The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

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.

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

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

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

Panelists

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s Bill Reaches the Finish Line

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith at the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Good to be here. 

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

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

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

Rovner: Pretty much every week. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldman: Right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Yes. Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And they’re shortening the enrollment time. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

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

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

Rovner: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Alice? 

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

Rovner: Maya. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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).

“We are full of people who come from other countries,” Goodness, 92, said about Goodwin House Alexandria’s staff. Without them, the retired Episcopal priest said, “I would be, and my building would be, desolate.”

The long-term health care industry is facing a double whammy from President Donald Trump’s crackdown on immigrants and the GOP’s proposals to reduce Medicaid spending. The industry is highly dependent on foreign workers: More than 800,000 immigrants and naturalized citizens comprise 28% of direct care employees at home care agencies, nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and other long-term care companies.

But in January, the Trump administration rescinded former President Joe Biden’s 2021 policy that protected health care facilities from Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids. The administration’s broad immigration crackdown threatens to drastically reduce the number of current and future workers for the industry. “People may be here on a green card, and they are afraid ICE is going to show up,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president of LeadingAge, an association of nonprofits that care for older adults.

Existing staffing shortages and quality-of-care problems would be compounded by other policies pushed by Trump and the Republican-led Congress, according to nursing home officials, resident advocates, and academic experts. Federal spending cuts under negotiation may strip nursing homes of some of their largest revenue sources by limiting ways states leverage Medicaid money and making it harder for new nursing home residents to retroactively qualify for Medicaid. Care for 6 in 10 residents is paid for by Medicaid, the state-federal health program for poor or disabled Americans.

“We are facing the collision of two policies here that could further erode staffing in nursing homes and present health outcome challenges,” said Eric Roberts, an associate professor of internal medicine at the University of Pennsylvania.

The industry hasn’t recovered from covid-19, which killed more than 200,000 long-term care facility residents and workers and led to massive staff attrition and turnover. Nursing homes have struggled to replace licensed nurses, who can find better-paying jobs at hospitals and doctors’ offices, as well as nursing assistants, who can earn more working at big-box stores or fast-food joints. Quality issues that preceded the pandemic have expanded: The percentage of nursing homes that federal health inspectors cited for putting residents in jeopardy of immediate harm or death has risen alarmingly from 17% in 2015 to 28% in 2024.

In addition to seeking to reduce Medicaid spending, congressional Republicans have proposed shelving the biggest nursing home reform in decades: a Biden-era rule mandating minimum staffing levels that would require most of the nation’s nearly 15,000 nursing homes to hire more workers.

The long-term care industry expects demand for direct care workers to burgeon with an influx of aging baby boomers needing professional care. The Census Bureau has projected the number of people 65 and older would grow from 63 million this year to 82 million in 2050.

In an email, Vianca Rodriguez Feliciano, a spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, said the agency “is committed to supporting a strong, stable long-term care workforce” and “continues to work with states and providers to ensure quality care for older adults and individuals with disabilities.” In a separate email, Tricia McLaughlin, a Department of Homeland Security spokesperson, said foreigners wanting to work as caregivers “need to do that by coming here the legal way” but did not address the effect on the long-term care workforce of deportations of classes of authorized immigrants.

Goodwin Living, a faith-based nonprofit, runs three retirement communities in northern Virginia for people who live independently, need a little assistance each day, have memory issues, or require the availability of around-the-clock nurses. It also operates a retirement community in Washington, D.C. Medicare rates Goodwin House Alexandria as one of the best-staffed nursing homes in the country. Forty percent of the organization’s 1,450 employees are foreign-born and are either seeking citizenship or are already naturalized, according to Lindsay Hutter, a Goodwin spokesperson.

“As an employer, we see they stay on with us, they have longer tenure, they are more committed to the organization,” said Rob Liebreich, Goodwin’s president and CEO.

Jackline Conteh spent much of her youth shuttling between Sierra Leone, Liberia, and Ghana to avoid wars and tribal conflicts. Her mother was killed by a stray bullet in her home country of Liberia, Conteh said. “She was sitting outside,” Conteh, 56, recalled in an interview.

Conteh was working as a nurse in a hospital in Sierra Leone in 2009 when she learned of a lottery for visas to come to the United States. She won, though she couldn’t afford to bring her husband and two children along at the time. After she got a nursing assistant certification, Goodwin hired her in 2012.

Conteh said taking care of elders is embedded in the culture of African families. When she was 9, she helped feed and dress her grandmother, a job that rotated among her and her sisters. She washed her father when he was dying of prostate cancer. Her husband joined her in the United States in 2017; she cares for him because he has heart failure.

“Nearly every one of us from Africa, we know how to care for older adults,” she said.

Her daughter is now in the United States, while her son is still in Africa. Conteh said she sends money to him, her mother-in-law, and one of her sisters.

In the nursing home where Goodness and 89 other residents live, Conteh helps with daily tasks like dressing and eating, checks residents’ skin for signs of swelling or sores, and tries to help them avoid falling or getting disoriented. Of 102 employees in the building, broken up into eight residential wings called “small houses” and a wing for memory care, at least 72 were born abroad, Hutter said.

Donald Goodness grew up in Rochester, New York, and spent 25 years as rector of The Church of the Ascension in New York City, retiring in 1997. He and his late wife moved to Alexandria to be closer to their daughter, and in 2011 they moved into independent living at the Goodwin House. In 2023 he moved into one of the skilled nursing small houses, where Conteh started caring for him.

“I have a bad leg and I can’t stand on it very much, or I’d fall over,” he said. “She’s in there at 7:30 in the morning, and she helps me bathe.” Goodness said Conteh is exacting about cleanliness and will tell the housekeepers if his room is not kept properly.

Conteh said Goodness was withdrawn when he first arrived. “He don’t want to come out, he want to eat in his room,” she said. “He don’t want to be with the other people in the dining room, so I start making friends with him.”

She showed him a photo of Sierra Leone on her phone and told him of the weather there. He told her about his work at the church and how his wife did laundry for the choir. The breakthrough, she said, came one day when he agreed to lunch with her in the dining room. Long out of his shell, Goodness now sits on the community’s resident council and enjoys distributing the mail to other residents on his floor.

“The people that work in my building become so important to us,” Goodness said.

While Trump’s 2024 election campaign focused on foreigners here without authorization, his administration has broadened to target those legally here, including refugees who fled countries beset by wars or natural disasters. This month, the Department of Homeland Security revoked the work permits for migrants and refugees from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela who arrived under a Biden-era program.

“I’ve just spent my morning firing good, honest people because the federal government told us that we had to,” Rachel Blumberg, president of the Toby & Leon Cooperman Sinai Residences of Boca Raton, a Florida retirement community, said in a video posted on LinkedIn. “I am so sick of people saying that we are deporting people because they are criminals. Let me tell you, they are not all criminals.”

At Goodwin House, Conteh is fearful for her fellow immigrants. Foreign workers at Goodwin rarely talk about their backgrounds. “They’re scared,” she said. “Nobody trusts anybody.” Her neighbors in her apartment complex fled the U.S. in December and returned to Sierra Leone after Trump won the election, leaving their children with relatives.

“If all these people leave the United States, they go back to Africa or to their various countries, what will become of our residents?” Conteh asked. “What will become of our old people that we’re taking care of?”

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

@julierovner.bsky.social

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.

After explicitly promising senators during his confirmation hearing that he would not interfere in scientific policy over which Americans should receive which vaccines, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week fired every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the group of experts who help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention make those evidence-based judgments. Kennedy then appointed new members, including vaccine skeptics, prompting alarm from the broader medical community.

Meanwhile, over at the National Institutes of Health, some 300 employees — many using their full names — sent a letter of dissent to the agency’s director, Jay Bhattacharya, saying the administration’s policies “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.”

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• After removing all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy on Wednesday announced eight picks to replace them — several of whom lack the expertise to vet vaccine research and at least a couple who have spoken out against vaccines. Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the Republican head of the chamber’s health committee, has said little, despite the fact that Kennedy’s actions violate a promise he made to Cassidy during his confirmation hearing not to touch the vaccine panel.
• In other vaccine news, the Department of Health and Human Services has canceled private-sector contracts exploring the use of mRNA technology in developing vaccines for bird flu and HIV. The move raises concerns about the nation’s readiness against developing and potentially devastating health threats.
• Hundreds of NIH employees took the striking step of signing a letter known as the “Bethesda Declaration,” protesting Trump administration policies that they say undermine the agency’s resources and mission. It is rare for federal workers to use their own names to voice public objections to an administration, let alone President Donald Trump’s, signaling the seriousness of their concerns.
• Lawmakers have been considering adding Medicare changes to the tax-and-spend budget reconciliation legislation now before the Senate — specifically, targeting the use of what’s known as “upcoding.” Curtailing the practice, through which medical providers effectively inflate diagnoses and procedures to charge more, has bipartisan support and could increase the savings by reducing the amount the government pays for care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, to discuss how the CBO works and why it’s so controversial.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne.  

Anna Edney: KFF Health News’ “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe,” by Arthur Allen.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True,” by David Gilbert.  

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool To ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contracts,” by Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Hill’s “Cassidy in a Bind as RFK Jr. Blows Up Vaccine Policy,” by Nathaniel Weixel.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US,” by Jeremy Samuel Faust, Ji Chen, and Shriya Bhat.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: RFK Jr. Upends Vaccine Policy, After Promising He Wouldn’t

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. Doug will talk about what it is that CBO actually does and why it’s the subject of so many slings and arrows. But first, this week’s news. 

The biggest health news this week is out of the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday summarily fired all 17 members of the CDC’s [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisory committee, something he expressly promised Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do, in exchange for Cassidy’s vote to confirm him last winter. Sarah, remind us what this committee does and why it matters who’s on it? 

Karlin-Smith: So, they’re a committee that advises CDC on who should use various vaccines approved in the U.S., and their recommendations translate, assuming they’re accepted by the CDC, to whether vaccines are covered by most insurance plans and also reimbursed. There’s various laws that we have that set out, that require coverage of vaccines recommended by the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] and so forth. So without ACIP recommendations, you may — vaccines could be available in the U.S. but extremely unaffordable for many people. 

Rovner: Right, because they’ll be uncovered. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. Your insurance company may choose not to reimburse them. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, this is separate from the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] actual approval of the vaccines and the acknowledgment it’s safe and effective. Right, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, there are two different roles here. So the FDA looks at all the safety and effectiveness data and decides whether it’s safe to come to market. And with ACIP, they are deciding whether these are things that children or adults or pregnant women, different categories of people, should be getting on a regular basis. 

Rovner: So Wednesday afternoon, Secretary Kennedy named eight replacements to the committee, including several with known anti-vaccine views. I suppose that’s what we all expected, kind of? 

Kenen: He also shrunk it, so there are fewer voices. The old panel, I believe, had 17. And the law says it has to have at least eight, and he appointed eight. As far as we know, that’s all he’s appointing. But who knows? A couple of more could straggle in. But as of now, it means there’s less viewpoints, less voices, which may or might not turn out to be a good thing. But it is a different committee in every respect. 

Edney: And I think it is a bit of what we expected in the sense that these are people who either are outright vaccine critics or, in a case or two, have actually said vaccines do horrible things to people. One of them had said before that the covid vaccine caused an AIDS-like virus in people. And there is a nurse that is part of the committee now that said her son was harmed by vaccines. And not saying that is or isn’t true — her concerns could be valid — but that she very much has worked to question vaccines. 

So I think it is the committee that we maybe would’ve expected from a sense of, I think he’s trying to bring in people who are a little bit mainstream, in the sense if you looked at where they worked or things like that, you might not say, like: Oh, Georgetown University. I get it. But they are people who have taken kind of the more of a fringe approach within maybe kind of a mainstream world. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say there’s also many people on the list that it’s just not even clear to me why you would look at their expertise and think, Oh, this is a committee they should serve on. One of the people is an MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], essentially, like, business school professor who tangentially I think has worked on health policy to some extent. But, right, this is not somebody who has extreme expertise in vaccinology, immunology, and so forth. You have a psychiatrist whose expertise seems to be on nutrition and brain health. 

And one thing I think people don’t always appreciate about this committee at CDC is, you see them in these public meetings that happen a few times a year, but they do a lot of work behind the scenes to actually go through data and make these recommendations. And so having less people and having people that don’t actually have the expertise to do this work seems like it could cause a big problem just from that point of view. 

Edney: And that can be the issue that comes up when Kennedy has said, I don’t want anyone with any conflicts of interest. Well, we’ve talked about this. Certainly you don’t want a legit conflict of interest, but a lot of people who are going to have the expertise you need may have a perceived conflict that he doesn’t want on there. So you end up maybe with somebody who works in operations instead of on vaccines. 

Rovner: You mean maybe we’ll have people who actually have researched vaccines. 

Edney: Right. Exactly. Yeah. 

Kenen: The MIT guy is an expert in supply chains. None of us know who the best supply chain business school professor is in the world. Maybe it’s him, but it’s a very odd placement. 

Rovner: Well, so far Sen. Cassidy hasn’t said very much other than to kind of communicate that he’s not happy right now. Has anybody heard anything further? The secretary has been sort of walking up to the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do, but this clearly is over the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do. And now it’s done. 

Kenen: It’s like over the line and he set fire to it. And Cassidy has been pretty quiet. And in fact, when Kennedy testified before Cassidy — Cassidy is the chairman of the health committee — a couple of weeks ago, he gave him a really warm greeting and thanked him for coming and didn’t say: You’re a month late. I wanted you here last month. The questions were very soft. And things have only gotten more heated since then, with the dissolution of the ACIP committee and this reconstitution of it. And he’s been very quiet for somebody who publicly justified, who publicly wrestled with this, the confirmation, was the deciding vote, and then has been really soft since then — in public. 

Rovner: I sent around a story this morning to the panelists, from The Hill, which I will link to in the show notes, that quotes a political science professor in Louisiana pointing out that perhaps it would be better for Cassidy politically not to say anything, that perhaps public opinion among Republicans who will vote in a primary is more on the side of Secretary Kennedy than Sen. Cassidy, which raises some interesting questions. 

Edney: Yeah. And I think that, at least for me, I’m at the point of wondering if Cassidy didn’t know that all along, that there’s a point he was willing to go up to but a line that he is never going to have been willing to cross, and that is actually coming out against Kennedy and, therefore, [President Donald] Trump. He doesn’t want to lose his reelection. I am starting to wonder if he just hoped it wouldn’t come to this and so was able to say those things that got him to vote for Kennedy and then hope that it wouldn’t happen. 

And I think that was a lot of people. They weren’t on the line like Cassidy was, but I think a lot of people thought, Oh, nothing’s ever going to happen on this. And I think another thing I’m learning as I cover this administration and the Kennedy HHS is when they say, Don’t worry about it, look away, we’re not doing anything that big of a deal, that’s when you have to worry about it. And when they make a big deal about some policy they’re bringing up, it actually means they’re not really doing a lot on it. So I think we’re seeing that with vaccines for sure. 

Rovner: Yes, classic watch what they do not what they say. 

Kenen: But if you’re Cassidy and you already voted to impeach President Trump, which means you already have a target from the right — he’s a conservative, but it’s from the more conservative, though, the more MAGA [Make America Great Again] — if you do something mavericky, sometimes the best political line is to continue doing it. But they’ve also changed the voting rules, my understanding is, in Louisiana so that independents are — they used to be able to cross party lines in the primaries, and I believe you can’t do that anymore. So that also changed, and that’s recent, so that might have been what he thought might save him. 

Rovner: Well, it’s not just ACIP where Secretary Kennedy is insinuating himself directly into vaccine policy. HHS has also canceled a huge contract with vaccine maker Moderna, which was working on an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine, which we might well need in the near future, and they’ve also canceled trials of potential HIV vaccines. What do we know about what this HHS is doing in terms of vaccine policy? 

Karlin-Smith: The bird flu contract I think is very concerning because it seems to go along the lines of many people in this administration and Kennedy’s orbit who sometimes might seem a little bit OK with vaccines, more OK than Kennedy’s record, is they are very anti the newer mRNA technology, which we know proved very effective in saving tens of millions of lives. I was looking at some data just even the first year they rolled out after covid. So we know they work. Obviously, like all medical interventions, there are some side effects. But again, the benefits outweigh the risks. And this is the only, really, technology that we have that could really get us vaccines really quickly in a pandemic and bird flu. 

Really, the fear there is that if it were to jump to humans and really spread from human-to-human transmission — we have had some cases recently — it could be much more devastating than a pandemic like covid. And so not having the government have these relationships with companies who could produce products at a particular speed would be probably incredibly devastating, given the other technologies we have to invest in. 

Edney: I think Kennedy has also showed us that he, and spoken about this, is that he is much more interested in a cure for anything. He has talked about measles and Why can’t we just treat it better? And we’re seeing that with the HIV vaccine that won’t be going forward in the same way, is that the administration has basically said: We have the tools to deal with it if somebody gets it. We’re just not going to worry about vaccinating as much. And so I think that this is a little bit in that vein as well. 

Rovner: So the heck with prevention, basically. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, in related news, some 300 employees of the National Institutes of Health, including several institute directors, this week sent an open letter of dissent to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that they are calling the “Bethesda Declaration.” That’s a reference to the “Great Barrington Declaration” that the NIH director helped spearhead back in 2020 that protested covid lockdowns and NIH’s handling of the science. 

The Bethesda Declaration protests policies that the signatories say, quote, “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.” Here’s how one of the signers, Jenna Norton of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, put it in a YouTube video. 

Jenna Norton: And the NIH that I’m working in now is unrecognizable to me. Every day I go into the office and I wonder what ethical boundary I’m going to be asked to violate, what probably illegal action am I going to be asked to take. And it’s just soul-crushing. And that’s one of the reasons that I’m signing this letter. One of my co-signers said this, but I’m going to quote them because I thought it was so powerful: “You get another job, but you cannot get another soul.” 

Rovner: I’ve been covering NIH for a lot of years. I can’t remember pushback like this against an administration by its own scientists, even during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. How serious is this? And is it likely to have any impact on policy going forward? 

Edney: I think if you’re seeing a good amount of these signers who sign their actual names and if you’re seeing that in the government, something is very serious and there are huge concerns, I think, because, as a journalist, I try to reach people who work in the government all the time. And if they’re not in the press office, if they speak to me, which is rare, even they do not want me to use their name. They do not want to be identified in any way, because there are repercussions for that. 

And especially with this administration, I’m sure that there is some fear for people’s jobs and in some instances maybe even beyond. But I think that whether there will be any policy changes, that is a little less clear, how this administration might take that to heart or listen to what they’re saying. 

