should think about this.” So that’s why we wrote the book.

Rovner: I noticed that, yeah, I mean, you start very much at the beginning — like, way before med school and go all the way through a career. I take it that was very intentional.

Morris: Yes, because I don’t think most people wake up and decide they’re going to be a doctor and then apply to medical school. And although we all have different journeys, some of us decided to become physicians later. Later, meaning in college. I was a kid that always wanted to be a doctor. So at 5, I would say “I want to be a doctor,” and here I am a physician. So we really wanted to highlight the different pathways to becoming a physician and just so that people can just … we’re going to peel the curtain back on what’s happening.

Rovner: I love how sort of list-forward this book is. Tell us the idea of actually making a game plan.

Morris: Well, we’re big “list people.” I think in med school, you kind of learn, well, what’s your to-do list for today? You need to check that CBC. Yeah, you know, you have to follow up on physical therapy, all of those things. So lists become a really inherent part of how we do business. And I think people understand the list, whether it’s a grocery shopping list. So we wanted to be prescriptive, not specific, meaning you must do X, but here are some of the things that you need to think about. And a list is very succinct, and everyone can get it.

Rovner: Which leads right into my next question. I love how this is such a nitty-gritty guide about all of the balancing that everybody in such a demanding profession of medicine, but particularly women, need to think about and do. What do you most wish that you had known when you were starting out that you’d like to spare your readers?

Morris: If I could go back to my 17-year-old self who was just dropped off at Berkeley, I really would say, “Enjoy the ride.” And that sounds so trite, because we get very caught up in “it has to be this way.” And quite honestly, things have not turned out how I thought they were going to turn out. Certainly, in many ways, much grander and beyond my wildest imagination. But you do have to be intentional about what you want. So I’ve been very clear about wanting to be a physician, and I’ve worked along that path. It is never a straight line. So just embrace the fact that there are going to be some ups and some downs, but keep in focus on the goal and persevere. I’d like to borrow the word from Associate Justice [Ketanji Brown] Jackson, how she talked about persevere.

Rovner: I noticed that there are a number of places where there are key decisions that need to be made. And I think, you know, you talk about being intentional. I think people don’t always think about them as they’re doing them, as in deciding where to go to medical school, where to do a residency, what specialty to choose, what type of practice to participate in. The five of you are all in different specialties in different sort of practice modalities, right?

Morris: Yes, we are. And I think that that really adds to the richness of the book. And again, there’s no one way to get to your goal. But we have the benefit of being able to sort of bounce ideas off of each other. So if we are looking for a new job or kind of a career pivot, then we have someone to reach out to to say, “Hey. You did this. What are your thoughts? What should I look out for?”

Rovner: How important is it to have a support system? I mean, obviously, you talk about family and kids, but, I mean, to have a support system of friends and colleagues and people you can actually share stresses and successes with, that others will understand.

Morris: It is so important to know that you are not alone. There’s nothing new under the sun. So if you are going through something where we suffer in silence and isolation, that’s when bad things happen. So having a trusted group of friends, and whether it’s one person or three people — I’m lucky to have at least four people in my life that I can be candid and vulnerable with. It makes all the difference in the world. My mom died when I was in medical school, and having the support of my colleagues, my friends, to say, “Hey, yeah, you can keep going. You can do this.” That’s important. And there are some very low periods in residency, just because you’re tired all of the time. So having a group, whether it’s one or three or four, then please, have friends.

Rovner: I’m curious that while you are all African American women, you don’t really have a separate section on navigating medicine as members of an underrepresented group. Is that for another book entirely? Was there a specific reason that you didn’t do that?

Morris: I think certainly when people see us on the cover, then you’d realize, “Oh, they are women of African descent.” And I also think that because … women are still underrepresented in medicine, in particular in leadership, that we wanted to make sure we reached the broadest audience. And quite truthfully, our message works for not only women, but also works for men, it works for people of color. We just really wanted to say, “Hey, these are the things that we can think about when you are applying to medical school and as you embark on your career.” But I like the idea of a second book.

Rovner: Actually, that’s my … my next question is, what do you hope that men get out of this? Because, you know, flipping through, it’s a really good guide, not just to being a woman in medicine, but to being anyone in medicine or really anyone in a very time-demanding profession.

Morris: Yes, the word “ally” is kind of overused now, but I think that it gives the men in our lives, whether they be our partners and husbands, our fathers — I have a favorite uncle, Uncle William — to have an inkling of what’s happening and how to best support us. So I think that there’s just some valuable pearls.

Rovner: Well, thank you very much. It is a really eye-opening guide. Dr. Sylvia Morris, thank you for joining us.

Morris: Thank you.

Rovner: Finally for this special episode, here’s my chat with Michael LeNoir, a physician who spent much of his career trying to improve the health of African American patients.

We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Michael LeNoir, an allergist and pediatrician who spent the last 4½ decades serving patients in the East Bay of San Francisco and working to improve health equity nationwide. He’s a former president of the National Medical Association, which represents African American physicians and patients, and a founder of the African American Wellness Project, a nonprofit that grew out of the realization of just how large and persistent health disparities are for people of color. Dr. LeNoir, welcome to “What the Health?”

Michael LeNoir: Well, thank you so much.

Rovner: Health disparities and health equity have become, if you will, trendy research topics in the past couple of years in the health policy community because we know that people of color have worse health outcomes in general than white people, regardless of income. But this is hardly a new problem. When did it become obvious to you that, despite other civil rights advances, the health system is still not serving the Black community equally?

LeNoir: Well, I think it goes back to, actually, 2002, when as a doctor in a community that had people of color, physicians of color, I recognized that there was a difference in how African Americans were treated both professionally and personally. And it was such a stark difference. So I gathered together most of the Black health leaders in the Bay Area, some running hospitals, some running programs, two were directors of health, some Congress people, and some local politicians. And there were about 30 people in the room. And I … go around the room and asked, give me one instance where the health system that you engaged in treated you disrespectfully or you didn’t get information, or you felt abandoned without advocates. And we weren’t four people in when some people started crying about experiences that they’d all had. Now, I knew they had these experiences because of that as a doctor. You know, I’m in the doctor’s lounge as a consultant in allergy and immunology. I see the differences in how Black people were treated as opposed to whites. And I see the respect that was given to white physicians that was not given to Black physicians. So at that point, I decided, you know, there’s something upside down in this health system. The concept is that health is supposed to take care of you from the top down. Either your insurance company is supposed to take care of you, or the feds, or somebody. But my feeling was, you know, for African Americans the health system was not going to change unless we changed it from the bottom up. And so that’s when we started the African American Wellness Project to educate African Americans how to deal with some of the aspects of early detection, disease prevention, exercise, and things like that. But more importantly, what to happen when you have a problem, when you engage with the system. What tools do you need? What resources do you need? How do you get the best possible outcomes?

Rovner: So just this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a survey that found that 1 in 5 women reported being mistreated by medical professionals during pregnancy or delivery. For Black women, it was closer to 1 in 3. This is clearly some sort of systemic problem even in addition to racism, isn’t it? The health system is not functioning well.

LeNoir: We did a piece on this yesterday because it’s pretty clear that this has been a problem as long as I’ve been a physician. Where it’s really a problem is the increasing incidence of maternal mortality among Black women. And so now we know that there’s something going on that’s not being taken care of. There’s one classic video that we show when we talk about this subject. It was a Black physician in Illinois who was in a small Illinois town, was in the intensive care unit, and could not get the care that she needed when she had covid respiratory issues. And so what happened was she was broadcasting from the ICU about what was being given to her, what was being talked to her about, what was not being done. And her care … when her symptoms were ignored, how they delayed in doing stuff. And she died four days after she did this video. But, you know, we’re not surprised. I mean, I see these studies of Black people don’t like the health care system. You know, Kaiser Foundation [KFF] must have spent, I don’t know how many dollars, looking at a study we did five years ago. On every study I’ve seen, Black people are not happy with the health care system. They had 12,000 people. We had 400. But the conclusions are the same. And it’s not so much because of the availability or the capacity of the health care system to close the gap on the health of Blacks and others in this society. It has a lot to do with unconscious bias and the fact that the system doesn’t recognize itself. And no matter how much you call attention to it, it continues year after year, decade after decade.

Rovner: Is there anything we can do about unconscious bias? I mean, now we all know it’s there, but that doesn’t seem to get around to fixing it.

LeNoir: There’s several things that have been talked about: change in medical schools and showing them more positive images so that when they come out of medical school, then the only patients that we see are poor, Black, uneducated, you know, down and out, because those are the ones that go to the VA hospital or the public hospitals. So that’s one thing. And the other thing is a Black person should call it out when they see it. That’s the big thing. And I think we’re much too docile in the health care system. Here’s what I always would feel is that if we get as mad about health care that is disrespectful and unequal as we do when someone cuts in front of us in the Safeway line, we wouldn’t have that problem.

Rovner: Seriously, I mean, so you think people really just need to speak up more?

LeNoir: Absolutely. And in the piece that we did yesterday, the piece was entitled “Health Care System Not Equal,” don’t put up with it.

Rovner: What can Black doctors do and how do we get more of them? I know that’s a big piece of this is that people don’t feel represented within the health care provider community.

LeNoir: Well, unfortunately, we know and probably you kno, and probably most patients know, that a good doctor may not be the smartest person in a medical school. They may have a variety of different prejudices and a variety of different talents or a variety of different capacity to engage patients in a positive way. But our medical system and our system that screens students for medical school really kinda looks more at analytics. I mean, what kind of grades you make, what your SATs look like, what kind of symbolic social things did you do in order to get into medical school? And so, consequently, that shuts out a lot of students at a very early place in the system. A Black student often goes into the system determined to be a doctor, but he doesn’t have those resources, those networks, those connections. So he bombs out in junior college. I can remember I had a unique educational experience. I went to a college-educated … well, middle school in Cincinnati. It’s called Walnut Hills High School No. 3. [To get in] you took a test, and my dad was a YMCA executive. So we moved to Dallas, Texas, which was completely segregated. So I recognized immediately when I got there that the learning experience was different, but the education was not. Because I learned as a Black student in an environment that was college preparatory that … I didn’t have many allies in that many networks. And my parents, like so many Black parents, said, there’s no excuses. You can’t … don’t be coming on with the excuse of discrimination, when we were facing it every day. And more than that, on the positive side, we’re not being encouraged like the white students were. When I got to Dallas, you know, we didn’t have all the books, we didn’t have all the stuff, but the teachers knew I had talent, and they pushed me and pushed me, pushed me. So when I went off to a university by choice — could have gone to Stanford, all these other places — that I had the talent. Whereas back in my high school there were students as good as I was as students. And then they went off to the University of Texas, where I ultimately transferred, which didn’t seem to be a big deal for me because I thought Howard actually was harder. But they go to the University of Texas, they were from a segregated school, and then by themselves and they bomb out … and so consequently they don’t get to realize the bigger part of themselves. So getting back to this question that you asked five minutes ago. The reason is that the parameters to choose people for medical school need to start earlier, and they need to encourage Blacks, especially Black males of talent, so they can then go on and do some things that are necessary to get into medical school.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve seen some programs that are trying to recruit kids as young as 11 or 12 to gauge interest in going into a medical career.

LeNoir: Yeah, well, I think that’s, you know, that’s so unnecessary. But it’s a game. I mean, who is it … the doctor … your old Dr. So-and-So didn’t go to Harvard. So the talents to be a good doctor, you know, I don’t know whether you feel this way. I don’t think you can teach judgment by the time somebody gets out of high school. You know, physicians, the first thing I think that you have to have is good judgment, and good judgment can be sometimes assessed on the MCAT and these other things that they use to prioritize things for that.

Rovner: I know the Association of American Medical Colleges is very concerned about the Supreme Court decision that came down earlier this year banning affirmative action. Are you also worried about what that might mean for medical school admissions?

LeNoir: Well, you have to realize that in California, we’ve been dealing with this since the Bakke decision, so we’ve not been able … and I served on medical school committees. I served on the University of California-San Diego, and one year here at UC-San Francisco, kinda chaired the clinical faculty, so had the chance to kind of get engaged in policy here. And what we found out was that you can’t change that. You have to change the system itself.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, how worried are you, obviously in California, I guess, things have gone OK, but it’s going to be a big change at a lot of other medical schools about how they’re going to go about admitting their next classes and trying to at least further more culturally diverse classes of medical students.

LeNoir: Well, you know, California’s not done OK. I mean the percentage of California students — I believe diversity in California is probably 50% less than it was in the days when we had more liberal affirmative action guidelines. And so in those days, we were reporting 24, 25 Black students in these classes. That’s not happening anymore. So … I do worry. I mean, the reality is right in front of us. And I think that some schools … not necessarily the schools themselves, but the politicians that supervise these schools that have oversight over these schools are going to use this as a weapon. I know that already many of the attorney generals have sent letters to the university saying, look, I don’t care what you do, it’s not going to happen anymore. And the first persons to leave jobs now are diversity. Good jobs in diversity management … those jobs are disappearing almost as we speak.

Rovner: So if you could do just one thing that would help the system along to make things a little bit less unequal, what would it be?

LeNoir: I think it would be making certain that the system has the tools to detect two types of unconscious bias: this personal unconscious bias on the part of providers, but this institutional unconscious bias. And I think we have to attack that first. Institutions don’t look at African Americans the same way. And here’s … let me give you an example of what that falls out to. Let’s look at the statistics on vaccinations in ethnic groups. The impression is that Black people didn’t get vaccinated. But at the end of the day, if you looked at the numbers, we were vaccinated pretty much about the same level as the rest of America. But when we got ready to look at this, what we found out is hesitancy was based upon the fact that Black people did not trust the system. And institutions are expected to come out, here you are, you know, you’re part of an institution. You see a different doctor every week. And they come out to tell you you’re supposed to do your shots and stuff like that. Then Black people don’t believe that. They don’t go, they don’t go with that. And so consequently, at the end of the day, once the information came out and people got a chance to look at it, we started getting vaccinations at the same rate. But the people who are asking us to trust them had never attempted institutionally to obtain our trust. And so I think under those circumstances, that’s one of the reasons, that’s one of the things we most have to attack is institutional unconscious bias, institutional racism that’s covered over by the fact that we’re taking care of the poor. You know, we do all these things here and there, but poor people have opinions, too. And if we expect to change the system where everybody is treated equally, we have to look at what the institutional policies, or the institutional character or personality that results in the kinds of outcomes that we see in hospitals. And then we start looking at providers and other people. And they have to start engaging in this community now. There’ll be another pandemic, you know that. I know that. Probably this summer, this winter, things are going to … Look, what have doctors done? What have institutions done to gain the trust of the populations they serve? Probably nothing.

Rovner: Well, we’ve seen, you know, one of the things the pandemic has shown us is that now all Americans don’t trust institutions anymore. Is there maybe even a way to help everyone gain more trust? I mean, I guess it’s becoming much more obvious to at least the public health community that much of the public in general is distrustful of public health advice, of medical advice, of expertise in general.

LeNoir: Oh, yeah, there’s no question. This is not a unique problem among African Americans. I mean, it’s hard to trust a system where you have a problem and your doctor refers you somewhere and your next appointment is four months away. And here’s what the tragedy is: Nobody in Washington is talking about changing the system. I can remember the big furor over what were we going to do? Are we going to do single-payer? Are we going to do this? At least there was a dialog. Have you heard a dialog in Washington about changing this awful health care system that denies people access, overcharges them, and then is not blamed for the outcomes? I haven’t seen any of that. I haven’t seen anybody talk about health care at the national level. We used to do pieces, I remember years ago when I worked for CBS Radio, I tried to get a curriculum for hypertension, diabetes. Now you barely see anything on health except violence, and you don’t see too many pieces that people could use for health education. So I think the system is really broken and nobody’s … I don’t see any, even in the discussions last night [during the first Republican presidential primary debate], health never came up. You know, Ukraine, but not the health care system, which is really cheating us all.

Rovner: Yeah, I know. I mean, we’re … an entire Republican debate, and there was not a single mention of the Affordable Care Act or anything else that Republicans might want to do to fix a health care system that I think even Republican voters know is broken.

LeNoir: Yeah, I think that [Donald] Trump has sucked all the oxygen out of the room. And they’re not talking policy very much at all. I mean, even the undertones of the policy discussions have Trump all over it. So I think we’re in a very bad place, but I hate to see that escalating discussion on how to change the health care system, not just for the good of the poor people and Black people, I don’t think white people are really particularly excited about the system, and that dialog is not taking place.

Rovner: Is there anything you can offer that’s at all optimistic about this?

LeNoir: Well, no. No, I really can’t. As a doctor, I can tell you. Here’s the expanding issue. It just seems now that the solution to all the health problems that we have are the social determinants of health. I mean, you know, income and poverty and food, you know, issues and employment, all of that, they all contribute definitely to health outcomes. And so until we change those, then obviously the system, they say, will not change. Every chronic disease that I’ve looked at over the last 10 or 15 years, and especially recently, what Black people don’t do as well, it’s not because they don’t get into the system at the right time. They may even have early disease detection. It’s because they are not treated the same way. So if you look at statistics, all Black women have more deaths from breast cancer, our Black children have more asthma. It’s not because they don’t enter the system. It’s how they’re treated when they get into the system. So then going back to what we can do, we have to arm the patient, Black or white, to understand what you need to do to get the most effective outcomes. How do you select your primary care doctor? It’s critically important to everything that happens to you. How you’re able to challenge the system with a second opinion when you want that. To have an advocate, if you go into the hospital, not your brother or sister, but somebody who knows something about health care. So what we’re trying to do with the African American Wellness Project is to do that. We talk about early detection. Here’s the other problem with this. Now, I’d rather have penicillin than get rid of poverty or to get everybody a job. And in the New England Journal probably maybe a week ago, there was an editorial about how we as physicians should be able to manage the other elements, the social determinant elements, as part of our visits. Now I’ve barely got enough time to see the patients that I have. Now I’m supposed to get somebody food, a job and all that … but I’m not saying that that doesn’t need to change. It does. But if every solution to the problem of health equity is the social determinants like I’m seeing, then I mean, we might not get penicillin, but we may get somebody a job. But I think that that that process is important. It is important. But if you look at studies that at the VA, especially with men with prostate cancer, or if you have prostate cancer and … everything’s done exactly the same: early detection, the PSAs, the biopsy, the identification — the prostate is done not by biopsy, but by MRI — and they treat it the same, Black people do better. And the same thing is true with breast cancer and other chronic diseases. All these studies. You can go to PubMed, and you look at all these studies and you see every study talks about that, that the reason that they’re not doing as well, is because of the social determinants of health. Now, I mean, I appreciate that, but I’m not going to wait for everybody to get a job before I try to get a stent put in my artery, or I try to get some concern for my position. So to go back to your question again that you asked me five minutes ago, is that we need to talk to people about the system they face, and they need to go into it with less naivete and more organization. And that’s what we try to do with the African American Wellness [Project]. We try to provide you with that information and the tools that you need when you need to go into the system. If you need to know what questions to ask … we’ll tell you how to do that. One of the things I found out is I engage social media as a way to talk to people, because I’ve always used traditional media and, boy, I recognize now that you have to do it a little differently. You can’t do it exactly the same way. And so I just think we have to prepare people and we have to tell them the things that they need to do to recognize and understand before they enter the system. Until we start to get more serious in this country, about that dialog on our health care system, I think the individual is the only way we can approach it.

Rovner: Dr. LeNoir, thank you. Thank you so much for all of what you’re doing and thank you for joining us today.

LeNoir: Thank you for having me.

Rovner: OK, that’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. And also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me or X me or whatever. I’m still @jrovner, also on Bluesky and Threads. I hope you enjoyed this special episode. We’ll be back with our regular podcast panel after Labor Day. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Ohio voters — in a rare August election — turned out in unexpectedly high numbers to defeat a ballot measure that would have made it harder to pass an abortion-rights constitutional amendment on the ballot in November. The election was almost a year to the day after Kansas voters also stunned observers by supporting abortion rights in a ballot measure.

Meanwhile, the percentage of Americans without health insurance dropped to an all-time low of 7.7% in early 2023, reported the Department of Health and Human Services. But that’s not likely to continue, as states boot from the Medicaid program millions of people who received coverage under special eligibility rules during the pandemic.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Read Emmarie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It should not have come as much of a surprise that Ohio voters sided with abortion-rights advocates. Abortion rights so far have prevailed in every state that has considered a related ballot measure since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, including in politically conservative states like Kentucky and Montana.
• Moderate Republicans and independents joined Democrats in defeating the Ohio ballot question. Opponents of the measure — which would have increased the threshold of votes needed to approve state constitutional amendments to 60% from a simple majority — had not only cited its ramifications for the upcoming vote on statewide abortion access, but also for other issues, like raising the minimum wage.
• A Texas case about exceptions under the state’s abortion ban awaits the input of the state’s Supreme Court. But the painful personal experiences shared by the plaintiffs — notable in part because such private stories were once scarce in public discourse — pressed abortion opponents to address the consequences for women, not fetuses.
• The uninsured rate hit a record low earlier this year, a milestone that has since been washed away by states’ efforts to strip newly ineligible Medicaid beneficiaries from their rolls as the covid-19 public health emergency ended.
• The promise of diabetes drugs to assist in weight loss has attracted plenty of attention, yet with their high price tags and coverage issues, one thorny obstacle to access remains: How could we, individually and as a society, afford this?
• Lawmakers are asking more questions about the nature of nonprofit, or tax-exempt, hospitals and the care they provide to their communities. But they still face an uphill battle in challenging the powerful hospital industry.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, about how the “Medicaid unwinding” is going as millions have their eligibility for coverage rechecked.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “How the Texas Trial Changed the Story of Abortion Rights in America,” by Sarah Varney.

Joanne Kenen: Fox News’ “Male Health Care Leaders Complete ‘Simulated Breastfeeding Challenge’ at Texas Hospital: ‘Huge Eye-Opener’,” by Melissa Rudy.

Rachel Roubein: Stat’s “From Windows to Wall Art, Hospitals Use Virtual Reality to Design More Inclusive Rooms for Kids,” by Mohana Ravindranath.

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?” by Darius Tahir.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Politico’s “Abortion Rights Won Big in Ohio. Here’s Why It Wasn’t Particularly Close,” by Madison Fernandez, Alice Miranda Ollstein, and Zach Montellaro.
• KFF Health News’ “Seeking Medicare Coverage for Weight Loss Drugs, Pharma Giant Courts Black Influencers,” by Rachana Pradhan.
• Stat’s “Alarmed by Popularity of Ozempic and Wegovy, Insurers Wage Multi-Front Battle,” by Elaine Chen.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New Kansas

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: On Abortion Rights, Ohio Is the New KansasEpisode Number: 309Published: Aug. 10, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, 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 a day early this week, on Wednesday, Aug. 9, at 3:30 p.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 Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And my colleague and editor here at KFF Health News Emmarie Huetteman.

Emmarie Huetteman: Hey, everyone. Glad to be here.

Rovner: So later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors. She’s got her pulse on how that big post-public health emergency “Medicaid unwinding” is going. And she’ll share some of that with us. But first, this week’s news. I guess the biggest news of the week is out of Ohio, which, in almost a rerun of what happened in Kansas almost exactly a year ago, voters soundly defeated a ballot issue that would have made it harder for other voters this fall to reverse the legislature’s strict abortion ban. If you’re having trouble following that, so did they in Ohio. [laughs] This time, the fact that the abortion rights side won wasn’t as much of a surprise because every statewide abortion ballot question has gone for the abortion rights side since Roe v. Wade was overturned last year. What do we take away from Ohio? Other than it looked a lot like … the split looked a lot like Kansas. It was almost 60-40.

Kenen: It shows that there’s a coalition around this issue that is bigger than Democrat or Republican. Ohio was the classic swing state that has turned into a conservative Republican-voting state — not on this issue. This was clearly independents, moderate Republicans joined Democrats to … 60-40, roughly, is a pretty big win. Yes, we’ve seen it in other states. It’s still a pretty big win.

Roubein: I agree. And I think one of my colleagues, Patrick Marley, and I spent some time just driving around and traveling Ohio in July. And one of the things that we did find is that — this ballot measure to increase the threshold for constitutional amendments is 60% — it had in some, in many, ways turned into a proxy war over abortion. But, in some ways, both sides also didn’t talk about abortion when they were, you know, canvassing different voters. You know, they use different tools in the toolbox. I was following around someone from Ohio Right to Life and, you know, he very much said, “Abortion is the major issue to me.” But, you know, they tried to kind of bring together the side that supported this. Other issues like legalizing marijuana and raising the minimum wage, and, you know, the abortion rights side was very much a part of, you know, the opposition here. But when some canvassers went out — my colleague Patrick had traveled and followed some, and some, you know, kind of focused on other issues like, you know, voters having a voice in policy and keeping a simple majority rule.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s important — for those who have not been following this as closely as we have — what the ballot measure was was to make future ballot measures — and they said they were not going to have them in August anymore, which, this was the last one — in order to amend the constitution by referendum, you would need a 60% majority rather than a 50% majority. And just coincidentally, there is an abortion ballot measure on Ohio’s ballot for November, and it’s polling at about 58%. But, yes, this would have applied to everything, and it was defeated.

Kenen: And it’s part of a larger trend. It began before the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Over the last couple of years, you’ve seen conservative states move to tighten these rules for ballot initiatives. And that’s because more liberal positions have been winning. I mean, Medicaid, the Medicaid expansion on the ballot, has won, and won big. Only one was even close …

Rovner: In very red states!

Kenen: They often won very big in a number of very, very conservative states, places like Idaho and Nebraska. So, you know, there’s always been … the conventional wisdom is that, you know, the political parties are more extreme than many voters, that the Democratic Party is for the left and the Republican Party is for the right. And there are a lot of people who identify with one party or the other but aren’t … who are more moderate or, in this case, more liberal on Medicaid. And Medicaid … what was it, seven states? I think it’s seven. Seven really conservative states. And then the abortion has won in every single state. And there’s a little bit of conversation and it’s … very early. And I don’t know if it’s going to go anywhere, but if I’ve heard it and written a bit about it, conservative lawmakers have heard about it, too, which is there are groups interested in trying to get some gun safety initiatives on ballots. So that’s complicated. And it may not happen. But they’re seeing, I mean, that’s the classic example of both a criminal justice and a public health issue — so we can talk about it — a classic example where the country is much more in the center.

Rovner: Well, let us move to Texas, because that’s where we always end up when we talk about abortion. You may remember that lawsuit where several women who nearly died from pregnancy complications sued the state to clarify when medical personnel are able to intercede without being subjected to fines and/or jail sentences. Well, the women won, at least for a couple of days. A Texas district judge who heard the case ruled in their favor, temporarily blocking the Texas ban for women with pregnancy complications. But then the state appealed, and a Texas appeals court blocked the lower-court judge’s blocking of part of the ban. If you didn’t follow that, it just means that legally nothing has changed in Texas. And now the case goes to the Texas Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority. So we pretty much know what’s going to happen. But whether these women ultimately win or lose their case may not be the most important thing. And, to explain why I’m going to do my extra credit early this week. It’s by my KFF Health News colleague Sarah Varney. It’s called “How the Texas Trial Changed the Story of Abortion Rights in America.” She writes that this trial was particularly significant because it put abortion foes on the defensive by graphically depicting harm to women of abortion bans — rather than to fetuses. And it’s also about the power of people publicly telling their stories. I’ve done a lot of stories over the years about women whose very wanted pregnancies went very wrong, very late. And, I have to tell you, it’s been hard to find these women. And when you find them, it’s been really hard to get them to talk to a journalist. So, the fact that we’re seeing more and more people actually come out publicly, you know, may do for this issue what, you know, perhaps what gay rights, you know, what people coming out as gay did for gay marriage? I don’t know. What do you guys think?

