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.

2023 will likely be remembered as the summer Arizona sizzled, Vermont got swamped, and nearly the entire Eastern Seaboard, along with huge swaths of the Midwest, choked on wildfire smoke from Canada. Still, none of that has been enough to prompt policymakers in Washington to act on climate issues.

Meanwhile, at a public court hearing, a group of women in Texas took the stand to share wrenching stories about their inability to get care for pregnancy complications, even though they should have been exempt from restrictions under the state’s strict abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Tensions over abortion access between the medical and legal communities are coming to the fore in the courts, as doctors beg for clarification about bans on the procedure — and conservative state officials argue that the law is clear enough. The risk of being hauled into court and forced to defend even medically justified care could be enough to discourage a doctor from providing abortion care.
• Conservative states are targeting a Biden administration effort to update federal privacy protections, which would make it more difficult for law enforcement to obtain information about individuals who travel outside a state where abortion is restricted for the procedure. Patient privacy is also under scrutiny in Nebraska, where a case involving a terminated pregnancy is further illuminating how willing tech companies like Meta are to share user data with authorities.
• And religious freedom laws are being cited in arguments challenging abortion bans, with plaintiffs alleging the restrictions infringe on their religious rights. The argument appears to have legs, as early challenges are being permitted to move forward in the courts.
• On Capitol Hill, key Senate Democrats are holding up the confirmation process of President Joe Biden’s nominee as director of the National Institutes of Health to press for stronger drug pricing reforms and an end to the revolving-door practice of government officials going to work for private industry.
• And shortages of key cancer drugs are intensifying concerns about drug supplies and drawing attention in Congress. But Republicans are skeptical about increasing the FDA’s authority — and supply-chain issues just aren’t that politically compelling.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Meena Seshamani, director of the Center for Medicare at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services.

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

Julie Rovner: Los Angeles Times’ “Opinion: Crushing Medical Debt Is Turning Americans Against Their Doctors,” by KFF Health News’ Noam N. Levey.

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “They Lost Their Legs. Doctors and Health Care Giants Profited,” by Katie Thomas, Jessica Silver-Greenberg, and Robert Gebeloff.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Atlantic’s “What Happened When Oregon Decriminalized Hard Drugs,” by Jim Hinch.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “Medical Exiles: Families Flee States Amid Crackdown on Transgender Care,” by Bram Sable-Smith, Daniel Chang, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Sandy West.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat’s “From Rapid Cooling Body Bags to ‘Prescriptions’ for AC, Doctors Prepare for a Future of Extreme Heat,” by Karen Pennar.
• Politico’s “The Sleeper Legal Strategy That Could Topple Abortion Bans,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Let’s Talk About the Weather

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Let’s Talk About the WeatherEpisode Number: 306Published: July 20, 2023

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

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 20, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein, of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs, of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Meena Seshamani, director of the Center for Medicare at the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services. She has an update on drug price negotiations, Medicare Advantage payments, and more. But first, this week’s news. So let’s talk about the weather. Seriously, this summer of intense heat domes in the South and Southwest, flash floods in the East, and toxic air from Canadian wildfires almost everywhere below the border has advertised the dangers of climate change in a way scientists and journalists and policymakers could only dream about. The big question, though, is whether it will make any difference to the people who can actually do something about it. I hasten to point out here that in D.C., it’s normal — hot and humid for July, but nothing particularly out of the ordinary, especially compared to a lot of the rest of the country. Is anybody seeing anybody on the Hill who seems at the least alarmed by what’s going on?

Ollstein: Not other than those who normally speak out about these issues. You’re not seeing minds changed by this, even as the reports coming out, especially of the Southwest, are just devastating — I mean, especially for unhoused people, just dying. I was really interested in the story from Stat about doctors moving to start prescribing things to combat heat, like prescribing air conditioners, prescribing cooling packs and other things, really looking at heat as a medical issue and not just a feature of our lives that we have to deal with.

Rovner: Well, emergency rooms are full of patients. You can now burn yourself walking on the sidewalk in Arizona. You know, last summer was not a great summer for a lot of people, particularly in California and in western Canada. But this year, it’s like everywhere across the country, everybody’s having something that’s sort of, oh, a hundred-year something or a thousand-year something. And yet we just sort of continue on blithely.

Ollstein: And just quickly, what really hits me is how much of a vicious cycle it can create, because the more people use air conditioners, those give off heat and make the bigger situation worse. So making it better for yourself makes it worse for others. Same with driving. You know, the worse the weather is, the more people have to drive rather than bike or walk or take public transit. And so it gets into this vicious cycle that can make it worse for everyone and create these so-called heat islands in these cities.

Rovner: All right. Well, let us move on to a more familiar topic: abortion and reproductive health. In case you’re wondering why it’s hard to keep track of where abortion is legal, where it’s banned, and where it’s restricted, let’s talk about Iowa. When we last checked in, last week, state lawmakers had just passed a near-total ban after the state Supreme Court deadlocked over a previous ban and the Republican governor, Kim Reynolds, was poised to sign it. Then what happened?

Luthra: The governor signed the ban right as the hearing for the ban concluded in which Planned Parenthood and another abortion clinic in the state sued, arguing, right, that this is the exact same as the law that was just struck down and therefore should be struck down again. And this judge said that he wouldn’t rush to his ruling. He wanted to, you know, give it the time that it deserved so he wouldn’t be saying anything on Friday, which meant as soon as the law was signed, it took effect. It was in effect for maybe a little over 72 hours, essentially through the weekend. And then on Monday, the judge came and issued a ruling blocking the law. And even that is temporary, right? It only lasts as long as this case is proceeding. And one of the reasons Republicans came back and passed this ban is they are hopeful that something has changed and that this time around the state Supreme Court will let the six-week ban in Iowa stand, which really just would have quite significant implications for the Midwest, where it’s been kind of slower to restrict abortion than the South has been because of the role the courts have played in Ohio, in Iowa, blocking abortion bans, and we could very soon see restrictions in Iowa, in Indiana, potentially in Ohio, depending on how the election later this year goes. And it will look like a very different picture than it did even six months ago.

Rovner: And for the moment, abortion is legal in Iowa, right?

Luthra: Correct.

Rovner: Up to 20 weeks?

Luthra: Up to 20, 22, depending on how you count.

Rovner: But as you say, that could change any day. And it has changed from day to day as we’ve gone on. Well, if that’s not confusing enough, there are a couple of lawsuits that went to court in Texas and Missouri, and neither of them is actually challenging an abortion ban. In Texas, women who were pregnant and unable to get timely care for complications are suing to clarify the state’s abortion ban so patients don’t have to literally wait until they are dying to be treated. And in Missouri, there’s a fight between two state officials over how to describe what a proposed state ballot measure would do, honestly. So what’s the status of those two suits? Let’s start with Texas. That was quite a hearing yesterday.

Luthra: It is really devastating to watch. And the hearing continues today, Thursday. And we are hearing from these women who wanted to have their pregnancies, developed complications where they knew that the fetus would not be viable, could not get care in the state. One of them who came to the State of the Union earlier this year, she had to wait until she was septic before she could get care. Another woman traveled out of state. Another one had to give birth to a baby that died four hours after being born, and she knew that this baby wouldn’t live. And it’s really striking to watch just how obviously difficult it is for these women to relive this thing that happened to them, clearly one of the worst things in their lives, maybe the worst thing. And the state’s arguments are very interesting, too, because they appear to be trying to suggest that it is actually not that the law is unclear, but that doctors are just not doing their jobs and they should do, you know, the hard work of medicine by understanding what exceptions mean and interpreting laws that are always supposed to be a little ambiguous.

Ollstein: So when states were debating abortion bans and really Republicans were tying themselves in knots over this question of exemptions — How should the exemptions be worded? Should there be any exemptions at all? Who should they apply to? — a lot of folks on the left were yelling at the time that that’s the wrong conversation, that exemptions are unworkable; even if you say on paper that people can get an abortion in a medical emergency, it won’t work in practice. And this is really fodder for that argument. This is that argument playing out in real life, where there is a medical exemption on the books, and yet all of these women were not able to get the care they needed, and some have suffered permanent or somewhat permanent repercussions to their health and fertility going forward. As more states debate their own laws, and some states with bans have even tried to go back and clarify the exemptions and change them, I wonder how much this will impact those debates.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, if you just say that doctors are being, you know, cowards basically by not providing this care, think of it from the doctor’s point of view, and now we see why hospital lawyers are getting involved. Even if there’s a legitimate medical reason, they could get dragged into court and have to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees just to prove that their medical judgment was correct. You can kind of see why doctors are a little bit reluctant to do that.

Ollstein: And just to stress, these laws were not written by doctors. These laws were written by politicians, and they include language that medical groups have pointed out doesn’t translate to the actual practice of medicine. Some of these bans’ exceptions’ language use terms like irreversible, and they’re like, “That’s not something we say in medicine. That doesn’t fit with our training. We don’t think in terms of that.” Also, terms like life-threatening: It’s like, OK, well, is it imminently life-threatening? And even then, what does that mean? How close does someone need to be to losing their life in order to act?

Rovner: And pregnancy itself is life-threatening.

Ollstein: Right. Or something could be life-threatening in a longer-term way, you know, down the road. Other conditions like diabetes or cancer could be life-threatening even if it won’t kill you today or tomorrow. So this is a real battle where medicine meets law.

Rovner: Well, in Missouri, it’s obviously not nearly as dramatic, but it’s also — you can see how this is playing out in a lot of these states. This is basically a fight between the state attorney general and the state auditor over how much an abortion ban might end up costing the state. They’re really sort of fighting this as hard as they can. It’s basically to make it either more or less attractive to voters, right?

Ollstein: It’s similar to some of the gambits we saw in Michigan to keep the measure off the ballot or put it on the ballot in a way that some would say would be misleading to voters. So I think you’re seeing this more and more in these states after so many states, including pretty conservative states, voted in favor of abortion rights last year. You know, the right is afraid of that continuing to happen, and so they’re looking at all of these technical ways — through the courts, through the legislatures, whatever means they can — to influence the process. And Democrats cry that this is antidemocratic, not giving people a say. Republicans claim that they’re preventing big-money outside groups from influencing the process. And I think this is going to be a huge battle. Missouri and Ohio are up next in terms of voting. And after that, you have Florida and Nevada and a bunch of other states in the queue. And so this is going to continue to be something we’re discussing for a while.

Luthra: And to flag the case in Ohio, what’s happening there, right, is the state is having voters vote onto whether to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments. There’s an election in August that would raise the threshold to two-thirds. And what we know from all of the evidence why they don’t typically have August referenda in Ohio is because the turnout is very, very low, and they are expecting that to be very low. And they’ve made it explicit that the reason they want to make it harder to pass constitutional amendments is, in fact, the concern around Ohio’s proposed abortion protection.

Rovner: Of course, that’s what they said about Kansas last year, that people wouldn’t vote because it was in the summer, so — but this is a little bit more obtuse. This is whether or not you’re going to change the standard for passing constitutional change that would enshrine abortion. So, yeah, clearly —

Luthra: It’s hard to get people excited about votes on voting.

Rovner: Yeah, exactly. An underlying theme for most of this year has been efforts by states that restrict or ban abortion to try to prevent or at least keep tabs on patients who leave the state to obtain a procedure where it is legal. Attorneys general in a dozen and a half states are now protesting a Biden administration effort to protect such information under HIPAA, the medical records privacy provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act. Alice, you’ve written about this. What would the HIPAA update do, and why do the red states oppose it?

Ollstein: The HIPAA update, which was proposed in April, and comment closed in June, and so we’re basically waiting for a final rule — at some point, you know, it can take a while — but it would make it harder for either law enforcement or state officials to obtain medical information about someone seeking an abortion, either out of state or in state under one of these exemptions. This would sort of beef up those protections and require a subpoena or some form of court order in order to get that data. And you have sort of an interesting pattern playing out, which you’ve seen just throughout the Biden administration, where the Biden administration hems and haws and takes an action related to abortion rights and the left says it’s not good enough and the right says it’s wild overreach and unconstitutional and they’re going to sue. And so that’s what I was documenting in my story.

Rovner: Is it 18 red states saying —

Ollstein: Nineteen, yes, yeah.

Rovner: Nineteen red states saying that this is going too far.

Ollstein: They say they want to be able to obtain that data to see if people are breaking the law.

Rovner: Well, Shefali, you wrote this week about sort of a related topic, whether states can use text or social media messages as evidence of criminal activity. That sounds kind of chilling.

Luthra: Yeah, and this is, I think, a really interesting question. We saw it in this case in Nebraska, where a sentencing for one of the defendants is happening today in fact. And I want to be careful in how I talk about this because it concerns a pregnancy that was terminated in April of 2022, before Roe was even overturned. But it sort of offered this test case, this preview for: If you do have law enforcement going after people who have broken a state’s abortion laws, how might they go about doing that? What statutes do they use to prosecute? And what information do they have access to? And the answer is potentially quite a lot. Organizations like Meta and Google are quite cooperative when it comes to government requests for user data. They are quite willing to give over history of message exchanges, history of your searches, or of, you know, where you were tracked on Google Maps. And the bigger question there is how likely are we to see individual prosecutors, individual states, going after patients and their families, their friends for breaking abortion laws? Right now, there’s been some hesitation to do that because the politics are so terrible. But if they do go in that direction, people’s internet user data is, in most states, unprotected. There is no federal law protecting, you know, your Facebook messages. And it could be quite a useful piece of information for people trying to build a case, which should raise concern for anyone trying to access care.

Rovner: Yeah, this is exactly why women were taking their period-tracking apps off of their phones, to worry about the protection of quite personal information. Well, finally this week on the abortion front, we have talked so, so much about how conservative Christians complain that various abortion and even birth control laws violate their religious beliefs. Well, now representatives of several other religions, including Judaism and even some of the more liberal branches of Christianity, say that abortion bans violate their right to practice their religion. This is going on in a bunch of different states. I think the first one we talked about was Florida, I think a year ago. Are any of these lawsuits going anywhere? Do we expect this to end up before the Supreme Court at some point?

Ollstein: So most of them are in state court, not federal. I mean, it’s always possible it could go to the Supreme Court. A couple of them are in federal court and a couple of them have already reached the appeals court level. But the experts I talked to for my story on this said this is mainly going to have an impact in state courts and how they interpret state constitutions. A lot of states have stronger language around religious protections than the federal Constitution, including some laws that pretty conservative state leaders passed in the last few years, and I doubt they expected that same language would be cited to defend abortion rights. But here we are. And yeah, a Missouri court recently ruled that the lawsuit can go forward, the religious challenge to the state’s abortion ban. It’s a coalition of a bunch of different faith leaders bringing that challenge. And in Indiana, they won a preliminary ruling on that case. And there are others pending in Kentucky, Florida, a bunch of other states. And so, yeah, I think this definitely has legs.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re all learning an awful lot about court procedure in lots of different states. Let us move to Capitol Hill, where Congress is in its annual July race to the August recess. Seriously, this is actually a month in which Congress typically does get a lot done. Maybe not so much this year. One perhaps unexpected holdup in the U.S. Senate is where the confirmation of Monica Bertagnolli, President Biden’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, is being held up not by a Republican but by two Democrats: health committee chair Bernie Sanders, another member of the committee, Elizabeth Warren. Rachel, what is going on with this?

Cohrs: Sen. Bernie Sanders has long wanted the Biden administration to be more aggressive on drug pricing. And there is one issue in particular that Sen. Sanders has wanted the NIH specifically to use to challenge drug companies’ patents or at least put some pricing protections in there for drugs that are developed using publicly funded research. And the laws that the NIH potentially could use to challenge these companies for high-priced medications have never been used in this way. And Sen. Sanders is using his bully pulpit and the main leverage he has, which is over nominations, to get the White House’s attention. And I think the White House’s position here is that they have done more than any administration in the past 20 years to lower drug prices.

Rovner: Which is true.

Cohrs: It is true. And — but Sen. Sanders still is not satisfied with that and wants to see commitments from the White House and from NIH to do more.

Rovner: And Sen. Elizabeth Warren.

Cohrs: Sen. Elizabeth Warren, yes, who my colleague Sarah Owermohle first reported had some concerns over the revolving door at NIH and wanted a commitment that the nominee wouldn’t go to lobby or work for a large pharmaceutical company for four years after leaving the position, and I don’t know that she’s agreed to that yet. So I don’t see where this resolves. It’s tough, because we’re looking so close to an election, and I think there are big questions about what breaks this logjam. But it certainly has slowed down what looked like a very smooth and noncontroversial nomination process.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, obviously, you know, we’ve seen many, many times over the years nominations held up for other reasons — I mean, basically using them as leverage to get some policy aim. It’s more rare that you see it on the president’s own party but obviously, you know, not completely unprecedented. Certainly in this case we have a lot of things to be worked out there. Well, Sen. Sanders also seems to be threatening the reauthorization of one of his very pet programs, the bipartisanly popular community health centers. His staff this week put out a draft bill and announced a markup before sharing it with Republicans on the committee. Now Ranking Member Bill Cassidy, who also supports the community health centers program — almost everybody in Congress supports the community health centers program — Cassidy complains there’s no budget score, that the bill includes programs from outside the committee’s jurisdiction, and other details that can be very important. Is Sanders trying to make things partisan on purpose, or is this just sloppy staff work?

Cohrs: Honestly, I can’t answer that question for you, but I don’t think that it’s going to result in a productive outcome for the community health centers. And I think we have in recent years seen significant cooperation between the chair and ranking member, but with Lamar Alexander, with Richard Burr, with Patty Murray, you know, we have seen a lot civility on this committee in the recent past, and that appears to have ended. And I think Sen. Cassidy’s response that he hadn’t seen the legislation publicly was, I think, telling. We don’t usually see that kind of public fighting from a committee chair.

Rovner: He put out a press release.

Cohrs: Right, put out a press release. Yeah. This is not what we usually see in these committees. And it is true that Sen. Sanders’ bill is so much more money than I think is usually given to community health centers in this reauthorization process. I think it’s true that the bill that he dropped touches issues that would anger almost every other stakeholder in the health care system. And I don’t think Sen. Cassidy quite envisioned that. And he introduced his own bill that would have introduced —

Rovner: Cassidy introduced his own bill.

Cohrs: Yes, Sen. Cassidy introduced his own bill last week that would have continued on with what the House Energy and Commerce Committee had passed unanimously earlier this summer to give community health centers a more modest boost in funding for two years.

Rovner: And obviously, there’s some urgency to this because the authorization runs out at the end of September and now we’re in July and they’re going to go away for August. So this is obviously something else that we’re going to need to keep a fairly close eye on. Well, meanwhile, elsewhere, as in at the Senate Finance Committee, which oversees Medicare and Medicaid, we’re starting to see legislation to regulate PBMs — pharmacy benefit managers — or are we? Rachel, we’ve come at this several times this year. How close are we getting?

Cohrs: We’re getting closer. And I think that two key committees are really feeling the heat to get their proposals out there before the end of the year. The first, like you mentioned, was the Senate Finance Committee, which is planning a markup next week, right before senators leave for August recess. They’ve asked for feedback from CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] around the end of August recess so that they’ll be ready to go. But I think it’s no secret that their delay in marking anything up or introducing anything has slowed down this process. And in the House, I know the Ways and Means Committee is trying to put together their own proposal and find time for a markup, whereas the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which also has jurisdiction over many of these issues, is frustrated, because they got their bill introduced, they had all the full regular order of subcommittee and then full committee hearings and then markups, got this bill unanimously out of their committee, and now everyone’s kind of waiting around on these two committees with jurisdiction over the Medicare program to see what they’re going to put together before any larger package can be compiled.

Rovner: Well, you know things are heating up when you start seeing PBM ads all over cable news. So even if you don’t understand what the issue is, you know that it’s definitely in play on Capitol Hill. Well, while we’re on the subject of drug prices, we have another lawsuit trying to block Medicare’s drug price negotiation, this one filed by Johnson & Johnson. Why so many? Wouldn’t these drug companies have more clout if they got together on one big suit, or is there some strategy here to spread it out and hope somebody finds a sympathetic judge?

Ollstein: Yes, I think the latter is exactly what they’re doing, because if they were to all kind of band together, then it would be putting all their eggs in one basket. And this way we see most of the companies have filed in different jurisdictions. I think Johnson & Johnson did file in the same court as Bristol Myers Squibb did, so I think it’s not a perfect trend. But generally what we are seeing is that the trade groups like the [U.S.] Chamber of Commerce and PhRMA [the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] kind of have their own arguments that they’re making in different venues. The drug manufacturers themselves have their own arguments that they’re making in their own venues, and they’re spreading out across the country in some typically more liberal courts and circuits and some more conservative. But I think that it’s important to note that the Chamber of Commerce so far is the only one that’s asked for a preliminary injunction, in Ohio. That is kind of the motion that, if it’s approved, could potentially put a stop to this program even beginning to go into effect. So they’ve asked for that by Oct. 1.

Rovner: And remember, I guess we’re supposed to see the first 10 drugs from negotiation in September, right?

Cohrs: By Sept. 1, yes.

Rovner: By Sept. 1.

Cohrs: Pretty imminently here.

Rovner: Also happening soon. Well, before we stop with the news this week, I do want to talk briefly about drug shortages. This has come up from time to time, both before and during the pandemic, obviously, when we had supply chain issues. But it seems like something new is happening. Some of these shortages seem to be coming because generic makers of some drugs just don’t find them lucrative enough to continue to make them. Now we’re looking at some major shortages of key cancer drugs, literally causing doctors to have to choose who lives and who dies. Are there any proposals on Capitol Hill for addressing this? It’s kind of flying below the radar, but it’s a pretty big deal.

Cohrs: I think we’ve seen Congressman Frank Pallone make this his pet issue in the reauthorization of PAHPA [Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act], which is the pandemic preparedness bill, which also expires on Sept. 30. So, you know, they have a full plate.

Rovner: Which we will talk about next week because they’re marking it up today.

Cohrs: Exactly. Yes. So but what we have seen is that Democrats in the House Energy and Commerce Committee have made this a top priority to at least have something on drug shortages in PAHPA. And I think my colleague John Wilkerson watched a hearing this week and noted that the chair of the committee, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, seemed more open to adding something than she had been in the past. But again, I think it’s kind of uncertain what we’ll see. And Sen. Bernie Sanders did add a couple of drug shortage policies to his version of PAHPA in the HELP Committee [Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions]. So I think we are seeing some movement on at least some policies to address it. But the problem is that the supply chain is not sexy and Republicans are not crazy about the idea of giving the FDA more authority. I think there is just so much skepticism of these public health agencies. It’s a hard systemic issue to crack. So I think we may see something, but it’s unclear whether any of this would provide any immediate relief.

Rovner: Everybody agrees that there’s a problem and nobody agrees on how to solve it. Welcome to Capitol Hill. OK, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare chief Meena Seshamani, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credit. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Meena Seshamani, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Medicare at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services at the Department of Health and Human Services. That must be a very long business card.

Meena Seshamani: [laughs]

Rovner: Translated, that means she’s basically in charge of the Medicare program for the federal government. She comes to this job with more than the requisite experience. She is a physician, a head and neck surgeon in fact, a PhD health economist, a former hospital executive, and a former top administrator there at HHS. Meena, welcome to “What the Health?” We are so happy to have you.

Seshamani: Thank you so much for having me, Julie.

Rovner: So, our podcast listeners will know, because we talk about it so much, that the biggest Medicare story of 2023 is the launch of a program to negotiate prescription drug prices and hopefully bring down the price of some of those drugs. Can you give us a quick update on how that’s going and when patients can expect to start to see results?

Seshamani: Absolutely. The new prescription drug law, the Inflation Reduction Act, really has made historic changes to the Medicare program. And to your point, people are seeing those results right now. There is now a $35 cap on what someone will pay out-of-pocket for a month’s supply of covered insulin at the pharmacy, which is huge. I’ve met with people all over the country. Sometimes people are spending up to $400 for a month’s supply of this lifesaving medication. Also, vaccines at no cost out-of-pocket. And a lot of this leads to what you’re mentioning with the drug negotiation program, a historic opportunity for Medicare to negotiate drugs. In January, we put out a timeline of the various pieces that we’re putting in place to stand up this negotiation program. Along that timeline, we have released guidance that describes the process that we will undergo to negotiate, what we’ll think about as we’re engaging in negotiation. And the first 10 drugs for negotiation that are selected will be announced on Sept. 1. And that will then lead into the negotiation process.

Rovner: And as we’ve mentioned — I think it was on last week’s podcast — there’s a lot of lawsuits that are trying to stop this. Are you confident that you’re going to be able to overcome this and keep this train on the tracks?

Seshamani: Well, we don’t generally comment on the lawsuits. I will say that we are implementing this law in the most thoughtful manner possible. From the day that the law was enacted, we have been meeting with drug manufacturers, health plans, patient groups, health care providers, you know, experts in the field, to really understand the complexity of the drug space and what we can do with this opportunity to really improve things, improve access and affordability to have innovative therapies for the cures that people need.

Rovner: Well, while we are on that subject, we — not just Medicare, but society at large — is facing down a gigantic conundrum. The good news is that we’re finally starting to see drugs that can treat or possibly cure such devastating ailments as Alzheimer’s disease and obesity. But those drugs are currently so expensive, and the population that could benefit from them is so large, they could basically bankrupt the entire health care system. How is Medicare approaching that? Obviously, in the Alzheimer’s space, that could be a very big deal.

Seshamani: Well, Julie, we are committed to helping ensure that people have timely access to innovative treatments that can lead to improved care and better outcomes. And in doing this, we take into account what the Medicare law enables coverage for and what the evidence shows. So with Alzheimer’s, CMS underwent a national coverage determination. And consistent with that, Medicare is covering the drug when a physician and clinical team participates in the collection of evidence about how these drugs work in the real world, also known as a registry. And this is very important because it will enable us to gather more information on patient outcomes as we continue to see innovations in this space. And you mentioned obesity. In the Medicare law, there is a carve-out for drugs for weight loss.

Rovner: A carve-out meaning you can’t cover them.

Seshamani: Correct. It says that the Medicare Part D prescription drug program will not cover drugs for weight loss. So we are looking at the increasing evidence. And for example, where there is a drug that is used for diabetes, for example, you know, then it can certainly be covered. And this is an area that we are continuing to partner with our colleagues in the FDA on and that we’d like to partner with the broader community to continue to build the evidence base around benefits for the Medicare population as we continue to evaluate where we want to make sure that people have access.