Rovner: Bhattacharya was in front of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week and was asked about it, but only sort of tangentially. I was a little bit surprised that — obviously, Republicans, we just talked about Sen. Cassidy, they are afraid to go up against the Trump administration’s choices for some of these jobs — but I was surprised that even some of the Democrats seemed a little bit hands-off. 

Edney: Yeah, no one ever asks the questions I want asked at hearings, I have to say. I’m always screaming. Yeah, exactly. I’m always like: No. What are you doing? 

Rovner: That’s exactly how I was, like: No, ask him this. 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: Don’t ask him that. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, moving on to the Big Budget Bill, which is my new name for it. Everybody else seems to have a different one. It’s still not clear when the Senate will actually take up its parts, particularly those related to health, but it is clear that it’s not just Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act on the table but now Medicare, too. Ironically, it feels like lawmakers could more easily squeeze savings out of Medicare without hurting beneficiaries than either Medicaid or the ACA, or is that just me being too simplistic about this whole thing? 

Kenen: The Medicare bill is targeted at upcoding, which means insurers or providers sort of describing a symptom or an illness in the most severe terms possible and they get paid more. And everybody in government is actually against that. Everybody ends up paying more. I don’t know what else the small —this has just bubbled up — but I don’t know if there’s other small print. 

This alone, if it wasn’t tied to all the politics of everything else in this bill, this is the kind of thing, if you really do a bill that attacks inflated medical bills, you could probably get bipartisan support for. But because — and, again, I don’t know what else is in, and I know that’s the top line. There may be something that I’m not aware of that is more of a poison pill. But that issue you could get bipartisan consensus on. 

But it’s folded into this horrendously contentious thing. And it’s easy to say, Oh, they’re trying to cut Medicare, which in this case maybe they’re trying to cut it in a way that is smart, but it just makes it more complicated. If they do go for it, if they do decide that this goes in there, it could create a little more wiggle room to not cut some other things quite as deeply. 

But again, they’re calling everything waste, fraud, and abuse. None of us would say there is no waste, fraud, and abuse in government or in health care. We all know there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re cutting here is waste, fraud, and abuse in other aspects of that bill. 

Rovner: Although, as you say, I think there’s bipartisan consensus, including from Mehmet Oz, who runs Medicare, that upcoding is waste and fraud. 

Kenen: Right. But other things in the bill are being called waste, fraud, and abuse that are not, right? That there’s things in Medicaid that are not waste, fraud, and abuse. They’re just changing the rules. But I agree with you, Julie. I think that in a bill that is not so fraught, it would’ve been easier to get consensus on this particular item, assuming it’s a clean upcoding bill, if you did it in a different way. 

Rovner: And also, there’s already a bipartisan bill on pharmacy benefit managers kicking around. There are a lot of things that Congress could do on a bipartisan basis to reduce the cost of Medicare and make the program better and shore it up, and that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, for the most part. 

Well, we continue to learn things about the House-passed bill that we didn’t know before, and one thing we learned this week that I think bears discussing comes from a new poll from our KFF polling unit that found that nearly half those who purchased Affordable Care Act coverage from the marketplaces are Republicans, including a significant percentage who identify themselves as MAGA Republicans. 

So it’s not just Republicans in the Medicaid expansion population who’d be impacted. Millions of Trump supporters could end up losing or being priced out of their ACA insurance, too, particularly in non-Medicaid-expansion states like Florida and Texas. A separate poll from Quinnipiac this week finds that only 27% of respondents think Congress should pass the big budget reconciliation bill. Could either of these things change some Republican perceptions of things in this bill, or is it just too far down the train tracks at this point? 

Karlin-Smith: We saw a few weeks ago [Sen.] Joni Ernst seemed to be really highly critical of her own supporters who were pushing back on her support for the bill. Even when Republicans failed to get rid of the ACA and [Sen.] John McCain gave it the thumbs-down, he was the one. It wasn’t like everyone else was coming to help him with that. 

And again, I think there was the same dynamic where a lot of people who, if you had asked them did they support Obamacare while it was being written in law, in early days before they saw any benefit of it, would have said no and politically align themselves with the Republican Party, and their views have come to realize, once you get a benefit, that it may actually be more desirable, perhaps, than you initially thought. 

I think it could become a problem for them, but I don’t think it’s going to be a mass group of Republicans are going to change their minds over this. 

Rovner: Or are they going to figure out that that’s why they’re losing their coverage? 

Kenen: Right. Many things in this bill, if it goes into effect, are actually after the 2026 elections. The ACA stuff is earlier. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it expires in time for the next enrollment season. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve talked about this before. The expanded credits, which are not sort of quote-unquote— 

Kenen: No, they’re separate. 

Rovner: —“in this bill,” but it’s the expiration of those that’s going to cause— 

Kenen: In September. And so those— 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: —people would— 

Rovner: In December. No, at the end of the year they expire. 

Kenen: Right. So that in 2026, people getting the expanded benefit. And there’s also somewhat of a misunderstanding that that legislation opened Obamacare subsidies to people further up the eligibility roof, so more people who had more money but still couldn’t afford insurance do get subsidies. That goes away, but it cascades down. It affects lower-income people. It affects other people. It’s not just that income bracket. 

There are sort of ripple effects through the entire subsidized population. So people will lose their coverage. There’s really no dispute about that. The reason it was sunsetted is because it costs money. Congress does that a lot. If we do it for five years, we can get it on the score that we need out of the CBO. But if we do it for 10 years, we can’t. So that is not an unusual practice in Congress for Republicans and Democrats, but that happens before the election. 

It’s just whether people connect the dots and whether there are enough of them to make a difference in an election, right? Millions of people across the country. But does it change how people vote in a specific race in a state that’s already red? If it’s a very red state, it may not make people get mad, but it may not affect who gets elected to House or the Senate in 2026. 

Rovner: We will see. So Sarah, I was glad you mentioned Sen. Ernst, because last week we talked about her comment that we’re all going to die, in response to complaints at a town hall meeting about the Medicaid cuts. Well, Medicare and Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz says to Sen. Ernst, Hold my beer. Speaking on Fox Business, Oz said people should only get Medicaid if they, quote, “prove that they matter.” 

Now, this was in the context of saying that if you want Medicaid, you should work or go to school. Of course, most people on Medicaid do work or care-give for someone who can’t work or do go to school — they just have jobs that don’t come with private health insurance. I can’t help but think this is kind of a big hole in the Republican talking points that we keep seeing. These members keep suggesting that all working people or people going to school get health insurance, and that’s just not the case. 

Kenen: But it sounds good. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, there are small employers that don’t have to provide coverage under the ACA. There are people that have sort of churned because they work part time or can’t quite get enough hours to qualify, and these are often lower-income people. And I think the other thing I’ve seen people, especially in the disability committee and so forth, raises — there’s an underlying rhetoric here that to get health care, you have to be deserving and to be working. 

That, I think, is starting to raise concerns, because even though they kind of say they’re not attacking that population that gets Medicaid, I think there is some concern about the language that they’re using is placing a value on people’s lives that just sort of undermines those that legitimately cannot work, for no fault of their own. 

Kenen: It’s how the Republicans have begun talking about Medicaid again. Public opinion, and KFF has had some really interesting polls on this over the last few years, really interesting changes in public attitudes toward Medicaid, much more popular. And it’s thought of even by many Republicans as a health care program, not a welfare program. What you have seen — and that’s a change. 

What you’ve seen in the last couple of months is Republican leaders, notably Speaker [Mike] Johnson, really talking about this as welfare. And it’s very reminiscent of the Reagan years, the concept of the deserving poor that goes back decades. But we haven’t heard it as much that these are the people who deserve our help and these are the lazy bums or the cheats. 

Speaker Johnson didn’t call them lazy bums and cheats, but there’s this concept of some people deserve our help and the rest of them, tough luck. They don’t deserve it. And so that’s a change in the rhetoric. And talking about waste and talking about fraud and talking about abuse is creating the impression that it’s rampant, that there’s this huge abuse, and that’s not the case. People are vetted for Medicaid and they do qualify for Medicaid. 

States have their own money and their own enrollment systems. They have every incentive to not cover people who don’t deserve to be covered. Again, none of us are saying there’s zero waste. We would never say that. None of us are saying there’s zero abuse. But it’s not like that’s the defining characteristic of Medicaid is that it’s all fraud and abuse, and that you can cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of it without anybody feeling any pain. 

Rovner: And there were a lot of Republican states that expanded Medicaid, even when they didn’t have to, that are going to feel this. That’s a whole other issue that I think we will talk about probably in the weeks to come. I want to move to DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency]. Elon Musk is back in California, having had a very ugly breakup with President Trump and possibly a partial reconciliation. But the impact of DOGE continues across the federal government, as well as at HHS. 

The latest news is apparently hundreds of CDC employees who were told that they were being laid off who are now being told: Never mind. Come back to work. Of course, this news comes weeks after they were told they were being fired, and it’s unclear how many of them have upended their work and family lives in the interim. 

But at the same time, much of the money that’s supposed to be flowing, appropriations for the current fiscal year that were passed by Congress and signed by President Trump — apparently still being held up. What are you guys hearing about how things at HHS are or aren’t going in the wake of the DOGE cutbacks? Go ahead, Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: It still seems like people at the federal government that I talked to are incredibly unhappy. At other agencies, as well, there have been groups of people called back to work, including at FDA. But still, I think the general sense is there’s a lot of chaos. People aren’t comfortable that their job will be there long-term. Many people even who were called back are saying they’re still looking for work other places. 

There’s just so many changes in both, I think, in their day-to-day lives and how they do their job, but then also philosophically in terms of policy and what they are allowed to do, that I think a lot of people are becoming kind of demoralized and trying to figure out: Can they do what they signed up to do in their job, or is it better just to move on? And I think there’s going to be long-term consequences for a lot of these government agencies. 

Rovner: You mean being fired and unfired and refired doesn’t make for a happy workplace? 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say a lot of them were called back to offices that they didn’t always have to come to. They’ve lost people who have been working and never lost their jobs, have lost close colleagues, support staff they rely on to do their jobs. So it’s really complicated even if you’re in the best-case scenario, I think, at a lot of these agencies. 

Kenen: And a loss of institutional memory, too, because nobody knows everything in your office. And in an office that functions, it’s collaborative. I know this, you know that. We work together, and we come out with a better product. So that’s been eviscerated. And then — we’re all in a part of an industry that’s seen a lot of downsizing and chaos, in journalism, and the outcome is worse. When things get beaten up and battered and kicked out, things are harmed. And it’s true of any industry, since we haven’t been AI-replaced yet. 

Rovner: Yet. So it’s been a while since we had a, quote, “This Week in Private Equity in Health Care,” but this week the governor of Oregon signed into law a pretty serious ban on private equity ownership of physician practices. Apparently, this was prompted by the purchase by Optum — that’s the arm of UnitedHealth that is now the largest owner of physician practices in the U.S. — of a multi-specialty group in Eugene, Oregon, that caused significant dislocation for patients and was charged by the state with impermissibly raising prices. Hospitals are not included in Oregon’s ban, but I wonder if this is the start of a trend. Or is this a one-off in a pretty blue state, which Oregon is? 

Edney: I think that it could be. I don’t know, certainly, but I think to watch how it plays out might be quite interesting. The problem with private equity ownership of these doctors’ offices is then the doctors don’t feel that they can actually give good care. They’ve got to move people through. It’s all about how much money can they make or save so that private equity can get its reward. And so I think that people certainly are frustrated by it, as in people who get the care, also people who are doing legislating and things like that. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see some other attempts at this pop up now that we’ve seen one. 

Kenen: But Oregon is uniquely placed to get something like this through. They are a very blue state. They’ve got a history of some health reform stuff that’s progressive. I don’t think you’ll see this domino-ing through every state legislature in the short term. 

Rovner: But I will also say that even in Oregon, it took a while to get this through. There was a lot of pushback because there is concern that without private equity, maybe some of these practices are going to go belly up. This is the continuing fight about the future of the health care workforce and who’s going to underwrite it. 

Well, finally this week, I want to give a shoutout to the biggest cause of childhood death and injury that is not being currently addressed by HHS, which is gun violence. According to a new study in JAMA Pediatrics, firearms deaths among children and teens grew significantly in states that loosened gun laws following a major Supreme Court decision in 2010. And it wasn’t just accidents. The increase in deaths included homicides and suicides, too. Yet gun violence seems to have kind of disappeared from the national agenda for both parties. 

Edney: Yeah, you don’t hear as much about it. I don’t know why. I don’t know if it’s because we’re inundated every day with a million things. And currently at the moment, that just hasn’t come up again, as far as a tragedy. That often tends to bring it back to people’s front of mind. And I think that there is, on the Republican side at least, we’re seeing tax cuts for gun silencers and things like that. So I think they’re emboldened on the side of NRA [the National Rifle Association]. I don’t know if Democrats are seeing that and thinking it’s a losing battle. What else can I focus my attention on? 

Kenen: Well, it’s in the news when there’s a mass killing. Society has just sort of become inured or shut its eyes to the day to day to day to day to day. The accidents, the murders. Don’t forget, a lot of our suicide problem is guns, including older white men in rural states who are very pro-gun. Those who kill themselves, it is how they kill themselves. It’s just something we have let happen. 

Rovner: Plus, we’re now back to arguing about whether or not vaccines are worthwhile. So, a lot of the oxygen is being taken up with other issues at the moment. 

Kenen: There’s a very overcrowded bandwidth these days. Yes. 

Rovner: There is. I think that’s fair. All right, well, that is this week’s news, or as much as we could squeeze in. Now we will play my interview with Doug Holtz-Eakin, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, and former head of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration, when Republicans also controlled both Houses of Congress. Doug, thank you so much for being here. 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: My pleasure. Thank you. 

Rovner: I mostly asked you here to talk about CBO and what it does and why it’s so controversial. But first, tell us about the American Action Forum and what it is you do now. 

Holtz-Eakin: So the American Action Forum is, on paper, a center-right think tank, a 501(c)(3) entity that does public education on policy issues, but it’s modeled on my experiences at working at the White House twice, running the Congressional Budget Office, and I was also director of domestic and economic policy on the John McCain campaign. And in those jobs, you worked on policy issues. You did policy education, issues, options, advice, but you worked on whatever was happening that day. 

You didn’t have the luxury of saying: Yeah, that’s not what I do. Get back to me when something interests you. And you had to convey your results in English to nonspecialists. So there was a sort of a premium on the communications function, and you also had to understand the politics. On a campaign you had to make good policy good politics, and at the White House you worried about the president’s program. 

No matter who was in Congress, that was all they thought about. And in Congress, the CBO is nonpartisan by law, and so obviously you have to care about that. And I just decided I like that work, and that’s what AAF does. We do domestic and economic policy on the issues that are going on in Congress or the agencies, with an emphasis on providing material that is readable to nonspecialists so they can understand what’s going on. 

Rovner: You’re a professional policy nerd, in other words. 

Holtz-Eakin: Pretty much, yeah. 

Rovner: As am I. So I don’t mean that in any way to be derogatory. I plead guilty myself. 

Holtz-Eakin: These bills, who knew? 

Rovner: Exactly. Well, let’s talk about the CBO, which, people may or may not know, was created along with the rest of the congressional budget process overhaul in 1974. What is CBO’s actual job? What is it that CBO is tasked to do? 

Holtz-Eakin: It has two jobs. Job number one, the one we’re hearing so much about now, is to estimate the budgetary impact of pieces of legislation being considered on the floor of the House or the Senate. So they call this scoring, and it is: How much will the bill change the flow of revenues into the Treasury and the flow of spending out of the Treasury year by year over what is currently 10 years? 

And you compare that to what would happen if you didn’t pass law, which is to say, leave the laws of land on autopilot and check out what happened to the budget then. So that’s what it’s doing now, and you get a lot of disagreement on the nature of that analysis. It also spends a lot of time doing studies for members of Congress on policies that Congress may have to be looking at in the future. 

And so anticipating the needs of Congress, studying things like Social Security reforms, which are coming, or different ways to do Medicaid reform if we decide to go down that route, and things that will prepare the Congress for future debates. 

Rovner: Obviously these scores are best guesses of people who spend a lot of time studying economic models. How accurate are CBO’s estimates? 

Holtz-Eakin: They’re wrong all the time, but that’s because predicting the future is really hard, and because when CBO does its estimates, it’s not permitted by law to anticipate future actions of Congress, and Congress is always doing something. That often changes the outcome down the road. Sometimes there are just unexpected events in the world. The pandemic was not something that was in the CBO baseline in 2019. And so, obviously, the numbers changed dramatically because of that. 

And also, because CBO is not really just trying to forecast. If that was all it was being asked to do, it might get closer sometimes, but what it’s really being asked to do is to be able to compare pieces of legislation. What’s the House bill look like compared to the Senate bill? And to do that, you have to keep the point of comparison, the so-called baseline, the same for as long as you’re doing this legislation. 

In some cases, that’s quite a long time. It was over two years for the Affordable Care Act. And by the time you’re at the end, the forecast is way out of date. But for consistency, you have to hold on to it. And then people say, Oh, you got the forecast wrong. But it’s the nature of what they’re being asked to do, which is to provide consistent scores that rank things appropriately, that can interfere with the just pure forecasting aspect. 

Rovner: And basically they’re the referee. It’s hard to imagine being able to do this process without having someone who acts as a referee, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: Well, yes. And in fact, sometimes you see them rush through and ignore CBO. And generally, that’s a sign that it’s not going well, because they really should take the time to understand the consequences of what they’re up to. 

Rovner: And how does that work? CBO, people get frustrated because this stuff doesn’t happen, like, overnight. They write a bill and there should be a CBO score the next day. But it’s not just fed into an AI algorithm, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: No. That’s a great misconception about CBO. People think there’s a model. You just put it in the model. You drop the legislation and out comes the numbers. And there are some things for which we have a very good feel because they’ve been done a lot. So change the matching rate in Medicaid and see what happens to spending — been done a lot. We understand that pretty well. 

Pass a Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, where the federal government provides a backstop to the private property and casualty insurance companies in the event there’s a terrorist attack at an unknown time in the future using an unknown weapon in an unknown location — there’s no model for that. You just have to read about extreme events, look at their financial consequences, imagine how much money the insurance companies would have, when they would round up money, and how much the federal government would be on the hook for. It’s not modeling. You’re asking CBO’s professionals to make informed budgetary judgments, and we pay them for their judgment. And I think that’s poorly understood. 

Rovner: So I’ve been at this since the late 1980s. I’ve seen a lot of CBO directors, Republican and Democrats, and my impression is that, to a person, they have tried very hard to play things as much down the middle as possible. Do you guys have strategy sessions to come up with ways to be as nonpartisan as you can? 

Holtz-Eakin: The truth is you just listen to the staff. I say this and I’m not sure people will fully appreciate it: Nonpartisanship is in the DNA of CBO, and I attribute this to the very first director, Alice Rivlin, and some of her immediate successors. They were interested in establishing the budget office, which had been invented in 1974, really got up and running a couple of years later, and they wanted to establish this credibility. 