Kenen: Well, I think these stories have been really compelling, but they’re also, they’re the most dramatic and maybe easiest to push back. But it’s, you know, there’s a whole lot of other reasons women want abortions. And the focus — and it’s life and death, so the focus, quite rightfully, has to be on these really extreme cases. But that’s not … it’s still in some ways shifting attention from the larger political discussion about choice and rights. But, clearly, some of these states, we’ve seen so many stories of women who, their lives are at stake, their doctors know it, and they just don’t think they have the legal power; they’re afraid of the consequences if they’re second-guessed. There are tremendous financial and imprisonment [risks] for a doctor who is deemed to have done an unnecessary abortion. And this idea that’s taken hold … among some conservatives is that there’s never a need for a medical abortion. And that’s just not true.

Rovner: And yet, I mean, what this trial and a lot of things in Sarah’s piece too point out is that that line between miscarriage and abortion is really kind of fuzzy in a lot of cases. You know, if you go to the hospital with a miscarriage and they’re going to say, “Well, did you initiate this miscarriage?” And we’ve seen women thrown in jail before for losing pregnancies, with them saying, “You know, you threw yourself down the stairs to end this pregnancy.” That actually happened, I think it was in Indiana. So this is —

Kenen: And miscarriage is very common.

Rovner: That was what I was saying.

Kenen: Early miscarriage is very common. Very, very common.

Huetteman: One of the things that’s so striking about the past year, since Dobbs overturned Roe v. Wade ,is that we’ve seen this kind of national education about what pregnancy is and how dangerous it can be and how care needs to really be flexible to meet those sorts of challenges. And this actually got me thinking about something that another familiar voice on this podcast, Alice Miranda Ollstein, and some colleagues wrote this morning about the Ohio outcome, which is they pointed out that the anti-abortion movement really hasn’t evolved in terms of the arguments that they’re making in the past year about why abortion should continue to be less and less available. Meanwhile, we’ve got these, like, really incredible, really emotional, moving stories from women who have experienced this firsthand. And that’s a hard message to overcome when you’re trying to reach voters in particular.

Rovner: And it’s interesting; both sides like to take — you know, they all go to the hardest cases. So, for years and years, the anti-abortion side has, you know, has gone to the hardest cases. And that’s why they talk about abortion in the ninth month up till birth, which isn’t a thing, but they talk about it. And you know, now the abortion rights side has some hard cases now that abortions are harder to get. Well, while we are on the subject of Texas lawsuits, States Newsroom — and thank you for sending this my way, Joanne — has a story reporting that the publisher of the scientific paper that both the lower court judge and the appeals court judges used to conclude that the abortion drug mifepristone causes frequent complications — it does not — is being reviewed for potential scientific misconduct. The paper comes from the Charlotte Lozier Institute, which is the research arm of the anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List. Sage, which is the publisher of the journal that the paper appeared in, has posted something called an expression of concern, saying that the publisher and editor, quote, “were alerted to potential issues regarding the representation of data in the article and author conflicts of interest. SAGE has contacted the authors of this article and an investigation is underway.” This was sort of a whistleblower by a pharmacist who looked at the way the data in this paper was put together and says, “No, that’s really very misleading.” I don’t think I’ve ever seen this, though; I’ve never seen a scientific paper that’s now being questioned for its political bent, a peer-reviewed scientific paper. I mean, this could change a lot of things, couldn’t it?

Kenen: Well, not if people decide that they still think it’s true. I mean, look at — you know, the vaccine autism paper was retracted. That wasn’t initially political. It’s become more political over the years; it wasn’t political at the time. That was retracted. And people have been jumping up and down screaming, “It was retracted! It was retracted!” And, you know, millions of people still believe it. So, I mean, legally, I’m not sure how much it changes. I mean, I thought we had all heard that there were flaws in this study. This article was good because I hadn’t been aware of how deeply flawed and in all the many ways it was flawed. And also the whistleblower yarn was interesting. I’m not sure how much it changes anything.

Rovner: Well, I’m thinking not in terms of this case. And by the way, I think we didn’t say this, that the study was of emergency room visits by women who’d had either surgical or medical abortions. And the contention was that medical abortions were more dangerous than surgical abortions because more women ended up in the emergency room. But as several people have pointed out, more people ended up in the emergency room after medical abortions because there have been so many more medical abortions over the years. I mean, you don’t actually have to be a data scientist to see some of the problems.

Kenen: Right. And some of them also weren’t that — really, were nervous, and they didn’t know what was normal and they went to the ER because they were scared and they really were safe. They were not — they didn’t need — you know, they just weren’t sure how much pain and discomfort or bleeding you’re supposed to have. And they went and they were reassured and were sent home. So it’s not even that they really had a medical emergency or that they were harmed.

Rovner: Or that they had a complication.

Kenen: Right. There were many flaws pointed out with this research.

Rovner: But my broader question is, I mean, if people are going to start questioning the politics of scientific papers, I mean, I could see the other side going after this.

Kenen: Well, there’s climate science, too, that’s bad. I mean, I don’t think this is actually unique. I think it’s egregious. But there were studies minimizing the risk of smoking, which was also a political business, commercial. Climate is certainly political. I mean, I think this is sort of the most politicized and most acute example, but I don’t think it’s the only one.

Roubein: And I think, Julie, as you’d mentioned, I think when [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk in Texas came down with his decision — you know, for instance, there are media outlets — that my colleagues at the Post did a story just kind of unpacking some of the kind of flaws and some of the studies that were used to make, you know, a court decision.

Rovner: Yeah, to give the judge what he assumes to be evidence that this is a dangerous drug. So it’s — yeah.

Kenen: Which he came in believing, we know, from the profiles of him and his background.

Rovner: Right. All right, well, let us move on. The official Census Bureau estimate of how many people lack health insurance won’t be out until next month. But the Department of Health and Human Services is out with a report based on that other big federal population survey that shows the uninsured rate early this year was at its lowest level since records started being kept, which I think was in the 1980s: 7.7%. Now, that’s clearly going to be the high point for the fewest number of people uninsured, at least for a while, because clearly not all of the millions of people who are losing or about to lose their Medicaid coverage are going to end up with other insurance. But I remember — Joanne, you will, too — when the rate was closer to 18% … was a huge news story, and the thing that triggered the whole health reform debate in the first place. I’m surprised that there’s been so little attention paid to this.

Kenen: Because, you know … [unintelligible] … it’s so yesterday. And also, as you alluded to, you know, we’re in the middle of the Medicaid unwinding. So the numbers are going up again now. And we don’t know. We know that it’s a couple of million people. I think 3 million might be the last —

Rovner: I think it’s 4 [million], it’s up to 4.

Kenen: Four, OK. And some of them will get covered again and some of them will find other sources of coverage. But right now, there’s an uptick, not a downtick.

Roubein: And I think when you look at just, like, estimates of what the insured and the uninsured rates would be in 2030, like, the CMS’ [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] analysis, one of the other questions is, you know, whether the enhanced Obamacare subsidies continue past 2025. So there’s Medicaid and then there’s also some other kind of question marks and cliffs coming up on how and whether it will fluctuate.

Rovner: No, it’s worth watching. And remember, when the census numbers come out, those will be for 2022. Well, moving on, we have two stories this week looking at the potential cost of those breakthrough obesity drugs, but through two very different lenses. One is from my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan, details how the makers of the current “it” drug, Ozempic, which is Novo Nordisk, in an effort to get the votes to lift the Medicare payment ban on weight loss drugs, is quietly contributing large amounts of money to groups like the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute. It’s sort of a backdoor lobbying that’s pretty age-old, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work. The other story, by Elaine Chen at Stat, looks at how health insurers are pushing back hard against the off-label use of diabetes medications that also work to help people lose weight. They’re doing things like allowing the more expensive weight loss drugs only if people have tried and failed other methods or disallowing them if the other methods had been slightly successful. So, if you take a lesser drug and you lose enough weight, they won’t let you take the better drug because, look, you lost weight on the other drug. We’ve talked about this, obviously, before: These drugs, on the one hand, have the potential to make a lot of people both healthier and happier. There’s a study out this week that shows that Mounjaro, the Eli Lilly drug, actually reduces heart disease by 20%.

Kenen: In people who have heart disease.

Rovner: Right, in people who have heart disease.

Kenen: It’s not lowering everybody’s risk.

Rovner: But still, I mean, everybody’s — well, I mean, there are medical indications for using these drugs for weight loss. But if everybody who wants them could get them, it would literally break the bank. Nobody can afford to give everybody who’s eligible for these drugs these drugs. Is the winner here going to be the side with the most effective lobbying, or is that too cynical?

Huetteman: Isn’t that always the winner? Speaking of cynical.

Rovner: Yeah, in health care.

Kenen: Well, I mean, I also think there’s questions about, like, these drugs clearly are really wonderful for people who they were designed for; you don’t have to be on insulin. They’re having not just weight loss and diabetes. There are apparently cardiac and other — you know, these are probably really good drugs. But there are a lot of people who do not have diabetes or heart disease who want them because they want to lose 20 pounds. And some of them are being told you have to take it for the rest of your life. I mean, I just know this anecdotally, and I’m sure we all know it anecdotally.

Rovner: Right. It’s like statins.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: Or blood pressure medication. If you stop taking your blood pressure medication, your blood pressure goes back up.

Kenen: Right. So, I mean, should the goal for the weight loss be, “OK, this is going to help you take off that weight and then you’re going to have to maintain it through diet and exercise and healthy lifestyle,” blah, blah, blah, which is hard for people. We know that. Or are we putting healthy people on a really expensive drug that changes an awful lot of things about their body indefinitely? We don’t have safety data for lifelong use in otherwise healthy people. So, you know, I’m always a little worried because even the best clinical trial is small compared to the entire — it’s small and it’s time-limited. And maybe these drugs are going to turn out to be absolutely phenomenal and we’re going to all live another 20 healthy years. But maybe not, you know. Or maybe they’re going to be really great for a certain subpopulation, but, you know, we’re not going to want to put it in the water supply. So, I still think that there’s this sort of pell-mell rush. And I think it’s partly because there’s a lot of money at stake. And it’s also, like, most people who are overweight have tried to lose it, and it’s very difficult to lose and maintain weight. So, you know, people want an easier way to do it. And I think the other thing is right now it’s an injection. There are side effects for some people on discomfort. There probably will be an oral version, a pill, sometime fairly soon, which will open — you know, there are people who don’t want to take a shot who would take a pill. It also means you might be able to tell — I mean, I don’t know the science of the pills, but it would make sense to me that you could take a lower dose, you know, maybe ease into it without the side effects, or could you stay on it longer with fewer problems? I mean, we’re just the very beginning of this, but it’s a huge amount of money.

Rovner: Yeah. You could see — I mean, my big question, though, is why can’t we force the drugmakers to lower the price? That would, if not solve the problem, make it a lot better. I mean, really, we’re going to have to wait until there is generic competition?

Kenen: It’s not just this.

Rovner: Yeah.

Kenen: I mean, it’s all sorts of cancer treatments and it’s hepatitis treatments. And it’s, I mean, there’s a lot of expensive drugs out there. So, this one just has a lot of demand because it makes you skinny.

Rovner: Well, that was the thing. We went through this with the hepatitis C drugs, which were really super expensive. It’s much more like that.

Kenen: Well, they seemed super expensive at the time —

Rovner: Not so much anymore.

Kenen: — but maybe for a thousand dollars, in retrospect.

Rovner: All right. Well, let’s move on. So, speaking of powerful lobbies, let’s talk about hospitals. Iowa Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley and Massachusetts Democrat Elizabeth Warren — now, there is an unlikely couple — are among those asking the IRS to more carefully examine tax-exempt hospitals to make sure they’re actually benefiting the community in exchange for not paying taxes, which is supposed to be the deal. Now, Sen. Grassley has been on this particular hobbyhorse for many, many years, I think probably more than 20, but not much ever seems to come of this. I can’t tell you how many workshops I’ve been to on, you know, how to measure community benefits that tax-exempt hospitals are providing. Any inkling that this time is going to be any different?

Roubein: Well, hospitals don’t tend to be sort of the losers. They try and kind of frame themselves as, like, “We’re your sort of friendly neighborhood hospital,” and every — I mean, every congressman, most congressmen have, you know, hospitals in their district. So they they get lobbied a lot, though, you know — I mean, this is a different issue, but particularly on the House side, hospitals are facing site-neutral payments, which if that actually went through Congress would be a loss. So yeah, but lawmakers have found it in general hard to take on the hospital industry.

Rovner: Yeah, very much so.

Kenen: Yeah. I mean, I think that we think of nonprofits and for-profits as, they’re different, but they’re not as different as we think they are, in that, you know, nonprofits are getting a tax break and they have to reinvest their profits. But it doesn’t mean they’re not making a lot of money. Some of them are. I mean, some of them have, you know, we’ve all walked into fancy nonprofits with, you know, fancy art and marble floors and so on and so forth. And we’ve all been in nonprofits that are barely keeping their doors open. So it’s your tax status. It’s not really, you know, your ethical status or the quality of care. I mean, there’s good nonprofits, there’s good for-profits. You know, this whole thing is like, if I were a hospital, I would be getting this huge tax break, and what am I doing to deserve it? And that’s the question.

Rovner: And I think the argument is, you know, that the 7.7% uninsured we were talking about, that hospitals are supposed to be providing care as part of their community benefit that the federal government now is ending up paying for. I think that’s sort of the frustration. If nonprofit hospitals were doing what they were supposed to do, it would cost federal and state governments less money, which always surprises me because this is not gone after more. I mean, Grassley has spent his whole career working on various types of government fraud. So this is totally in line for him. But it’s never just seemed to be a big priority for any administration.

Huetteman: There’s a little bit of an X factor here. Look at the fact that Grassley and Warren are talking about this publicly now. Maybe I’m just really optimistic from all the journalism we’ve been doing about projects like “Bill of the Month.” But the reality is that a lot of people are now seeing reporting that’s showing to them what nonprofit hospitals are actually doing when it comes to pursuing patients who don’t pay bills. And what it means to have community benefit comes into question a lot when you talk about wage garnishment, suing patients who are low-income for their medical debt. These are things that journalists have uncovered over and over again, happening at — ding, ding, ding — nonprofit hospitals. It’s harder to argue that hospitals are just doing their best for people when you have these stories of poor people who are losing their homes over unpaid medical bills, for instance. And I think that right now, when we’re in this political moment where health care costs are so, so potent to people and so important, I mean, could we see that this will actually be more effective, that we’re heading towards something that’s more effective? Maybe.

Rovner: Well, repeats the journalist, as we all are, the power of storytelling. Definitely the public is primed. I imagine that’s why they’re doing it now. We’ll see what comes of it.

Kenen: think the public is primed for bad practices. I’m not sure how many patients understand if the hospital they go to is a nonprofit or a for-profit. I think the public understands that everything in health care costs too much and that there are bad actors and greed. There’s a difference between profit and greed, and I think many people would say that we’re now in an era of greed. And not everybody in the health care sector — before anybody calls us up and shouts, “Not everybody who provides care is greedy” — but we’ve seen, you know, it is clearly out there. You know, you had Zeke Emanuel on a couple of weeks ago. Remember what he said, that, you know, 10 years ago, some people still liked their health care and now nobody likes their health care, rich or poor.

Rovner: Yeah, he’s right. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play my interview with Kate McEvoy of the National Association of Medicaid Directors about how the Medicaid unwinding is going. And one note before you listen: Kate frequently refers to the federal CMCS, which is not a misspeak; it stands for the Center for Medicaid and CHIP Services, which is the branch of CMS, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, that deals with Medicaid. So, here’s the interview:

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Kate McEvoy, executive director of the National Association of Medicaid Directors, which is pretty much exactly what the name says, a group where state Medicaid officials can share information and ideas. Kate, welcome to “What the Health?”

Kate McEvoy: Good afternoon. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Obviously, the Medicaid unwinding, which we have talked about a lot on the podcast, is Topic A for your members right now. Remind us again which Medicaid recipients are having their coverage eligibility rechecked? It’s not just those in the expansion group from the Affordable Care Act, right?

McEvoy: It’s not, no. Each and every person served by the country nationwide has to be reevaluated from an eligibility standpoint this year.

Rovner: What do we know about how it’s going? We’re seeing lots of reports that suggest the vast majority of people losing coverage are for paperwork reasons, not because they’ve been found to be no longer eligible. I know you recently surveyed your members. What are they telling you about this?

McEvoy: So, I first want to say this is an unprecedented task and it’s obviously historically significant for everyone served by the program. The volume of the work, and also the complexity, makes it a challenging task for all states and territories. But what we are seeing to date is a few things. First, we have seen an incredible effort on the part of states and territories to saturate really every means of communicating with their membership, really getting out that message around connecting with the programs, especially if an individual has moved during the period of the pandemic, which is very typical for people served by Medicaid. So that saturation of messaging and use of new means of connecting with people, like texting, really does represent a tremendous advance for the Medicaid program that has traditionally relied on a lot of complex, formal, legal notices to people. So that seems like a very positive thing. What we are seeing, and this is not unexpected, is that, you know, for reasons related to complex life circumstances and competing considerations, many people are not responding to those notices, no matter how we are transmitting those messages. And so that is a piece that is of great interest and concern to all of us, notably Medicaid directors wanting to make sure that eligible folks do not lose coverage simply because they are not responsive to the requests for more information. So we’re at a point where we’re beyond that initial push around messaging and now are really focused on means of protecting people who remain eligible, either through automatic review of their eligibility — the ex parte process — or by restoring them through such means as reconsideration. That’s really the main focus right now.

Rovner: And there’s that 90-day reconsideration window. Is that … how does that work?

McEvoy: So the federal law gives this period of 90 days to families and children within which they can be renewed with very little effort, essentially removing the responsibility to complete a new application. We also have long-standing help to people called “presumptive eligibility.” So if someone goes to a federally qualified health center or, more unfortunately, goes to the hospital, many of those types of providers can restore someone’s eligibility. So those are important protective pieces. We also know from the survey that you mentioned of our membership that many states and territories are extending those reconsideration protections to all coverage groups — also including older adults and people with disabilities.

Rovner: So are there any states that are doing anything that’s different and innovative? I remember when CHIP [the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program] was being stood up — and boy, that was a long time ago, like 1999 — South Carolina put flyers in pizza boxes, and some other state put flyers in sneaker boxes for back-to-school stuff. Are there better ways to maybe get ahold of these people?

McEvoy: So I think the answer is: a lot of different channels. Our colleagues in Louisiana have a partnership with Family Dollar stores to essentially feature this information on receipts. There’s a lot of work at pharmacy counters. Some of the big chain pharmacies have QR codes and other means of prompting people around their Medicaid eligibility. There’s going to be a big push for the back-to-school effort. And I think CMS and states are really interested, particularly in ensuring that children do not lose coverage even if their parents have regained employment and they’re no longer eligible. Another thing that’s going on is a lot of innovation in the means of enabling access to information. So many states have put in place personal apps through which people can track their own eligibility. There’s interest and some uptake of the so-called pizza-tracker function — so you can kind of see where you’re situated in that pipeline — and also a lot of use of automation to help call people back if they’re trying to get to state call centers. So really, all of those types of strategies … we’re seeing a huge amount of effort across the country.

Rovner: How’s the cooperation going with the Department of Health and Human Services? I know that … they seem to be not happy with some states. Are they being helpful, in general?

McEvoy: They’re being extraordinarily helpful. I would say that we often talk about Medicaid representing a federal-state equity partnership, and we’ve seen that manifest from the beginning of the first notice of the certainty around the start of the unwinding. CMCS has consistently offered guidance to states. They work with states using a mitigation approach as opposed to moving rapidly to compliance. We feel mitigation is the best way of essentially working out the strategies that are going to best protect continuing eligibility for people at the state level. And we really appreciate CMS’ efforts on that. We understand they do have to ensure accountability across the country, and we’re mutually committed to that.

Rovner: You better explain mitigation strategies.

McEvoy: Yeah, so this is a year where we are calling the question on eligibility standards that help ensure that the pathway to Medicaid coverage is a smooth one, and also that there is continuity of coverage. So, for any state that wasn’t yet meeting all those standards, CMCS essentially entered into an agreement with the state or territory to say, here is how you will get there. And that could have involved some means of improving the automatic renewals for Medicaid. It could have meant relying on an integrated eligibility processes. There are a lot of different tools and strategies that were put in place, but essentially that is a path to every state and territory coming into full compliance.

Rovner: Is there anything unexpected that’s happening? I know so much of this was predicted, and it was predicted that the states that went first that, you know, were really in a hurry to get extra people off of their rolls seem to be doing just that: getting extra people off of their rolls. Are you surprised at the differences among states?

McEvoy: I think that there have definitely been differences among states in terms of the tools they have used from a system standpoint, but I don’t see any differences in terms of retention of eligible people. That remains a shared goal across the entire country. And again, this is a watershed point where we have the opportunity to bring everyone to the same standards, ongoing, so that we help to prevent some of the heartache of the eligibility process for folks ongoing.

Rovner: Anything else I didn’t ask?

McEvoy: Well, I think that piece around the reconsideration period is particularly important. We are struck by there being probably less literacy around that option, and that’s something we want to continue to promote. The other piece I’d wind up by saying is that the Medicaid program is always available for people who are eligible. So in the worst-case scenario in which an otherwise eligible person loses coverage, they can always come back and be covered. This is in contrast to private insurance that may have an annual open enrollment period. Medicaid, as you know, is available on a rolling basis, and we want to keep reinforcing that theme so that no one goes with a gap in coverage.

Rovner: Kate McEvoy, thank you very much. And I hope we can call you back in a couple of months.

McEvoy: I would be very happy to hear from you.

Rovner: OK. We are back and 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. I did mine already. Emmarie, why don’t you go next?

Huetteman: My story this week comes from KFF Health News, my colleague Darius Tahir. He has a story called “The NIH Ices a Research Project. Is It Self-Censorship?” Now, the story talks about the fact that the former head of NIH Francis Collins, was, as he was leaving, announcing an effort to study health communications. And we’re talking about not just doctor-to-patient communications, but actually also how mass communications impact American health. But as Darius found out, the acting director quietly ended the program as NIH was preparing to open its grant applications. And officials who spoke with us said that they think political pressure over misinformation is to blame. Now, we don’t have to look too far for examples of conservative pressure over misinformation and information these days. In particular, there’s a notable one from just last month out of a Louisiana court, the federal court decision that blocked government officials from communicating with social media companies. You really don’t have to look too far to see that there’s a chilling effect on information. And we’re talking about the NIH was going to study or rather fund studies into communication and information. Not misinformation, information: how people get information about their health. So it’s a pretty interesting example and a really great story worth your read.

Rovner: And I’ve done nothing but preach about public health communication for three years now.

Kenen: It’s a very good story.

Rovner: Yeah, it was a really good story. Rachel, you’re next.

Roubein: All right. This story is called “From Windows to Wall Art, Hospitals Use Virtual Reality to Design More Inclusive Rooms for Kids,” by Stat News, by Mohana Ravindranath. And I thought this story was really interesting because she kind of dived into what Mohana called “a budding movement to make architecture more inclusive” for the people and patients who are spending a lot, a lot of time in hospital walls. And what some researchers are doing is using virtual reality to essentially gauge how comfortable children who are patients are in hospital rooms. And she talked to researchers at Berkeley who were using these, like, virtual reality headsets to kind of study and explore mocked-up hospital rooms. And, I didn’t know a ton about this field. I mean, apparently it’s not new, but it’s this kind of growing sort of movement to make patients more comfortable in the space that they’re inhabiting for perhaps long periods of time.

Rovner: I went to a conference on architecture, hospital architecture, making it more patient-centered, 10 years ago. But my favorite thing that I still remember from that is they talked about putting art on the ceiling because people are either in bed or they’re in gurneys. They’re looking up at the ceiling a lot. And ceilings are scary in hospitals. So that was one of the things that I took away from that. OK, Joanne, now it’s your turn.

Kenen: OK. This is from Fox News. And yes, you did hear that right. It’s by Melissa Rudy, and the headline is “Male Health Care Leaders Complete ‘Simulated Breastfeeding Challenge’ at Texas Hospital: ‘Huge Eye-Opener’.” So at Covenant Health, they had a bunch of high-level guys in suits pretend they were nursing and/or pumping mothers, and they had to nurse every three hours for 20 minutes at a time. And they found it was quite difficult and quite cumbersome and they didn’t have enough privacy. And as one of them said, “There was no way to multitask.” But trust me, if you have two kids, you have to figure that out, too. So it was a really good story.

Rovner: Some of these things that we feel like should be required everywhere, but it was a great read; it was a really good story. OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer, sitting in for the indefatigable Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me or X me or whatever; I’m @jrovner. And also on Bluesky and Threads. Rachel?

Roubein: @rachel_roubein — that’s on Twitter.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: In most places I’m @JoanneKenen. On Threads, I’m @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Emmarie.

Huetteman: And I am @emmarieDC.

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

Credits

Zach Dyer
Senior 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 Biden administration continued a bipartisan, decades-long effort to ensure that health insurance treats mental illnesses the same as other ailments, with a new set of regulations aimed at ensuring that services are actually available without years-long waits or excessive out-of-pocket costs.

Meanwhile, two more committees in Congress approved bills this week aimed at reining in the power of pharmacy benefit managers, who are accused of keeping prescription drug prices high to increase their bottom lines.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Biden administration’s new rules to enforce federal mental health parity requirements include no threat of sanctions when health plans do not comply; noncompliance with even the most minimal federal rules has been a problem dating to the 1990s. Improving access to mental health care is not a new policy priority, nor a partisan one, yet it remains difficult to achieve.
• With the anniversary of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, more people are becoming aware of how to access help and get it. Challenges remain, however, such as the hotline service’s inability to connect callers with local care. But the program seizes on the power of an initial connection for someone in a moment of crisis and offers a lifeline for a nation experiencing high rates of depression, anxiety, and suicide.
• In news about the so-called Medicaid unwinding, 12 states have paused disenrollment efforts amid concerns they are not following renewal requirements. A major consideration is that most people who are disenrolled would qualify to obtain inexpensive or even free coverage through the Affordable Care Act. But reenrollment can be challenging, particularly for those with language barriers or housing insecurity, for instance.
• With a flurry of committee activity, Congress is revving up to pass legislation by year’s end targeting the role of pharmacy benefit managers — and, based on the advertisements blanketing Washington, PBMs are nervous. It appears legislation would increase transparency and inform policymakers as they contemplate further, more substantive changes. That could be a tough sell to a public crying out for relief from high health care costs.
• Also on Capitol Hill, far-right lawmakers are pushing to insert abortion restrictions into annual government spending bills, threatening yet another government shutdown on Oct. 1. The issue is causing heartburn for less conservative Republicans who do not want more abortion votes ahead of their reelection campaigns.
• And the damage to a Pfizer storage facility by a tornado is amplifying concerns about drug shortages. After troubling problems with a factory in India caused shortages of critical cancer drugs, decision-makers in Washington have been keeping an eye on the growing issues, and a response may be brewing.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Céline Gounder about the new season of her “Epidemic” podcast. This season chronicles the successful public health effort to eradicate smallpox.

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 Anti-Abortion Movement Gets a Dose of Post-Roe Reality,” by Amy Littlefield.