Rovner: But are you thinking sort of generally about what to do about these drugs that cost sometimes tens of thousands of dollars a year, hundreds of thousands of dollars a year, that half the population could benefit from? I mean, that cannot happen, right, financially?

Seshamani: Well, Julie, this is where the new provisions in the new drug law really come into play. Thinking from access for people for the high-cost drugs, I think we all know what a financial strain the high cost of drugs have created for our nation’s seniors, where now, in 2025, there will be a $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, that people will not have to pay out-of-pocket more than $2,000, which enables them to access drugs. And on the other side, as we talked about with drug negotiation, where for drugs that have been in the market for seven years or 11 years, if they are high-cost drugs, they could potentially be selected for negotiation where we can then, you know, as we laid out in the guidance that we put out, look at what is the benefit that this drug provides to a population? What are the therapeutic alternatives? And then also consider things like what’s the cost of producing that drug and distributing it? How much federal support was given for the research and development of that drug? And how much is the total R & D costs? So I think that there are several tools that we’ve been given in the Inflation Reduction Act that demonstrate how we are continuing to think about how we can ensure that Medicare is delivering for people now and in the future.

Rovner: Well, speaking of things that are popular but also expensive, let’s talk briefly about Medicare Advantage. More and more beneficiaries are opting for private plans over traditional, fee-for-service Medicare. But the health plans have figured out lots of ways to game the system to make large profits basically at taxpayers’ expense. Is there a long-term plan for Medicare Advantage or are we just going to continue to play whack-a-mole, trying to plug the loopholes that the plans keep finding?

Seshamani: You know, as now we have 50% of the population in Medicare Advantage, Medicare Advantage plays a critical role in advancing our vision for the Medicare program around advancing health equity, expanding access to care, driving innovation, and enabling us to be good stewards of the Medicare dollar. And that vision that we have is reflected in all of the policies that we have put forward to date. And I might add that those policies really have been informed by engagement with everyone who’s interested in Medicare Advantage. We did a request for comment and got more than 4,000 suggestions from people. This has now come out in recent policies like cracking down on misleading marketing practices so that people can get the plan that best suits their needs; ensuring clear rules of the road for prior authorization and utilization management so we can make sure that people are accessing the medically necessary care that they need; things like improving network adequacy, particularly in behavioral health, so people can access the health care providers in the networks of the plans; and then the work that we’re doing around payment, to make sure that we’re paying accurately, updating the years that we use for data, looking at the coding patterns of Medicare Advantage. And again, this is all work that is important to make sure that the program is really serving the people in the Medicare program.

Rovner: So, as you know, we’ve done big investigative projects here at KFF Health News about both medical debt and nonprofit hospitals not living up to their responsibilities to the community. As the largest single payer of hospitals, what is Medicare doing to try and address requirements for charity care, for example?

Seshamani: Well, the. IRS oversees the requirements for community benefit, which is how hospitals maintain or get a nonprofit status. We have certainly worked with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Department of Treasury on, for example, issuing a request for information, seeking public comment on, you know, medical credit cards. But even beyond that, I think this is an example of where we need to bring more payment accuracy and transparency in the health care system. So, for example, we have recently just proposed strengthening hospital price transparency so that people can know what is the cost of services, standard charges that hospitals provide. We also are adding quality measures to hospitals, particularly around issues around health equity, making sure that hospitals are screening patients for social needs. And we’re also tying increasingly our payment programs to making sure that those underserved populations are receiving excellent care, so again, really trying to drive transparency, quality, and access through all of the work that we’re doing with hospitals.

Rovner: But can you leverage Medicare’s power? Obviously, you know, that was what created EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act], was leveraging Medicare’s power. Can you leverage it here to try and push some of these hospitals to do things they seem reluctant to do?

Seshamani: Where we have our levers in the Medicare program, we absolutely are working with hospitals around issues of equity, so as I mentioned, you know, really embedding equity not only in our quality requirements but also in hospital operations — for example, that as part of their operations they need to be looking at health equity. You know, where we are looking at how they are providing care and addressing issues of patient safety. So, we continue to look into all of these angles, and where we can support good practices. For example, we just proposed in our inpatient prospective payment system rule that when hospitals are taking care of homeless patients, that can be considered in their payment, because we have found through our analyses that additional resources are being used to make sure that those patients are supported for all of their needs, and we’re encouraging hospitals to code for these social needs so that we can continue to assess with them where resources and supports are needed to provide the kind of care that we all want for our populations.

Rovner: Last question, and I know that this is big, so it’s almost unfair. One of the reasons we know that it’s getting so expensive to manage medical costs is the increasing involvement of private equity in health care. What’s the Biden administration doing to address this growing profit motive?

Seshamani: Yeah, Julie, I’ll come back to, you know, what I alluded to before around transparency. We are really committed to transparency in health care, and we are continuing to focus on gathering data that sheds light on what is happening in the health care market so that we can be good stewards of the taxpayer dollar. So I mentioned our work in hospital price transparency, where we have streamlined the enforcement process; we have proposed to require standard ways that hospitals are reporting their charges and standard locations where they have to put a footer on the hospital’s homepage so that people can find that data easily. In Medicare Advantage, we are requiring more reporting for the medical loss ratio for plans to report spending on supplemental benefits like dental, vision, etc. And we really want to hone in on where else we can gather more data to be able to enable all of us to see what is happening in this dynamic health care market; what’s working? What isn’t? And so we’re very interested in getting ideas.from everyone of where more data can be helpful to enable us to then enact policies that can make sure that the health care industries and the market are really serving people in the most effective way possible.

Rovner: Well, you’ve got a very big job, so I will let you get back to it. Thank you so much, Meena Seshamani.

Seshamani: Thank you 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. Shefali, why don’t you go first this week?

Luthra: Sure. So mine is from KFF Health News by a dream team, Bram Sable-Smith, Daniel Chang, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Sandy West. The headline is “Medical Exiles: Families Flee States Amid Crackdown on Transgender Care.” And I mean, it’s exactly what it sounds like. It’s this really person-grounded, quite deeply reported story about how restrictions on gender-affirming health care, especially for young people, are forcing families to leave their homes. And this is a really tough thing for people to do, you know, leave somewhere where you’ve lived for 10 years or longer and go somewhere where you don’t have ties. Moving is quite expensive. And I think this is a really important look at something that we anecdotally know is happening, haven’t seen enough really great deep dives on, and is something that potentially will happen more and more as people are forced to leave their homes if they can afford to do so because they don’t feel safe there anymore.

Rovner: Yeah, and this is the issue of doing these social issues state by state by state, just what’s happening now. Alice.

Ollstein: So I chose a piece from The Atlantic called “What Happened When Oregon Decriminalized Hard Drugs,” by Jim Hinch. It was really fascinating. On the one side, they say this is evidence that the policy has failed, that decriminalizing possession of small amounts of cocaine, heroin, all hard drugs, has been a failure because overdoses have actually gone up since then. But other experts quoted in this article say that, look, we tried the punitive war on drugs model for decades and decades and decades before declaring it a failure; how can we evaluate this after just a few years? It just takes more time to make this transition and takes more time to, you know, ramp up treatment and services for people, and because this happened three years ago, it was disrupted by the pandemic and, you know, services were not able to reach people, etc. So a really fascinating look.

Rovner: Yes, it’s quite the social experiment that’s going on in Oregon. Rachel.

Cohrs: So mine is from The New York Times, a group of reporters and a new series called “Operating Profits.” And the headline is “They Lost Their Legs. Doctors and Health Care Giants Profited.” And I think I’m just really excited to see more about this line of reporting about overutilization in health care and how certain payment incentives — I mean, they made a story about payment incentives in hospital outpatient departments and how pay rates change really personal and interesting, and it’s important. So, I mean, all these really dense rules that we’re seeing drop this summer do really have implications for patients. And there are bad actors out there who are kind of capitalizing on that. So I felt it was like really responsible reporting, mostly focused on one physician who, you know, was doing procedures that he shouldn’t have and other doctors ultimately were left to clean up the damage for these patients. And they had amputations that they maybe shouldn’t have had, which is such a serious and devastating consequence. I thought that was very important reporting, and I’m excited to see what’s next.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m looking forward to seeing the rest of the series. Well, my story this week is in the Los Angeles Times from my KFF Health News colleague Noam Levey, who’s been working on a giant project on medical debt. It’s called “Crushing Medical Debt Is Turning Americans Against Their Doctors.” And it points out something I hadn’t really thought about before, that outrageous and unexpected bills are undermining public confidence in medical providers and the medical system writ large. And so far, nobody’s doing very much about it. To quote from Noam’s piece, “Hospitals and doctors blame the government for underpaying them and blame insurers for selling plans with unaffordable deductibles. Insurers blame providers for obscene prices. Everyone blames drug companies.” Well, it’s going to take a lot of time to dig out of this hole, but probably it would help if everybody stopped digging. 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 tweet me. I’m still @jrovner, and I’m on Threads @julie.rovner. Shefali.

Luthra: I’m @shefalil.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

It’s an understatement to say a lot has happened in the year since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion in its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.

But while many of the subsequent legislative and court actions to either ban or preserve access to abortion were predicted, the decision has had other, sometimes far-reaching consequences.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” four reporters who have closely covered the issue — host and KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call — try to condense all that has happened since the nationwide right to abortion was revoked.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In the Dobbs ruling last year, some justices said the decision would settle the issue of abortion in the courts. That has turned out not to be the case; jurisprudence about abortion access continues, largely in state courts.
• President Joe Biden has issued executive orders to preserve access to reproductive health care, including recently by directing federal agencies to find ways to increase access to contraception. But not all of the administration’s calls have translated into federal action, and some progressive groups are disappointed the Biden administration has not gone further in protecting abortion care.
• Perhaps the most significant action in Congress has been Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.) blocking Pentagon nominations over a Defense Department policy supporting the ability of troops and their dependents to travel for abortion care. So far he has held up more than 250 nominations amid accusations that he is undermining national security.
• After Dobbs, there was anxiety in Democratic-run states that abortion restrictions would seep across state borders and lead to interstate prosecutions targeting abortion care. Those concerns have, so far, not materialized. Meanwhile, some states are attempting more roundabout ways to ban abortion, such as requiring all abortions be performed in hospitals when there are no hospitals in the state that perform the procedure.
• Polls show voters are now more supportive of abortion access than they have been in many years; more opposed to second-trimester bans; and more likely to identify abortion as a key priority when they vote. Health care providers are finding themselves pressed into advocacy or choosing to move to other states, potentially creating long-term care deserts.
• Plus, our panel of reporters reflects on one thing that will stick with them from their experiences covering abortion in the first year after the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Alina Salganicoff, senior vice president and director for Women’s Health Policy at KFF. For KFF research and resources on reproductive health, click here.

Plus, for “extra credit,” the panelists suggest the favorite abortion-related stories they wrote in the past year they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Three Things About the Abortion Debate That Many People Get Wrong,” by Julie Rovner.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “93 Days: The Summer America Lost Roe v. Wade,” by Shefali Luthra.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Kansas’ Abortion Vote Kicks Off New Post-Roe Era,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “Conservatives Use Abortion Strategies in Fight Over Trans Care,” by Sandhya Raman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Year Without Roe

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: A Year Without Roe

Episode Number: 304

Published: June 29, 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. We’re back in Washington this week, joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 29, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: So after last week’s special with the current and two former Health and Human Services secretaries, which I hope you all enjoyed, we have another special episode for you this week, one year after Roe fell. Saturday, June 24, marked a year since the Supreme Court overturned the nationwide right to abortion with its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. We’re going to start with an interview with my KFF colleague Alina Salganicoff, all about the work KFF has done on this topic over the last year. Spoiler alert: It’s been a lot. Then we’ll have our regular panel discussion. So, without further ado, here is the interview. I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Alina Salganicoff, senior vice president and director of Women’s Health Policy here at KFF. Alina, welcome to “What the Health?”

Alina Salganicoff: Thank you. Delighted to be here.

Rovner: So it’s an understatement to say that a lot has happened on the women’s health front in the year since the Supreme Court decided Dobbs. But I think your group has produced an enormous volume of information that a lot of journalists and researchers have already used to help paint a picture of those changes. For those who haven’t taken a stroll through the resources available at kff.org/womens-health-policy, give us an idea of what can be found there.

Salganicoff: Well, we have been collecting a tremendous amount of information. Most recently we released a survey of OB-GYNs on their experiences pre- and post-Dobbs and really found some very, I think, alarming findings in terms of the impact of Dobbs on clinical care. We’re also tracking abortion coverage, as well as tracking the availability of abortion at the state level, and we do that routinely. We have a litigation tracker that tracks litigation at the federal and the state level, and that’s just been a very active part of our portfolio and analysis as well. And that’s just an example of a few things that we have going on. But we also have an abortion dashboard, where we provide up-to-date information and analysis and data, not only for work that KFF has been doing, but also synthesis and analysis of other work that’s going on in the field.

Rovner: This is information that, I will confess, a lot of reporters have been using over the course of the year. So thank you for that. How would you describe the state of abortion rights in the U.S. a year post the overturn of Roe?

Salganicoff: Well, that’s a huge question. The answer, of course, truly depends on where you live. In states where abortion is banned, access has been all but eliminated, except for in the rarest circumstances. And honestly, in most cases, even women who qualify for those exceptions have nowhere to go or aren’t being served. In many other states, there are restrictions, particularly those with gestational bans that restrict where people seeking abortion can go. And even in states that uphold abortion rights, people may still need to travel far for abortions, even if … and maybe not even have access to telehealth abortions where they live.

Rovner: So I know this is an even harder question. Can you take 30 seconds to tell us what you think the biggest difference has been compared to a year ago, or I guess it’s now a year and a week ago?

Salganicoff: Well, that is a big ask, Julie. But I will say, for those who live in states where abortion is banned or greatly restricted, this is where you really see the biggest change. And this has, as we anticipated, disproportionately affected pregnant people of color, those who are young and low-income. But also, abortion bans have made it more dangerous for pregnant women and others to have a baby or to get needed medical care. Those seeking abortions have been the hardest hit, but they’re not the only group. And I think also that there’s growing awareness and acceptance that abortion cannot be relegated to the shadows of health care or banned without having broad repercussions on other aspects of health care. Maternity care, emergency care, treatment for cancer and autoimmune disease have all been impacted as well.

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s been a big revelation for a lot of people, that lots of pregnant women who worked hard to get pregnant and are trying to have babies but have problems in their pregnancy are caught in some of these restrictions, even if unintentionally.

Salganicoff: Absolutely. And I think that the issue of the large disparities we have in this nation on maternal mortality really has brought this issue much more into the limelight, and really seeing how abortion is going to be connected to maternal mortality in this country.

Rovner: So, like me, you’ve been doing this work for a long time now. What surprised you most about the fallout from a year without Roe?

Salganicoff: Right. Well, when Roe fell, I think many of us anticipated in a short time half the states would ban abortion. And while that has happened in 14 states, legal challenges, along with ballot initiatives and elections, have made it clear that there is a will to maintain abortion access in many places where we didn’t think that was possible. Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, they’re all great examples of that, but they’re not the only states. The other, I think, has been the issue of the FDA and mifepristone, where the Supreme Court has temporarily blocked the lower-court ruling that would have essentially overturned the FDA’s scientific assessment of the safety and effectiveness of the drug, as well as the guardrails that are necessary for dispensing. But that case is not resolved. And then, finally, we have the issue of the Comstock Act, which is also related to that, which is an anti-vice law from 1873 that holds the potential, if enforced, to block the distribution of not only mifepristone but potentially anything that’s used with the intent to perform an abortion. That doesn’t mean just mailing the pill from the clinician to the patient, but also distributing the medication. And it’s going to affect states across the country, not just those where abortion is banned.

Rovner: So lots more to watch. One of your reports that surprised me was how many abortion restrictions there are in states even where abortion isn’t banned, and what we think of as pretty blue, like Massachusetts and Maryland. What kind of restrictions still exist in places that are otherwise considered abortion-destination states?

Salganicoff: Yes, that’s some work that we’ve recently done some analysis on. Yeah. Even if abortion is not legally banned, states can establish regulations and other requirements that effectively restrict access. In states like Maryland and Massachusetts, those are parental consent, or notification, laws. But there are other requirements such as waiting periods, ultrasound requirements, as well as laws that only permit those who have medical degrees to perform or dispense medication abortion pills, even though we know that advanced-practice clinicians, like physician assistants or nurse-midwives, can safely perform these procedures. That makes it harder for people, even in those states, as well as those who travel to get access to abortion.

Rovner: So, presumably, abortion rights advocates have work to do in many states, not just ones with bans.

Salganicoff: That’s right.

Rovner: I think another thing that came as a surprise to me, and we’ve already mentioned this briefly, is how health care for women that is not abortion has been affected. What are doctors telling you?

Salganicoff: Yeah. We recently did a survey of OB-GYNs, and I’ve also been out in the field in several conferences and meetings. And, you know, there’s been a lot of attention recently to the issue of miscarriage management, but also dealing with pregnancy in general and possibly also in the context of cancer care, care for chronic diseases, and emergency care. For example, there have been concerns about access to drugs like methotrexate, which is an abortifacient. It’s used to treat ectopic pregnancies, but it’s also used to treat cancer and autoimmune disease. And we’ve been seeing and hearing at least anecdotal reports about difficulties in accessing that drug. Our OB-GYN survey finds that clinicians are really worried about maternal mortality, their ability to provide care that meets the standards of care — medical care and the norms — and also to provide miscarriage care. That should worry not only those who can get pregnant, but many others as well.

Rovner: So what are you working on now that we should keep an eye out for?

Salganicoff: Well, of course, we’re laser-focused on tracking and analyzing the broader implications of the Dobbs ruling on abortion access. But we’re also focused on contraceptive access as well. And I think that hasn’t gotten nearly as much attention. There’s the issue of how Title X, which is the federal family planning program, is going to proceed in light of a federal decision to withhold the Title X grants for Oklahoma and Tennessee, states that are refusing to follow the requirement that Title X patients be given nondirective pregnancy counseling and referral. So this is an area that I think is going to get some attention on the Hill and in the courts, and I think other states are watching that. The other issue … are developments around emergency contraception and the real confusion that our polling has really documented about whether it’s legal and available. And we actually saw in our OB-GYN survey very low rates of physicians providing emergency contraception to their patients. And then finally, where all eyes are, of course, on the FDA for their decision about the over-the-counter status of an oral contraceptive pill. And we’re going to be looking at how that’s all going to roll out in the pharmacies, as well as whether there’s going to be an opportunity to provide insurance coverage for that newly available method.

Rovner: Lots more to come. I guess we’ll have to do this again next year. Alina Salganicoff, thank you so much for joining us.

Salganicoff: Thank you for inviting me. It’s been a pleasure.

Rovner: OK. We are back and I’m so pleased to have three of my favorite reproductive health specialists at the table today, who have spent a lot of the last year reporting from around the country and, in some cases, around the world. Alice, Shefali, Sandhya: Thank you all for being here. So I want to start with the people who are most affected by the Supreme Court’s action last year. What has happened to women seeking abortions since last year and women seeking other types of health care, too, for that matter?

Luthra: I think the data is pretty compelling, right? We can look at the WeCount numbers that just came out right before the anniversary. The number of recorded legal abortions has fallen quite precipitously. We have seen thousands fewer people get abortions. We’ve also seen dramatic increases in people traveling for care, going to Florida, to Illinois, to North Carolina, among many others. And what those numbers don’t always tell us is how difficult that journey is, how expensive it is. I think a lot about this study from when SB 8, the Texas six-week abortion ban, took effect, and they found there that some of the people who were traveling out of state, it took them so much money they couldn’t afford food for a week and then they ate whatever they could; they couldn’t afford dog food because it was just that difficult of a trip. And what we’re seeing is just people are, in some cases, accessing health care and other cases they are not. And it is becoming a lot harder and in some cases life-threatening. We’re all hearing the stories about people experiencing pregnancy complications and not being able to get timely care flying across several states while afraid they could go into premature labor on the plane.

Ollstein: Everything Shefali said is true. I also think that we need to put our critical hats on when we look at some of this early, preliminary data that’s coming out. It just takes time to get very solid, reliable data. And while the WeCount report is helpful, it has a lot of holes in it, and it makes estimates, and it doesn’t include people who are obtaining mifepristone and self-managing their abortions outside the medical system. You know, it doesn’t include data from certain providers and certain states. And so I think it will just take time to get a really accurate picture of what’s going on. We are sort of cobbling it together. You know, we have providers in blue states reporting how much increase they’re seeing in people coming in. We get some data from groups like Aid Access that mail the pills about the demand they are seeing. But there are a lot of people who aren’t going to show up in any of those counts. And we just sort of don’t know what’s happening to that, other than anecdotally, based on our reporting on the ground. And so I think, yes, there are a lot of people obtaining pills, there are a lot of people traveling, and there are a lot of people for whom neither of those are possible options and that they are going forward with pregnancies that they otherwise would have terminated.

Rovner: I think one of my biggest takeaways from the last year is the broader understanding of how common pregnancy complications are. I think a lot of people did not expect to see so many women with wanted pregnancies have difficulty getting care that they needed. I think people didn’t realize how common pregnancy complications are; they affect about 8% of pregnancies, or that’s 1 in every 12.5. That is a lot of people. And of course, as we all know, maternal mortality and morbidity in this country is embarrassingly high compared to other industrialized countries. I think people, particularly in the anti-abortion movement, used to talk about, you know, these serious pregnancy complications as being extremely rare. They just aren’t. I think we’re finally starting to see people talk about that.

Raman: You know, the past year I’ve seen so much more in the public consciousness about miscarriage management, which is something that we’ve all covered in the past, but it’s not something that I think has been talked about as much, brought up as much, some of the complications there. And especially when the treatment for miscarriages in many cases is very similar to what is done for abortions, and just some of the difficulties that different folks have been experiencing being able to get that care for miscarriages even if they are not seeking an abortion and it’s a wanted pregnancy. I think that has really come to light a lot as well.

Rovner: So the Supreme Court majority, I think in their majority opinion, sort of said they hoped that this would be the last word on abortion for a while. It obviously was not. So let let’s do a quick review of what’s happened in the courts since Dobbs was decided last year. I guess the big one that we’re waiting on is the case of mifepristone, the abortion pill, right?

Ollstein: That’s the main federal one, although there are some other ones. But as we all sort of knew at the time, this is really a state-by-state fight. And the state-level cases are still continuing to play out. You know, just recently there were some major rulings, in Wyoming, in South Carolina. We’re waiting on Iowa. There was this declaration by the justices that overturned Roe v. Wade that this would sort of “settle the issue,” quote-unquote. And it is extremely unsettled.

Rovner: It is. And of course we should mention that a lot of these state cases are  because even though the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Constitution doesn’t have any right to abortion, a lot of states say that their state constitutions do.

Luthra: And the South Carolina one is particularly interesting because, in January, we had the state Supreme Court say that their constitution did not allow for a six-week ban. And just this week, that same Supreme Court, with one change in membership, heard almost the same version, a slightly different six-week ban, and there is a good chance they uphold it, which really speaks to not only the role of the courts in dictating abortion rights on a state-by-state level, but also the role of individual changes in the makeup of those courts and how just this one really small thing, like someone aging out of being on the state Supreme Court, can change access for thousands of people.

Ollstein: And state constitutions, even though they don’t have the word “abortion,” often are way more protective of abortion than people might have predicted. To Shefali’s point, that goes to which judges are interpreting it. But also you have some of these rulings in states we think of as very far to the right that are surprisingly protective of abortion. And I think that fight is continuing to play out. And I’m sure we’re going to get into later the attempts to insert language into the state constitutions that’s explicitly protective of abortion.

Luthra: One element on the federal courts that I think is worth flagging that is relevant to this mifepristone case as well, right — which, to recap, is currently at the 5th Circuit; they are debating whether to take mifepristone off the market, to impose more restrictions on how it’s prescribed. This will probably end up at the Supreme Court again, maybe within the year. But dormant in that case, and something that a lot of scholars have talked about, is this new legal questioning around the Comstock Act, this very old anti-obscenity law used in the past to censor Walt Whitman, to ban “Ulysses,” all sorts of crazy things, and is now being argued as a legal vehicle to end access not only to mifepristone, but to anything that can be mailed for an abortion. And scholars are quite critical of these arguments, but there is a reasonable chance that they come up again and again, and that, given the right case, the right lawyers, the right justices, that a case based on this reading of the Comstock Act could be used to argue for and potentially even implement a national abortion ban through the federal courts without using Congress.

Rovner: Yeah. Mary Ziegler, who’s been on this podcast, who’s one of the top abortion history scholars and a law professor, has been talking about this a lot. You know, everybody is sort of talking about whether or not they can implement or pass a national abortion ban. She says, depending on how they interpret Comstock, there already is, in theory, a national abortion ban. And it wouldn’t just be pills. It would be anything that’s mailed that really has to do with abortion, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. I also just want to go back to the mifepristone case and note that there’s not just one; there’s, like, five — five that I that I know of, maybe even more. The main one that could decide the federal regulation at the FDA level of mifepristone; there are several groups of states saying, Hey, if there’s a federal ban, it shouldn’t apply to us; and then there are two lawsuits that are attempting to challenge state-level bans on the drugs as violating the rights either of doctors and patients or of the pharmaceutical companies. So there are so many different permutations and ways this could go. It’s not just, you know, an up or down vote.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s definitely a full-employment-for-lawyers decision.

Ollstein: And health care reporters.

Rovner: And health care reporters. Well, I want to talk about the administration a little bit. President Biden has been both praised by abortion rights supporters for his administration’s support of abortion rights and chided for his personal reluctance to talk about an issue he is clearly not very comfortable with. What has the administration done in this arena, besides everybody paying attention to what President Biden does or doesn’t say himself?

