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).

Es que el hospital donde se atendía, Winner Regional Health, se ha sumado recientemente al cada vez mayor número de centros de salud rurales que cierran sus unidades de maternidad.

“Ahora va a ser mucho más estresante y complicado para las mujeres recibir la atención médica que necesitan, porque tienen que ir mucho más lejos”, dijo Hofeldt, que tiene fecha de parto de su primer hijo el 10 de junio.

Hofeldt agregó que los viajes más largos suponen más gasto en gasolina y un mayor riesgo de no llegar a tiempo al hospital. “Mi principal preocupación es tener que parir en un auto”, afirma.

Más de un centenar de hospitales rurales han dejado de atender partos desde 2021, según el Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, una organización sin fines de lucro. El cierre de los servicios de obstetricia se suele achacar a la falta de personal y la falta de presupuesto.

En la actualidad, alrededor del 58% de los condados de Dakota del Sur no cuentan con salas de parto. Es la segunda tasa más alta del país, después de Dakota del Norte, según March of Dimes, una organización que asiste a las madres y sus bebés.

Además, el Departamento de Salud de Dakota del Sur informó que las mujeres embarazadas y los bebés del estado — especialmente las afroamericanas y las nativas americanas— presentan tasas más altas de complicaciones y mortalidad.

Winner Regional Health atiende a comunidades rurales en Dakota del Sur y Nebraska, incluyendo parte de la reserva indígena Rosebud Sioux. El año pasado nacieron allí 107 bebés, una baja considerable respecto de los 158 que nacieron en 2021, contó su director ejecutivo, Brian Williams.

Los hospitales más cercanos con servicios de maternidad se encuentran en pueblos rurales a una hora de distancia, o más, de Winner.

Sin embargo, varias mujeres afirmaron que el trayecto en coche hasta esos centros las llevaría por zonas donde no hay señal de celular confiable, lo que podría suponer un problema si tuvieran una emergencia en el camino.

KFF Health News habló con cinco pacientes de la zona de Winner que tenían previsto que su parto fuera en el Avera St. Mary’s Hospital de Pierre, a unas 90 millas de Winner, o en uno de los grandes centros médicos de Sioux Falls, a 170 millas de distancia.

Hofeldt y su novio conducen cada tres semanas para ir a las citas prenatales en el hospital de Pierre, que brinda servicios a la pequeña capital y a la vasta zona rural circundante.

A medida que se acerque la fecha del parto, las citas de control y, por lo tanto los viajes, tendrán que ser semanales. Ninguno de los dos tiene un empleo que le brinde permiso con goce de sueldo para ese tipo de consulta médica.

“Cuando necesitamos ir a Pierre, tenemos que tomarnos casi todo el día libre”, explicó Hofeldt, que nació en el hospital de Winner.

Eso significa perder una parte del salario y gastar dinero extra en el viaje. Además, no todo el mundo tiene auto ni dinero para la gasolina, y los servicios de autobús son escasos en las zonas rurales del país.

Algunas mujeres también tienen que pagar el cuidado de sus otros hijos para poder ir al médico cuando el hospital está lejos. Y, cuando nace el bebé, tal vez tengan que asumir el costo de un hotel para los familiares.

Amy Lueking, la médica que atiende a Hofeldt en Pierre, dijo que cuando las pacientes no pueden superar estas barreras, los obstetras tienen la opción de darles dispositivos para monitorear el embarazo en el hogar y ofrecerles consulta por teléfono o videoconferencia.

Las pacientes también pueden hacerse los controles prenatales en un hospital o una clínica local y, más tarde, ponerse en contacto con un profesional de un hospital donde se practiquen partos, dijo Lueking.

Sin embargo, algunas zonas rurales no tienen acceso a la telesalud. Y algunas pacientes, como Hofeldt, no quieren dividir su atención, establecer relaciones con dos médicos y ocuparse de cuestiones logísticas como transferir historias clínicas.

Durante una cita reciente, Lueking deslizó un dispositivo de ultrasonido sobre el útero de Hofeldt. El ritmo de los latidos del corazón del feto resonó en el monitor.

“Creo que es el mejor sonido del mundo”, expresó Lueking.

Hofeldt le comentó que quería un parto lo más natural posible.

Pero lograr que el parto se desarrolle según lo planeado suele ser complicado para quienes viven en zonas rurales, lejos del hospital. Para estar seguras de que llegarán a tiempo, algunas mujeres optan por programar una inducción, un procedimiento en el que los médicos utilizan medicamentos u otras técnicas para provocar el trabajo de parto.

Katie Larson vive en un rancho cerca de Winner, en la localidad de Hamill, que tiene 14 habitantes. Esperaba evitar que le indujeran el parto.

Larson quería esperar a que las contracciones comenzaran de forma natural y luego conducir hasta el Avera St. Mary’s, en Pierre.

Pero terminó programando una inducción para el 13 de abril, su fecha probable de parto. Más tarde, la adelantó al 8 de abril para no perderse una venta de ganado muy importante, que ella y su esposo estaban preparando.

“La gente se verá obligada a elegir una fecha de inducción aunque no sea lo que en un principio hubiera elegido. Si no, correrá el riesgo de tener al bebé en la carretera”, afirmó.

Lueking aseguró que no es frecuente que las embarazadas den a luz mientras se dirigen al hospital en automóvil o en ambulancia. Pero también recordó que el año anterior cinco mujeres que tenían previsto tener a sus hijos en Pierre acabaron haciéndolo en las salas de emergencias de otros hospitales, porque el parto avanzó muy rápido o porque las condiciones del clima hicieron demasiado peligroso conducir largas distancias.

Nanette Eagle Star tenía previsto que su bebé naciera en el hospital de Winner, a cinco minutos de su casa, hasta que el hospital anunció que cerraría su unidad de maternidad. Entonces decidió dar a luz en Sioux Falls, porque su familia podía quedarse con unos familiares que vivían allí y así ahorrar dinero.

El plan de Eagle Star volvió a cambiar cuando comenzó el trabajo de parto prematuramente y el clima se puso demasiado peligroso para manejar o para tomar un helicóptero médico a Sioux Falls.

“Todo ocurrió muy rápido, en medio de una tormenta de nieve”, contó.

Finalmente, Eagle Star tuvo a su bebé en el hospital de Winner, pero en la sala de emergencias, sin epidural, ya que en ese momento no había ningún anestesista disponible. Esto ocurrió  solo tres días después del cierre de la unidad de maternidad.

El fin de los servicios de parto y maternidad en el Winner Regional Health no es solo un problema de salud, según las mujeres de la localidad. También tiene repercusiones emocionales y económicas en la comunidad.

Eagle Star recuerda con cariño cuando era niña e iba con sus hermanas a las citas médicas. Apenas llegaban, iban a un pasillo que tenía fotos de bebés pegadas en la pared y comenzaban una “búsqueda del tesoro” para encontrar polaroids de ellas mismas y de sus familiares.

“A ambos lados del pasillo estaba lleno de fotos de bebés”, contó Eagle Star. Recuerda pensar: “Mira todos estos bebés tan lindos que han nacido aquí, en Winner”.

Hofeldt contó que muchos lugareños están tristes porque sus bebés no nacerán en el mismo hospital que ellos.

Anora Henderson, médica de familia, señaló que la falta de una correcta atención a las mujeres embarazadas puede tener consecuencias negativas para sus hijos. Esos bebés pueden desarrollar problemas de salud que requerirán cuidados de por vida, a menudo costosos, y otras ayudas públicas.

“Hay un efecto negativo en la comunidad”, dijo. “Simplemente no es tan visible y se notará bastante más adelante”.

Henderson renunció en mayo a su puesto en el Winner Regional Health, donde asistía partos vaginales y ayudaba en las cesáreas. El último bebé al que recibió fue el de Eagle Star.

Para que un centro de salud sea designado como hospital con servicio de maternidad, debe contar con instalaciones donde se pueden efectuar cesáreas y proporcionar anestesia las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, explicó Henderson.

Williams, el director ejecutivo del hospital, dijo que el Winner Regional Health no ha podido contratar suficientes profesionales médicos con formación en esas especializaciones.

En los últimos años, el hospital solo había podido ofrecer servicios de maternidad cubriendo aproximadamente $1,2 millones anuales en salarios de médicos contratados de forma temporal, señaló. Pero el hospital ya no podía seguir asumiendo ese gasto.

Otro reto financiero está dado porque muchos partos en los hospitales rurales están cubiertos por Medicaid, el programa federal y estatal que ofrece atención a personas con bajos ingresos o discapacidades.

El programa suele pagar aproximadamente la mitad de lo que pagan las aseguradoras privadas por los servicios de parto, según un informe de 2022 de la U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Williams contó que alrededor del 80% de los partos en Winner Regional Health estaban cubiertos por Medicaid.

Las unidades obstétricas suelen constituir el mayor gasto financiero de los hospitales rurales y, por lo tanto, son las primeras que se cierran cuando un centro de salud atraviesa dificultades económicas, explica el informe de la GAO.

Williams dijo que el hospital sigue prestando atención prenatal y que le encantaría reanudar los partos si pudiera contratar suficiente personal.

Henderson, la médica que dimitió del hospital de Winner, ha sido testigo del declive de la atención materna en las zonas rurales durante décadas.

Recuerda que, antes de que naciera su hermana, acompañaba a su madre a las citas médicas. En cada viaje, su madre recorría unas 100 millas después de que el hospital de la ciudad de Kadoka cerrara en 1979.

Henderson trabajó durante casi 22 años en el Winner Regional Health, lo que permitió que muchas mujeres no tuvieran que desplazarse para dar a luz, como le ocurrió a su madre.

A lo largo de los años, atendió a nuevas pacientes cuando cerraron las unidades de maternidad de un hospital rural cercano y luego las de un centro del Servicio de Salud Indígena. Finalmente, el propio hospital de Henderson dejó de atender partos.

“Lo que ahora realmente me frustra es que pensaba que iba a dedicarme a la medicina familiar y trabajar en una zona rural, y que así íbamos a solucionar estos problemas, para que las personas no tuvieran que conducir 100 millas para tener un bebé”, se lamentó.

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).

At the Department of Homeland Security, a man was led off the elevator in handcuffs.

But the area housing the regional office of the Department of Health and Human Services was eerily quiet.

In March, HHS announced it would close five of its 10 regional offices as part of a broad restructuring to consolidate the department’s work and reduce the number of staff by 20,000, to 62,000. The HHS Region 2 office in New York City, which has served New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, was among those getting the ax.

Public health experts and advocates say that HHS regional offices, like the one in New York City, form the connective tissue between the federal government and many locally based services. Whether ensuring local social service programs like Head Start get their federal grants, investigating Medicare claims complaints, or facilitating hospital and health system provider enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid programs, regional offices provide a key federal access point for people and organizations. Consolidating regional offices could have serious consequences for the nation’s public health system, they warn.

“All public health is local,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “When you have relative proximity to the folks you’re liaising to, they have a sense of the needs of those communities, and they have a sense of the political issues that are going on in these communities.”

The other offices slated to close are in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. Together, the five serve 22 states and a handful of U.S. territories. Services for the shuttered regional offices will be divvied up among the remaining regional offices in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, and Philadelphia.

The elimination of regional HHS offices has already had an outsize impact on Head Start, a long-standing federal program that provides free child care and supportive services to children from many of the nation’s poorest families. It is among the examples cited in the lawsuit against the federal government challenging the HHS restructuring brought by New York, 18 other states, and the District of Columbia, which notes that, as a result, “many programs are at imminent risk of being forced to pause or cease operations.”

The HHS site included a regional Head Start office that was closed and laid off staff last month. The Trump administration had sought to wipe out funding for Head Start, according to a draft budget document that outlines dramatic cuts at HHS, which Congress would need to approve. Recent news reports indicate the administration may be stepping back from this plan; however, other childhood and early-development programs could still be on the chopping block.

Bonnie Eggenburg, president of the New Jersey Head Start Association, said her organization has long relied on the HHS regional office to be “our boots on the ground for the federal government.” During challenging times, such as the covid-19 pandemic or Hurricanes Sandy and Maria, the regional office helped Head Start programs design services to meet the needs of children and families. “They work with us to make sure we have all the support we can get,” she said.

In recent weeks, payroll and other operational payments have been delayed, and employees have been asked to justify why they need the money as part of a new “Defend the Spend” initiative instituted by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, created by President Donald Trump through an executive order.

“Right now, most programs don’t have anyone to talk to and are unsure as to whether or not that notice of award is coming through as expected,” Eggenburg said.

HHS regional office employees who worked on Head Start helped providers fix technical issues, address budget questions, and discuss local issues, like the city’s growing population of migrant children, said Susan Stamler, executive director of United Neighborhood Houses. Based in New York City, the organization represents dozens of neighborhood settlement houses — community groups that provide services to local families such as language classes, housing assistance, and early-childhood support, including some Head Start programs.

“Today, the real problem is people weren’t given a human contact,” she said of the regional office closure. “They were given a website.”

To Stamler, closing the regional Head Start hub without a clear transition plan “demonstrates a lack of respect for the people who are running these programs and services,” while leaving families uncertain about their child care and other services.

“It’s astonishing to think that the federal government might be reexamining this investment that pays off so deeply with families and in their communities,” she said.

Without regional offices, HHS will be less informed about which health initiatives are needed locally, said Zach Hennessey, chief strategy officer of Public Health Solutions, a nonprofit provider of health services in New York City.

“Where it really matters is within HHS itself,” he said. “Those are the folks that are now blind — but their decisions will ultimately affect us.”

Dara Kass, an emergency physician who was the HHS Region 2 director under the Biden administration, described the job as being an ambassador.