Joanne Kenen: Food & Environment Reporting Network’s “Can Biden’s Climate-Smart Agriculture Program Live Up to the Hype?” by Gabriel Popkin.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg’s “Mineral Sunscreens Have Potential Hidden Dangers, Too,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: CNN’s “They Took Blockbuster Drugs for Weight Loss and Diabetes. Now Their Stomachs Are Paralyzed,” by Brenda Goodman.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• CNN’s “Medicaid Disenrollments Paused in a Dozen States After Failure to Comply With Federal Rules,” by Tami Luhby.
• Abortion, Every Day’s “Why Are OBGYNs Being Forced to Go to Texas?” by Jessica Valenti.
• Politico’s “GOP Looks to Spending Fights for Wins on Abortion, Trans Care, Contraception,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• KFF Health News’ “A Year With 988: What Worked? What Challenges Lie Ahead,” by Colleen DeGuzman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Another Try for Mental Health ‘Parity’

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Another Try for Mental Health ‘Parity’Episode Number: 307Published: July 27, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, 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 27, 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 Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith, the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Edney: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my KFF colleague Céline Gounder about the new season of her podcast “Epidemic,” which tracks one of the last great public health success stories, the eradication of smallpox. But first, this week’s news. I want to start this week with mental health, which we haven’t talked about in a while — specifically, mental health parity, which is both a law and a concept, that mental ailments should be covered and reimbursed by health insurance the same way as a broken bone or case of pneumonia or any other — air quotes — “physical ailment.” Policymakers, Republican and Democrat, and the mental health community have been fighting pretty much nonstop since the mid-1990s to require parity. And despite at least five separate acts of Congress over that time — I looked it up this week — we are still not there yet. To this day, patients with psychiatric illnesses find their care denied reimbursement, made difficult to access, or otherwise treated as lesser. This week, the Biden administration is taking another whack at the issue, putting out proposed rules it hopes will start to close the remaining parity gap, among other things by requiring health plans to analyze their networks and prior authorization rules and other potential barriers to care to ensure that members actually can get the care they need. What I didn’t see in the rules, though, was any new threat to sanction plans that don’t comply — because plans have been not complying for a couple of decades now. How much might these new rules help in the absence of a couple of multimillion-dollar fines?

Edney: I had that same question when I was considering this because I didn’t see like, OK, like, great, they’re going to do their self-policing, and then what? But I do think that there’s the possibility, and this has been used in health care before, of public shaming. If the administration gets to look over this data and in some way compile it and say, here’s the good guys, here’s the bad guys, maybe that gets us somewhere.

Rovner: You know, it strikes me, this has been going on for so very long. I mean, at first it was the employer community actually that did most of the negotiating, not the insurers. Now that it’s required, it’s the insurers who are in charge of it. But it has been just this incredible mountain to scale, and nobody has been able to do it yet.

Kenen: And it’s always been bipartisan.

Rovner: That’s right.

Kenen: And it really goes back to mostly, you know, the late Sen. [Paul] Wellstone [(D-Minn.)] and [Sen. Pete] Domenici [(R-N.M.)], both of whom had close relatives with serious mental illness. You know, Domenici was fairly conservative and traditional conservative, and Wellstone was extremely liberal. And they just said, I mean, this — the parity move began — the original parity legislation, at least the first one I’m aware of. And it was like, I think it was before I came to Washington. I think it was in the ’80s, certainly the early — by the ’90s.

Rovner: It was 1996 when when the first one actually passed. Yeah.

Kenen: I mean, they started talking about it before that because it took them seven or eight years. So this is not a new idea, and it’s not a partisan idea, and it’s still not done. It’s still not there.

Edney: I think there’s some societal shift too, possibly. I mean, we’re seeing it, and maybe we’re getting closer. I’ve seen a lot of billboards lately. I’ve done some work travel. When I’m on the road, I feel like I’m always seeing these billboards that are saying mental health care is health care. And trying to hammer that through has really taken a long time.

Rovner: So while we are on the subject of mental health, one of the good things I think the government has done in the last year is start the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline, which turned 1 this month. Early data from shifting the hotline from a 10-digit number to a three-digit one that’s a lot easier to remember does suggest that more people are becoming aware of immediate help and more people are getting it. At the same time, it’s been able to keep up with the demand, even improving call answering times — I know that was a big concern — but there is still a long way to go, and this is hardly a panacea for what we know is an ongoing mental health crisis, right?

Karlin-Smith: This is a good first step to get people in crisis help without some of the risks that we’ve seen. If you go towards the 911 route, sometimes police are not well trained to handle these calls and they end in worse outcomes than necessary. But then you have to have that second part, which is what we were talking about before, which is the access to the longer-term mental health support to actually receive the treatment you need. There’s also some issues with this hotline going forward in terms of long-term funding and, you know, other tweaks they need to work out to make sure, again, that people who are not expecting to interact with law enforcement actually don’t end up indirectly getting there and things like that as well.

Kenen: Do any of you know whether there’s discussion of sort of making people who don’t remember it’s 988 and they call 911 — instead of dispatching cops, are the dispatchers being trained to just transfer it over to 988?

Rovner: That I don’t know.

Kenen: I’m not aware of that. But it just sort of seems common sense.

Rovner: One thing I know they’re working on is, right now I think there’s no geolocation. So when you call 988, you don’t necessarily get automatically referred to resources that are in your community because they don’t necessarily know where you’re calling from. And I know that’s an effort. But yeah, I’m sure there either is or is going to be some effort to interact between 988 and 911.

Kenen: It’s common sense to us. It doesn’t mean it’s actually happening. I mean, this is health care.

Rovner: As we point out, this is mental health care, too.

Kenen: Yeah, right.

Rovner: It’s a step.

Kenen: But I think that, you know, sort of the power of that initial connection is something that’s easy for people to underestimate. I mean, my son in college was doing a helpline during 2020-2021. You know, he was trained, and he was also trained, like, if you think this is beyond what a college-aged volunteer, that if you’re uncertain, you just switched immediately to a mental health professional. But sometimes it’s just, people feel really bad and just having a voice gets them through a crisis moment. And as we all know, there are a lot of people having a lot of crisis moments. I doubt any of us don’t know of a suicide in the last year, and maybe not in our immediate circle, but a friend of a friend, I mean, or, you know — I know several. You know, we are really at a moment of extreme crisis. And if a phone call can help some percentage of those people, then, you know, it needs to be publicized even more and improved so it can be more than a friendly voice, plus a connection to what, ending this repetition of crisis.

Rovner: I feel like the people who worked hard to get this implemented are pretty happy a year later at how, you know — obviously there’s further to go — but they’re happy with how far they’ve come. Well, so, probably the only thing worse than not getting care covered that should be is losing your health coverage altogether, which brings us to the Medicaid unwinding, as states redetermine who’s still eligible for Medicaid for the first time since the start of the pandemic. Our podcast colleague Tami Luhby over at CNN had a story Friday that I still haven’t seen anywhere else. Apparently 12 states have put their disenrollments on pause, says Tami. But we don’t know which 12, according to the KFF disenrollment tracker. As of Wednesday, July 26, at least 3.7 million people have been disenrolled from the 37 states that are reporting publicly, nearly three-quarters of those people for, quote, “procedural reasons,” meaning those people might still be eligible but for some reason didn’t complete the renewal process. The dozen states on pause are apparently ones that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] thinks are not following the renewal requirements and presumably ones whose disenrollments are out of line. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which is overseeing this, is not naming those states, but this points up exactly what a lot of people predicted would happen when states started looking at eligibility again, that a lot of people who were quite likely still eligible were simply going to lose their insurance altogether, right?

Edney: Yeah, it seemed like there was a lot of preparation in some ways to anticipating this. And then, yeah, obviously you had the states that were just raring to go and try to get people off the rolls. And yeah, it would be very interesting to know what those 12 are. I think Tami’s reporting was stellar and she did a really good job. But that’s, like, one piece of the puzzle we’re missing. And I know CMS said that they’re not naming them because they are working well with them to try to fix it.

Rovner: The one thing we obviously do know is that there are several states that are doing this faster than is required — in fact, faster than is recommended. And what we know is that the faster they do it, the more likely they are going to have people sort of fall between the cracks. The people who are determined to be no longer eligible for Medicaid are supposed to be guided to programs for which they are eligible. And presumably most of them, unless they have, you know, gotten a really great job or hit the lottery, will still be eligible at least for subsidies under the Affordable Care Act. And they’re supposed to be guided to those programs. And it’s not clear yet whether that’s happening, although I know there are an awful lot of people who are watching this pretty closely. There were over 90 million people on Medicaid by the end of the pandemic, by the point at which states no longer had to keep people on. That’s a lot more people than Medicaid normally has. It’s usually more around 70 or even 80 million. So there’s excess people. And the question is what’s going to happen to those people and whether they’re going to have some sort of health insurance. And I guess it’s going to be more than a couple of months before we know that. Yes, Joanne.

Kenen: I think that it’s important to remember that there’s no open enrollment season for Medicaid the way there is for the ACA, so that if you’re disenrolled and you get sick and you go to a doctor or a hospital, they can requalify you and you can get it again. The problem is people who think that they’re disenrolled or are told that they’re disenrolled may not realize. They may not go to the doctor because they think they can’t afford it. They may not understand there’s a public education campaign there, too, that I haven’t seen. You know, if you get community health clinics, hospitals, they can do Medicare, Medicaid certification. But it’s dangerous, right? If you think, oh, I’m going to get a bill I can’t afford and I’m just going to see if I can tough this out, that’s not the way to take care of your health. So there’s that additional conundrum. And then, you know, I think that HHS can be flexible on special enrollment periods for those who are not Medicaid-eligible and are ACA-eligible, but most of them are still Medicaid-eligible.

Rovner: If you get kicked off of Medicaid, you get an automatic special enrollment for the ACA anyway.

Kenen: But not forever. If the issue is it’s in a language you don’t speak or at an address you don’t live in, or you just threw it out because you didn’t understand what it was — there is institutional failures in the health care system, and then there’s people have different addresses in three years, particularly poor people; they move around. There’s a communication gap. You know, I talked to a health care system a while ago in Indiana, a safety net, that was going through electronic health records and contacting people. And yet that’s Indiana and they, you know, I think it was Tami who pointed out a few weeks ago on the podcast, Indiana is not doing great, in spite of, you know, really more of a concerted effort than other states or at least other health systems, not that I talk to every single health system in the country. I was really impressed with how proactive they were being. And still people are falling, not just through the cracks. I mean, there’s just tons of cracks. It’s like, you know, this whole landscape of cracks.

Rovner: I think everybody knew this was going to be a big undertaking. And obviously the states that are trying to do it with some care are having problems because it’s a big undertaking. And the states that are doing it with a little bit less care are throwing a lot more people off of their health insurance. And we will continue to follow this. So it is the end of July. I’m still not sure how that happened.

Kenen: ’Cause after June, Julie.

Rovner: Yes. Thank you. July is often when committees in Congress rush to mark up bills that they hope to get to the floor and possibly to the president in that brief period when lawmakers return from the August recess before they go out for the year, usually around Thanksgiving. This year is obviously no exception. While Sen. Bernie Sanders [(I-Vt.)] at the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has delayed consideration of that primary care-community health center bill that we talked about last week until September, after Republicans rebelled against what was supposed to have been a bipartisan bill, committee action on pharmacy benefit managers and other Medicare issues did take place yesterday in the Senate Finance Committee and the House Ways and Means Committee. Sarah, you’re following this, right? What’s happening? And I mean, so we’ve now had basically all four of the committees that have some kind of jurisdiction over this who’ve acted. Is something going to happen on PBM regulation this year?

Karlin-Smith: Actually, five committees have acted because the House Ed[ucation] and Workforce Committee has also acted on the topic. So there’s a lot of committees with a stake in this. I think there’s certainly set up for something for the fall, end of the year, to happen in the pharmacy benefit manager space. And there’s a decent amount of bipartisanship around the issue, depending on exactly which committee you’re looking at. But even if the policies that haven’t gotten through haven’t been bipartisan, I think there’s general bipartisan interest among all the committees of tackling the issue. The question is how meaningful, I guess, the policies that we get done are. Right now it looks like what we’re going to end up with is some kind of transparency measure. It reminded me a little bit of our discussion of the mental health stuff [President Joe] Biden is doing going forward. Essentially what it’s going to end up doing is get the government a lot of detailed data about how PBMs operate, how this vertical integration of PBMs — so there’s a lot of common ownership between PBMs, health insurance plans, pharmacies and so forth — may be impacting the cost of our health care and perhaps in a negative way. And then from that point, the idea would be that later Congress could go back and actually do the sort of policy reforms that might be needed. So I know there are some people that are super excited about this transparency because it is such an opaque industry. But at the same point, you can’t kind of go to your constituents and say, “We’ve changed something,” right away or, you know, “We’re going to save you a ton of money with this kind of legislation.”

Rovner: You could tell how worried the PBMs are by how much advertising you see, if you still watch TV that has advertising, which I do, because I watch cable news. I mean, the PBMs are clearly anxious about what Congress might do. And given the fact that, as you point out and as we’ve been saying for years, drug prices are a very bipartisan issue — and it is kind of surprising, like mental health, it’s bipartisan, and they still haven’t been able to push this as far as I think both Democrats and Republicans would like for it to go. Is there anything in these bills that surprised you, that goes further than you expected or less far than expected?

Karlin-Smith: There’s been efforts to sort of delink PBM compensation from rebates. And in the past, when Congress has tried to look into doing this, it’s ended up being extremely costly to the government. And they figured out in this set of policies sort of how to do this without those costs, which is basically, they’re making sure that the PBMs don’t have this perverse incentive to make money off of higher-priced drugs. However, the health plans are still going to be able to do that. So it’s not clear how much of a benefit this will really be, because at this point, the health plans and the PBMs are essentially one and the same. They have the same ownership. But, you know, I do think there has been some kind of creativity and thoughtfulness on Congress’ part of, OK, how do we tackle this without also actually increasing how much the government spends? Because the government helps support a lot of the premiums in these health insurance programs.

Rovner: Yeah. So the government has quite a quite a financial stake in how this all turns out. All right. Well, we will definitely watch that space closely. Let us move on to abortion. In addition to it being markup season for bills like PBMs, it’s also appropriations season on Capitol Hill, with the Sept. 30 deadline looming for a completion of the 12 annual spending bills. Otherwise, large parts of the government shut down, which we have seen before in recent years. And even though Democrats and Republicans thought they had a spending detente with the approval earlier this spring of legislation to lift the nation’s debt ceiling, Republicans in the House have other ideas; they not only want to cut spending even further than the levels agreed to in the debt ceiling bill, but they want to add abortion and other social policy riders to a long list of spending bills, including not just the one for the Department of Health and Human Services but the one for the Food and Drug Administration, which is in the agriculture appropriations, for reasons I’ve never quite determined; the financial services bill, which includes funding for abortion in the federal health insurance plan for government workers; and the spending bill for Washington, D.C., which wants to use its own taxpayer money for abortion, and Congress has been making that illegal pretty much for decades. In addition to abortion bans, conservatives want riders to ban gender-affirming care and even bar the FDA from banning menthol cigarettes. So it’s not just abortion. It’s literally a long list of social issues. Now, this is nothing new. A half a dozen spending bills have carried a Hyde [Amendment] type of abortion ban language for decades, as neither Republicans nor Democrats have had the votes to either expand or take away the existing restrictions. On the other hand, these conservatives pushing all these new riders don’t seem to care if the government shuts down if these bills pass. And that’s something new, right?

Kenen: Over abortion it’s something new, but they haven’t cared. I mean, they’ve shut down the government before.

Rovner: That’s true. The last time was over Obamacare.

Kenen: Right. And, which, the great irony is the one thing they — when they shut down the government because Obamacare was mandatory, not just discretionary funding, Obamacare went ahead anyway. So, I mean, minor details, but I think this is probably going to be an annual battle from now on. It depends how hard they fight for how long. And with some of these very conservative, ultra-conservative lawmakers, we’ve seen them dig in on abortion, on other issues like the defense appointees. So I think it’s going to be a messy October.

Rovner: Yeah, I went back and pulled some of my old clips. In the early 1990s I used to literally keep a spreadsheet, and I think that’s before we had Excel, of which bill, which of the appropriations bills had abortion language and what the status was of the fights, because they were the same fights year after year after year. And as I said, they kind of reached a rapprochement at one point, or not even a rapprochement — neither side could move what was already there. At some point, they kind of stopped trying, although we have seen liberals the last few years try to make a run at the actual, the original Hyde Amendment that bans federal funding for most abortions — that’s in the HHS bill — and unsuccessfully. They have not had the votes to do that. Presumably, Republicans don’t have the votes now to get any of these — at least certainly not in the Senate — to get any of these new riders in. But as we point out, they could definitely keep the government closed for a while over it. I mean, in the Clinton administration, President [Bill] Clinton actually had to swallow a bunch of new riders because either it was that or keep the government closed. So that’s kind of how they’ve gotten in there, is that one side has sort of pushed the other to the brink. You know, everybody seems to assume at this point that we are cruising towards a shutdown on Oct. 1. Does anybody think that we’re not?

Kenen: I mean, I’m not on the Hill anymore, but I certainly expect a shutdown. I don’t know how long it lasts or how you resolve it. And I — even more certain we’ll have one next year, which, the same issues will be hot buttons five weeks before the elections. So whatever happens this year is likely to be even more intense next year, although, you know, next year’s far away and the news cycle’s about seven seconds. So, you know, I think this could be an annual fight and for some time to come, and some years will be more intense than others. And you can create a deal about something else. And, you know, the House moderates are — there are not many moderates — but they’re sort of more traditional conservatives. And there’s a split in the Republican Party in the House, and we don’t know who’s going to fold when, and we don’t — we haven’t had this kind of a showdown. So we don’t really know how long the House will hold out, because some of the more moderate lawmakers who are — they’re all up for reelection next year. I mean, some of them don’t agree. Some of are not as all or nothing on abortion as the —

Rovner: Well, there are what, a dozen and a half Republicans who are in districts that President Biden won who do not want to vote on any of these things and have made it fairly clear to their leadership that they do not want to vote on any of these things. But obviously the conservatives do.

Kenen: And they’ve been public about that. They’ve said it. I mean, we’re not guessing. Some of them spoke up and said, you know, leave it to the states. And that’s what the court decided. And they don’t want to nationalize this even further than it’s nationalized. And I think, you know, when you have the Freedom Caucus taking out Marjorie Taylor Greene, I mean, I have no idea what’s next.

Rovner: Yeah, things are odd. Well, I want to mention one more abortion story this week that I read in the newsletter “Abortion, Every Day,” by Jessica Valenti. And shoutout here: If you’re interested in this issue and you don’t subscribe, you’re missing out. I will include the link in the show notes. The story’s about Texas and the exam to become a board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist. The board that conducts the exam is based in Dallas and has been for decades, and Texas is traditionally where this test has been administered. During the pandemic, the exam was given virtually because nothing was really in person. But this year, if a doctor wants to become board-certified, he or she will have to travel to Texas this fall. And a lot of OB-GYNs don’t want to do that, for fairly obvious reasons, like they are afraid of getting arrested and sent to prison because of Texas’ extreme anti-abortion laws. And yikes, really, this does not seem to be an insignificant legal risk here for doctors who have been performing abortions in other states. This is quite the dilemma, isn’t it?

Karlin-Smith: Well, the other thing I thought was interesting about — read part of that piece — is just, she was pointing out that you might not just want to advertise in a state where a lot of people are anti-abortion that all of these people who perform abortions are all going to be at the same place at the same time. So it’s not just that they’re going to be in Texas. Like, if anybody wants to go after them, they know exactly where they are. So it can create, if nothing else, just like an opportunity for big demonstrations or interactions that might disrupt kind of the normal flow of the exam-taking.

Kenen: Or violence. Most people who are anti-abortion are obviously not violent, but we have seen political violence in this country before. And you just need one person, which, you know, we seem to have plenty of people who are willing to shoot at other people. I thought it was an excellent piece. I mean, I had not come across that before until you sent it around, and there’s a solution — you know, like, if you did it virtually before — and I wasn’t clear, or maybe I just didn’t pay attention: Was this certification or also recertification?

Rovner: No, this was just certification. Recertification’s separate. So these are these are young doctors who want to become board-certified for the first time.

Kenen: But the recertification issues will be similar. And this is a yearly — I mean, I don’t see why they just don’t give people the option of doing it virtual.

Rovner: But we’ll see if they back down. But you know, I had the same thought that Sarah did. It’s like, great, let’s advertise that everybody’s going to be in one place at one time, you know, taking this exam. Well, we’ll see how that one plays out. Well, finally this week, building on last week’s discussion on health and climate change and on drug shortages, a tornado in Rocky Mount, North Carolina, seriously damaged a giant Pfizer drug storage facility, potentially worsening several different drug shortages. Sarah, I remember when the hurricane in Puerto Rico seemed to light a fire under the FDA and the drug industry about the dangers of manufacturing being too centralized in one place. Now we have to worry about storage, too? Are we going to end up, like, burying everything underground in Fort Knox?

Karlin-Smith: I think there’s been a focus even since before [Hurricane] Maria, but that certainly brought up that there’s a lack of redundancy in U.S. medical supply chains and, really, global supply chains. It’s not so much that they need to be buried, you know, that we need bunkers. It’s just that — Pfizer had to revise the numbers, but I think the correct number was that that facility produces about 8% of the sterile kind of injectables used in the U.S. health system, 25% of all Pfizer’s — it’s more like each company or the different plants that produce these drugs, it needs to be done in more places so that if you have these severe weather events in one part of the country, there’s another facility that’s also producing these drugs or has storage. So I don’t know that these solutions need to be as extreme as you brought up. But I think the problem has been that when solutions to drug shortages have come up in Congress, they tend to focus on FDA authorities or things that kind of nibble around the edges of this issue, and no one’s ever really been able to address some of the underlying economic tensions here and the incentives that these companies have to invest in redundancy, invest in better manufacturing quality, and so forth. Because at the end of the day these are often some of the oldest and cheapest drugs we have, but they’re not necessarily actually the easiest to produce. While oftentimes we’re talking about very expensive, high-cost drugs here, this may be a case where we have to think about whether we’ve let the prices drop too low and that’s sort of keeping a market that works if everything’s going perfectly well but then leads to these shortages and other problems in health care.

Rovner: Yeah, the whole just-in-time supply chain. Well, before we leave this, Anna, since you’re our expert on this, particularly international manufacturing, I mean, has sort of what’s been happening domestically lit a fire under anybody who’s also worried about some of these, you know, overseas plants not living up to their safety requirements?

Edney: Well, I think there are these scary things happen like a tornado or hurricane and everybody is kind of suddenly paying attention. But I think that the decision-makers in the White House or on Capitol Hill have been paying attention a little bit longer. We’ve seen these cancer — I mean, for a long time not getting anything done, as Sarah mentioned — but recently, it’s sort of I think the initial spark there was these cancer drug shortages that, you know, people not being able to get their chemo. And that was from an overseas factory; that was from a factory in India that had a lot of issues, including shredding all of their quality testing documents and throwing them in a truck, trying to get it out of there before the FDA inspectors could even see it.

Kenen: That’s always very reassuring.

Edney: It is. Yeah. It makes you feel really good. And one bag did not make it out of the plant in time, so they just threw acid on it instead of letting FDA inspectors look at it. So it’s definitely building in this tornado. And what might come out of it if there are a lot of shortages, I haven’t seen huge concern yet from the FDA on that front. But I think that it’s something that just keeps happening. It’s not letting up. And, you know, my colleagues did a really good story yesterday. There’s a shortage of a certain type of penicillin you give to pregnant people who have syphilis. If you pass syphilis on to your baby, the baby can die or be born with a lot of issues — it’s not like if an adult gets syphilis — and they’re having to ration it, and adults aren’t getting treated fully for syphilis because the babies need it more so, and so this is like a steady march that just keeps going on. And there’s so many issues with the industry, sort of how it’s set up, what Sarah was talking about, that we haven’t seen anybody really be able to touch yet.

Rovner: We will continue to stay on top of it, even if nobody else does. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with KFF’s Céline Gounder, and then we will come back and do our extra credit. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Dr. Céline Gounder, KFF senior fellow and editor-at-large for public health, as well as an infectious disease specialist and epidemiologist in New York and elsewhere. Céline is here today to tell us about the second season of her podcast, “Epidemic,” which tells the story of the successful effort to eradicate smallpox and explores whether public health can accomplish such big things ever again. Céline, thank you for joining us.

Céline Gounder: It’s great to be here, Julie.

Rovner: So how did you learn about the last steps in the journey to end smallpox, and why did you think this was a story worth telling broadly now?

Gounder: Well, this is something I actually studied back when I was in college in the ’90s, and I did my senior thesis in college on polio eradication, and this was in the late ’90s, and we have yet to eradicate polio, which goes to show you how difficult it is to eradicate an infectious disease. And in the course of doing that research, I was an intern at the World Health Organization for a summer and then continued to do research on it during my senior year. I also learned a lot about smallpox eradication. I got to meet a lot of the old leaders of that effort, folks like D.A. Henderson and Ciro de Quadros. And fast-forward to the present day: I think coming out of covid we’re unfortunately not learning what at least I think are the lessons of that pandemic. And I think sometimes it’s easier to go back in time in history, and that helps to depoliticize things, when people’s emotions are not running as high about a particular topic. And my thought was to go back and look at smallpox: What are the lessons from that effort, a successful effort, and also to make sure to get that history while we still have some of those leaders with us today.

Rovner: Yes, you’re singing my song here. I noticed the first episode is called “The Goddess of Smallpox.” Is there really a goddess of smallpox?

Gounder: There is: Shitala Mata. And the point of this episode was really twofold. One was to communicate the importance of understanding local culture and beliefs, not to dismiss these as superstitions, but really as ways of adapting to what was, in this case, a very centuries-long reality of living with smallpox. And the way people thought about it was that in some ways it was a curse, but in some ways it was also a blessing. And understanding that dichotomy is also important, whether it’s with smallpox or other infectious diseases. It’s important to understand that when you’re trying to communicate about social and public health interventions.

Rovner: Yeah, because I think people don’t understand that public health is so unique to each place. I feel like in the last 50 years, even through HIV and other infectious diseases, the industrialized world still hasn’t learned very well how to deal with developing countries in terms of cultural sensitivity and the need for local trust. Why is this a lesson that governments keep having to relearn?

Gounder: Well, I would argue we don’t even do it well in our own country. And I think it’s because we think of health in terms of health care, not public health, in the United States. And that also implies a very biomedical approach to health issues. And I think the mindset here is very much, oh, well, once you have the biomedical tools — the vaccines, the diagnostics, the drugs — problem solved. And that’s not really solving the problem in a pandemic, where much of your challenge is really social and political and economic and cultural. And so if you don’t think about it in those terms, you’re really going to have a flat-footed response.

Rovner: So what should we have learned from the smallpox eradication effort that might have helped us deal with covid or might help us in the future deal with the next pandemic?

Gounder: Well, I think one side of this is really understanding what the local culture was, spending time with people in community to build trust. I think we came around to understanding it in part, in some ways, in some populations, in some geographies, but unfortunately, I think it was very much in the crisis and not necessarily a long-term concerted effort to do this. And that I think is concerning because we will face other epidemics and pandemics in the future. So, you know, how do you lose trust? How do you build trust? I think that’s a really key piece. Another big one is dreaming big. And Dr. Bill Foege — he was one of the leaders of smallpox eradication, went on to be the director of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] under President [Jimmy] Carter — one of the pieces of advice he’s given to me as a mentor over the years is you’ve got to be almost foolishly optimistic about getting things done, and don’t listen to the cynics and pessimists. Of course, you want to be pragmatic and understand what will or won’t work, but to take on such huge endeavors as eradicating smallpox, you do have to be very optimistic and remind yourself every day that this is something you can do if you put your mind to it.

Rovner: I noticed, at least in the first couple of episodes that I’ve listened to, the media doesn’t come out of this looking particularly good. You’re both a journalist and a medical expert. What advice do you have for journalists trying to cover big public health stories like this, like covid, like things that are really important in how you communicate this to the public?

Gounder: Well, I think one is try to be hyperlocal in at least some of your reporting. I think one mistake during the pandemic was having this very top-down perspective of “here is what the CDC says” or “here is what the FDA says” or whomever in D.C. is saying, and that doesn’t really resonate with people. They want to see their own experiences reflected in the reporting and they want to see people from their community, people they trust. And so I think that is something that we should do better at. And unfortunately, we’re also somewhat hampered in doing so because there’s been a real collapse of local journalism in most of the country. So it really does fall to places like KFF Health News, for example, to try to do some of that important reporting.