Raman: I would boil down what I guess the president has done has been the three executive orders that he’s done since the Dobbs decision. So we had two last year that were more focused on abortion and things that he was asking various agencies and departments to do there. And then most recently, last week, we had one that was focused on birth control and contraception, broadening accessibility there. And I think the trick here is that all of these points within the executive order are calling on the agencies and departments to consider doing this, consider doing that. And while some of those things have come to fruition — we’ve had, you know, the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] and the Department of Defense have changed their policies to kind of make access easier — we’ve also had certain things that have been outlined there not come out. We had in I think the first or second one last year that they had asked CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] to find ways to make it so that there could be, you know, an 1115 waiver for Medicaid programs to cover out-of-state patients. And states haven’t really jumped at that or figured out a way for that to work out. So it’s a mixed bag.

Luthra: I think another sort of interesting element — for everything the administration has done, tried to expand access to mifepristone in pharmacies, tried to use EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act], the emergency medication law, to help people get abortions when they are needed for life-threatening situations in hospitals, it feels like there is always a Republican response that is quite effective in, if not neutering, then quite weakening that. And we’ve seen that with the Texas attorney general, potentially someday soon former attorney general, suing to challenge the EMTALA regs that we’ve seen that in the —

Rovner: He’s being impeached, for those of you who have not kept up — that the Texas attorney general. So we’re waiting for the trial of that impeachment.

Luthra: Yeah, we’ve seen like Alice’s really great reporting on the efforts by Republican attorneys general, including in blue states, to limit access to mifepristone in pharmacies, right, sort of going directly against what the administration is trying to do and what it sort of gets to is: For everything that they try, it is hard to see in reality how much of an impact it will make and can make on the ground in expanding access to abortion.

Ollstein: Oh, yes. And we should say that there are, you know, progressive advocacy groups who are disappointed and think the administration has not tried everything it could be trying. And so, you know, the administration has been touting everything it’s doing. And like we have said, some of it has made an impact, particularly defending these policies in court and stopping them from being struck down. But there is a lot of frustration. You know, I’ve heard specific calls for more to be done through Medicaid, more to be done in terms of exploring whether abortion providers could operate on federal land, even in red states. There’s just a lot of areas, and this administration is pretty cautious. And, you know, we can see, because of all the legal challenges, why that is. An adverse legal ruling could be damaging going forward. But, you know, I do want to note that there are pro-abortion rights advocacy groups who are not satisfied with the level of effort from the Biden administration so far.

Rovner: Frustrated, I think, is the accurate word there. Well, let us move to Congress because that’s relevant to what we were just talking about. As we have discussed on this podcast many times, Congress is pretty much gridlocked on all issues involving reproductive health. There are not 60 votes in the Senate for anything on either side, but there’s been some action in Congress the last year, right, Sandhya?

Raman: Yeah, I would say 1) historically, there’s rarely much movement on abortion policy in Congress. It’s just someone bringing something up a lot for messaging. But I think the main thing that that has had an effect is [Republican] Sen. [Tommy] Tuberville from Alabama has been holding up Pentagon nominations over the Department of Defense’s abortion policy, which allows service members who are stationed somewhere where abortion is not legal to be able to take off time and travel somewhere to get that abortion. And this has been holding up over 250 nominations so far. It’s been a big issue given that, I think, there have been folks from either side and former defense officials have said this is a matter of national security, that we’re not able to get this done over one person.

Rovner: This is a big deal that’s been kind of flying under the radar for two or three months now, right?

Ollstein: They’re at a total impasse.

Raman: Yeah, I think that the latest is mainly that, you know, Sen. [Joni] Ernst [R-Iowa] does want to have a vote on this when the NDAA goes to the Senate floor.

Rovner: The defense authorization — the annual defense authorization bill.

Raman: Right.

Rovner: Yes.

Raman: To kind of have a vote on that and try to get that. But they’re at an impasse right now. And it’s kind of unusual. I mean, it’s something that — people have held up nominations, but I think this in particular is a pretty interesting one.

Rovner: Yeah, I know the secretary of defense is very upset about it. It really is a matter of national security and they really haven’t been able to work this out. You know, we know, as we mentioned, Congress can’t sort of do anything. There is not a supermajority to either tighten federal abortion restrictions or loosen them. But one of the things that might have happened and that anti-abortion legislators talked about early in the year were things to better support pregnant women or pregnant women who’ve then had children, and trying to support those children. Even things like Title X, like contraception, Head Start, expanded Medicaid for maternal health for a year. We actually haven’t seen very much of that happening either, have we?

Ollstein: No, we have not. I will say we have in some states; some states that are very conservative have — they say it’s specifically because of the elimination of abortion access — moved to have more funding for moms and babies and even contraception. And so you have seen that. But no, at the federal level, it is running right into this anxiety about debt and spending and not wanting to open the pocketbooks on that front. I also think it’s interesting that House Republicans have not really used their majority to vote on an abortion ban. In a sense, it’s kind of a free vote for them because it won’t become law. And it’s just interesting and speaks to the tricky politics that they haven’t even done a symbolic vote. Meanwhile, you’ve had Senate Democrats do a bunch of symbolic votes to try to make Republicans uncomfortable with the issue. But again, these are all just sort of show votes that are not going to become law.

Rovner: Yeah, somebody should total up the show votes at some point over the last 10 years. I bet it would be a lot.

Raman: I will say that, you know, the one thing that I will acknowledge on a federal level is that, you know, when we had the omnibus last year, they did make the 12-month postpartum Medicaid pilot coverage permanent. And I think that will be a big thing, given that so many states have so quickly adopted the pilot of that. So that would see something that that there can be an effect, but —

Rovner: But it is still optional. States don’t have to — I mean right now —

Raman: It is still optional.

Rovner: Standard Medicaid cuts off new moms after 60 days, is that right?

Raman: Yeah, But I mean, it’s hard. I mean, I think it’s A) kind of what Alice said with the funding and the fact that we’re working with less than we had before. But also, if you look at the language of a lot of the bills that have been introduced that kind of focus on some of these things, you know, whether it’s different things for new moms — a lot of it has language that will polarize the other side. I think that if you see some of the packages and bills that have been put out by Republicans, there’s funding or redirecting resources for crisis pregnancy resource centers, which, you know, Democrats are not in favor of given that they don’t support abortion. And then we also have, I think, a lot of the Democrats’ bills might not specifically carve out certain things. I think that they “butt heads” …[unintelligible] … I think you have to kind of water it down, the language. And we haven’t really seen something that kind of can appeal to everyone kind of come forward, and also that doesn’t cost money. And finding that happy medium is very difficult.

Rovner: And ever was. Well, Congress hasn’t been able to do very much, but state legislatures have been really busy, right? I mean, and it’s more than just, you know, bans, working on different variations of bans. We’ve seen some very, sort of, creative ideas, right?

Luthra: It’s been fascinating to see what’s happening on the state level. One thread I actually thought of during Sandhya’s remarks was the expansion of crisis pregnancy centers, in particular in states with abortion bans, right? Putting more state funding to support them, which, for a reminder, they not only don’t support abortion; many of them don’t actually employ qualified medical personnel and are not bound by HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]. We have that lawsuit from this week where the woman said she went to a crisis pregnancy center, and they missed her ectopic pregnancy. So, quite dangerous. But beyond that, what’s really interesting is Republicans in state legislatures seem like they are really trying to figure out how to navigate these tricky abortion politics, and they’re not quite sure how to go about doing it, which is why we saw the six-week abortion ban pass in Florida and in South Carolina. And then we saw differences in other states, right? North Carolina did the 12-week ban, which is being litigated right now. And what clinics are actually more concerned about there is a requirement for two in-person visits separated by three days, which they say will just make the procedure unaffordable. We saw Nebraska do a 12-week ban as well, sort of concerned that six weeks appears too extreme now that voters are responding to abortion bans. And the other thing that is just really, really interesting is: We saw at the beginning of the year some pre-filing of bills around the fetal personhood movement, around ways to try and criminalize the morning-after pill or IUDs [intrauterine devices], trying to consider whether you make the person who gets an abortion liable herself. None of those have really taken off yet, and it seems that it’s because that is a bridge that, for many in the movement, is still too far — just this concern that then they would really have to say it is not just that we are trying to quote-unquote “protect the pregnant person,” but we actually think abortion is murder itself. And so I think that will be a really interesting battle within anti-abortion lawmakers, to see how that ends up in the coming years.

Rovner: And that’s a battle that goes back like a decade and a half now. They still aren’t quite there. I think the other thing that we saw a lot of that hasn’t really come to pass are bills to try to ban travel, to try to ban pregnant women from going to other states to obtain abortions, which strikes me as something — strikes many people as something that seems probably not constitutional, but not to say that they won’t try.

Ollstein: Yeah, I think we’ve seen Idaho go the furthest down this road. Missouri was also sort of exploring it, putting a toe in the water, but it never really went anywhere. But I totally agree, Julie. I think there was so much anxiety over this past year about red states trying to reach across their borders in different ways to police abortion, whether it’s suing doctors or trying to ban travel or obtaining people’s medical records or — there was just a lot of anxiety, and you saw that reflected in what blue states passed. Blue states passed a lot of protections to stop those sort of cross-border prosecutions. But we haven’t seen the cross-border prosecutions. That hasn’t really come to fruition yet and may or may not going forward. So it’s interesting because a lot of fears of what would happen when Roe fell have played out exactly as predicted and this is one that kind of hasn’t. Two other really quick state-level things that I wanted to flag that I just think are interesting and are examples of conservatives trying to get very creative and not do just a straightforward ban. I would flag Utah is trying to ban abortion by banning abortion clinics and saying it has to only take place in hospitals. Twist: No hospital in the state will do abortions because they’re religiously affiliated. So that’s sort of a total ban in practicality, if not in name. That’s been enjoined in court. And then in Wyoming, they’ve tried to ban the pills. And pills are what people use because there are no facilities that perform abortions. And so these are ways they’re trying to get creative and do it in different ways. That has been enjoined, too. So we’ll see. But it’s very like, throw everything at the wall and see what sticks.

Rovner: And I would add to that, although I think we haven’t really talked about it on the podcast — is some cities now trying to create bans. So even within blue states there would be bans in red cities, which is another complicated legal thing.

Raman: I looked up some Guttmacher Institute data and we had fewer abortion laws adopted last year compared to the year before. It was 50 last year versus 108 the year before. And, you know, the Dobbs decision dropped after some of these states had gone out of session. But the one thing that I thought — that resonated with me because, you know, A) a lot of these states, maybe they’ve implemented wider bans or they were able to bring back older laws, but it was a drop in the number that we were seeing. And the thing that I have kind of taken away from this year is that the states that we’ve been talking about before — you know, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Florida — that are implementing these, or trying to, much stronger abortion bans are the ones that have been kind of the safe havens, quote-unquote, since the news dropped, where if you live elsewhere in the South, you are trying to go to one of these states to get an abortion. So it’s kind of like a whack-a-mole and that these are the places that have been seeing an influx of patients, especially Florida, that, you know, these are — the cracking-down there to kind of minimize that.

Rovner: So, and to go back to what we said at the beginning, that just makes abortion more expensive for people who have to leave their own state to go somewhere else. Well, we’ve been kind of dancing around this a little bit. But one of the reasons that states have not done some of the things that we thought they might do is that voters have not reacted the way we expected or, I don’t know, the way some people expected. I mean, it’s been surprising. Somebody summarize for us what voters have done on this issue in the last year.

Ollstein: Every time voters have been able to weigh in directly, they have weighed in directly against restrictions and for protections — you know, broadly. Because of that, you have a lot more activists in states trying to set up these votes for later this year, next year, the following years. Every state has different rules around this, and some states don’t allow it at all. But because of just the sweep of the pro-abortion rights side last year in six states —

Rovner: Including some pretty red states like Kentucky and Kansas.

Ollstein: Including some very red states. Yeah, although, you know, it’s a good reminder that, you know, we think in terms of red state, blue state. But, you know, it’s really nuanced. I mean, Kansas has a Democratic governor. Kentucky has a Democratic governor. But, yes, these are states that voted for Trump, have an overwhelmingly Republican state legislature. So it’s how you look at things. But, yes, very conservative, very religious. And both the vote results, but also reporting, polling, focus groups, show that even people who self-identify as very conservative and even personally anti-abortion, a lot of them are not supportive of laws that are this restrictive and think that this should be someone’s personal choice. So I think that’s why these campaigns that really had a conservative-friendly message of getting the government out of your personal business were so successful.

Luthra: And what’s been striking has been seeing the polling just in general around abortion rights. It’s been fairly stagnant up until last year. And basically every big polling organization has seen a shift, and voters are more supportive now of abortion rights than they were before, more opposed in some cases, even to, like, the second-trimester bans, which in the past were a bit more popular, and also in some cases more likely to place this as a high priority for voting. And that will be really interesting to see, especially next year, when we have more abortion rights ballot initiatives, as Alice mentioned, but also more candidates, including the president, running on abortion specifically, and seeing whether this particular issue does influence voters to become, in particular, more Democratic than they otherwise might have been.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny; abortion has been a big voting issue for the anti-abortion movement for years, which is how they got to this point basically. It has not been a huge issue for those who support abortion rights because a lot of people thought Roe would never go away, so they didn’t need to vote on it. And I think that’s going to be sort of a big realization. And next year is going to be the first presidential election since Roe went away. Before we leave the states, I would flag, though, the fact that, Alice, you were saying that because of the success of some of these state ballot initiatives, there are other states that are trying to do it, but there are also efforts to stop states that are trying to do it. I’m thinking mostly of Ohio and Missouri, in particular, which has a bizarre fight going on.

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And those are the most immediate ones. But lots of red states took up bills this year to make direct ballot initiatives harder in lots of different ways — either, you know, raising the number of signatures that need to be collected, having weird geographical requirements for where the signatures are collected, and then the main one, which is in play in Ohio, is this question of requiring a supermajority vote to pass instead of just a bare majority. And so Ohio Republican legislators are setting up this August special vote on whether to raise the threshold from 50 to 60% to approve a ballot initiative. And they have been on the record about this specifically aimed at making sure the vote to restore abortion access in the state can’t pass in the fall. And then in Missouri, there’s all sorts of different things in play, some weird stuff, but —

Rovner: I think I can explain Missouri. The state attorney general is trying to make the state auditor change his estimate of how much it would cost if they were to pass this ballot measure expanding abortion access. And I think that the state auditor has said it would cost something like $51,000 or $51 million and that the state attorney general wants to make him increase that by a factor of 10 or a hundred. I mean, there’s just this huge fight. And of course, that would have to go on the ballot measure. So if the anti-abortion attorney general thinks if people go to the polls and see that this is going to cost millions or hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, they’re less likely to vote for it. And so that fight sort of continues. And I believe it has not been resolved yet.

Raman: And they’re both from the same party, which I think just makes it more interesting.

Rovner: Yeah. But you know, this is the first time I can remember a fight, a big important fight, between a state auditor and a state attorney general. I want to talk a little bit about what’s happened to doctors and other health professionals, because they’re kind of caught in the middle here. I mean, they had not been — I’ve written at length about the AMA [American Medical Association]’s sort of checkered history of trying to be on every single side of this issue over the years. But now we’re seeing doctors put in some pretty hairy positions, right?

Luthra: One thing I’ve been really struck by is talking to a lot of — and this is especially doctors, but true probably of all health professionals, is this idea that they didn’t have to take a position on abortion before, so many of them simply didn’t. They were happy to sort of think of it in a silo separate from the rest of their jobs. And that was because, like you said, Julie, they weren’t concerned about losing Roe. And now that we’re in this world, many of them have been really stunned to see what the consequences are, and a lot have described to me this feeling of being sort of called to political activism that they did not expect, did not train for, it’s not the job that they have — but being really pushed to talk about abortion in a way they otherwise wouldn’t have. And what we’ve also seen, of course, is many moving from states that have bans on abortion. Many of those states that have bans on abortion are also passing bans on gender-affirming care for minors, which puts even more doctors, nurses, med students, residents in a bind. We should also note that the health care workforce is a majority woman workforce, and so many of them feel personally affected by these laws as well and are factoring that in their decisions as to whether to practice. And it’s still quite early to say what the implications will be. But there is a lot of real concern in these states that already were these, you know, lower-health-care-access states, especially in rural areas, losing even more health care professionals because of the bans they’ve put in place.

Ollstein: Doctors are becoming more vocal. I think a lot of players in the medical space that haven’t been as vocal about this are weighing in, telling state legislatures, “You’re putting our members in danger.” And so I completely agree. And I think that a lot of this anxiety seems to be from the medical community, like, If we accept this intrusion into our work, what’s next? What else will state legislators who are not doctors try to dictate that we can and can’t do? And so there’s sort of a sense of, If we don’t stand up to this, we’re sort of opening the door to a lot more intrusion into the patient-provider relationship.

Raman: So I have done a lot of looking at the long-term. I’ve been following, since last year, kind of the steps with workforce because I think, for context, we’re expected in a few years to have a shortage of obstetrics providers already, given a higher percentage of women of reproductive age and a lot of folks just leaving that workforce altogether. And I have been kind of curious how this is going to affect that. And I think some of the takeaways, I think, to echo Shefali, is A) it’s early. So it’s hard to go through the data and see what is because of this, what’s because of that. But I think one thing that I’ve noticed is that it hasn’t been just obstetrics or just emergency room or family medicine. I’ve been hearing from folks in all sorts of specialties, even if they aren’t even related to this, because wherever you do your training, it might affect your family or yourself. And that is something that I’ve heard come up — you know, harassment and is there options for themselves? And I think also just unclarity in the laws. I’ve heard multiple either folks training to be physicians or who have just become them say that they didn’t go to school to become a lawyer; they went to school to become a health care provider. And having to have that intermediary and consult the legal team of the hospital in between is just very difficult for them to do their care. But datawise, I think that we had, according to the AMA, a drop in residency apps for obstetrics and gynecology, and it was higher in the more restrictive states, but it also dropped some in the states that are more progressive on abortion, like it dropped in California. So it’s kind of hard to tell so soon what that could mean. But I think if you look at what happened in Texas, which had pretty flat numbers before SB 8, and then they had a huge drop after that law was implemented and who was applying to go there, and they have the third most programs in the country — like, that can provide some clues that we could see kind of further on as we keep looking. But yeah, a lot of it’s not going to be felt for a while.

Rovner: I think two really important points there, though, is one is that it’s not just restricted to the specialties that we would think because, as you point out, health care, particularly graduating medical students, are now majority women and they are mostly of childbearing age, so they are concerned about themselves and their families. And if they’re men, they likely have partners, so they’re still considered worried about themselves and their families. So it can be kind of a big deal. And the other one, of course, is that where medical students train after medical school, where they do their residencies, is very, very indicative of where they’re going to end up practicing. So if you don’t have people training in those states, you’re going to have fewer people practicing in those states. And that we do know from way, way, way back. So I think that’s also going to be an issue going forward. Well, we are running out of time, but I wanted to go around the table once really quickly and say you’ve all been obviously very steeped in this for the last year. I want everybody to tell us sort of the one thing that’s going to stick with you most from reporting over the course of this first year without Roe. Shefali, why don’t you start?

Luthra: I think the thing that will stick with me this year and probably the rest of my life is hearing from the people who have tried to get abortions in states where they cannot, whether that was because of a wanted pregnancy that went wrong, whether that was to save their own lives, whether that was because they already had two kids and didn’t want another or they didn’t want any kids. And just the themes that you keep hearing from them, right? The anger; the betrayal; the feeling like they are less of a person because they can’t get this in their home state; the financial distress that they go through; and, in many cases, the isolation, because they have no one they can talk to about this. It’s really, really striking to hear those stories. And I think they’re some of the most important things that we as reporters can hear about and that our readers can see and internalize and think about when they conceive of what abortion bans mean.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: I think the thing that sticks with me is just really how far the reverberations from this decision have gone. You know, what really comes to mind is last year when I was at an international family planning conference, this woman from a Kenyan nonprofit said to me, “You know, when the U.S. sneezes, the rest of the countries catch a cold.” And I think that was really striking and just seeing how far a U.S. court case can be felt around the world, whether it is countries that have made more progressive abortion laws or more restrictive abortion laws, kind of in the light of something the U.S. does, and just kind of how something that I think is easy to think of as just here, how that can have an effect on other leaders and the people there, or just countries that rely on the U.S. for a variety of things. So that, that really sticks with me.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. In traveling, it’s just been really striking to see how abortion bans have had these knock-on effects and limited the availability of other kinds of health care, whether that’s by putting clinics out of business or causing an exodus of doctors and residents and medical students from particular parts of the country that already were experiencing shortages and really just making these medical deserts, and particularly maternal health deserts, that were already there even worse, and just meeting people who were telling me, “I was told it would be, you know, a four-month wait just to get an IUD.” You know, these are people who are trying to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. And there’s just nowhere for them to go in a lot of places in the country, more than we think. And so just looking at people who are not pregnant, are not seeking an abortion, are also being hit by these legal changes.

Rovner: I’ve been struck just by how accurate a lot of the predictions were about what would happen if Roe went down. I mean, there were things that were unexpected. But I think most of the things, particularly the red state, blue state, have and have-not, have been exactly what people predicted would happen. All right. It is time for our extra credit segment. That’s normally when we each recommend a story we read this week that we think you should read too. This week, though, I’ve asked the panelists to choose their favorite story about reproductive health that they have written in this past year. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week?

Raman: So the story I picked is called “Conservatives Use Abortion Strategies in Fight Over Trans Care,” and I wrote this for Roll Call in February. What I did was kind of take a look at how we got to the Dobbs decision in the first place, is after the passing of legislation and the litigation and a number of state abortion laws and how those parallels are pretty striking to what’s been happening with trans health right now that has been really ramping up as a political messaging issue. And so, you know, in some cases it’s been very clear, where they’ve been putting language about abortion and gender-affirming care in the same bill, or restrictions there. But I think there are a lot of parallels that I was kind of finding in that, you know, starting with minors and then scaling up in restrictions or looking at science that’s odds with major medical organizations or messaging on safety or looking to penalize doctors or just, like, amplifying very rare cases of regret — that kind of thing. And so looking forward, that’s something that just keeps resonating with me as something to watch, that the abortion blueprint is not unique. It’s going to be there for other things.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: So I chose the piece I did from the ground in Kansas when they voted. They were the first state where voters could weigh in directly on abortion access post-Roe, and it just revealed so many things that continue to be true for the states that are voting on this. It was just such a clear preview of what was to come. It was the flood of out-of-state money and staff on both sides. It was just how heated it got on the ground. It was the attempts by Republican state legislatures to structurally make it harder for folks to vote and more likely for things to go their way. And yet it was a blowout vote for the pro-abortion rights side in the end. And that was just such a preview of what was to come on both sides, and just being there on the ground and being able to see this and to see how people were feeling when the Dobbs decision was so fresh will really stay with me.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: My story published in May at the anniversary of the Dobbs leak. It’s called “93 Days: The Summer America Lost Roe v. Wade.” And for this, it was an oral history that my editor and I had talked about. And we spent a few months working on it, talking to a dozen different folks about what it was like to live through last summer, from the Dobbs leak to the Dobbs decision up to the Kansas election. And there are stories from doctors; from politicians; from activists; people who organized on the Kansas abortion rights initiative; lawmakers who talked about their experience of learning of the decision; Kristan Hawkins, the head of Students for Life. But the people whose stories I think are most worth reading are the, I think it was three women I spoke to, who talked about their experiences navigating abortion, including one woman who was trying to schedule her abortion. She was in line at Disney when the decision came out and she found out her appointment had been canceled. She was never able to get another one and she had a baby soon afterward. There was another who was taking her medication abortion pills at home when the decision was revealed, and she wasn’t sure if she was breaking the law by taking misoprostol in her bathtub. And I think these stories just — they really cemented for me that this is not only the world that we live in, but that these are the real-life implications on the people who are affected. And I just always really love getting a chance to tell those stories.

Rovner: Well, my story is a piece that I wrote last July, so almost a year ago, called “Three Things About the Abortion Debate That Many People Get Wrong.” And one myth, of course, is that abortion bans and restrictions would only affect people seeking abortions, which we now know in sometimes horrifying detail is not true. Women with very wanted pregnancies gone wrong are also caught in the crossfire, and, as we said, forced to travel long distances or wait until they are literally at death’s door to get needed care. But it’s worth reminding people about the other two myths. One is that Congress could have codified abortion rights at any time since Roe but never really tried very hard, and the other one that Congress could have acted in 2022 — the end of last year — when Democrats still had majorities, albeit very tiny ones, in the House and Senate. In fact, Congress never had the votes to enshrine abortion rights for the entire life of Roe. There were several attempts to do that, many of which I personally covered. And to those who think Congress could have done something last year, I ask, “Have you met Democratic Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema?” That wasn’t going to happen either. All right. Well, 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 tweet me. I’m @jrovner.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: I’m @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: We are taking next week off for the Fourth of July holiday, so we will be back in your feed with our regular news update on July 13. 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.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” host and chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner leads a rare conversation with the current and two former secretaries of Health and Human Services. Taped before a live audience at Aspen Ideas: Health, part of the Aspen Ideas Festival, in Aspen, Colorado, Secretary Xavier Becerra and two of his predecessors, Kathleen Sebelius and Alex Azar, talk candidly about what it takes to run a department with more than 80,000 employees and a budget larger than those of many countries.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Department of Health and Human Services is much more than a domestic agency. It also plays a key role in national security, the three HHS secretaries explained, describing the importance of the “soft diplomacy” of building and supporting health systems abroad.
• Each HHS secretary — Sebelius, who served under former President Barack Obama; Azar, who served under former President Donald Trump; and Becerra, the current secretary, under President Joe Biden — offered frank, sobering, and even funny stories about interacting with the White House. “Anything you thought you were going to do during the day often got blown up by the White House,” Sebelius said. Asked what he was unprepared for when he started the job, Azar quipped: “The Trump administration.”
• Identifying their proudest accomplishment as the nation’s top health official, Azar and Becerra both cited their work responding to the covid-19 pandemic, specifically Operation Warp Speed, the interagency effort to develop and disseminate vaccines, and H-CORE, which Becerra described as a quiet successor to Warp Speed. They also each touted their respective administrations’ efforts to regulate tobacco.
• Having weathered recent debates over the separation of public policy and politics at the top health agency, the panel discussed how they’ve approached balancing the two in decision-making. For Becerra, the answer was unequivocal: “We use the facts and the science. We don’t do politics.”