“The office is really about ensuring that the community members and constituents had access to everything that was available to them from HHS,” Kass said.

At HHS Region 2, division offices for the Administration for Community Living, the FDA’s Office of Inspections and Investigations, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have already closed or are slated to close, along with several other division offices.

HHS did not provide an on-the-record response to a request for comment but has maintained that shuttering regional offices will not hurt services.

Under the reorganization, many HHS agencies are either being eliminated or folded into other agencies, including the recently created Administration for a Healthy America, under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said in a press release announcing the reorganization.

Regional office staffers were laid off at the beginning of April. Now there appears to be a skeleton crew shutting down the offices. On a recent day, an Administration for Children and Families worker who answered a visitor’s buzz at the entrance estimated that only about 15 people remained. When asked what’s next, the employee shrugged.

The Trump administration’s downsizing effort will also eliminate six of 10 regional outposts of the HHS Office of the General Counsel, a squad of lawyers supporting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other agencies in beneficiary coverage disputes and issues related to provider enrollment and participation in federal programs.

Unlike private health insurance companies, Medicare is a federal health program governed by statutes and regulations, said Andrew Tsui, a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory who has co-written about the regional office closings.

“When you have the largest federal health insurance program on the planet, to the extent there could be ambiguity or appeals or grievances,” Tsui said, “resolving them necessarily requires the expertise of federal lawyers, trained in federal law.”

Overall, the loss of the regional HHS offices is just one more blow to public health efforts at the state and local levels.

State health officials are confronting the “total disorganization of the federal transition” and cuts to key federal partners like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CMS, and the FDA, said James McDonald, the New York state health commissioner.

“What I’m seeing is, right now, it’s not clear who our people ought to contact, what information we’re supposed to get,” he said. “We’re just not seeing the same partnership that we so relied on in the past.”

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. Sign up for its newsletters here.

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 narrowly passing a budget resolution this spring foreshadowing major Medicaid cuts, Republicans in Congress are having trouble agreeing on specific ways to save billions of dollars from a pool of funding that pays for the program without cutting benefits on which millions of Americans rely. Moderates resist changes they say would harm their constituents, while fiscal conservatives say they won’t vote for smaller cuts than those called for in the budget resolution. The fate of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” containing renewed tax cuts and boosted immigration enforcement could hang on a Medicaid deal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate by agreeing with the Biden administration that a Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone should be dropped. It’s clear the administration’s request is purely technical, though, and has no bearing on whether officials plan to protect the abortion pill’s availability.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congressional Republicans are making halting progress on negotiations over government spending cuts. As hard-line House conservatives push for deeper cuts to the Medicaid program, their GOP colleagues representing districts that heavily depend on Medicaid coverage are pushing back. House Republican leaders are eying a Memorial Day deadline, and key committees are scheduled to review the legislation next week — but first, Republicans need to agree on what that legislation says.
• Trump withdrew his nomination of Janette Nesheiwat for U.S. surgeon general amid accusations she misrepresented her academic credentials and criticism from the far right. In her place, he nominated Casey Means, a physician who is an ally of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and a prominent advocate of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
• The pharmaceutical industry is on alert as Trump prepares to sign an executive order directing agencies to look into “most-favored-nation” pricing, a policy that would set U.S. drug prices to the lowest level paid by similar countries. The president explored that policy during his first administration, and the drug industry sued to stop it. Drugmakers are already on edge over Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on drugs and their ingredients.
• And Kennedy is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week. The hearing would be the first time the secretary of Health and Human Services has appeared before the HELP Committee since his confirmation hearings — and all eyes are on the committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who expressed deep concerns at the time, including about Kennedy’s stances on vaccines.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and co-wrote the latest KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” installment, about an unexpected bill for what seemed like preventive care. If you have an outrageous, baffling, or infuriating medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured,” by Andrea Hsu. 

Maya Goldman: Stat’s “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. 

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare,” by Zachary R. Mider and Zeke Faux. 

Sandhya Raman: The Louisiana Illuminator’s “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” by Anna Claire Vollers. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s series “Life of the Mother: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, and the winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism.
• The New York Times’ “G.O.P. Targets a Medicaid Loophole Used by 49 States To Grab Federal Money,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
• KFF Health News’ “Seeking Spending Cuts, GOP Lawmakers Target a Tax Hospitals Love to Pay,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Axios’ “Out-of-Pocket Drug Spending Hit $98B in 2024: Report,” by Maya Goldman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

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 got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where Sandhya is coming directly from, where regular listeners to this podcast will be not one bit surprised that Republicans working on President [Donald] Trump’s one “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill are at an impasse over how and how deeply to cut the Medicaid program. Originally, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was supposed to mark up its portion of the bill this week, but that turned out to be too optimistic. Now they’re shooting for next week, apparently Tuesday or so, they’re saying, and apparently that Memorial Day goal to finish the bill is shifting to maybe the Fourth of July? But given what’s leaking out of the closed Republican meetings on this, even that might be too soon. Where are we with these Medicaid negotiations? 

Raman: I would say a lot has been happening, but also a lot has not been happening. I think that anytime we’ve gotten any little progress on knowing what exactly is at the top of the list, it gets walked back. So earlier this week we had a meeting with a lot of the moderates in Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s office and trying to get them on board with some of the things that they were hesitant about, and following the meeting, Speaker Johnson had said that two of the things that have been a little bit more contentious — changing the federal match for the expansion population and instituting per capita caps for states — were off the table. But the way that he phrased it is kind of interesting in that he said stay tuned and that it possibly could change. 

And so then yesterday when we were hearing from the Energy and Commerce Committee, it seemed like these things are still on the table. And then Speaker Johnson has kind of gone back on that and said, I said it was likely. So every time we kind of have any sort of change, it’s really unclear if these things are in the mix, outside the mix. When we pulled them off the table, we had a lot of the hard-line conservatives get really upset about this because it’s not enough savings. So I think any way that you push it with such narrow margins, it’s been difficult to make any progress, even though they’ve been having a lot of meetings this week. 

Rovner: One of the things that surprised me was apparently the Senate Republicans are weighing in. The Senate Republicans who aren’t even set to make Medicaid cuts under their version of the budget resolution are saying that the House needs to go further. Where did that come from? 

Raman: It’s just been a difficult process to get anything across. I mean, in the House side, a lot of it has been, I think, election-driven. You see the people that are not willing to make as many concessions are in competitive districts. The people that want to go a little bit more extreme on what they’re thinking are in much more safe districts. And then in the Senate, I think there’s a lot more at play just because they have longer terms, they have more to work with. So some of the pushback has been from people that it would directly affect their states or if the governors have weighed in. But I think that there are so many things that they do want to get done, since there is much stronger agreement on some of the immigration stuff and the taxes that they want to find the savings somewhere. If they don’t find it, then the whole thing is moot. 

Rovner: So meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Democrats is out with estimates of what some of these Medicaid options would mean for coverage, and it gives lie to some of these Republican claims that they can cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid without touching benefits, right? I mean all of these — and Maya, your nodding. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

Rovner: All of these things would come with coverage losses. 

Goldman: Yeah, I think it’s important to think about things like work requirements, which has gotten a lot of support from moderate Republicans. The only way that that produces savings is if people come off Medicaid as a result. Work requirements in and of themselves are not saving any money. So I know advocates are very concerned about any level of cuts. I talked to somebody from a nursing home association who said: We can’t pick and choose. We’re not in a position to pick and choose which are better or worse, because at this point, everything on the table is bad for us. So I think people are definitely waiting with bated breath there. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans over the last week or so with the talking points. If we’re just going after fraud and abuse then we’re not going to cut anybody’s benefits. And it’s like — um, good luck with that. 

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

Rovner: That’s right. Well, one place Congress could recoup a lot of money from Medicaid is by cracking down on provider taxes, which 49 of the 50 states use to plump up their federal Medicaid match, if you will. Basically the state levies a tax on hospitals or nursing homes or some other group of providers, claims that money as their state share to draw down additional federal matching Medicaid funds, then returns it to the providers in the form of increased reimbursement while pocketing the difference. You can call it money laundering as some do, or creative financing as others do, or just another way to provide health care to low-income people. 

But one thing it definitely is, at least right now, is legal. Congress has occasionally tried to crack down on it since the late 1980s. I have spent way more time covering this fight than I wish I had, but the combination of state and health provider pushback has always prevented it from being eliminated entirely. If you want a really good backgrounder, I point you to the excellent piece in The New York Times this week by our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff. What are you guys hearing about provider taxes and other forms of state contributions and their future in all of this? Is this where they’re finally going to look to get a pot of money? 

Raman: It’s still in the mix. The tricky thing is how narrow the margins are, and when you have certain moderates having a hard line saying, I don’t want to cut more than $500 billion or $600 billion, or something like that. And then you have others that don’t want to dip below the $880 billion set for the Energy and Commerce Committee. And then there are others that have said it’s not about a specific number, it’s what is being cut. So I think once we have some more numbers for some of the other things, it’ll provide a better idea of what else can fit in. Because right now for work requirements, we’re going based on some older CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers. We have the CBO numbers that the Democrats asked for, but it doesn’t include everything. And piecing that together is the puzzle, will illuminate some of that, if there are things that people are a little bit more on board with. But it’s still kind of soon to figure out if we’re not going to see draft text until early next week. 

Goldman: I think the tricky thing with provider taxes is that it’s so baked into the way that Medicaid functions in each state. And I think I totally co-sign on the New York Times article. It was a really helpful explanation of all of this, and I would bet that you’ll see a lot of pushback from state governments, including Republicans, on a proposal that makes severe changes to that. 

Rovner: Someday, but not today, I will tell the story of the 1991 fight over this in which there was basically a bizarre dealmaking with individual senators to keep this legal. That was a year when the Democrats were trying to get rid of it. So it’s a bipartisan thing. All right, well, moving on. 

It wouldn’t be a Thursday morning if we didn’t have breaking federal health personnel news. Today was supposed to be the confirmation hearing for surgeon general nominee and Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat. But now her nomination has been pulled over some questions about whether she was misrepresenting her medical education credentials, and she’s already been replaced with the nomination of Casey Means, the sister of top [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] aide Calley Means, who are both leaders in the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] movement. This feels like a lot of science deniers moving in at one time. Or is it just me? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that the Meanses have been in this circle, names floated for various things at various times, and this was a place where Casey Means fit in. And certainly she espouses a lot of the views on, like, functional medicine and things that this administration, at least RFK Jr., seems to also subscribe to. But the one thing I’m not as clear on her is where she stands with vaccines, because obviously Nesheiwat had fudged on her school a little bit, and— 

Rovner: Yeah, I think she did her residency at the University of Arkansas— 

Edney: That’s where. 

Rovner: —and she implied that she’d graduated from the University of Arkansas medical school when in fact she graduated from an accredited Caribbean medical school, which lots of doctors go to. It’s not a sin— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —and it’s a perfectly, as I say, accredited medical school. That was basically — but she did fudge it on her resume. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: So apparently that was one of the things that got her pulled. 

Edney: Right. And the other, kind of, that we’ve seen in recent days, again, is Laura Loomer coming out against her because she thinks she’s not anti-vaccine enough. So what the question I think to maybe be looking into today and after is: Is Casey Means anti-vaccine enough for them? I don’t know exactly the answer to that and whether she’ll make it through as well. 

Rovner: Well, we also learned this week that Vinay Prasad, a controversial figure in the covid movement and even before that, has been named to head the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research, making him the nation’s lead vaccine regulator, among other things. Now he does have research bona fides but is a known skeptic of things like accelerated approval of new drugs, and apparently the biotech industry, less than thrilled with this pick, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, they are quite afraid of this pick. You could see it in the stocks for a lot of vaccine companies, for some other companies particularly. He was quite vocal and quite against the covid vaccines during covid and even compared them to the Nazi regime. So we know that there could be a lot of trouble where, already, you know, FDA has said that they’re going to require placebo-controlled trials for new vaccines and imply that any update to a covid vaccine makes it a new vaccine. So this just spells more trouble for getting vaccines to market and quickly to people. He also—you mentioned accelerated approval. This is a way that the FDA uses to try to get promising medicines to people faster. There are issues with it, and people have written about the fact that they rely on what are called surrogate endpoints. So not Did you live longer? but Did your tumor shrink? 

And you would think that that would make you live longer, but it actually turns out a lot of times it doesn’t. So you maybe went through a very strong medication and felt more terrible than you might have and didn’t extend your life. So there’s a lot of that discussion, and so that. There are other drugs. Like this Sarepta drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a big one that Vinay Prasad has come out against, saying that should have never been approved, because it was using these kind of surrogate endpoints. So I think biotech’s pretty — thinking they’re going to have a lot tougher road ahead to bring stuff to market. 

Rovner: And I should point out that over the very long term, this has been the continuing struggle at FDA. It’s like, do you protect the public but make people wait longer for drugs or do you get the drugs out and make sure that people who have no other treatments available have something available? And it’s been a constant push and pull. It’s not really been partisan. Sometimes you get one side pushing and the other side pushing back. It’s really nothing new. It’s just the sort of latest iteration of this. 

Edney: Right. Yeah. This is the pendulum swing, back to the Maybe we need to be slowing it down side. It’s also interesting because there are other discussions from RFK Jr. that, like, We need to be speeding up approvals and Trump wants to speed up approvals. So I don’t know where any of this will actually come down when the rubber meets the road, I guess. 

Rovner: Sandhya and Maya, I see you both nodding. Do you want to add something? 