Rovner: We will all keep at it. Céline Gounder, thank you so much for joining us. You can find Season 2 of “Epidemic,” called “Eradicating Smallpox,” wherever you get your podcasts.

Gounder: Thanks, Julie.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a piece from Brenda Goodman at CNN called “They Took Blockbuster Drugs for Weight Loss and Diabetes. Now Their Stomachs Are Paralyzed,” and it’s a really good deep dive into — people probably have heard of Ozempic, Wegovy — these what are called GLP-1 drugs that have been used for diabetes. And we’ve realized in higher doses even for people without diabetes, they often are very helpful at losing weight, that that’s partially because they slow the passage of food through your stomach. And there are questions about whether for some people that is leading to stomach paralysis or other extreme side effects. And I think it’s a really interesting deep dive into the complicated world of figuring out, Is this caused by the drug? Is it caused by other conditions that people have? And then how should you counsel people about whether they should receive the drugs and the benefits outweighing the risks? So I think it’s like just a good thing for people to read when you sort of hear all this hype about a product and how great they must be, that it’s always a little bit more complicated than that. And it also brought up another aspect of it, which is how these drugs may impact people who are going to get surgery and anesthesia and just the importance of communicating this to your doctor so they know how to appropriately handle the drugs. Because if you still have food content in your stomach during a surgery, that can be extremely dangerous. And I thought just that aspect alone of this story is really interesting, because they talk about people maybe not wanting to even let their doctors know they’re on these drugs because of stigma surrounding weight loss. And just again, once you get a new medicine that might end up being taken by a lot of people, the complications or, you know, there’s the dynamics of how it impacts other parts of medicine, and we need to adjust.

Rovner: Yeah. And I think the other thing is, you know, we know these drugs are safe because people with diabetes have been taking them for, what, six or seven years. But inevitably, anytime you get a drug that lots more people take, then you start to see the outlier side effects, which, if it’s a lot of people, can affect a lot of people. Joanne.

Kenen: I have a piece from FERN, which is the Food & Environment Reporting Network and in partnership with Yale Environ 360, and it’s by Gabriel Popkin. And it’s called “Can Biden’s Climate-Smart Agriculture Program Live Up to the Hype?” And I knew nothing about smart agriculture, which is why I found this so interesting. So, this is an intersection of climate change and food, which is obviously also a factor in climate change. And there’s a lot of money from the Biden administration for farmers to use new techniques that are more green-friendly because as we all know, you know, beef and dairy, things that we thought were just good for us — maybe not beef so much — but, like, they’re really not so good for the planet we live on. So can you do things like, instead of using fertilizer, plant cover crops in the offseason? I mean, there’s a whole list of things that — none of us are farmers, but there’s also questions about are they going to work? Is it greenwashing? Is it stuff that will work but not in the time frame that this program is funding? How much of it’s going to go to big agribusiness, and how much of it is going to go to small farmers? So it’s one hand, it’s another. You know, there’s a lot of low-tech practices. We’re going to have to do absolutely everything we can on climate. We’re going to have to use a variety of — you know, very large toolkit. So it was interesting to me reading about these things that you can do that make agriculture, you know, still grow our food without hurting the planet, but also a lot of questions about, you know, is this really a solution or not? But, you know, I didn’t know anything about it. So it was a very interesting read.

Rovner: And boy, you think the drug companies are influential on Capitol Hill. Try going with big agriculture. Anna.

Edney: I’m going to toot my own horn for a second here —

Rovner: Please.

Edney: — and do one of my mini-investigations that I did, “Mineral Sunscreens Have Potential Hidden Dangers, Too.” So there’s been a lot of talk: Use mineral sunscreen to save the environment or, you know, for your own health potentially. But they’re white, they’re very thick. And, you know, people don’t want to look quite that ghostly. So what’s been happening lately is they’ve been getting better. But what I found out is a lot of that is due to a chemical — that is what people are trying to move away from, is chemical sunscreens — but the sunscreen-makers are using this chemical called butyloctyl salicylate. And you can read the article for kind of the issues with it. I guess the main one I would point out is, you know, I talked to the Environmental Working Group because they do these verifications of sunscreens based on their look at how good are they for your health, and a couple of their mineral ones had this ingredient in it. So when I asked them about it, they said, Oh, whoops; like, we do actually need to revisit this because it is a chemical that is not recommended for children under 4 to be using on their bodies. So there’s other issues with it, too — just the question of whether you’re really being reef-safe if it’s in there, and other things as well.

Rovner: It is hard to be safe and be good to the planet. My story this week is by Amy Littlefield of The Nation magazine, and it’s called “The Anti-Abortion Movement Gets a Dose of Post-Roe Reality.” It’s about her visit to the annual conference of the National Right to Life Committee, which for decades was the nation’s leading anti-abortion organization, although it’s been eclipsed by some others more recently. The story includes a couple of eye-opening observations, including that the anti-abortion movement is surprised that all those bans didn’t actually reduce the number of abortions by very much. As we know, women who are looking for abortions normally will find a way to get them, either in state or out of state or underground or whatever. And we also learned in this story that some in the movement are willing to allow rape and incest exceptions in abortion bills, which they have traditionally opposed, because they want to use those as sweeteners for bills that would make it easier to enforce bans, stronger bans, things like the idea in Texas of allowing individual citizens to use civil lawsuits and forbidding local prosecutors from declining to prosecute abortion cases. We’re seeing that in some sort of blue cities in red states. It’s a really interesting read and I really recommend it. OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe where ever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner, and I’m on Bluesky and Threads. Joanne.

Kenen: @joannekenen1 at Threads.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin or @sarah.karlinsmith, depending on which of these many social media platforms you’re looking at, though.

Rovner: Anna.

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

Rovner: You can always find us here next week where we will always be in your podcast feed. 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, Stitcher, 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.

It took more than two years, but the Biden administration has finally kept a promise made by then-candidate Joe Biden to roll back the Trump administration’s expansion of short-term, limited-duration health plans. The plans have been controversial because, while they offer lower premiums than more comprehensive health plans, they offer far fewer benefits and are not subject to the consumer protections of the Affordable Care Act.

Also this week, the FDA for the first time approved the over-the-counter sale of a hormonal birth control pill. With more states imposing restrictions on abortion, backers of the move say making it easier to prevent pregnancy is necessary now more than ever.

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post

@goldsteinamy

Read Amy's Stories

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA’s much-anticipated approval of the first over-the-counter hormonal birth control pill followed the advice of its outside advisory committee. The pill, Opill, will be available on shelves without age restrictions.
• The Biden administration announced moves to limit so-called junk plans on insurance marketplaces. The Trump administration had dropped many restrictions on the plans, which were originally intended to be used for short-term coverage gaps.
• As the nation continues to settle into a post-Dobbs patchwork of abortion laws, the Iowa Legislature approved a six-week ban on the procedure. And an Idaho law offers a key test of cross-border policing of abortion seekers, as other states watch how it unfolds.
• In other news, Georgia’s Medicaid work requirements took effect July 1, implementing new restrictions on who is eligible for the state-federal program for people with low incomes or disabilities. And the Supreme Court’s decision on affirmative action has the potential to shape the health care workforce, which research shows could have implications for the quality of patient care and health outcomes.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient who lacked a permanent mailing address and never got the hospital bills from an emergency surgery — but did receive a summons after she was sued for the debt. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want 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: KFF Health News’ “Doctor Lands in the Doghouse After Giving Covid Vaccine Waivers Too Freely,” by Brett Kelman.  

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “How Often Do Health Insurers Say No to Patients? No One Knows,” by Robin Fields, and Stat’s “How UnitedHealth’s Acquisition of a Popular Medicare Advantage Algorithm Sparked Internal Dissent Over Denied Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.  

Amy Goldstein: The New York Times’ “Medicare Advantage Plans Offer Few Psychiatrists,” by Reed Abelson.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “America Is Wrapped in Miles of Toxic Lead Cables,” by Susan Pulliam, Shalini Ramachandran, John West, Coulter Jones, and Thomas Gryta.  

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat’s “How One Medical School Became Remarkably Diverse — Without Considering Race in Admissions,” by Usha Lee McFarling.
• The New York Times’ “With End of Affirmative Action, a Push for a New Tool: Adversity Scores, by Stephanie Saul.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Long Road to Reining In Short-Term Plans 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Long Road to Reining In Short-Term PlansEpisode Number: 305Published: July 13, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, 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 13, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post.

Goldstein: Good to be with you.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” The hospital that provided care to this month’s patient couldn’t find her to send her a bill, but the debt collectors sure could. But first, this week’s news. Actually, it’s more like the last month’s news because we actually haven’t talked about news in a while. So we’re going to try to hit a bunch of items in sort of a lightning round. Let’s start with something we knew was coming. We just didn’t know exactly when. Last week, the Biden administration finally cracked down on short-term health plans. Those are the ones that are not subject to the strict rules of the Affordable Care Act. Amy, you wrote about this. What are short-term plans, and why have they been so controversial?

Goldstein: Well, short-term plans — they’re called short-term limited-duration plans, and really terrible argot, but that’s their name. They’ve been around as an alternative to plans that are meeting the rules of the Affordable Care Act. They were originally designed for people to use as small bridges between, say, when they lost a job and they were about to get a new job and they needed something in the interim to provide health coverage. Republicans, during the time that they were trying very hard several years ago to get rid of as much as the Affordable Care Act as they could — they didn’t succeed at a lot of that, but they did succeed during the Trump administration at lengthening the time that people could have these plans. So they extended them from what had been a three-month maximum during the latter part of the [Barack] Obama administration to 12 months, and then they were renewable for up to three years. And Democrats began calling these “junk plans,” saying that people didn’t exactly know what they were buying, that the premiums were low but the benefits were small and if people got sick and really needed a lot of care they could be stuck paying for a lot of it on their own.

Rovner: And these were the very plans that the ACA was kind of designed to get rid of, right, where people would say, I have this great health plan, it only costs me $50 a month — but by the way, it only provides $500 worth of care.

Goldstein: Well, there’s that. And the other thing that the ACA was designed to do is treat people with preexisting conditions equally. And these plans do not have to do that. Some do, but they’re not required to. So President [Joe] Biden, since he was candidate Biden running for the 2020 election, has been saying for quite a while that he was going to knock down the duration of these plans, and some of his fellow Democrats have been leaning on him: “Why haven’t you done it yet?” And last week, he finally did. He didn’t bring it exactly to where the Obama administration had it, but he brought them down to three months with a one-month extension, so a total of four months.

Rovner: And I guess the resistance here is that they’re still kind of popular, right, for people who think they would rather pay very low premiums for very few benefits?

Goldstein: Well, the catch is that we don’t really know how popular they are because there aren’t very reliable data on how many people have these. But the presumption is that some people like them.

Rovner: All right, well we will see what happens with this time they’re trying to crack down. Let us move on to abortion and reproductive rights. We will start with the breaking news. The Food and Drug Administration just this morning approved Opill, which is the first over-the-counter birth control pill. Alice, we’ve known this was coming, right?

Ollstein: Yes, we did. We thought it would be a little later in the summer. But the decision itself reflects what the FDA’s outside advisory panel strongly recommended, which is to make these pills available over the counter without a prescription and without an age restriction, which was one looming question over this process.

Rovner: Yeah, I guess, Rachel, I mean, the issue here has been can women be trusted enough to know when they shouldn’t take birth control pills because they are contraindicated for some people?

Rachel Cohrs: Right. And I think that certainly it’s important to read through the information. There’s a question as to whether women will do that. And one part of the release that stood out to me is that the specific type of pill that this is requires women to take it around the same time every day, which is not necessarily the case for all birth control pills. And I think there’s a little bit more flexibility than there used to be with this kind of pill. But it is just important that all of this communication happens. And if there’s not a doctor or pharmacist in the middle, I think it will be kind of interesting to see how this plays out in the real world.

Rovner: Well, while this could definitely help people prevent pregnancy who don’t want to get pregnant, there’s certainly a lot of action still in the states around abortion. We’re going to start in Iowa, which since the last time we spoke has done basically a 360 on abortion. Last month, the state Supreme Court deadlocked on whether to reinstate a 2018 ban on almost all abortions. That left a lower court order blocking the ban intact, so abortion remained legal in Iowa. But anti-abortion Gov. Kim Reynolds refused to take no for an answer. She called a special session of the state legislature, which on Tuesday essentially repassed the 2018 ban. It’s supposed to take effect as soon as the governor signs it, which could be as soon as Friday. But first it goes back to court, right, Alice?

Ollstein: Right. As with all of these things, there’s just a lot of back-and-forth before it’s final. Groups have already filed a lawsuit. And, you know, because the courts’ sort of mixed treatment of the previous version of this, we sort of don’t know what’s going to happen. But the law could go into effect and then be blocked by courts later or it could be blocked before it goes into effect. There’s a lot of different ways this could go, but this is one of several states where new restrictions are coming online. We’re more than a year out from the Dobbs decision now, and things are not settled at all. Things are still flipping back and forth in different states.

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of states where old restrictions came into effect and then were blocked and now they’re putting new restrictions and they might be blocked. Well, turning to another “I” state, this time Idaho, where the legislature this spring passed a first-in-the-nation bill attempting to criminalize the act of helping a minor cross state lines for an abortion, even if the abortion is legal in the state the minor travels to. Now, abortion rights supporters have filed a first-in-the-nation lawsuit to block the first-in-the-nation law. This could have really big ramifications. This is different from a lot of what’s going on in a lot of the other states, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Over the last year, there’s been a lot of fear on the left of states reaching across their borders to try to police abortion. And it hasn’t really happened yet that we have seen. And so this, I think, is a key test of whether more states will attempt to go in this direction. You know, a lot of blue states passed sort of shield laws for patients, for providers, for data, out of fear that more red states would attempt more cross-border policing. But that really hasn’t materialized broadly yet.

Rovner: I remember Missouri was the one that was talking about it, right, to make it a crime if —

Ollstein: Right.

Rovner: I know they didn’t do it, but they were talking about if women went particularly to Illinois, which is now one of these abortion havens, and came back, they would try to prosecute them, although that never really came to be.

Ollstein: Exactly. And so it’s interesting that even really conservative states with big Republican majorities, most have not gone down this road yet. And so I imagine a lot of them are watching how this case goes.

Rovner: Well, as long as we’re talking about states that start with “I,” let’s turn to Indiana, where Planned Parenthood reports that all of their appointments for abortions are taken between now and when that state’s near-total ban takes effect in a few weeks. This points out something I think often gets missed in these sort of score card maps of states that have bans and restrictions, which is there’s a lot of states where abortion is technically still legal but realistically not available, right?

Ollstein: The difference between being technically legal and available is nothing new. This was true prior to Dobbs as well. There were lots of states that only had one abortion clinic for the entire state. There were, like, six of those. And so, you know, you may have the right to have the procedure on paper, but if there’s only one place you could go and you’re not able to physically get there or they don’t have an appointment within the time window you need, you’re out of luck; that right isn’t, you know, meaningful for you. And so that’s becoming, you know, more true as abortion access is eliminated in a lot of the country and more and more people are depending on fewer and fewer states.

Rovner: And fewer and fewer clinics in fewer and fewer states. Well, finally, an update on the one-man nomination blockade by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who we talked about in March. He has stopped approval of basically all Defense Department personnel moves, including routine promotions, in protest of the Biden administration’s policy of providing leave and travel expenses for servicewomen to get abortions if they’re stationed in states where it’s illegal. Now, for the first time in more than 150 years, the Marine Corps has no approved commandant. Any idea which side’s going to back down here? Rachel, this is backing up the entire legislative calendar in the Senate, right?

Cohrs: It is. And I think some of the coverage this week has highlighted just how there hasn’t really been a willingness among Republican leadership to really put the pressure on Tuberville. But honestly, I don’t know when this stops for him. Having temporary leadership in all these positions isn’t kind of the impetus for him to say that he’s made his point. And I think there are also questions about — there may be more education required about exactly what the difference is between a temporary leader and a permanently installed leader. Obviously, the decisions that they’re making every day are life-and-death and are different than the leadership positions we see over at something like the NIH [National Institutes of Health], where, you know, I think it is —

Rovner: Which is also held up. But that’s another story.

Cohrs: Right, another story. But I just don’t see where this ends quite yet, unless there’s some will from Republican leadership to really bring him in line. And they just haven’t summoned that yet.

Rovner: I imagine there’ll be a vote on this when they get to the defense bill, right, which —the defense authorization, which is going to come up, I think, in both houses in the coming weeks. I mean, one would think that if there’s a vote and he loses, he might back down. I’m just guessing here. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens with that. All right. Well, it’s also been a busy couple of weeks in other social policy. On the one hand, a new federal law took effect that makes it easier for people to get accommodations to be able to do their jobs while pregnant. And Maine is going to start offering paid family and parental leave, although not until 2026. That makes it the 13th state to enact such a policy. On the other hand, Georgia is the first state to implement work requirements for Medicaid. Amy, the last time we discussed this, federal judges had tossed out Medicaid work requirements and Republicans in Congress were unsuccessful in getting those requirements back into the debt ceiling compromise. So how come Georgia gets to do this?

Goldstein: Well, I’ve begun to think of Medicaid work requirements as whack-a-mole, if you remember the arcade game in which you knock down an animal with a mallet only to have it pop up unexpectedly somewhere else. So, as you say, work requirements was something that Republicans were very eager to institute in 2017, 2018, when the Trump administration’s Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services encouraged states to adopt them. And there were basically plans to give people Medicaid at the time, mainly people in Medicaid expansion groups, if they worked or went to school or did community service for at least 80 hours a month. As you say, that was knocked down both by a district court and then a federal circuit court. And it looked like that was that, particularly when the Biden administration came along and undid the Trump administration’s regulation that had allowed states to submit proposals, the waivers for these kinds of plans. Well, lo and behold, Georgia said they wanted to do this. They said they wanted to do it in a little bit different way, because, for the first time ever, Georgia was going to be a partial expansion state for Medicaid, allowing people to get onto Medicaid if they had incomes up to the poverty level but not up to the full expansion poverty level that the ACA allows. And the Biden administration didn’t like that so much. And that partial expansion was to be twinned with work requirements. The Biden administration didn’t —

Rovner: For that expansion group, though, right? Not for everybody.

Goldstein: Just for that partial expansion group. The Biden administration didn’t like that so much. But last summer, a judge in Georgia said, no, she thinks this is OK. And the reason was that, unlike the other states, if this was pegged to a partial expansion, any expansion with work requirements would increase the number of people with Medicaid. So that was sort of in her judge judgment — I shouldn’t say the judge’s judgment — consistent with the purposes of the program. So Georgia has gone ahead, and the beginning of this month they allowed people to start enrolling in something called Georgia Pathways to Coverage. And we’ll have to see how it goes.

Rovner: Yeah. And just to be clear, I mean, Alice, you did some stellar work back a couple of years ago about Arkansas, about people losing coverage because of the work requirements, even if they were working, just because of how hard it was to report the work hours, right?

Ollstein: Absolutely. I mean, it’s kind of what we’re seeing now with the Medicaid unwinding, is that, you know, people just aren’t able to know what’s going on, aren’t able to be reached, fall through the cracks, can’t navigate the bureaucracy, and lose coverage that they should be entitled to. So we saw that happen, and I think to Amy’s point, the administration seems to be taking a very different stance on states like Arkansas, you know, which already had expanded Medicaid and then went to impose a work requirement, whereas Georgia didn’t have it before and this is kind of a compromise because it’s like, well, more people will be insured if we allow this to go forward total, you know, so maybe it’s better than nothing, although a lot of folks on the left are very opposed to the concept of work requirements, citing data that the people who are on Medicaid who can work are already working — the vast, vast, vast majority. And those who are not working, either they are caring for a child or someone with disability, or they themselves have a disability, or they’re a student. You know, there’s all these categories of why folks are unable to work.

Rovner: But in this expansion group, one would assume that if they’re earning up to the federal poverty line, they have some source of income. So one would assume that many of them are working. But I think it’ll be really interesting for researchers to watch to see, you know, a sort of a proof of concept in either direction with this.

Goldstein: And let me quickly mention a couple of things. Georgia’s rules are actually in some ways the same as what other states had tried to do previously. But in other ways, this is the strictest set of work requirements that anyone has tried in a couple of ways: People have to meet these work requirements up to age 64, which is older than other states had done for the most part. There’s also no exemption if you’re taking care of a child or taking care of an older family member. So how well people, in addition to the bureaucratic hoops that Alice was talking about, which are of grave concern to some of the people who oppose this in Georgia — there’s also a question of who’s going to actually be able to qualify for this.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of court decisions, one of the odd court decisions that I think has happened over the past few weeks is a federal district court decision out of Louisiana barring many officials in the Biden administration, including the surgeon general and the head of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], from talking to social media sites, particularly about things like medical misinformation. This feels like something I had not seen before in terms of actually trying to ban the administration from talking to private companies based on First Amendment concerns, which is what this is.

Cohrs: Right. Well, I mean, the First Amendment protects speech from interference from the government —

Rovner: Right

Cohrs: — which has always been, you know, this gray area with these independent platforms. And I think this issue, you know, has obviously become highly politicized. It came up several times when Rochelle Walensky, the former CDC director, was testifying on the Hill. So I think certainly we’ve seen this trend overall in these highly political court decisions and this strategy that certain litigants are taking where they’re trying to find defendants in a certain jurisdiction that’s going to be advantageous to them. So it will certainly be interesting to see how this plays out in the future and makes its way through the court system, but certainly is an eye-popping precedent. Like you mentioned, we don’t usually see something like this.

Rovner: And I wanted to mention, I think also because this is yet another of these judges that the right has found that are likely to agree with them. Like we’ve seen now: The judges in Texas, we now have one in Louisiana. Sort of kind of watch that docket. While we are still on the subject of courts, 2023 was the first year in the last decade or so that there was not a major health-related decision in the last big cases decided by the Supreme Court. But it seems like one of those non-health cases, the one essentially striking down affirmative action, might have some major implications for health care after all, particularly for medical education, right?

Cohrs: Yes. Some of my colleagues did some I think great follow-up reporting on this. And I think the idea is that there has been research that has shown that when patients are able to see a doctor of their same racial background, that it does have positive implications for their care. And there has also been studies of schools where there have been bans on race-conscious admissions showing that there is a decrease in medical school students from underrepresented backgrounds traditionally. And so I think that cause and effect is concerning for people, that if there are fewer medical students — there already aren’t a representative amount — from underrepresented groups, that could trickle down to, again, just exacerbating so many of these inequities that we see in health care provision. I know there was just a big study on the maternal mortality outcomes that came out recently as well. And I think all of these things are tied together. And I think Axios reported on one interesting potential loophole, was using proxy measures, like where someone went to school or their parents’ background, something like that, to try to ensure diversity from that lens. But I think it certainly is going to make these medical schools recalculate how they’re doing admissions and make some hard choices about how to maintain diversity that can be beneficial for patients.

Rovner: One thing that I think has come up in all of these discussions is the fact that the University of California-Davis has done an interesting job of creating a very diverse medical school class, even though race-conscious admissions have been banned in California for years. So I think a lot of schools are going to be looking sort of to see what UC Davis has done and perhaps emulate that. And I will put one of the UC Davis stories in the show notes for everybody. All right. Finally in this week’s news, the drug industry has filed a lawsuit challenging the Medicare drug price negotiation program that’s just now starting to get off the ground. Rachel, you wrote about this. How does pharma think it can block price-setting for Medicare that Medicare does for pretty much everything else that Medicare pays for? They set prices for hospitals and doctors and medical equipment. Why are drugmakers thinking that they’re special?

Cohrs: Right. So, again, this is four lawsuits as well, not just one: two from two trade groups and two drugmakers. And they’re each kind of using different arguments. But I think the big picture here is if the government called it price-setting, I don’t think pharma would have as much of an argument, but they’re calling it a negotiation. And I think one of the drugmakers’ key claims is that by signing these contracts to enter into this process, they’re tacitly admitting that this price that they come up with in this process is, quote-unquote, “fair.” And, you know, they don’t want to agree to that because then it makes the price that they’re charging everyone else look unfair on the other side of the coin. And I think there’s also these really high penalties for these companies who decide not to participate; I mean, tens of millions of dollars on the first day is the kind of number that we’re seeing for some of these companies that have filed lawsuits. And I think there’s also the option for them to take all of their drugs off of the market. But I think there’s a question with the timeline of whether they could have even done that before the law was passed. So the big picture from the drugmaker side of things is that the penalties are so high for them not to participate and that the government is framing this as a negotiation when it really is just price-setting, like Medicare does in so many other areas. So I think one interesting development that happened this week was that the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which could make all of these lawsuits move much faster and really put a stop to the program. We hadn’t seen either of these lawsuits request a motion like that. And I think they requested a ruling by Oct. 1, which is when the first kind of round of 10 drugmakers would have had to sign their contracts with Medicare. So I think this certainly is picking up speed and urgency as we’re moving toward that Sept. 1 selection date.

Rovner: I didn’t even notice. Are these lawsuits all filed here in Washington, D.C., or —

Cohrs: No, they are not. As we’ve seen, the drugmakers are very strategic in where they filed. I think Merck did file in D.C., but the chamber filed in Ohio; it had some of their local chapters join in as well. I think we saw another company file in New Jersey. So I think they are kind of hedging their bets and trying to get rulings from as many different jurisdictions as they can.

Rovner: Find a judge who’s willing to slap an injunction on this whole thing.

Cohrs: Yes.

Rovner: Which we will talk about when and if it happens. All right. That is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time to get to. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Bram Sable-Smith, and then we will be back with our extra credits. We are pleased to welcome back to the podcast Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Bram, so nice to see you again.

Bram Sable-Smith: Always a pleasure to be here.

Rovner: So, this month’s patient was, like a lot of young people, an uninsured 23-year-old when she ended up in the emergency room. Tell us who she is and what kind of medical care she needed and got.

Sable-Smith: Yeah, that’s right. Her name was Bethany Birch. And, in addition to being uninsured, she was also unemployed at the time, and she had had pain in her diaphragm for eight months. It prevented her from eating. She lost about 25 pounds in that time. And when she went to the emergency room, she found out she needed her gallbladder removed.

Rovner: And got it, right?

Sable-Smith: And got it. Yeah, she got that surgery almost immediately. Because she hadn’t been eating food — her food resistance — it meant she could get in for surgery right away.

Rovner: And that cured her? Yes?

Sable-Smith: It did cure her. Yes, she felt a lot better.

Rovner: So now we’re talking about the bill. The hospital tried to send her the bill, but apparently it couldn’t find her. Is this a common thing, and why couldn’t they find her? One presumes she gave them an address when she presented at the emergency room.

Sable-Smith: She did give them an address, but by the time she was discharged, she had lost her housing. Her home situation was unstable. So just that brief visit to the hospital, by the time she left, she had no more house to live in. And she did end up crashing with her family for several months. And, eventually, she did update her address with the post office. But by the time she had done that, it was after the hospital had sent the three bills to her for her visit.

Rovner: So the hospital doesn’t get any response, and they do what we know hospitals do. They sued for nonpayment. And the debt collection firm did manage to find her. So then what happened?

Sable-Smith: Well, she went to court, and like so many people who end up in court with medical debt, she did not have a lawyer representing her. She met with a representative from the debt collection firm, and she worked out a payment plan to pay her bill, plus court costs, in $100 monthly installments. But at the time, Tennessee had a default interest rate on judgments like the one that Bethany had of 7%. So the judge tacked on a 7% interest rate to her bill.

Rovner: So, yeah, and that was presumably a lot for her to carry. What finally happened with the bill?