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live From Aspen: Three HHS Secretaries on What the Job Is Really Like

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Live From Aspen: Three HHS Secretaries on What the Job Is Really Like

Episode Number: 303

Published: June 22, 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, coming to you this week from the Aspen Ideas: Health conference in Aspen, Colorado. We have a cool special for you this week. For the first time, the current secretary of Health and Human Services sat down for a joint interview with two of his predecessors. This was taped before a live audience on Wednesday evening, June 21, in Aspen. So, as we like to say, here we go.

Hello. Good evening. Welcome to Aspen Ideas: Health. I’m Julie Rovner. I’m the chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News and also host of KFF Health News’ health policy podcast, “What the Health?,” which you are now all the audience for, so thank you very much. I’m sure these people with me need no introduction, but I’m going to introduce them anyway because I think that’s required.

Immediately to my left, we are honored to welcome the current U.S. secretary of Health and Human Services, Xavier Becerra. Secretary Becerra is the first Latino to serve in this post. He was previously attorney general of the state of California. And before that, he served in the U.S. House of Representatives for nearly 25 years, where, as a member of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, he helped draft and pass what’s now the Affordable Care Act. Thank you for joining us.

Next to him, we have Kathleen Sebelius, who served as secretary during the Obama administration from 2009 to 2014, where she also helped pass and implement the Affordable Care Act. I first met Secretary Sebelius when she was Kansas’ state insurance commissioner, a post she was elected to twice. She went on to be elected twice as governor of the state, which is no small feat in a very red state for a Democrat. Today, she also consults on health policy and serves on several boards, including — full disclosure — that of my organization, KFF. Thank you so much for being here.

And on the end we have Alex Azar, who served as HHS secretary from 2018 to 2021 and had the decidedly mixed privilege of leading the department through the first two years of the covid pandemic, which I’m sure was not on his to-do list when he took the job. At least Secretary Azar came to the job with plenty of relevant experience. He’d served in the department previously as HHS deputy secretary and as general counsel during the George W. Bush administration and later as a top executive at U.S. drugmaker Eli Lilly. Today, he advises a health investment firm, teaches at the University of Miami Herbert Business School, and sits on several boards, including the Aspen Institute’s. So, thank you.

Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Alex Azar: Thank you.

Rovner: So I know you’re not here to listen to me, so we’re going to jump in with our first question. As I’m sure we will talk about in more detail, HHS is a vast agency that includes, just on the health side, agencies including the Food and Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. The department has more than 80,000 employees around the country and throughout the world and oversees more than one and a half trillion dollars of federal funding each year. I want to ask each of you — I guess we’ll start with you — what is the one thing you wish the public understood about the department that you think they don’t really now?

Secretary of Health and Human Services Xavier Becerra: Given everything you just said, I wish people would understand that the Constitution left health care to the states. And so, as big as we are and as much as we do — Medicare, Medicaid, CHIP [Children’s Health Insurance Program], Obamacare — we still don’t control or drive health care. The only way we get in the game is when we put money into it. And that’s why people do Medicare, because we put money into it. States do Medicaid because we put money into it. And it became very obvious with covid that the federal government doesn’t manage health care. We don’t have a national system of health or public health. We have a nationwide system of public health where 50 different states determine what happens, and so one state may do better than another, and we’re out there trying to make it work evenhandedly for everyone in America. But it’s very tough because we don’t have a national system of public health.

Rovner: Secretary, what’s the thing that you wish people understood about HHS?

Former Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius: Well, I agree with what Secretary Becerra has said, but it always made me unhappy that people don’t understand fully, I don’t think, the international role that HHS plays, and it is so essential to the safety and security and resilience of the United States. So we have employees across the world. CDC has employees in about 40 other countries, and helping to build health systems in various parts of the world, sharing information about how you stand up a health system, what a great hospital looks like. NIH does experiments and clinical trials all over the globe and is regarded as the gold standard. And we actually, I think, at HHS were able to do what they call soft diplomacy. And a lot of countries aren’t eager to have the State Department involved. They’re certainly not eager to see soldiers. Our trade policies make some people uncomfortable. But they welcome health professionals. They welcome the opportunity to learn from the United States. So it’s really a way often to get into countries and make friendships. And we need to monitor across the globe, as covid showed so well. When an outbreak happens someplace else in the world, we can’t wait for it to arrive on the border of the United States. Safety and security of American citizens really depends on global information exchange, a global surveillance exchange. The CDC has also trained epidemiologists in regions around the world so that they can be faster and share information. And I think too often in Congress, those line items for foreign trips, for offices elsewhere, people say, “Well, we don’t really need that. We should focus all our attention on America.” But I’ve always thought, if folks really understood how integral it is not just to our health security, but really national security, that we have these partnerships — and it’s, as I say, I think the best soft diplomacy and the cheapest soft diplomacy underway is to send health professionals all over the globe and to make those friendships.

Rovner: Do you think people understand that better since covid?

Sebelius: Maybe. You know, but some people reacted, unfortunately, to covid, saying, “Well, we put up bigger walls, and we” — I mean, no disease needs a passport, no wall stops things from coming across our borders. And I’m not sure that still is something that people take to heart.

Rovner: Secretary Azar, you actually have the most — in terms of years — experience at the department. What is it that people don’t know that they should?

Azar: So I probably would have led with what Secretary Becerra said about just how highly decentralized the public health infrastructure and leadership and decision-making is in the United States. I mean, it really — all those calls are made, and it’s not even just the 50 states. It’s actually 62 public health jurisdictions, because we separately fund a whole series of cities. I’ll concur in that. I’d say the other thing that people probably don’t understand, and maybe this is too inside baseball, is the secretary of HHS is, on the one hand, probably the most powerful secretary in the Cabinet and, on the other hand, also quite weak. So literally every authority, almost every authority, in the thousands and thousands of pages of U.S. statute that empower programs at HHS, say, “The secretary shall …” So the FDA, the CDC, CMS, all of these programs really operate purely by delegation of the secretary, because Secretary Becerra allows them to make decisions or to run programs. They are his authorities. And so the media, then, when the secretary acts, will … [unintelligible] … “How dare you,” you know, “how dare you be involved in this issue or that issue?” Well, it is legally and constitutionally Secretary Becerra’s job. And, on the other hand, you are supervising — it’s like a university, because you’re also supervising operating divisions that are global household brands. It is really like being a university president, for all that’s good and evil of that. You have to lead by consensus. You have to lead by bringing people along. You are not a dictator, in spite of what the U.S. statutes say. It’s very, very similar to that — that you, the secretary, is both powerful, but also has to really lead a highly matrixed, consensus-based organization to get things done.

Rovner: You’re actually leading perfectly into my next question, which is, how do you juggle all the moving pieces of this department? Just putting the agency heads in one room could fill a room this size. So tell us what sort of an average day for each of you would look like as secretary, if there’s such a thing as an average day.

Azar: Well, first, not an average administration, so take with a grain of salt my average day. So, interspersed among the two to five phone calls with the president of the United States between 7 a.m. and midnight, you know, other than that, um — I started every day meeting with my — you know, as secretary, you’ve got to have a team around you that’s not just your operating divisions, but I would start every morning — we would have just a huddle with chief of staff, deputy chief of staff, my head of public affairs. Often my general counsel would join that, my legislative leader. Just what’s going to hit us in the face today? Like, what are we trying to do, and what’s going to hit us in the face today? Just a situational awareness, every morning at about 8 a.m., quick huddle on that, and then diving into really the rhythm of the day of — I tried to drive — I use a book that I helped actually do some of the work on called “The 4 Disciplines of Execution,” just a tool of how do you focus and drive change in very complex organizations? So I tried to focus on four key initiatives that I spent as much of my time as secretary on leading and pushing on, and so I tried to make sure as much of my time was doing that. But then it’s reactive. You’re having to go to White House meetings constantly. You have to sign off on every regulation at the department. And so you’re in meetings just getting briefed and deciding approve or disapprove, so that rhythm constantly, and then add travel in, add evening commitments, add speeches. I’d say the biggest challenge you have as a leader in HHS is that first point of, focus, because you could be like a bobber on the water, just going with whatever’s happening, if you don’t have a maniacally focused agenda of, “I’ve got a limited amount of time. I’m going to drive change here. And if I don’t spend time every day pushing the department on this issue, being basically a burr in the saddle to make it happen, it won’t.” And you’ve just got to constantly be on that.

Rovner: Secretary Sebelius, what did your average day look like?

Sebelius: Well, I’m not going to repeat what Alex has just said. A lot of that goes on in the daily routine. First of all, I think all of us would be sent home the night before with a binder of materials — briefings for what you’re going to do the next day. So you may have 10 meetings, but each of those has a 20-page brief behind it. And then what the issues are, what the questions might be. So that’s your homework often that you’re leaving with at 7 or 8 at night. I like to run in the morning, and I would get up, read my schedule, and then go out and run on the [National] Mall because it sort of cleared my head. I’m proud of having — some of the folks may still be here — none of the detail ran before I started running, and my deal with them was, “I’m much older than you are, you know. We’re all going to run.”

Azar: They still —

Sebelius: Oh, here we go.

Azar: They still talk about it.

Sebelius: Well, one of them got to be a great marathon runner, you know. Can’t hurt. One guy started riding a bike, and I was like, “What are you doing?” I mean, if I fall, what are you going to do with the bike? I mean, am I going to carry it, are you going to carry it? I mean, who — anyway, so I started that way. You’d go then into the office. And one of the things that was not mentioned is HHS has an amazing, camera-ready studio, TV studio, that lots of other Cabinet agencies used. It has a setting that looks like “The View.” It has a stool that you can look in cameras, but two or three days a week we would do what they call “Around the Country.” So you would sit in a stool, and I’d be doing updates on the ACA or a pitch to enrollment or something about a disease, and you would literally have a cue card up that would say “Minneapolis, Andrea.” And I would say, “Good morning, Andrea.” And we would do a two-second spot in Minneapolis and they’d have numbers for me and then the camera would switch and it would be Bob in St. Louis. “Hello, Bob. How are you?” So that was a morning start that’s a little bit different. Anything you thought you were going to do during the day often got blown up by the White House: somebody calling, saying, you know, “The president wants this meeting,” “the vice president’s calling this.” So then the day gets kind of rearranged. And I think the description of who the key staff are around, but 12 operating agencies — any one of them could be a much more than full-time job. So just getting to know the NIH or, you know, seeing what CDC in Atlanta does every day, but trying to keep the leadership in touch, in tune, and make sure that — one of the things that, having been a governor and working with Cabinet agencies, that I thought was really important, is everybody has some input on everything. These are the stars, the agency heads. They know much more about health and their agencies than I would ever know. But making sure that I have their input and their lens on every decision that was made. So we had regular meetings where the flatter the organization, the better, as far as I’m concerned. They were all there and they gave input into policy decisions. But it is not a boring job and it’s never done. You just had to say at the end of the day, with this giant book, “OK, that’s enough for today. I’ll start again tomorrow, and there’ll be another giant book and here we go.”

Rovner: And your day, since you’re doing it now?

Becerra: I don’t know if it’s the pleasure or the bane of starting off virtually. Almost everything we did was via Zoom. I didn’t meet many of my team until months into the term because we were in the midst of covid. So we would start the days usually pretty early in the morning with Zooms and it would go one Zoom after the other. Of course, once we started doing more in-person activities, schedulers still thought they could schedule you pretty much one right after the other, and so they pack in as much as they can. I think all of us would say we’re just blessed to have some of the most talented people. I see Commissioner Califf from the FDA over there in the room. I will tell you, it’s just a yes … [applause] … . It’s a blessing to get to serve with these folks. They are the best in their fields. And you’re talking about some pretty critical agencies, FDA, NIH, CDC, CMS. I mean, the breadth, the jurisdiction, of CMS is immense. They do fabulous work. They are so committed. And so it makes it a lot easier. And then, of course, we all — we each have had — I have my group of counselors who are essentially my captains of the different agencies, and they help manage, because without that it would be near-impossible. And these are people who are younger, but my God, they’re the folks that every CEO looks for to sort of help manage an agency, and they’re so committed to the task. And so I feel like a kid in a candy store because I’m doing some of the things that I worked on so long when I was a member of Congress and could never get over the finish line. Now I get to sort of nudge everything over the finish line, and it really is helpful, as Alex said, to remind people that the statute does say, “The secretary shall … ,” not someone else, “the secretary shall … .” And so, at the end of the day, you get to sort of weigh it. And so it’s a pleasure to work with very talented, committed people.

Sebelius: Julie, I want to throw in one more thing, because I think this is back to what people don’t know, but it’s also about our days. There’s an assumption, when administrations change, the whole agency changes, right? Washington all changes. In a department like HHS, 90,000 employees scattered in the country and around the world, there are about 900 total political appointees, and they are split among all the agencies and the secretary’s office there. So you’re really talking about this incredibly talented team of professionals who are running those agencies and have all the health expertise, with the few people across the top that may try to change directions and put — but I think there’s an assumption that sort of the whole group sweeps out and somebody else sweeps in, and that really is not the case.

Rovner: So, as I mentioned, all three of you had relevant government experience before you came to HHS. Secretary Sebelius, you were a governor, so you knew about running a large organization. I want to ask all three of you, did you really understand what you were getting into when you became secretary? And is there some way to grow up to become HHS secretary?

Azar: I mean, yeah, I — yeah, I have no excuse. My first day, right after getting sworn in — the secretary has a private elevator that goes directly up to the sixth floor where the suite is, the deputy secretary’s office to the right, secretary to the left — my first day, I’m up, headed up with my security detail, and I get off and I walk off to the right. “Mr. Secretary, no, no, no. It’s this way.” Literally, it was like — it had been 11 years, but it was like coming home to me. I was literally about to walk into my old office as deputy secretary, and they show me to the secretary’s office. And I think for the first three months, I kept thinking Tommy Thompson or Mike Leavitt was going to walk in and say, “Get the hell out of my office.” And no, so it, and it was the same people, as Secretary Sebelius said. I knew all the top career people. I’d worked with them over the course of — in and out of government — 20 years. So it was very much a “coming home” for me. And it was many of the same issues were still the same issues. Sustainable growth rate — I mean, whatever else, it was all the same things going on again, except the ACA was new. That was a new nice one you gave me to deal with also. So, yeah, thank you.

Sebelius: You’re welcome. We had to have something new.

Rovner: What were you unprepared for when you took on this job?

Azar: Well, for me, the Trump administration.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s fair.

Azar: I, you know, had come out of the Bush administration. You’re at Eli Lilly. I mean, you know, you’re used to certain processes and ways people interact. And, you know, it’s just — it was different.

Sebelius: I had a pretty different experience. The rhythm of being a governor and being a Cabinet secretary is pretty similar. Cabinet agencies, working with the legislative process, the budget. So I kind of had that sense. I had no [Capitol] Hill experience. I had not worked on the Hill or served on the Hill, so that was a whole new entity. You’re not by protocol even allowed in the department until you’re confirmed. So I had never even seen the inside of the office. I mean, Alex talked about being confused about which way to turn. I mean, I had no idea [about] anything on the sixth floor. I hadn’t ever been there. My way of entering the department — I was President [Barack] Obama’s second choice. [Former South Dakota Democratic Senator] Tom Daschle had been nominated to be HHS secretary. And that was fine with me. And I said, “I’m a governor. I’ve got two more years in my term. I’ll join you sometime.” And then when Sen. Daschle withdrew, the president came back to me and said, “OK, how about, would you take this job if you’re able to get it?” And I said, “Yes, that’s an agency that’s interesting and challenging.” So I still was a governor, so I was serving as governor, flying in and out of D.C. to get briefings so I could go through hearings on this department that I didn’t know a lot about and had never really worked with, and then would go back and do my day job in Kansas. And the day that the Senate confirmation hearing began, a call came to our office from the White House. And this staffer said, “This governor? “Yes.” “President Obama has a plane in the air. It’s going to land at Forbes Air Force Base at noon. We want you on the plane.” And I said, you know, “That’s really interesting, but I don’t have a job yet. And I actually have a job here in Kansas. And here’s my plan. You know, my plan is I’m going to wait until I get confirmed and then I’ll resign and then I’ll get on the plane and then I’ll come to D.C.” And they said, “The president has a plane in the air, and it will land. He wants you on the plane.” First boss I’d had in 20 years. And I thought, “Oh, oh, OK. That’s a new thing.” So I literally left. Secretary Azar has heard this story earlier, but I left an index card on my desk in Kansas that said, “In the event I am confirmed, I hereby resign as governor.” And it was notarized and left there because I thought, I’m not giving up this job, not knowing if I will have another job. But halfway across the country I was confirmed and they came back and said — so I land and I said, “Where am I going?” I, literally, where — I mean, I’m all by myself, you know, it’s like, where am I going? “You’re going to the White House. The president’s going to swear you in.” “Great.” Except he couldn’t swear me in. He didn’t have the statutory authority, it turns out, so he could hold the Bible and the Cabinet secretary could swear me in. And then I was taken to the Situation Room, with somebody leading the way because I’d never been to the Situation Room. And the head of the World Health Organization was on the phone, the health minister from Canada, the health minister from Mexico, luckily my friend Janet Napolitano, who was Department of Homeland Security secretary — because we were in the middle of the H1N1 outbreak, swine flu, nobody knew what was going on. It was, you know, an initial pandemic. And everybody met and talked for a couple of hours. And then they all got up and left the room and I thought, woo-hoo, I’m the Cabinet secretary, you know, and they left? And somebody said to me later, well, “Does the White House find you a place to live?” I said, “Absolutely not. Nobody even asked if I had a place to stay.” I mean, it was 11 o’clock at night. They were all like, “Good night,” “goodbye,” “see ya.” So I luckily had friends in D.C. who I called and said, “Are you up? Can I come over? I’d like somebody to say, ‘Yay,’ you know, ‘we’re here.’” So that’s how I began.

Rovner: So you are kind of between these two. You have at least a little more idea of what it entailed. But what were you unprepared for in taking on this job?

Becerra: Probably the magnitude. Having served in Congress, I knew most of the agencies within HHS. I had worked very closely with most of the bigger agencies at HHS. As AG — Alex, I apologize — I sued HHS quite a —

Azar: He sued me a lot.

Becerra: Quite a few times.

Azar: Becerra v. Azar, all over the place.

Becerra: But the magnitude. I thought running the largest department of justice in the land other than the U.S. Department of Justice was a pretty big deal. But then you land and you have this agency that just stretches everywhere. And I agree with everything that Kathleen said earlier about the role that we play internationally. We are some of the best ambassadors for this country in the world because everyone wants you to help them save lives. And so it really helps. So the magnitude — it just struck me. When President Biden came in, we lost the equivalent of about — what, 13 9/11 twin tower deaths one day. Every day we were losing 11 twin tower deaths. And it hits you: You’ve got to come up with the answer yesterday. And so the White House is not a patient place, and they want answers quickly. And so you’re just, you’re on task. And it really is — it’s on you. You really — it smothers you, because you can’t let it go. And whether it was covid at the beginning or monkeypox last year, all of a sudden we see monkeypox, mpox, starting to pop up across the country. And it was, could this become the next covid? And so right away you’ve got to smother it. And the intensity is immediate. Probably the thing that I wasn’t prepared for as well, along with the magnitude, was, as I said, the breadth. Came in doing all these Zooms virtually to try to deal with the pandemic. But probably the thing that I had to really zero in on even more, that the president was expecting us to zero in on more, was migrant kids at the border and how you deal with not having a child sleep on a cement floor with an aluminum blanket and just trying to deal with that. It won’t overwhelm you necessarily, but — and again, thank God you’ve got just people who are so committed to this, because at any hour of the day and night, you’re working on these things — but the immensity of the task, because it’s real. And other departments also have very important responsibilities — clearly, Department of Defense, Department of State. But really it truly is life-and-death at HHS. So the gravity, it hits you, and it’s nonstop.

Rovner: All three of you were secretary at a time when health was actually at the top of the national agenda — which is not true. I’ve been covering HHS since 1986, and there have been plenty of secretaries who sort of were in the back of the administration, if you will, but you all really were front and center in all of these things. I want to go to sort of down the line. What was the hardest decision you had to make as secretary?

Becerra: Um …

Rovner: You’re not finished yet. I should say so far.

Becerra: I mean, there have been a lot of tough decisions, but, you know, when your team essentially prepares them up and you have all this discussion, but by the time it gets to me, it really has been baked really, really well. And now it’s sort of, White House is looking at this, we are seeing some of this, we’ve got to make a call. And again, Dr. Califf could speak to this as well. At the end of the day, the decisions aren’t so much difficult. It’s that they’re just very consequential. Do you prepare for a large surge in omicron and therefore spend a lot of money right now getting ready? Or do you sort of wait and see a little bit longer, preserve some of your money so you can use some of that money to do the longer-term work that needs to be done to prepare for the next generation of the viruses that are coming? Because once you spend the dollar, you don’t have it anymore. So you got to make that call. Those are the things that you’re constantly dealing with. But again, it just really helps to have a great team.

Sebelius: So I would say I was totally fortunate that the pandemic we dealt with was relatively short-lived and luckily far, far milder than what consumed both the secretaries to my left and right, and that was fortunate. A lot of our big decision areas were under the rubric of the Affordable Care Act and both trying to get it passed and threading that needle but then implementation. And I — you know, thinking about that question, Julie, I would say one of the toughest decisions — just because it provided a real clash between me and some of the people in the White House; luckily, at the end of the day, not the president, but — was really about the contraception coverage. Reproductive health had been something I’d worked on as a legislator, as governor. I felt very strongly about it. We’d fought a lot of battles in Kansas around it, and part of the Affordable Care Act was a preventive services benefit around contraceptive care. And that was going to be life-changing for a lot of women. And how broad it should be, how many battles we were willing to take on, how that could be implemented became a clash. And I think there were people in the administration who were hopeful that you could avoid clashes. So just make a compromise, you know, eliminate this group or that group, who may get unhappy about it. And at the end of the day, I was helped not just by people in the department, but mobilized some of my women Cabinet friends and senior White House women friends. And we sort of had a little bit of a facedown. And as I say, the president ended up saying, “OK, we’ll go big. We’ll go as big as we possibly can.” But I look back on that as a — I mean, it was a consequential decision, and it was implementation — not passing the rag in the first place, but implementing it. And it had a big impact. A big impact. It’s not one I regret, but it got a little a little tense inside, but what would be friendly meetings.

Azar: I’d use the divide Secretary Becerra talked about, which is that consequential versus hard decisions, that a lot — I think one could have a Hamlet-like character. I don’t. And so making the call when it comes to you wasn’t a terribly difficult thing, even. These are life-and-death decisions, but still yourself, you know your thought processes, you think it through, it’s been baked very well, you’ve heard all sides. You just have to make that call. So I’d maybe pivot to probably it’s more of a process thing. The hardest aspect for me was just deciding when do you fight and when do you not fight with, say, the White House? What hills do you die on? And where do you say, “Yeah, not what I would do, but I just have to live to fight another day.” Those were probably the toughest ones to really wrestle with.

Rovner: Was there one where you really were ready to die on the hill?

Azar: There were a lot. There were a lot. I mean, I’ll give you one example. I mean, I left a lot of blood on the field of battle just to try to outlaw pharmaceutical rebates, to try to push those through to the point of sale. I probably stayed to the end just to get that dag — because I, the opponents had left the administration and I finally got that daggone rule across the finish line right at the end. And that was something that I felt incredibly strongly that you could never actually change. I’ve lived inside that world. You could never change the dynamic of pharmaceutical drug pricing without passing through rebates to the point of sale. And I had so many opponents to get that done. It was a three-year constant daily battle that felt vindicated then to get it done. But that was a fight.

Rovner: And of course, I can’t help but notice that all of the things that you all are talking about are things that are still being debated today. None of them are completely resolved. Let’s turn this around a little bit. I wanted to ask you what you’re most proud of actually getting accomplished. Was it the rebate rule? That was a big deal.

Azar: For me, it has to be Operation Warp Speed. …[applause] … Yeah. Thank you. That was just — I mean, and I don’t want to take the credit. I mean, it was public-private. Mark Esper, this could not have happened without the partnership of the Defense Department, and it could not have happened without Mark Esper as secretary, because — I guarantee you, I’ve dealt with a lot of SecDefs in my career — and when the secretary of defense says to you, “Alex, you have the complete power and support of the Department of Defense. You just tell me what you need.” I haven’t heard those words before. And he was a partner and his whole team a partner throughout. And when you have the muscle of the U.S. military behind you to get something done, it is miraculous what happens. I mean, we were making hundreds of millions of doses of commercial-scale vaccine in June of 2020, when we were still in phase 2 clinical trials. We were just making it at risk. So we’re pumping this stuff out. And in one of the factories, a pump goes down. The pump is on the other side of the country on a train. The U.S. military shoots out a fighter jet, it gets out there, stops the train, pulls the train over, puts it on a helicopter, gets it on the jet, zips it off to the factory. We have colonels at every single manufacturing facility, and they get this installed. We’re up and running within 24 hours. It would have taken six to nine months under normal process. But the U.S. military got that done. So that for me was like just — the other two quick, one was banning flavored e-cigarettes. We got 25% reduction in youth use of tobacco in 12 months as a result of that. And then one of the great public health victories that this country had and the world had got ignored because it got concluded in June of 2020: We had the 11th Ebola outbreak. It was in the war zone in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. This was the pandemic I was really, really worried about. One-hundred seventy-four warring groups in the war zone in the eastern Congo. Got [WHO Director-General] Tedros [Adhanom Ghebreyesus] and [then-Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Anthony] Fauci and [then-CDC Director Robert] Redfield, and we went over and we went on the ground and we got that. And by June of 2020, that one got out, which was a miracle of global public health. I’m with Kathleen on that one; I think global public health is a key instrument of American power projection humanity around the world. Sorry to go so long.

Rovner: It’s OK. Your turn.

Sebelius: I think proudest is the ability to participate in the Affordable Care Act and push that over the finish line. And for me, it was a really personal journey. My father was in Congress and was one of the votes for Medicare and Medicaid to be passed, so that chunk of the puzzle. I was the insurance commissioner in Kansas when the Republican governor asked me to do the implementation of the Children’s Health Insurance Program. So I helped with that piece. I was on President [Bill] Clinton’s patient protection commission and ended up with a lot of that package in the Affordable Care Act. And then finally to work for and support and watch a president who basically said when he announced for president, “This is my priority in my first term: I want to pass a major health care bill.” And a lot of people had made that pledge. But 15 months later, there was a bill on his desk and he signed it, and we got to implement it. So that was thrilling. Yeah. And, I should tell you, then-Congressman Becerra was one of the wingmen in the House who I worked with carefully, who — there was no better vote counter than Nancy Pelosi, but by her side was this guy, part of her delegation, named Xavier Becerra, who was whipping the votes into place. So he played a key role in making sure that crossed the finish line.