Raman: I think this was kind of a theme that I also heard this week in the — we had the Senate Finance hearing for some of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nominees, and Jim O’Neill, who’s one of the nominees, that was something that was brought up by Finance ranking member Ron Wyden, that some of his past remarks when he was originally considered to be on the short list for FDA commissioner last Trump administration is that he basically said as long as it’s safe, it should go ahead regardless of efficacy. So those comments were kind of brought back again, and he’s in another hearing now, so that might come up as an issue in HELP [the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] today. 

Rovner: And he’s the nominee for deputy secretary, right? Have to make sure I keep all these things straight. Maya, you wanting to add something? 

Goldman: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think there is a divide between these two philosophies on pharmaceuticals, and my sense is that the selection of Prasad is kind of showing that the anti-accelerated-approval side is winning out. But I think Anna is correct that we still don’t know where it’s going to land. 

Rovner: Yes, and I will point out that accelerated approval first started during AIDS when there was no treatments and basically people were storming the — literally physically storming — the FDA, demanding access to AIDS drugs, which they did finally get. But that’s where accelerated approval came from. This is not a new fight, and it will continue. 

Turning to abortion, the Trump administration surprised a lot of people this week when it continued the Biden administration’s position asking for that case in Texas challenging the abortion pill to be dropped. For those who’ve forgotten, this was a case originally filed by a bunch of Texas medical providers demanding the judge overrule the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in the year 2000. The Supreme Court ruled the original plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but in the meantime, three states —Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — have taken their place as plaintiffs. But now the Trump administration points out that those states have no business suing in the Northern District of Texas, which kind of seems true on its face. But we should not mistake this to think that the Trump administration now supports the current approval status of the abortion bill. Right, Sandhya? 

Raman: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. It doesn’t surprise me. If they had allowed these three states, none of which are Texas — they shouldn’t have standing. And if they did allow them to, that would open a whole new can of worms for so many other cases where the other side on so many issues could cherry-pick in the same way. And so I think, I assume, that this will come up in future cases for them and they will continue with the positions they’ve had before. But this was probably in their best interest not to in this specific one. 

Rovner: Yeah. There are also those who point out that this could be a way of the administration protecting itself. If it wants to roll back or reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, it would help prevent blue states from suing to stop that. So it serves a double purpose here, right? 

Raman: Yeah. I couldn’t see them doing it another way. And even if you go through the ruling, the language they use, it’s very careful. It’s not dipping into talking fully about abortion. It’s going purely on standing. Yeah. 

Rovner: There’s nothing that says, We think the abortion pill is fine the way it is. It clearly does not say that, although they did get the headlines — and I’m sure the president wanted — that makes it look like they’re towing this middle ground on abortion, which they may be but not necessarily in this case. 

Well, before we move off of reproductive health, a shoutout here to the incredible work of ProPublica, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service this week for its stories on women who died due to abortion bans that prevented them from getting care for their pregnancy complications. Regular listeners of the podcast will remember that we talked about these stories as they came out last year, but I will post another link to them in the show notes today. 

OK, moving on. There’s even more drug price news this week, starting with the return of, quote, “most favored nation” drug pricing. Anna, remind us what this is and why it’s controversial. 

Edney: Yeah. So the idea of most favored nation, this is something President Trump has brought up before in his first administration, but it creates a basket, essentially, of different prices that nations pay. And we’re going to base ours on the lowest price that is paid for— 

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

Edney: Yeah. Essentially, yes. We can’t import their drugs, but we can import their prices. And so the goal is to just basically piggyback off of whoever is paying the lowest price and to base ours off of that. And clearly the drug industry does not like this and, I think, has faced a number of kind of hits this week where things are looming that could really come after them. So Politico broke that news that Trump is going to sign or expected to sign an executive order that will direct his agencies to look into this most-favored-nation effort. And it feels very much like 2.0, like we were here before. And it didn’t exactly work out, obviously. 

Rovner: They sued, didn’t they? The drug industry sued, as I recall. 

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re right. Yes. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering correctly, it was an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit though, right? So— 

Rovner: It was. Yes. It was about a regulation. Yes. 

Goldman: —who knows what would happen if they go through a different procedure this time. 

Rovner: So the other thing, obviously, that the drug industry is freaked out about right now are tariffs, which have been on again, off again, on again, off again. Where are we with tariffs on — and it’s not just tariffs on drugs being imported. It’s tariffs on drug ingredients being imported, right? 

Edney: Yeah. And that’s a particularly rough one because many ingredients are imported, and then some of the drugs are then finished here, just like a car. All the pieces are brought in and then put together in one place. And so this is something the Trump administration has began the process of investigating. And PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], the trade group for the drug industry, has come out officially, as you would expect, against the tariffs, saying that: This will reduce our ability to do R&D. It will raise the price of drugs that Americans pay, because we’re just going to pass this on to everyone. And so we’re still in this waiting zone of seeing when or exactly how much and all of that for the tariffs for pharma. 

Rovner: And yet Americans are paying — already paying — more than they ever have. Maya, you have a story just about that. Tell us. 

Goldman: Yeah, there was a really interesting report from an analytics data firm that showed the price that Americans are paying for prescriptions is continuing to climb. Also, the number of prescriptions that Americans are taking is continuing to climb. It certainly will be interesting to see if this administration can be any more successful. That report, I don’t think this made it into the article that I ended up writing, but it did show that the cost of insulin is down. And that’s something that has been a federal policy intervention. We haven’t seen a lot of the effects yet of the Medicare drug price negotiations, but I think there are signs that that could lower the prices that people are paying. So I think it’s interesting to just see the evolution of all of this. It’s very much in flux. 

Rovner: A continuing effort. Well, we are now well into the second hundred days of Trump 2.0, and we’re still learning about the cuts to health and health-related programs the administration is making. Just in this week’s rundown are stories about hundreds more people being laid off at the National Cancer Institute, a stop-work order at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, that studies Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases, and the layoff of most of the remaining staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

A reminder that this is all separate from the discretionary-spending budget request that the administration sent up to lawmakers last week. That document calls for a 26% cut in non-mandatory funding at HHS, meaning just about everything other than Medicare and Medicaid. And it includes a proposed $18 billion cut to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and elimination of the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of low-income Americans pay their heating and air conditioning bills. Now, this is normally the part of the federal budget that’s deemed dead on arrival. The president sends up his budget request, and Congress says, Yeah, we’re not doing that. But this at least does give us an idea of what direction the administration wants to take at HHS, right? What’s the likelihood of Congress endorsing any of these really huge, deep cuts? 

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

Raman: It’s not going to happen, and they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the appropriations bills. I think that when we’re looking in the House in particular, there are a lot of things in what we know from this so-called skinny budget document that they could take up and put in their bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. But I think the Senate’s going to be a different story, just because the Senate Appropriations chair is Susan Collins and she, as soon as this came out, had some pretty sharp words about the big cuts to NIH. They’ve had one in a series of two hearings on biomedical research. Concerned about some of these kinds of things. So I cannot necessarily see that sharp of a cut coming to fruition for NIH, but they might need to make some concessions on some other things. 

This is also just a not full document. It has some things and others. I didn’t see any to FDA in there at all. So that was a question mark, even though they had some more information in some of the documents that had leaked kind of earlier on a larger version of this budget request. So I think we’ll see more about how people are feeling next week when we start having Secretary Kennedy testify on some of these. But I would not expect most of this to make it into whatever appropriations law we get. 

Goldman: I was just going to say that. You take it seriously but not literally, is what I’ve been hearing from people. 

Edney: We don’t have a full picture of what has already been cut. So to go in and then endorse cutting some more, maybe a little bit too early for that, because even at this point they’re still bringing people back that they cut. They’re finding out, Oh, this is actually something that is really important and that we need, so to do even more doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, that state of disarray is purposeful, I would guess, and doing a really good job at sort of clouding things up. 

Goldman: One note on the cuts. I talked to someone at HHS this week who said as they’re bringing back some of these specialized people, in order to maintain the legality of, what they see as the legality of, the RIF [reduction in force], they need to lay off additional people to keep that number consistent. So I think that is very much in flux still and interesting to watch. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think that’s part of what we were seeing this week is that the groups that got spared are now getting cut because they’ve had to bring back other people. And as I point out, I guess, every week, pretty much all of this is illegal. And as it goes to courts, judges say, You can’t do this. So everything is in flux and will continue. 

All right, finally this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who as of now is scheduled to appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next week to talk about the department’s proposed budget, is asking CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to develop new guidance for treating measles with drugs and vitamins. This comes a week after he ordered a change in vaccine policy you already mentioned, Anna, so that new vaccines would have to be tested against placebos rather than older versions of the vaccine. These are all exactly the kinds of things that Kennedy promised health committee chairman Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do. And yet we’ve heard almost nothing from Cassidy about anything the secretary has said or done since he’s been in office. So what do we expect to happen when they come face-to-face with each other in front of the cameras next week, assuming that it happens? 

Edney: I’m very curious. I don’t know. Do I expect a senator to take a stand? I don’t necessarily, but this— 

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

Edney: Yeah, he hasn’t yet. But this is maybe about face-saving too for him. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

Edney: For Cassidy, given he said: I’m going to keep an eye on him. We’re going to talk all the time, and he is not going to do this thing without my input. I’m not sure how Cassidy will approach that. I think it’ll be a really interesting hearing that we’ll all be watching. 

Rovner: Yes. And just little announcement, if it does happen, that we are going to do sort of a special Wednesday afternoon after the hearing with some of our KFF Health News colleagues. So we are looking forward to that hearing. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, welcome back. 

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got preventive care, which the Affordable Care Act was supposed to incentivize by making it cost-free at the point of service — except it wasn’t. Tell us who the patient is and what kind of care they got. 

Sausser: Carmen Aiken is from Chicago. Carmen uses they/them pronouns. And Carmen made an appointment in the summer of 2023 for an annual checkup. This is just like a wellness check that you are very familiar with. You get your vaccines updated. You get your weight checked. You talk to your doctor about your physical activity and your family history. You might get some blood work done. Standard stuff. 

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

Sausser: The bill ended up being more than $1,400 when it should, in Carmen’s mind, have been free. 

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

Rovner: I assume that there was a complaint to the health plan and the health plan said, Nope, not covered. Why did they say that? 

Sausser: It turns out that alongside with some blood work that was preventive, Carmen also had some blood work done to monitor an ongoing prescription. Because that blood test is not considered a standard preventive service, the entire appointment was categorized as diagnostic and not preventive. So all of these services that would’ve been free to them, available at no cost, all of a sudden Carmen became responsible for. 

Rovner: So even if the care was diagnostic rather than strictly preventive — obviously debatable — that sounds like a lot of money for a vaccine and some blood test. Why was the bill so high? 

Sausser: Part of the reason the bill was so high was because Carmen’s blood work was sent to a hospital for processing, and hospitals, as you know, can charge a lot more for the same services. So under Carmen’s health plan, they were responsible for, I believe it was, 50% of the cost of services performed in an outpatient hospital setting. And that’s what that blood work fell under. So the charges were high. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked a lot on the podcast about this fight in Congress to create site-neutral payments. This is a case where that probably would’ve made a big difference. 

Sausser: Yeah, it would. And there’s discussion, there’s bipartisan support for it. The idea is that you should not have to pay more for the same services that are delivered at different places. But right now there’s no legislation to protect patients like Carmen from incurring higher charges. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

Sausser: Carmen ended up paying it. They put it on a credit card. This was of course after they tried appealing it to their insurance company. Their insurance company decided that they agreed with the provider that these services were diagnostic, not preventive. And so, yeah, Carmen was losing sleep over this and decided ultimately that they were just going to pay it. 

Rovner: And at least it was a four-figure bill and not a five-figure bill. 

Sausser: Right. 

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? I imagine it is not that you should skip needed preventive/diagnostic care. Some drugs, when you’re on them, they say that you should have blood work done periodically to make sure you’re not having side effects. 

Sausser: Right. You should not skip preventive services. And that’s the whole intent behind this in the ACA. It catches stuff early so that it becomes more treatable. I think you have to be really, really careful and specific when you’re making appointments, and about your intention for the appointment, so that you don’t incur charges like this. I think that you can also be really careful about where you get your blood work conducted. A lot of times you’ll see these signs in the doctor’s office like: We use this lab. If this isn’t in-network with you, you need to let us know. Because the charges that you can face really vary depending on where those labs are processed. So you can be really careful about that, too. 

Rovner: And adding to all of this, there’s the pending Supreme Court case that could change it, right? 

Sausser: Right. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments. It was in April. I think it was on the 21st. And it is a case that originated out in Texas. There is a group of Christian businesses that are challenging the mandate in the ACA that requires health insurers to cover a lot of these preventive services. So obviously we don’t have a decision in the case yet, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: We will, and we will cover it on the podcast. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thank you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the 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. Maya, you were the first to choose this week, so why don’t you go first? 

Goldman: My extra credit is from Stat. It’s called “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. And I just think it’s a really interesting evidence point to the United States’ losses, other countries’ gain. The U.S. has long been the pinnacle of research science, and people flock to this country to do research. And I think we’re already seeing a reversal of that as cuts to NIH funding and other scientific enterprises is reduced. 

Rovner: Yep. A lot of stories about this, too. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from a couple of my colleagues that they did earlier this week. “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare.” And I thought it was really interesting because it had brought me back to these cheap, bare-bones plans that people were allowed to start selling that don’t meet any of the Obamacare requirements. And so this guy who used to, in the ’80s and ’90s, wrote for sitcoms — “Coach” or “Night Court,” if anyone goes to watch those on reruns. But he did a series of random things after that and has sort of now landed on selling these junk plans, but doing it in a really weird way that signs people up for a job that they don’t know they’re being signed up for. And I think it’s just, it’s an interesting read because we knew when these things were coming online that this was shady and people weren’t going to get the coverage they needed. And this takes it to an extra level. They’re still around, and they’re still ripping people off. 