Sable-Smith: Well, she paid her $100 monthly payments for over four years. It totaled about $5,200 she paid in that time. But at the same time, the interest rate was accruing. And so she owed an additional $2,700 on top of the initial bill that she had gotten. From her perspective, it was just impossible. She wasn’t digging out of this debt. So she started getting help from a family friend, who’s a billing expert, who took on her case. They asked the hospital and the debt collection firm to settle her debt because she had already paid so much. But they were unsuccessful in doing so. They sent their bill to us. We started reporting the story. Then they asked again to settle her debt by paying an additional $100 on top of what she had already paid. And this time they agreed. And so she settled her debt and she got a balance-zero statement.

Rovner: Amazing how just one phone call from us can do some work. Now, as somebody who is unemployed and, as you pointed out, uninsured at the time she got the care, Bethany should have been eligible for the hospital’s financial assistance policy. Why didn’t she get help before the debt ballooned with court costs and all that interest?

Sable-Smith: Well, the simple answer is that she never applied. But, as we know, it’s much more complicated than that. So given her status as single, uninsured, unemployed, it’s very possible that she would have qualified for financial help, maybe even for free care altogether. But the onus was on her as a patient to apply. And we know her situation was unstable. You know, she went through a period of homelessness. She didn’t have a lot of expendable money at the time. It’s a long process to apply for these programs. There’s a lot of forms. It can be cumbersome. And that prevents a lot of people from applying to these programs. So advocates push for something called presumptive eligibility, where the hospital takes the onus of applying away from patients and they automatically put them through the process. And this hospital that Bethany went to, they actually have switched to that presumptive eligibility model, just not in time to help her case.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I guess everybody has to be a proactive patient, not just with your medical care, but especially with your bills. What happens to a patient who finds themselves in a similar situation?

Sable-Smith: Well, you know, from a consumer standpoint like that, one takeaway is to ask for financial help. A lot more people qualify than you might think. You might not think you qualify, but it’s very possible you could. And then from a policy perspective, hospitals switching to presumptive eligibility — that’s something that they’re able to do. And also, some states have pushed to ban or even limit interest payments on this kind of medical debt. So that’s something that other people are considering as well.

Rovner: Or you can write to us, and we will show you how in our show notes.

Sable-Smith: That’s always a possibility, too.

Rovner: Bram Sable-Smith, thank you so much.

Sable-Smith: Yeah, thanks for having me.

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and 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?

Cohrs: OK, I’m cheating a little bit and I’m doing a double feature. So the first story for my extra credit is headlined “How Often Do Health Insurers Say No to Patients? No One Knows.” It’s in ProPublica by Robin Fields, and I think it’s just a great feature on the idea that Obamacare entitled the government and patients to more information about how often insurers deny care to patients. And the government hasn’t really pursued that information. And even, like, state health insurance commissions aren’t providing the information they’re collecting. And Robin just had such a difficult time getting any sort of information from anyone, even though we’re legally entitled to it. So I thought that was just kind of a great highlight of this next area of criticism of the health insurance industry, which, and I think that —

Rovner: I would say, all this focus on premiums and not as much focus on what you actually get for those premiums.

Cohrs: Exactly. So true. I think there’ve been some high-profile examples, great reporting. And I thought that meshed well with some reporting from my colleagues Casey Ross and Bob Herman, who wrote a follow-up to some of their prior reporting titled “How UnitedHealth’s Acquisition of a Popular Medicare Advantage Algorithm Sparked Internal Dissent Over Denied Care.” Again, looking at how algorithms in this one privatized Medicare program, which is growing in size and enrollment across the country, was actually overruling clinicians’ decisions about how long patients should be receiving care in facilities. And if the algorithm says they should be done, then they’re done. And I think it definitely sparked some concerns from people in the company who were willing to speak to them just because they were so concerned about this trend.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: I have a very impressive investigation from The Wall Street Journal. There are five bylines, and we will post the link. This is about lead-covered telecom cables owned by AT&T, Verizon, other companies that have been left to decay and leach into the environment all around the country. This documents how the companies knew about them but have not moved to clean them up and get rid of them. They are impacting water sources. They are near playgrounds where children are, and it goes into the very disturbing health impacts of lead exposure. This is something the country has made a lot of progress on when it comes to paint and other sources, but obviously we still have a long way to go.

Rovner: Yeah, because there’s not enough things to be worried about environmentally, here is something else. It is very good reporting.

Rovner: Amy.

Goldstein: My extra credit this week is from The New York Times, by Reed Abelson, with the headline “Medicare Advantage Plans Offer Few Psychiatrists.” And this isn’t a giant story, but I think it is at the nexus of two very important questions: one, the long-standing question of whether privatized Medicare is better or worse for people who are older Americans on Medicare than the traditional version of Medicare; and the question of are people getting enough access to mental health care? And I guess what struck me is that there’s been so much attention lately to the question of access to mental health services for younger Americans, and this looked at the question of access to mental health services for older Americans. And what this story, based on a study, talks about is that the study found that more than half of the counties, the researchers who did this study found, is that those counties did not have a single psychiatrist participating in Medicare Advantage and that a lot of these plans have what’s called “narrow” or “skinny” networks, where a very small fraction of the available psychiatrists in a community were in that plan’s network. Now, [there are] people who are criticizing that study saying, well, you can’t look at just psychiatrists; there are other people who provide competent mental health care. But I think it just raises the question of who is getting what they need.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, my story this week is also about just plain good reporting. It’s called “Doctor Lands in the Doghouse After Giving Covid Vaccine Waivers Too Freely.” It’s by Brett Kelman of KFF Health News. But it’s about some old-fashioned reporting by another outlet, Nashville’s NewsChannel 5. It seemed that during the height of the covid vaccine rollout, when lots of places were requiring proof of vaccines and lots of people didn’t want to get them, the doctor in question, named Robert Coble, was providing waivers through a website without much —OK, any — oversight. How did they prove it? By obtaining a waiver for a reporter’s black Labrador retriever, Charlie. Earlier this spring, Coble quietly surrendered his medical license to the state Department of Health. Journalism works. OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still tweet me. I’m @jrovner. I’m on Threads too, @julie.rovner.

Rovner: Amy.

Goldstein: I’m @goldsteinamy.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on Twitter and @rachelcohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

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, Stitcher, 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.

A final deal cut between President Joe Biden and House Republicans extends the U.S. debt ceiling deadline to 2025 and reins in some spending. The bill signed into law by the president will preserve many programs at their current funding levels, and Democrats were able to prevent any changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Still, millions of Americans are likely to lose their Medicaid coverage this year as states are once again allowed to redetermine who is eligible and who is not; Medicaid rolls were frozen for three years due to the pandemic. Data from states that have begun to disenroll people suggests that the vast majority of those losing insurance are not those who are no longer eligible, but instead people who failed to complete required paperwork — if they received it in the first place.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, and Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers and White House officials spared health programs from substantial spending cuts in a last-minute agreement to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. And Biden named Mandy Cohen, a former North Carolina health director who worked in the Obama administration, to be the next director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though she lacks academic credentials in infectious diseases, Cohen enters the job with a reputation as someone who can listen and be listened to by both Democrats and Republicans.
• The removal of many Americans from the Medicaid program, post-public health emergency, is going as expected: With hundreds of thousands already stripped from the rolls, most have been deemed ineligible not because they don’t meet the criteria, but because they failed to file the proper paperwork in time. Nearly 95 million people were on Medicaid before the unwinding began.
• Eastern and now southern parts of the United States are experiencing hazardous air quality conditions as wildfire smoke drifts from Canada, raising the urgency surrounding conversations about the health effects of climate change.
• The drugmaker Merck & Co. sued the federal government this week, challenging its ability to press drugmakers into negotiations over what Medicare will pay for some of the most expensive drugs. Experts predict Merck’s coercion argument could fall flat because drugmakers voluntarily choose to participate in Medicare, though it is unlikely this will be the last lawsuit over the issue.
• In abortion news, some doctors are pushing back against the Indiana medical board’s decision to reprimand and fine an OB-GYN who spoke out about providing an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. The doctors argue the decision could set a bad precedent and suppress doctors’ efforts to communicate with the public about health issues.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News senior correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble, who reported the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient with Swiss health insurance who experienced the sticker shock of the U.S. health care system after an emergency appendectomy. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want 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 New York Times’ “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt,” by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg.

Jessie Hellmann: MLive’s “During the Darkest Days of COVID, Some Michigan Hospitals Made 100s of Millions,” by Matthew Miller and Danielle Salisbury.

Joanne Kenen: Politico Magazine’s “Can Hospitals Turn Into Climate Change Fighting Machines?” by Joanne Kenen.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Smoke Brings a Warning: There’s No Escaping Climate’s Threat to Health,” by Dan Diamond, Joshua Partlow, Brady Dennis, and Emmanuel Felton.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

KFF Health News’ “As Medicaid Purge Begins, ‘Staggering Numbers’ of Americans Lose Coverage,” by Hannah Recht.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Debt Deal Leaves Health Programs (Mostly) Intact

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Debt Deal Leaves Health Programs (Mostly) IntactEpisode Number: 301Published: June 8, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

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. We are taping this week from the smoky, hazy, “code purple” Washington, D.C., area on Thursday, June 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Lauren Weber, of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hi.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann, of CQ Roll Call.

Hellmann: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’s Sarah Jane Tribble about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month is about the sticker shock of the American health care system experienced by residents of other countries. Before we get to this week’s news, I hope you all enjoyed our special panel of big health policy thinkers for our 300th episode. If you didn’t listen, you might want to go back and do that at some point. Also, that means we have two weeks of news to catch up on, so let us get to it. We’re going to start this week, I hope, for the last time with the fight over the debt ceiling. Despite lots of doubts, President Biden managed to strike a budget deal with House Republicans, which fairly promptly passed the House and Senate and was signed into law a whole two days before the Treasury Department had warned that the U.S. might default. The final package extends the debt ceiling until January 1, 2025, so after the next election, which was a big win for the Democrats, who don’t want to do this exercise again anytime soon. In exchange, Republicans got some budget savings, but nothing like the dramatic bill that House Republicans passed earlier this spring. So, Jessie, what would it do to health programs?

Hellmann: The deal cuts spending by 1.5 trillion over 10 years. It has caps on nondefense discretionary funding. That would have a big impact on agencies and programs like the NIH [National Institutes of Health], which has been accustomed to getting pretty large increases over the years. So nondefense discretionary spending will be limited to about 704 billion next fiscal year, which is a cut of about 5%. And then there’s going to be a 1% increase in fiscal 2025, which, when you consider inflation, probably isn’t much of an increase at all. So the next steps are seeing what the appropriators do. They’re going to have to find a balance between what programs get increases, which ones get flat funding — it’s probably going to be a lot of flat funding, and we’re probably at the end of an era for now with these large increases for NIH and other programs, which have traditionally been very bipartisan, but it’s just a different climate right now.

Rovner: And just to be clear, I mean, this agreement doesn’t actually touch the big sources of federal health spending, which are Medicare and Medicaid, not even any work requirements that the Republicans really wanted for Medicaid. In some ways, the Democrats who wanted to protect health spending got off pretty easy, or easier than I imagine they expected they would, right?

Hellmann: Advocates would say it could have been much worse. All things considered, when you look at the current climate and what some of the more conservative members of the House were initially asking for, this is a win for Democrats and for people who wanted to protect health care spending, especially the entitlements, because they — Republicans did want Medicaid work requirements and those just did not end up in the bill; they were a nonstarter. So, kind of health-care-related, depending on how you look at it, there was an increase in work requirements for SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], which is, like, a food assistance program. So that will be extended to age 55, though they did include more exemptions for people who are veterans —

Rovner: Yeah, overall, that may be a wash, right? There may be the same or fewer people who are subject to work requirements.

Hellmann: Yeah. And all those changes would end in 2030, so —

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I mean, if we think about this — we’re coming out of a pandemic and we’re not exactly investing in the health system — I think it’s necessary to have that kind of step-back context. And we’ve seen this before. You know, it’s the boom-bust cycle of pandemic preparedness funding, except accelerated to some extent. I mean, from what I understand, the debt deal also clawed back some of the public health spending that they were expecting in the billions of dollars. And I think the long-term ramifications of that remain to be seen. But we could all be writing about that in 10 years again when we’re looking at ways that funding fell short in preparedness.

Rovner: Yeah, Joanne and I will remember that. Yeah, going back to 2001. Yeah. Is that what you were about to say?

Kenen: I mean, this happens all the time.

Weber: All the time, right.

Kenen: And we learn lessons. I mean, the pandemic was the most vivid lesson, but we have learned lessons in the past. After anthrax, they spent more money, and then they cut it back again. I mean, I remember in 2008, 2009, there was a big fiscal battle — I don’t remember which battle it was — you know, Susan Collins being, you know, one of the key moderates to cut the deal. You know, what she wanted was to get rid of the pandemic flu funding. And then a year later, we had H1N1, which turned out not to be as bad as it could have been for a whole variety of reasons. But it’s a cliche: Public health, when it works, you don’t see it and therefore people think you don’t need it. Put that — put the politics of what’s happened to public health over the last three years on top of that, and, you know, public health is always going to have to struggle for funds. Public health and larger preparedness is always going to happen to have to struggle for funds. And it would have, whether it was the normal appropriations process this year, which is still to come, or the debt ceiling. It is a lesson we do not learn the hard way.

Weber: That’s exactly right. I’ll never forget that Tom Harkin said to me that after Obama cut, he sacrificed a bunch of prevention funding for the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] in the ACA [Affordable Care Act] deal, and he never spoke to him again, he told me, because he was so upset because he felt like those billions of dollars could have made a difference. And who knows if 10 years from now we’ll all be talking about this pivotal moment once more.

Rovner: Yeah, Tom Harkin, the now-former senator from Iowa, who put a lot of prevention into the ACA; that was the one thing he really worked hard to do. And he got it in. And as you point out, and it was almost immediately taken back out.

Weber: Yeah.

Kenen: Not all of it.

Weber: Not all of it, but a lot of it.

Kenen: It wasn’t zero.

Rovner: It became a piggy bank for other things. I do want to talk about the NIH for a minute, though, because Jessie, as you mentioned, there isn’t going to be a lot of extra money, and NIH is used to — over the last 30 years — being a bipartisan darling for spending. Well, now it seems like Congress, particularly some of the Republicans, are not so happy with the NIH, particularly the way it handled covid. There’s a new NIH director who has been nominated, Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, who is currently the head of the National Cancer Institute. This could be a rocky summer for the NIH on Capitol Hill, couldn’t it?

Hellmann: Yeah, I think there’s been a strong desire for Republicans to do a lot of oversight. They’ve been looking at the CDC. I think they’re probably going to be looking at the NIH next. Francis Collins is no longer at NIH. Anthony Fauci is no longer there. But I think Republicans have indicated they want to bring them back in to talk about some of the things that happened during the pandemic, especially when it comes to some of the projects that were funded.

Kenen: There was a lull in raising NIH spending. It was flat for a number of years. I can’t remember the exact dates, but I remember it was — Arlen Specter was still alive, and it … [unintelligible] … because he is the one who traditionally has gotten a lot of bump ups in spending. And then there was a few years, quite a few years, where it was flat. And then Specter got the spigots opened again and they stayed open for a good 10 or 15 years. So we’re seeing, and partly a fiscal pause, and partly the — again, it’s the politicization of science and public health that we did not have to this extent before this pandemic.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s been a while since NIH has been under serious scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Well, speaking of the CDC, which has been under serious scrutiny since the beginning of the pandemic, apparently is getting a new director in Dr. Mandy Cohen, assuming that she is appointed as expected. She won’t have to be confirmed by the Senate because the CDC director won’t be subject to Senate approval until 2025. Now, Mandy Cohen has done a lot of things. She worked in the Obama administration on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. She ran North Carolina’s Department of Health [and Human Services], but she’s not really a noted public health expert or even an infectious disease doctor. Why her for this very embattled agency at this very difficult time?

Kenen: I think there are a number of reasons. A lot of her career was on Obamacare kind of things and on CMS kind of quality-over-quantity kind of things, payment reform, all that. She is a physician, but she did a good job in North Carolina as the top state official during the pandemic. I reported a couple of magazine pieces. I spent a lot of time in North Carolina before the pandemic when she was the state health secretary, and she was an innovator. And not only was she an innovator on things like, you know, integrating social determinants into the Medicaid system; she got bipartisan support. She developed not perfect, but pretty good relations with the state Republicans, and they are not moderates. So I think I remember writing a line that said something, you know, in one of those articles, saying something like, “She would talk to the Republicans about the return on investment and then say, ‘And it’s also the right thing to do.’ And then she would go to the Democrats and say, ‘This is the right thing to do. And there’s also an ROI.’”. So, so I think in a sort of low-key way, she has developed a reputation for someone who can listen and be listened to. I still think it’s a really hard job and it’s going to batter anyone who takes it.

Rovner: I suspect right now at CDC that those are probably more important qualities than somebody who’s actually a public health expert but does not know how to, you know, basically rescue this agency from the current being beaten about the head and shoulders by just about everyone.

Kenen: Yeah, but she also was the face of pandemic response in her state. And she did vaccination and she did disparities and she did messaging and she did a lot of the things that — she does not have an infectious disease degree, but she basically did practice it for the last couple of years.

Rovner: She’s far from a total novice.

Kenen: Yeah.

Rovner: All right. Well, it’s been a while since we talked about the Medicaid “unwinding” that began in some states in early April. And the early results that we’re seeing are pretty much as expected. Many people are being purged from the Medicaid rolls, not because they’re earning too much or have found other insurance, but because of paperwork issues; either they have not returned their paperwork or, in some cases, have not gotten the needed paperwork. Lauren, what are we seeing about how this is starting to work out, particularly in the early states?

Weber: So as you said, I mean, much like we expected to see: So 600,000 Americans have been disenrolled so far, since April 1. And some great reporting that my former colleague Hannah Recht did this past week: She reached out to a bunch of states and got ahold of data from 19 of them, I believe. And in Florida, it was like 250,000 people were disenrolled and somewhere north of 80% of them, it was for paperwork reasons. And when we think about paperwork reasons, I just want us all to take a step back. I don’t know about anyone listening to this, but it’s not like I fill out my bills on the most prompt of terms all of the time. And in some of these cases, people had two weeks to return paperwork where they may not have lived at the same address. Some of these forms are really onerous to fill out. They require payroll tax forms, you know, that you may not have easily accessible — all things that have been predicted, but the hard numbers just show is the vast majority of people getting disenrolled right now are being [dis]enrolled for paperwork, not because of eligibility reasons. And too, it’s worth noting, the reason this great Medicaid unwinding is happening is because this was all frozen for three years, so people are not in the habit of having to fill out a renewal form. So it’s important to keep that in mind, that as we’re seeing the hard data show, that a lot of this is, is straight-up paperwork issues. The people that are missing that paperwork may not be receiving it or just may not know they’re supposed to be doing it.

Rovner: As a reminder, I think by the time the three-year freeze was over, there were 90 million people on Medicaid.

Kenen: Ninety-five.

Rovner: Yeah. So it’s a lot; it’s like a quarter of the population of the country. So, I mean, this is really impacting a lot of people. You know, I know particularly red states want to do this because they feel like they’re wasting money keeping ineligible people on the rolls. But if eligible people become uninsured, you can see how they’re going to eventually get sicker, seek care; those providers are going to check and see if they’re eligible for Medicaid, and if they are, they’re going to put them back on Medicaid. So they’re going to end up costing even more. Joanne, you wanted to say something?

Kenen: Yeah. Almost everybody is eligible for something. The exceptions are the people who fall into the Medicaid gap, which is now down to 10 states.

Rovner: You mean, almost everybody currently on Medicaid is eligible.

Kenen: Anyone getting this disenrollment notification or supposed to receive the disenrollment notification that never reaches them — almost everybody is eligible for, they’re still eligible for Medicaid, which is true for the bulk of them. If they’re not, they’re going to be eligible for the ACA. These are low-income people. They’re going to get a lot heavily subsidized. Whether they understand that or not, someone needs to explain it to them. They’re working now, and the job market is strong. You know, it’s not 2020 anymore. They may be able to get coverage at work. Some of them are getting coverage at work. One of the things that I wrote about recently was the role of providers. States are really uneven. Some states are doing a much better job. You know, we’ve seen the numbers out of Florida. They’re really huge disenrollment numbers. Some states are doing a better job. Georgetown Center on Health Insurance — what’s the right acronym? — Children’s and Family. They’re tracking, they have a state tracker, but providers can step up, and there’s a lot of variability. I interviewed a health system, a safety net in Indiana, which is a red state, and they have this really extensive outreach system set up through mail, phone, texts, through the electronic health records, and when you walk in. And they have everybody in the whole system, from the front desk to the insurance specialists, able to help people sort this through. So some of the providers are quite proactive in helping people connect, because there’s three things: There’s understanding you’re no longer eligible, there’s understanding what you are eligible for, and then actually signing up. They’re all hard. You know, if your government’s not going to do a good job, are your providers or your community health clinics or your safety net hospitals — what are they doing in your state? That’s an important question to ask.

Rovner: Providers have an incentive because they would like to be paid.

Kenen: Paid.

Weber: Well, the thing about Indiana too, Joanne, I mean — so that was one of the states that Hannah got the data from. They had I think it was 53,000 residents that have lost coverage in the first amount of unwinding. 89% of them were for paperwork. I mean, these are not small fractions. I mean, it is the vast majority that is being lost for this reason. So that’s really interesting to hear that the providers there are stepping up to face that.

Kenen: It’s not all of them, but you can capture these people. I mean, there’s a lot that can go wrong. There’s a lot that — in the best system, you’re dealing with [a] population that moves around, they don’t have stable lives, they’ve got lots of other things to deal with day to day, and dealing with a health insurance notice in a language you may not speak delivered to an address that you no longer live at — that’s a lot of strikes.

Rovner: It is not easy. All right. Well, because we’re in Washington, D.C., we have to talk about climate change this week. My mother, the journalist, used to say whenever she would go give a speech, that news is what happens to or in the presence of an editor. I have amended that to say now news is what happens in Washington, D.C., or New York City. And since Washington, D.C., and New York City are both having terrible air quality — legendary, historically high air quality — weeks, people are noticing climate change. And yes, I know you guys on the West Coast are saying, “Uh, hello. We’ve been dealing with this for a couple of years.” But Joanne and Lauren, both of your extra credits this week have to do with it. So I’m going to let you do them early. Lauren, why don’t you go first?

Weber: Yeah, I’ve highlighted a piece by my colleague Dan Diamond and a bunch of other of my colleagues, who wrote all about how this is just a sign of what’s to come. I mean, this is not something that is going away. The piece is titled “Smoke Brings a Warning: There’s No Escaping Climate’s Threat to Health.” I think, Julie, you hit the nail on the head. You know, we all live here in Washington, D.C. A lot of other journalist friends live in New York. There’s been a lot of grousing on Twitter that everyone is now covering this because they can see it. But the reality is, when people can see it, they pay attention. And so the point of the story is, you know, look, I mean, this is climate change in action. We’re watching it. You know, it’s interesting; this story includes a quote from Mitch McConnell saying [to] follow the public health authorities, which I found to be quite fascinating considering the current Republican stance on some public health authorities during the pandemic. And I’m just very curious to see, as we continue to see this climate change in reality, how that messaging changes from both parties.

[Editor’s note: The quote Weber referenced did not come from McConnell but from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, and would not have warranted as much fascination in this context.]

Kenen: But I think that you’ve seen, with the fires on the West Coast, nobody is denying that there’s smoke and pollutants in the air — of either party. You know, we can look out our windows and see it right now, right? But they’re not necessarily accepting that it’s because of climate change, and that — I’m not sure that this episode changes that. Because many of the conservatives say it’s not climate change; it’s poor management of forests. That’s the one you hear a lot. But there are other explain — or it’s just, you know, natural variation and it’ll settle down. So it remains to be seen whether this creates any kind of public acknowledgment. I mean, you have conservative lawmakers who live in parts of the country that are already very — on coasts, on hurricane areas, and, you know, forest fire areas there. You have people who are already experiencing it in their own communities, and it does not make them embrace the awareness of poor air quality because of a forest fire. Yes. Does it do what Julie was alluding to, which is change policy or acknowledging what, you know, the four of us know, and many millions of other people, you know, that this is related to climate change, not just — you know, I’m not an expert in forestry, but this is not just — how many fires in Canada, 230?

Rovner: Yeah. Nova Scotia and Quebec don’t tend to have serious forest fire issues.

Kenen: Right. This is across — this is across huge parts of the United States now. It’s going into the South now. I was on the sixth floor of a building in Baltimore yesterday, and you could see it rolling in.

Rovner: Yeah. You have a story about people trying to do something about it. So why don’t you tell us about that.

Kenen: Well it was a coincidence that that story posted this week, because I had been working on it for a couple of months, but I wrote a story. The headline was — it’s in Politico Magazine — it’s “Can Hospitals Turn Into Climate Change Fighting Machines?” Although one version of it had a headline that I personally liked more, which was “Turn Off the Laughing Gas.” And it’s about how hospitals are trying to reduce their own carbon footprint. And when I wrote this story, I was just stunned to learn how big that carbon footprint is. The health sector is 8.5% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and that’s twice as high as the health sector in comparable industrial countries, and —

Rovner: We’re No. 1!

Kenen: Yes, once again, and most of it’s from hospitals. And there’s a lot that the early adopters, which is now, I would say about 15% of U.S. hospitals are really out there trying to do things, ranging from changing their laughing gas pipes to composting to all sorts of, you know, energy, food, waste, huge amount of waste. But one of the — you know, everything in hospitals is use once and throw it out or unwrap it and don’t even use it and still have to throw it out. But one of the themes of the people I spoke to is that hospitals and doctors and nurses and everybody else are making the connection between climate change and the health of their own communities. And that’s what we’re seeing today. That’s where the phenomenon Laura was talking about is connected. Because if you look out the window and you can see the harmful air, and some of these people are going to be showing up in the emergency rooms today and tomorrow, and in respiratory clinics, and people whose conditions are aggravated, people who are already vulnerable, that the medical establishment is making the connection between the health of their own community, the health of their own patients, and climate. And that’s where you see more buy-in into this, you know, greening of American hospitals.

Rovner: Speaking of issues that that seem insoluble but people are starting to work on, drug prices. In drug price news, drug giant Merck this week filed suit against the federal government, charging that the new requirements for Medicare price negotiation are unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. Now, a lot of health lawyers seem pretty dubious about most of those claims. What’s Merck trying to argue here, and why aren’t people buying what they’re selling?

Hellmann: So there’s two main arguments they’re trying to make. The primary one is they say this drug price negotiation program violates the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. So they argue that under this negotiation process they would basically be coerced or forced into selling these drugs for a price that they think is below its worth. And then the other argument they make is it violates their First Amendment rights because they would be forced to sign an agreement they didn’t agree with, because if they walk away from the negotiations, they have to pay a tax. And so it’s this coercive argument that they are making. But there’s been some skepticism. You know, Nick Bagley noted on Twitter that it’s voluntary to participate in Medicare. Merck doesn’t have a constitutional right to sell its drugs to the government at a price that they have set. And he also noted — I thought this was interesting — I didn’t know that there was kind of a similar case 50 years ago, when Medicare was created. Doctors had sued over a law Congress passed requiring that a panel review treatment decisions that doctors were making. The doctors sued also under the Fifth Amendment in the courts, and the Supreme Court sided with the government. So he seems to think there’s a precedent in favor of the government’s approach here. And there just seems to be a lot of skepticism around these arguments.

Rovner: And Nick Bagley, for those of you who don’t know, is a noted law professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in health law. So he knows whereof he speaks on this stuff. I mean, Joanne, you were, you were mentioning, I mean, this was pretty expected somebody was going to sue over this.