And regardless of their own political leanings, they worked hard to put in place procedures and training of the staff that emphasized: There’s a research literature out there, go look at it. What’s the consensus in that research literature? Regardless of what you might think, what is it telling you about the impact of this program or this tax or whatever it might be? Bring that back. That’s what we’re going to do. 

Now we’ve done an estimate. Let’s go out at the end of the year and look at all our baseline estimates and look at what actually happened, compare the before and after. Oh my God. We’re really off. Why? What can we learn from that? And it’s a constant repetition of that. It’s been going on for a long time now and with just outstanding results, I think. CBO is a very professional place that has a very specialized job and does it real well. 

Rovner: So obviously, lawmakers have always complained about the CBO, because you always complain about the referee, particularly if they say something you don’t like or you disagree with. I feel like the criticism has gotten more heated in the last couple of years and that there’s been more of an effort to really undermine what it is that CBO does. 

Holtz-Eakin: I don’t know if I agree with that. That comes up a lot. It is certainly more pointed. I lay a lot of this at the feet of the president, who, when he first ran, introduced a very personal style campaigning. Everything is personal. He doesn’t have abstract policy arguments. He makes it about him versus someone else and usually gives that person a nickname, like “Rocket Boy” for the leader of North Korea, and sort of diminishes the virtues and skills of his opponent, in this case. 

So he says, like, that CBO is horrible. It’s a terrible place. That is more personal. That isn’t the nature of the attacks I receive, for example. But other than that, it’s the same, right? When CBO delivers good news, Congress says, God, we did a good job. When CBO delivers bad news, they say, God, CBO is terrible. And that’s been true for a long time. 

Rovner: And I imagine it will in the future. Doug Holtz-Eakin, thank you so much for being here and explaining all this. 

Holtz-Eakin: Thank you. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in Wired by David Gilbert, “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True.” It’s a story about Kennedy’s past references to the use of chlorine dioxide and groups of people who were pushing for this use as kind of a cure-all for almost any condition you can think of. And one thing the author of this piece picked up on is that some of the FDA warnings not to do this, because it’s incredibly dangerous and can kill you — it is not going to cure any of the ailments described — have been taken off of the agency’s website recently, which seems a bit concerning. 

Now, FDA seems to suggest they did it because it’s just a few years old and they tend to archive posts after that. But if you read what happens to people who try and use bleach — or really it’s like even more concentrated product, essentially — it would be hard for me to understand why you would want to try this. But it is incredibly concerning to see these just really dangerous, unscientifically supported cures come back and get sort of more of a platform. 

Rovner: Yes. I guess we can’t talk about gun violence because we’re talking about drinking bleach. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from KFF Health News, by Arthur Allen. It’s “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe.” And I found this starts off with a woman who needed chemo, and she got it and she started getting sores in her mouth and swelling around her eyes. And eventually she died a really painful, awful death, not from the cancer but from not being able to swallow or talk. And it was from the chemo. It was a reaction to the chemo, which I didn’t realize until I read this can, is a rare side effect that can happen. 

And there is a test for it. You can tell who might respond this way to chemo. And it doesn’t necessarily mean you wouldn’t get any chemo. You would instead maybe get lower doses, maybe different days of the week, things like that to try to help you not end up like this woman. And he also was able to talk to someone who knew about this and insisted on the test. And those were some of the calibrations that they made for her treatment. So I think it’s a great piece of public service journalism. It helps a lot of people be aware. 

Rovner: Super interesting. I had no idea until I read it, either. Joanne. 

Kenen: ProPublica, Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky did a story called “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool to ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contract.” And they had a related story that Julie can post that actually shows the code and the AI prompts, and you do not have to be very technically sophisticated to understand that there were some problems with those prompts. Basically, they had somebody who had no government experience and no health care experience writing really bad code and bad prompts. 

And we don’t know how many of the contracts were actually canceled, as opposed to flagged for canceling. There were things that they said were worth $34 million that weren’t needed. They were actually $35,000 and essential things that really pertain to patient care, including programs to improve nursing care were targeted. They were “munched,” which is not a word I had come across. So yes, it was everything you suspected and ProPublica documented it. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a very vivid story. Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne. And it’s about something called reverse lobbying, lawmakers lobbying the lobbyists — in this case, in hopes of getting them to speak out or not about the budget reconciliation bill and its possible impact. Both sides know the public trusts health groups more than they trust lawmakers at this point. 

And so Democrats are hoping doctor and hospital groups will speak out in opposition to the cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans hope they will at least keep quiet. And Republicans, because it’s their bill, have added some sweeteners — a long-desired pay increase for doctors in Medicare. So we will have to wait to see how this all shakes out. 

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

Edney: X or Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Joanne 

Kenen: Bluesky or LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: All of the above, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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).

Estos estados, la mayoría liderados por demócratas, dan seguro médico a algunos inmigrantes de bajos ingresos —a menudo niños—, independientemente de su estatus migratorio. Defensores argumentan que la política es humanitaria y que, en última instancia, ahorra costos.

Sin embargo, la legislación federal, que los republicanos han denominado One Big Beautiful Bill (Un hermoso gran proyecto de ley), recortaría drásticamente los reembolsos federales de Medicaid a esos estados en miles de millones de dólares anuales en total, a menos que reduzcan esos beneficios.

El proyecto de ley fue aprobado por un estrecho margen en la Cámara de Representantes el jueves 22 de mayo, y ahora pasa al Senado.

Si bien avanza gran parte de la agenda nacional de Trump, incluyendo grandes recortes de impuestos que benefician principalmente a los estadounidenses más ricos, la legislación también realiza recortes sustanciales del gasto en Medicaid que, según los responsables del presupuesto del Congreso, dejará a millones de personas de bajos ingresos sin seguro médico.

De ser aprobados por el Senado, estos recortes representarían un complejo obstáculo político y económico para los estados y Washington, DC, que utilizan sus propios fondos para brindar seguro médico a algunas personas que viven en Estados Unidos sin autorización.

Estos estados verían reducidos en 10 puntos porcentuales los reembolsos federales para las personas cubiertas por la expansión de Medicaid que se realize bajo la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA).

Estos recortes le costarían a California, el estado que más tiene que perder, hasta $3 mil millones al año, según un análisis de KFF, una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a información de salud que incluye a KFF Health News.

En conjunto, los 15 lugares afectados (los 14 estados y DC) cubren a aproximadamente 1.9 millones de inmigrantes sin papeles, según KFF. La entidad indica que la sanción también podría aplicarse a otros estados que cubren a inmigrantes con residencia legal.

Dos de los estados, Illinois y Utah, tienen leyes de “activación” que exigen terminar con sus expansiones de Medicaid si el gobierno federal reduce su aporte de fondos. Esto significa que, a menos que esos estados deroguen sus leyes de activación o dejen de cubrir a las personas sin estatus migratorio legal, muchos más estadounidenses de bajos ingresos podrían quedarse sin seguro.

Si continúan cubriendo a personas sin papeles, a partir del año fiscal 2027, los estados restantes y Washington, DC, tendrían que aportar millones o miles de millones de dólares adicionales cada año, para compensar las reducciones en sus reembolsos federales de Medicaid.

Después de California, Nueva York podría perder la mayor parte de la financiación federal: cerca de 1.600 millones de dólares anuales, según KFF.

El senador estatal de California, Scott Wiener, demócrata y presidente del Comité de Presupuesto del Senado, afirmó que la legislación de Trump ha sembrado el caos mientras los legisladores estatales trabajan para aprobar su propio presupuesto antes del 15 de junio.

“Tenemos que mantenernos firmes”, declaró. “California ha decidido que queremos una atención médica universal y que vamos a garantizar que todos tengan acceso a la atención médica, y que no vamos a permitir que millones de personas indocumentadas reciban atención primaria en salas de emergencia”.

El gobernador de California, el demócrata Gavin Newsom, declaró en un comunicado que el proyecto de ley de Trump devastaría la atención médica en su estado.

“Millones de personas perderán cobertura, los hospitales cerrarán y las redes de seguridad social podrían colapsar bajo ese peso”, dijo Newsom.

En su propuesta de presupuesto del 14 de mayo, Newsom instó a los legisladores a recortar algunos beneficios para inmigrantes sin papeles, citando el aumento desmedido de los costos del programa estatal de Medicaid. Si el Congreso recorta los fondos para la expansión de Medicaid, el estado no estaría en condiciones de cubrir los gastos, afirmó el gobernador.

Newsom cuestionó si el Congreso tiene la autoridad para penalizar a los estados por cómo gastan su propio dinero, y afirmó que su estado consideraría impugnar la medida en los tribunales.

El representante estatal de Utah, Jim Dunnigan, republicano que ayudó a impulsar un proyecto de ley para cubrir a los niños en su estado independientemente de su estatus migratorio, afirmó que Utah necesita mantener la expansión de Medicaid que comenzó en 2020.

“No podemos permitirnos, ni monetaria ni políticamente, que se recorten nuestros fondos federales para la expansión”, declaró. Dunnigan no especificó si cree que el estado debería cancelar su cobertura para inmigrantes si la disposición republicana sobre sanciones se convierte en ley.

El programa de Utah cubre a unos 2.000 niños, el máximo permitido por su ley. Los inmigrantes adultos sin estatus legal no son elegibles. La expansión de Medicaid de Utah cubre a unos 75.000 adultos, quienes deben ser ciudadanos o inmigrantes con residencia legal.

Matt Slonaker, director ejecutivo del Utah Health Policy Project, una organización de defensa del consumidor, afirmó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara federal deja al estado en una posición difícil.

“Políticamente, no hay grandes alternativas”, declaró. “Es el dilema del prisionero: cualquier movimiento en cualquier dirección no tiene mucho sentido”.

Slonaker apuntó que un escenario probable es que los legisladores estatales eliminen su ley de activación, y luego encuentren la manera de compensar la pérdida de fondos federales para la expansión.

Utah ha financiado su parte del costo de la expansión de Medicaid con impuestos sobre las ventas y los hospitales.

“El Congreso pondría al estado de Utah en posición de tener que tomar una decisión política muy difícil”, declaró Slonaker.

En Illinois, la sanción del Partido Republicano tendría incluso consecuencias más graves. Esto se debe a que podría llevar a que 770.000 adultos perdieran la cobertura médica que obtuvieron con la expansión estatal de Medicaid.

Stephanie Altman, directora de justicia sanitaria del Shriver Center on Poverty Law, un grupo de defensa con sede en Chicago, afirmó que es posible que su estado, liderado por demócratas, derogue su ley de activación antes de permitir que se dé por terminada la expansión de Medicaid.

Agregó que el estado también podría eludir la sanción solicitando a los condados que financien la cobertura para inmigrantes. “Obviamente, sería una situación difícil”, declaró.

Altman indicó que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes parece redactado para penalizar a los estados controlados por demócratas, ya que estos suelen brindar cobertura a inmigrantes sin importar su estatus migratorio.

Agregó que la disposición demuestra la “hostilidad de los republicanos contra los inmigrantes” y que “no quieren que vengan aquí y reciban cobertura pública”.

Mike Johnson, el presidente de la Cámara de Representantes de Estados Unidos, declaró en mayo que los programas estatales que brindan cobertura pública a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio actúan como un “felpudo abierto”, invitando a más personas a cruzar la frontera sin autorización. Afirmó que los esfuerzos para eliminar estos programas cuentan con el apoyo de las encuestas públicas.

Una encuesta de Reuters-Ipsos realizada entre el 16 y el 18 de mayo reveló que el 47% de los estadounidenses aprueba las políticas migratorias de Trump y el 45% las desaprueba. La encuesta reveló que el índice de aprobación general de Trump ha caído 5 puntos porcentuales desde que regresó al cargo en enero, hasta el 42%, con un 52% de los estadounidenses desaprobando su gestión.

ACA, también conocida como Obamacare, impulsó a los estados a ampliar Medicaid a adultos con ingresos de hasta el 138% del nivel federal de pobreza, o $21.597 por persona este año. Cuarenta estados y Washington, DC, ampliaron su cobertura, lo que contribuyó a reducir la tasa nacional de personas sin seguro a un mínimo histórico.

El gobierno federal ahora cubre el 90% de los costos de las personas incluidas en Medicaid gracias a la ampliación del Obamacare.

En los estados que cubren la atención médica de inmigrantes sin autorización, el proyecto de ley republicano reduciría la contribución del gobierno federal del 90% al 80% del costo de la cobertura para cualquier persona que se incorpore a Medicaid bajo la expansión de ACA.

Por ley, los fondos federales de Medicaid no pueden utilizarse para cubrir a personas que se encuentran en el país papeles, excepto para servicios de embarazo y emergencias.

Los otros estados que utilizan sus propios fondos para cubrir a personas sin importar su estatus migratorio son: Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nueva Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont y Washington, según KFF.

Ryan Long, director de relaciones con el Congreso del Paragon Health Institute, un influyente grupo político conservador, afirmó que incluso si utilizan sus propios fondos para la cobertura de inmigrantes, los estados aún dependen de los fondos federales para “apoyar sistemas que faciliten la inscripción de inmigrantes indocumentados”.

Long afirmó que la preocupación por que los estados con leyes de activación puedan ver finalizada la expansión de Medicaid es una “pista falsa”, ya que los estados tienen la opción de eliminar sus activadores, como hizo Michigan en 2023.

La sanción por ofrecer cobrtura de salud a personas en el país sin papeles es una de las distintas maneras en que el proyecto de ley de la Cámara de Representantes recorta el gasto federal en Medicaid.

La legislación también trasladaría más costos de Medicaid a los estados al exigirles que verifiquen si los adultos cubiertos por el programa trabajan. Los estados también tendrían que recertificar la elegibilidad de los beneficiarios de la expansión de Medicaid cada seis meses, en lugar de una vez al año o menos, como lo hacen actualmente la mayoría.

El proyecto de ley también congelaría la práctica de los estados de gravar con impuestos a hospitales, residencias de adultos mayores, planes de atención médica administrada y otras compañías de atención médica para financiar su parte de los costos de Medicaid.

En una estimación preliminar del 11 de mayo, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso (CBO) indicó que, según el proyecto de ley aprobado por la Cámara de Representantes, alrededor de 8,6 millones de personas más perderían la cobertura médica en 2034.

Esa cifra aumentará a casi 14 millones, según la CBO, después que la administración Trump finalice las nuevas regulaciones de ACA y, si el Congreso, liderado por los republicanos, como se prevé, se niegue a extender los subsidios mejorados para ayudar a pagar las primas de los planes de salud comerciales vendidos a través de los mercados del Obamacare.

Los subsidios mejorados, una prioridad del ex presidente Joe Biden, eliminaron por completo las primas mensuales para algunas personas que adquirieran planes de Obamacare. Y expiran a fin de año.

Esta historia fue producida por Kaiser Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

President Donald Trump’s signature budget legislation would punish 14 states that offer health coverage to people in the U.S. without authorization.

The states, most of them Democratic-led, provide insurance to some low-income immigrants — often children — regardless of their legal status. Advocates argue the policy is both humane and ultimately cost-saving.

But the federal legislation, which Republicans have titled the “One Big Beautiful Bill,” would slash federal Medicaid reimbursements to those states by billions of dollars a year in total unless they roll back the benefits.

The bill narrowly passed the House on Thursday and next moves to the Senate. While enacting much of Trump’s domestic agenda, including big tax cuts largely benefiting wealthier Americans, the legislation also makes substantial spending cuts to Medicaid that congressional budget scorekeepers say will leave millions of low-income people without health insurance.

The cuts, if approved by the Senate, would pose a tricky political and economic hurdle for the states and Washington, D.C., which use their own funds to provide health insurance to some people in the U.S. without authorization.

Those states would see their federal reimbursement for people covered under the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion cut by 10 percentage points. The cuts would cost California, the state with the most to lose, as much as $3 billion a year, according to an analysis by KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

Together, the 15 affected places cover about 1.9 million immigrants without legal status, according to KFF. The penalty might also apply to other states that cover lawfully residing immigrants, KFF says.

Two of the states — Utah and Illinois — have “trigger” laws that call for their Medicaid expansions to terminate if the feds reduce their funding match. That means unless those states either repeal their trigger laws or stop covering people without legal immigration status, many more low-income Americans could be left uninsured.

The remaining states and Washington, D.C., would have to come up with millions or billions more dollars every year, starting in the 2027 fiscal year, to make up for reductions in their federal Medicaid reimbursements, if they keep covering people in the U.S. without authorization.

Behind California, New York stands to lose the most federal funding — about $1.6 billion annually, according to KFF.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener, a Democrat who chairs the Senate budget committee, said Trump’s legislation has sown chaos as state legislators work to pass their own budget by June 15.

“We need to stand our ground,” he said. “California has made a decision that we want universal health care and that we are going to ensure that everyone has access to health care, and that we’re not going to have millions of undocumented people getting their primary care in emergency rooms.”

California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, said in a statement that Trump’s bill would devastate health care in his state.

“Millions will lose coverage, hospitals will close, and safety nets could collapse under the weight,” Newsom said.

In his May 14 budget proposal, Newsom called on lawmakers to cut some benefits for immigrants without legal status, citing ballooning costs in the state’s Medicaid program. If Congress cuts Medicaid expansion funding, the state would be in no position to backfill, the governor said.

Newsom questioned whether Congress has the authority to penalize states for how they spend their own money and said his state would consider challenging the move in court.

Utah state Rep. Jim Dunnigan, a Republican who helped spearhead a bill to cover children in his state regardless of their immigration status, said Utah needs to maintain its Medicaid expansion that began in 2020.

“We cannot afford, monetary-wise or policy-wise, to see our federal expansion funding cut,” he said. Dunnigan wouldn’t say whether he thinks the state should end its immigrant coverage if the Republican penalty provision becomes law.

Utah’s program covers about 2,000 children, the maximum allowed under its law. Adult immigrants without legal status are not eligible. Utah’s Medicaid expansion covers about 75,000 adults, who must be citizens or lawfully present immigrants.

Matt Slonaker, executive director of the Utah Health Policy Project, a consumer advocacy organization, said the federal House bill leaves the state in a difficult position.

“There are no great alternatives, politically,” he said. “It’s a prisoner’s dilemma — a move in either direction does not make much sense.”

Slonaker said one likely scenario is that state lawmakers eliminate their trigger law then find a way to make up the loss of federal expansion funding.

Utah has funded its share of the cost of Medicaid expansion with sales and hospital taxes.

“This is a very hard political decision that Congress would put the state of Utah in,” Slonaker said.

In Illinois, the GOP penalty would have even larger consequences. That’s because it could lead to 770,000 adults’ losing the health coverage they gained under the state’s Medicaid expansion.