Rovner: Or as I’d like to subhead this story: Creative people think of creative things. 

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: So my pick is “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” and it’s from Anna Claire Vollers at the Louisiana Illuminator. And her story looks at some of the ties between civil rights and health. So 2025 is the 70th anniversary of the bus boycott, the 60th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act. And it’s also the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. And she goes into, Medicaid isn’t something you usually consider a civil rights win, but health as a human right was part of the civil rights movement. And I think it’s an interesting piece. 

Rovner: It is an interesting piece, and we should point out Medicare was also a huge civil rights, important piece of law because it desegregated all the hospitals in the South. All right, my extra credit this week is a truly infuriating story from NPR by Andrea Hsu. It’s called “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured.” And it’s a situation that if a private employer did it, Congress would be all over them and it would be making huge headlines. These are federal workers who are trying to do the right thing for themselves and their families but who are being jerked around in impossible ways and have no idea not just whether they have jobs but whether they have health insurance, and whether the medical care that they’re getting while this all gets sorted out will be covered. It’s one thing to shrink the federal workforce, but there is some basic human decency for people who haven’t done anything wrong, and a lot of now-former federal workers are not getting it at the moment. 

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

Raman: I’m on X, @SandhyaWrites, and also on Bluesky, @SandhyaWrites at Bluesky. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_. Same on Bluesky and also increasingly on LinkedIn. 

Rovner: All right, 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).

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.

Members of Congress are back in Washington this week, and Republicans are facing hard decisions on how to reduce Medicaid spending, even as new polling shows that would be unpopular among their voters.

Meanwhile, with President Donald Trump marking 100 days in office, the Department of Health and Human Services remains in a state of confusion, as programs that were hastily cut are just as hastily reinstated — or not. Even those leading the programs seem unsure about the status of many key health activities.

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• How and what congressional Republicans will propose cutting from federal government spending is still up in the air — one big reason being that the House and Senate have two separate sets of instructions to follow during the budget reconciliation process. The two chambers will need to resolve their differences eventually, and many of the ideas on the table could be politically risky for Republicans.
• GOP lawmakers are reportedly considering imposing sweeping work requirements on nondisabled adults to remain eligible for Medicaid. Only Georgia and Arkansas have tried mandating that some enrollees work, volunteer, go to school, or enroll in job training to qualify for Medicaid. Those states’ experiences showed that work requirements don’t increase employment but are effective at reducing Medicaid enrollment — because many people have trouble proving they qualify and get kicked off their coverage.
• New reporting this week sheds light on the Trump administration’s efforts to go after the accreditation of some medical student and residency programs, part of the White House’s efforts to crack down on diversity and inclusion initiatives. Yet evidence shows that increasing the diversity of medical professionals helps improve health outcomes — and that undermining medical training could further exacerbate provider shortages and worsen the quality of care.
• Trump’s upcoming budget proposal to Congress could shed light on his administration’s budget cuts and workforce reductions within — and spreading out from — federal health agencies. The proposal will be the first written documentation of the Trump White House’s intentions for the federal government.

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’ “As a Diversity Grant Dies, Young Scientists Fear It Will Haunt Their Careers,” by Brett Kelman. 

Joanne Kenen: NJ.com’s “Many Nursing Homes Feed Residents on Less Than $10 a Day: ‘That’s Appallingly Low’” and “Inside the ‘Multibillion-Dollar Game’ To Funnel Cash From Nursing Homes to Sister Companies,” by Ted Sherman, Susan K. Livio, and Matthew Miller. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “Utah Farmers Signed Up for Federally Funded Therapy. Then the Money Stopped,” by Jessica Schreifels, The Salt Lake Tribune.  

Margot Sanger-Katz: CNBC’s “GLP-1s Can Help Employers Lower Medical Costs in 2 Years, New Study Finds,” by Bertha Coombs.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• MedPage Today’s “Trump Order Targets Med School, Residency Accreditors Over ‘Unlawful’ DEI Standards,” by Cheryl Clark.
• Stat’s “Despite Kennedy’s Stated Support, Funding for Women’s Health Initiative Remains in Limbo,” by Elizabeth Cooney.
• CBS News’ “FDA Head Falsely Claims No Scientists Laid Off, as Agency Shutters Food Safety Labs,” by Alexander Tin.
• The New York Times’ “F.D.A. Scientists Are Reinstated at Agency Food Safety Labs,” by Christina Jewett.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: 100 Days of Health Policy Upheaval

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 1, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might change 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: Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have a special report on the first 100 days of the second Trump administration and what’s happened in health policy. But first, as usual, this week’s news. 

So Congress is back from its spring break and studying for midterms. Oops. I mean it’s getting down to work on President [Donald] Trump’s, quote, “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill. For those who may have forgotten, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is tasked with cutting $880 billion over the next decade from programs it oversees. Although the only programs that could really get to that total are Medicare and Medicaid, and Medicare has been declared politically off-limits by President Trump. So what are the options you guys are hearing for how to basically cut Medicaid by 10%, which is effectively what they’re trying to do? 

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s a bit of a scramble to decide. My sense is, there’s been for some time a menu of changes that would pull money out of the Medicaid program. There’s also kind of a small menu of other things that the committee has jurisdiction over. And as far as I can tell, all of the various options on that menu are kind of just in a constant rotation of discussion with different members endorsing this one or that one. The president weighs in occasionally or voices from the White House, but I think the committee is waiting on scores from the Congressional Budget Office, so they have to hit this $880 billion number. And so it’s kind of a complicated puzzle to put together the pieces to get to that number and they don’t know what they need. But I also think that they are facing some really difficult politics inside their own caucus in trying to decide what to do and how they can message it in a way that kind of checks everyone’s boxes. 

There are some people who have made promises to their constituents that they’re not going to cut Medicaid. There are some people who have said that they only want to do things that would target fraud and abuse. There are some people who have said that they want to make major structural changes to the program. And all of those people are sort of disagreeing about the exact mechanisms. 

Rovner: The phrase I keep hearing is that the math doesn’t math. 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah. I also think some of them are going to be surprised when the Congressional Budget Office gives them the scores. I think that the leadership has been reassuring a lot of these members, when they voted on these earlier budget bills that were more vague, more theoretical. I think that there were promises that were made to them that, Don’t worry about this. We’re going to solve your problems. This isn’t going to be a huge political headache for you. And I think the reality is is a) The cuts are going to have to be big. That’s what $880 billion means. And b) I think that they are going to be estimated to have pretty big effects on health insurance coverage, because if you’re going to cut $880 billion from Medicaid, that probably means that fewer people are going to be covered. I think some members are going to be surprised by that. 

And the other thing is, I think they’re going to start to see in the analyses and hear from local people that some states are going to get hit harder than others. I think there are some states that these members come from where the cuts are going to disproportionately fall. Now we could talk more about the options on the menu. I think some of them will hurt some states more and others will hurt other states more. And I think that is part of the politicking and debate that’s happening as well, where each of these legislators is trying to figure out how they can hit this target, keep their promises, and also protect their own districts to the best of their ability. 

Rovner: It seems like one of the things at the top of every Republican’s list that would be quote-unquote “acceptable” would be work requirements. And I heard numbers this week that the CBO is estimating something like more than $200 billion over 10 years in work requirements, which would be pretty strong work requirements. But Alice, you’re our work requirements queen here. We know that the stronger those work requirements are, the more people end up falling off who are still eligible, because most people on Medicaid already work, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. The only places in the country that have implemented work requirements for Medicaid have found that it does not increase employment, but it does kick people off the program who should qualify, either because they are working or they have a legitimate reason, they’re a full-time caretaker, they’re a student, they have a disability to not be able to work, and they lose their coverage anyway because they can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And I think what Margot is really getting to is, the fundamental dilemma that Republicans are facing right now as they try to put this together is that the proposals that are most politically palatable to them, like work requirements, won’t get them anywhere near the amount of money they need to cut, that they’ve promised to cut, that they’ve passed a bill pledging to cut in this space. And so that will mean that other things will have to be considered. 

And again, I feel like I say this every time, but we really have to be paying very close attention to semantics here. What one person considers a cut when they say the word “cut” is not necessarily what all of us would consider a cut. What some people in power are labeling waste, fraud, and abuse is people getting health care under the law legitimately. They think they shouldn’t, but they do. And so I think we really need to scrutinize the exact language people are using here. 

Rovner: There does seem to be kind of a zeroing in on what we call the expansion population, the population that was added to Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, which were people who were not the traditional welfare moms and kids and people with disabilities and seniors in nursing homes. These were people who were otherwise low-income but didn’t have health insurance, which is kind of the point. That’s why we say most of these people are already working. You’re not going to live on your Medicaid benefits. There’s no cash involved. The cash goes to the people who provide the actual health care or in some cases the insurers. But that seems to be when — you were talking about semantics — you see Republicans talking about protecting the most vulnerable. That sounds like they really do want to go after this expansion population. But Margot, as you said, a lot of this expansion population is in red states, right? 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah. I think there’s another dynamic that’s going on right now that is important to keep track of, which is we’re at the sort of beginning of this process. So both the House and Senate have passed budgets. Those lay out these numbers, and they’ve laid out this very high number. It’s a high threshold for the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House. They have to find this $880 billion. After they do that, the entire House has to vote on the entire reconciliation package, which includes not just these changes to Medicaid but also a series of tax changes, changes to defense and homeland security spending, probably reductions in SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] and education funding. Then the whole thing goes to the Senate and the Senate has to do its own version.  

And the budget itself is a very weird document. Usually what you see with these budgets is that what the instructions are for the House and the Senate match. In this case, they do not. So the House still has to find these very large Medicaid cuts that I think will be politically problematic for certain House members. But the Senate actually doesn’t. It’s very unclear what the Senate’s plan is and whether they are going to try to go as far. And so I think it creates a difficult dynamic where I think some of these House members may not want to take a hard vote on major budget cuts, that could be politically costly to them, if it’s not even going to become law. And so I think that there’s a lot of kind of meeting of reality that is happening right now, which I think doesn’t mean that they won’t come up with a plan. It doesn’t mean that they won’t pass a plan, and it doesn’t mean that they won’t pass a plan that will affect those budgets of their home states. 

But I do think that they are in a little bit of a politically uncomfortable position right now, where they’re being asked to vote for something that is going to be unpopular in some quarters and where they don’t even really know if the Senate is going to hold their hand and go along with it. 

Ollstein: Just one point. We talk a lot about red states and blue states, but it’s important to remember that blue states have a lot of districts represented by Republicans, and that’s arguably the reason they even have a House majority. And so if they pass something that really sticks it to New York and California, there’s a lot of Republican House members who might be at risk. 

Rovner: Yes. And they’re already making noise. And that’s what I was going to say. The last time Republicans went hard after Medicaid after the expansion was during the effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act in 2017, obviously, and we have a brand-new poll out today from KFF, shows that, if anything, Medicaid is even more relevant to Republicans than it was eight years ago. Today’s poll found that more than three-quarters of those polled say they oppose major cuts to Medicaid, including 55% of Republicans and 79% of independents. Those are pretty big numbers. I guess it helps explain why we’re seeing so many Republicans who are looking — there’s so much hand-wringing right now when they’re trying to figure out how to get to these numbers. Go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: The other thing, it’s not just people who have increasingly, across party lines, grown in their affection for Medicaid, which is paying for all sorts of things. It’s paying for long-term care. It’s paying for almost half the births in this country. It’s paying for postpartum care. It’s paying for kids. It’s paying for the disabled. It is paying for a lot of drug and opioid treatment and substance abuse. It is paying for a lot of things. But in addition to the politics of individuals and families relying on — they call it an entitlement for a reason. People feel entitled to it. But once you give it to them, they don’t want to give it away. And it’s hard for politicians. They don’t want to give it up, and it’s hard for politicians to take it away. But the other thing is it’s also incredibly important to health care providers, specifically hospitals, because nursing homes are not going to get cut the way hospitals are vulnerable. 

Rural hospitals, urban hospitals — this is just a, particularly in areas where hospitals are already closing and rural states, it would be devastating to hospitals. You’re beginning to hear them talk more and more and more. Ultimately, I think this is going to come down to three syllables: Donald Trump. We are hearing all sorts of things, right?. He is really good at getting what he wants in the House, even if it’s politically difficult. Someone says, I can’t vote for it, they go back, Speaker [Mike] Johnson goes back in wherever he goes back with them and they come out and vote for it, right? It can take a day, it can take a few hours, but Trump hasn’t lost anything on the floor on the budget so far. We’ve gotten to this point. If Trump decides that he’s going to bite this bullet and go for the $800 [billion], he can probably get it through the House if he really decides that that’s what he wants. Unless they really convince him that it’ll cost the Republicans in the House, and then he has to believe them. He has to think that he really is vulnerable and that the Republicans can lose. And there’s all sorts of questions about what elections are going look like in two years. 

But I think that the providers, they’re lobbying in ways that we can see and they’re lobbying in ways that we can’t see. So that’s a part of it. And then the other thing is that there’s a really interesting dynamic with the expansion of states. The states that have not expanded Medicaid tend to be mostly, not all, in the South, Republican states. Their people are not covered. The people who fall in the gap are still not covered. So they don’t have such a dog in this fight. But as we’ve already mentioned, places with a lot of working-class Republicans, the irony is to order, to get states to accept Medicaid expansion in the first place under the ACA, the federal government gave a lot of money — 90%, right? There was more originally. They’re still paying 90%. And that cost the federal government a lot, but states don’t want to give that money up. It’s free dollars. 