Kenen: It’s probably not the last suit either. It’s probably the first of, but, I mean, the government sets other prices in health care. And, you know, it sets Medicare Advantage rates. It sets rates for all sorts of Medicare procedures. The VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs] sets prices for every drug that’s in its formulary or, you know, buys it at a negotiated —

Rovner: Private insurers set prices.

Kenen: Right. But that’s not government. That’s different.

Rovner: That’s true.

Kenen: They’re not suing private insurers. So, you know, I’m not Nick Bagley, but I usually respect what Nick Bagley has to say. On the other hand, we’ve also seen the courts do all sorts of things we have not expected them to do. There’s another Obamacare case right now. So, precedent, schmecedent, you know, like — although on this one we did expect the lawsuits. Somebody also pointed out, I can’t remember where I read it, so I’m sorry not to credit it, maybe it was even Nick — that even if they lose, if they buy a extra year or two, they get another year or two of profits, and that might be all they care about.

Rovner: It may well be. All right. Well, let us turn to abortion. It’s actually been relatively quiet on the abortion front these last couple of weeks as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade. I did want to mention something that’s still going on in Indiana, however. You may remember the case last year of the 10-year-old who was raped in Ohio and had to go to Indiana to have the pregnancy terminated. That was the case that anti-abortion activists insisted was made up until the rapist was arraigned in court and basically admitted that he had done it. Well, the Indiana doctor who provided that care is still feeling the repercussions of that case. Caitlin Bernard, who’s a prominent OB-GYN at the Indiana University Health system, was first challenged by the state’s attorney general, who accused her of not reporting the child abuse to the proper state authorities. That was not the case; she actually had. But the attorney general, who’s actually a former congressman, Todd Rokita, then asked the state’s medical licensing board to discipline her for talking about the case, without naming the patient, to the media. Last month, the majority of the board voted to formally reprimand her and fine her $3,000. Now, however, lots of other doctors, including those who don’t have anything to do with reproductive health care, are arguing that the precedent of punishing doctors for speaking out about important and sometimes controversial issues is something that is dangerous. How serious a precedent could this turn out to be? She didn’t really violate anybody’s private — she didn’t name the patient. Lauren, you wanted to respond.

Weber: Yeah, I just think it’s really interesting. If you look at the context, the number of doctors that actually get dinged by the medical board, it’s only a couple thousand a year. So this is pretty rare. And usually what you get dinged for by the medical board are really severe things like sexual assault, drug abuse, alcohol abuse. So this would seem to indicate quite some politicization, and the fact that the AG was involved. And I do think that, especially in the backdrop of all these OB-GYN residents that are looking to apply to different states, I think this is one of the things that adds a chilling effect for some reproductive care in some of these red states, where you see a medical board take action like this. And I just think in general — it cannot be stated enough — this is a rare action, and a lot of medical board actions will be, even if there is an action, will be a letter in your file. I mean, to even have a fine is quite something and not it be like a continuing education credit. So it’s quite noteworthy.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, back in Texas, the judge who declared the abortion pill to have been wrongly approved by the FDA, Trump appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk, is now considering a case that could effectively bankrupt Planned Parenthood for continuing to provide family planning and other health services to Medicaid patients while Texas and Louisiana were trying to kick them out of the program because the clinics also provided abortions in some cases. Now, during the time in question, a federal court had ordered the clinics to continue to operate as usual, banning funding for abortions, which always has been the case, but allowing other services to be provided and reimbursed by Medicaid. This is another of those cases that feels very far-fetched, except that it’s before a judge who has found in favor of just about every conservative plaintiff that has sought him out. This could also be a big deal nationally, right? I mean, Planned Parenthood has been a participant in the Medicaid program in most states for years — again, not paying for abortion, but for paying for lots of other services that they provide.

Kenen: The way this case was structured, there’s all these enormous number of penalties, like 11,000 per case or something, and it basically comes out to be $1.8 billion. It would bankrupt Planned Parenthood nationally, which is clearly the goal of this group, which has a long history that — we don’t have time to go into their long history. They’re an anti-abortion group that’s — you know, they were filming people, and there’s a lot of history there. It’s the same people. But, you know, this judge may in fact come out with a ruling that attempts to shut down Planned Parenthood completely. It doesn’t mean that this particular decision would be upheld by the 5th Circuit or anybody else.

Rovner: Or not. The same way the mifepristone ruling finally woke up other drugmakers who don’t have anything to do with the abortion fight because, oh my goodness, if a judge can overturn the approval of a drug, what does the FDA approval mean? This could be any government contractor — that you can end up being sued for having accepted money that was legal at the time you accepted it, which feels like not really a very good business partner issue. So another one that we will definitely keep an eye on.

Kenen: I mean, that’s the way it may get framed later, is that this isn’t really about Planned Parenthood; this is about a business or entity obeying the law, or court order. I mean, that’s how the pushback might come. I mean, I think people think Planned Parenthood, abortion, they equate those. And most Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide abortion, while those that do are not using federal funds, as a rule; there are exceptions. And Planned Parenthood is also a women’s health provider. They do prenatal care in some cases; they do STD [sexually transmitted disease] treatment and testing. They do contraception. They, you know, they do other things. Shutting down Planned Parenthood would mean cutting off many women’s access to a lot of basic health care.

Rovner: And men too, I am always reminded, because, particularly for sexually transmitted diseases, they’re an important provider.

Kenen: Yeah. HIV and other things.

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Sarah Jane Tribble, and then we will be back with our extra credits. We are pleased to welcome back to the podcast Sarah Jane Tribble, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” story. Sarah, thanks for coming in.

Sarah Jane Tribble: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient is a former American who now lives in Switzerland, a country with a very comprehensive health insurance system. But apparently it’s not comprehensive enough to cover the astronomical cost of U.S. health care. So tell us who the patient is and how he ended up with a big bill.

Tribble: Yeah. Jay Comfort is an American expatriate, and he has lived overseas for years. He’s a former educator. He’s 66 years old. And he decided to retire in Switzerland. He has that country’s basic health insurance plan. He pays his monthly fee and gets a deductible, like we do here in the U.S. He traveled last year for his daughter’s wedding and ended up with an emergency appendectomy in the ER [emergency room] at the University of Pittsburgh in Williamsport.

Rovner: And how big was the ultimate bill?

Tribble: Well, he was in the hospital just about 14 hours, and he ended up with a bill of just over $42,000.

Rovner: So not even overnight.

Tribble: No.

Rovner: That feels like a lot for what was presumably a simple appendectomy. Is it a lot?

Tribble: We talked to some experts, and it was above what they had predicted it would be. It did include the emergency appendectomy, some scans, some laboratory testing, three hours in the recovery room. There was also some additional diagnostic testing. They had sent off some cells for a diagnostics and did find cancer at the time. Still, it didn’t really explain all the extra cost. Healthcare Bluebook, which you can look up online, has this at about $14,000 for an appendectomy. One expert told me, if you look at Medicare prices and average out in that region, it would be between $6,500 and $18,000-ish. So, yeah, this was expensive compared to what the experts told us.

Rovner: So he goes home and he files a claim with his Swiss insurance. What did they say?

Tribble: Well, first let me just say, cost in the U.S. can be two to three times that in other countries. Switzerland isn’t known as a cheap country, actually. Its health care is —

Rovner: It’s the second most expensive after the U.S.

Tribble: Considered the most expensive in Europe, right. So this is pretty well known. So he was still surprised, though, when he got the response from his Swiss insurance. They said they were willing to pay double because it was an emergency abroad. Total, with the appendectomy and some extra additional scans and so forth: About $8,000 is what they were willing to pay.

Rovner: So, double what they would have paid if he’d had it done in Switzerland.

Tribble: Yeah.

Rovner: So 42 minus 8 leaves a large balance left. Yeah. I mean, he’s stuck with — what is that — $34,000. He’s on the hook for that. I mean, it’s better than having nothing, obviously, but it’s a lot of money and it’s really striking, the difference, because, you know, in Switzerland, they’re very much like, we would pay this amount, then we’ll double it to pay you back. And he still has this enormous bill he’s left paying. He’s on a fixed income. He’s retired. So it’s quite the shock to his system.

Rovner: So what happened? Has this been resolved?

Tribble: Let me first tell you what happened at the ER, because Jay was very diligent about providing documents and explaining everything. We had multiple Zoom calls. Jay’s wife was with him, and she provided the Swiss insurance card to UPMC. Now, UPMC had confirmed that there was some confusion, and it took months for Jay to get his bill. He had to call and reach out to UPMC to get his bill. He wants to pay his bill. He wants to pay his fair share, but he doesn’t consider $42,000 a fair share. So he wants to now negotiate the bill. We’ve left it at that, actually. UPMC says they are charging standard charges and that he has not requested financial assistance. And Jay says he would like to negotiate his bill.

Rovner: So that’s where we are. What is the takeaway here? Obviously, “don’t have an emergency in a country where you don’t have insurance” doesn’t feel very practical.

Tribble: Well, yeah, I mean, this was really interesting for me. I’ve been a health care reporter a long time. I’ve heard about travel insurance. The takeaway here for Jay is he would have been wise to get some travel insurance. Now, Jay did tell me previously he had tried to get Medicare. He is a U.S. citizen residing in Switzerland. He does qualify. He had worked in the U.S. long enough to qualify for it. He had gone through some phone calls and so forth and didn’t have it before coming here. He told me in the last couple of weeks that he now has gotten Medicare. However, that may not have helped him too much because it was an outpatient procedure. And it’s important to note that if you have Medicare and you’re 65 in the U.S., when you go overseas, it’s not likely to cover much. So the takeaway: Costs in the U.S. are more expensive than most places in the world, and you should be prepared if you’re traveling overseas and you find yourself in a situation, you might consider travel insurance anyway.

Rovner: So both ways.

Tribble: Yeah.

Rovner: Americans going somewhere else and people from somewhere else coming here.

Tribble: Well, if you’re a contract worker or a student on visa or somebody visiting the U.S., you’re definitely [going to] want to get some insurance because, wherever you’re coming from, most likely that insurance isn’t going to pay the full freight of what the costs are in the U.S.

Rovner: OK. Sarah Jane Tribble, thank you very much.

Tribble: Thanks so much.

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s where we each recommend a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Lauren and Joanne, you’ve already given us yours, so Jessie, you’re next.

Hellmann: Yeah. My extra credit is from MLive.com, an outlet in Michigan. It’s titled “During the Darkest Days of COVID, Some Michigan Hospitals Made 100s of Millions.” They looked at tax records, audited financial statements in federal data, and found that some hospitals and health systems in Michigan actually did really well during the pandemic, with increases in operating profits and overall net assets. A big part of this was because of the covid relief funding that was coming in, but the article noted that, despite this, hospitals were still saying that they were stretched really thin, where they were having to lay off people. They didn’t have money for PPE [personal protective equipment], and they were having to institute, like, other cost-saving measures. So I thought this was a really interesting, like, a local look at how hospitals are kind of facing a backlash now. We’ve seen it in Congress a little bit, just more of an interest in looking at their finances and how they were impacted by the pandemic, because while some hospitals really did see losses, like small, rural, or independent hospitals, some of the bigger health systems came out on top. But you’re still hearing those arguments that they need more help, they need more funding.

Rovner: Well, my story is also about a hospital system. It’s yet another piece of reporting about nonprofit hospitals failing to live up to their requirement to provide, quote, “community benefits,” by our podcast panelist at The New York Times Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. It’s called “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt.” And it’s about a highly respected and highly profitable health system based in Minnesota called Allina and its policy of cutting off patients from all nonemergency services until they pay back their debts in full. Now, nonemergency services because federal law requires them to treat patients in emergencies. It’s not all patients. It’s just those who have run up debt of at least $1,500 on three separate occasions. But that is very easy to do in today’s health system. And the policy isn’t optional. Allina’s computerized appointment system will actually block the accounts of those who have debts that they need to pay off. It is quite a story, and yet another in this long list of stories about hospitals behaving badly. OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me, at least for now. I’m still there. I’m @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP

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, Stitcher, 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.

This week, KFF Health News’ weekly policy news podcast — “What the Health?” — celebrates its 300th episode with a wide-ranging discussion of what’s happened in health policy since it launched in 2017 and what may happen in the next decade.

For this special conversation, host and chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner is joined by three prominent “big thinkers” in health policy: Ezekiel Emanuel of the University of Pennsylvania; Jeff Goldsmith, president of Health Futures; and Farzad Mostashari, CEO of Aledade.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Since 2017, dissatisfaction has permeated the U.S. health care system. The frustrations of providers, patients, and others in the field point to a variety of structural problems — many of which are challenging to address through policymaking due to the strength of interest-group politics. The emergence of the huge, profitable “SuperMed” firm UnitedHealth Group and the rise of urgent virtual care have also transformed health care in recent years.
• As high costs and big profits dominate the national conversation, lawmakers and policymakers have delivered surprises, including the beginnings of regulation of drug prices. Even the Trump administration, with its dedication to undermining the Affordable Care Act, demonstrated interest in encouraging competition. Meanwhile, on the clinical side, a number of pharmaceuticals are proving especially effective at reducing hospitalizations.
• Looking forward, the face of insurance is changing. Commercial insurance is seeing profits evaporate, private Medicare Advantage plans are draining taxpayer dollars, and employers are making expensive, short-sighted coverage decisions. Some stakeholders see a critical need to reconsider how to be more efficient and effective at delivering care in the United States.
• The deterioration of the patient’s experience signals a major disconnect between the organizational problems providing care and the everyday dedication of individual providers: The local hospital may provide excellent service to a patient experiencing a heart attack, yet Medicare will not pay for patients to have blood pressure cuffs at home, for instance. Low reimbursements for primary care providers exacerbate these problems.

Plus, our experts — drawing on extensive experience making government and private-sector policy and even practicing medicine — name their top candidates for attainable improvements that would make a big difference in the health care system.

Further reading by the panelists from this week’s episode:

• Health Affairs’ “Nine Health Care Megatrends, Part 1: System and Payment Reform,” by Ezekiel J. Emanuel.
• Health Affairs’ “We Have a National Strategy for Accountable Care, So What’s Next?” by Sean Cavanaugh, Mandy K. Cohen, and Farzad Mostashari.
• The Health Care Blog’s “What Can We Learn From the Envision Bankruptcy?” by Jeff Goldsmith.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Our 300th Episode!

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Our 300th Episode!

Episode Number: 300

Published: June 1, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. Usually I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. But today is our 300th episode, and we have something special planned. Instead of our usual news panel, I’ve invited some of my very favorite health policy thinkers, to cast the net a little wider, and talk about what’s happened to the health care system since we began the podcast in 2017 and what the future of health care might look like for the next, I don’t know, decade or so. So let me introduce our panel. We will put their full bios in the show notes. Otherwise, it would take our entire episode to talk about all that they have done. But it’s safe to say that these are not just some of the smartest people in health care, but also among the most accomplished, with experience making government health policy, private health policy, and, in two of the three cases, also practicing medicine. First up, we have Zeke Emanuel. He’s currently the vice provost for global initiatives and the co-director of the Healthcare Transformation Institute at the University of Pennsylvania. Hi, Zeke. Thanks for joining us.

Ezekiel Emanuel: Great. Wonderful to be here.

Rovner: Next, we have Jeff Goldsmith. He’s president of Health Futures, a health industry consulting firm and a longtime thinker, writer, and lecturer on all things health care — and, I must confess, one of the people who’s implanted many things in my head about what I think about health care. Thanks for joining us, Jeff.

Jeff Goldsmith: It’s a pleasure.

Rovner: Finally, we have Farzad Mostashari, who’s the founder and CEO of Aledade, a company that works with primary care physician practices that he modestly describes on his LinkedIn page as, quote, “helping independent practices save American health care. Thanks for coming, Farzad.

Mostashari: Pleasure to be here, Julie.

Rovner: So I want to divide this conversation into two main parts, roughly titled “Where We’ve Been” and “Where We’re Going,” and where we’ve been in this case means things that have happened since 2017, when the podcast began. For those of you who don’t remember, that was the first year of the Trump presidency, in the middle of the ultimately unsuccessful Republican effort to repeal and replace “Obamacare” and President Trump’s various executive decisions to try to undermine the Affordable Care Act in other ways. Anybody remember that fight over cost-sharing reductions? Let us please not recap that. So let us start not with cost sharing, but with the state of health care in 2017. I want to go around. What does each of you think is the biggest change in the health care system since 2017? Zeke, why don’t you start?

Emanuel: I think probably the biggest change is the growing dissatisfaction by every player in the system. I often say that if you remember back to 2010 — Farzad and I certainly remember, because of passage of the ACA — a lot of people were dissatisfied with the system. But frankly, the upper-middle-class hospitals were not dissatisfied with the system. And mostly the upper middle class could still call — get, you know, VIP care and make sure that they got their needs met. I don’t know anyone — anyone — in 2023 who is happy with the system; maybe there are a few people in the insurance industry who are for this very moment because their profits are higher. But everyone else, including every upper-middle-class and rich person I know, is pissed off and doesn’t think they’re getting good care and is just — doesn’t like the system. And I think that bespeaks very deep structural problems with our system. Different parts are actually doing fantastic, if you want to know the truth, in my opinion, like Farzad’s company giving great primary care, but the whole system sucks. And that I think is probably the biggest change. And again, it bespeaks burnout, it bespeaks payment problems, it bespeaks lots of other underlying problems.

Rovner: I feel like I know that that was growing leading up to the Affordable Care Act, how much the industry and everybody else just didn’t think the system was working, but I think it’s turning into anger. Jeff, what do you think is the biggest change since 2017?

Goldsmith: Well you know, for me, I guess the biggest surprise for me would be we finally got a “SuperMed.” You remember … [unintelligible] … thing about how we’re going to have 10 health systems that — you know, the entire country will be divided into 10 health systems. I think the biggest change has been the arrival of our first SuperMed, which is UnitedHealth Group. It’s doubled in size since 2016. It’s closing in on 3 billion a month in cash flow. So, I mean, I think we may not get another one, but we’ve certainly got one. And it’s on its way to being 10% of health care.

Rovner: And it’s very much — I mean, for people who don’t know — it’s very much more than an insurance company now.

Goldsmith: Yeah, it is. The insurance company is kind of a drag on earnings compared to several other pieces.

Rovner: Farzad, what do you think has changed most since 2017?

Mostashari: I remember in 2017, it really felt like UnitedHealth Group, what they were doing with Optum, was like a secret almost, and it certainly is not anymore. I think I would say covid happened, and one of the main things that has absolutely changed as a result of that is the availability of urgent virtual care. And pretty much all of us now — my mom, through her health system portal; my daughter, through her college portal; me, through my health plan portal — have access to basically hit a button and pretty quickly be able to see someone, usually a nurse practitioner, within a short amount of time. The consequences of that are going to be really interesting. I think, net, it is one of the few things that I think Zeke would agree is pleaser for people to be able to do that. But on the flip side of that, which is to be able to see a primary care doctor, for my parents, is three months out, and they’re 86 and they need to do it. So I think we’re seeing on the one hand, kind of a tale of two cities — like urgent, convenient care with someone who has no idea who you are is more available than ever, and longitudinal primary care with someone who has a long-term relationship with you is getting squeezed.

Rovner: I want to go around again. What’s the most unexpected change? And you don’t get to say the pandemic this time. Jeff, why don’t you start.

Goldsmith: Well, certainly the most unpleasant, unexpected change was the sudden flameout of Geisinger. That’s a really ominous development.

Rovner: Which we haven’t — we haven’t even talked about on the podcast yet. So you better give that a sentence or two.

Goldsmith: Well, Geisinger is — was — one of the elite multi-specialty clinics in the country. It was a follow-on to Mayo, 110-year-old, absolutely superb quality, and done everything in the integrated delivery system playbook. They had a large health plan. They had a widely distributed primary care network. They lost $840 million last year and were losing 20 million a month on operations — that’s arterial bleeding — and about six weeks ago announced a combination of some kind — don’t call it a merger — with Kaiser. It’s still not clear to me what they’ve done. But the big surprise to me was a $7 billion system that did everything you’re supposed to do ended up not being able to remain independent. That’s really scary to me.

Rovner: Yeah. Zeke, what surprised you the most?

Emanuel: I would say two things have surprised me the most. The first one was the fact that we got drug price regulation. Even that little bit we got, I think, very, very surprising. And I have to give credit to the administration. They’re using the small camel’s nose under the tent to really push it as big as they can, jawboning on insulin prices, etc. It’s far from ideal. You know, I’ve been as critical as anyone about the kind of compromises we had to make. But I think that we got something, and I think that’s really changed the psychology. So that would be one thing. The other thing, and here I may be attacked, is we’re still at 18% of GDP for health care spending. Predictions in 2010, even predictions in 2017, were to go over 20%. And we have actually — and it’s not because the economy has gone haywire on us; we’ve been growing at about 2% of GDP. Something is out there that is not as macro that has kept it — some of it’s high deductible, multifactorial. I do think that we also, you know, some of the things that Farzad mentioned, we’ve got virtual that is lower-cost. We do more home care. You know, hospital admissions continue to go down. Anyway, I do think that’s still a surprise. Now, people are feeling it because of high deductibles, because employers are transferring a lot more cost. Nonetheless, as a percent of GDP, it has remained flat for a decade.

Goldsmith: Right. It’ll be lower in ’22 than it was in ’21 when we finally get the numbers out.

Rovner: Farzad.

Mostashari: I want to continue on a little bit. It’s so easy to be pessimistic in health care and health policy. But again, some things that were a little bit — if you are so jaded and so scarred that you have very low expectations, even small victories, like Zeke said, end up being surprises to the upside. So I was surprised to the upside that the Trump administration, despite a lot of — you mentioned, a lot of efforts to undo the Affordable Care Act — were actually pretty good on value-based care and pretty good on turning attention to administrative simplification and to site-neutral payments and thinking about competition in health care markets. And those are obviously, all three of those, are things that the current administration’s support and is also continuing to push. So that was a pleasant surprise, I guess, to the to the upside.

Rovner: Also price transparency, right?

Mostashari: Yeah, I put that in the competition category. The other surprise is, for a long time — I spoke at a pharma group once, a bunch of CEOs, and I said, “Name me the drug that if I use more of it, there will be fewer hospitalizations.” And they kind of drew a blank, and they were like, “Well, vaccines?” And I was like, “OK, that’s pretty sad, right?” But now we actually have SGLT-2s, we have GLP-1s, like there’s actually a bunch of drugs that are going to be, I think, rightfully blockbusters that actually are making a big difference. And I think, in particular, the SGLT-2s I’m really excited about. They’re massively underutilized and I think —

Rovner: What are the SGLT-2s?

Mostashari: Zeke, you want to take this?

Emanuel: No, no, that’s you.

Mostashari: It’s a drug class that has proven to be pretty effective at reducing hospitalizations for people with congestive heart failure, with diabetes. And the more it’s studied, like — there’s a trend in pharma, right, or really anything, that, not what’s the first study with a second randomized trial, but what’s the fifth and sixth and seventh? Do they end up making the evidence stronger or reverting to the mean? And with these drug classes, they seem to be getting stronger and stronger and stronger and more and more generalized in terms of the potential benefit that they can bring. They’re expensive. But I remember a time when a lot of the drugs that are now generic were expensive. So if we take the long arc on this, I think this is going to be very good for health care.

Emanuel: Well, also, to the extent that they preempt hospitalizations, their cost-effectiveness — I don’t know what it is; I haven’t looked it up recently — but the cost-effectiveness is more reasonable, let us put it, than many other drugs that we get, particularly cancer drugs … [unintelligible].

Goldsmith: You know, there’s an even bigger one lurking out there if you’re talking about reducing hospitalizations, and that is the likelihood that we’ll have a dialysis-like solution for sepsis. There are a whole bunch of companies in this space. They’re attaching different molecules to the fibers. But we began seeing during covid, using some of these tools to take virus out of the blood, sepsis is a huge chunk of hospital utilization. It’s a huge chunk of expensive hospital utilization. And what, a third of the deaths, at least — if we could dialyze someone out of sepsis, I mean, it would be an enormous plus, both for health spending and for people’s lives.

Emanuel: I was just going to add one political element to what Farzad said first about the Trump administration, and this gets to how policy is made and the importance of personalities and people. There’s a whole school of history that people don’t matter, the blah, blah, blah. But the Trump administration’s interest in these various things, like price transparency, competition, site-neutral payments, and such, occurred only after they fired Secretary [of Health and Human Services Tom] Price. Secretary Price was sort of a health policy Neanderthal in that he wanted to go back to the 1950s. Many of your listeners will remember he greatly reduced their bundled payment experiments and randomized controlled trial by chopping it in, I think, half, or getting rid of a lot of places. He was totally for the old fee-for-service system, as an orthopedic surgeon, and I think once they got rid of him, actually the focus on, you know, how can we make this a better marketplace, which brings you, you know, not everything liberals can agree on that because many of the things go in, regulate prices and regulate access. And it’s an interesting thing. He had to be moved out for that change to actually happen.

Mostashari: But I’ll also say, though, putting political philosophy back in, not just personality, you look at what’s happening in Indiana, of all places, Zeke, where the legislature have been, I think, pretty forward on on some really great health policy stuff around, again, competition policy, noncompetes for doctors, certificate of need — like a whole bunch of stuff that have been anti-competitive, hospital price increasers they have taken square aim at. And I think that it aligns with like, if we’re going to have a market, like either we’re going to regulate really heavily, or we’re going to have a market-based approach that actually works, and you can’t have a market-based approach that works even a little if you have basically anti-competitive behaviors. So I think it actually does make sense.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of politics, the thing that I think most surprised me in the last seven years is that the pandemic did not convince everybody of the need for everybody to have some kind of health coverage. At the beginning, I thought, well, this is what’s going to get us to a national health plan, because everybody can get sick. And that didn’t happen. In fact, it feels like things got even more polarized. Did that surprise any of you guys or am I just being naive?

Goldsmith: We did get to a 91-million-person Medicaid program and a significant expansion of the exchanges. So it’s not like there wasn’t a realization that covering people had a salutary effect on the overall health of the population. It’s not clear that it lasted. I heard Sarah Huckabee Sanders on the radio the other day saying that throwing a bunch of people off of Medicaid was going to be liberating them from dependency. That was one of the most amazing Orwellian statements I’ve ever heard in my life. But it’s —

Emanuel: She thought if we got rid of her health insurance, it would liberate her from dependency?

Goldsmith: Oh, absolutely.

Mostashari: I do think that one of the things that took away that stink, though, Julie, was really pretty expansive and brave government action that made tests free, that made vaccines free, that made treatment, including monoclonals, free. If the concern was specifically the driver around covid, these programs that — 100% paid, regardless of your ability to pay, just like covered it at all, right? — I do think took away some of the drive that you were describing.

Rovner: And yet we’re peeling them all back one by one, you know, including —

Emanuel: Well, they were all emergency. I mean, all they have expansion was emergency. And, you know, that has to do with the way Washington budgets and all of that. I do think if we’re going to get to universal coverage, we’re going to have to get it in a way that keeps the costs under control. My own interpretation is we’ve reached the limit, and 18% is the limit. And if you want to get to 100% universal coverage, I can’t —

Mostashari: Oh, God, I can’t believe he just jinxed us like that.

Emanuel: I think that’s what the political economy says.

Rovner: You mean 18% of GDP?

Emanuel: Yeah. Yeah.

Goldsmith: But, Zeke, people are saying that when we got to 8, we were going to hit the wall. OK, you have a long enough memory, I mean —

Emanuel: I do, I do have that memory. But I do think you have seen more drastic action, as when things have gone up by employers to make it look less and less like insurance, frankly. And I do think that tells you where the limit is. And I think we’re going to have to think within that. And one of the things we have to do is be much more serious about areas where we have good evidence about cost savings. And we just haven’t done that. And for the last decade, every hospital — and I always talk about cost — but it’s a lot easier to negotiate higher rates from commercial than it is to actually be more efficient. And so what do they do? Focus on negotiating higher rates and have much more brains focusing on that than doing the time-motion studies to get efficient. Until they are forced, they’re not going to do that kind of efficiency. And that’s the thing. And you can’t do it on a dime. That’s the other thing, I think, partially that the Geisinger says: You can’t do the efficiency on a dime.