Becerra: So I’m still here, so you’re going to have to —

Rovner: You can change your answer later.

Becerra: I need a bit of grace here, because I’m going to start with Warp Speed, because I bet no one here knows there’s no longer a Operation Warp Speed. It’s now called H-CORE. And the reason I’m very proud of that is because you don’t know that it’s now H-CORE. And what makes it such a good thing is that the Department of Defense no longer has any role in the protection of the American people from covid. It’s all done in-house at HHS. Everything used to be done essentially under the auspices of the Department of Defense, because they are just the folks that can get things done in 24 hours. We do that now, and it’s the operations that were begun a while back. Kathleen had them, Alex had them. Our ASPR, that’s our Preparedness and Response team, they’re doing phenomenal work, but you don’t know it, and you don’t know that H-CORE took to flight in the first year of the Biden administration. By December of 2021, Department of Defense had transferred over all those responsibilities to us, and we’ve been doing it since. But if you ask me what am I most proud of, it’s, I mean, there are more Americans today than ever in the history of this country who have the ability to pay for their own health care because they have health insurance, more than 300 million. Part of that is Obamacare; a record number, 16 and a half million Americans, get their insurance through the marketplaces, and we haven’t stopped yet. There are close to 700 million shots of covid vaccine that have gone into the arms of Americans. That’s never been done in the history of this country. Some of you are probably familiar with three digits, 988, at a time when Americans are … [applause] … 9 in 10 Americans would tell you that America is experiencing a mental health crisis, especially with our youth. And Congress got wise and said, instead of having in different parts of the country, based on region, you could call a phone number for a suicide lifeline, if you didn’t know the 10-digit number or what part of the country you were in, you were out of luck — today, all you have to do is dial 988. But as I said before, federal government doesn’t run mental health. It’s all done by the states. But President Biden is very committed to mental health. His budgets have surpassed any type of investments that have been called for by any president in history for mental health. And he was very committed to 988 to make sure it launched right. And so we have, by exponential numbers, put money into 988 to make sure every state was ready to have it launch. And so by July of 2022, we launched 988, and it is working so well that people are actually calling — actually, not just calling. We now have a text feature and a chat feature because surprise, surprise, young people prefer not to call; they actually prefer to text. And we have increased the number of Americans who are reaching out by over 2 million, which is great, but it’s also not great because it shows you how much Americans are hurting. So there’s so many things I can tell you that I feel very good about that we’re doing. We’re not done. We’re moving beyond on tobacco where Alex left. We’re now moving to ban menthol in cigarettes. Menthol cigarettes are the most popular brand of cigarettes in America. They hook you because of the menthol, and we’re moving to extract menthol. We’re moving to ban flavored cigars and cigarillos. And we may be on course to try to see if we can move to extract as much nicotine out of tobacco as possible before it becomes a product on the market for folks to smoke. So we’re doing a whole lot of things there. And obviously on vaping, e-cigarettes as well — and Dr. Califf could mention that. But I’ll say the thing I’m probably most proud of is that, out of all the government agencies in America, federal government agencies, HHS ranks No. 2 as the best place to work. And I will tell you we’re No. 2, because if we had the capacity to tell our workforce, we will fly you to the moon and back the way NASA does, we’d be No. 1. So that’s what I think I’m most proud of, is that people, as hard as we work them, still say, “Come work at HHS.”

Rovner: So all of you have mentioned these things that were really hard to do because of politics. And you’ve all talked about how some of these decisions, when they get to you, have been baked by your staff and, you know, they vetted it with every side. But I think the public feels like politics determine everything. And I think you all would like to think that policy is what helps determine most things. So, what’s the balance? How much does politics determine what gets done, and how much is it just the idea that this would be the right policy for the American public?

Azar: Mike Leavitt, who was the secretary when I was deputy secretary, he had a phrase, and I’ll probably mangle it, but it was essentially, “Facts for science, and politics for policy.” And it’s important to remember this distinction. So, facts are facts. You gather data. We are especially a data-generating agency. But on top of that are policy overlays. And there are choices that are made about how do you use those facts? What do those facts mean? What are the implications? The United States Constitution vests under Article 2 in the president of the United States to make those choices and, as his delegee, the secretary and the other appointed leaders of the department. So there’s often this notion of politicizing science, but it’s, are there facts? Facts are facts. You generate facts. But what are the implications for policymaking? And I don’t think there’s anything illegitimate — I think is completely appropriate, whether a Democratic or Republican president — that you look and you consider all kinds of factors. Because for instance, for me, I’m going to look at things very much from a public health lens as I assess things. The secretary of the treasury, the secretary of commerce, may bring a completely and important different perspective to the table that I don’t bring. And it’s completely legitimate that that gets factored on top of whatever I or other agencies bring in as fact. So I think it takes some nuance and that we often, frankly, in public discourse don’t catch nuance. Interesting. We don’t do nuance well.

Rovner: We don’t do nuance.

Sebelius: Well, I would agree with the description of the facts versus the policy. And policy does often have political flavors. I was fortunate to work for a president who said, meant, and said it over and over and over again that he would follow the science. And he did. And I had interesting political debates with people around him, on his team, about what should be done, “rewrite the guidance on this,” “do that,” “this is going to upset this group of people.” And he was very resilient and very consistent, saying, “What does the science say? What do the scientists say? That’s where we’re going,” on those areas which were really defined as giving advice to the American public on health issues, doing a variety of things. I mean, he was totally focused on listening to the science. The politics came in, as I think Secretary Azar said well, in some decisions that were brought to him, which really involved often battles between Cabinet agencies, and both were very legitimate. Again, we had pretty ferocious battles on food labeling and calorie counts and how much sodium would, should manufacturers be allowed to put in all of our manufactured goods. I’m sure many of you are aware, but, you know, American sodium levels are just skyrocketing. And it doesn’t matter what kind of salt you use at your table; it’s already baked into every loaf of bread, every pat of butter, every can of soup. And a lot of European countries have done a great job just lowering that. So the goods that are manufactured that you pick up in an EU country — Kellogg’s Corn Flakes has a third of the sodium that the Kellogg’s Corn Flakes that you get in Aspen does, just because that was a choice that those governments made. That’s a way to keep people healthy. But we would come at that through a public health perspective and argue strenuously for various kinds of limits. The Department of Agriculture, promoting farm products, supporting goods it exports, you know, not wanting to rile people up, would come in very strongly opposing a lot of those public health measures. And the president would make that call. Now, is that politics? Is it policy? Is it, you know, listening to a different lens? But he made the call and some of those battles we would win and some we would lose. But again, it’s a very legitimate role for the president to make. He’s getting input from leaders who see things through a different lens, and then he’s the ultimate decider and he would make the decision.

Becerra: So um, I’ve done politics and policy much longer than I’ve done the secretary role. And I will tell you that there is a big difference. We do do some policy, but for the most part we execute. The policy has been given to us by Congress, and to some degree the White House will help shape that policy. We have some role in policymaking because we put out guidances, and the guidance may look like it’s political or policy-driven, or we decide how much sodium might be allowed in a particular product and so forth. But for the most part, we’re executing on a policy that’s been dictated to the agencies by Congress. And I love that, because when I became AG in California, it really hit you how important it is to be able to marshal facts. And in HHS, it’s not just facts; it’s scientific facts. It is such a treat, as an attorney, to get to rely on scientific facts to push things like masking policy in the face of some hostility that went throughout the country to the point that our CDC director had to have security detail because she was getting death threats for having policies that would urge society to have masking policies for adults, for children. We do rely principally on science and the facts at HHS. Maybe folks don’t believe it, but I can put those on the table for you to take a look at. And perhaps the best example I can give you, and I don’t know if I’ll have time to connect the dots for you, because it’s a little esoteric: Title 42, which many of you got to hear about all the time in the news. Title 42 was a policy that was put in place under the Trump administration when we were in the height of the covid pandemic. We didn’t know what was causing covid, so we were trying to make sure that we protected ourselves and our borders. And so therefore, for public health reasons, we sort of closed our borders to the degree that we could, except for those who proved that they had gone through steps and so forth to be able to come in. Title 42 was used under the Trump administration, under the Biden administration to stop people from coming through our southern border. And there reached a point where, as things got better, our team said Title 42, which is health-based — it’s to stop the spread of contagion — was no longer the appropriate tool to use at the border, because we were letting people in the northern border, by plane, and all the rest. You just had to go through protocols. And so they were saying for health care reasons you go through protocols. But Title 42 is probably not the blanket way to deal with this issue, because it’s no longer simply a health care issue. We pushed really hard on that within the administration to the point where, finally, the administration said, “We’re pulling down Title 42.” Then the politics and the policy came in, from Congress saying, “Oh, how dare you take down Title 42? How dare you do that and let the flood of people come into this country?” Well, look, if you want to deal with people coming into the country, whatever way, then deal with our country’s borders through our immigration laws, not through our health care laws. Don’t try to make health care experts be the reason why you’re stopping someone from coming into this country. Stop hiding behind their skirt. And that’s where we went. And the administration took that policy as well. They took the policy. We then got sued and a court said, “No, you will not take down Title 42.” Ultimately, we think we were going to prevail in court, but ultimately, because we pulled down the public health emergency, things got better under covid, we no longer needed Title 42. But just again, to be clear, the women and men at HHS, we execute; we use the facts and the science. We don’t do politics.

Rovner: So we’ve been very serious.

Becerra: Not everybody believed me on that one.

Rovner: I know, I know. We’ve been very serious here for 50-some minutes. I want to go down the line. What’s the most fun thing you got to do as secretary or the coolest thing that you got to do as secretary?

Azar: Probably for me, it was the trip to the Congo, you know, being in the DRC, going to Uganda, going to Rwanda, flying on MONUSCO [United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo] U.N. peacekeeping forces; there was a Russian gunboat taking Tedros and Fauci and Redfield and me there into this war zone. I mean, it’s a once-in-a-lifetime — it’s sort of crazy — but once-in-a-lifetime thing that had impact.

Rovner: I don’t know that most people would call that fun.

Azar: I mean, it’ll be one of those great memories for life. Yeah. Yeah.

Sebelius: There were certainly some great trips and memorable experiences around health results in various parts of the world. Some martinis on the presidential balcony and looking at the Washington Monument — that’s pretty cool at night. But my, I think, personally kind of fun thing. I raised my children on “Sesame Street,” and they loved “Sesame Street” and the characters, and that was sort of part of the family routine. And so I got to go to “Sesame Street” and make a public service commercial with Elmo. I got to see Oscar’s garbage can. I met Snuffleupagus. But the Elmo commercial was to teach kids how to sneeze because, again, we were trying to spread good health habits. And so the script said — I mean, Elmo is right here and I’m here — and the script said, “OK, Elmo, we need to practice how to sneeze. So put your arm up and bend your elbow and sneeze into your arm.” And the puppet answered, “Elmo has no elbow.” That wasn’t part of the script. It was like, really? “And if Elmo does that, it will go like this: Achoo!” OK, so we flipped the script and Elmo taught me to sneeze. But that was a very memorable day to finally be on “Sesame Street.” It was very cool.

Rovner: OK, beat that.

Becerra: My team has not yet scheduled me to go on “Sesame Street,” so it’s going to be tough.

Sebelius: But just remember, Elmo has no elbows, if you get to go.

Becerra: I think probably what I will think of most is that I had had a chance to be in the White House and meet with the president in the Oval Office and the rest as a of member of Congress and so forth. When I went in, and it was because things were kind of dire with the kids at the border, and I knew I was going to get a whiplash after the meeting — it wasn’t fun at the time, but walking out, you know, it’s the kind of thing you think of, you know, “West Wing” kind of thing. You actually got the — president sat at the table, I was the guy that sat across from him. Everybody else was to the sides. You know, for a kid who was the first in his family to go to college, Dad didn’t get past the sixth grade, Mom didn’t come here till she was 18, when she came from Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico. It was pretty cool.

Rovner: So I could go on all night, but I think we’re not supposed to. So I want to ask you all one last question, which is, regardless of party affiliation, what is one piece of advice you would give to a successor as HHS secretary? Why don’t you start?

Becerra: Gosh, don’t start with me because I’m still there, so —

Rovner: All right.

Azar: I’m going to plagiarize and I’m going to give you the advice I wish Donna Shalala had given me before I took the job. But I would give it to any successor, which: She told me, “Do not take the job unless you have authority over personnel. Refuse to take the job unless you have control over who’s working, because people is policy and you have to be able to control the ethics, the tone, the culture of the organization. And people are that, and you need to have that authority.” And ever really since the Reagan administration, the Office of Presidential Personnel has just been this vortex of power that controls all political appointees at Cabinet departments. And I think if the president really wants you, you need to strike a deal that says, at a minimum, I’ve got veto or firing rights.

Sebelius: I think my advice would be the advice you give to a lot of employees who work in the private sector or public sector is, Make sure you’re aligned with the mission of the CEO, so in this case the president. I mean, don’t take the job because it’s cool and you’ll be a Cabinet member, because then it will be miserable. And with HHS, recognize the incredible assets across this agency. It is the most dazzling workforce I’ve ever had an opportunity to be with — the brightest people of all shapes, sizes, backgrounds, who taught me so much every day — and just cherish and relish your opportunity to be there, even for a short period of time. It’s miraculous.

Becerra: So I’d agree with Alex: Assemble your team. And it really is, because Kathleen mentioned it, it’s a very small group that actually you get to bring in, or even the administration gets to bring in, because most of the folks are civil service, so it’s only a fraction of the people that are going to be new. But your inner circle, the team that’s going to sort of be there and guide you and tell you what’s truth, they’ve got to be your team, because someone’s got to have your back. But I’d also say, know your reach, because as Kathleen said, this is not the Azar administration or the Sebelius administration, the Becerra administration. It’s the administration of the guy who got elected. And at the end of the day, the president gets to make the call. So as much as you may want to do something, you’ve got to know your reach.

Rovner: Well, I want to thank you all. I hope the audience had half as much fun as I did doing this. Let’s do it again next year. Thank you, all. 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 a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, and particularly this week, 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. We’ll be back in your feed from Washington 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

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

Partnerships Editor and Senior Correspondent, oversees placement of KFF Health News content in publications nationwide and covers health reform and federal health policy. Before joining KFF Health News, Mary Agnes was associate editor of CQ HealthBeat, Capitol Hill Bureau Chief for Congressional Quarterly, and a reporter with Dow Jones Newswires. A frequent radio and television commentator, she has appeared on CNN, C-SPAN, the PBS NewsHour, and on NPR affiliates nationwide. Her stories have appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, TheAtlantic.com, Time.com, Money.com, and The Daily Beast, among other publications. She worked for newspapers in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University.

The Biden administration this week pleaded with states to slow the post-pandemic removal of beneficiaries from their Medicaid rolls, as government data shows more than a million Americans have lost coverage since pandemic protections ended in April. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled Medicaid beneficiaries may sue over their care.

In an appearance at the U.S. Capitol, the outgoing chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rochelle Walensky, offered no revelations as House Republicans pressed her about the agency’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. And senators are pushing for action on drug pricing, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) vowing to hold up nominations to press the Biden administration for drug pricing reform.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Asking states to slow the pace of Medicaid disenrollment, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra offered options intended to reduce the number of Americans who lose coverage due to bureaucratic hurdles, such as by allowing community organizations to help people get coverage reinstated. But those options are only guidance for Medicaid programs across the country, and nothing says that states — especially conservative ones that have rushed to trim the number of low-income and disabled people relying on the program — will adopt the administration’s suggestions.
• A deal in the Braidwood Management v. Becerra court case will preserve, for now, the mandate requiring insurance coverage of preventive services for all but the litigants. The threat of a court order halting that coverage mandate nationwide has contributed to growing concerns about the overuse of injunctions allowing a single judge to bring down an entire program or law.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a woman is entitled to sue over the nursing home care her husband received that was covered by Medicaid, setting a precedent that allows beneficiaries to pursue legal action over their care.
• This week, House Republicans pressed CDC Director Walensky about the agency’s response to the pandemic, but, producing few new details, the hearing mostly proved an attempt by Republicans to relitigate concerns over issues like gain-of-function research funding. And Ashish Jha, the White House’s covid coordinator, is preparing to step down without a successor, offering more fodder for the argument that the Biden administration is de-emphasizing covid policy.
• Reports of threats against an Alabama clinic that does not provide abortions illuminate the realities of the post-Dobbs era: Even the state attorney general has taken issue with the clinic’s efforts to provide non-abortion maternal health care — and 40% of Alabama counties already have no access to maternal care.
• And on Capitol Hill, Sanders — head of a key Senate health committee — has said he will hold up reviewing nominations in an effort to pressure the Biden administration to produce a comprehensive drug pricing plan. Meanwhile, another key Senate committee releases its proposal to rein in fees charged by pharmacy benefit managers.

Also this week, KFF Health News’ Julie Rovner interviews Dan Mendelson, chief executive of Morgan Health — the successor project to Haven Healthcare, a joint venture by Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase that aimed in 2018 to disrupt how Americans get health coverage but quickly disbanded. Rovner and Mendelson discuss the role of employers in insuring American workers.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: The Washington Post’s “I Lost 40 Pounds on Ozempic. But I’m Left With Even More Questions,” by Ruth Marcus.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “AMA Asks Doctors to De-Emphasize Use of BMI in Gauging Health and Obesity,” by Brittany Trang and Elaine Chen.

Rachel Cohrs: Politico’s “Thousands Lose Medicaid in Arkansas: Is This America’s Future?” by Megan Messerly.

Sandhya Raman: The Markup’s “Suicide Hotlines Promise Anonymity. Dozens of Their Websites Send Sensitive Data to Facebook,” by Colin Lecher and Jon Keegan.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Biden Admin Implores States to Slow Medicaid Cuts After More Than 1M Enrollees Dropped,” by Hannah Recht.
• Politico Magazine’s “This Alabama Health Clinic Is Under Threat. It Doesn’t Provide Abortions,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Slow Your Disenroll

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Slow Your Disenroll

Episode Number: 302

Published: June 15, 2023

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

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?”. I’m Mary Agnes Carey, partnerships editor at KFF Health News, filling in for Julie Rovner this week. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 15, 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’re joined today by video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Carey: Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Carey: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Carey: Later in the episode, we’ll have Julie’s interview with Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health. That’s the successor organization to the ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful effort by JPMorgan Chase, Amazon, and Berkshire Hathaway to remake employee health benefits. But first, let’s go to this week’s news. The Biden administration announced that more than a million Americans have lost their Medicaid coverage since early April as part of the ending of the covid public health emergency. Administration officials said that too many people were losing Medicaid due to red tape. About 4 in 5 people dropped so far either didn’t return paperwork to verify their eligibility or they omitted documents, according to federal and state data from 20 states. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary [Xavier] Becerra has sent a letter to state governors with some ideas on how to help stop this trend. What is he asking states to do?

Raman: So he gave states a few options. He said states could let Medicaid managed care organizations do a renewal on the beneficiaries’ behalf or let states kind of delay some of these cuts to allow for more outreach or let the community organizations in the state help individuals reinstate their coverage if they’ve fallen through some of the gaps here. But I think the thing to keep in mind is that all this is a guidance. All the Medicaid programs are different from each other. So while Becerra says that these are options, it doesn’t mean that any number of states will actually take on any of these opportunities to get more folks back into the program if they’re eligible.

Carey: To your point, some of the biggest drops in the enrollment in Medicaid have been in those more conservative states that are at political odds with the Biden administration. For example, in last week’s podcast, there was a lot of discussion about Arkansas and Indiana. For the panel, what are your thoughts on how state governments will respond to this guidance from HHS?

Ollstein: This is why there was so much anxiety last year when this was all being hashed out in the bill in Congress. Advocacy groups were sounding the alarm that there just weren’t enough guardrails to prevent this from happening. There were carrots; there were incentives for states to go slower and be more deliberate and careful in how they kick ineligible or, you know, can’t-determine-eligibility people off the rolls. But there weren’t a lot of sticks. There were carrots and not a lot of sticks. There weren’t a lot of penalties or repercussions for states that wanted to go as fast as possible and kick as many people off as possible, even if that meant folks falling through the cracks, which is what’s now happening.

Carey: So Sandhya sort of referenced this a moment ago. But I know, I mean, Medicaid is a shared federal-state program, but states, are they legally required to follow any of this guidance? I mean, what happens if a state just doesn’t do anything that’s in the letter? Does it matter?

Raman: I think the issue is that it doesn’t. I mean, there are some requirements that are applied to all programs if it’s in the Medicaid statute and sometimes when states do things that violate that and it ends up going to court. But I think anything here is they still have to follow what has been in the law that had said that after the public health emergency ended, that they could start slowly ripping people off the program. And that’s kind of the issue here.

Carey: Well, we’ll keep our eye on that one. And it sounds like another solution to find its way through the courts. Speaking of the courts, let’s move on to another major news development, and this one is regarding the preventive services coverage under the Affordable Care Act. It’s also known as the ACA. Texas conservatives that challenge the law’s preventive care mandate have reached a tentative compromise with the Justice Department that preserves free coverage for a range of medical services. Alice, I know you wrote about this agreement this week. Could you start us off and take us through the highlights?

Ollstein: Sure. So this was teased during oral arguments. The judges at the 5th Circuit [Court of Appeals] said explicitly, “Can’t you guys work something out?” And it turns out they could. So basically what the deal does is the Justice Department is agreeing not to enforce the preventive services mandate against the folks who are suing. So this is a group of conservative employers and some individual workers who say that the requirement to buy insurance that covers things like the HIV prevention drug PrEP violate their rights. And so the Biden administration is agreeing, OK, we won’t force you to buy the insurance that the law says you are required to buy. And in exchange, they agree not to push for the law to be frozen nationwide. So basically, everybody else’s insurance coverage gets to stay the same for now. There was a lot of anxiety about the nationwide injunction on the mandate that the lower judge ordered. So that is going to be on hold for now. The arguments on this case are going to drag on a lot longer, but this means that, for now, nationwide, the roles stay the same.

Carey: So how, if you know, how usual is this, in the middle of litigation, to come up with a deal that protects the people that are suing to stop a law, but it doesn’t affect the rest of the population, at least for now? I mean, is that unusual to kind of cut this kind of deal?

Ollstein: I think there has been a lot of debate recently about nationwide injunctions and the fact that some judges seem to like handing them out like candy. And just because of one person or a few people suing somewhere can bring down an entire law or program for the entire country. And there has been anxiety in the legal world about this getting kind of too common and out of hand. And so I think this is a sign that even very conservative judges like the ones on the 5th Circuit are looking for ways to rein it in and limit impacts.

Carey: Rachel, do you want to jump in? I see you nodding your head.

Cohrs: Yeah, it is just important to think about that trend, you know, as we see so many lawsuits play out. I know we’re seeing lawsuits over the Inflation Reduction Act as well. It’s a tactic that is being used. And I think if there is some more intention by DOJ to try to kind of limit the reach of these injunctions, then I think that is a really interesting trend, looking to other areas as well.

Carey: So that sounds like there’s no threat to the fall ACA enrollment season, that a ruling wouldn’t come before that enrollment season that could threaten preventive services for the entire ACA enrollment population and for those employer-sponsored plans as well.

Ollstein: So the 5th Circuit, after they blessed this deal officially, put out a briefing schedule that runs into November, so even after that, there could be more arguments, there could be an appeal up to the Supreme Court. So, yes, this is definitely running on into next year, if not longer.

Carey: OK. Well, the Supreme Court had a ruling this week that preserves Medicaid recipients’ right to sue , and policy watchers are saying that this is a major, major civil rights victory for Medicaid recipients. Before we were taping, we were chatting about it a little bit. Alice, fill us in here.

Ollstein: I mean, the specifics are that this is about a woman’s right to sue the state over the treatment of her husband in a nursing home. He was given chemical restraints, which is a horrible thing, if you look it up, that worsened his dementia. He was drugged, you know, in order to be easier to control, essentially, which is a very damaging practice. But that was sort of just the narrow issue at play. But this was seen as a major victory for any Medicaid beneficiary’s right to sue over not getting the care that they’re entitled to., and so this could have implications in the future for things like coverage of reproductive health services, including abortion, and other areas as well. So there was a lot of anxiety that this conservative Supreme Court majority would move to limit Medicaid beneficiaries’ rights to bring challenges. And that didn’t happen here.

Carey: It was a7-2 ruling, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Yeah. It wasn’t as close as people thought.

Carey: There you go. So let’s move our discussion from the courts to Capitol Hill. Outgoing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky appeared before a House panel this week to talk about her agency’s response to the covid pandemic. Rachel, you covered the hearing. What were your key takeaways?

Cohrs: I mean, I think my key takeaway is that Republicans are re-litigating some of these comments that were made in early 2021 and that there wasn’t a whole lot of new revelation that came out. Walensky was pretty well prepared to stay on topic. She kind of deflected questions about gain-of-function research at NIH [the National Institutes of Health, a separate division within HHS] and lawsuits around kind of how CDC officials interacted with social media networks and regarding vaccine misinformation. So, I mean, lawmakers brought those things up, and she didn’t really engage on that at all. But she really didn’t give a lot of ground. I mean, there were criticisms of comments she had made about vaccines preventing the spread of covid-19. And I think her position was that her comments were backed by science at the time, and that as the virus has mutated, the truth about covid has changed. So I think she was not apologizing. It was not really engaging with them. And I think it was just kind of this anticlimactic kind of end. I mean, there had been so much buildup. Lawmakers had been requesting her testimony for, like, two months, and it was over and I don’t think she suffered any really significant hits there.

Carey: Were there any sort of agreement on lessons learned from how the CDC and, more broadly, the Biden administration handled its response to the pandemic? I mean, are there lessons learned here? Is there any road map to doing things differently or better next time?