And another layer of weird dynamics is a lot of the conservative states that did expand Medicaid did so with what they call a trigger. If the payment changes, the Medicaid expansion collapses. It’s gone. So there’s this weird dynamic of the states who were most skeptical of Medicaid expansion, ended up making it safe by putting in those triggers because no one wants to pull or press the trigger. 

Sanger-Katz: Can I say one more thing— 

Rovner: Yes, go ahead. 

Sanger-Katz: —about the state-by-state dynamics? Because I’ve actually been thinking about this a lot and doing a lot of reporting on this. Joanne is a 100% right. There are these states that have these triggers. They are predominantly Republican states. So those are states where, again, you’re going to see a lot of people losing coverage, because the state is just going to automatically pull back on all of the coverage for these working-class people who are getting Medicaid because they have a low income. But that’s not universally the case. I did a story a couple of weeks ago. There are three Republican states that actually have constitutional amendments that they have to cover this population. So even more so than the blue states— 

Rovner: We talked about your story, Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: Yeah? I love it. I love it. But even more so than the blue states, these are states that are really locked in. Those state governments and those state hospitals, to Joanne’s point, are going to face some really, really tough choices if we see the funding go away. And then another option that’s on this menu — and again we don’t know what they’re going to choose — but one possibility that I think a lot of the kind of right-leaning wonks are really pushing is to get rid of something called provider taxes, Medicaid provider taxes. And we don’t need to get into, fully into the weeds of how these work, because they are sort of complicated. But what I will say is that because of the way that Medicaid is financed and because of the history of how these taxes have proliferated and expanded across the country, there are quite a few Republican-led states that would be disproportionately harmed by that policy. 

So I just think all of this is a little messy. I think there’s not an easy way — even setting aside the point that Alice made that of course there are Republican lawmakers from blue states. But even if you’re only concerned about the red states, say you’re only concerned about getting the Senate votes and not the House votes, I still think it’s pretty tricky to come up with one of these policies that’s sort of just taking the money out of states where you don’t need votes. 

Rovner: Well, they’re supposed to, the committee is supposed to, start marking up its bill next week. I am dubious as to whether that is actually going to happen on time, but we shall see. Obviously much more on this to come. But I want to move on to news from the Trump administration. Last week we talked about threatening letters sent by the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., to some major medical journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine. This week we have another story from our friends over at MedPage Today about the administration going after medical student and residency accreditation agencies for their DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] efforts, because both organizations have long had robust programs to require medical schools and residency programs to recruit and retain racial and ethnic minorities who are underrepresented in medicine. Now, this isn’t about being woke. Racial and ethnic representation in the health care workforce is an actual health care issue, right? 

Kenen: There’s data. There’s a fair amount of data that shows that this kind of representation, patients having providers that they feel can identify with and understand them and come from a similar background. They’re not always a similar background, but there’s this perception of shared understanding. And there’s a ton of data. Not one or two little studies. There’s a ton of data that it actually improves outcomes. I’m actually working on a piece about this right now, so I’ve just read a bunch of it. 

Rovner: I had a feeling you would know this. 

Kenen: And it’s been pointed out, there was some research in The Milbank Quarterly, too. And I should disclose that Milbank is one of my funders at Hopkins, but they don’t control what I do journalistically. When the courts ruled against DEA in admissions, DEI in admissions, they were looking at sort of the intake, who comes in. And they really weren’t looking at the data of what happens to health care when the workforce is diverse. So there’s a lot of numbers on this, and they looked at one set of numbers and they didn’t look at another pretty solidly researched for many years, like: What is the impact on patients and what is the impact on American health? So if you’re talking about making America healthy again and you want everybody to be healthy, there’s really a good case to be made for a diverse, a competent, well-trained — we’re not talking about letting people in because they’re a token but getting people in who could become qualified doctors, nurses, respiratory therapists, whatever, right? And that data was sort of ignored. The outcomes, the down-the-road impact on health was ignored in that court case. 

Rovner: Also, the practical implications of this are kind of terrifying. Yanking accrediting responsibilities from these groups could make a big mess out of training the health care workforce. These groups have decades of experience devising and enforcing guidelines for medical education, much more than just DEI — what you have to teach, what they have to learn, what they have to be competent in. If the administration takes away these organizations’ recognition, it could raise real questions about the uniformity of medical education around the U.S., not to mention deprive lots of programs of lots of federal funding, because programs have to be accredited in order to draw federal funding. This could turn into a really big deal. 

Kenen: If they go away, what happens? 

Rovner: There would be alternate accrediting bodies. 

Kenen: But I have — when I read about the threats on the current accreditation bodies, I did not see, in what I read last night, I did not see: Then what? That blank was not filled in as far as I am aware. 

Rovner: I don’t think there is a then what. There are some efforts to stand up alternate accrediting bodies, but I don’t think they exist at the moment. And as I said, these are the bodies that have been doing it for now generations of medical students and medical residents. All right, well we also learned this week that the Government Accountability Office, the GAO is investigating 39 different cases of potentially illegal funding freezes, except the agency’s director told a Senate committee, the administration is not cooperating. I think I’ve said this just about every week since February, but there is a law against the administration refusing to spend money appropriated by Congress. And it feels pretty clear in many of these cases that the administration is violating it. 

Why aren’t we hearing more about impoundments and rescissions? The administration says they’re going to send up a rescission request, which is what they are supposed to do when they don’t want to spend money. They have to say: Hey, Congress, we don’t think we should spend this money. Will you vote to let us not spend this money? And yet all we do is talk about all of these cases where the administration is not spending money that’s been appropriated. 

Ollstein: You’re seeing it in grants, and you’re also seeing it in the mass layoffs of agency employees who are in many cases working on congressionally mandated programs, some of them signed into law by President Trump himself in his first term. I’m thinking of the 9/11 health program, some of the firefighter health and safety programs through NIOSH [the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health]. So this is something I’ve been looking into. But when the enforcement mechanism is really the court’s rule and hope that the rulings are followed, and when they’re not, we’re really running into what people are calling a constitutional crisis, where the normal checks and balances are not working. And we’re finding out that a lot of it has really been on an honor system this whole time. 

Rovner: Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I was just going to say, I think this is a huge constitutional issue that this administration is facing down. There’s this question about who gets to decide how the money is spent? The Constitution seems to say that it’s Congress. The administration is saying, no, the executive has a lot of authority to just ignore those appropriations requests. There are several cases in the courts right now on this issue related to various programs that the administration has declined to fund. But courts move pretty slowly. There have been some preliminary rulings. I think the preliminary rulings have tended to say that the money should be continuing to flow. But this is one of these issues that is absolutely a thousand percent headed to the Supreme Court and hasn’t gotten there yet. And I think the intensity of the constitutional crisis that Alice is warning about will really become more evident when the court decides. 

But I feel like I can’t talk about this issue without also talking about Congress. Because the Constitution is very clear that Congress has the power of the purse. And Congress has passed these appropriations bills over many years that include very specific funding levels. There’s a whole process. There’s a lot of people that do a lot of work. And Congress has been very weak in asserting its constitutional authority to ensure that this money is spent. We have heard very little, a few little peeps about specific things. But in general I would say the congressional leadership, and the leaders of the Appropriations Committee who have made this their lives’ work, have just not been screaming and yelling and jumping up and down about how their constitutional power has been usurped by the executive. 

And so I think that is also part of the reason why this is continuing to go on, because you see this acquiescence where Republicans in Congress are basically saying to Trump: Okay. Like, please send us a rescission package, but like we’ll go along with this for now. So I do think that we’re sort of waiting on the Supreme Court to try to issue some really definitive legal ruling, and that that is when we’re going to probably have the bigger conversation about who really gets to decide what money is spent. 

Kenen: Susan Collins, who’s the chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, did put out a statement yesterday that is stronger than her usual, what we’ve heard to date. But it wasn’t a line in the sand, like, I’m not going let you do this, and I’m going to go to the Supreme Court. So it was more of a toe in the water than I had seen from her before. 

Rovner: I watched that hearing, because I wanted to. This was the first hearing in the Senate Appropriations Committee this year, so the first time they’ve had a formal chance to speak. And it was on biomedical research and the state of biomedical research. And I was the one that was yelling and screaming because neither Susan Collins nor Patty Murray, the ranking Democrat, they both talked about how terrible these cuts are, without saying that they could do something about it. It’s like, you’re the Senate Appropriations Committee. This is your power that they’re taking away, and you’re both saying this is awful without suggesting that You’re taking this from us. So I got a little bit of exercise just watching it. 

Kenen: They put out a statement highlighting— 

Rovner: I know. I heard her, listened. She read the statement. 

Kenen: But what they, how they framed it in the statement was a little bit more pointed. But no, I agree it was not a call to arms. 

Rovner: No. 

Kenen: It was a statement that I hadn’t seen yet. 

Rovner: I watched it live. It didn’t come across as: Hey, this is our responsibility. We passed these bills. You’re supposed to spend this money. I’ve seen a little bit of that coming from the House. I was surprised to not see it coming more from the Senate. We do have to move on. Meanwhile, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. continues to make headlines for his questionable takes on science and medicine. In an interview this week on the “Dr. Phil” show, Kennedy said that parents, quote, should do their “own research” before having their children vaccinated. And he said that, quote, “new drugs are approved by outside panels,” which they most certainly are not. Those outside panels make recommendations that the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] usually follows but sometimes doesn’t. Yet there’s still not much in the way of opprobrium coming from Republicans inside and outside the administration. Is it just not news anymore when the secretary of health and human services says kind of outlandish and false things? Is it baked in? 

Kenen: Well, we’re waiting. So far. They approved him, and Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana said, I’m going to be in close contact with him, and we’re going to be talking, and I’m going to make sure nothing terrible happens. And lots of things have happened. So at this point, yeah, he’s doing what he wants without — they have said they are going to call him, but I haven’t seen a date set for the hearing. 

Rovner: There’s not a date set for the hearing. 

Kenen: Right. So at some point, at some place, he will eventually be asked about something or other maybe. But at this point, no. He’s MAHA-ing his way through HHS and cuts galore and really things that they were started before he took his job, stuff that Elon Musk started. But now that the team of FDA, C— well, not CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] but FDA and NIH [National Institutes of Health] leadership is there, it’s going Kennedy’s way. They’re not standing up and saying, It’s my institute, and I’m going to run it the way I see fit. It’s very, particularly FDA, people who thought that he was the least radical of the officials to be appointed. 

Rovner: He, Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner. 

Kenen: Yes. Some of what he said about vaccines just this week has shocked people who thought he would be a little bit more, not a traditionalist but more traditional in how the FDA did its business. 

Rovner: More science-based, might be a fair way to put it. Well, I want to talk about the continuing cuts at HHS because things are, in a word, confusing. Last week we talked about the cancellation of the Women’s Health Initiative. That’s a decades-old project that has led to a long list of changes in how women are diagnosed and treated for a wide range of conditions. Late in the week, former California first lady and longtime women’s health advocate Maria Shriver announced on social media that she convinced her cousin, RFK Jr., not to cancel the study. But this week Stat reports that Women’s Health Initiative officials around the country have not been officially notified that the cancellation has been rescinded, so they’re kind of frozen in place and can’t really plan anything. 

Similarly, on April 25, The New York Times reported that the FDA had reversed a decision to fire scientists at its food safety lab. But that was days after FDA Commissioner Marty Makary insisted that no scientists had been terminated. Quoting from the CBS News story on Makary’s claims, quote: “‘That just made me so mad … he said no scientists were cut,’ said one laid-off FDA scientist, a chemist who had worked at the agency for years.’” Which kind of leads to the question: Are they just confused at HHS, or are they trying to sort of obfuscate what’s really happening there? I’m hearing department-wide about claims made by spokespeople about funding that’s been, quote, “restored” but that’s still not flowing, according to the people who are trying to get it. Margot, I see you nodding. 

Sanger-Katz: I think there’s just a great deal of confusion. There’s a lot of people missing, too. So I think that just some of the kind of basic mechanics of how you turn things on and off is a little bit broken. But I also think that there are disagreements among the decision-makers about what they want to turn on and off. And we have seen this throughout the Trump administration, not just at HHS but in other places where top officials have said that they’re going to restore funding that was cut or a court has ordered them to restore funding that has been cut, and then, lo and behold, the money doesn’t turn back on. So I just think there’s — this is why it’s a good time to be a journalist. I think it really bears a lot of reporting and follow-up and checking on whether they’re doing the things that they say they’re doing. Some of these things might just be confusion — it’ll take a minute. And some of them, maybe they’ve changed their minds. 

Kenen: Or like the AID [U.S. Agency for International Development] global AIDS money, which they said they were restoring, and it’s questionable still. It’s unclear how much. We certainly know not all of it’s been restored, and it’s unclear. I haven’t done any firsthand reporting on this, but from reading, it’s just uncertain how much. Some is getting through but not what they said they were going to do. I sent an email to some at the CDC yesterday asking, and I had to say: Excuse me. I’m not being facetious. It’s just hard to keep track. Is your division still there? So yes, he was still there. I couldn’t find a master list of which CDC departments are still functioning and which are not. What Elon Musk said was, We’re going to move fast and break things, which is the Silicon Valley mantra, and that We can always fix it. We’ve seen them moving fast, and we’ve seen them breaking things, but we’re waiting on the fixing it. 