Stephanie Altman, director of health care justice at the Shriver Center on Poverty Law, a Chicago-based advocacy group, said it’s possible her Democratic-led state would end its trigger law before allowing its Medicaid expansion to terminate. She said the state might also sidestep the penalty by asking counties to fund coverage for immigrants. “It would be a hard situation, obviously,” she said.

Altman said the House bill appeared written to penalize Democratic-controlled states because they more commonly provide immigrants coverage without regard for their legal status.

She said the provision shows Republicans’ “hostility against immigrants” and that “they do not want them coming here and receiving public coverage.”

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson said this month that state programs that provide public coverage to people regardless of immigration status serve as “an open doormat,” inviting more people to cross the border without authorization. He said efforts to end such programs have support in public polling.

A Reuters-Ipsos poll conducted May 16-18 found that 47% of Americans approve of Trump’s immigration policies and 45% disapprove. The poll found that Trump’s overall approval rating has sunk 5 percentage points since he returned to office in January, to 42%, with 52% of Americans disapproving of his performance.

The Affordable Care Act, widely known as Obamacare, enabled states to expand Medicaid to adults with incomes of up to 138% of the federal poverty level, or $21,597 for an individual this year. Forty states and Washington, D.C., expanded, helping reduce the national uninsured rate to a historic low.

The federal government now pays 90% of the costs for people added to Medicaid under the Obamacare expansion.

In states that cover health care for immigrants in the U.S. without authorization, the Republican bill would reduce the federal government’s contribution from 90% to 80% of the cost of coverage for anyone added to Medicaid under the ACA expansion.

By law, federal Medicaid funds cannot be used to cover people who are in the country without authorization, except for pregnancy and emergency services.

The other states that use their own money to cover people regardless of immigration status are Colorado, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington, according to KFF.

Ryan Long, director of congressional relations at Paragon Health Institute, an influential conservative policy group, said that even if they use their own money for immigrant coverage, states still depend on federal funds to “support systems that facilitate enrollment of illegal aliens.”

Long said the concern that states with trigger laws could see their Medicaid expansion end is a “red herring” because states have the option to remove their triggers, as Michigan did in 2023.

The penalty for covering people in the country without authorization is one of several ways the House bill cuts federal Medicaid spending.

The legislation would shift more Medicaid costs to states by requiring them to verify whether adults covered by the program are working. States would also have to recertify Medicaid expansion enrollees’ eligibility every six months, rather than once a year or less, as most states currently do.

The bill would also freeze states’ practice of taxing hospitals, nursing homes, managed-care plans, and other health care companies to fund their share of Medicaid costs.

The Congressional Budget Office said in a May 11 preliminary estimate that, under the House-passed bill, about 8.6 million more people would be without health insurance in 2034. That number will rise to nearly 14 million, the CBO estimates, after the Trump administration finishes new ACA regulations and if the Republican-led Congress, as expected, declines to extend enhanced premium subsidies for commercial insurance plans sold through Obamacare marketplaces.

The enhanced subsidies, a priority of former President Joe Biden, eliminated monthly premiums altogether for some people buying Obamacare plans. They are set to expire at the end of the year.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

When it comes to health care, this year’s presidential campaign is increasingly a matter of which candidate voters choose to believe. Democrats, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, say Republicans want to further restrict reproductive rights and repeal the Affordable Care Act, pointing to their previous actions and claims. Meanwhile, Republicans, led by former President Donald Trump, insist they have no such plans.

Meanwhile, with open enrollment approaching for Medicare, the Biden administration dodges a political bullet, avoiding a sharp spike next year in Medicare prescription drug plan premiums.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna'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:

• This week, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio muddled his ticket’s stances on health policy during the vice presidential debate, including by downplaying the possibility of a national abortion ban. And Melania Trump, the former president’s wife, spoke out in support of abortion rights. Their comments seem designed to soothe voter concerns that former President Donald Trump could take actions to further block abortion access.
• Vance raised eyebrows with his debate-night claim that Trump “salvaged” the Affordable Care Act — when, in fact, the former president vowed to repeal the law and championed the GOP’s efforts to deliver on that promise. Meanwhile, Trump deflected questions from AARP about his plans for Medicare, replying, “What we have to do is make our country successful again.”
• On the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on health, in particular by pushing out new ads highlighting the benefits of the ACA and Trump’s efforts to restrict abortion. Polls show health is a winning issue for Democrats and that the ACA is popular, especially its protections for those with preexisting conditions.
• Also in the news, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported a slight dip in average Medicare drug plan premiums for next year. Coming in an annual report — out shortly before Election Day — it looks as though government subsidies cushioned changes to the system, sparing seniors from potentially paying in premiums what they may save under the new $2,000 annual out-of-pocket drug cost cap, for instance.
• And in abortion news, a judge struck down Georgia’s six-week abortion ban — but many providers have already left the state. And a new California law protects coverage for in vitro fertilization, including for LGBTQ+ couples.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-Washington Post “Bill of the Month,” about a teen athlete whose needed surgery lacked a billing code. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” by Ronnie Cohen.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees,” by John Tozzi.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene,” by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus.

Sandhya Raman: The Asheville Citizen Times’ “Without Water After Helene, Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” by Jacob Biba.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• SisterSong v. State of Georgia: Superior Court of Fulton County decision.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Health of the Campaign

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, October 4th, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Rovner: Today we are joined via teleconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient is a high school athlete whose problem got fixed, but his bill did not. But first, the news. 

We’re going to start this week with the campaign. It is October. I don’t know how that happened. On Tuesday, vice-presidential candidates Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota held their first and only debate. It felt very Midwestern nice, with Walz playing his usual Aw shucks self and Vance trying very hard to seem, for want of a better word, likable. Did we learn anything new from either candidate? 

Edney: I don’t think I heard anything new, no — not that I can remember. 

Rovner: I know, obviously, they exchanged some views on abortion. Vance tried very hard to distance himself from his own hard-line views on the subject, including denying that he’d ever supported a national abortion ban, which he did, by the way. Meanwhile, during the debate, former President [Donald] Trump announced on social media that he would veto a national abortion ban, something he’d not said in those exact words before. Alice, you’ve got a pretty provocative story out this week suggesting that this all might actually be working on a skeptical public. Is it? 

Ollstein: Yes. This has been a theme I’ve been tracking for a little bit. It was part of the reporting I was doing in Michigan a couple weeks ago. One, what I thought was interesting about that night was Trump and Vance have been talking past each other on abortion and contradicting each other, and now … 

Rovner: Oh, yeah. 

Ollstein: … it finally seems that they are on the same page, in terms of trying to convince the public: Nothing to see here. We won’t do a national ban. Don’t worry about it. Democrats and abortion rights groups are running around screaming: They’re lying. Look at their record. Look at what their allies have proposed in things like Project 2025. But the Republican message on this front does seem to be working. Polls show that even people who care about abortion rights and support abortion rights in some of these key battleground states still plan to vote for Trump. It’s a continuation of a pattern we’ve seen over the past few years where a decent chunk of people vote for these state ballot initiatives to protect abortion but then also vote for anti-abortion politicians. 

Voters contain multitudes. We don’t know exactly if it’s because they are not worried that Trump and Vance will pursue national restrictions. We don’t know if it’s because just other issues are more important to them. But I think it’s really worth keeping an eye on in terms of a pattern. And KFF has done some really interesting polling showing that people in states where the ballot initiatives have already passed sort of view it as, Oh, we took care of that, it’s settled, and they don’t see the urgency and the threat of a national ban in the way that Democrats and abortion rights groups want them to. 

Rovner: Which we’ll talk about separately in a minute. In late breaking news, Melania Trump this week came out and said that she supports abortion rights. Is this part of the continuing muddle where everybody can see what it is that they want to see, or is this going to have any impact at all? 

Ollstein: Can I say one more thing about the debate first? 

Rovner: Sure. 

Ollstein: OK. So what really struck me about what Vance said about abortion at the debate is he really portrayed two arguments that I’ve seen sort of trickle up from the grass roots of the anti-abortion movement. So one, there were some semantics quibbles around what is a ban. There’s really been an effort in the anti-abortion movement to say that only a total ban throughout pregnancy with no exceptions, only that they call a ban. Everything else, they don’t consider it a ban. 

Rovner: It’s a national standard. 

Ollstein: Yeah, minimum standard, federal standard. There’s a lot of different words they use — “limit,” “restriction.” But what they’re describing is what others call a ban. It’s not a different policy, and so we saw that on full display on the debate stage. We also saw this argument sort of that these government programs and funding and support are the answer to abortion, so, basically, promoting the idea that with enough child care supports and health care supports, fewer people would have abortions — which the data is mixed on that, I will say, from the U.S. and from other countries. But financial hardship is just one of many reasons people have abortions, so that would impact some people and not others. It also goes against a lot of the sort of traditional small-government, cut-government-spending Republican ethos, and so it is this really interesting sort of pro-natalist direction that some of the party wants to go in and some of the activist movement wants to go in. But there’s definitely some tension around that. And, of course, we’ve seen Republicans vote against those programs and funding at the state and federal level. 

Rovner: Things like paid family leave have been a Democratic priority much, much longer than it’s been a Republican priority, if it ever was and if it is now. 

Ollstein: But it’s interesting that he was promoting that to sort of show a kinder, gentler face to the anti-abortion movement, which has been a trend we’ve been seeing. 

Rovner: Yes. Yes, not just from JD Vance but from lots of Republicans on the anti-abortion side. And Melania— 

Ollstein: Sorry, back to Melania. 

Rovner: Is there any impact from this? 

Edney: Oh, it’s certainly worked for the Trump campaign to muddy the waters on any subject. If you think about immigration, certainly that worked before, and I think you can see where they’re realizing that. And they are coming together, like Alice mentioned, with JD Vance and Trump talking on the same page now a bit better but using sort of a, I don’t want to say “underling,” but like a second … 

Rovner: A surrogate. 

Edney: Yeah, a surrogate, a secondary character to say, I support abortion rights. And she has Trump’s ear, and that could really be a solid salve to a lot of people. 

Rovner: I was fascinated because she’s been pretty much invisible all year. I think this is the first time we have actually heard her voice, the first time I have heard her voice in 2024. 

Raman: I would add that it’s not unprecedented for a first lady on the Republican side to come out in favor of abortion rights. I think what makes it so interesting is, A, how close we are to the election and that we are actively in a campaign. When we look at the remarks that Laura Bush made several years ago, it was after [former President George W.] Bush had left office for a few years. And so this, I think, is just what really makes it, if the book is going to come out about a month or so before the election that … 

Rovner: Melania’s book. 

Raman: Yeah, Melania’s book, yes. 

Rovner: So yes, we will see. All right. Well, abortion was not the only health issue that came up during the debate. So did the Affordable Care Act. JD Vance went as far to claim that Donald Trump is actually the one that saved the Affordable Care Act. That’s not exactly how I remember things happening. You’re shaking your head. 

Raman: I think this was one of the most striking parts of the debate for me, just because he made several comments about how this was a bipartisan process and Trump was trying to salvage the ACA. And for those of us that were reporting in 2017, he was kind of ringleading the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And I guess there were just numerous claims within the few statements he made that were just all incorrect. He was talking about how Trump had divided risk pools, and that was not something that happened. I think that we assume that he was referring to the reinsurance waivers, but those were also created under the Obama administration, so it wasn’t like a Trump invention. We just had some approved under Trump. And he’d mentioned that enrollment was reaching record heights. Health enrollment grew more under the Biden administration than it did under Trump. 

Rovner: Yeah, I went back and actually looked up those numbers because I was so, like, “What are you talking about?” Actually, it was the moderator question: Didn’t enrollment go up during the Trump administration? No, it went down every year. 

Ollstein: The number of uninsured went up, in fact, during the Trump administration. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Ollstein: But, I mean, this is, again, part of a long pattern. Trump has routinely taken credit for things that were the decisions of other administrations, both before and after him. 

Rovner: And things that he tried to do and failed to do. 

Ollstein: Right. 

Rovner: Like lowering drug prices. 

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. Exactly. Exactly. Like Anna said, there was very little new that was revealed in this exchange. 

Rovner: Well, elsewhere on the campaign trail, the Harris campaign is working hard to elevate health care as an issue, including rolling out not just a 60-second ad warning of what repealing the Affordable Care Act could mean, but also issuing a 43-page white paper theorizing what Trump and Vance are likely to have in mind with their, quote, “concepts” of a health care plan based on what they’ve said and done in the past. They must be seeing something in the polls suggesting this could have some legs, don’t you think? I’m a little surprised, because everybody keeps saying: Not a health care election. This is not a health care election. But I don’t know. The Harris campaign sure keeps behaving like it might be. 

Raman: Hammering in on the preexisting conditions and protecting those, just because that is such a popular part of the ACA across the board, is probably a good strategy for them, just because that is something that is not the most wonky with that and that people can understand in a campaign ad and kind of distill down. 

Edney: Yeah, that was what I was thinking as well, is it’s a popular issue for, certainly, to be talking about, but also just the idea that he’s talking about it in a way that people think, Oh, we don’t have to worry. And Alice has made this point on abortion before. There’s a lot that he can do through executive order and things like that, and did do like taking away money for the navigators and things to help people enroll. So even if they don’t think it’s maybe going to be about health care fully, it makes sense to try to counter some of that. And you can’t do that on a debate stage most of the time, not in an effective way, but certainly putting out this paper, I mean, it did get some press and things like that, and if you really wanted to go read it, you could. 

Rovner: Even I didn’t want to read all 43 pages. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: Well, as Anna previewed, the AARP released what’s normally a pretty routine interview with both candidates about issues important to Americans over age 50, things like Medicare, Social Security, and caregiving. But I think it’s fair to say that, at least, former President Trump’s answers were anything but routine. Asked how he would protect Medicare from cuts and improve the program, he said, and I quote: “What we have to do is make our country successful again. This has to do with Medicare and Social Security and other things. We have to let our country become successful, make our country successful again, and we’ll be able to do that.” How do you even respond to things like that? Or is this campaign now so completely divorced from the issues that literally nothing matters? 

Edney: Well, I kind of noticed a trend in between that answer and one JD Vance gave when he was talking about abortion, and he said: We just need to make women trust us. They need to trust us again. We need to make them trust us. I was like, I don’t understand how that even connects. But also, how are you going to do that? And I think that this is the same thing. You’re just saying these words over and over again in relation. So in somebody’s mind, Medicare and success is Trump’s word, and trust and abortion as JD Vance’s thing, and you’re connecting these in their minds. And I was seeing this as a trend. It just felt familiar to me after listening to the vice-presidential debate. They’re not going to talk about any policy or anything, but repeating these words over and over again like you were listening to morning affirmations or something was going to really get that through in a voter’s mind is maybe what they’re going for. 

Rovner: And I have to say, I mean, when candidates start to talk about actual policy ideas, it gets really wonky really fast. Sort of going back to the debate, JD Vance was talking about visas and immigration, and I think it’s an app that he was talking about. I know this stuff pretty well. I had no idea what he was talking about. I mean, maybe it does work better when Trump says, I’m not going to cut Medicare or Social Security, and leave it at that. 

Ollstein: Well, right, because when you talk specific policies, that opens it up to critique. And when you just talk total platitudes, then it’s harder to pick apart and criticize, even though it’s clearly not an answer to the questions they’re asking. And it was even a little bit funny to me for the AARP interview, because I believe they sent in written responses, and so they had the ability— 

Rovner: I think they also talked on the phone. 

Ollstein: Oh, OK. 

Rovner: So I think it was a little bit of both. 

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. It wasn’t the sort of live televised interview. They could have looked up — it was an open-book test. 

Rovner: It was. 

Ollstein: And yet all of the responses from Trump were just like, We’re going to do something and it’s going to be great and awesome and it’ll fix everything, and it was completely devoid of policy specifics, which again may be smarter politically than actually saying what you plan to do, which as we’ve seen in Project 2025, generates a lot of backlash. But it is also a little bit dangerous to go into the election not knowing the specifics of what someone wants to do on health care. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know. I find when I listen to some of these focus groups with undecided voters, we want to know what exactly they’re going to do, except they don’t really want to know what exactly they’re going to do. They think they do, but it appears that that is not necessarily the case. One thing that we know does matter, at least to people on Medicare, is the premiums they pay for their coverage. And unfortunately, for every administration, that announcement comes just weeks before Election Day every year. So this year, the Biden administration was worried about big jumps in premiums for Medicare Part D drug coverage, mostly thanks to the new caps on spending that will save consumers money but will cost insurers more. That didn’t happen, though. And in fact, average premiums will actually fall slightly next year. 

Now, I’m not sure I understand exactly what the administration did to avoid this, but they used existing demonstration authority to boost payments to insurers. And, not surprisingly, Republicans are pretty furious. On the other hand, Republicans used pretty much this same authority to avoid Medicare premium spikes in the past. Anna, is this just political manipulation or good governing, or a little bit of both? 

Edney: Yeah, it is certainly very timely and probably necessary also because the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, kept the seniors’ out-of-pocket pay at $2,000 a year. And so that was going to skyrocket premiums, and they did not want to face that, particularly in an election year. And as you mentioned, this all happens around that time. And so they did this demonstration, and I have read a few things trying to figure out exactly what it does, and I can’t. 

Rovner: So it’s not just me. It’s complicated. 

Edney: It’s not just you. It’s really complicated, and it has to do with payments that usually come at the end that insurers are now going to get upfront. And that’s the best I can tell you. But they’ll be getting some subsidies upfront, and it’s to try to spread these premium increases to help mitigate those so that seniors don’t have to then pay on that end instead of for their drugs out-of-pocket. So I think that they need to do something. I mean, already, the premiums were able to go up. I think it’s $35 a month, and some plans did elect to do that and others have them staying even. And you even have some with them going down a little bit. So I guess the moral of the story is for consumers to shop around this year, certainly. 

Rovner: That’s right, and we will talk more about Medicare open enrollment, which opens in a couple of weeks, because it’s October, and all of these things happen at once. Moving back to abortion, a judge in Georgia struck down, at least for now, the state’s six-week abortion ban, quoting from “The Handmaid’s Tale” about how the law requires women to serve as human incubators. And I’ll put a link to the decision, because that’s quite the decision. But Alice, this is far from the last word on this, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. It’s just so fascinating what a slow burn these lawsuits are. I mean, this, the one in North Dakota recently that restored access, these just sort of simmer under the radar for months or even years, and then a decision can have a major impact. And so access has been restored in some of these states. Some interesting things that came to mind were, one, it could be reversed again and pingpong back and forth, and all of that is very challenging for doctors and patients to manage. 