Cohrs: Well, one thing she did bring up was, she said that the CDC didn’t really have visibility into how many people who were hospitalized with covid were also vaccinated. And I think that led to kind of an interesting back-and-forth. I think Republicans were obviously implying that vaccines didn’t work as well as they were initially pitched to. But I think she pivoted that to saying that “CDC would love more data on this. We don’t have the authority to collect it. And doctors are putting all this information into electronic health records and it’s not making its way to public health departments.” And so I think that kind of fits into the administration’s asks for the pandemic preparedness legislation that Congress is kind of working through right now. So I think she pivoted that to ask for more authority for her agency, which I don’t know that Republicans will be particularly enthusiastic about. But I think that was an interesting back-and-forth where she did concede that they just didn’t have a whole lot of information in the moment.

Carey: Would state health departments have to direct hospitals to collect that and then share it with the federal government, if she’s saying she doesn’t have the regulatory authority to do it?

Cohrs: I’m not an expert in this area, I’ll say. But my understanding is that the CDC was collecting information and had to, like, have individual agreements with health departments on how that was going to be collected. They couldn’t mandate that. So I think it would just make it a lot faster and I think give CDC a lot more authority to compel states to report some of this information in real time.

Carey: Sure. No, I know, that’s been one of the most interesting things in watching and reporting and reading all the coverage of how so many things changed with the covid pandemic as [we] received new information. I mean, it was a place we hadn’t been before, but we might be back there again, so. There’s another high-profile covid official who’s stepping down. Dr. Ashish Jha is leaving his post. I think today is actually his last day as the White House covid-19 response coordinator. This departure was announced a while ago, and it’s not a surprise, especially with the end of the public health emergency. But what do these departures mean for the administration’s future plans to handle covid? I mean, what message does it send to the public with these two folks leaving at this time?

Ollstein: I think if folks are already primed to think this administration is not making it a priority, this is more fodder for that viewpoint. You know, you could also note that these folks have been serving a long time in a very difficult role and this is, you know, sort of natural turnover. But I think that, with all of the protections lifting right now, and hearing very little about covid at all from the administration — I mean, the president hasn’t talked about it publicly in months; he didn’t say anything on the day the public health emergency ended, which folks were a little upset about. So you could see this as more evidence that it might not be a priority for them going forward. You know, on the other hand, they are setting up this, like, permanent pandemic office in the White House, although it doesn’t have a leader yet. So it’s a little TBD.

Raman: With Jha, you know, we don’t have someone replacing him in the way we do with a lot of other positions. So it’s going to be the first time in 14 months now that he’s not there, but it’s also, there’s not someone else there. And if you’re quietly removing that role, it just is another layer of saying, you know, this is less of a priority compared to some of the other things as it gets phased out.

Cohrs: I was just going to pop in and say that I think there’s a really interesting opening for Mandy Cohen here at CDC. There is this vacuum of leadership here. You know, the White House hasn’t appointed anyone to fill that spot. Secretary Becerra really hasn’t shown any appetite in leading on covid, and Dr. Fauci is gone, Walensky’s gone — just so many of these, like, old-guard kind of the covid response in the Biden administration have turned over. And my colleague Helen Branswell had a great story, I think that was sharp about how, you know, Mandy Cohen really is prepared, unlike a lot of other CDC directors in the past, to navigate these political dynamics. And I think it is a recognition that the CDC is political and public health is now political, and they can’t ignore that any longer. So I will be curious to see if they elevate her to communicate some more of that information in the absence of Dr. Jha.

Carey: Sure. And can you just remind our listeners who Mandy Cohen is and why she’s expected to get this job, or be nominated for this job?

Cohrs: Yes, she’s a longtime federal and state health official. I think she was in North Carolina, and most recently she was at a ACO [accountable care organization] company working with another former Obama administration official. And the White House, I think — there’s been a lot of reporting; I don’t know that they have officially tapped her yet.

Carey: I don’t think that’s happened yet. No, that has not.

Cohrs: Right. But it doesn’t have to go through a confirmation process. So if they do choose to move forward, I think the process would move pretty quickly to have her in place. So that is what our reporting has shown. Many other outlets have reported the same thing. So I think that’s just kind of the expectation for who’s next in line.

Carey: Well, let’s move on to another topic that appears frequently on this podcast, abortion. It continues to be a major news story around the country. And I’d like to start our discussion with a story that Alice did for Politico Magazine. Here’s the headline: “This Alabama Clinic Is Under Threat. It Doesn’t Provide Abortions.” So, Alice, tell us why a clinic that doesn’t provide abortion is being threatened.

Ollstein: Yeah. So when abortion became illegal in Alabama from conception, with no exemptions for rape and incest, abortion clinics either closed their doors, some picked up and moved to other states, but some, like the one I profiled, West Alabama Women’s Center, decided to stay and pivot to nonabortion services. And they have found it’s still a very hostile landscape and they very well might go out of business themselves in the coming months. They’re running into legal threats. The state attorney general has suggested that he views the kind of abortion-adjacent care they provide, you know, such as letting people know what their options are in terms of ordering pills or traveling to another state — that he might consider that aiding and abetting an abortion under the state’s criminal law. And so they are bracing for that at all times. At the same time, they have also really struggled financially. Most of their revenue in the past was from abortions, and they mainly serve a population now that struggles to pay for services and is often uninsured. The state has not expanded Medicaid, and so lots and lots of low-income people are uninsured. And so it’s just showing that what it means to be under threat in the post-Dobbs era is really different than what it meant to be under threat in the pre-Dobbs era and just how sparse the health care landscape is at all. There are just so few providers, hospitals in these areas, lots of places going out of business. And if clinics like this and other red-state clinics can’t survive, there’s going to be a lot of health care consequences.

Carey: I think in your story you said that 40% of the state was considered a maternal health desert.

Ollstein: Yeah. Right. Which means no access in those counties. And even more of the state is considered low-access, and so people are really struggling to find anywhere to go. A lot of rural hospitals have closed entirely. A lot are on the brink of closure. Some have closed their maternal care units. And so there’s just fewer and fewer options, especially fewer and fewer options for people to feel safe going to if they have an abortion either out of state or at home with pills and need follow-up care. Folks are afraid to go to a regular provider or hospital over fear of being reported to law enforcement, which is actually happening in a lot of places.

Carey: We just talked about the South. Let’s move to the Midwest. In Ohio, voters are going to head to the polls in August to weigh in on a proposal that, if passed, would require at least 60% of voters to pass any amendment to the state’s constitution. And that’s up from the current requirement of a simple majority. There would also be new, higher requirements on the number of signatures needed to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. A Republican lawmaker in favor of the changes said they were aimed at blocking an abortion rights question that abortion rights supporters had hoped to get on the November ballot. So that’s Ohio. So in Indiana, there’s a separate issue. A class-action lawsuit asserts that the state’s abortion ban violates Hoosiers’ religious freedom. That lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], says that Indiana’s abortion ban violates a religious freedom law that was once championed by former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who we know served as vice president to Donald Trump and is now challenging former President Trump and other Republicans for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. Thoughts from the panel on these developments?

Raman: I think what’s happening in Ohio is pretty interesting because, you know, we’ve had other states before kind of try to change the threshold for passing something by ballot. And a lot of times it’s not said explicitly, but advocates have said that it’s targeting some measure, whether it’s Medicaid expansion or something else. And here we have a representative and the secretary of state kind of being pretty clear that it is about abortion in this case. And I think it being the secretary of state is especially interesting, because the secretary of state is who is certifying ballot measures and who you would look to for being the person in charge of that and making sure, you know, the t’s are crossed, the i’s dotted. So what happens there will be pretty interesting because that’s kind of an unusual play. And already we’re looking at an August ballot versus traditionally the November ballot. And a lot of times when things are pushed for a different date versus, like, traditional election day, it’s kind of, see if we can get a different turnout or kind of discourage people that might vote one way or the other. So it’ll be interesting to see how this kind of plays out in August or if there are changes before then.

Ollstein: And as for Indiana, I mean, this is one of a bunch of cases around the country where religious people are challenging abortion bans as infringing on their beliefs and right to practice. It’s sort of flipping the assumption on its head. You know, you have a lot of religious support of abortion bans. And this is showing that there are folks on the other side as well within the faith community. And it’s especially interesting in Indiana because they’re challenging one law signed by Mike Pence — the state’s pre-Dobbs abortion ban — by using another law signed by Mike Pence, which is the state’s RFRA law [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], the religious freedom law, and saying that, you know, the state law imposes one particular religion’s view of when life begins and when abortion is or is not acceptable. And that’s not shared by all people of faith. And in Judaism, a child is not a child until it takes its first breath, and that conflicts with abortion bans that are much earlier in pregnancy that sort of posit that it is a child and a life before that. So this will be really interesting to watch.

Carey: Sure. We’ll be watching all these cases very closely. But we’re going to turn now to another topic that’s important to millions of Americans, and that’s the cost of prescription drugs. Sen. Bernie Sanders — he’s a Vermont independent who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also known as the HELP Committee — he’s vowed not to move forward with any Biden administration health nominees, including the president’s pick to head the National Institutes of Health. That’s Dr. Monica Bertagnolli. Sen. Sanders is saying he’s going to keep this hold on until he sees a comprehensive plan from the White House on how to lower drug prices. What is he upset about specifically? And is he going to have other senators — have they joined him? Do you think that will be in the cards, or is this kind of a one-man band here?

Cohrs: My take on this is that he knows he can’t get the votes in Congress, so this is kind of his only option, is to try to pressure the administration to do it. And the only lever he has is nominees, so he’s using that. I don’t know how long he’ll hold out on this. I mean, it is — basically he’s arguing that the public has invested research dollars to help develop kind of the basic science that’s the foundation for a lot of important medications. And right now, the government isn’t really getting enough return on that investment. And there’s no requirement that companies that end up actually manufacturing these drugs and bringing them to market would price them in a fair, reasonable way. And so, I think his staff put out a report as well, with a release to the Post, making that argument, that the NIH could have leverage here if they chose to, and that in the past there have been clauses in contracts that could have given the government some leverage to go after these companies more aggressively but they’re just choosing not to. And so far, the Biden administration has shown no appetite to go after companies’ patents because of pricing issues. It’s never been done before. But I think, you know, Sen. Sanders realizes that he has an opening here, and he’s using the bully pulpit as much as he can. But I think ultimately I don’t see how this is resolved. And I think given that the Biden administration has overseen the passage of the most significant drug pricing reform in 20 years — which doesn’t fix all the problems, will say that. I think Sen. Sanders sent a letter about —

Carey: It’s in the Inflation Reduction Act, right?

Cohrs: Yes. Yes. The Inflation Reduction Act.

Carey: Which he voted for, OK.

Cohrs: Yes, he did vote for that. But I think there are outstanding issues about new medications especially that he’s trying to highlight here and saying, The problem isn’t fixed. We need to do more.

Carey: And so separately, a bipartisan group of Senate Finance Committee members have unveiled a proposal that they said would reform pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. That’s another entity we talk a lot about on the podcast. And the belief is that this measure would lower the cost of drugs. Rachel, I know that you have been covering this plan. Can you tell us about it?

Cohrs: I don’t know that this would lower the cost of drugs necessarily, and I think it’s more limited than the lawmakers who are sponsoring it have claimed it is. I think the problem that it’s trying to solve is that the payments between drugmakers and PBMs, and PBMs and the insurance companies or the employees that they’re working for, have traditionally been tied to a drug’s price. And so, just kind of like the — if anyone’s familiar with the medical loss ratio from the Affordable Care Act — it’s a similar idea, that if the price is higher, then there’s a bigger piece of the pie for everyone, percentagewise. So this bill aims to delink some of the fees in contracts with PBMs from the price of drugs. Now, this doesn’t change the rebates that drugmakers and PBMs negotiate on themselves, doesn’t touch that at all. It’s just fees. So I think it’s kind of hard to know how these work. You know, we don’t have them. They’re not public, but I think they’re trying to get at regulating this space a little bit more and trying to align those incentives a little bit better to make sure PBMs aren’t preferring more expensive medications for their own gain.

Carey: And what’s been the response from the PBM industry?

Cohrs: It is pretty fresh, but I think in general they have argued that the reason for high prices is drugmakers, because they set the prices. And I think this has been a food fight that’s been going on for a very long time. But I think lawmakers are kind of coming around to the idea of doing some sort of reform to the PBM industry. We’ll just have to wait and see what that ends up looking like.

Carey: All right. Well, we’ll keep our eyes on that one as well. And that’s this week’s news. Now we’re going to play Julie Rovner’s interview with Dan Mendelson of Morgan Health, and then we’ll be back with our extra credits.

Julie Rovner: I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health, a new business unit of the financial services giant JPMorgan Chase. Morgan Health’s goal is to improve health care for the company’s more than a quarter of a million employees and dependents, as well as everyone else with employer-provided insurance. If that sounds familiar, that’s because Morgan Health is the successor organization to Haven Healthcare. That was the high-profile 2018 project of JPMorgan, Amazon, and Berkshire Hathaway to remake the U.S. health care system from the ground up, led by one of the nation’s leading health care thinkers, surgeon, author, and policy wonk Atul Gawande. Today, Gawande is running global health programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Haven is no more. And if you listened to our special 300th episode earlier this month, our experts came down pretty hard on employers’ contributions to fixing what ails the health care system. So I’ve asked Dan here to talk about what is going on. Welcome, Dan.

Dan Mendelson: My pleasure.

Rovner: So, Dan may not have as high a public profile as Atul Gawande, but he has broad and long experience in health policy, from overseeing federal health programs at the Office of Management and Budget during the Bill Clinton administration to founding and growing Avalere Health, a successful health care consulting and advisory group. Dan, why did this job appeal to you and what made you think you could succeed where so many have tried before and failed, including very recently?

Mendelson: Look, this is a collaborative effort, and we’re working closely with a whole range of stakeholders from insurers to providers. I mean, the work that we’re doing in Columbus, for example, is with a really innovative primary care practice called Central Ohio Primary Care that has broad experience in delivering value through accountable care models in Medicare. So, I’d say that our belief that we will succeed really comes from the fact that we’re taking a very collaborative approach with other stakeholders in the health care system.

Rovner: Let’s start at the very beginning. Why are employers interested in the nation’s health care system and how it works? For most of them, it’s not their main line of business.

Mendelson: Well, I’d say that employers feel an obligation to provide insurance for their employees, and it’s an important benefit, and it’s one that employees expect. And it’s also an opportunity for employers to provide for the health and well-being of their employees.

Rovner: So employers really did used to drive a lot of health care innovation, probably coming only after Medicare in terms of shifting actual health care delivery. But they seem to have taken a back seat lately. What changed?

Mendelson: Well, look, you know, you had employers really active in the quality movement, and NCQA came out of employer interest, for example. So there really was kind of a head of steam. But it did wane. And I think that anyone who’s looking at the scene sees that Medicare and Medicaid have made a lot of progress with respect to driving accountable care and quality, whereas, at this point, there’s really … most of what’s happening through employers is fee for service. And it’s really problematic in terms of driving the quality agenda.

Rovner: And NCQA, that’s …?

Mendelson: National Commission for Quality Assurance.

Rovner: Thank you. The National Commission for Quality Assurance. Yeah, which used to be a big deal. And you’re right, I think most of what we’re seeing is now going on in the Medicare and Medicaid space. I feel like, you know, the millions of people who have employer-provided insurance right now have three main problems: the increasing unaffordability of care, with large and growing deductibles and copays; the increasing time and effort it takes to figure out what is and isn’t covered, and fighting for things that aren’t covered to be covered sometimes; and the fragmentation of the delivery system, making what was already hard to navigate very nearly impenetrable for some people, including people who are sick. I assume you’re trying to address all of those.

Mendelson: Yeah, we’re focused on quality and improving the quality of services, for sure. We’re focused on affordability. And then the one that you didn’t mention is health equity, which is one of the most difficult aspects of health care in America today, and certainly our focus as well. I mean, we see inequity in the health care system in the employer space, as well as in Medicare and Medicaid. So that’s also a target for us.

Rovner: What kind of steps are you taking to fix some of these problems? I mean, I know it’s what people get frustrated most with. It’s, like, they have insurance, but they feel like they can’t use it very well.

Mendelson: Yes. So, the way that we’re structured, there are three things that we’re doing to address these issues. And I’d say that we see our efforts as very collaborative. So we don’t believe that we alone can fix these problems, but rather what we’re doing is really driving innovation and trying to get employers, more broadly, focused on innovation in health care. So there are three ways that we’re doing this. First is that we’re investing, from the JPMorgan Chase balance sheet, in innovative health care companies that are proven to drive quality, improve quality, reduce costs, and better health equity. So that’s the first piece. And we can talk a little bit about some of the investments that we’ve made in the first two years of our operation.

Rovner: Give me one example of a company that’s doing that that you’re investing in.

Mendelson: Yes. An example is apree health. apree is a company that offers a[n] accountable care product to employers. And we’re using apree in Columbus, where we have 40,000 employees and dependents, and we’re now offering their services to our employees as an option to drive better health care.

Rovner: What do you see as the biggest challenge in health care going forward, particularly from the employer point of view?

Mendelson: Well, look, we’ve talked about a number of the issues. I’d say that, you know, we’re focused broadly on accountable care — and “accountable care” meaning making sure that there is a focus on quality and cost that is being held by an organization that can really take responsibility for care. So, to me, it’s really about alignment of incentives and making sure that those incentives are aligned not only in the employer sector but also across in the public programs.

Rovner: So you’re involved in private equity and, you know, the track record of private equity in health care, which was supposed to be an effort to get incentives aligned, hasn’t always worked out so well. I mean, in a lot of cases we’ve seen private equity just sucking money out of the health care system rather than putting it back in.

Mendelson: Look, as an investor, what we’re focused on is finding companies that are driving innovation and helping them succeed. And we’re putting our capital behind these companies, but we’re also really spending the time with them to make sure that they can be effective. And so, you know, we’ve done five investments over the course of two years, and they’re not only in accountable care, but also making sure that there’s good primary care in the system, driving better digital care, shifting expensive care from inpatient and outpatient settings into the home. So these are all facets of how employer-sponsored health care needs to be improved, and that’s the focus of our investing.

Rovner: So what does it look like when you get it all fixed?

Mendelson: When we get it all fixed …? I mean, look, I think we’re going to be at this for quite some time. But it’s really important for employers to articulate their needs and to make sure that those who are offering insurance for their employees are actually being attentive to not only cost but also quality and health equity. And I think that the facet that we’re really looking for is to make sure that health care improves and that these improvements are coming along not only in the public programs but also in the employer sector.

Rovner: Dan Mendelson, thank you so much for joining us.

Mendelson: My pleasure.

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

Ollstein: Sure. I chose a piece in Stat by Brittany Trang and Elaine Chen. It’s called “AMA Asks Doctors to De-Emphasize Use of BMI in Gauging Health and Obesity.” I’ve heard in the medical community there has been a lot of discussion about moving away from using the BMI [body mass index] to evaluate people’s health. It was created to track population-level statistics and was never intended to be used to gauge individual health. It was not invented by someone with a medical background at all. And so people have been saying that, you know, it’s inaccurate and it leads to a lot of stigma. And so it’s interesting to see that sort of bubble up to this very mainstream, leading health care organization saying, “Look, you can’t just rely on the BMI. You also have to look at all these other factors.” Because extremely fit NFL players have really high BMIs, you know. You can’t — someone’s size does not necessarily determine their health. You can have people of all sizes be healthy or unhealthy. So this was encouraging to see.

Carey: Great. And for folks interested in more on that, we have a lot of coverage on that at kffhealthnews.org, so check that out. Rachel, why don’t you go next?

Cohrs: Sure. My piece this week is by one of Alice’s colleagues in Politico, Megan Messerly, and the headline is “Thousands Lose Medicaid in Arkansas: Is This America’s Future?” And she kind of got out beyond the Beltway and just spent some time in Arkansas really talking to everyday people who were having trouble staying on Medicaid. And I think it’s easy to get caught up in just talking about numbers and talking about policies and all of that. But I think she really brought to life the issues and the barriers that some people are facing in Arkansas, which really is the center of these disenrollments that we’re seeing right now. So I think it was really timely, really well done, very much put the human face on both the people who are getting disenrolled, but also kind of some of the on-the-ground efforts to stop that from happening and just kind of the challenges that they are working on with these compressed timelines. I thought it was really well done.

Carey: Yeah, it’s a great story. Sandhya.

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Suicide Hotlines Promise Anonymity. Dozens of Their Websites Send Sensitive Data to Facebook.” It’s by Colin Lecher and Jon Keegan for The Markup in partnership with Stat. And I thought this was just a really interesting piece that investigated whether crisis center websites that were using Meta Pixel, which is like a piece of code that tracks user behavior for advertising that a lot of sites use — and just, like, the worry here is sharing sensitive information to Facebook, especially when it is personally identifiable. And with the crisis center, it’s much, much more sensitive data than, you know, maybe, like, shopping habits. And so they looked at data from 186 local call center websites. And I will let you read to see how many of them were using this.

Carey: Mine is from Ruth Marcus at The Washington Post. And it’s called “I Lost 40 Pounds on Ozempic. But I’m Left With Even More Questions.” In this article, she talks about her lifelong struggle to lose weight, to keep it off, but how those pounds always find their way back. And Marcus explores the history and the science behind the weight loss drugs. And she also takes on societal debate over obesity itself: Do we think of it as a personal failing, or is it a disease, a chronic condition whose underpinnings are in genetics and brain chemistry? It is a great read. All right. That’s our show for the week. And 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 the amazing Francis Ying, our producer. You can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @maryagnescarey.

Carey: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Carey: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

Carey: And Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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.

How should journalists cover political candidates who make false claims about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines? That question will need to be answered now that noted anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has officially entered the 2024 presidential race.

Meanwhile, South Carolina has become one of the last states in the South to pass an abortion ban, making the procedure all but impossible to obtain for women across a broad swath of the country.

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Republican lawmakers and President Joe Biden continue to bargain over a deal to avert a debt ceiling collapse. Unspent pandemic funding is on the negotiating table, as the White House pushes to protect money for vaccine development — though the administration has drawn criticism for a lack of transparency over what would be included in a clawback of unspent dollars.
• In abortion news, South Carolina is the latest state to vote to restrict access to abortion, passing legislation this week that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy — shortly after pregnant people miss their first period. And Texas is seeing more legal challenges to the state law’s exceptions to protect a mother’s life, as cases increasingly show that many doctors are erring on the side of not providing care to avoid criminal and professional liability.
• Congress is scrutinizing the role of group purchasing organizations in drug pricing as more is revealed about how pharmacy benefit managers negotiate discounts. So-called GPOs offer health care organizations, like hospitals, the ability to work together to leverage market power and negotiate better deals from suppliers.
• Lawmakers are also exploring changes to the way Medicare pays for the same care performed in a doctor’s office versus a hospital setting. Currently, providers can charge more in a hospital setting, but some members of Congress want to end that discrepancy — and potentially save the government billions.
• And our panel of health journalists discusses an important question after a prominent anti-vaccine activist entered the presidential race last month: How do you responsibly cover a candidate who promotes conspiracy theories? The answer may be found in a “truth sandwich.”

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News senior correspondent Aneri Pattani about her project to track the money from the national opioid settlement.

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’ “Remote Work: An Underestimated Benefit for Family Caregivers,” by Joanne Kenen

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Reuters’ “How Doctors Buy Their Way out of Trouble,” by Michael Berens

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “In the ‘Wild West’ of Outpatient Vascular Care, Doctors Can Reap Huge Payments as Patients Risk Life and Limb,” by Annie Waldman

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “Heat Wave and Blackout Would Send Half of Phoenix to E.R., Study Says,” by Michael Levenson

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Abortion Bans Are Driving Off Doctors and Closing Clinics, Putting Basic Health Care at Risk,” by Julie Rovner.
• Stat’s “House Panel Takes First Steps Toward Reining In Hospitals With ‘Site-Neutral’ Changes,” by Rachel Cohrs.
• Vice’s “ABC News and CNN Manage to Demonstrate Exactly What Not to Do With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” by Anna Merlan.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: When an Anti-Vaccine Activist Runs for President

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: When an Anti-Vaccine Activist Runs for President

Episode Number: 299

Published: May 25, 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’re taping this week on Thursday, May 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Aneri Pattani about her project tracking where all of that opioid settlement money is going. But first, this week’s news. I suppose we have to start with the debt ceiling again, because how this all eventually plays out will likely impact everything else that happens in Washington for the rest of the year. First of all, as of this taping, at 10 o’clock on Thursday morning, there’s still no settlement here, right?

Ollstein: There is not. And depending who you listen to, we are either close or not close at all, on the brink of disaster or on the brink of being all saved from disaster. There’s a lot of competing narratives going around. But yes, as of this taping, no solution.

Rovner: I want to do a spreadsheet of how often the principals come out and say, “It was productive,” “It’s falling apart,” “It was productive,” “It’s falling apart.” I mean, it seems like literally every other time, particularly when Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy comes out, it was either “very productive” or “we’re nowhere near.” That seems to have been the gist for the past two weeks or so. Meanwhile, it seems like one thing Republicans and Democrats have at least tentatively agreed to do is claw back something like $30 billion in unspent covid funds. But, not so fast. The New York Times reports that the Biden administration wants to preserve $5 billion of that to fund the next generation of covid vaccines and treatment and another $1 billion to continue giving free covid vaccines to people without insurance. I feel like this is the perfect microcosm of why these talks are almost impossible to finish. They’re trying to negotiate a budget resolution, an omnibus spending bill, and a reconciliation bill all at the same time, with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head and a long holiday weekend in between. Somebody please tell me that I’m wrong about this.

Ollstein: Well, Congress never does anything unless there’s a sword of Damocles hanging over them and a vacation coming up that they really want to go on. I mean, do they ever make it happen otherwise? Not — not in our experience. But I do want to note that it is interesting that the Biden administration is trying to fight for some of that covid funding. Meanwhile, what they’re not reportedly fighting for is some of the other public health funding that’s at risk in that clawback, and I reported last week that some of Biden’s own health officials are warning that losing those tens of billions of dollars could undermine other public health efforts, including the fight against HIV and STDs [sexually transmitted diseases]. We have syphilis at record rates right now, and public health departments all around the country are counting on that money to preserve their workforces and do contact tracing, etc. And so that is another piece of this that isn’t getting as much attention.