Ollstein: And I think it’s been interesting that Secretary Kennedy has said publicly now, on more than one occasion, that these cuts, these program eliminations, certain ones are a mistake. He didn’t even know they happened. He said this in interviews. And then with some of the ones that they’re claiming, they’re restoring, the national firefighters union, the IAFF [International Association of Fire Fighters], said that when they met with HHS leadership, they were told that the HHS blamed mid-level bureaucrats for incorrectly canceling some of these programs. All of this sort of begs the question: Who’s in charge over there? Who’s making these decisions? Is the secretary even in the loop on them? Is this all coming from DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency]? Yeah, and so I think Margot’s absolutely right about we just really need to keep reporting and not take what they say at face value. And we should do that for any administration. 

Sanger-Katz: The president is scheduled — any day now, we don’t know — to release his, what they’re calling the skinny budget. So this is a document from the White House that says what their spending priorities are for the next fiscal year. We think it’s just going to deal with discretionary spending, but I think it will give us some really good clues about what parts of the various cuts in HHS and other parts of the government were sort of part of the plan or will continue to be part of the plan going forward and which of the cuts were made randomly or haphazardly or at the behest of someone who hadn’t talked to the White House. I definitely am very interested to see that document when it comes out, because I think it is the first time that we’ll really see, written down in one place, what it is that the White House is intending to cut in the federal government. 

Rovner: Yeah, the appropriations committees are very interested in seeing that document, too, so they say. Also the other thing that getting a budget will trigger is having to have some of these people come to Capitol Hill to justify their budget and having Congress get a chance to ask questions. 

Finally, in this week’s news, we haven’t talked about abortion in a while. Not that there isn’t news there, it’s just been eclipsed by all of the bigger news. So I want to catch up. Well, speaking of funding being restored, Alice, you were the first to report that the Trump administration has quietly resumed Title X family planning funding to Oklahoma and Tennessee, even while it’s still frozen for some other states. Not so coincidentally, Oklahoma and Tennessee had their Title X money cut off during the Biden administration, because they were out of compliance with the Title X rules requiring women with unintended pregnancies to be counseled on all of their options, including pregnancy termination. I guess this shouldn’t be surprising except for the fact that the grant notices to these states said the money was being restored pursuant to settlement agreements that apparently don’t exist? 

Ollstein: Yes, these states are still not complying with the Title X requirements. That’s what they went to court about. Those cases have not been settled. These states weren’t even expecting this money and were surprised about it and now have to come up with how to actually administer it, because the money was going to other groups in those states that were providing services. And so, it’s really thrown everyone for a loop. And this is coming at a time when grants for a lot of other Title X providers who say they are following the rules have been indefinitely frozen. They’re allegedly being investigated for violating orders on DEI and immigration, but they have heard nothing about where that investigation stands, whether the money is coming. And in the meantime, a lot of people, hundreds of thousands, according to the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, that represents all these providers, are said to lose services. And again, this is access to birth control for low-income people, STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing, a lot of things people need. 

Rovner: So, when we last visited Texas, abortion opponents and women who’d had pregnancy complications were fighting over a bill that was supposed to clarify that the state’s 2022 ban would allow pregnancy terminations in emergency medical situations. Well, apparently they reached a rapprochement, because the Texas Senate this week passed a bill by a 31-0 vote. Alice, what broke the logjam? And will this bill ultimately get signed by the governor? Is there a deal here? 

Ollstein: Well, we’ll have to see. Medical experts have been very skeptical about the provisions here and don’t trust Texas lawmakers to have patients’ best interest in mind, given the impact of previous policies on this front. And so just given the makeup of the state legislature and the officials in power, it’s definitely very possible it will become law. There could be court challenges. We’ll just have to see how it plays out. 

Rovner: Well, this is obviously not any kind of sign that Texas is going soft on abortion, because the Senate also this week passed a bill that would basically extend the state’s bounty hunter abortion law, that lets private individuals sue doctors or others who help people get abortions, would extend that to manufacturers, mailers, and deliverers of abortion pills. Alice, this would be a pretty big step in the state’s efforts to curtail abortions, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I think we should think about bills like this like a lot of other bills that are already in place, in that it’s not possible to fully enforce them. It’s not possible to prevent — short of opening everyone’s mail and surveilling everyone in the state — it’s not really possible to prevent medication abortion being mailed. And in the case that’s already in court about a New York doctor who is providing pills to patients in Texas and other states under a shield law, New York has said: We are not turning over this doctor. We are not going to enforce. What she’s doing is legal in our state. It’s legal in the place where she is doing the action, so you can’t have her. 

So I think the main issue here is the chilling effect. It’s a law that makes people more afraid potentially to go and order these pills online or over the phone. And so they’re hoping that that deters people, because, I think, it’s totally possible that, like the New York doctor, we’ve already seen, they pick a few cases to make an example of people and to further that chilling effect, because it’s not possible to go after everybody. 

Sanger-Katz: It just really highlights, I think, the challenges of President Trump’s approach to this issue, which is, he basically said: Let’s just leave it to the states. Let’s not have a lot of federal policy on abortion. Now, there are things that are being done through the Title X funding and everything that affect reproductive health. But in general, there just does not seem to be an appetite for big sweeping regulations that would make abortion substantially harder to get everywhere or any kind of law that would ban or restrict abortion nationwide. And the problem is is if you’re a Texas legislator and you were trying to prevent abortions in Texas, it’s a really frustrating situation, because the state boundaries are just so porous. And particularly because of these abortion pills that can be easily smuggled in through various ways, through mail or someone walking across the border or someone going and coming back, there are still a lot of abortions that are happening in Texas. 

And so I think if you’re someone whose public policy goal is to restrict or stop abortions in Texas, you start having to have to think creatively about even some of these kinds of enforcement mechanisms that, as Alice said, are kind of hard to achieve and probably are going to have a selective enforcement approach. But I think they just haven’t really been able to achieve their goals. And you look at the national abortion statistics and when you look at some of the data on even the state of residency of people who are getting abortions of various types, there just haven’t been big declines. Even in Texas, even in this very big state that has very restrictive laws, there are a lot of women from Texas who are continuing to get abortions. And I think that’s why we’re seeing the state legislature continue to reach for more ambitious ways to curtail it. 

Rovner: Yes. Much to the frustration of the people who are making the anti-abortion laws in Texas. All right. That is this week’s news. Now I want to spend a few minutes trying to synthesize all that’s happened in health policy in the now 102 days since Donald Trump began his second term. I’ve asked each of the panelists to give us a just quick summary of some specific topics. Joanne, why don’t you kick us off with how public health has changed in these last couple of months? 

Kenen: Yeah. Basically if you — when I started writing it down, I couldn’t fit it on a page. If you name anything in public health, it’s been cut or reduced or put in jeopardy. We’ve talked extensively about what’s going on. And by public health, I’m talking about federal down to cities, because they’ve lost their money. So, whether you’re in a red state or a blue, you have less to spend, you’re not allowed to talk about certain things. HIV money has been affected. Global health has been affected. Obviously measles — we did not have whatever the number of measles cases, I believe it’s over a thousand by now. I haven’t seen the last number. Data has vanished. And that data, there are some nonprofits that are trying to collate it and make it available, but years and years and years of data, which was the foundation of data-based, reality-based, and measuring gains and losses in public health, that’s been obliterated. Things are being stopped at NIH. That’s the future of public health, right? 

If you’re stopping training, if you’re stopping universities, if you’re stopping postdocs, if you’re stopping graduate school funding, that’s not just public health today but public health as far as we can see in the future. The anti-smoking, anti-tobacco-use, the suicide helpline is in danger. Mental health, opioid treatment is being rolled back. Pretty much if you think of public health, it’s really hard to think of anything that has not been affected. 

Rovner: Thank you. That was a pretty good summation. Margot, if you had to write a one-page elementary school book report on DOGE and what’s happened at HHS, what would it be? 

Sanger-Katz: Well, I think it’s highly overlapping with a lot of what Joanne was talking about. I think we’ve seen these outsiders who came into the government and just started kind of hacking and slashing. They have eliminated a lot of functions of HHS that have existed for a really long time, not just individual people who have lost their jobs but whole offices that have disappeared, whole functions that existed for a long time and don’t exist anymore. I do think — I was talking about the skinny budget — we’re going to find out the president’s plan for this. I will give Secretary Kennedy some credit for releasing a sort of blueprint for what his goals were in trying to reorganize HHS. It seemed like they did have an idea in some cases of what they were trying to do — consolidate duplication, centralize certain functions, de-emphasize and reemphasize other priorities. 

Rovner: Cut NIH from 27 institutes to eight. 

Sanger-Katz: Right. Eliminate regional offices in various ways. But I think it is worthwhile to think about the DOGE effort in terms of what its goals are and whether those goals are really aligned with particular goals around health policy. In some cases, I do think Secretary Kennedy has directed them to do things that are in line with his goals for health policy, but I think a lot of this cutting was really just cutting for cutting’s sake, trying to hit certain budgetary target numbers, trying to reduce funding to some percentage of contracts, some percentage of grants. And of course, there has also been, from the White House, a desire to target particular political enemies of the president. So we’ve seen, all the NIH grants canceled to universities where he’s having feuds over other issues, huge categories of research funding just drying up because they’re at odds with various political priorities of the president. 

So there are multiple power centers that are all kind of wrestling over this future of HHS. You have the secretary himself, you have the White House, and you have this DOGE entity, which was kind of on the outside now and now is on the inside. And I think part of what we have seen is a real wrestling around that. And just very, very large reductions across all of the functions of what the department does. 

Kenen: Some of these things that Margot and I are talking about do have, in fact — they’re about chronic disease. So if Kennedy is trying to reorient our health system to fight chronic disease, then why are you cutting diabetes programs and why are you cutting long-term women’s health studies? These are chronic disease. Diabetes is the great example of a chronic disease that we really could do better on prevention, making sure people don’t get it. But not everybody — we could make gains there. And yet some of these key programs that are supposedly in line with his priorities are also on the cutting-room floor. And I will stop there. 

Rovner: And I have said, and I made this point before, but I will make it again here because I think it’s relevant, which is that I feel like HHS is part of the Jenga tower that holds up the nation’s health care system writ large, and that they’re kind of yanking pieces out willy-nilly. And I do worry that the whole thing is going to come crumbling down at some point. Obviously it hasn’t yet, but we’re going to see what happens when they take away a lot of these things. Like I said, yanking the ability of accreditation agencies to do their jobs, things that happen in the background that are going away, that won’t happen anymore. And we’re going to have to see what happens with that. 

Sanger-Katz: And I do think some of this really long-term research, both the collection of government data and also the funding of these very large longitudinal studies, I think those are the kinds of cuts that you don’t really see the effects of those right away. It’s the things that you don’t know in the future. And I think that we see a lot of cuts of that sort, where you see the DOGE team come in and they say: Oh, data. Oh, analysis. Like, we can do this better with our own tools. We have technical expertise. We don’t need this whole office of people that are doing data. And across the government, you’re seeing this real loss of long-term data collection and analysis, data sets and studies and surveys that have been conducted for decades, and there are just going to be holes in those. And we may not know the effects of those losses for some time. 

Rovner: I think that, too. Well, Alice, I don’t want to leave without touching on reproductive health. I’m actually a little surprised at all this administration has not done on abortion, as Margot was talking about, and other reproductive issues. So what have they done? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I kind of have organized my thoughts into three buckets. So, it’s things they’ve done that the anti-abortion movement likes, things that the anti-abortion movement wants them to do that they haven’t done yet, and things that they’ve done that have actually pissed off the anti-abortion movement. These are not equal buckets — they’re just three categories. 

So, OK. What they have done: The anti-abortion movement was very pleased that the Trump administration rolled back a lot of Biden policies making abortion more accessible for veterans and service members. Also got reimposed the Mexico City policy, which restricts international aid for family planning programs that talk about abortion or refer people to abortion services. Of course, that’s been overshadowed by the just total decimation of foreign aid in general, but it’s still meaningful. I would say that the Trump administration switching sides in a legal battle over emergency room abortions was one of the biggest developments. We are still waiting to find out if they’re also going to switch sides in ongoing litigation over FDA regulation of abortion pills. That’s TBD but could be very big no matter which way they go. And the freeze on Title X funding that we’ve already discussed. The anti-abortion movement has been pleased by that because a lot of that has hit Planned Parenthood. Of course, it’s hitting providers beyond Planned Parenthood as well. 

So I also find it interesting that they have not done a lot of what the anti-abortion movement wants in terms of reimposing restrictions on abortion pills, saying they can’t be sent by mail, can’t be prescribed by telemedicine. So there’s a big push underway to pressure the administration to make those changes. Could still happen, but it has definitely not been something that they’ve prioritized at the beginning of the administration. 

And in this much smaller category of things they’ve done that have angered the anti-abortion movement, I’m thinking mainly of an executive order that didn’t actually do anything but purported to promote IVF [in vitro fertilization]. And he ordered his administration to study ways to make IVF more accessible and affordable. And a lot of anti-abortion groups view IVF as it’s currently practiced as akin to abortion, because some embryos are discarded. So, I sort of think of it like Trump has governed so far on abortion, a lot like he campaigns, trying to please the moderates and the conservatives and not really pleasing everyone fully and being a little all over the place. 

Rovner: Thank you. That was a great summary, and we’re on to the next hundred days. All right. That’s the news for this week. Now it is 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. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: Yeah. This is a pair of articles [“Many Nursing Homes Feed Residents on Less Than $10 a Day: ‘That’s Appallingly Low’” and “Inside the ‘Multibillion-Dollar Game’ To Funnel Cash From Nursing Homes to Sister Companies”] published by New Jersey Advance but in conjunction with papers in, The Oregonian in Oregon, MLive in Michigan, and in Alabama, and it’s by Ted Sherman, Susan Livio, and Matthew Miller. And it’s a really deep two-part investigation into, basically, greed at nursing homes. I don’t think they use the word “greed,” but that’s what it is. Feeding people, like, a food budget of $10 or less a day. Splitting the ownership so that there’s various interconnected businesses, so it looks like the nursing home doesn’t have enough money, because they’re actually paying somebody else for services provided at the nursing home that has the same owner, so it’s sort of financial gamesmanship. And just not taking care of people. Really well documented. They had thousands of pages of CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid] files. They had university professors and data experts helping them analyze it. There’s never been an analysis, they say, this extensive. And it just shows tremendous abuse and just asks a What next? question and Why is this allowed to happen? question. 