But also — and I’m thinking more of North Dakota, because Georgia is sort of a medical powerhouse with a lot of providers and hospitals and facilities and stuff — but in North Dakota, the state’s only abortion clinic moved out of state, and they do not plan to move back as a result of this decision. This isn’t a switch you can flip back and forth. And so when access is restored on paper in the law, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be restored in practice. You need doctors willing to work in these states and provide the procedure. And even with the court rulings, they may not feel comfortable doing so, or the logistics are just too daunting to move back. So I would urge people to keep that in mind. 

Rovner: Yeah, and the state’s already said that it’s going to appeal to the next-higher court. So we will see this continue, but I think it was definitely worth mentioning. We’ve talked a lot this year about women experiencing pregnancy complications not being able to get care in states with abortion bans and restrictions. Well, it’s happening in states where abortion is supposed to be widely available, too. 

In California, the state’s attorney general filed suit this week against a Catholic hospital in the rural northern part of the state that refused to terminate the doomed pregnancy of a woman carrying twins after her water broke at 15 weeks, because they said one of the twins still had a heartbeat. She eventually was driven to the only other hospital within a hundred miles of the labor and delivery unit, where she did get the care that she needed, although she was hemorrhaging, but not until after a nurse at the Catholic hospital gave her a bucket of towels, quote, “in case something happens in the car.” Meanwhile, the labor and delivery unit at the hospital she was taken to is itself scheduled to close. Are women starting to get the idea that this is about more than just selective abortions and that no matter where they live, that being pregnant could be more dangerous than it has been in the past? 

Raman: I was going to say this is something that abortion rights advocates have been saying for years now, that it’s not just abortion, that they point to things like the whole ordeal that we’ve been having with IVF [in vitro fertilization] and birth control and so many other things. Even in the last couple years, people trying to get other medications that have nothing to do with pregnancy and not being able to get those because they might have an effect or cause miscarriage or things like that. So I think in one way, yes. But at the same time, when you look at something like what we saw happen with the two deaths in Georgia, right? The messaging from the anti-abortion crowd has been that this was not because of the abortion ban but because of the regulations that allowed these people to get a medication abortion and that’s what’s driving the death. 

So we think that, in some ways, there’s certain camps that are just going to be focused on a different side of how the emergency might not be related to abortion at all, or the branding is that this is not an abortion in certain cases versus an abortion, it’s just semantics. So I don’t know how many minds it’s changing at this point. 

Ollstein: Like Sandhya said, the awareness that this is not just for so-called elective abortions. Obviously, that term is disputed and there’s gray area of what that means. I think the overwhelming focus in messaging — from Democrats, anyway — has been about these wanted pregnancies that suffer medical complications and people can’t get care, and so the spillover effect on miscarriage care. But I think the piece that’s new that this could emphasize is that it’s not a strict red-state-blue-state divide, that Catholic hospitals and other facilities in states with protections, like California — it could happen there, too. So I think that’s what this case may be contributing in a new way to people’s understanding. 

Rovner: And, of course, this was happening long before Dobbs — I mean, with Catholic hospitals, particularly Catholic hospitals in areas where there are not a lot of hospitals, denying care according to Catholic teachings and women having basically no place, at least nearby, to go. So I think people are seeing it in a new light now that it seems to be happening in many, many places at the same time. Well, while we are visiting California, Governor Gavin Newsom this week signed legislation requiring large group health insurance plans to cover IVF and other fertility treatments starting next year. California is far from the first state to do this. I think it’s now up to over a dozen. But it’s by far the most populous state to do this. Do we expect to see more of this, particularly given, as you were saying, Sandhya, the attention that IVF is suddenly getting? 

Raman: I think we could. We’ve had a lot of states do different variations of those so far, and they haven’t necessarily been blue versus red. I think one thing that was interesting about the California law in particular was that it included LGBTQ people within the infertility definition, which we’ve been having IVF laws for over 20 years at this point and I don’t know that that has been necessarily there in other ones. So I would be watching for more things like that and seeing how widespread that would be in some of the bills coming up in the next legislative cycle. 

Rovner: Yes, and another issue that I suspect will continue to simmer beyond this election. Well, finally this week, two big business-of-health-related stories: Over the summer, we talked about how the CEO of Steward Health Care, which is a chain of hospitals bought out by private equity and basically run into bankruptcy, refused to show up to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Well, in the last two weeks, the committee, followed by the full Senate, voted to hold CEO Ralph de la Torre in criminal contempt. And as of last week, he is now ex-CEO Ralph de la Torre, and now he is suing the Senate over that contempt vote. If nothing else, I guess this raises the stakes in Congress to continue to look at the impact of private equity in health care? 

Edney: Yeah, I think it’s interesting, because when you look at [Sen.] Bernie Sanders calling in pharmaceutical CEOs, they typically show up and they take their hits and they go home. And in this case, it probably kind of heightens that idea that private equity is the evil person. And I’m not saying everyone thinks pharma is not, but they do understand Washington. And there’s a chance that a lot of New York–focused, Wall Street–focused private equity folks may not get that quite in the same way or just may not view it as important. But now, that may be changing. 

Rovner: I was surprised by how bipartisan this was. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: I mean, beating up on pharma tends to be a Democratic thing, but this was bipartisan in the committee and bipartisan in the Senate. I mean, it’s also important to remember that Steward Health Care is a chain of hospitals in a whole bunch of states, so there are a lot of senators who are seeing hospitals in, now, dire straits through this whole private equity thing, who I imagine are not very happy about it. And their constituents are not very happy about it. But I think the bipartisanship of it is what sort of stuck out to me. 

Raman: I was just going to say hospitals are such a big employer for so many districts that I think that, but I would say this was the first time in 50 years they’ve sent a contemptor to the DOJ [Department of Justice]. And especially doing that in a unanimous fashion is just very striking to me, and I’m curious if DOJ kind of goes forth and does, takes penalty and action with it. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is a real under-the-radar story that I think could explode in a big way at some point. Well, the other big, evolving business story this week involves Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative that gives enrollees extra benefits and makes insurance shareholders rich, mostly at taxpayer expense. Well, the party is, if not ending, then at least slowly closing down. Humana’s stock price dropped dramatically this week after the company reported the new way Medicare officials are calculating quality scores from Medicare Advantage. They get stars. The more stars, the better. The new way that Humana appears to be getting its stars could effectively deprive it of its entire operating profit. 

In separate news, UnitedHealthcare is suing Medicare over its Medicare Advantage payments in one of those single-judge conservative districts in Texas, of course. Democrats have been working to at least somewhat rein in these excess payments to Medicare Advantage for the past, I don’t know, two decades or so, but I assume this will all likely be reversed if Trump wins. And Medicare Advantage has been a troublesome issue because it’s really popular with beneficiaries, but it’s really expensive, because it’s really popular, because they get extra money, and some of that extra money goes to give extra benefits. Talk about things that are hard to explain to people. It’s great that you get all these extra benefits, but it’s costing the government more than it should. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Raman: I guess I do wonder if people, how much attention they’re paying. Are they going to switch plans if it’s dropping that many stars? If you’re on a Humana plan and a huge number of them got demoted to a lower rating, the next time you’re looking for a plan, are you going to switch to something else? And how often people are doing that and just if that would move the needle, because it’s just a longer process than overnight. 

Rovner: Although, I think it isn’t just that people have to switch. If people stay in those plans with fewer stars, the company gets less money. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Rovner: Because they get bonuses when people are in the, quote-unquote, “higher quality” plan. So even if their four-star plan is now a three-star plan and they stay in it, the company’s going to lose money, which I think is why the stock price took such a quick and dramatic bath. 

Edney: Yeah, I was surprised. It’s such a seemingly wonky issue, but it did really hit Humana very hard in the stock price. Technically, I think — correct me if I’m wrong — the stars aren’t even out yet. This is people doing searches to see if they can find some of them that have been changed at all, and so they’re coming out soon, but Humana particularly is very Medicare-focused out of all of the insurers. They rely on that for a large part of their revenue, so it is a big deal for them. I don’t know how much, but certainly Wall Street was. And as you mentioned with Trump, the Republicans typically really have supported Medicare Advantage because it is private insurers offering this instead of being just government-run Medicare. So that could have an effect. 

It’s hard to tell why their stars went down currently. With UnitedHealth, you at least get a little insight. They’re suing because, last year, their star rating went down for some plans, they said, because of one bad customer service phone call. So someone from Medicare calls and does a test thing, and UnitedHealth says they didn’t ask the right question, so the person never got a chance to answer it correctly, and then their star ratings went down. So, it does feel like it could happen at any point for any reason, so I don’t know how conducive that is, how much that actually plays into people who might have a Humana plan that think, “Oh, I haven’t had any issues, so why would I change?” 

Rovner: Yeah. All these under-the-hood things, as you point out, we have all looked at and don’t quite understand is worth billions and billions and billions of dollars. It’s one of the reasons why health care is so expensive and such a big part of the economy. All right. Well, we will continue to watch that space, too. That is the news for the week. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back with our extra credits. 

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

Lauren Sausser: Thanks for having me. 

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

Sausser: This month’s patient is a young man named Preston Nafz. He’s 17. He’s a senior in high school. He lives in Hoover, Alabama, which is right outside of Birmingham. And he played youth sports his whole life and recently is focused on lacrosse, but like many kids in this country, he has sort of cycled through a bunch of different sports, and ended up injured last year. 

Rovner: And what happened? 

Sausser: He had really debilitating pain in his hip, and the pain was progressive. And, obviously, they tried some treatments on one end of the spectrum, but it kept growing worse and worse. And at one point last year, he ended up limping off of the lacrosse field. He couldn’t do really simple things like turning over in bed or getting in and out of a car. These things were really painful for him. So he ended up as a patient at a sports medicine clinic, and providers at that clinic recommended surgery. 

Rovner: And to cut to the chase, the story, at least medically, has a happy ending, right? The surgery worked? He’s better? 

Sausser: Yes, the surgery worked. He ended up getting something late last year, a procedure called a sports hernia repair, which is a little bit of a misnomer because he didn’t actually have a hernia. But it’s kind of a catchall phrase that orthopedic surgeons use to talk about a procedure to relieve this type of pain that he was having in his pelvis, groin area. And the recovery was longer than he was anticipating, but yes, it medically does have a happy ending. He was able to play lacrosse again, although the last time I spoke to him, he had another sports-related injury. But the sports hernia repair did do what it was supposed to do, so that’s the good news. 

Rovner: So it sounded like it should have been routine. Kid growing up, gets hurt playing sports, family has health insurance, goes to sports medicine, doctor fixes problem. Except for the bill, right? 

Sausser: Yeah. So the interesting thing about this story, and this is really why we pursued it, is because there is no CPT [Current Procedural Terminology] code for a sports hernia repair. CPT codes, your listeners are probably familiar with, but they’re the medical codes that providers and insurers use to figure out how things get paid for. And it can become more complicated when there’s no code for a procedure, which was the case here. So Preston’s dad was told before the surgery that he was going to have to pay upfront because his insurance company, which was Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, likely wasn’t going to pay for it. 

Rovner: And how much was it upfront? 

Sausser: It was just over $7,000. So the surgery itself was $6,000. There was, I think, almost $500 for anesthesia, a little over $600 for the facility fee. And Preston’s dad paid for it on a few different credit cards. 

Rovner: So kid has the surgery, is in rehab, and Dad is now trying to recoup this money that he has paid for upfront. And what happened then? 

Sausser: Yeah. Before the surgery even happened, Preston’s dad tried to call his insurance company and say: Can I get this covered? My son’s doctor says this is medically necessary. And initially, he got good news. His insurer said: It sounds like this is something that should be covered. If this is something that’s medically necessary, your insurance plan generally covers those things. As the date of the surgery grew closer and closer, he found that the people he was talking to at the insurance company weren’t being as definitive with their answers. And so before the surgery, he got a no. He said he got a no from his insurer saying that they were not going to cover this. Now, on the back end of the surgery, after he’d paid the bill with those credit cards, he tried to appeal that decision by filing a lot of paperwork. And he did end up getting a few hundred dollars reimbursed, but when the insurer sent him that check, it was unclear exactly what they were covering. And, obviously, that didn’t come close to the $7,000-plus that they had paid for it. 

Rovner: So that’s what eventually happened with the bill, right? He ended up getting stuck with almost all of it? 

Sausser: Yeah. 

Rovner: Is there anything he could have done differently that might’ve helped this get reimbursed? 

Sausser: That’s the tricky thing about this story, because they did do almost everything right. But it’s almost a cautionary tale for people who are faced with this prospect in the future. So if your provider is recommending something that doesn’t have a CPT code, it is going to be harder to get reimbursed from your insurer. You should assume that. That’s not to say it’s impossible, but it’s going to take more work on your end. It’s going to take more paperwork, it may take more work on your doctor’s end, and you should be prepared to get some pushback, if that makes sense. 

Rovner: And has he just sort of written this off? 

Sausser: I mean, he paid off the surgery using the credit cards. And the last I spoke to this family, they were still getting some confusing communication from their insurer. I don’t know that they’ve gotten the final, final no yet. I think that he still is invested in getting reimbursed if he can. But at this point, we’re approaching almost the one-year anniversary of the surgery, so it’s looking less likely. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep following it. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We’ll include links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. We have two hurricane-related extra credits this week. Sandhya, why don’t you go first? 

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Without Water After Helene: Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” and it is from the Asheville [North Carolina] Citizen Times, by Jacob Biba. And the story just looks at the residents of a specific complex in Asheville that have been hit really hard by the hurricane. And, when this was written, they’d been without water for two days and it might not come back for weeks, and just some of the public health impacts they were facing. One person couldn’t clean their nebulizer or their tracheostomy tube. Others were worrying about sanitation from not being able to flush toilets. I think it’s a good one to check out. 

Rovner: Yeah. We think about so many things with hurricanes. We think about being without power. We don’t tend to think about being without water. Alice, you have a related story. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and this is more of a supply chain story but really shows that these hurricanes and natural disasters can have really widespread impacts outside the region that they’re in. And so this is from The Wall Street Journal. It’s called “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene.” It’s by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus, and it’s about a facility in North Carolina that produces, like I said, IV bag fluids that hospitals around the country depend on. And yeah, we’ve talked before about just how vulnerable our medical supply chains are and we don’t spread the risk around maybe as much as we need to in this age of climate instability. And so, yeah, hospitals, they’re not rationing the fluids, but they are taking steps to conserve. And so they’re thinking, OK, certain patients can take fluids orally instead of intravenously in order to conserve. And so that’s happening now. Hopefully, it doesn’t become rationing down the road. But, yeah, with the long recovery the region is expecting, it’s a bit scary. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: I did one from a colleague of mine at Bloomberg, John Tozzi. It’s “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees.” So he looked at this Blue Shield of California plan that is deciding to just bypass the pharmacy benefit managers and go directly to a drugmaker to get a biosimilar of Humira, the rheumatoid arthritis and many other ailments drug. And they’re going to be getting it for $525 a month for this drug that a lot of the PBMs are offering for more than a thousand dollars. And so the PBMs mentioned to him, We give rebates, and it’s less than a thousand dollars. But they didn’t say if it was as low as $525. And Blue Shield of California seems to think that this is a really good deal and that they’re basically going to give it for free just to show that it can reach Americans affordably. And so I thought it was a good look at this plan and at maybe a trend, I don’t know, that plans might start going outside of the PBM network. 

Rovner: We shall see. Well, I chose a story from KFF Health News this week from Ronnie Cohen, and it’s called “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” and it’s a really thoughtful piece about how to best protest things you disagree with. In this case, some doctors want medical groups to move professional conferences out of states with abortion bans, in order to exert financial pressure and to make a point. But there are those who worry that that amounts to punishing the victims and that it won’t do much anyway, frankly, unless you’re the Super Bowl or the baseball All-Star Game. It’s not like your conference is going to make or break some city’s annual budget. But it’s a microcosm of a bigger debate that’s going on in medicine that I’ve been covering. How do doctors balance their duty to serve patients with their duty to themselves and their own families? There are obviously pregnant medical professionals who do not wish to travel to states with abortion bans lest something bad happens. It’s a struggle that is obviously going to continue. It’s a really interesting story. 

OK. That is our show. Before we go this week, it is October and we want your scariest Halloween haikus. The winner will get their haiku illustrated by our award-winning in-house artists, and I will read it on the podcast that we tape on Halloween. We will have a link to the entry page in our show notes. 

As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me at X. I’m @jrovner. Sandhya? 

Raman: @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: @annaedney. 

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, 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).

View the full post Procurement and pension legislations for approval in 2024/2025 parliamentary year on NOW Grenada.

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.

On September 2, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. While the law was primarily intended to regulate and protect worker pensions, it also fundamentally changed how health insurance is provided and regulated in the United States. Fifty years on, ERISA plays a role in nearly every detail of health insurance and has had a profound impact on the entire health care sector.

To note this anniversary, in this week’s special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?”, host and KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discusses the law’s past, present, and future with three experts on ERISA: Larry Levitt of KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News; Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit; and Ilyse Schuman of the American Benefits Council, a trade group advocating for employers that sponsor worker benefit plans.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Happy 50th, ERISA

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Happy 50th, ERISA’ Episode Number: 360Published: Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. Usually, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington, but today, we have a special episode for you. We’re taping this week on Monday, Aug. 12th, at 2 p.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this — although this time, I hope not. So here we go.

So if you follow health policy, you’re likely familiar with the big federal laws that have shaped how health care in the U.S. is organized and delivered and paid for. Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, HIPAA in 1996, and the Affordable Care Act in 2010, just to name a few.

One you may not have heard as much about is ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which was signed in 1974 by then-President Gerald Ford. This fall marks 50 years since ERISA became law. ERISA, as its name suggests, is mostly about protecting pension benefits for workers. It was inspired, at least in part, by the collapse of a pension fund when a plant that built Studebaker cars in Ohio shut down in 1963. But, at least as legend has it, at the very last minute in the House-Senate Conference in 1974, someone decided to add health benefits to ERISA’s scope, and that literally changed the entirety of how health benefits are regulated in the U.S.

I am pleased to have an all-star panel here to join us to talk about what ERISA has meant to health policy and what it’s likely to mean going forward as it begins its second half-century. Larry Levitt is executive vice president for policy here at KFF and one of only a few people in the organization even nerdier than I am about things like ERISA. Paul Fronstin is director of health benefits research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that does research and education. Paul has also taught me more about ERISA over the years than probably any other single person.

Finally, Ilyse Schuman is senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, which represents large employers and other providers of health and retirement benefits through employer-sponsored plans. Ilyse also spent several years on Capitol Hill working on the Senate committee that oversees ERISA policy. So, a lot of knowledge here in our podcast box. Thanks for all of you for being here.

Ilyse Schuman: Thank you

Larry Levitt: Great to be here.

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. How did health benefits wind up being covered in a law that was aimed at retiree pensions?