Cohrs: There has been this ongoing fight between the White House and Republicans over covid money and how it’s being spent, for years at this point. And the White House has never really been fully transparent about exactly what was going to get clawed back. The Appropriations Committee was the one who actually put out some real information about this. And I think that trust has just been broken that the money is used where it’s supposed to be. I mean, even for the next-generation research project [Project NextGen] — I mean, they launched that like a couple of months ago, after Republicans had already threatened to take the money back. So I think there are some questions about the timing of the funding. [White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator] Ashish Jha said they didn’t know they had leftovers until recently, but I think this has just really turned into a mess for the White House, and I think the fact that they’re willing to offer some of this money up is just kind of a symbol and just a “ending with a whimper” of this whole fight that’s been going on for two years where they’ve been unsuccessful in extracting any more money.

Rovner: And yeah, I was just going to say, the White House keeps asking for more money and then they keep, quote-unquote, “finding money” to do things that are really important. Sarah, I wanted to ask you, how freaked out is the research establishment and the drug industry at whether, you know, will they or won’t they actually pony up money here?

Karlin-Smith: I think this could be pretty problematic because some of the type of companies that get this funding — some of them might be in a position to do this on their own, but others would essentially — you know, there isn’t necessarily a market for this without the government support, and that’s why they do it. That’s why the U.S. created this BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], which kind of funds this type of pandemic and other threats research. And so I think there are companies that definitely wouldn’t be able to continue without this money, because some of it is for things that we think we might need but don’t know if we definitely will. And so you don’t necessarily want to make the investment in the same way you know you need cancer drugs or something like that.

Rovner: We will see how this plays out. Perhaps it will be played out by next week or perhaps they will find some sort of short-term patch, which is another tried-and-true favorite for Congress. All right. Let’s turn to abortion. Last week, the North Carolina Legislature overrode the Democratic governor’s veto to pass a 12-week ban. This week was the South Carolina Legislature’s chance to say, “Hold my beer.” Alice, what happened in South Carolina, and what does it mean for availability of abortion in the whole rest of the South?

Ollstein: The governor is expected to sign this new restriction into law. Like many other GOP-led states. South Carolina was expected to quickly pass restrictions last year as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned, but they got into fights within the Republican Party over how far to go, whether to have exceptions, what kind of exceptions, etc. It was the classic story we’ve seen play out over and over and over where, while Roe v. Wade was still in place, it was very easy for people to say, “I’m pro-life, I’m against abortion,” and not have to make those difficult, detailed decisions. So, yes, this could have a big impact, you know, especially with Florida moving for a much stricter ban. You know, the whole region is becoming more and more unavailable, and people are going to have to travel further and further.

Rovner: And South Carolina ended up with one of these six-week, quote-unquote, “heartbeat bills,” right?

Ollstein: That’s right.

Rovner: So it’s sort of shutting off yet another state where abortion is or really could be available. There’s more abortion-related court action, too. This week, in Texas, eight more women who experienced dangerous pregnancy complications joined a lawsuit seeking to force just a clarification of that state’s abortion ban that they say threatened their lives. One of them, Kiersten Hogan, had her water break prematurely, putting her at risk of infection and death, but says she was told by the hospital that if she tried to leave to seek care elsewhere, she could be arrested for trying to kill her baby. Four days later, the baby was born stillborn. Yet sponsors of the state’s abortion bill say it was never intended to bar, quote, “medically necessary abortions.” Why is there such a disconnect? And Texas is hardly the only place this is happening, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Situations like this are why people are arguing that the whole debate over exceptions is sort of a fig leaf. It’s papering over how these work in practice. You can have exceptions on the book that say “life-threatening situations, medical emergencies,” etc. But because doctors are so afraid of being charged with a crime or losing their license or other professional repercussions, that’s just creating a huge chilling effect and making them afraid to provide care in these situations. A lot of times the state law also contradicts with federal law when it comes to medical emergencies, and so doctors feel caught in the middle and unsure what they’re supposed to do. And as we’re seeing, a lot of them are erring on the side of not providing care rather than providing care. So this is playing out in a lot of places. So I’m interested to see if this informs the debate in other states about whether to have these exceptions or not.

Rovner: And I get to promote my own story here, which is that we’re seeing in a lot of states either doctors leaving or doctors deciding not to train in states with abortion bans because they’re afraid of exactly those restrictions that could land them, you know, either in court or, even worse, in jail. We’ve long had abortion care deserts. Now we could see entire women’s health care deserts in a lot of these states, which would, you know, hurt not just the people who want to have abortions, but the people who want to get pregnant and have babies. We will continue to watch that space. Well, meanwhile, in West Virginia, another court case, filed by the maker of the generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone, could turn on a recent Supreme Court decision about pork products in California. Can somebody explain what one has to do with the other?

Karlin-Smith: There is basically a ruling that the Supreme Court issued the other week in a California case where the state was regulating how pigs were treated on farms in California. And the court basically allowed the law to stand, saying, you know, it didn’t interfere with interstate commerce. And the people who are protesting GenBioPro’s suit in West Virginia are basically saying that this, again, is an example where West Virginia’s regulation of the abortion drug, again, doesn’t really impact the distribution of the drug outside of the state or the availability of the drug outside of the state, and so this should be allowable. Of course, GenBioPro and the folks who are protesting how West Virginia is curtailing access to the suit are trying to argue the same ruling helps their cause. To me, what I read — and it seems like the comparison works better against the drug company, but it always is interesting to see this overlapping — you know, the cases you don’t expect. But I also, I think, when this ruling came out, saw somebody else making another argument that this should help GenBioPro. So it’s very hard to know.

Rovner: If it’s not confusing enough, I’m going to add another layer here: While we’re talking about the abortion pill, a group of House Democrats are reaching out to drug distribution company AmerisourceBergen, following reports that it would decline to deliver the pill to pharmacies in as many as 31 states, apparently fearing that they would be drawn into litigation between states and the federal government, the litigation we’ve talked about now a lot. So far, the company has only said that it will distribute the drug in states, quote, “where it is consistent with the law.” In the end, this could end up being more important than who wins these lawsuits, right? If — I think they’re the sole distributor — is not going to distribute it, then it’s not going to be available.

Ollstein: It also depends on the — at the 5th Circuit, and that will go back to the Supreme Court, because if it’s not an FDA-approved drug, then nobody can distribute it. That’s the ultimate controlling factor. But yes, since they are the sole distributor, they will have a lot of power over where this goes. And when I was reporting on Walgreens’ decision, they were pointing to this and saying that their decisions, you know, depend on other factors as well.

Karlin-Smith: And there’s a lot of nuance to this because my understanding is AmerisourceBergen, they’re particularly talking about distributing it to pharmacies where you could — under this new FDA permission to let pharmacies distribute the drug, which in the past they hadn’t.

Rovner: And which hasn’t happened yet.

Karlin-Smith: Right. They haven’t actually gone through the process of certifying the pharmacies. So it’s like a little bit premature, which is why I think Walgreens realized they probably jumped the gun on making any decision because it couldn’t happen yet anyway. But AmerisourceBergen is still saying, “Oh, we’re giving it to providers and other places that can distribute the drug in some of these states.” So it’s not necessarily like the drug is completely unavailable. It’s just about ease of access, I think, at this point.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re not just in “watch that space”; now we’ve progressed to “watch all those spaces,” which we will continue to do. Well, while we were on the discussion of drug middlepeople, there’s a story in Stat about the Federal Trade Commission widening its investigation of pharmacy benefit managers to include group purchasing organizations. Sarah, what are group purchasing organizations and how do they impact the price of prescription drugs?

Karlin-Smith: So group purchasing organizations are basically where you sort of pool your purchasing power to try and get better deals or discounts. So like, in this case, one of the GPOs FTC is looking at negotiates drug rebates on behalf of a number of different PBMs, not just one PBM. And so, again, you know, the idea is the more people you have, the more marketing you have, the better discount you should be able to get, which is — I think some people have been a little shocked by this because they’re like, “Wait, we thought the PBMs were the ones that did the negotiation. Why are they outsourcing this? Isn’t that the whole purpose of why they exist?” Yeah, so FTC has sort of a broader investigation into PBMs, so this is kind of the next step in it to kind of figure out, OK, what is the role of these companies? How are they potentially creating bad incentives, contributing to increased drug pricing, making it harder for people to perhaps, like, get their drug at particular pharmacies or more expensive at particular pharmacies? Again, because there’s been a lot of integration of ownership of these companies. So like the PBMs, the health insurance, some of these pharmacy systems are sort of all connected, and there’s a lot of concern that that’s led to incentives that are harming consumers and the prices we’re paying for our health care.

Rovner: Yeah, there’s all that money sloshing around that doesn’t seem to be getting either to the drug companies or to the consumers. Rachel, you wanted to add something?

Cohrs: Sure. I think GPOs are more used with hospitals when they buy drugs, because I think PBMs — you think of, like, going to pick up your drug at the pharmacy counter. But obviously hospitals are buying so many drugs, too. And their, you know, market power is pretty dispersed across the country. And so they also are a big customer of GPOs. So I think they’re also trying to get at this, like, different part of the drug market where, you know, a lot of these really expensive medications are administered in hospitals. So it will be interesting. They’re certainly not very transparent either. So, yeah, interesting development as to how they relate to PBMs, but also the rest of — you know, encompassing a larger part of the health care system.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I have seen complaints from hospital systems that the GPOs require them to enter into contracts that make it very difficult for the hospital to pivot if, say, the GPO can’t supply them with a particular product or maybe it’s … [unintelligible] … and then they end up stuck in a situation where they should, in theory, be able to get a product from another supplier and they can’t. So there’s lots of different levels of, again, concern about potential bad behavior.

Rovner: Well, while we are on the topic of nerdy practice-of-medicine stuff, Rachel, you had a story on the latest on the, quote, “site-neutral” Medicare payment policy. Remind us what that is and who’s on which side, and wasn’t that one of the bills — or I guess that wasn’t one of the bills that was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, right?

Cohrs: No, so “site neutral” is basically hospitals’ worst nightmare. It essentially makes sure that Medicare is paying the same amount for a service that a doctor provides, whether it’s on a hospital campus or provided in a doctor’s office. And I think hospitals argue that they need to charge more because they have to be open 24/7. You know, they don’t have predictable hours. They have to serve anyone, you know, regardless of willingness to pay. It costs more overhead. That kind of thing. But I think lawmakers are kind of losing patience with that argument to some degree, that the government should be paying more for the same service at one location versus another. And it’s true that House Republicans had really wanted an aggressive form of this policy, and it could save like tens of billions of dollars. I mean, this is a really big offset we’re talking about here, if they go really aggressively toward this path, but instead they weren’t able to get Democrats on board with that plan yet. I think the chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and the ranking member, Frank Pallone, have said they want to keep working on this. But what they did do this week is took a tiny little part out of that and advanced it through the committee. And it would equalize payment for, like, drug administration in physician’s offices versus a physician doing it in the hospital, and the savings to the federal government on that policy was roughly $3 billion. So, again, not a huge hit to industry, but it’s, you know, significant savings, certainly, and a first step in this direction as they think about how they want to do this, if they want to go bigger.

Rovner: So while we’re talking about the Energy and Commerce Committee, those members, in a fairly bipartisan fashion, are moving a bunch of other bills aimed at price transparency, value-based care, and a lot of other popular health buzzwords. Sarah, I know you watched, if not all, then most of yesterday’s markup. Anything in particular that we should be watching as it perhaps moves through the House and maybe the Senate?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. So there was — probably the most contentious health bill that cleared yesterday was a provision that basically would codify a Trump-era rule in Medicaid that the Biden administration has sort of tweaked a bit but generally supported that basically tweaks Medicaid’s “best price” rule. So Medicaid is kind of guaranteed the best price that the private sector gets for drugs. But drugmakers have argued this prevents them from doing these unique value-based arrangements where we say, “OK, if the patient doesn’t perform well or the drug doesn’t work well for the patient, we’ll kind of give you maybe even all your money back.” Well, they don’t want the Medicaid best price to be zero. So they came up with a kind of a very confusing way to tweak that and also as part of that to, you know, hopefully allow Medicaid to maybe even take advantage of these programs. And Rep. [Brett] Guthrie [(R-Ky.)], Rep. [Anna] Eshoo [(D-Calif.)] on the Democratic side, want to codify that. But a number of the Democrats pushed back and over worries this might actually raise prices Medicaid pays for drugs and be a bit more problematic. And the argument from the Democrats, the majority of Democrats on the committee who oppose it, were not completely against this idea but let it play out in rulemaking, because if it stays in rulemaking, it’s a lot easier to —er, sorry — as a rule, it’s already made.

Rovner: To fix it if they need to.

Karlin-Smith: Right. It’s a lot easier to fix it, which, as anybody who follows health policy knows, it’s not actually as easy as you would think to fix a rule, but it’s definitely a lot easier to fix a rule than it is to fix something codified in law. So that’s sort of a very wonky but meaningful thing, I think, to how much drugs cost in Medicaid.

Rovner: Last nerdy thing, I promise, for this week: The Biden administration says it plans to conduct an annual audit of the cost of the most expensive drugs covered by Medicaid and make those prices public in what one of your colleagues, Alice, described as a “name and shame” operation? I mean, could this actually work, or could it end up like other HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] transparency rules, either not very followed or tied up in court?

Karlin-Smith: Experts that my colleague Cathy Kelly talked to to write about this basically were not particularly optimistic it would lead to big changes in savings to Medicaid, basically. One of the reasons is because Medicaid actually gets pretty good deals on drugs to begin with. But that said, even, again, like I said, they’re guaranteed these really large rebates are the best price. But in exchange for that, they have to cover all drugs. So that’s where you start to lose some of your leverage. So the hope with some of this extra transparency is they’ll get more information to have, like, a little bit of additional leverage to say, “Oh, well your manufacturing costs are only this, so you should be able to give us an additional rebate,” which they can negotiate that. Again, I think people think there’ll be sort of maybe some moderate, if any, benefits to that. But some states have actually tried similar things in kind of similar “name, shame” affordability boards. And the drugmakers have basically just said, “No, we’re not going to give you any more discounts.” And they’re kind of stuck.

Rovner: “And we’re not ashamed of the price that we’re charging.”

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Rovner: “Or we wouldn’t be charging it.”

Karlin-Smith: So it’s a tough one, but there’s, like, an argument to be made that drugmakers just don’t want to be on this list. So maybe some of them will more proactively figure out like how to get their price point and everything discounts to a point where they at least won’t get on the list. So maybe, again, it might tweak things around the edges, but it’s not a big price savings move.

Rovner: And we shall see. All right. Well, this is — finally this week, it’s something I’ve wanted to talk about for a couple of weeks. I’m calling it the “How do you solve a problem like RFK Jr.?” For those of you who don’t already know, the son of the former senator and liberal icon Robert Kennedy has declared his candidacy for president. He’s an environmental lawyer, but at the same time, he’s one of the most noted anti-vaxxers, not just in the country but in the world. Vice has a provocative story — this actually goes back a couple of weeks — about how the media should cover this candidacy or, more specifically, how it shouldn’t. According to the story, ABC did an interview with RFK Jr. and then simply cut out what they deemed the false vaccine claims that he made. CNN, on the other hand, did an interview and simply didn’t mention his anti-vaccine activism. I am honestly torn here about how should you cover someone running for president who traffics in conspiracy theories that you know are not true? I realize here I am now speaking of a wider — wider universe than just RFK Jr. But as a journalist, I mean, how do you handle things that — when they get repeated and you know them to be untrue, at least in the health care realm?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, I really like the thing that Vice mentioned, and I think maybe Jay Rosen, who’s a journalism professor at NYU [New York University], he might be the person that sort of coined this, I’m not sure — this, like, “truth sandwich” idea, where you make sure you sort of start with what is true, in the middle you put the sort of — this is what the false claim of X person — and then you go back to the truth. Because I think that really helps people grasp onto what’s true, versus a lot of times you see the coverage starts with the lie or the falsehood. And I think sometimes people might even just see that headline or just see the little bit of what’s correct and never make it to the truth. And I understand some of the decisions by the news outlets that decided not to air these segments and just didn’t want to deal with the topic. But then I guess I thought they did make a good point that then you let somebody like Kennedy say, “Oh, they’re suppressing me, they’re deliberately hiding this information.” So the Vice argument was that this truth sandwich idea kind of gets you in a better … [unintelligible]. And again, as journalists, our job is not to suppress what politicians are saying. People should know what these people claim, because that is what the positions they stand for. But it’s figuring out how to add the context and be able to, you know, in real time if you need to, fact-check it.

Rovner: I confess, over the years I have been guilty of the CNN thing of just not bringing it up and hoping it doesn’t come up. But then, I mean, it’s true, the worst-case scenario — probably not going to happen with somebody running for president — but I think we’ve discovered all these people running for lower offices, that they get elected, you don’t talk about the controversial things and then you discover that you have a legislator in office who literally believes that the Earth is flat. There are — can Google that. So if these things aren’t aired, then there’s no way for voters to know. Anybody else have a personal or organizational rule for how to handle this sort of stuff?

Ollstein: I think there can be smart decisions about when to let someone say in their own voice what they believe versus saying as the news organization, “In the speech, he spent X minutes advancing the discredited assertion of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,” and not just handing over the platform for them to share the misinformation.

Rovner: Yeah, I just want the audience to know that we do think seriously about this stuff. We are not just as sort of blithe as some may believe. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my interview with Aneri Pattani, and then we will come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Aneri Pattani, who is here to talk about her investigation into where those billions of dollars states are getting in pharmaceutical industry settlements for the opioid crisis are actually going. Aneri, I am so glad to have you back.

Aneri Pattani: Thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. How much money are we talking about? Where’s it coming from, and where is it supposed to be going?

Pattani: So the money comes from companies that made, distributed, or sold opioid painkillers. So these are places like Purdue Pharma, AmerisourceBergen, Walgreens, and a bunch of others. They were all accused of aggressively marketing the pills and falsely claiming that they weren’t addictive. So thousands of states and cities sued those companies. And rather than go through with all the lawsuits, most of the companies settled. And as a result, they’ve agreed to pay out more than $50 billion over the next 15 or so years. And the money is meant to be used on opioid remediation, which is a term that means basically anything that addresses or fixes the current addiction crisis and helps to prevent future ones.

Rovner: So the fact is that many or most states — we don’t actually know where this money is going or will go in the future because that information isn’t being made public. How is that even legal, or, I guess it’s not public funds, but it’s funds that are being obtained by public entities, i.e., the attorneys general.

Pattani: Yeah, a lot of people feel this way. But the thing is, the national settlement agreements have very few requirements for states to publicly report how they use the money. In fact, the only thing that’s in there that they’re required to report is when they use money for non-opioid purposes. And that can be at most 15% of the total funds they’re getting. And that reporting, too, is on an honor system. So if a state doesn’t report anything, then the settlement administrators are supposed to assume that the state used all of its money on things related to the opioid crisis. Now, states and localities can enact stricter requirements. For example, North Carolina and Colorado are two places that have created these public dashboards that are supposed to show where the money goes, how much each county gets, how the county spends it. But honestly, the vast majority of states are not taking steps like that.

Rovner: So for people of a certain age, this all feels kind of familiar. In the late 1990s, a group of state attorneys general banded together and sued the tobacco companies for the harm their products had done to the public. They eventually reached a settlement that sent more than $200 billion to states over 25 years, so that money is only just now running out. But it didn’t all get used for tobacco cessation or even public health, did it?

Pattani: No. In fact, most of it didn’t get used for that. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has been tracking that tobacco settlement money for years, found that about only 3% of the money goes to anti-smoking programs a year. The rest of it has gone towards plugging state budget gaps, infrastructure projects like paving roads, or, in the case of North Carolina and South Carolina, the money even went to subsidizing tobacco farmers.

Rovner: Great. Given the lessons of the tobacco settlement, how do the attorneys general in this case try to make sure that wasn’t going to happen? I mean, was it just by requiring that that non-opioid-related money be made public?

Pattani: So they have added some specific language to the settlements that they point to as trying to avoid, you know, the, quote, “tobacco nightmare.” Essentially, the opioid settlements say that at least 85% of the money must be spent on opioid remediation. Again, that term — that’s like things that stop and prevent addiction. And there’s also a list included at the end of the settlement, called Exhibit E, with potential expenses that fall under opioid remediation. That’s things like paying for addiction treatment for people who don’t have insurance or building recovery housing or funding prevention programs in schools. But the thing is, that list is pretty broad and it’s nonexhaustive, so governments can choose to do things that aren’t on that list, too. So there are guidelines, but there’s not a lot of hard enforcement to make sure that the money is spent on these uses.

Rovner: So, as you’ve pointed out in your reporting, it’s not always simple to determine what is an appropriate or an inappropriate use of these settlement funds, particularly in places that have been so hard-hit by the opioid crisis and that it affects the entire economy of that state or county or city. So tell us what you found in Greene County, Tennessee. That was a good example, right?

Pattani: Yeah, Greene County is an interesting place. And what I learned is happening there is actually, you know, repeating in a lot of places across the country. So Greene County, it’s an Appalachian county, it’s been hard-hit. It has a higher rate of overdose deaths than the state of Tennessee overall or even the country. But when the county got several million dollars in opioid settlement funds, it first put that money towards paying off the county’s debt. And that included putting some money into their capital projects fund, which was then used to buy a pickup truck for the sheriff’s office. So a lot of folks are looking at that, saying, “That’s not really opioid-related.” But county officials said to me, you know, this use of the money makes sense, because the opioid epidemic has hurt their economy for decades; it’s taken people out of the workforce, it’s led to increased costs for their sheriff’s office and their jail with people committing addiction-related crimes, it’s hurt the tax base when people move out of the county. So now they need that money to pay themselves back. Of course, on the other hand, you have advocates and people affected by the crisis saying, “If we’re using all the money now to pay back old debts, then who’s addressing the current crisis? People are still dying of overdoses, and we need to be putting the opioid settlement money towards the current problem.”

Rovner: So I suppose ideally they could be doing both.

Pattani: I think that’s the hard thing. Although $54 billion sounds like a lot of money, it’s coming over a long period of time. And so at the end of the day, it’s not enough to fund every single thing people want, and there is a need for prioritization.

Rovner: So I know part of your project is helping urge local reporters to look into where money is being used in their communities. How is that going?

Pattani: It’s going well. I think it’s important because the money is not only going to state governments, but to counties and cities too. So local reporters can play a really big role in tracking that money and holding local officials accountable for how they use it. So I’m trying to help by sharing some of the national data sets we’re pulling together that can be used by local reporters. And I’ve also hopped on the phone with local reporters to talk about where they can go to talk to folks about this or finding story ideas. Some of the reporters I’ve spoken with have already published stories. There was one just a week ago in the Worcester Telegram from a student journalist, actually, in that area —

Rovner: Cool.

Pattani: — so there’s a lot of good coverage coming.

Rovner: I’m curious: What got you interested in pursuing this topic? I know you cover addiction, but this is the kind of reporting that can get really frustrating.

Pattani: It definitely can. But I think it’s what you said: As someone who’s been covering addiction and mental health issues for a while, kind of focusing on some of the problems and the systemic gaps, when I learned that this money was coming in, it was exciting to me too, like, maybe this money will be used to address the issues that I’m often reporting on, and so I want to follow that and I want to see if it delivers on that promise.

Rovner: So what else is coming up in this project? I assume it’s going to continue for a while.

Pattani: Yes. So this will be a yearlong project, maybe even more, because, as I said, the funds are coming for a long time. But essentially the next few things I’m looking at, I have a big data project looking at who sits on opioid settlement councils. These are groups that advise or direct the money in different states and, you know, may represent different interests. And then we’re going to be looking at some common themes in the ways different states are using this money. So a lot of them are putting it towards law enforcement agencies, a lot of them are putting them toward in-school prevention programs, and taking a look at what the research tells us about how effective these strategies are or aren’t.

Rovner: Well, Aneri Pattani, thank you so much, and we will post links to some of Aneri’s work on the podcast homepage at kffhealthnews.org and in this week’s show notes. Thanks again.

Pattani: Thank you so much.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at a piece in The New York Times called “Heat Wave and Blackout Would Send Half of Phoenix to E.R., Study Says,” by Michael Levenson. And it’s just really sort of a horrifying piece where researchers were sort of able to model the impact of the growing frequency of heat waves due to climate change, and obviously, the U.S. had some electric grid stability issues, and just the disconnect between the amount of hospital beds and people that would be able to care for people in a very hot city due to, you know, heat waves without being able to access air conditioning and other cooling methods. And the amount of people that would be hospitalized or die or just wouldn’t have a hospital bed. The one thing I did think was sort of positive is the piece does have some suggestions, and some of them are fairly simple that could really change the degrees in cities in relevant ways, like planting more trees in particular areas, and often this affects sort of — the poorest areas of cities tend to be the ones with less trees — or, you know, changing colors or the material on roofing. So as much as sometimes I think climate change becomes sort of such an overwhelming topic where you feel like you can’t solve it, I think the one nice thing here is it does sort of show, like, we have power to make the situation better.

Rovner: We can perhaps adapt. Alice.

Ollstein: I picked a upsetting piece but really good investigation from Reuters by Michael Berens. It’s called “How Doctors Buy Their Way out of Trouble.” It’s about doctors who are charged federally with all kinds of wrongdoing, including operating on patients who don’t need to be operated on for profit and having a pattern of doing so. And it’s about how often these cases settle with federal prosecutors and the settlement allows them to keep practicing, and the settlement money goes to the government, not to the victims. And often the victims aren’t even aware that the settlement took place at all. And new patients are not aware that the doctor they may be going to has been charged. And so it’s a really messed up system and I hope this shines a light on it.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: All right. So mine is from ProPublica, and the headline is, “In the ‘Wild West’ of Outpatient Vascular Care, Doctors Can Reap Huge Payments as Patients Risk Life and Limb,” by Annie Waldman. And I think I found this story timed really well kind of as lawmakers do start to talk a little bit more about incentives for patients to be seen in a hospital versus in more physician offices. And certainly there are cost reasons that that makes sense for some procedures. But I think this story does a really good job of kind of following one doctor, who I think, similar to kind of the story Alice was talking about, you know, was taking advantage of these inflated payments that were supposed to incentivize outpatient treatment to perform way more of these procedures than patients needed. And so I think it’s just important, a cautionary tale about the safeguards that could be necessary, you know, if more of this care is provided elsewhere.