Rovner: It’s a really good piece. Margot. 

Sanger-Katz: I want to highlight a piece from CNBC called “GLP-1s Can Help Employers Lower Medical Costs in 2 Years, New Study Finds.” I have some cautions about this study because the full study has not been made public. It has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I still have lots of questions about it. Nevertheless, I read the story and I thought about it a lot and I have been thinking about it a lot since. And so I still feel like it is worth reading and talking about. This study was done by Aon, which is a big benefits consultant, and they pooled all this data from lots of employers who are covering these anti-obesity drugs for their workers. And basically what they say they found in the story is that among those people who continued to take the drug, who had what they called very high adherence to the drug, for two years, they actually found that their health improved so much that they saved their employers health plan money over that two-year period, even when compared to the very high cost of these drugs. 

So I would say this is a pretty surprising result. These drugs are expensive, and I think there was always an expectation that they were going to reduce people’s health care needs because they prevent diabetes and cardiac events and all of these other serious diseases. But I think there was always an expectation that the payback period would be much longer because the cost is so high. One more thing that jumped out at me in this study is there are some published studies from the clinical trials of Wegovy, the first anti-obesity drug that got approved by the FDA, that found that cardiac events among people taking those drugs were significantly diminished. But I think in a clinical trial where everything is perfect, you always expect those results to look a little bit better. 

This study, again, we can’t totally look under the hood, but they found 44% reduction in major cardiac incidents among working-age people who are taking these drugs in just two years. If that holds up, I think it just is additional evidence that these drugs are really, really promising for public health. Reducing heart attacks and strokes is just — and that’s compared to the standard of care. That’s compared to other people who had employer insurance who were of similar health, who were presumably taking statins and blood pressure drugs and the other things that you do to prevent cardiac events. So, I think, let’s not overinterpret this study. There could be something weird about it. But I do think it’s another promising indication that these drugs have the potential to have big public health impact and to potentially be a little less expensive for the system than we have been thinking of them. 

Rovner: And of course there are still efforts to lower the prices, which would obviously increase the benefit. 

Sanger-Katz: The big question I have is what percentage of people who are prescribed the drug are in this very adherent group, right? Because the companies are spending a lot of money giving people drugs who then stop taking them for various reasons or take them in a way that doesn’t produce these big health results. It could still be hugely expensive relative to the savings. But at least in this group that was taking the drugs, it seems like they’re getting healthier pretty quickly. 

Rovner: Interesting. 

Kenen: But if people aren’t taking it, if — adherence is often meant, like: Oh, I take it some days and not others, I forget to take my cholesterol drug, whatever. But if people stop taking it because there are side effects, then the cost also drops off. 

Rovner: Right. Yeah. We’ll see. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I chose a sad story from ProPublica. It’s called, “Utah Farmers Signed Up for Federally Funded Therapy. Then the Money Stopped.” And this is about a program through USDA [the U.S. Department of Agriculture] to offer to fund vouchers for farmers to be able to access mental health care. Farmers are notoriously very high-risk for suicide. There are a lot of challenges in that population. And this allowed people to, sometimes for the first time in their lives, to get these services. And the federal money has run out. There’s no sign it’s getting renewed. And while some states have stepped in and provided state money to continue these programs, Utah and some others have not, and people have lost that access. And the article is about the sad consequences of that. So, highly recommend. 

Rovner: All right. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleague Brett Kelman, and it’s called “As a Diversity Grant Dies, Young Scientists Fear It Will Haunt Their Careers.” It’s about a unique early-career grant program at the NIH, now canceled by the Trump administration, aimed at boosting the careers of young scientists from backgrounds that are underrepresentative, which includes not just race, gender, and disability but also those from rural areas or who grew up poor or who were the first in their family to attend college. It’s not only a waste of money — canceling multi-year grants in the middle essentially throws away the money that went before — but in this case it’s yet another way this administration is telling young scientists that they’re essentially not wanted and maybe they should consider another career or, as many seem to be doing, seek employment in other countries. As the old saying goes, it feels an awful lot like eating the seed corn. 

All right. That is this week’s 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 editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m at Bluesky, @joannekenen, or I use LinkedIn more than I used to. 

Rovner: Margot? 

Sanger-Katz: I’m @sangerkatz in all the places, including on Signal. If you guys want to send me tips, I’m @sangerkatz.01. 

Rovner: Excellent. Alice? 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on Twitter 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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Congress returns from spring break next week and will get to work crafting a bill that would cut taxes and boost immigration enforcement — but that also could cut at least $880 billion over the next decade from a pool of funding that includes Medicaid. Some Republicans, however, are starting to question the political wisdom of making such large cuts to a program that provides health coverage to so many of their constituents.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case challenging the requirement that most private insurance cover certain preventive services with no out-of-pocket cost for patients.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

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:

• On the hunt for ways to pay for an extension of President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, many congressional Republicans are choosing their words carefully as they describe potential cuts to Medicaid — cuts that, considering heavy reliance on the program, especially in red states, could be politically unpopular.
• Amid the buzz over Medicaid cuts, another federal program that helps millions of Americans afford health care is also on the chopping block: the enhanced government subsidies introduced under the Biden administration that help pay premiums for Affordable Care Act plans. The subsidies expire at the end of this year, and Congress has yet to address extending them.
• One little-discussed option for achieving deep government spending cuts is Medicare Advantage, the private alternative to traditional Medicare that offers a variety of extra benefits for those over 65 — but that also costs the federal government a bundle. Even Mehmet Oz, the new head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services who once pushed Medicare Advantage plans as a TV personality, has cast sidelong glances at private insurers over how much they charge the government.
• And the Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week in a case that challenges the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and could hold major implications for preventive care coverage nationwide. The justices’ questioning suggests the court could side with the government and preserve the task force’s authority — though that decision would also give more power over preventive care to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the health and human services secretary.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Rae Ellen Bichell about her story on how care for transgender minors is changing in Colorado.

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

Julie Rovner: MedPage Today’s “Medical Journals Get Letters From DOJ,” by Kristina Fiore.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Tampa Bay Times’ “Countering DeSantis, $10M Hope Florida Donation Came From Medicaid, Draft Shows,” by Alexandra Glorioso and Lawrence Mower.

Tami Luhby: Stat’s “In Ireland, a Global Hub for the Pharma Industry, Trump Tariffs Are a Source of Deep Worry,” by Andrew Joseph.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “A Scientist Is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It,” by Will Evans, Ellen Gabler, and Anjali Tsui.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “New England Journal of Medicine Gets Swept Up in U.S. Attorney Inquiry Into Alleged Bias,” by Anil Oza.
• KFF’s “KFF Tracking Poll on Health Information and Trust: The Public’s Views on Measles Outbreaks and Misinformation,” by Alex Montero, Grace Sparks, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
• Bloomberg News’ “Food Industry Says There’s No Agreement With US Health Agency to Cut Dyes,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang.
• Politico’s “RFK Jr. Eyes Reversing CDC’s Covid-19 Vaccine Recommendation for Children,” by Adam Cancryn.
• The New Yorker’s “The Cost of Defunding Harvard,” by Atul Gawande.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “Trump’s FDA Sends a Bullish Signal to Biotech,” by David Wainer

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Can Congress Reconcile Trump’s Wishes With Medicaid’s Needs?

[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 24, 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Hello. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my KFF Health News colleague Rae Ellen Bichell about her story about how care options are changing for trans kids in Colorado. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Congress, which is still out, by the way, on spring break but does return on Monday. When members get back, it will be full speed ahead on that, quote, “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill, as the president likes to call it. But there are already some big storm clouds on the horizon, particularly when it comes to cutting Medicaid by $880 billion over the next decade. We would appear to have both moderate and conservative Republicans voicing doubts about those big Medicaid cuts. Or are they hiding behind semantics? Some of them are saying, Well, we don’t want to cut Medicaid, but it would be OK to have work requirements, which, as we’ve talked about many times, would cut a lot of people off of Medicaid. Alice, I see you nodding. 

Ollstein: Yes. So, people really need to pay attention to the specifics and press members on exactly what they mean. What do they mean by “cut”? Because some people don’t consider certain things a cut. Some people consider them efficiency or savings, or there’s a lot of different words we hear thrown around. And also, who is impacted? Who are they OK being impacted? There’s a lot of rhetoric sort of pitting the people on the Medicaid expansion, who are not parents, not people with disabilities, against people on traditional Medicaid in ways that some advocates find offensive or misleading. And so, I think when members say, I am against Medicaid cuts, I will not vote for Medicaid cuts, we really need to ask: What do you consider a cut? And who are you OK allowing to be impacted? 

Luhby: Yeah. Speaker Mike Johnson had a very telling comment on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures” earlier this month where he said, “The president has made absolutely clear many times, as we have as well, that we’re going to protect Medicare, Social Security, Medicaid for people who are legally beneficiaries of those programs.” But then he goes on to say: “At the same time, we have to root out fraud, waste, and abuse. We have to eliminate on, for example, [on] Medicaid, people who are not actually eligible to be there. Able-bodied workers, for example, young men who should never be on the program at all.” 

Of course, these folks are legal beneficiaries or legal enrollees of the program thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s Medicaid expansion, which has been expanded in 40 states. But yeah as Alice was saying, they are using language like “protecting the vulnerable” or people who “really need the program.” 

The new CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator, Mehmet Oz, has also used the same language. So he seems to be in step with them. But yeah I think we’re really going to see work requirements and other methods, such as potentially cutting the FMAP [Federal Medical Assistance Percentage] for the federal matching money for the expansion population, which is set at 90%, which is far higher than it is for the traditional population, which a lot of folks don’t think is fair. But if the federal government, if Congress, does cut that match for the expansion population, we will see a lot of people lose their coverage. 

Rovner: And for the six people that haven’t heard me say this a thousand times, there are 12 states that automatically end their Medicaid expansion if that 90% match gets cut, because they legit can’t afford to make up the difference. I’ve seen numbers this week. It’s like $620 billion that states would have to make up if Congress just reduces that 90% match to whatever the match is, because each state gets a slightly different match. Poor states get more money from the federal government. 

For a bill where the repeal of the Affordable Care Act is supposedly not on the table, it is certainly on the menu. One item that I don’t think gets talked about enough is the expiration of the expanded subsidies for ACA coverage that were implemented during the pandemic. That’s effectively doubled ACA marketplace enrollment to 24 million people. And if those subsidies end, which they do at the end of the year in the absence of congressional action — this isn’t like the Medicaid match where Congress would have to actively go in and lower it. This was temporary, and it expires unless it is renewed. If that happens, a lot of people, including a lot of Republican voters in a lot of very red states, are going to get hit with huge increases starting in 2026. 

Is that starting to dawn on some Republican members of the House and Senate? And might it change the odds that those subsidies are allowed to expire, which I think we all just assumed when [Donald] Trump got elected last November? 

Ollstein: You are not hearing as much about it as you are about Medicaid, even from Democrats. So I’m curious, when Congress returns from its recess, if that dynamic is going to change, because even advocacy groups right now are really hammering the Medicaid cuts issue in ads, TV ads, billboards, press conferences. And so I’m not sure if that same messaging will sort of expand to include the people who would be hit by these cost increases, if these supports expire, or if there will be different messaging, or if it’ll get lost in the current fight about Medicaid. 

Luhby: I was saying it had been discussed quite a bit earlier this year, but then it has completely fallen off the radar. One thing that some folks are also trying to put it now as is saying that it’s also part of the waste, fraud, and abuse, because they’re arguing that a lot of folks, because part of the expansion was that people under 150% of poverty could get pretty much no-cost, no-premium subsidy plans. They could get no-premium plans. And there have been, even during the Biden administration also, there was a lot of accusations that people were fraudulently deflating their income so that they would qualify for this, or brokers were trying to do that for them. 

Rovner: Yeah. I think the other thing, though, that where the enrollment has gone up the most are in the 10 states that didn’t expand Medicaid, because those are people who are now eligible for, as Tami was saying, these extremely low-cost and, in some cases, free plans, and those would be the people who would be either kicked off or see their costs go way up. I’ll be interested to see what happens when this starts to kind of penetrate the psyches of members as they go through this exercise, which, as I say, is just going to get underway. The big effort launches next week, so we will watch this closely. 

I wanted to talk about a related subject, Medicare Advantage. Congress could find a lot of savings in Medicare Advantage without cutting Medicaid and without cutting Medicare benefits, or at least directly cutting Medicare benefits. Instead, Medicare Advantage plans are set to get big increases next year, which has boosted insurance stock prices even as the broader stock market has kind of tanked. Yes, as we saw at the confirmation hearing last month for Mehmet Oz to lead the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, some Republicans are actually questioning whether the federal government should continue to overpay those Medicare Advantage plans. Is the tide starting to turn maybe a little bit on this former Republican-favored program? 

Luhby: We’ll see. Actually, surprisingly, Dr. Oz, who long touted Medicare Advantage plans on his show and in social media, actually also during his confirmation hearing kind of cast a little shade on the insurers. And much of the increase that was announced recently was probably done, obviously, before he took office. So we’ll see what happens next year or during the course of this year. But at this point, it looks like the increase for 2026 is a step back from the Biden administration’s efforts to rein in the costs. 