Paul Fronstin: None of us were here or there at the time, so I think anything we know is second- or third-hand information. And like you said, the provision was inserted at the last minute, but I think there were a lot of conversations about it leading up to it being inserted at the last minute. I think a lot of it had to do with some tensions between state regulation and federal regulation, because there were self-insured health plans in existence and self-insured benefits more generally in existence before ERISA passed.

And clearly those plans wanted some federal protection regarding what they were doing, and the states wanted more regulation. And I’ve read a little bit about this over the years, and there was certainly some lobbying for and against having a provision in there to protect self-insured plans from state regulation. So the conversations were happening. It just … the language probably just didn’t make it into the legislation till the last minute.

Schuman: And I think certainly the landscape back in 1974, as Paul talked about, was that more and more states were creating, with respect to health care, their own versions of various laws. And so self-funded plans, large employers like our members — a number of them were back in existence 50 years ago, some weren’t — were finding it increasingly difficult to be able to administer their self-funded plans on a uniform basis nationwide.

So it wasn’t in the backrooms when they were actually drafting the legislation, but certainly note that the nationwide landscape in this growing patchwork of state health laws was becoming increasingly problematical for self-funded health plans.

Levitt: Yeah. I mean, this was also a period when health insurance was changing quite dramatically. I mean, before this time health insurance was pretty simple. It was called indemnity insurance, right.

You went to the doctor, you went to the hospital, you got a claim, you filed it with your insurance company, and they paid 80% of it. This was a time when PPOs [preferred provider organizations] were starting, managed care, HMOs were really just getting their start. So there was a need for much more regulation because insurance was getting more complicated.

Fronstin: Yeah. To some degree, the HMO Act of, what, 1973, right, just the year before. So HMOs were just coming on the scene, and that may have played into this as well.

Rovner: So back in 1945, when really none of us were in the room, Congress passed something called the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which was supposed to ensure that states rather than the federal government retained the authority to regulate insurance. What happened in ERISA to change that? Ilyse, I think you were already sort of referring to this. And what do we mean when we talk about ERISA preemption? That’s a phrase that people hear a lot and their eyes glaze over.

Schuman: Sure. Well, their eyes may glaze over but it really is foundational to millions of Americans and their families that are covered by employers who decide that they want to self-fund their plans. That means that they’re the ones that decide that, “Hey, we’re going to take the risk as offering these benefits instead of the carrier.”

Rovner: So they’re not actually buying insurance because …

Schuman: That’s …

Rovner: … they’re paying the bills.

Schuman: They’re doing more than just paying the bill. They’re the ones that are ultimately assuming the risks of those claims, too. And I think the value. So maybe — just to step back before we talk about what a preemption is — is what we talk about employers who decide to self-fund versus those that don’t. Admittedly, many of those that self-fund are larger employers, but again, they say that “We will take the risk of paying for the claims of our health insurance coverage instead of the carrier. But along with that, we get the flexibility and we get the ability to design and implement health coverage that we think meets the needs of our population. That’s enabled us to” — speaking again from self-funded employers — “to implement innovative designs with the assurances that they could implement those, they could administer that on a uniform basis nationwide.” So that’s really what we’re talking about. Preemption is the ability of self-funded employers to administer those benefits on a uniform basis nationwide.

And yes, getting back to McCarran-Ferguson, and if you want to talk through the sort of various layers of ERISA preemption, is there’s something called the savings clause, which is OK. So ERISA says: “First threshold level, we are going to preempt state laws.” But there’s a savings provision that says basically: “If you’re in the business of insurance, states can regulate that.” But then there’s this deemer clause — this is really nerdy now, so some of your audience may be wondering here what we’re talking about …

Rovner: I remember learning this many, many years ago.

Schuman: No. Yeah. So if you’re in law school, take note that the deemer clause means that self-funded group health plan is deemed not to be in the business of insurance; meaning that they don’t have to comply with those state insurance laws.

Levitt: And here’s where this gets really tangible for people, right? So 150 million people have insurance coverage through an employer. It’s the biggest source of health coverage. But 65% of them are in self-insured plans, like Ilyse was talking about. And those self-insured plans are exempt from state regulation.

So if a state is regulating insurance, let’s say mandating benefits, mandating coverage of IVF, mandating coverage of preventive care, mastectomies, whatever — those regulations that states are putting in place do not apply to most people with employer-sponsored insurance because they are in these self-funded plans.

Rovner: And, of course, the continuing complications that a lot of people who are in these self-funded plans don’t know it because they have an insurance card and it says Blue Cross or Aetna or whatever, because, in their case, they have an insurance card, but the insurer is not providing insurance, right?

Levitt: No, it’s remarkable. We did a survey of consumers about their experiences with health insurance. And we asked them, “What government agency do you think you would turn to with a problem with your insurance?” And literally zero people said the Department of Labor, which is the government agency that actually enforces ERISA.

Rovner: But I guess what I was asking about are third-party administrators, which I think most people have never heard of until they discover that they’re not subject to their state’s requirement.

Levitt: Absolutely. I mean, it gets really confusing, right? Because it might be that UnitedHealthcare is administering this self-funded plan, but you, as an employee in this plan, have no way of really understanding is that a self-insured plan administered by UnitedHealthcare? Or is that an insurance plan administered by UnitedHealthcare? And then there are these third-party administrators that you’ve never even heard of that are administering them for many employers.

Rovner: Paul, you wanted to add something.

Fronstin: We need to distinguish between ERISA and self-insured plans, right, because they’re not one and the same. ERISA also covers fully insured plans.

Schuman: Right.

Fronstin: So fully insured plans are regulated both by ERISA and at the state level. And then you’ve got some self-insured plans like government plans that are not covered by ERISA, right? But they’re self-insured. So it’s even more complicated than what we’re making it out to be when we talk about ERISA, preemption, and self-insurance. That’s just one aspect of ERISA.

Schuman: And I think to the point about employees not sure what covers them, what doesn’t cover them. Again, for self-funded large employers, I mean, I think most of the employees understand from their employer, from the group health plan, what the terms of the plan are, and what the benefits are. And I think in some ways, perhaps less complex than, OK, if you’re an employee working in Kentucky, you have one plan. If you’re an employee working in New York, you have another plan. And employees talking to each other and saying, “Hey, how come you have that and I don’t have this?”

So I think that the clarity or the consistency is important not just for employers who are administering the plan, but for employees understanding what the terms of the plans are. And also, two things about sort of the benefits and what’s covered. There’s a difference between a state saying, “OK, you have to cover this benefit and have to cover it in precisely this way” versus employers who say, “Look, it’s really important for our population, to be healthy and productive, to have these benefits, and so we’re going to offer this benefit. We’re just going to do it in the same way nationwide.”

And remember, ERISA, if the federal government, as it has done over the past, wants to make changes to … that are applicable to group health plans, it can amend and has amended ERISA to do that. So the market reforms, for example, in the Affordable Care Act, were applicable, and the Public Health Service Act, were sort of incorporated into ERISA. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, for example, amended ERISA. So it’s like that’s the lever to make changes to ERISA that will be applicable to self-funded plans as well is at the federal level.

Rovner: When I was first covering Congress in the 19… late-1980s and early-1990s, you didn’t go there. If you wanted to do something about health policy, you didn’t touch ERISA. I think lawmakers were afraid of reopening it and getting into all kinds of fights. Why did that finally change?

Levitt: I mean, I think there was a growing recognition, particularly with the Affordable Care Act, that there were just some minimum thresholds that health coverage had to meet to be legitimate coverage. So if you look at what the ACA did, and as Ilyse said, those applied to all employers, all group health plans through the amendments to ERISA.

And these were things like no preexisting condition exclusions, coverage of preventive services with no patient cost sharing, no annual on lifetime limits, a cap on out-of-pocket costs. And probably the most popular provision of the ACA, coverage of dependents up to age 26. There was no way to reach everyone with insurance without amending ERISA under the Affordable Care Act.

Fronstin: Yeah. But there were examples, pre-ACA, that affected all plans, or most plans, like mental health parity we didn’t mention. Well, there’s been a couple of instances of that. And certainly the Clinton health plan tried this and didn’t succeed in the early 1990s.

Rovner: And HIPAA …

Levitt: I mean …

Rovner: … which was, I guess, the first major walk into ERISA since ERISA had been passed.

Levitt: Right. Or even COBRA. The ability to continue your insurance after you leave an employer was an amendment to ERISA.

Rovner: That’s right. And that was in 1986.

Fronstin: Yeah, and even that could be confusing because it exempts smaller employers, right. But you got the mini-COBRA laws at state level that affect some of those employers, but not every state has one.

Rovner: Yeah. And Paul, you were referring to this. We should probably talk about who’s not subject to ERISA because I don’t think anybody mentioned church plans. There’s a rule, and then there’s all these exceptions.

Fronstin: I think the two major categories are church plans, and I’m not sure we even have a good handle on how many people are covered by church plans because a lot of them tend to be small businesses, and they may not even offer coverage. And federal, state, and local government. I’m not sure if there’s another category in there that’s not covered by ERISA. I believe that the state and local governments have their own law that’s similar to ERISA, but it’s not ERISA.

Schuman: And I think when we talk about covered by ERISA, certainly it’s, What does ERISA afford? It’s not just about self-funded employers being able to offer uniform benefits nationwide. There are important protections. There are important disclosure requirements for employees, for participants that are included in there that are applicable to all ERISA plans, self-funded and insured plans, and obviously on the retirement plans, too.

But I just think it’s really important that we look to see the idea behind ERISA was that, yes, there will be this uniformity for self-funded plans. But for all ERISA plans, there are these protections and safeguards in there that are embedded in the law for the benefit of participants.

Rovner: And that’s why you used to get a phone-book-thick, “This is your plan documentation.” Now, it’s all online, and it’s all in 4-point type. But that’s where that comes from, right? At the requirement that you be told everything that your plan covers.

Schuman: Right. Correct.

Rovner: So, Larry, you kind of referred to this earlier. Self-funded ERISA plans are regulated not by the states but by the Department of Labor, which most people don’t know. And for a long time, if you were injured or someone died as a result of being denied care, the only thing that they could recover was the cost of the care that was denied. Not any damages for what happened. When did that finally change? And has it finally changed? What do you do now if you’re injured — you can’t go to your state regulatory agency?

Levitt: No, there have been some changes to that, but enforcement of ERISA is still relatively light at the administrative level compared to what state insurance departments do. And the Department of Labor just seems very far away to people compared to a state insurance department.

I think it’s really this structure of ERISA that, Julie, you said people were always resistant to amending in Congress, that has been resistant to amendment, right? I mean, this idea that states regulate insurance directly but that states cannot regulate group health plans under ERISA. And that’s had far-reaching health policy implications. So states looking to do employer mandates or anything that directly affects those group health plans, employer health plans, and that’s maybe …

Rovner: Also, states looking to do single-payer plans, right?

Levitt: Yeah. No, I mean, single-payer there might be some ways around ERISA through single-payer and taxation, but ERISA has been a barrier to state health reform efforts, for better or for worse.

Schuman: If maybe we can just step back 50 years, I think it’s … I wrote down this quote from one of the authors of ERISA, specifically on the ERISA preemption, and that was by Rep. John Dent, who was a Democrat from Pennsylvania who identified the ERISA preemption as the law’s crowning achievement.

And he said it was the crowning achievement because, without it, the legislation would not have enjoyed the support of both labor and management since it’s so fundamental for the ability of multistate employers to sponsor benefit plans to workers nationwide. So I think just kind of getting back into the minds of the drafters of ERISA, that bargain, if you will, that became ERISA preemption was really foundational to the law passing.

Rovner: And you could see why it would make sense. If you work for a national company and you get transferred from one state to another, your insurance shouldn’t change dramatically.

Schuman: Yeah. And I think fast-forward 50 years, and we’ve got, certainly, post-pandemic or after the pandemic, an increasingly mobile and remote workforce. And we have heard repeatedly about how ERISA preemption really promotes that worker mobility and the ability to work out of your house in another state or to be able to transfer from one location to another.

So think a little bit if we just see how the workforce itself has evolved, I think that ERISA preemption provision may become even more important. And I think increasingly, it’s not just large employers that find themselves — like nationwide or multistate employers — but because the workforce is more remote and mobile, and wants to be, that more and more employers of multistate employers, too.

Levitt: I would say we have increasingly seen smaller employers self-funding, and there are some advantages to that, right? They don’t necessarily have to pay premium taxes to states, and they are exempt from state benefit mandates that apply over and above beyond the Affordable Care Act. I mean, insurers have come up with very creative ways of allowing smaller businesses to self-fund and avoiding some of the risk by layering lots of reinsurance on top of that.

Fronstin: I was going to say, along with self-funding comes ease of administration here. Ilyse, you call it uniformity of benefits. But I think of employers, they don’t want to be offering 50 different health plans in 50 different states. And to the degree you’ve got the states doing something — whether it’s a single-payer or something short of that — employers, they just want to offer everyone the same benefit and make it as easy as possible to do so.

And my concern is if they had to comply with 50 different state laws to do so or create 50 different benefit plans, especially today with the ACA guaranteed issue and subsidized coverage, you’ll get to the point where if employers didn’t have the ability to provide one benefit plan across all 50 states, they’re not going to do it anymore, right? They’ve got … pre-ACA might’ve been different, but now they’ve got an alternative where their employees could get coverage if they didn’t offer coverage themselves.

Rovner: So that was all predicted. This huge movement away from employer-provided coverage after the ACA passed was predicted, and it didn’t happen.

Fronstin: I was one of those people predicting it. Yeah. Before the ACA passed, I was one of those people predicting it. And I think what happened is: One, being employers, they still value the benefit. They still understand there are business reasons to offer it, and they haven’t had a good excuse to get rid of it.

We haven’t had — other than the recession tied to covid — we haven’t had a recession. Our unemployment rate has been at historically low rates. And I think employers, they don’t want to mess with something that’s working for the most part because they use it to recruit and retain employees for the same thing they were doing back in the 1940s and ’50s when they first started offering it.

Schuman: I think it’s important to delineate the employer voice in here. And I think maybe there’s a perception that employers are just writing the checks or employers and health plans are kind of conflated. But employers are doing a lot more than just writing a check. And I think those, again, that have decided to self-fund want to be able to have control over how they’re spending their health care dollars. So again, they can try to drive more affordable, higher-value, higher-quality health care.

And so it’s not just about who writes the check, but the reasons behind employers saying, “Hey, we’re going to be spending … we spend a whole lot of money on our health benefits because we recognize that it’s good business. It’s good for employees. But we want to be able to have the ability to try to drive improvements in that to drive higher-value care.” And so that’s enabled by ERISA. So the health reforms and the health innovation, certainly there’s a lot coming from the states, but there’s a lot coming from employers, too.

Rovner: So what are the big issues going forward for ERISA? I mean, obviously, there’s still, if you Google ERISA, you get all kinds of lawsuits and challenges. And I mean, it’s still a very lively part of the law 50 years on.

Levitt: I mean, I think, Julie, you mentioned these lawsuits, and that is potentially a big issue going forward. Something called the Consolidated Appropriations Act added some transparency in fees that self-insured employer plans paid to providers. And that’s opened the door to some lawsuits challenging whether group health plans, ERISA plans, are acting as appropriate fiduciaries in trying to get the lowest costs, particularly for prescription drugs. And these started out as kind of a fringe movement, but I think pose some potential risks for group health plans.

Rovner: Ilyse, what are employers most concerned about?

Schuman: Well, I think that employers seeing the growing number of states that are trying to chip away, if not erode in a fundamental way, ERISA preemption is really alarming. A lot of these efforts have come up around pharmacy benefit managers and efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers at the state level.

But the way that they’ve done it, the states have really taken direct aim at ERISA preemption and self-funded plans and, I think, has much broader implications for self-funded group health plans beyond just the PBM context. And so I think that they’re looking at the growing number of states that are interested in passing laws that really erode ERISA preemption as very alarming.

Rovner: So I want to go around the table before we end. Sort of what do you think has been the biggest impact on the health system of ERISA, both for good and for not so good? I mean, it’s certainly one of the things that makes it so confusing to understand and explain. Larry, you want to go first?

Levitt: I think the biggest impact of ERISA has been putting the brakes on some state health reform efforts. States have found ways to get around it. Some raise some issues for employers, like Ilyse was saying, but it has really circumscribed what states can do around health reform. That said, ERISA has provided a very stable regulatory environment for employers and likely allowed employer coverage to grow over time in that environment.

Rovner: Paul?

Fronstin: Yeah, I’d say, in addition to that, it’s allowed employers to be innovative. Not every self-insured employer has been innovative, right? And there’s something like a million employers out there with a thousand or more employees. And the smaller of those are not necessarily being innovative, but they’re learning from the largest ones, right? The jumbo employers, who are trying to do different things when it comes to engaging the health system, right? Engaging hospitals and physicians and pharmaceutical managers.

And I think that that … the lessons learned from what they’re doing trickles down to the smaller self-insured employers, and it trickles out to the health insurers that are offering fully insured plans to small employers.

Rovner: Ilyse.

Schuman: I think ERISA has allowed employers to provide value-driven, comprehensive, affordable, higher-quality health coverage to working families across the country — 150 million, 180 million, guess it depends what stats you’re looking at, and that it’s withstood the test of time.

And I think that probably no stressor, like the pandemic, where many wondered what would emerge from that, and with some dents, but also with a lot of silver linings in terms of employers offering benefits to help their employees navigate through the pandemic. And so I think there’s a resiliency to the employer-sponsored system coupled with the innovation that Paul has mentioned.

Rovner: Last question. Yes or no? Is ERISA going to be around in another 50 years? In other words, are we still going to have this system of health coverage? I promise I will not hold you to it. Just best guess. Larry.

Levitt: I say no.

Rovner: Paul.

Fronstin: I answer “don’t know.”

Rovner:: That’s OK. Ilyse.

Schuman: Well, I will say that I just recently got a tortoise for my family that I’ve found will live 50 or 100 years, so beyond me. So will ERISA be around as long as Veggie, the tortoise? I don’t know.

I think that there’s really an important inflection point. And I think if addressing some of the underlying drivers of rising health care costs and consolidation, I think that if those are addressed, I think employer-provided coverage certainly has the ability to withstand the test of time over the next 50 years.

Rovner: Good. Thank you all so much. This has been great.

Schuman: Thanks a lot.

Levitt: Great. Thanks, Julie.

Schuman: Thank your team.

Levitt: Thanks all.

Schuman: Bye-bye.

Fronstin: Take care, everybody.

Levitt: Bye.