Goldsmith: Isn’t losing $20 million a month sort of a goad to action? I mean —

Emanuel: Well, Jeff, Jeff, here’s the question. I agree. But it couldn’t induce Geisinger to change fast enough. I mean, they didn’t have enough runway. If they were losing, that’s the first thing. And whether other hospitals and health systems are going to say, “Well, we have to get serious today,” I don’t know. I’m not privileged to their internal deliberations. I will say that, over the last decade, they’ve just continued the old playbook, as I’ve argued.

Mostashari: But I think that’s right, Zeke. But that’s what doesn’t give me hope in terms of your 18% political economy ceiling, because who’s going to make it, you know, like — and I don’t see the employers. I’d say if there’s one thing where there hasn’t been much change has been the employers continue to disappoint.

Rovner: Actually, Farzad, you’ve walked right into my next question, because I want to pivot to what’s going to happen, which is, who’s going to drive the health care train for the next decade?

Emanuel: I think employers are brain-dead on this. They are the worst part of the legion because they control all the profit and they have been terrible. They have chased very short-term profits or very short-term savings. What? Yeah, I know, I, well no, but —

Rovner: Farzad, Farzad’s making air quotes.

Emanuel: Farzad’s making the quotes, but absolutely it’s not been savings, but they’ve been listening to consultants who sold them a bill of goods and they haven’t been serious. And you know, to be honest, when you get something like Haven and you’ve got companies like J.P. Morgan and Amazon and Berkshire Hathaway making a hash of it, “What could I do?” is I think the response, and what they have to do is they have to get together and get out of health care in a responsible way, and that they are — they just, they can’t focus enough mind share on it.

Rovner: Even with, what was it, Amazon and J.P. Morgan? And I forget what the third one was.

Goldsmith: But Zeke, you know, right now the most profitable service line for those insurers isn’t commercial insurance; it’s Medicare Advantage

Emanuel: Yeah.

Goldsmith: And if I were to be a forecasting person, which I tend to do sometimes —

Emanuel: You are?

Goldsmith: I think, I think the profit is rapidly disappearing from commercial insurance, not only because more and more insurers are self-funded, or employers are self-funded and taking themselves out of the equation, but because the government can’t say no to its contractors — state governments, federal government. So I’m actually very concerned about the disappearance of the lever that commercial insurance represented in the emergence of a kind of a rent-seeking health insurance system.

Mostashari: That underscores the need, if more and more employers are self-insured, then they’re going to need to act. They can’t rely on the insurer; they need to demand something different than what they’ve been demanding from the TPAs [third-party administrators]. And I think that’s the opportunity, if I was going to be an optimist. I think that’s the opportunity. To Zeke’s point, from the beginning, everyone is unhappy. And if someone did come up with a TPA that promised cost corridors, as an example, more predictability, free stop loss, you know, like those kind of things and actually delivered slower trend, guaranteed lower trend on your rates. I think there’s room for that, but as Zeke said, not if they just keep listening to the same consultants.

Goldsmith: But Farzad, what seems to me has held them back is that their interest in health benefits cost is cyclical. When they’re awash in cash, they’re mainly interested in more cash; they’re not interested in tuning their health benefit and chasing away scarce workers. And right now, that scarcity of workers is one of the things that’s holding employers back from tightening down or fundamentally changing the logic of their health coverage — is that they are competing, particularly in the skilled part of our economy, for workers that they’re really having trouble getting. And to walk in the door and saying, “Well, we’re going to place all these conditions on, and we’re going to make you do X, Y, and Z,” they’re not going to do it.

Mostashari: I think the TPA 2.0, though — I agree with you that there’s typically been a zero-sum game around this between the employer and employee when it comes to less benefits, higher copays, higher deductibles, like, you’re taking something away from them. But you mentioned Medicare Advantage. What I think the promise has been there is you get more; the member gets more access to primary care or more benefits but for the same cost. And I agree with your facial expression there that our —

Goldsmith: I’m on Medicare Advantage. I mean, it’s just been a great big whoop. The main user experience has been robocalls, and I get about one every two months to send a nurse to my house to upcode me. That’s my Medicare Advantage experience. Big whoop.

Emanuel: So let me just say two things, one of which is I think the fact is that employers don’t have to go down the punitive route to have lower costs; they could focus on the provider and reorganize that system. And the problem of everyone in the system is just thinking about how do I screw the other provider, right? You know, how do I make doctors go through all this prior authorization so they won’t order that drug or they won’t order that MRI? That’s not a way to improve the system. That’s a way to make everyone pissed off.

Rovner: It’s doing a very good job at that.

Emanuel: Yeah, including the patient. Everyone hates it, and no one’s willing to get rid of it. I think Farzad is right; you need a total reconceptualization of how you’re going to deliver care so the answer is yes, not no. And what you get is better thinking so we’re more efficient and we get rid of the unnecessary stuff so that we can actually devote our time and attention and resources to people who need it. The second thing I would say, Jeff, is I think the wallowing and, and getting all the cream from Medicare Advantage is going to come to an end. I think the administration has sort of — you know, when you’re over 50% of the people and there’s all these articles coming out over and over again, you — I mean one of the things they haven’t realized — you end up in Washington putting a big target on your face. And Washington likes nothing more than, “These people are ripping off the government, and now we’re going to penalize them.” And I will say, you know, personally, we’ve started a very large project to try to fix the risk adjustment mechanism. We also need a large project, in my humble opinion, on fixing the fee structure, which is totally perverted.

Rovner: The fee structure for everybody or the fee structure for Medicare?

Emanuel: Well, if you fix it for Medicare, you’re going to fix it for everyone since they take Medicare prices and just inflate ’em. But I think those two things are going to happen, actually, if I had to say, over the next decade, and I do think the days of just getting tons of profit from Medicare Advantage are numbered.

Goldsmith: Well, but the way that’s going to work is, to sustain the 5% and to prevent their stock prices from falling, they’re going to come after providers hammer and tongs.

Rovner: They [being] the insurers, the Medicare Advantage companies.

Goldsmith: They’re just going to cut the rates. They’re not going to really, fundamentally — they’re not going to shift risks, Zeke. They’re not going to capitate them; they’re just going to cut the rates. So I think part of the dynamic there is you’re going to have the hospital folks kind of behind the scenes going, “Don’t cut Medicare Advantage, because we’re the people that are eventually going to bleed for it.” So I think the politics of doing this is actually a whole lot more complicated. You’re dead right; the mask is dropped. There’s a lot of games being played. But fixing it is going to be really hard politically.

Emanuel: Jeff, I agree with you. I think one of the major issues hospitals have to do — look, during covid, one of the tragedies is the government handed out $70 billion to hospitals and asked nothing in return. There was no, “Change this,” “focus on —”

Goldsmith: They asked them to stay open, Zeke They asked them to stay open 24/7 and to, you know, have their emergency room burn out and to suspend their elective care. What do you mean they didn’t ask them to do anything? They had to do those things to respond to the, the pandemic. Now, you’re saying you didn’t attach additional conditions about efficiency. Dead right, they didn’t.

Emanuel: Yeah.

Goldsmith: You’re right.

Emanuel: There was no structural change. $70 billion is a whole lot of money. And we ask no structural change for it. So we’re actually in a worse situation with hospitals today than we were before. And $70 went out the window.

Rovner: 70 billion.

Mostashari: Zeke and I first met when I was at the White House, the NEC [National Economic Council] or something, and we were arguing about $28 billion to take health care from paper and pen to electronic health records. And it seemed like a lot of money, 28 billion, to digitize American health care and, as Zeke is saying, 70 billion went out the door.

Goldsmith: Well, but, but remember what was going on. There was an authentic, bottomless national emergency. And we ended up throwing $6 trillion, $6 trillion, forget about 70 billion. We ended up throwing $6 trillion worth of money that we borrowed from our grandkids at that bottomless problem — not only covid, but the economic catastrophe that covid produced, the flash depression that the shutdowns produced. So there wasn’t a lot of time for fine-tuning the policy message here; it was shovel it out the door and pray.

Emanuel: Jeff, I agree. We had to rescue a very desperate situation. But it’s not as if the last decade hadn’t given us plenty of things that we could have asked the hospitals to do. Unlike —look, look, in 2009, when we were crafting the Affordable Care Act, I called around to everyone. I said, “All right, we got to change off fee-for-service to … [unintelligible]. What’s the best method to get doctors to do the right thing, to get standardized care, to reduce the inefficiencies,” blah, blah, blah. We hadn’t tried anything. 2021, 2020, we had actually better ideas about how we could implement change and actually make the system better. And we implemented … [unintelligible]. And that, I think, was a missed major opportunity.

Rovner: And actually that is sort of my next question. I want to bring this back to the patient. Zeke, you referred to this; the patient experience has gotten worse. We’ve heard it from everybody here. The more we can do to help people and cure them and treat their ailments, the more differentiated and diverse the system becomes and the much harder it is to navigate. I mean, is there any hope of doing something to improve the patient experience over maybe the next decade?

Goldsmith: Well, I’ll tell you. You asked Zeke; I got sick during 2015 to 2017. So after being a big expert on our health care system for 40 years, I actually used it: five major surgeries in 29 months. And my experience was very different than the picture you guys have been painting. Only three of the people that touched me were over the age of 40. That was a big difference. Getting rid of the boomers might help a lot, but I was astonished by the level of commitment and the team-based care that I got. They were all over it. It was really encouraging to me, scared to death though I was, that the level of service that I got — and I’m not an elite patient. I mean, in a couple of those instances, it was my local community hospital; it wasn’t the University of Chicago that was taking care of me. I was really pleasantly surprised by the level of teamwork and the commitment of the care teams that took care of me. It gave me hope that I didn’t have before.

Mostashari: And I think we always get into this when we start talking about organizations versus people, and the people — and there’s no one like the people in medicine, and they would do anything for their patients, they love their patients, and they’re trying to work against a system that structurally is against doing the right thing for the patient, that we know can help the patient. And there’s no doubt that once someone has a stroke, we spring into action. The question is, did that person have to have a stroke? How well are we doing at controlling blood pressure, Jeff? We suck at controlling blood pressure: 65% control rates. And we know that that’s going to prevent heart attacks and strokes. Once we — once someone has a heart attack, like, we will deliver excellent customer service to the person with a heart attack, and they will be grateful and they will say, “Doc, you saved my life,” but we won’t invest in allowing people to have Medicare to pay for blood pressure cuffs at home, right? Like, that’s what we are grappling with in health care and medicine, is that disjunct between the organizational incentives and delivery system that follows from it versus the dedication and the compassion of the people in it every day.

Emanuel: So, Julie, one of the things I would say over the next decade that we have to do, and here you have a specialist bowing to Farzad, which is we have to pay more for primary care. Right now, the system pays something like 7%. And in some markets like mine, in Philadelphia, it’s under 5%. It’s outrageously bad, that amount. We have to give primary care doctors more and expect more out of them. What do we have to expect? Chronic care coordination. The primary care doc ought to be your navigator, and we need to have them or someone in their practice, is the first line for mental health and behavioral health services, right? That kind of package, including, you know — and we could go on — extended office hours, etc., etc. That has to happen. And us specialists, my kind of folk, we need to be less. And I think that has got to be one of the shifts we make that will make the patient experience better; I think it’ll make the management of these chronic illnesses like hypertension — I’m completely on board with Farzad; that should be focus, focus, focus. I think that’s a critical change. And what gives me hope — again, I’m by nature a very optimistic person — what gives me hope is Farzad’s company and the 20 others in that space that are doing a bang-up job of primary care and showing that it can be done and it can be done well and cost-effectively and better for patients, and I think we have to embrace that. And one of the things that’s going to be critical is more value-based payments, changing the physician fee schedule, and things like that.

Goldsmith: Well, not to disagree at all that there’s an absurd pay gradient between primary care physicians and specialists, but think about why we have so many specialists in the first place and why they have so much political power and influence in our health policy environment. A lot of the young people that are coming out of medical training today are carrying 3 or 400 grand in debt. That is very different than Europe, where we’re not expecting people to bear this huge burden in going into medicine. Wouldn’t it be easier for people to go into primary care if they didn’t have to worry about the fact that if they go into primary care, they’re going to be 65 and on Medicare before those debts are paid off, and maybe not at all. So we’ve created some of this by how expensive medical education is, by how expensive general education is, for that matter. And we’re not going to do anything about that.

Emanuel: And the solution to that is trivial, right? It might be a $30 billion solution, which would be, you know, whatever — .07% tax on every dollar poured into a fund to fund education. It’s idiocy.

Goldsmith: But politically, Zeke, what you’re doing is giving $30 billion to the wealthiest professional group in the country. That’s the way it’s going to play politically. How are those folks in Alabama, you know, that are, they’re on Medicaid, going to view taking $30 billion and giving it to your kids or grandkids that want to be doctors?

Emanuel: I totally agree with you. It needs to be … [unintelligible].

Mostashari: I don’t disagree that there’s a big difference in cost of medical education here versus other countries. I do wonder, though, in that hypothetical where we make medical education free, if you still have the kind of disparities in pay between the anesthesiology and the surgeon and the primary care doc. I still think we’re — we would be in a place where primary care slots went unfilled this year.

Goldsmith: Not surprising.

Mostashari: Right.

Goldsmith: Not surprising at all.

Mostashari: And we have a big shortage. And, you know, we have urologists who employ 17 nurses and other people to increase the throughput of the practice, right? And a primary care capacity, a lot of that could be augmented. You don’t need necessarily to wait until we graduate a whole new crop of doctors. We could actually supplement our primary care capacity if there was more money in primary care. And as Zeke says, I don’t mean just increasing the fee schedule or just paying more, although that would be nice, but tying it to outcomes that actually make it so that we can pay more for primary care in a way that’s budget-neutral.

Emanuel: But it’s a crazy thing because all we would have to do is spend 3% more of total medical spending on primary care. And guess what? You’d increase their revenue 50%. And that would, Farzad’s — that would make — that would be transformative. And you could get that 3%, you know, 1½ from hospitals, from specialists, from other, and they would barely — well, … [unintelligible] … hospitals might notice. But in general, it wouldn’t be a tragedy to any other part of the system. And that’s the insanity of where we’re at. And as Jeff, I think correctly, points out, is, you know, the political optics of this and the political power of these various different groups going to marshal against it — I mean, you could take 1% of it from pharma, easy, maybe even 2% from pharma, easy. The thing which makes me pessimistic now — I was optimistic, now pessimistic — the thing which makes me pessimistic is the sclerosis which makes these kind of structural changes impossible, and that’s basically interest group politics. And it doesn’t cost much. That’s what’s crazy. You know, United can spend $1 billion a year running ads against various congresspeople to keep its position, and its profit margin wouldn’t be affected.

Rovner: All right. We can go on all day. I would love to go on all day, but I know you guys have places to get, so I want to ask one last question of each of you. If there’s one piece of low-hanging fruit that we could accomplish to, I won’t say fix the health care system, but to make it better over the next decade, what would it be? If you could wave a wand and just change one small part of the system?

Goldsmith: We need a Medicare formulary. I’m sorry, we need a Medicare formulary, and we need to basically put a bullet in the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] business on the way to doing it. That would be mine. And that would free up tens of billions of dollars that we could use to finance some of the stuff that Zeke and Farzad have been talking about.

Rovner: I think that may be the one thing that Congress is actively looking at, so —

Goldsmith: We’ll see how far they get.

Rovner: Yeah. Farzad.

Mostashari: I think we talked about it: competition. I think there’s a — there needs to be a coordinated government regulatory, DOJ [Department of Justice], [Department of] Commerce, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] response to competition policy — FTC [Federal Trade Commission], obviously — that looks at all the different issues: the payment policies that are digging the hole deeper, like site-neutral payments. I think you need to look at the nonprofit hospitals and which jurisdiction applies to them. I think you need to look at transparency. I think you need to look at transparency around ownership of physician practices. I think there needs to be noncompetes. I think there needs to be a whole set of things that tilt the field towards more competition in health care markets, because if you are big and have, you know, the will to use that market power to say all-or-none contracting, no tiering, no steering, no — none of that, right — then there’s just no purchase for any health care payment or delivery reforms, because you’re big and fat and happy and you don’t care.

Rovner: And you’re making your shareholders happy. Zeke.

Emanuel: Let me give one clinical and one that’s more policy. So the clinical is, Farzad already mentioned it, if we would focus on controlling blood pressure well in this country. We’ve got more than a hundred guidelines, you’ve got cheap, 200 drugs for this. It would both improve longevity, decrease morbidity, and reduce disparities, that single thing. And Farzad is the one who turned me on. I know exactly the place on our walks that he put the bug in my ear about it. We should be focused on that because, among other things, it’s a huge producer of disparities between Blacks and whites in terms of renal failure, blah, blah, blah. The one policy thing I think is we know we spend a trillion dollars on administration. It’s a ludicrous amount of money. We know what the solutions are, and a lot of them don’t require that much policy. What we need is someone in the federal government whose job it is to wake up every day and get that money going. Now, the federal government wouldn’t make that much of it, by the way. That’s one of the reasons the federal government hasn’t taken this on, because they do have standardized billing and blah, blah, blah. But everyone agrees that’s a ridiculous amount of money and it’s producing no health benefit. If anything, it’s producing stress, which is not a good thing. And I think the conservative estimates by David Cutler and Nikhil [Sahni] are, you know, we’re talking $250 billion. I mean, that’s real, real money. And it’s no health benefit, and no one likes that stuff. And a lot of it’s about gaming. And so I think that’s a place — and you’d, again, have to put some serious government backbone, including threats, behind it. But I think that’s free money.

Rovner: Well, we will see if any of this happens. I could go on all afternoon, but I promised I would let you all get back to your day jobs. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying, for helping gather all of this together. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. 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, Stitcher, 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).

If the experience and the insurer’s explanation often seem arbitrary and absurd, that might be because companies appear increasingly likely to employ computer algorithms or people with little relevant experience to issue rapid-fire denials of claims — sometimes bundles at a time — without reviewing the patient’s medical chart. A job title at one company was “denial nurse.”

It’s a handy way for insurers to keep revenue high — and just the sort of thing that provisions of the Affordable Care Act were meant to prevent. Because the law prohibited insurers from deploying previously profit-protecting measures such as refusing to cover patients with preexisting conditions, the authors worried that insurers would compensate by increasing the number of denials.

And so, the law tasked the Department of Health and Human Services with monitoring denials both by health plans on the Obamacare marketplace and those offered through employers and insurers. It hasn’t fulfilled that assignment. Thus, denials have become another predictable, miserable part of the patient experience, with countless Americans unjustly being forced to pay out-of-pocket or, faced with that prospect, forgoing needed medical help.

A recent KFF study of ACA plans found that even when patients received care from in-network physicians — doctors and hospitals approved by these same insurers — the companies in 2021 nonetheless denied, on average, 17% of claims. One insurer denied 49% of claims in 2021; another’s turndowns hit an astonishing 80% in 2020. Despite the potentially dire impact that denials have on patients’ health or finances, data shows that people appeal only once in every 500 cases.

Sometimes, the insurers’ denials defy not just medical standards of care but also plain old human logic. Here is a sampling collected for the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” joint project.

• Dean Peterson of Los Angeles said he was “shocked” when payment was denied for a heart procedure to treat an arrhythmia, which had caused him to faint with a heart rate of 300 beats per minute. After all, he had the insurer’s preapproval for the expensive ($143,206) intervention. More confusing still, the denial letter said the claim had been rejected because he had “asked for coverage for injections into nerves in your spine” (he hadn’t) that were “not medically needed.” Months later, after dozens of calls and a patient advocate’s assistance, the situation is still not resolved.
• An insurer’s letter was sent directly to a newborn child denying coverage for his fourth day in a neonatal intensive care unit. “You are drinking from a bottle,” the denial notification said, and “you are breathing on your own.” If only the baby could read.
• Deirdre O’Reilly’s college-age son, suffering a life-threatening anaphylactic allergic reaction, was saved by epinephrine shots and steroids administered intravenously in a hospital emergency room. His mother, utterly relieved by that news, was less pleased to be informed by the family’s insurer that the treatment was “not medically necessary.”

As it happens, O’Reilly is an intensive-care physician at the University of Vermont. “The worst part was not the money we owed,” she said of the $4,792 bill. “The worst part was that the denial letters made no sense — mostly pages of gobbledygook.” She has filed two appeals, so far without success.

Some denials are, of course, well considered, and some insurers deny only 2% of claims, the KFF study found. But the increase in denials, and the often strange rationales offered, might be explained, in part, by a ProPublica investigation of Cigna — an insurance giant, with 170 million customers worldwide.

ProPublica’s investigation, published in March, found that an automated system, called PXDX, allowed Cigna medical reviewers to sign off on 50 charts in 10 seconds, presumably without examining the patients’ records.

Decades ago, insurers’ reviews were reserved for a tiny fraction of expensive treatments to make sure providers were not ordering with an eye on profit instead of patient needs.

These reviews — and the denials — have now trickled down to the most mundane medical interventions and needs, including things such as asthma inhalers or the heart medicine that a patient has been on for months or years. What’s approved or denied can be based on an insurer’s shifting contracts with drug and device manufacturers rather than optimal patient treatment.

Automation makes reviews cheap and easy. A 2020 study estimated that the automated processing of claims saves U.S. insurers more than $11 billion annually.

But challenging a denial can take hours of patients’ and doctors’ time. Many people don’t have the knowledge or stamina to take on the task, unless the bill is especially large or the treatment obviously lifesaving. And the process for larger claims is often fabulously complicated.

The Affordable Care Act clearly stated that HHS “shall” collect the data on denials from private health insurers and group health plans and is supposed to make that information publicly available. (Who would choose a plan that denied half of patients’ claims?) The data is also supposed to be available to state insurance commissioners, who share with HHS the duties of oversight and trying to curb abuse.

To date, such information-gathering has been haphazard and limited to a small subset of plans, and the data isn’t audited to ensure it is complete, according to Karen Pollitz, a senior fellow at KFF and one of the authors of the KFF study. Federal oversight and enforcement based on the data are, therefore, more or less nonexistent.

HHS did not respond to requests for comment for this article.

The government has the power and duty to end the fire hose of reckless denials harming patients financially and medically. Thirteen years after the passage of the ACA, perhaps it is time for the mandated investigation and enforcement to begin.

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 formal end May 11 of the national public health emergency for covid-19 will usher in lots of changes in the way Americans get vaccines, treatment, and testing for the coronavirus. It will also change the way some people get their health insurance, with millions likely to lose coverage altogether.

Meanwhile, two FDA advisory committees voted unanimously this week to allow the over-the-counter sale of a specific birth control pill. Advocates of making the pill easier to get say it could remove significant barriers to the use of effective contraception and prevent thousands of unplanned pregnancies every year. The FDA, however, must still formally approve the change, and some of its staff scientists have expressed concerns about whether teenagers and low-literacy adults will be able to follow the directions without the direct involvement of a medical professional.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@luhby

Read Tami's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The formal public health emergency may be over, but covid definitely is not. More than 1,000 people in the United States died of the virus between April 19 and April 26, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. While most Americans have put covid in their rearview mirrors, it remains a risk around the country.
• The Senate Finance Committee held a hearing on “ghost networks,” lists of health professionals distributed by insurance companies who are not taking new patients or are not actually in the insurance company’s network. Ghost networks are a particular problem in mental health care, where few providers take health insurance at all.
• Another trend in the business of health care is primary care practices being bought by hospitals, insurance companies, and even Amazon. This strategy was popular in the 1990s, as health systems sought to “vertically integrate.” But now the larger entities may have other reasons for having their own networks of doctors, including using their patients to create revenue streams.
• Court battles continue over the fate of the abortion pill mifepristone, as a federal appeals court in New Orleans prepares to hear arguments about a lower-court judge’s ruling that would effectively cancel the drug’s approval by the FDA. In West Virginia, the maker of the generic version of the drug is challenging the right of the state to ban medication approved by federal officials. At the same time, a group of independent abortion clinics from various states is suing the FDA to drop restrictions on how mifepristone can be prescribed, joining mostly Democratic-led states seeking to ensure access to the drug.

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

Julie Rovner: Slate’s “Not Every Man Will Be as Dumb as Marcus Silva,” by Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern.

Joanne Kenen: The Baltimore Banner’s “Baltimore Isn’t Accessible for People With Disabilities. Fixing It Would Cost Over $650 Million,” by Hallie Miller and Adam Willis.

Tami Luhby: CNN’s “Because of Florida Abortion Laws, She Carried Her Baby to Term Knowing He Would Die,” by Elizabeth Cohen, Carma Hassan, and Amanda Musa.

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New Yorker’s “The Problem With Planned Parenthood,” by Eyal Press.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• CNN’s “Here’s How the End of the Covid-19 Public Health Emergency Affects You,” by Tami Luhby and Alex Leeds Matthews.
• The New York Times’ “Corporate Giants Buy Up Primary Care Practices at Rapid Pace,” by Reed Abelson.
• Vox’s “Independents Back Abortion Rights. They’re Less Sure Democrats Do,” by Rachel M. Cohen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Crisis Is Officially Ending, but Covid Confusion Lives On

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

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. We are taping this week on Thursday, May 11, at 10:30 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 Tami Luhby, of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Hello.

Rovner: Margot Sanger Katz, The New York Times.

Sanger-Katz: Good morning.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen, of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So the news on the debt ceiling standoff, just so you know, is that there is no news. Congressional leaders and White House officials are meeting again on Friday, and we still expect to not see this settled until the last possible minute. But there was plenty of other health news. We will start with the official end of the U.S. public health emergency for covid. We have talked at some length about the Medicaid unwinding that’s now happening and a potential to end some telehealth service reimbursement. But there’s a lot more that’s going away after May 11. Tami, you’ve been working to compile everything that’s about to change. What are the high points here?

Luhby: Well, there are a lot of changes depending on what type of insurance you have and whether we’re talking about testing, treatment, or vaccines. So I can give you a quick rundown. We wrote a visual story on this today. If you go to CNN.com, you’ll find it on the homepage right now.

Rovner: I will link to it in the show notes for the podcast.

Luhby: Basically, many people will be paying more for treatments and for tests. However, vaccines will generally remain free for almost everyone. And basically, if you look at our story, you’ll see the color-coded guide as to how it may impact you. But basically, testing — at-home tests are no longer guaranteed to be free. So if you’ve been going to your CVS or somewhere else to pick up your eight tests a month, your insurer may opt to continue providing it for free, but I don’t think many will. And then for lab tests, again, it really depends. But if you have Medicaid, all tests will be free through 2024. However, if you have private insurance or Medicare, you will probably have to start paying out-of-pocket for tests that are ordered by your provider. Those deductibles, those pesky deductibles, and copays or coinsurance will start kicking in again. And for treatments, it’s a little bit different again. The cost will vary by treatment if you have Medicare or private insurance. However, Paxlovid and treatments that are purchased by the federal government, such as Paxlovid, will be free as long as supplies last. Now, also, if you’re uninsured, there is a whole different situation. It’ll be somewhat more difficult for them. But there are still options. And, you know, the White House has been working to provide free treatments and vaccines for them.

Rovner: So if you get covid, get it soon.

Luhby: Like today. Right, exactly. Yeah, but with vaccines, even though, again, they’re free as long as the federal supplies last — but because of the Affordable Care Act, the CARES Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, people with private insurance, Medicare, and Medicaid will actually continue to be able to get free vaccines after the federal supplies run out.

Rovner: After May 11.

Luhby: It’s very confusing.