Rovner: Yeah, I think these two stories are very good to be read together. My story this week is from our fellow podcast panelist Joanne Kenen for KFF Health News. It’s called “Remote Work: An Underestimated Benefit for Family Caregivers,” and it’s about how the U.S., still one of the few countries without any formal program for long-term care, that most of us will need at some point, has accidentally fallen into a way to make family caregiving just a little bit easier by letting caregivers do their regular jobs from home, either all the time or sometimes. While many, if not most, employers have policies around childbirth and child care, relatively few have benefits that make it easier for workers to care for other sick family members, even though a fifth of all U.S. workers are family caregivers. More flexible schedules can at least make that a little easier and possibly prevent workers from quitting so that they can provide care that’s needed. It’s no substitute for an actual national policy on long-term care, but it’s a start, even if an accidental one. 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. And next week is our 300th episode. If all goes as planned, we’ll have something special, so be sure to tune in. 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 @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

The fate of the abortion pill mifepristone remains in jeopardy, as an appellate court panel during a hearing this week sounded sympathetic to a lower court’s ruling that the FDA should not have approved the drug more than two decades ago. No matter how the appeals court rules, the case seems headed for the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in the partisan standoff over raising the nation’s debt ceiling, a key sticking point has emerged: whether to add a work requirement to the state-federal Medicaid program. Republicans are adamant about adding one; Democrats point out that, in the few states that have tried them, red tape has resulted in eligible people wrongly losing their health coverage.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Hopes among abortion rights advocates for continued access to mifepristone dimmed as the three judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals signaled they are skeptical of the FDA’s decades-old approval of the drug and of the Biden administration’s arguments defending it. Lawyers debated whether the Texas doctors challenging the drug had been harmed by it and thus had standing to sue. If the original ruling effectively revoking the drug’s approval is allowed to stand, the case could open the door to future legal challenges to the approval of controversial drugs.
• Two more states in the South are moving to restrict abortion, further cutting access to the procedure in the region. In North Carolina, a new Republican supermajority in the state legislature enabled the passage this week of a new, 12-week ban, as lawmakers in South Carolina consider a six-week ban.
• In Congress, the top Senate Republican said he will not back one senator’s months-long effort to hold up Pentagon nominations over a policy that supports troops and their dependents who must travel to other states to obtain an abortion.
• Envision Healthcare — which spent big in 2019 to fight legislation prohibiting some surprise medical bills — has filed for bankruptcy protection more than a year after the law took effect and cut into its bottom line. But a federal lawsuit from a group of emergency room physicians against Envision may move forward. The lawsuit claims the private equity-backed company is in violation of a California law banning corporate control of medical practices, and it could carry major consequences for the growing number of practices backed by private equity firms across the country.
• Monica Bertagnolli has been nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health. Currently the director of the National Cancer Institute, she will need to be confirmed by the Senate, which hasn’t confirmed an NIH chief since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ stewardship of a key health committee is causing delays on even bipartisan efforts.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann E. Marimow.

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners,” by April Rubin.

Rachel Roubein: CBS News’ “Thousands Face Medicaid Whiplash in South Dakota and North Carolina,” by Arielle Zionts of KFF Health News.

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “A Year After Dobbs Leak, Democrats Still See Abortion Driving 2024 Voters,” by Mary Ellen McIntire and Daniela Altimari.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

KFF Health News’ “ER Doctors Vow to Pursue Case Against Envision Despite Bankruptcy,” by Bernard J. Wolfson.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

Episode Number: 298

Published: May 18, 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’re taping this week on Thursday, May 18, 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 Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi. Good morning.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, and good morning, everyone.

Rovner: Lots and lots of health news this week, so we will dive right in. We’re going to start with abortion because there is so much breaking news on that front. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held a hearing on the Biden administration’s appeal of a Texas ruling that the FDA was wrong when it approved the abortion pill mifepristone more than 22 years ago. The panel, which was randomly chosen from an already pretty conservative slate there in the 5th Circuit, appeared to be even more anti-abortion than most of the judges on that bench. So, Sandhya, you listened to this whole thing. What, if anything, did we glean from this hearing?

Raman: I think we gleaned a lot of things and a lot of things I think we have predicted from the start. I think going into this, looking at the various judges’ records, they have ruled on anti-abortion cases in the past in the favor of that. You take that in with a grain of salt. And from watching the arguments, it seemed like they were fairly skeptical of the challenge and FDA’s approval of mifepristone and the subsequent regulations. You could kind of see through the questioning the kinds of things that they were asking and just pretty skeptical of just a lot of the things that were being said by DOJ [the Department of Justice] and by Danco there yesterday. So —

Rovner: Yeah, we should say that the lawyer for the FDA had one sort of round of presentation and questions. And then the lawyer from Danco, the company that makes mifepristone, had another. And they were pretty tough on both of them.

Raman: Yeah, and I thought it was interesting because when we were listening to the arguments, the DOJ lawyer and the Danco lawyer were kind of arguing a lot of the time just that there shouldn’t be standing, that there isn’t necessarily proof in any of the filings that any of the doctors that that were suing have really had harm due to the FDA’s role. It was kind of down the road. I think one thing that Harrington, the judge for the DOJ, had said, that was the FDA approving a drug does not mean that anyone has to prescribe it, it does not mean anyone has to take it, that the fact that if you were treating someone after the fact, that’s a few steps down the line. And so that was kind of like a messaging thing that they were doing kind of over and over again. And then when we got to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the conservative doctors, Erin Hawley had said, you know, they are affected both physically and she said emotionally, which was interesting, kind of looking at that. And so it’ll depend on how the judges rule. I think that there were definitely some signs throughout the arguments about this not being as unprecedented and that the FDA is not untouchable in terms of the courts weighing in on regulation.

Rovner: If you were just listening to it, you didn’t sort of know all of this. And remember, these were two Trump-appointed judges and a George W. Bush-appointed judge who has a history of ruling in favor of anti-abortion efforts. But they were saying that, “Well, people sue the FDA all the time. You know, what’s the difference here?” Well, the difference here is nobody has ever sued the FDA saying that they were wrong to approve something 20 years ago. Nobody’s ever tried to get a drug taken off the market that way. There’s obviously lots of litigation against the FDA for the way it does some of its thing. I mean, it’s often little things and then people sue each other with the FDA caught in the middle — drugmakers and lots of patent suits. I was surprised that the appeals court judges took issue with what everybody I think acknowledges is a correct claim that this is unprecedented and this could open the door to other challenges to other drugs for any reason — you know, someone doesn’t like them. I mean, these doctors are not saying that they’ve prescribed this drug and women have taken it and had bad reactions. They’re saying that possibly, if someone takes it and has a bad reaction, that they would have to treat that person and that that would harm their conscience, even though, as the lawyers made it clear, no one has ever forced these doctors to take care of anyone against their conscience because there are already laws that protect against that. So it was very roundabout in a lot of ways.

Raman: I think one thing that they had mentioned was that, you know, some of the cases cited in the filings were, you know, someone had taken an imported version of a mifepristone, not the one that Danco made, and then someone else had been recommended not to take the drug but still took the drug and then had side effects related to that. But there is another thing that kind of stuck out to me, was when Judge [James] Ho had asked would the FDA adhere to whatever the final court decision was? And that was a little striking to me. And then the FDA had said, you know, we will. And they cited that they had signed an affidavit last year saying that they’re going to agree to whatever the final decision is. But there were a lot of parts of the case that were just very unusual compared to the other cases that I have watched on this or any other part of health care, I think.

Rovner: Although in fairness to the judges, I mean, there was — a lot of legal experts were saying that the FDA does have enforcement authority to determine what it’s going to enforce and what it isn’t. And Justice [Samuel] Alito, when he actually challenged the Supreme Court’s stay of the original ruling — Justice Alito questioned about whether FDA would even follow if this drug was deemed unapproved. So that’s at least been coming up as a discussion. Let’s move on because it could be weeks or even months before we hear back from this panel, and we will obviously keep watching it. There’s been plenty of action in the states, too, this week — not that surprising because it’s May and lots of state legislatures are wrapping up their sessions for the year. But we should point out that particularly North and South Carolina are acting on abortion because they’ve been two of the last states in the South where abortion had remained both legal and pretty much broadly available. That’s changing as of this week, though, isn’t it?

Roubein: That’s changing in North Carolina, for sure, after this week. The Republicans there have supermajorities as of April; a Democrat in the House switched to the Republican Party. And what they did there is they overrode a veto from Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. And this new bill, which the main provisions go into effect July 1, will restrict abortions at 12 weeks in pregnancy. And now in South Carolina, it’s still a little bit to be determined. The House passed a bill last night which would restrict abortions after fetal cardiac activity’s detected — roughly six weeks. Now they’re sending that bill back to the Senate, which had already passed it. But they made some changes. And it’s not clear whether some of the Republican female senators who oppose a near-total ban will be in favor of these changes. So that one’s a bit up in the air.

Rovner: And obviously, the 12 weeks in North Carolina is going to be important because there are a lot of women coming from other states now to North Carolina and clinics are getting backed up. It is a time thing for women to sort of be able to get themselves together, often get child care, get time off from a job, have to find a hotel in most cases, and go to another state. So it’s going to turn out to be an issue.

Roubein: I think one of the provisions abortion rights groups are pointing to there is, because this is a 12-week ban, so roughly 90% of abortions are allowed to continue, but what Democrats really pointed out was that the bill requires an in-person visit 72 hours before obtaining an abortion. So that could kind of restrict people, as you mentioned, Julie, from being able to take that time and come in from out of state in North Carolina, which has become a destination for abortions.

Rovner: All right. Well, I want to circle back to something that’s been going on for a while in the U.S. Senate. We talked about it back in March. Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is single-handedly holding up many military promotions to protest a Biden administration policy that allows members of the military in states with abortion bans both time off and travel funds to obtain an abortion in another state. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says that this — the delayed promotions — is starting to impact the nation’s readiness. Is there any resolution to this in sight? It’s now been going on for, what, a month and a half.

Raman: I think that, you know, we’re getting somewhat closer to it, but it’s hard to tell. I mean, we’ve had Mitch McConnell say that he’s not supporting what Tuberville is doing with the blockade of military nominations, so that could be a little bit more pressure compared to anyone else in the caucus putting that pressure. But I think the other thing that had come up is that there had been a report this week that the administration was going to delay on deciding if Space Force Command was going to move from Colorado to Alabama because of Tuberville. And so I think that, if that is the case — two different pressure points — there might be movement. But it’s been happening for a long time. We’ve had hundreds of nominees delayed. And I think the pushback has not necessarily been fully partisan. Even before we had McConnell speak out, we’ve had other members of — Republican senators kind of say, you know, this is maybe not the best move to do this, so —

Rovner: I mean, given how important Republicans take the military, I get why he’s doing this. It’s a pressure point because it’s a DOD [Department of Defense] policy. But still, it looks funny for a Republican to be holding up something that’s really important to the military.

Raman: Earlier this year, I think it was last month, you know, the Senate had done their procedural vote on a Tuberville resolution on something that was kind of similar, when they had the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] rule that allows them to provide abortions for, you know, the Hyde exceptions, so rape, incest, life of the mother. And, you know, that didn’t pass on a procedural vote. So maybe something like that could be, like, a bargaining point. But it would require Democrats to say, “Yes, we do want to vote on this.” And I think that the last comments that Tuberville had even said were that, you know, “Until this policy is gone, I don’t want to waiver.” So it might not be a solution, but it could be something.

Rovner: Well, speaking of things that are proving difficult to resolve, let’s talk about the debt ceiling talks. As of today, Thursday, there’s no agreement yet, although President Biden is going to cut his overseas trip short after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that the so-called x-date, when the Treasury can no longer pay its bills, could really happen as soon as June 1. One of the big sticking points appears to be work requirements for programs aimed at low-income Americans, which Republicans are demanding and Democrats are resisting. Welfare, now called Temporary Aid to Needy Families, already has work requirements, as does SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], the current name for food stamps, which leaves Medicaid, which has been a particular sticking point over the last few years. I guess we were all right back in February when Biden and the Republicans seemed to take Medicare and Social Security off the table, and we all predicted the fight would come down to Medicaid. So here we are, yes?

Knight: Yep, we’re at Medicaid. But it does seem like we’re really going back and forth on it. I think the sentiment at first was kind of that this would be the first thing to fall out of a potential deal between Democrats and Republicans because Democrats are really opposed to this. But I don’t know. This week, President Biden made some comments that were a little confusing. It kind of made it sound like he was potentially open to the idea. And then the White House kind of walked that back this week and sent some press releases out that were like, We don’t want to touch Medicaid. And then I believe it was sometime yesterday, on Wednesday, the president said, “Maybe, but nothing of consequence,” when talking about work requirements. And Congress is leaving today. So I think it’s kind of still up in the air, but the door still seems to be open, I guess is kind of the takeaway.

Rovner: There seems to be some concern from Democrats on Capitol Hill that President Biden may give too much away in trying to avoid a debt default. I mean, he’s already sort of after, you know, “We will not negotiate on the debt ceiling, we will not negotiate on the debt ceiling” — I mean, the administration says they’re negotiating on the budget, but they’re negotiating on the debt ceiling, right?

Knight: Yeah. I mean, and it seems that President Biden, the administration, may be open to budget caps as well or cutting spending. And that was kind of something that it seemed like Democrats at first were not open to doing at all. I talked to some appropriators this week, and they’re pretty upset about — Democratic appropriators — they’re pretty upset because they want the debt ceiling and appropriations to be a separate process, and they’re being tied together right now. Yeah, I think they’re somewhat concerned with how the president is negotiating right now.

Rovner: Well, it’s May 18. There’s been no talk yet of a temporary — although I assume at some point we’re going to say, let’s just extend this out a few days, and let’s extend it out a few more days, and we’ll extend it out a few more days. So obviously, we will watch this space. So the mifepristone case is not the only judicial news this week. In that other case out of Texas, challenging the preventive health services part to the Affordable Care Act, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — lots of news out of New Orleans this week — temporarily stayed the ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA unconstitutionally deputized the U.S. Preventive Health Services Task Force from deciding which preventive services should be provided without copays. Long sentence. I hope it makes sense. Reed O’Connor, of course, being the judge who tried unsuccessfully to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional in 2018. What happens now in this case? Nothing changes until it gets resolved, right?

Roubein: Right. Right now I think that just through that, this means that insurers will be required to continue covering services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing in care.

Rovner: And that includes PrEP for HIV, which is what’s really at issue with these doctors who are suing the FDA — or actually I guess they’re suing HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in general — saying that they don’t want to be required to provide these drugs.

Roubein: Yeah, it does include PrEP.

Rovner: So that will continue. I imagine that will also find its way to the Supreme Court. Finally, in not really judicial but court-related news, Envision, the private equity-backed physician staffing firm, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this week, presumably because the emergency room physician practices it owns can no longer send patients most surprise medical bills. ER bills were among the most common types of surprise bills, when patients would specifically take their emergency to an in-network hospital, only to find that the doctors in the emergency room were all out of network. Is this one small step towards taking some of the profit motive out of health care? I don’t see anybody, like, shedding a lot of tears for Envision declaring bankruptcy here.

Raman: I think the second part, that the lawsuit by the ER doctors against Envision, despite them filing for bankruptcy, is going forward is interesting, and it seems unusual to me, because they’re not asking for monetary damages, but they want, like, a legal finding that the way that the company’s business structure — ownership of the staffing groups — is illegal, and if, like, winning that would ban the practice in the state of California. And so I think if you’re looking at it in terms of, like, things that would happen over the course of time, policywise, that could be something interesting to kind of watch there.

Roubein: I just wanted to hearken back real quick to, like, 2019. In the middle of the surprise billing debate, Envision and another major doctor staffing firm spent significant sums of money to try and sway the surprise billing legislation that the House and the Senate were hashing out.

Rovner: Yeah, they made CNN and MSNBC very rich with their ads.

Roubein: Millions of them.

Rovner: In the ’90s, I covered, you know, this whole corporate practice of medicine thing because I think it’s every state has a law that says that corporations can’t practice medicine; only licensed health professionals can practice medicine. So I’ve always wondered about, you know, what this lawsuit is about anyway. How are these companies actually getting away with doing this? And the answer is maybe they’re not or maybe they won’t. It’s going to be interesting. There’s now so much profit motive and private equity in health care because there’s a lot of money to be made that it’s, I think somebody is actually starting to, you know, call on it. We will definitely see how this plays out. We may not have a “This Week in Private Equity” anymore. Well, let us go back to Capitol Hill, where we finally have a nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, current National Cancer Institute chief Monica Bertagnolli, who is also, ironically, a cancer patient at the moment, although her prognosis is very good, we are told. There hasn’t been a confirmed head of the NIH since Francis Collins stepped down at the end of 2021. Congress hasn’t had to confirm a new head of the NIH since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I imagine that Dr. Bertagnolli is going to have to navigate some pretty choppy confirmation waters, even in a Senate where Democrats are nominally in the majority, right?

Knight: Yeah, I spent some time talking to HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee Republicans last week and this week, and they definitely have some things they want to see out of a new NIH director. They’re definitely concerned about gain-of-function research, potential funding of that type of research, which is supposed to, hypothetically, make viruses more virulent. So several of them said, you know, “We don’t want to see the agency funding that kind of research,” or, “We want restrictions around that kind of research.” They also are concerned with the agency giving a grant to an organization called EcoHealth, which was supposed to have done research in Wuhan that was around gain-of-function-type things. And I think they also, in general, are just concerned with how the NIH and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] responded to the covid pandemic, and they aren’t happy with some of the decisions they made, what they felt like were mandate — top-down mandates. And so I do think we will see, if we actually get a HELP confirmation hearing any time soon, we’ll see — I think it’s going to be pretty contentious possibly. And as you referenced, I kind of looked into this when I was writing my story, and there really has not been a contentious hearing in a long time. Francis Collins went through a unanimous voice vote when he was confirmed. And then the two previous NIH directors, they kind of sailed through their HELP confirmation hearings. And if you think about it, Francis Collins also has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And I wonder if we are coming to a point where that won’t happen anymore with NIH directors.

Rovner: Back when I first started covering the NIH, it was contentious because they were talking about fetal tissue research and stem cell research and stuff that was really controversial. But then Newt Gingrich, when he became speaker of the House, declared that, you know, he wanted the 21st century to be, you know, the century of biomedicine. And he vowed to double the funding for the NIH, which the Republicans did, you know, with the Democrats’ help. So NIH has been this sacred cow, if you will, bipartisanly for at least two decades. And now it’s sort of coming back to being a little bit controversial again. In talking about the debt ceiling and possible budget cuts, I mean, NIH has usually been spared from those. But I’m guessing that if there’s budget caps, NIH is going to be included in those places where we’re going to cut the budget, right?

Knight: Yeah, absolutely. I have been talking to a Republican House appropriator over the NIH. Robert Aderholt told me that, yes, they expect a cut in their budget because Defense and NIH, Labor, HHS are usually the biggest bills. And he told me Defense probably isn’t getting cut very much, so we’re expecting to get cut. So obviously, you know, it’s a messaging bill in the House, but I think the expectation is that they’re going to propose that. The Senate seemed pretty set on keeping NIH funding what it was. They had an NIH appropriations hearing recently. So, I mean, there’s going to be some difference between those two chambers. But I think it does seem likely, especially with all the debt ceiling stuff, that cuts are possible.

Rovner: So that’s NIH. In the meantime, now we have an opening at the CDC because Rochelle Walensky announced her resignation. Have we heard any inklings about who wants to step into that very hot seat?

Roubein: I can point to some reporting from my colleagues at the Post, Dan Diamond and Lena H. Sun. At the time, the day that Walensky announced that she’d be stepping down June 30, they had wrote that White House officials had, you know, been preparing for a little while for a potential departure and had begun gauging interest in the position. And some people that Dan and Lena named that the administration had approached is former New York City Health Commissioner Dave A. Chokshi, former North Carolina Health Secretary Mandy Cohen, and the California health state secretary. Now, we don’t know ultimately what the White House, President Biden, is going to do. I do think it’s worth pointing out that the new CDC director won’t have to be Senate-confirmed; that was passed in the big sweeping government funding bill, that a CDC director would need to be confirmed, but starting January 20, 2025. So, you know, sounds like something, you know, Democrats might have been interested in doing, kind of pushing that out. So, yeah.

Rovner: The CDC is, you know, sort of the one big Department of Health and Human Services job that does not come up for Senate confirmation. Obviously, that is being changed, but it’s not being changed yet. Well, both of these confirmations, mostly the NIH one at this point, comes up before the Senate HELP Committee, Victoria, as you pointed out. Chairman Bernie Sanders there is having — what shall we call them? — some growing pains as chairman of a committee with a heavy legislative workload. What’s the latest here? He’s still kind of working on getting some of these bipartisan bills through, isn’t he?

Knight: Yeah, there is a little bit of a snafu at a recent HELP Committee hearing where Ranking Member Bill Cassidy was not happy that Sen. Sanders was bringing up some amendments that he wasn’t aware of or that they had kind of agreed to table at some point and then he brought them back up during a hearing or during a markup, and so they ended up having to delay the markup itself and do it the next week. And these were bipartisan bills. So it was really just a process issue; it wasn’t so much the subject of the bills. And they kind of worked it out and were able to pass the bills out of the committee, or most of the bills out of the committee, the next week after that happened. So I think that Sen. Sanders is figuring out how to run the HELP Committee. What I’ve kind of heard is that he is somewhat more interested in labor issues than health, and so his focus is not maybe as much on health. And I think you can see that sometimes. Also, when you talk to Sen. Sanders, he’s very much a big-picture guy and isn’t so much in the process weeds often, whereas Sen. Cassidy loves the process.

Rovner: So we’re noticing.

Knight: Yeah, Sen. Cassidy loves the process. So they’re an interesting duo, I think.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was interested that this week, you know, Sen. Sanders was among those there reintroducing the “Medicare for All” bill that obviously has no future in the immediate future. But at the same time, community health centers are up for reauthorization this year. And that has always been a pet issue, even when he was House member, you know, Rep. Sanders. This is one of the issues that I know he cares a lot about. And now he’s in charge of making sure that it gets reauthorized. So he’s got sort of these competing big-picture stuff and, not smaller, but smaller than the big-picture stuff that he really cares about. I’ll be curious to see what he’s able to do on that front. I assume there’s no word on that yet, even though the authorization ends Sept. 30, right?

Raman: The sense that I’ve gotten from talking to folks is that community health centers is higher up the totem pole than some of the other issues on the must-pass list. I mean, we still have to deal with the debt ceiling and everything related there. But I think that there has been a little bit more progress then. I mean, this week, at least in the House, Energy and Commerce had marked up their bill that had community health center funding in there. So I think there’s a little bit more push on that end because they’re, you know, fairly bipartisan, have seen interest across the board on that. So I think that they are making some progress there. It’s just that there’s so many other factors right now, and that makes it pretty tricky.

Rovner: The ironic thing about Congress — it’s summertime when everybody else sort of kicks back. — that’s when Congress kicks into gear. So a lot, I imagine, is going to happen in June and July. All right. That is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: Sure. My extra credit this week is called “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners.” It was published in The New York Times. Basically, the WHO said this week that artificial sweeteners aren’t effective in reducing body fat and could actually increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. They looked at the available evidence, and it’s just a set of guidelines that they’re issuing. It’s not binding to anything. You know, every country can kind of make their own decision based on this. But I think it was an interesting marker. If you look at the influx of all these artificial sweeteners over time that have kind of become a mainstream part of our diet, they’re available in a bunch of different things that you can get at the store, and people often turn to them when they’re trying to reduce sugar. And now this large body is saying they may actually worsen your health, not help you, and not even reduce fat. So I think that was just kind of interesting. The FDA did not respond to The New York Times’ request for the story, so I’m not sure their stance on this, but just something to note.

Rovner: I was interested that the WHO did that. It seemed sort of very not WHO-ish, but also interesting. Sandhya, why don’t you go next.

Raman: All right, so my extra credit this week is called “A Year After Dobbs Leak, Democrats Still See Abortion Driving 2024 Voters.” And it’s from my colleagues “What the Health?” alum Mary Ellen McIntire and Daniela Altimari. And they take a look at how Democrats are kind of seeing how abortion messaging isn’t fading a year after — almost — the Dobbs decision, are kind of doubling down on focusing on that. President Biden and Vice President Harris were both at the EMILYs List gala this week honoring Nancy Pelosi. And it also comes amid a lot of the state action we talked about earlier of a lot of abortion bans going into place. And so they have a good look at that that you can read.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit is called “Thousands Face Medicaid Whiplash in South Dakota and North Carolina,” by Arielle Zionts from KFF Health News. And she takes a look at the unwinding of keeping people on the Medicaid program, particularly in South Dakota and North Carolina, where the dynamic is really interesting, because both states have recently passed Medicaid expansion. So officials are kind of going through the Medicaid rolls beforehand. So some people who could be eligible soon may be getting kicked off, only to need to reapply, or officials need to tell them that they can reapply. So I thought it was a really interesting look on how this is playing out.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. I mean, talk about head-explodingly confusing for people; it’s like, “You’re not eligible now, but you will be in three weeks. So just kind of sit tight and don’t go to the doctor for the next couple of weeks,” basically where they are. Well, my story is from The Washington Post, and it’s called “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann Marimow. And it’s about the Comstock Act, which we have talked about before. It’s a Reconstruction-era law pushed through Congress by an anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, who I learned this week was not actually a member of Congress. He was just an interested party. The law purports to ban the mailing of all sorts of lewd and lascivious items, including those intended to be used for abortion. Abortion opponents are trying to resurrect the law, which has never been formally repealed. But it turns out that Comstock wasn’t actually all that anti-abortion. In a newly resurrected interview that Comstock did with Harper’s Weekly in 1915, he said he never intended for the law to interfere with the practice of medicine by licensed doctors, including for abortion. Quote, “A reputable doctor may tell his patient, in his office what is necessary, and a druggist may sell on a doctor’s written prescription drugs which he would not be allowed to sell otherwise.” That’s how Comstock is quoted as saying. Um, wow. It’s just another weird twist in an already very twisty story. But let’s keep track of the Comstock Law going forward. 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 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. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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