Rovner: Bye. OK, that’s our ERISA anniversary show. Big thanks to our guests, Larry Levitt of KFF, Paul Fronstin of EBRI, and Ilyse Schuman of the American Benefits Council. And before we go this week, we’re looking for your help on a project here at KFF Health News. Are you a young adult confused about navigating the exchanges used to pick plans? Have you bought a plan on an ACA exchange and found that it didn’t cover care you needed? Have you married or taken a job just to get insurance? Did you decide to go without coverage?

Whatever your story, KFF Health News and The New York Times want to hear it. Email your experience to Elisabeth Rosenthal — that’s elisabethr with an S, not a Z — @kff.org. 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 usual, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, where you can still find me. I’m @jrovner on X. We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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).

Before Ohio voters amended their constitution last year to protect abortion rights, the state’s attorney general, an anti-abortion Republican, said that doing so would upend at least 10 state laws limiting abortions.

But those laws remain a hurdle and straightforward access to abortions has yet to resume, said Bethany Lewis, executive director of the Preterm abortion clinic in Cleveland. “Legally, what actually happened in practice was not much,” she said.

Today, most of those laws limiting abortions — including a 24-hour waiting period and a 20-week abortion ban — continue to govern Ohio health providers, despite the constitutional amendment’s passage with nearly 57% of the vote. For abortion rights advocates, it’s going to take time and money to challenge the laws in the courts.

Voters in as many as 13 states could also weigh in this year on abortion ballot initiatives. But the seven states that have voted on abortion-related ballot measures since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections two years ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization show that an election can be just the beginning.

The state-by-state patchwork of constitutional amendments, laws, and regulations that determine where and how abortions are available across the country could take years to crystallize as old rules are reconciled with new ones in legislatures and courtrooms. And even though a ballot measure result may seem clear-cut, the residual web of older laws often still needs to be untangled. Left untouched, the statutes could pop up decades later, like an Arizona law from 1864 did this year.

Michigan was one of the first states where voters weighed in on abortion rights following the Dobbs decision in June 2022. In November of that year, Michigan voters approved by 13 percentage points an amendment to add abortion rights to the state constitution. It would be an additional 15 months, however, before the first lawsuit was filed to unwind the state’s existing abortion restrictions, sometimes called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP, laws. Michigan’s include a 24-hour waiting period.

The delay had a purpose, according to Elisabeth Smith, state policy and advocacy director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit: It’s preferable to change laws through the legislature than through litigation because the courts can only strike down a law, not replace one.

“It felt really important to allow the legislative process to go forward, and then to consider litigation if there were still statutes that were on the books the legislature hadn’t repealed,” Smith said.

Michigan’s Democratic-led legislature did pass an abortion rights package last year that was signed into law by the state’s Democratic governor in December. But the package left some regulations intact, including the mandatory waiting period, mandatory counseling, and a ban on abortions by non-doctor clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and midwives.

Smith’s group filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice. Smith said it’s unclear how long the litigation will take, but she hopes for a decision this year.

Abortion opponents such as Katie Daniel, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, are critical of the lawsuit and such policy unwinding efforts. She said abortion rights advocates used “deceptive campaigns” that claimed they wanted to restore the status quo in place before the Dobbs decision left abortion regulation up to the states.

“The litigation proves these amendments go farther than they will ever admit in a 30-second commercial,” Daniel said. “Removing the waiting period, counseling, and the requirement that abortions be done by doctors endangers women and limits their ability to know about resources and support available to them.”

A lawsuit to unwind most of the abortion restrictions in Ohio came from Preterm and other abortion providers four months after that state’s ballot measure passed. A legislative fix was unlikely because Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office. Preterm’s Lewis said she anticipated the litigation would take “quite some time.”

Dave Yost, the Ohio attorney general, is one of the defendants named in the suit. In a motion to dismiss the case, Yost argued that the abortion providers — which include several clinics as well as a physician, Catherine Romanos — lacked standing to sue.

He argued that Romanos failed to show she was harmed by the laws, explaining that “under any standard, Dr. Romanos, having always complied with these laws as a licensed physician in Ohio, is not harmed by them.”

Jessie Hill, an attorney representing Romanos and three of the clinics in the case, called the argument “just very wrong.” If Romanos can’t challenge the constitutionality of the old laws because she is complying with them, Hill said, then she would have to violate those laws and risk felonies to honor the new amendment.

“So, then she’s got to go get arrested and show up in court and then defend herself based on this new constitutional amendment?” Hill said. “For obvious reasons, that is not a system that we want to have.”

This year, Missouri is among the states poised to vote on a ballot measure to write protections for abortion into the state constitution. Abortions in Missouri have been banned in nearly every circumstance since 2022, but they were largely halted years earlier by a series of laws seeking to make abortions scarce.

Over the course of more than three decades, Missouri lawmakers instituted a 72-hour waiting period, imposed minimum dimensions for procedure rooms and hallways in abortion clinics, and mandated that abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, among other regulations.

Emily Wales, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said trying to comply with those laws visibly changed her organization’s facility in Columbia, Missouri: widened doorways, additional staff lockers, and even the distance between recovery chairs and door frames.

Even so, by 2018 the organization had to halt abortion services at that Columbia location, she said, with recovery chairs left in position for a final inspection that never happened. That left just one abortion clinic operating in the state, a separate Planned Parenthood affiliate in St. Louis. In 2019, that organization opened a large facility about 20 miles away in Illinois, where lawmakers were preserving abortion access rather than restricting it.

By 2021, the last full year before the Dobbs decision opened the door for Missouri’s ban, the number of recorded abortions in the state had dwindled to 150, down from 5,772 in 2011.

“At that point, Missourians were generally better served by leaving the state,” Wales said.

Both of Missouri’s Planned Parenthood affiliates have vowed to restore abortion services in the state as swiftly as possible if voters approve the proposed ballot measure. But the laws that diminished abortion access in the state would still be on the books and likely wouldn’t be overturned legislatively under a Republican-controlled legislature and governor’s office. The laws would surely face challenges in court, yet that could take a while.

“They will be unconstitutional under the language that’s in the amendment,” Wales said. “But it’s a process.”

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.

Some justices suggested the Supreme Court had said its piece on abortion law when it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This term, however, the court has agreed to review another abortion case. At issue is whether a federal law requiring emergency care in hospitals overrides Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. A decision is expected by summer.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid finalized the first-ever minimum staffing requirements for nursing homes participating in the programs. But the industry argues that there are not enough workers to hire to meet the standards.

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week’s Supreme Court hearing on emergency abortion care in Idaho was the first challenge to a state’s abortion ban since the overturn of the constitutional right to an abortion. Unlike previous abortion cases, this one focused on the everyday impacts of bans on abortion care — cases in which pregnant patients experienced medical emergencies.
• Establishment medical groups and doctors themselves are getting more vocal and active as states set laws on abortion access. In a departure from earlier political moments, some major medical groups are campaigning on state ballot measures.
• Medicaid officials this week finalized new rules intended to more closely regulate managed-care plans that enroll Medicaid patients. The rules are intended to ensure, among other things, that patients have prompt access to needed primary care doctors and specialists.
• Also this week, the Federal Trade Commission voted to ban most “noncompete” clauses in employment contracts. Such language has become common in health care and prevents not just doctors but other health workers from changing jobs — often forcing those workers to move or commute to leave a position. Business interests are already suing to block the new rules, claiming they would be too expensive and risk the loss of proprietary information to competitors.
• The fallout from the cyberattack of Change Healthcare continues, as yet another group is demanding ransom from UnitedHealth Group, Change’s owner. UnitedHealth said in a statement this week that the records of “a substantial portion of America” may be involved in the breach.

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “Women Are Less Likely To Die When Treated by Female Doctors, Study Suggests,” by Liz Szabo.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: States Newsroom’s “Loss of Federal Protection in Idaho Spurs Pregnant Patients To Plan for Emergency Air Transport,” by Kelcie Moseley-Morris.  

Tami Luhby: The Associated Press’ “Mississippi Lawmakers Haggle Over Possible Medicaid Expansion as Their Legislative Session Nears End,” by Emily Wagster Pettus.  

Joanne Kenen: States Newsroom’s “Missouri Prison Agency To Pay $60K for Sunshine Law Violations Over Inmate Death Records,” by Rudi Keller.  

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• American Economic Review’s “Is There Too Little Antitrust Enforcement in the U.S. Hospital Sector?” by Zarek Brot-Goldberg, Zack Cooper, Stuart Craig, and Lev Klarnet.
• KFF Health News’ “Medical Providers Still Grappling With UnitedHealth Cyberattack: ‘More Devastating Than Covid,” by Samantha Liss.

CLICK TO OPEN THE TRANSCRIPT

Transcript: Abortion — Again — At the Supreme Court

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Hello.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: No interview this week, but wow, tons of news, so we are going to get right to it. We will start at the Supreme Court, which yesterday heard oral arguments in a case out of Idaho over whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, trumps Idaho’s almost complete abortion ban. This is the second abortion case the high court has heard in as many months and the first to actively challenge a state’s abortion ban since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Last month’s case, for those who have forgotten already, was about the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Alice, you and I both listened to these arguments. Did you hear any hints on which way the court might be leaning here?

Ollstein: The usual caveat that you can’t always tell by the questions they ask. Sometimes they play devil’s advocate or it’s not indicative of how they will rule on the case, but it did seem that at least a couple of the court’s conservatives were interested in really taking a tough look at Idaho’s argument. Obviously, some of the other conservatives were very much in support of Idaho’s argument that its doctors should not be compelled to perform abortions for patients experiencing a medical emergency. It really struck me from the arguments how much it focused on what’s actually going on on the ground.

That was a huge departure from a lot of other Supreme Court arguments and a lot of Supreme Court arguments on abortion where it’s a lot of hypotheticals and getting into the legal weeds. This was just like they were reading these concrete, reported stories of what’s been happening in Idaho and other states because of these abortion bans. People turned away while they were actively miscarrying, people being flown across state lines to receive timely care. I think whether that will make a difference that the justices are sort of being confronted with the concrete ramifications of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision or not remains to be seen.

Rovner: I thought one of the things that it looked like very much like last month’s argument is that the women justices were very much about real details and talking about medical conditions, about ectopic pregnancies and premature rupture of membranes and things that none of the men mentioned at all. The men were sort of very legalistic and the women, including Amy Coney Barrett, who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, were very much all about, as you said, what’s going on on the ground and what this distinction means. I mean, where we are is that Idaho has an exception in its abortion ban, but only for the life of the woman. Whereas EMTALA says you have to stabilize someone in an emergency situation and it’s been interpreted by the federal government to say sometimes that stabilization means terminating a pregnancy, as in the case of premature rupture of membranes or an ectopic pregnancy or a case where the woman is going to hemorrhage and is actively hemorrhaging.

That question of where that line is, between what’s an immediate threat to life and what’s just a threat to health or a threat to life soon, was the crux of this case. And it really does feel uncomfortably like we have nine Supreme Court justices making, really, medical decisions.

Ollstein: Yeah, it struck me how Amy Coney Barrett seemed to get pretty frustrated with Idaho’s attorney at a couple points. Idaho’s attorney was saying kind of, “Nothing to see here. There’s no problem. Since we allow lifesaving abortions and that’s what is required under EMTALA, there’s no conflict.” So Amy Coney Barrett was like, “Well, why are you here then? Why are you before us?” The reason is that they’re trying to get this lower-court injunction lifted even though it’s not in effect right now. The other point she got kinda testy was when Idaho was saying that their law is clear, doctors know what to do, and Amy Coney Barrett asked, “Well, couldn’t a prosecutor come in later and disagree and said, “Oh, you performed an abortion you said was to save someone’s life, but I don’t think it was necessary to save her life and I’m going to charge you criminally?” And the Idaho attorney conceded that that could happen.

So I think her vote could potentially be in play, but I don’t know if it’s going to be enough to overcome the court’s conservatives who are very skeptical that EMTALA should compel states to do anything.

Rovner: So the medical community has been quite outspoken in this case. The American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Emergency Physicians have all filed briefs saying the Idaho ban could require them to violate professional ethics, wrote the immediate president of the AMA, Jack Resnick, in an op-ed. “It is reckless for Idaho to tell emergency physicians that they must ignore their moral and ethical standards and stand by while a septic patient begins to lose kidney function or when a hemorrhaging patient faces only a 30% chance of death.” But I feel like the medical profession has long since lost control of the abortion issue. I mean, is there any chance here that they might prevail? I have to say this week I’ve gotten so many emails from so many doctor groups saying, “Oh my goodness, look what’s happening. They’re going to put us in this impossible situation.” To which I want my response to be, “Where have you been for the last 20 years?”

Ollstein: I mean, I think it is notable that these establishment medical groups are becoming more vocal. I mean, some might say better late than never, and I think in some instances they are having an impact at the state level. They have pushed some state legislatures to add or expand exemptions to abortion bans. But a lot of times Republican lawmakers have rejected calls from state medical associations to do that, and so I think filing amicus briefs is a way to have your say, lobbying at the state level is a way to have your say. Some doctors are even running for office specifically on this issue. And also, medical groups are campaigning hard on these state abortion referendums. I reported on doctor groups door-knocking in Ohio, for instance, before that referendum won big.

I think it’s really interesting to see the medical community get a lot more vocal on something they’ve either tried to stay out of or been vocal on the other side on in the past, but we’ll have to see how much impact that actually has.

Rovner: Well, one thing this case highlights is how pregnant women who experience complications that can threaten their health or future fertility, but are not immediately life-threatening, can end up in really terrible circumstances, as we heard in a number of anecdotes at the oral arguments. The Associated Press “FOIA’d”[requested Freedom of Information Act] EMTALA pregnancy complaint records from several states with abortion bans and found some pretty horrific examples, including one woman who miscarried in the emergency room lobby restroom after she was turned away from the registration desk. Another who was turned away and ended up giving birth in a car on the way to another hospital. That baby died. These are not people who go to the emergency room in search of abortions. They’re women who are trying to maintain pregnancies. Is the concept that people ending up in the most horrific situations are often those who most want children, is that finally getting through here?

Ollstein: What struck me most about that reporting is that the documents they got were just from the first few months after Roe v. Wade was overturned, so we have no idea what’s happening now. It could be better, it could be much worse, it could be the same. I think that lack of transparency makes this really hard to report on accurately. And the fact that it took The AP a year to even get those few heavily redacted documents speaks to the challenge here. We want an accurate picture of how these bans are impacting the provision of health care around the country, and it’s really hard to get.

Rovner: I know the Biden administration has been kind of trying to keep this quiet. I mean, not out there sort of blaring what’s happening. They’ve been sort of leaving that to the politics side and this is obviously the policy side. Obviously on the politics side, the Biden administration is getting bolder about using abortion as a campaign issue. The president himself gave a speech in Florida where a six-week ban is set to take effect next week and pinned all the abortion restrictions directly on former President Trump, who he pointed out has taken credit for them. Biden actually said the word abortion twice in that speech. I was listening very closely and went back and counted. I think that’s a first. They’re definitely stepping up the pressure politically, right?

Ollstein: Yes. The Biden campaign is leaning very hard on this. Even in states where it’s debatable whether they have a chance, like Florida, I think that there’s an interest, especially after seeing all of these referendums and ballot measures win big. It’s really shown Democrats that this is a very popular issue to run on, that they shouldn’t be afraid of it, that they should lean into it. I think you are seeing attempts to do that. It’s not always the language that the abortion rights advocacy community wants to hear, but it’s definitely more than we’ve heard from the Biden administration in the past.

I think you’re also seeing an attempt to sort of take the air out of Trump’s “Let’s leave it to states. I am reasonable and moderate” sort-of pitch. By highlighting what’s happening on the ground in certain states, it’s an attempt to say, “OK, you want to leave it to states? Then you own all of this. You own every woman being turned away from a hospital while she’s miscarrying. You own every instance of a ban going into effect and people having to travel across state lines,” et cetera. But whether just blaming Trump and arguing that he would be worse is enough versus saying what Biden would actually do and continue to do, I think that’s what we’ve heard people want to hear more of. Although there has been some action from the Biden administration recently.

Rovner: That was just going to be my next question. The one policy change the Biden administration did do this week was finalized a rule expanding the health records protections under HIPAA to abortion information. Why was this important? It sounds pretty nerdy.

Ollstein: This has been in the works for more than a year. A lot of people have been wondering why it’s been taking so long and worried that if it took even longer, it would be easier to get rid of it if a new administration takes over. But essentially this is to make it harder for states to reach across state lines to try to obtain information and use it to prosecute for having an abortion. It’s an attempt to better protect that data and so we heard a lot of praise after the announcement came out from abortion rights groups and some medical groups, and I would anticipate some groups on the right would sue. I’ve seen some complaints saying this will prevent law enforcement from investigating actual crimes against people, and so I expect to see some legal challenges soon.

Kenen: There are all sorts of efforts to stop both travel for abortion. There are also laws on books already, there have been for a number of years, about helping a minor cross state lines for abortion. There’s the attempts to stop the shipment of abortion pills from a legal state into a state that has a ban. There’s all sorts of things where, whether the intent is to actually prosecute a woman or a pregnant person, versus collecting evidence for some kind of larger crackdown or prosecution, this is potentially a piece … patient records are potentially a piece of that. We’ve talked a few weeks ago, maybe a month or two ago by now, about some Texas communities that wanted to say, “If you drive on the road in our town on the way to an abortion, we’re going to arrest you.” How they figure out logistically and practically … What are you going to do? Stop everybody on the road and give them a pregnancy test?

I mean, I don’t know how you enforce that, but just that these ideas are out there and on the books through this privacy shield. We have privacy under HIPAA, all of us, so to interpret it this way, or reinforce it depending on your political point of view, undermine excessively, whatever, but this is sort of pivotal because there’s so many ways these records could be used in various kinds of legislative and prosecutorial ways.

Rovner: As you point out, it’s not theoretical. We’ve seen attorneys general — Indiana and Kansas — and some other states, actually, and Texas say that they want to go after these records, so it’s not …

Kenen: Right and we’ve seen cases of the child rape victim and the prosecutor, what happened with the doctor, and so it’s not theoretical. It’s not widespread right now, but it’s not theoretical. Whether the pregnancy was planned and wanted or it was unplanned and ended up being wanted, going through a pregnancy loss is not just medically difficult, depending on when in pregnancy it occurs and under what circumstances. It can be medically quite complicated and it’s emotionally devastating. So to just get pulled into these political legal fights when you’ve already been bleeding in the parking lot or whatever, or having lost a pregnancy, it’s like you forget these are human beings. These are people going through medical crises.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, abortion is far from the only big health news this week. On Monday, the Biden administration finalized more long-awaited rules regarding staffing in nursing homes that participate in Medicare or Medicaid. Tami, what’s in these rules and why is the concept that nursing homes should have nurses on duty so controversial?