Rovner: It is very confusing. That’s why you did a whole graphic. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: And the confusion is the problem. We have lots of problems, but, like, last week, we talked a little bit about this. You know, are we still in an emergency? We’re not in an emergency the way we were in 2020, 2021, but it’s not gone. We all know it’s much, much better, but it’s not gone. And it could get worse again, particularly if people are confused, if people don’t know how to test, if people don’t know that they can still get things. The four of us are professionals, and, like, Tami’s having to read this complicated color-coded chart — you know, you get this until September 2024, but this goes away in 2023. And, you know, if you have purple insurance, you get this. And if you have purple polka-dotted insurance, you get that. And the lack of clarity is dangerous, because if people don’t get what they’re eligible for because they hear “emergency over, everything — nothing’s free anymore” — we’re already having trouble with uptake. We don’t have enough people getting boosters. People don’t know that they can get Paxlovid and that it’s free and that it works. We are still in this very inadequate response. We’re not in the terrifying emergency of three years ago, but it’s not copacetic. You know, it’s not perfect. And this confusion is really part of what really worries me the most. And the people who are most likely to be hurt are the people who are always most likely to be hurt: the people who are poor, the people who are in underserved communities, the people who are less educated, and it’s disproportionately people in minority communities. We’ve seen this show before, and that’s part of what I worry about — that there’s a data issue that we’ll get to whenever Julie decides to get to it, right?

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, and that’s the thing. With so much of the emergency going away, we’re not really going to know as much as we have before.

Sanger-Katz: In some ways, how you feel about this transition really reflects how you feel about the way that our health care system works in general. You know, what happened for covid is —and I’m oversimplifying a little bit — is we sort of set up a single-payer system just for one disease. So everyone had access to all of the vaccines, everyone had access to all of the tests, everyone had access to all of the treatments basically for free. And we also created this huge expansion of Medicaid coverage by no longer allowing the states to kick people out if they no longer seem to be eligible. So we had the kind of system that I think a lot of people on the left would like to see, not just for one disease but for every disease, where you have kind of more universal coverage and where the cost of obtaining important treatments and prevention is zero to very low. And this is definitely going to be a bumpy transition, but it’s basically a transition to the way our health care system works for every other disease. So if you are someone who had some other kind of infectious disease or a chronic disease like cancer, rheumatoid arthritis, whatever, you’ve been sort of dealing with all of this stuff the whole time — that you have to pay for your drugs; that, you know, that testing is expensive; that it’s confusing where you get things; that, you know, there’s a lot of complexity and hoops you have to jump through; that a lot depends on what kind of insurance you have; that what kind of insurance you can get depends on your income and other demographic characteristics. And so I find this transition to be pretty interesting because it seems like it would be weird for the United States to just forever have one system for this disease and another system for every other disease. And of course, we do have this for people who are experiencing kidney disease: They get Medicare, they get the government system, regardless of whether they would otherwise be eligible for Medicare.

Rovner: We should point out that Congress did that in 1972. They haven’t really done it since.

Kenen: And when it was much more rare than it was today.

Rovner: And when people didn’t live very long with it mostly.

Kenen: We didn’t have as much diabetes either.

Sanger-Katz: But anyway, I just think this transition kind of just gives us a moment to reflect on, How does the system work in general? How do we feel about how the system works in general? Are these things good or bad? And I agree with everything that Joanne said, that the confusion around this is going to have public health impacts as relates to covid. But we have lots of other diseases where we just basically have the standard system, and now we’re going to have the standard system for covid, too.

Kenen: You could have gone to the hospital with the bad pneumonia and needed oxygen, needed a ventilator, and when they tested you, if you had covid, it was all free. And if you had, you know, regular old-fashioned pneumonia, you got a bill. I agree with everything Margot said, but it’s even that silly. You could have had the same symptoms in your same lungs and you had two different health care systems and financing systems. None of us have ever thought anything made sense.

Rovner: Yes, well, I actually —

Kenen: That’s why we have a podcast. Otherwise, you know —

Sanger-Katz: And also the way that the drugs and vaccines were developed was also totally different, right? With the government deeply involved in the technology and development, you know, funding the research, purchasing large quantities of these drugs in bulk in advance. I mean, this is just not the way that our system really works for other diseases. It’s been a very interesting sort of experiment, and I do wonder whether it will be replicated in the future.

Luhby: Right. But it was also clear that this is not the beginning of the pushback. I mean, Congress has not wanted to allocate more money, you know, and there’s been a lot of arguments and conflicts over the whole course of this so-called single-payer system, or this more flexible system. So the U.S.’ approach to health care has been pushing its way in for many months.

Rovner: I naively, at the beginning of the pandemic, when we first did this and when the Republicans all voted for it, it’s like, let’s have the federal government pay the hospitals for whatever care they’re providing and make everything free at point of service to the patient — and I thought, Wow, are we going to get used to this and maybe move on? And I think the answer is exactly the opposite. It’s like, let’s get rid of it as fast as we possibly can.

Kenen: There’s money that the government has put in. I believe it is $5 billion into the next generation of vaccines and treatments, because the vaccine we have has certainly saved many lives. But as we all know, it’s not perfect. You know, it’s preventing death, but not infection. It’s not ending circulation of the disease. So we need something better. This debt ceiling fight, if the people in the government could spend all $5 billion today — like we were joking, if you want to get covid, if you’re going to get covid, get it today — I mean, if they could, they would spend all $5 billion of it today, too, because that could be clawed back. I mean, that’s — it’s going to be part of the coming fight.

Luhby: But the question is, even if they develop it, will anyone take it, or will enough people take it? That’s another issue.

Rovner: Well, since we’re sort of on the subject, I’m going to skip ahead to what I was going to bring up towards the end, which I’m calling “This Week in Our Dysfunctional Health System.”

Kenen: We could call it that way every week.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. But this is particularly about how our health system doesn’t work. First up is “ghost networks.” Those are where insurers provide lists of health care providers who are not, in fact, available to those patients. A quote “secret shopper survey” by the staff of the Senate Finance Committee found that more than 80% of mental health providers found in insurance directories in 12 plans from six states were unreachable, not accepting new patients, or not actually in network. This is not a new problem. We’ve been hearing about it for years and years. Why does it persist? One would think that you could clean up your provider directory. That would be possible, right?

Kenen: Didn’t they legislate that, though? Didn’t they say a few years ago you have to clean it up? I mean, there are going to be some mistakes because there’s, you know, many, many providers and people will make changes or leave practices or … [unintelligible] …  jobs or whatever. But I thought that they had supposedly, theoretically, taken care of this a couple years ago in one of the annual regulations for ACA or something.

Rovner: They supposedly, theoretically, took care of the hospitals reporting their prices in a way that consumers can understand, too. So we’ve discovered in our dysfunctional health care system that Congress passing legislation or HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] putting out rules doesn’t necessarily make things so.

Kenen: Really?

Rovner: Yeah. I just — this was one that I had thought, Oh, boy, I have a whole file on that from like the 1990s.

Sanger-Katz: It’s a huge problem, though. I mean —

Rovner: Oh, it is.

Sanger-Katz: You know, we have a system where, for large groups of Americans, you are expected to shop for a health insurance plan. If you’re purchasing a marketplace plan for yourself, if you are purchasing a Medicare Advantage plan when you become eligible for Medicare, and in many cases, if you have a choice of employer plans, you know, you’re supposed to pick the plan that’s best for you. And we have a system that tells people that having those kinds of choices is good and maximizes the benefits to people, to be able to pick the best plan. But for a lot of people, being able to have the doctors and hospitals that they use or to have a choice of a wide range of doctors for various problems, including mental health services, is a huge selling point of one plan versus another. And again, you have these ghost networks, when you have this lack of transparency and accuracy of this information, it just causes people to be unable to make those good choices and it undermines the whole system of market competition that underpins all of this policy design. I think you can argue that there are not a million gazillion people who are actually shopping on the basis of this. But I do think that knowing whether your medical providers are covered when you’re choosing a new health care plan is actually something that a lot of people do look into when they are choosing a health insurance plan. And discovering that a doctor that you’ve been seeing for a long time and whose relationship you really value and whose care has been important to you is suddenly dishonestly represented as a part of an insurance plan that you’ve selected is just, you know, it’s a huge disappointment. It causes huge disruptions in people’s care. And I think the other thing that this study highlighted is that health insurance coverage for mental health services continues to be a very large problem. There has been quite a lot of legislation and regulation trying to expand coverage for mental health care. But there are these kind of lingering problems where a lot of mental health care providers simply don’t accept insurance or don’t accept very many patients who have insurance. And so I think that this report did a good job of highlighting that place where I think these problems are even worse than they are with the health care system at large. It’s just very hard to find mental health care providers who will take your insurance.

Rovner: And I would say, when you’re in mental health distress or you have a relative who’s in mental health distress, the last thing you need is to have to call 200 different providers to find one who can help you.

Kenen: A lot of the ones that are taking insurance are these online companies, and the good thing is that they’re taking insurance and that there may be convenience factors for people, although there’s also privacy and other factors on the downside. But there have been reports about, your data is not private, and I have no idea how you find out which company is a good actor in that department and which company is just selling identifiable data. I mean, I think it was The Washington Post that had a story about that a couple of weeks ago. You know, you click in on something — straight to the data broker. So, yeah, you get insurance coverage, but at a different price.

Rovner: Well, overlaid over all of this is consolidation, this time at the primary care level of health care. Margot, your colleague Reed Abelson had a big story this week on primary care practices being bought up by various larger players in the health care industry, including hospitals, insurance companies, pharmacy chains, and even Amazon. These larger entities say this can act as a move towards more coordinated, value-based care, which is what we say we all want. But there’s also the very real possibility that these giant, vertical, mega medical organizations can just start to name their own price. I mean, this is something that the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] in theory could go after but has been kind of loath to and that Congress could go after but has also been kind of loath to.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, in some ways we’ve seen this movie before. There was a big wave of primary care acquisitions that happened, I think, in the 1990s by hospitals. And the hospitals learned pretty quickly that primary care doctors are kind of a money-losing proposition, and they divested a lot. But I think what Reed documented so nicely is that the entities that are buying primary care now are more diverse and they have different business strategies. So it’s not just hospitals who are sort of trying to get more patients referred to their higher-profit specialists, but it’s also Medicare Advantage insurers who benefit from being able to tell the primary care doctors to diagnose their patients with lots of diseases that generate profits for the plan, and it’s other kinds of groups that see primary care as kind of the front door to other services that can be revenue-generating. And it’s very — it will be very interesting to see what the effects of these will be and whether these will turn out to be good business decisions for these new entities and of course also whether it will turn out to be good for patient care.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember in the 1990s when hospitals were buying up doctor practices, the doctors ended up hating it because they were asked to work much harder, see patients for a shorter period of time, and some of them actually — because they were now on salary rather than being paid for each patient — were cutting back on, you know, in general, on the amount of care they were providing. And that was what I think ended up with a lot of these hospitals divesting. It didn’t work out the way the hospitals hoped it would. But as you point out, Margot, this is completely different, so we will — we will see how this moves on. All right. Let’s go back a little bit. We’re going to talk about abortion in a minute. But first, something that could prevent a lot of unintended pregnancies: On Wednesday, an advisory committee for the Food and Drug Administration — actually two advisory committees — unanimously recommended that the agency approve an over-the-counter birth control pill. This has been a long time coming here in the U.S., even though pills like these are available without prescription in much of Europe and have been for years. But while the FDA usually follows the recommendations of its advisory committees, we know that some FDA scientists have expressed concerns about over-the-counter availability. So what’s the problem with giving women easier access to something that so many depend on?

Kenen: There are trade-offs. And there are — some of the scientists at the FDA are more conservative than others about, What if the woman doesn’t understand how to take the pill properly? Things like that. I mean, obviously, if we go the over-the-counter route, as other countries are doing, there have to be very simple, easy-to-understand explanations in multiple languages. Pharmacists should be able to explain it like, you know, “You have to take it every day, and you have to take it at approximately the same time every day,” and things like that. So, you know, obviously not taking it right doesn’t protect you as much as taking it right. But there are a lot of people who will be able to get it. You know, getting a prescription is not always the easiest thing in the world. Or if you’re lucky, you just click on something and somebody calls your doctor and gets you a refill. But that doesn’t always work and not everybody has access to that, and you have to still see your doctor sometimes for renewals. So if you’re a working person who doesn’t have sick leave and you have to take time off from work every three months to get a refill or you have to hire child care or you have to take three buses — you know, it takes a whole day, and then you sit in a waiting room at a clinic. I mean, our health system is not patient-friendly.

Rovner: I was going to say, to go back to what Tami was talking about earlier — if pills are available over the counter, it’s going to depend on, you know, what your insurance is like, whether you would get it covered.

Kenen: The cost.

Rovner: That’s right. And it could end up being —

Kenen: But I don’t think the FDA is concerned about that.

Rovner: No, they’re not. That’s not their job.

Kenen: The pill is pretty safe, and these are lower-dose ones than the pills that were invented, you know, 50 years ago. These are lower-dose, safer drugs with fewer side effects. But I mean, there’s concern about the rare side effect, there’s concern about people not knowing how to take it, all that kind of stuff. But Julie just mentioned the cost of coverage is a separate issue because under the ACA it’s covered. And if it becomes over the counter, the mechanism for getting that covered is, at this point, unclear.

Sanger-Katz: But we do have a system now where, for a lot of women, obtaining birth control pills depends on being able to get a doctor’s appointment on a regular basis. I think, you know, this is not standard practice, but I do think that there are a lot of OB-GYNs who basically won’t write you for a birth control pill unless you come in on a regular basis to receive other kinds of health screenings. And I think many of them do that with good intentions because they want to make sure that people are getting Pap smears and other kinds of preventive health services. But on the other hand, it does mean that there are a lot of women who, if they don’t have time or they can’t afford to come in for regular doctor’s appointments, lose access to birth control. And I think over-the-counter pills is one way of counteracting that particular problem.

Rovner: And I think that’s exactly why so many of the medical groups are urging this. During the more than a decade-long fight over making the morning-after pill over the counter, the big hang-up was what to do about minors. Even President Obama, a major backer of women’s reproductive health rights, seemed unhappy at the idea of his then-barely teenage daughters being able to get birth control so easily and without notifying either parent. It seems unimaginable that we’re not going to have that same fight here. I mean, literally, we spent six years trying to figure out what age teens could be to safely buy morning-after pills, which are high doses of basically these birth control pills. I’m actually surprised that we haven’t really seen the minor fight yet.

Kenen: I think everyone’s waiting for somebody else to do it first. I mean, like Julie, I wasn’t expecting to hear more about age limitations, and that’ll probably come up when the FDA acts, because I think the advisory committee just wanted to — they were pretty strong saying, “Yeah, make this OTC.”

Sanger-Katz: I also think the politics around emergency contraception are a little bit different because I think that, while physicians understand that those pills are basically just high-dose birth control pills and that they work in just the same way as typical contraception, I think there’s a perception among many members of the public that because you can take them after unprotected sex, that they might be something closer to an abortion. Now, that is not true, but because I think that is a common misperception, it does lead to more discomfort around the availability of those pills, whereas birth control pills — while I think there are some people who object to their wide dissemination and certainly some who are concerned about them in the hands of children, I think they are more broadly accepted in our society.

Rovner: We obviously are going to see, and we’ll probably see fairly soon. We’re expecting, I guess, a decision from the FDA this summer, although with the morning-after pill we expected a decision from FDA that lingered on for many months, in some cases many years.

Kenen: And I think it’s at least hypothetically possible that states will not do what the FDA says. Say the FDA says they can be over the counter with no age limitations. I can see that becoming a fight in conservative states. I mean, I don’t know exactly the mechanism for how that would fall, but I could certainly think that somebody is going to dream up a mechanism so that a 12-year-old can’t get this over the counter.

Rovner: I want to move to abortion because first up is the continuing question over the fate of the abortion pill, which we get to say at this point: not the same as the emergency contraceptive pill, which, as Margot said, is just high-dosage regular birth control pills. Needless to say, that’s the one that we’re having the current court action over. And there was even more action this week, although not from that original case, which will be heard by the Court of Appeals later in this month. In West Virginia, a judge declined to throw out a case brought by GenBioPro. They are the maker of the generic version of mifepristone, the abortion pill. That generic, which accounts for more than half the market, would be rendered unapproved even under the compromise position of the Court of Appeals because it was approved after the 2016 cutoff period. Remember, the Court of Appeals said, We don’t want to cancel the approval, but we want to roll it back to the date when FDA started to loosen the restrictions on it. So, in theory, there would be no generic allowed, but that’s actually not even what the West Virginia lawsuit is about; it’s about challenging the state’s total abortion ban as violating the federal supremacy of the FDA over state laws. Joanne, that’s what sort of you were talking about now with contraceptives, too. And this is the big unanswered question: Can states basically overrule the FDA’s approval and the FDA’s approval for even an age limit?

Kenen: Well, I mean, I’m not saying they can, but I am saying that I don’t know where the question will come down. Go back to the regular birth control; I can certainly see conservative states trying to put age limits on it. And I don’t know how that’ll play out legally. But this is a different issue, and this is why the abortion pill lawsuits are not just about the abortion pill. They’re about drug safety and drug regulation in this country. The FDA is the agency we charge with deciding whether drugs are safe and good for human beings, and not the system of politicians and state legislators in 50 different states replacing their judgment. So obviously, it’s more complicated, because it’s abortion, but one of several bottom lines in this case is who gets to decide: the FDA or state legislature.

Rovner: And right: Do states get to overrule what the federal Food and Drug Administration says? Well, I —

Kenen: Remember, some states have had — you know, California’s had stricter regulations on several health things, you know, and that’s been allowed that you could have higher ceilings for various health — you know, carcinogenics and so forth. But they haven’t fundamentally challenged the authority of the FDA.

Rovner: Yet. Well, since confusion is our theme of the week, also this week a group of independent abortion clinics led by Whole Woman’s Health, which operates in several states, filed suit against the FDA, basically trying to add Virginia, Kansas, and Montana to the other 18 states that sued to force FDA to further reduce the agency’s current restrictions on mifepristone. A federal judge in Washington state ruled — the same day that Texas judge did that mifepristone should have its approval removed — judge in Washington said the drug should become even more easily available. In the real world, though, this is just sowing so much confusion that nobody knows what’s allowed and what isn’t, which I think is kind of the point for opponents, right? They just want to make everybody as confused as possible, if they can’t actually ban it.

Sanger-Katz: I think they actually want to ban it. I mean, I think that’s their primary goal. I’m sure there are some that will settle for confusion as a secondary outcome. I think just this whole mess of cases really highlights what a weird moment we are, where we’re having individual judges and individual jurisdictions making determinations about whether or not the FDA can or can’t approve the safety and efficacy of drugs. You know, as Joanne said, we’ve just had a system in this country since the foundation of the FDA where they are the scientific experts and they make determinations and those determinations affect drug availability and legal status around the country. And this is a very unusual situation where we’re seeing federal courts in different jurisdictions making their own judgments about what the FDA should do. And I think the Texas judge that struck down the approval of mifepristone, at least temporarily, has come in for a lot of criticism. But what the judge in Washington state did is sort of a flavor of the same thing. It’s telling the FDA, you know, how they should do their business. And it’s a weird thing.

Rovner: It is. Well, one last thing this week, since we’re talking about confusion, and the public is definitely confused, according to two different polls that are out this week — on the one hand, a Washington Post-ABC News poll found that a full two-thirds of respondents say mifepristone, the abortion pill, should stay on the market, and more than half say they disagree with the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe v. Wade, including 70% of independents and more than a third of Republicans. Yet, in focus groups in April, more than a third of independents couldn’t differentiate Democrats’ position on abortion from Republicans’. As reported by Vox, one participant said, quote, “I really haven’t basically heard anything about which party is leaning toward it and which one isn’t.” When pressed, she said, “If I had to guess, I would say Democrat would probably be against it and Republican would probably be for it.” Another participant said she thought that Joe Biden helped get the Supreme Court judges who overturned Roe. We really do live in a bubble, don’t we? I think that was sort of the most mind-blowing thing I’ve read since — all the months since Roe got overturned, that there are people who care about this issue who have no idea where anybody stands.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s just a truth about our political system that there are a lot of Americans who are what the political scientists call low-information voters. These are people who are just not following the news very closely and not following politics very closely. And they may have a certain set of opinions about issues of the day, but I think it is a big challenge to get those people aware of where candidates stand on issues of concern to them and to get them activated. And it doesn’t really surprise me that independent voters are the ones who seem to be confused about where the parties are, because they’re probably the least plugged into politics generally. And so, for Democrats, it does seem like this lack of information is potentially an opportunity for them, because it seems like when you ask voters what they want on abortion, they want things that are more aligned with Democratic politicians’ preferences than Republicans’. And so it strikes me that perhaps some of those people in the focus group who didn’t know who stood for what, maybe those are gettable voters for the Democratic Party. But I think — you know, we’re about to go into a very heated campaign season, you know, as we go into the presidential primaries and then the general election in which there are going to be a lot of ads, a lot of news coverage. And, you know, I think abortion is very likely to be a prominent issue during the campaigns. And I think it is almost certainly going to be a major goal of the Biden presidential reelection campaign to try to make sure that these people know where Biden stands relative to abortion, because it is an issue that so many voters agree with him on.

Rovner: And it makes you see, I mean, there’s a lot of Republicans who are trying to sort of finesse this issue now and say, you know, “Oh, well, we’re going to restrict it, but we’re not going to ban it,” or, “We have all these exceptions” that are, of course, in practice, you can’t use. Obviously, these are the kinds of voters who might be attracted to that. So we will obviously see this as it goes on.

Kenen: But Julie, do you remember whether they were actually voters? Because I had the same reaction to you: like, of all the things to not be sure of, that one was pretty surprising. But we also know that in places like Kansas where, you know, where there are not that many Democrats, these referenda won. Voters have supported abortion rights in the 2022 elections and in these state referenda. So independents must be voting with the —

Rovner: I was going to say, I think if you’re doing —

Kenen: Something isn’t totally — something is not totally adding up there.

Rovner: If you’re doing a focus group for politics, one presumes that you get voters. So, I mean, I think that was — that was the point of the focus group. But yeah, it’s —

Kenen: Or people who say they’re voters.

Rovner: Or people who say they’re voters. That is a different issue. All right. Well, something not that confusing: Now 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. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, I picked a story from CNN by my colleagues on the health team. It’s titled “Because of Florida Abortion Laws, She Carried Her Baby to Term Knowing He Would Die,” by Elizabeth Cohen, Carma Hassan, and Amanda Musa. And I have to say that when I first read this story, I couldn’t get through it, because it was so upsetting. And then when I selected it as an extra credit, I had to read it in full. But it’s about a family in Florida whose son was born without kidneys. They knew that he was going to die. And it’s about all of the effects from everything from, you know, the mother, Deborah Dorbert, on her physically and emotionally. But it also, you know, talked about the family and, you know, the effect on the marriage and the effect — which was just so upsetting — was on the 4-year-old son, who became very attached. I don’t think they even knew — well, it wasn’t a girl. It was actually a boy. But for some reason, this older son felt that it was a girl and just kept saying, like, “My sister is going to do X, Y, Z.” And, you know, how did the parents break it to him? Because he saw that his mother was, you know, pregnant and getting larger. And, you know, it was just figuring out how to break it to him that no baby was coming home. So the details are heart-wrenching. The quotes in the third paragraph: “‘He gasped for air a couple of times when I held him,’ said Dorbert. ‘I watched my child take his first breath, and I held him as he took his last one.’” So, you know, these are things that, you know — and we just talked about how the states are arguing over what exceptions there should be, if any, you know, and these are the stories that the legislators don’t think about when they pass these laws.

Rovner: I think I said this before because we’ve had a story like this almost every week. This one was particularly wrenching. But I think the one thing that all these stories are doing is helping people understand, particularly men, that there are complications in pregnancy, that they’re not that rare, that, you know, that they sort of throw off and say, “Oh, well, that’s, you know, one in a million,” — It’s not one in a million. It’s like one in a thousand. That’s a lot of people. So I mean, that’s why there are a lot of these stories, because there are a lot of pregnancies that don’t go as expected.

Luhby: Right. And it really shows the chilling effect on doctors because, you know, you would say, “Oh, it’s simple: life of the mother or, you know, life of the fetus” or something like that. That seems pretty straightforward, but it isn’t. And these doctors, in cases where, you know, other cases where it is the life of the mother, which seem, again, very straightforward, the doctors are not willing to do anything because they’re afraid.

Rovner: I know. Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story from The Baltimore Banner that has a very long title. It’s by Hallie Miller and Adam Willis, and it’s called “Baltimore Isn’t Accessible for People With Disabilities. Fixing It Would Cost Over $650 Million.” Baltimore is not that big a city. $650 million is a lot of curbs and barriers. And there’s also a lot of gun violence in Baltimore. If you drive around Baltimore, and I work there a few days a week, you see lots of people on walkers and scooters and wheelchairs because many of them are survivors of gun violence. And you see them struggling. And there were quotes from people saying they, you know, were afraid walking near the harbor that they would fall in because there wasn’t a path for them. It is not invisible, but we treat it like it’s invisible. And it’s been many years since the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed, and we still don’t have it right. It’s a — this one isn’t confusion like everything else we talked about today. I loved Margot’s phrase about confusion as a secondary outcome. I think you should write a novel with that title. But it’s — this isn’t confusion. This is just not doing the right thing for people who are — we’re just not protecting or valuing.

Rovner: And I’d say for whom there are laws that this should be happening. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I had another story about abortion. This one was in The New Yorker, called “The Problem With Planned Parenthood,” by Eyal Press. The story sort of looked at Planned Parenthood, you know, which is kind of the largest abortion provider in the country. It’s — I mean, it’s really a network of providers. They have all these affiliates. They’re often seen as being more monolithic than perhaps they are. But this story argued that people who were operating independent abortion clinics, who do represent a lot of the abortion providers in the country as well, have felt that Planned Parenthood has been too cautious legally, too afraid of running afoul of state laws, and so that has led them to be very conservative and also too conservative from the perspective of business, and that there is a view that Planned Parenthood is not serving the role that it could be by expanding into areas where abortion is less available. I thought it was just interesting to hear these criticisms and hoped to understand that the community of abortion providers are, you know, they’re diverse and they have different perspectives on how abortion access should work and what kinds of services should be provided in different settings. And they also view each other as business competition in some cases. I mean, a lot of the complaints in this article had to do with Planned Parenthood opening clinics near to independent clinics and kind of taking away the business from them, making it harder for them to survive and operate. Anyway, I thought it was a very interesting window into these debates, and it did mesh with some of my reporting experience, particularly around the legal cautiousness. I did a story before the Dobbs decision came down from the Supreme Court where Planned Parenthood in several states had just stopped offering abortions even before the court had ruled, because they anticipated that the court would rule and they just didn’t want to make any mistake about running afoul of these laws such that, you know, women were denied care that was still legal in the days leading up to the Supreme Court decision.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my story is kind of tangentially about abortion. It’s from Slate, and it’s called “Not Every Man Will Be as Dumb as Marcus Silva,” by Moira Donegan and Mark Joseph Stern. And it’s about a case from Texas, of course, that we talked about a couple of weeks ago, where an ex-husband is suing two friends of his ex-wife for wrongful death, for helping her get an abortion. Well, now the two friends have filed a countersuit claiming that the ex-husband knew his wife was going to have an abortion beforehand because he found the pill in her purse and he put it back so that he could use the threat of a lawsuit to force her to stay with him. It feels like a soap opera, except it is happening in real life. And my first thought when I read this is that it’s going to make some great episode of “Dateline” or “20/20.” That is our show, as always.

Kenen: Or, not “The Bachelor.”

Rovner: Yeah, but not “The Bachelor.” 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still there. I’m at @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Tami.

Luhby: @Luhby.

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week, hopefully with a little less confusion. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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).