Luhby: It is very controversial and it’s also very consequential. So on Monday, as you said, the Biden administration finalized the first-ever minimum staffing rules at nursing homes involved in Medicare and Medicaid, and they say it’s crucial for patient safety and quality of care. It requires that all nursing homes provide a total of at least 3.48 hours of nursing care per resident per day, including defined periods of care from registered nurses and from nurses’ aides. Plus, nursing homes must have a registered nurse on-site at all times, which is different than the rules now. Now, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is giving the nursing homes some time to staff up. The mandate will be phased in over three years with rural communities having up to five years and they’re also giving temporary exemptions for facilities in areas with workforce shortages that demonstrate a good faith effort to hire. When I spoke to [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary [Xavier] Becerra about the nursing home industry’s vocal concerns that this could cause a lot of nursing homes to close or limit admissions, he said, “Well, a business model that is based on understaffing is not a very good business model and is dangerous for patients.”

So, it’s going to be a heavy lift for nursing homes. According to HHS, 75% of them will have to hire staff, including 12,000 registered nurses and 77,000 aides. And also, 22% of them will need to hire registered nurses to meet the around-the-clock mandate. The nursing home operators, not surprisingly, have strongly pushed back on this rule even back when it was first proposed in September, saying that they’re already having staffing problems amid a nationwide shortage of nurses. The American Health Care Association called the mandate an unreasonable standard that only threatens to shut down more nursing homes, displace hundreds of thousands of residents, and restrict seniors’ access to care.

Rovner: We should point out the American Health Care Association is the lobbying group for nursing homes.

Luhby: Yes. What’s interesting also, though, is that on the other side, you have advocacy groups that are saying that it doesn’t go far enough and they’re citing a 2001 CMS study that found that nursing home residents need at least 4.1 hours of daily care. To add to all of this, if it’s not complicated and controversial enough, Congress is getting involved and is also split over the rules. Some lawmakers, like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey, generally support it, but nearly a hundred House members from both parties wrote to HHS Secretary Becerra expressing their concern that the mandate could lead to nursing home closures. And there’s a bipartisan Senate bill and a House Republican bill that would prohibit HHS from finalizing the rule. So we have time before this goes into effect. It goes into effect in phases, and we’ll see if lawmakers move to block the mandate or if the courts do, but it’s going to be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Rovner: Joanne wanted to add something.

Kenen: Well, first of all, as we say frequently, there’s always lawsuits. We have a health care/lawsuit system, so it’s not over. But I think the other thing is I think families who put a loved one in a nursing home don’t understand how little nursing, let alone doctoring, goes on. The name is “nursing” home and people expect there to be a nurse there, meaning a registered nurse. I think people often think there’s a doctor there, where the doctors are not there very much. That’s one reason the lack of medical care on-site, not only could there be emergencies, but I mean even things that could be treated in place if there is a physician. I mean, it’s just dial 911 and put them in an ambulance and send them to the hospital. And we do have this problem with hospital readmission, which is not just a cost problem and a regulatory problem, it’s really bad for patients to … the continuity of care is good and lack of continuity and handoffs and change, sending people back-and-forth is not good for them.

Obviously, there are times there’s an emergency and you need to send someone to a hospital, but not always. If there was a doctor or nurse, there’s some things that you don’t have to call 911 for. Because you don’t know or don’t learn about nursing homes until you have a relative there or until you’re a reporter who has to write about them. You don’t realize that they’re very custodial and there’s not a lot of taken care of in terms of getting assistance in bathing and walking and things like that. There’s less medical care, including nursing care, than people realize until your loved one is there. I mean, when I covered them the first time, I was really shocked. I mean, it’s 20 years ago the first time I wrote about it, but my assumption of what was there and what is actually there was a big gap.

Rovner: Tami.

Luhby: One thing also, though is … I mean, yes, that is definitely true about the medical care, but we’re also talking about just the care, not only the nursing. But that’s why so many aides need to be hired because you also have situations in nursing homes where people aren’t getting help to go to the bathroom, aren’t getting showered regularly, aren’t being watched. Maybe they’re trying to go to the bathroom themselves and they’re falling because they have to go. I mean, unfortunately, I’ve had experience with nursing homes with my family and I’ve seen this. But also I think it’s been pretty well reported in a lot of publications and studies and such. But there are a lot of problems in nursing homes, in general, and staffing.

Rovner: Well, just to talk about how long this is going on, former Sen. David Pryor died this week. When he was a House member, he rather famously went undercover at a nursing home to try and spotlight. That was when we first started to hear about some of the conditions in nursing homes. He was instrumental in doing the work that got the original federal nursing home standards passed in 1987, which was the first time I covered this issue, and even then there was a big fight in 1987 about should there be a staffing mandate? It’s like, hello, if we’re going to improve care in nursing homes, maybe we should make sure there are enough people to provide care. Even then the nursing home industry was saying, “But we have a shortage. We can’t hire enough people to actually do this if you give us a staffing mandate.” So literally, this has gone back-and-forth since 1987. And, as Joanne points out, it’s still in all likelihood not over, but one could sort of think, gee, they’ve had two generations now to come up with enough people to work in these nursing homes. Maybe Becerra is right. Maybe there’s something wrong with the business model?

Luhby: I was going to say, we know the business model is also moving more towards private equity, which is not necessarily going to be as concerned with the staffing levels. We know that the staffing levels … I think there’ve been studies that show that staffing levels are generally lower in investor-owned nursing homes. So there’s that.

Kenen: There’ve been a lot of demographic changes. I mean, you live longer, but you don’t always live healthier. We have families that are spread out. Not everybody’s living in the same town anymore. I mean, they haven’t for a number of decades now, but your daughter-in-law is 3,000 miles away. She can’t come to your house every day. At the same time, we do have a push and it’s not brand-new, it’s a number of years now, to do more home- and community-based care, but there are shortages and waiting lists and problems there, too. So there are a lot of people who need institutional care. Whether they wanted to have that or not, that’s where they go because either there’s not enough community support or they don’t have the family to fill in the gaps or they’re too medically complicated or whatever. Given the demographic trends and the degree of chronic disease and disability, this is not going away. It’s like Julie said, it’s way overdue. We need to figure it out. There are workforce shortages to train more CRNAs [certified registered nurse anesthetists] like the trained aides. It’s not a five-, six-year program. I mean, this can be done and is done somewhere in community colleges. You can do this. You can improve at all levels. You need more nurse RNs, nurses or advanced practice nurses, but you also need more of everything else. People who go to work in these jobs, by and large, do want to provide quality, compassionate care, and it’s hard to do if there are not enough of you.

Rovner: But they’re also super hard jobs and super stressful and super physically demanding.

Kenen: Hoisting and …

Rovner: Yeah, yeah. And not well-paid.

Kenen: Keeping track of a lot of stuff.

Rovner: Well, in a related move, the Biden administration this week also finalized rules that will attempt to make the quality of Medicaid managed-care plans more transparent. Among other things, the rules establish national wait time limits for certain types of medical care and require states to conduct secret shopper surveys of insurance provider networks to make sure there are enough practitioners available to serve the patient population. The administration says these rules are needed because so many Medicaid patients are now in managed care and regulations just haven’t kept up. Will these be enough to actually protect these often very vulnerable populations? I mean, obviously these people are not quite as vulnerable as people in nursing homes, but they’re kind of the next level down.

Kenen: Well, I think that we’ve seen a history of waves of regulation. Then whatever the status quo becomes, it doesn’t stay the status quo. Whether, as Tami mentioned, there’s more private equity or there’s monopolization and consolidation or just new state regulation. I mean, it’s not static. Do we know how this move is going to play out? No. Do we assume that the bad actors who don’t want to comply will find new ways of doing things that in five years we’ll have another set of regulations that we’ll be talking about? I mean, unfortunately, that’s the way things work. Some regulatory approaches or legal approaches work and others just sort of morph. There’s a lot of history of innovative great actors and lousy bad actors.

Rovner: I say it’s been a big week for federal regulation because we also have breaking news from the Federal Trade Commission, of all places. On Tuesday, the commissioners voted to finalize rules banning most noncompete clauses in employment contracts. At an event here at KFF, the FTC chair, Lina Kahn, said a surprisingly large number of comments about that proposed rule came from health care workers. Here’s a snippet from that conversation.

Lina Khan: There were a whole bunch of comments that said, “I signed this, but it’s not like I was exercising real choice. It felt coercive.” We also heard a lot about the effect of these noncompetes and the way that, especially in rural areas, if you want to switch employers and there’s really only one other option locally, if a noncompete is barring you from taking a job with that other hospital, practically to change jobs you have to leave the state. Right? And just how destructive and devastating that is for people and their families, especially if they’re choosing between staying in a job where the employer realizes that this is a captive employee and they don’t really have to compete in offering them better opportunities, better wages, and having to instead think about uprooting their family. We also heard from doctors who did not uproot their families, but instead just commuted hours and hours a day driving. People saying, “For five years I didn’t really see my kids at all awake, ever, because I was always on the road because of this noncompete.” So just really vivid stories from people.

Rovner: So even though the vote was less than 48 hours ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already filed suit to block the rules as have some smaller business groups. Why do businesses think they need to prevent workers from changing jobs near where they live? I mean, you could see it for people who’ve invented something. You don’t want them to walk out the door with proprietary secrets, but baristas at Starbucks and even nurses are not walking out with trade secrets.

Kenen: Well, I mean, this is common in doctors’ employment contracts, nurses, it’s everything. I think it’s partly because there are provider shortages in some places and they want to keep the workforce they have instead of having them be lured across town to a competitor where they could be paid more and then you have to pay even more to hire the next one. So that’s part of it. It’s economic. A lot of it’s economic. I mean, there’s some fear of patients going with a certain beloved provider, a doctor goes somewhere else. But I think it’s basically they don’t want churn. They don’t want to have to keep paying more. Somebody gets a job offer across the street and they don’t want to take it. They like where they are, but they’re going to ask for more money. It’s largely economic in a market where there’s scarcity of some specialties and certainly nursing. I mean, there’s questions about are there are not enough nurses? Or are we just putting them in the wrong places? But speaking generally, there’s a nursing shortage and physicians, we don’t have enough primary care providers. We certainly don’t have enough geriatricians. We don’t have enough mental health providers. We don’t have enough of a lot of things. This helps the employer, in this case, the health system, usually.

Rovner: I have to say it was only in the last couple of years that I even became aware there were noncompetes in health care. I mean, I knew about them for weathercasters on local stations. It’s like if you leave, you have to go to another station in another city. I had absolutely no idea that they were so common, as you point out, for so many economic reasons. Obviously this has also already been challenged in court, so we’ll have to see how that plays out.

Also this week on the antitrust front, we have a paper from three health economists published in the American Economic Review who calculated that if the Federal Trade Commission had been more aggressive about flagging and potentially blocking hospital mergers just between 2010 and 2015, health care prices could have been 5% lower. Researchers blame the FTC’s limited budget, but you have to wonder if that budget is limited because business has so much clout in Washington and really doesn’t want eager regulators snooping into their potentially anticompetitive practices. I mean, the FTC has been around for 120-some years now. Occasionally it tries to do big things like with these noncompetes, but mostly it doesn’t do as much as obviously economists and people who study it think that it could do. I mean, we certainly have problems with lack of competition in health care.

Ollstein: I think we have an unusually aggressive FTC right now, so it’ll be really interesting to see what they can accomplish in whatever time this administration has remaining to it, which remains to be seen. I have seen some more aggressive action from the agency in the past on things like payday lending and some of these other sort of maybe more fringy sectors of the economy. So to take on health care, which is so central and such a behemoth and, like you said, there’s so much political power behind it, as Joanne said, guarantee of lawsuits and coverage from us forever basically.

Kenen: The other point that’s worth making, I don’t think any of us have said this, it doesn’t apply to nonprofit hospitals or health systems, and that’s a lot of … market-dominant health care systems that are nonprofits, nominally their tax status is nonprofit. It’s a very confusing term to normal people, but these bans on noncompetes do not apply to the nonprofit sector, which is a lot of health care.

Rovner: Yet still it’s set off quite a conflagration since they passed this on Tuesday. Well, finally this week, speaking of big health care business, we are still seeing ramifications from that Change Healthcare hack back in February. While UnitedHealth Group, which owns Change, says things are approaching normality, that’s not the case for providers who still can’t submit bills or collect payments except doing it on paper. Meanwhile, in what’s going to be some kind of movie or miniseries someday, a second group is now demanding ransom after publishing some of the stolen data. If you’ve been following this story along with us, you’ll remember that United reportedly already paid a ransom of $22 million, except that it appears that the group that got that money stiffed the group that actually has control of the pirated data.

Oh, and buried in UnitedHealthcare’s news “update” posted on its website, it says protected health information, “which could cover a substantial proportion of people of America,” is involved in the hack. Can this get any worse?

Kenen: Snakes? I don’t think any of us journalists can quite comprehend. I mean, we understand intellectually, but I don’t think we understand what it’s like to be the billing clerk at a major practice right now trying to figure out what’s where and how to get paid and what it means for patients and what’s next. I mean, this is a tremendous hack, but it’s not the last.

Rovner: Yeah, and the idea that I think — what did they say? — 1 out of every 3 health care transactions goes through Change, I certainly wasn’t aware of. I think most reporters who are covering this weren’t aware of. I think certainly none of the public was aware of, that there’s that much of the money-changing that goes on from one, as we now know, vulnerable organization is a little bit scary.

Luhby: It shows the power of UnitedHealth[care] in the market. I mean, it’s the largest insurer and people think of it, “OK, I have insurance through it,” but they don’t realize all of the other tentacles that are attached.

Kenen: It also shows that there’s hack after hack after hack after hack. This company knew that they were big and powerful and central, and many of us never heard of them or barely knew what they were. But they knew what they were and despite all the warnings of the need for better and higher protection, cybersecurity protections, these things are going on still. I don’t have the technical expertise to know, well, OK, everybody’s doing everything they’re supposed to do as a health system, but the hackers are just always a step ahead. Or whether they’re really not doing everything they’re supposed to do and weak links in their own chains. Is it the diabolical geniuses? Or is it people still not taking this seriously enough?

Rovner: I will add that in our discussion with FTC Chair Lina Kahn, she did talk about cybersecurity as something that the FTC is going to be looking at in deciding whether there is unfair competition going on. Also, she has promised to come on the podcast, so hopefully we will get her in the next several weeks.

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

Luhby: Well, my extra credit is an AP story by Emily Wagster Pettus titled “Mississippi Lawmakers Haggle Over Possible Medicaid Expansion as Their Legislative Session Nears End.” This story brings us up to date on the negotiations between the House and Senate in Mississippi over expanding Medicaid. Just a quick refresher for listeners: Mississippi is one of 10 states that hasn’t expanded Medicaid yet, and this is the first time, and it’s really very consequential that the Republican-led legislature has seriously considered doing so. The problem is the House and Senate versions are very, very different. The House bill is more like a traditional Medicaid expansion, providing coverage for those earning up to 138% of the poverty level, although it would also try to institute a work requirement, and about 200,000 people would gain coverage. But the Senate version would only extend coverage to those earning up to 100% of the poverty level, which the Senate Medicaid committee chair thought would add about 40,000 to the program, and it would also come with a very strict work requirement.

So on Tuesday, lawmakers met to try to hash out a compromise. They did so in public. It was a public meeting recorded, which was very unusual, and apparently there were people waiting hours to get in. It was standing room only. The House offered a plan that would cover people earning up to 100% of the poverty level under Medicaid, while those earning between 100% and 138% would receive subsidies to buy insurance through the ACA exchange. But the Senate did not offer a proposal nor immediately respond to the one in the House. There are more meetings scheduled. I think there was another one yesterday. It remains to be seen what will happen, but the clock is ticking. The state legislature only is in session until May 5, and it doesn’t give them much time.

Another wrinkle is that it’s important to note that Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, has repeatedly voiced his opposition to Medicaid expansion in recent months and is likely to veto any bill. So if lawmakers do eventually agree on a compromise, they may very well also have to vote on whether to override the veto by the governor. This happened in Kansas in 2017 where the legislature did pass Medicaid expansion, Republican governor vetoed it, and the legislature was not able to override the veto and it never got that far again.

Rovner: So yes, we will keep our eyes on Mississippi. Thank you for the update. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I have a piece from States Newsroom related to the Supreme Court arguments on Idaho’s abortion ban and its impact on pregnant patients. The piece [“Loss of Federal Protection in Idaho Spurs Pregnant Patients To Plan for Emergency Air Transport”] is about the increase in patients being airlifted out of the state on these Life Flight [Network] emergency transports and the situation and doctors’ hesitancy to provide abortion care, even when they feel it’s medically necessary, is leading to this increase in flying patients to Oregon and Washington and Utah and neighboring states. It’s getting to the point where some doctors are even recommending people who are pregnant or planning to be pregnant purchase memberships in these flight companies, which normally is only recommended for people who do extreme outdoor sports who may need to be rescued or who ride motorcycles. So the fact that just being pregnant is becoming a category in which you are recommended to have this kind of insurance is pretty wild.

Rovner: Yeah. Welcome to 2024. Joanne.

Kenen: This is a piece from the Missouri Independent, which is also part of the States Newsroom, by Rudi Keller, and the headline is “Missouri Prison Agency To Pay $60K for Sunshine Law Violations Over Inmate Death Records.” That doesn’t sound quite as dramatic as this story really is. It’s about a mother who’s been trying to find out how her son was left unprotected, and he died by suicide, hanged himself in solitary confinement, when he had a history of mental illness. He was serving time for robbery. He wasn’t a murderer. I mean, he was obviously in prison. He had done something wrong, very wrong. He had had a 13-year sentence. But he had a history of mental illness. He had a history of past suicide attempts. He had been taken off some of his drugs, and she has been trying to find out what happened. But it’s not just her. There are other cases. The number of deaths in Missouri prisons has actually gone up in the last few years, even though the prison population itself has gone down. The headline is sort of the tip of a rather sad iceberg.

Rovner: Prison health care, I think, is something that people are starting to look at more closely, but there’s a lot of stories there to be done. Well, my story this week is from my friend and former colleague Liz Szabo, and it’s called “Women Are Less Likely To Die When Treated by Female Doctors, Study Suggests.” Now, this was a study of women on Medicare who were hospitalized, so not everybody, and the difference was small, but statistically significant. Those women treated by women doctors were slightly less likely to die in the ensuing 30 days than those treated by male doctors. It’s not entirely clear why, but at least part of it is that women tend to take other women’s problems more seriously, and women patients may be more likely to open up to other women doctors.

It’s another data point in trying to close the gap between women and men and the gap between people of color and white people when it comes to health care. So more studies to come.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions to whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where do you hang these days?

Kenen: Occasionally on X @JoanneKenen, but not very much, and on threads @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: Best place is cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Alice?

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).