Rovner: Yeah but they could, I mean, if they wanted to they could — people keep talking about Energy and Commerce, House Energy and Commerce Committee, and all the money that it needs to save, presumably from Medicaid. Well, Energy and Commerce also has jurisdiction over Medicare Advantage, and if they wanted to save some of that $880 billion, they could take it out of Medicare Advantage too if they really wanted to. I don’t know that I’m going to bet that they will. I’m just suggesting that they could. 

All right, well, turning to the Supreme Court, the justices heard oral arguments this week in the case challenging the Affordable Care Act’s no-cost coverage of preventive care. Tami, remind us what this case is about. And what would happen if the court found for the plaintiffs? 

Luhby: Well, so this is a case that’s been — it’s not as much of a threat to the Affordable Care Act as previous cases have been. This case surrounds the preventive care mandate in the ACA, which basically says that insurers have to provide no-cost care for a host of different services that are recommended by three different groups. The court case at the Supreme Court was focusing on one set of recommendations, specifically from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. And the plaintiffs have said basically that the task force isn’t constitutional and therefore its recommendations can’t be enforced and they shouldn’t have to provide these services at no cost. 

So it would have actually a big effect on a lot of services. The lower-court ruling was kind of strange in saying that it limited the advances to just those since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in March of 2010 when the ACA was passed, but it would still affect a host, things like statins, increased cancer screenings for certain groups, and screenings for pregnant women. So there are a lot of things that this would really affect people. 

And so I listened to the oral arguments, and it was very interesting. A lot of the discussion — it didn’t really talk about the preventive care and what that would mean for folks — but there was a lot of discussion about whether the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary has oversight over this task force or whether the members are independent. And that’s really at the crux of the argument here. And so there were several notable comments from conservative justices, and it seemed generally that folks we spoke to as well as media coverage seemed to say that the Supreme Court was leaning in the direction of the government. And Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that members of the task force are removable at will by the HHS secretary. Truly independent agencies, he noted, typically have legal protections that require a president to show cause before firing members of a board. The— 

Rovner: Like the head of the Federal Reserve, she inserts. 

Luhby: Justice Amy Coney Barrett said, who’s another conservative, said that she described the challenger’s position as very maximalist. So it seems that potentially — we don’t know, of course — but potentially the government may prevail here. 

But interestingly, if that does happen, that will actually give HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. more power over preventive services requirements. And as we know, he has a different view on certain public health measures. So we could really see him putting his stamp on the recommendations. Notably, this does not focus on vaccines. That’s a different group. That’s a different group that recommends vaccines, but that is still being discussed in the lower courts. So the vaccine issue isn’t over, but it’s not part of this case, per se. 

Rovner: This particular case, though, was really about PrEP [pre-exposure prophylaxis], right? It was about HIV preventives. 

Ollstein: Well, basically, the challengers, these conservative employers in Texas, in going after PrEP specifically, also are going after all preventive services. And the piece of the case that focused specifically on PrEP, where they said that requiring them to cover this HIV prevention drug would violate their religious rights, that piece did not go to the Supreme Court. So, lower courts have allowed these specific employers to opt out of covering PrEP, but because that ruling was not applied to anybody else in the country, the Biden Justice Department did not appeal it up to the Supreme Court. Probably, I’m just reading the tea leaves, not wanting to give this Supreme Court an opportunity to go after that. 

So that piece of it was not at issue, but the experts I talked to said that PrEP would still be really vulnerable if there was a broader ruling against preventive care, because PrEP is extremely expensive. And unlike other preventive services that insurers may see as really saving them money, they may see this as costing them and would drop that coverage, which could be really devastating to the U.S. effort to end the spread of HIV. 

Rovner: So I think one of the big surprises in this case was not that the Biden administration sued but that the Trump administration continued the position of the Biden administration. And one theory of why the Trump administration is defending the USPSTF [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] is that it wants to exercise more power over not just that advisory panel but others, too, which brings us to a report in Politico that HHS Secretary Kennedy is considering unilaterally ordering the ACIP — that’s the advisory committee on immunizations — to drop its recommendation that children continue to receive the vaccine to protect against covid. 

Now, Sarah, isn’t this exactly what Kennedy promised Sen. Bill Cassidy that he wouldn’t do during his confirmation hearings? Personally meddle with scientific recommendations? 

Karlin-Smith: Kennedy did make a very explicit promise related to the vaccine schedule, I think, and I think we’ve seen multiple times already, and I’m sure Bill Cassidy is getting tired of reporters asking him, Are you going to do something about this? But I think Kennedy has already probably walked back, really not kept the thrust of a lot of his commitments to Cassidy. And a change to the vaccine schedule for the covid vaccine for children could essentially impact insurance coverage. It might make it no longer eligible for the Vaccines for Children Program, which ensures people with lower incomes or no insurance can afford vaccines for their children. And so I think this is a particularly concerning step for people. Even though it wouldn’t necessarily take the vaccine away, it could make it really inaccessible and unaffordable. 

I did want to quickly say about the idea in [Kennedy v.] Braidwood that the government wins, RFK gets more authority. I heard a really interesting comment yesterday about that thread, and the head of the American Public Health Association was trying to emphasize, like, it’s sort of status quo. If the Braidwood case goes the way of the government, anybody can technically misuse the authority, and the thing they’ll be watching for is to see what happens there or pushing for a legislative construct so that he can’t really misuse it, because, I think, in their minds, a lot of public health associations and leaders want a win here. So I think they’re sort of pushing back on the messaging about exactly what this means for Kennedy. 

Rovner: So there are also some indications that the public is starting to buy what RFK Jr. is selling, at least when it comes to vaccines, even as measles and now whooping cough cases continue to mount. A new poll from my colleagues here at KFF finds a growing share of adults who have heard the false claims, including that the measles vaccine causes autism or that the vaccine is more dangerous than getting measles, both of which are not true. 

Sarah, you were at the World Vaccine Congress here in Washington this week. What are the folks there feeling about all of this? 

Karlin-Smith: So I overheard someone in the hallway say yesterday that everybody here is shell-shocked, and I think that is probably a good characterization of the mood in the vaccine world. The environment they operate in has sort of been turned on its head very quickly, and there is concern about the future. 

I went to one panel where lawyers were sort of very optimistic that the way the country has sort of set up our vaccine system and authorities, a lot of authority rests in the hands of the states and state laws that may protect our ability to access and get vaccines, as well as they seem to feel that this Supreme Court as well, when it comes to vaccine issues and any attempts by the federal government to encroach more power, would lean in favor of the states and having the power in the states. There was a lot of hope there. I think that does rely on the rule of law sort of being followed by this administration, which doesn’t always happen. 

The other thing that I think will be interesting to watch moving forward is those assumptions that we have systems in place to protect our vaccine infrastructure and access do rely on the vaccines actually being approved. And to get to that point, particularly with new vaccines, you have to have the federal government approve them. And that the buck could kind of stop there. And we’ve already seen some signs that FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and HHS politicals are interfering in that process. So certainly, again, the vaccine community is nervous and feeling like they have to defend something that, as somebody said, change the world from one where you didn’t know if your children would live to go to school to one where you can just sort of assume that, and that’s a really dramatic difference in our health and our lives. 

Rovner: Well, that is a perfect segue into what I wanted to talk about next, which was the continuing impact of the cuts at HHS. This week, we’ve learned of the shutting down of some major longitudinal studies, including the landmark Women’s Health Initiative, which has tracked more than 160,000 women in clinical trials and even more outside of them since the 1990s and has led to major changes in how women are diagnosed and treated for a variety of health conditions. Also, apparently being defunded is a multistate diabetes study as well as the CDC’s longitudinal study of maternal health outcomes. 

Alice, you have a story this week on how clinics are starting to close due to the cutoff of Title X family planning funding. A lot of these things are going to be difficult or even impossible to restart even if the courts eventually do say that, No, administration, you didn’t have the authority to do this and you have to restore them, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So in the Title X context, I’ve been talking to providers around the country who had tens of millions in funding frozen. And it was frozen indefinitely. They don’t know when or whether they’ll get it. They’re being investigated for possible violations of executive orders. They submitted evidence trying to prove they aren’t in violation, and they just have no idea what’s going to happen, and they’re really struggling to keep the lights on. And they were explaining, yeah. once you lay off staff, once you lay off doctors and nurses, and once you close clinics, you can’t just flip a switch and reopen, and even if the funding comes through again later. 

And I think that’s true in the research context as well. Once you halt research, once you close down a lab, even if the funding is restored, either as a result of a court case on the sooner side or buy a future administration, you can’t just unplug the government and plug it back in again. 

Rovner: Atul Gawande has a story in The New Yorker this week that I will link to about what’s going on at Harvard, which is, obviously, gets huge headlines because it’s Harvard. But the thing that really jumped out at me was there’s an ongoing study of a potential, a really good, vaccine for TB, which scientists have been looking for for a hundred years, and they were literally just about to do sort of the TB challenge for the macaques who have been given this vaccine, and now everything is frozen. And it seems that it’s not just that it would ruin that, but you would have to start over. It’s a waste of money. That’s what I keep trying to say. This seems like — this does not seem like it is saving money. This seems like it is just trying to basically wreck the scientific establishment. Or is that just me? 

Karlin-Smith: No, I think there’s plenty of examples of that where, again, they’ve wrapped a lot of this in the idea that they’re going after government efficiency and waste. And when you look at what is actually falling to the cutting-room floor, there’s a lot of evidence that shows it’s not waste of you think of these long-term studies like the diabetes study or the Woman’s Health Initiative they’ve been running for so many years, to then have to lose those people involved in that and to replicate it would cost, I saw one report was saying, maybe a million dollars just to kind of get it back up and running on the ground again. 

And it also conflicts with other Kennedy and health administration priorities that they’ve called for, which is to improve chronic disease treatment and management in the U.S. So there’s a lot of misalignment, it seems like, between the rhetoric and what they’re saying and what’s actually happening on the ground. 

Rovner: Well, Secretary Kennedy does continue to make news himself after last week announcing that he planned to reveal the cause of autism by this September. This week, the secretary says, as part of that NIH [National Institutes of Health]-ordered study, the department will create a registry of people with autism. The idea is to bring together such diverse databases as pharmacy, medication records, private insurance claims, lab tests, and other data from the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] and the Indian Health Service, even data from smartwatches and fitness trackers. What could possibly go wrong here? 

Ollstein: There’s a lot of anxiety in the autism community and just among people who are concerned about privacy and concerned about this administration in particular having access to all of these records. There’s concern about people being included or excluded in such a registry in error, since we’ve seen, I think, a lot of what the administration has been doing has been relying on artificial intelligence to make decisions and comb through records. And there have been some very notable errors on that front so far. So, yes, a lot of skepticism, and I think there will be some interesting pushback on this. 

Rovner: Yeah. I just, I think anytime somebody talks about making registries of people, it does set off alarm bells in a lot of communities. 

Well, meanwhile, the secretary held a press conference Tuesday to announce that he’s reached an agreement with food-makers to phase out petroleum-based food dyes by next year. Except our podcast pal Rachel Cohrs Zhang over at Bloomberg reports that no agreement has actually been reached, and The Wall Street Journal is reporting that biotech is warming up to the new leadership at the FDA that’s promising to streamline approval in a number of ways. So, Sarah, which is it? Is this HHS cracking down on manufacturers or cozying up to them? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s a complicated story. I think the food dye announcement is interesting because, again, they sort of suggested they had this big accomplishment, and then you look at the details, and they’re really just asking industry to do something, which I find ironic because Kennedy’s criticism of the FDA and the food industry’s relationship and the fact that we have these ingredients in our food in the first place has been that FDA has been too reliant on the food industry to self-police itself, and they really aren’t starting the regulatory process that would actually ban the products. 

And again, I think there’s sort of mixed research on how much, if any, harm comes from these products to begin with, so that picture isn’t really great. But there’s, again, these incredible ironies of the reports also coming out this week that they’re not inspecting milk the way they should and other parts of our food system and them touting this as this big health achievement. But at the same time, it does seem like the food industry is somewhat willing to work with them. 

I think on the biotech side, I maybe take slight disagreement with The Wall Street Journal. I think there are some positive signs for companies in that space from Commissioner [Martin] Makary in terms of his thinking about how to maybe make some products in the rare disease space go through the approval of process faster. I would just caution that Makary was very vague in how he described it, and it’s not even clear if he’s really thinking about something that would be new or what he would implement. 

And at the same time, again, you have to count all of that with the other elements coming out of the administration, including for Makary, that are kind of concerning about how they view vaccines. Makary also made some comments at the food dye event that are very reminiscent of RFK’s remarks, where he was very critical about the pharmaceutical industry and our use of drugs for treating obesity, depression, and other things that just repeats this sort of thread that kind of undermines the value of pharmaceuticals. So I think people are very hopeful in the industry about Makary and that he’d be a kind of counterbalance to Kennedy, but I think it’s too soon to really say whether he’s going to be a positive for that industry. 

Rovner: In other words, watch what they say and what they do. All right. Well, finally this week, I’m going to do my extra credit early because I want to let you guys comment on it, too. The story’s from MedPage Today. It’s by Kristina Fiore, and it’s called “Medical Journals Get Letters From DOJ,” and the story is a lot more dramatic than that. 

It seems that the interim U.S. attorney here in Washington, D.C., is writing to medical journals — yes, medical journals — accusing them of partisanship and failing to take into account, quote, “competing viewpoints.” And breaking just this morning, the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine has apparently gotten one of these letters, too. Now, none of these are so-called pay-to-play journals, which have their own issues. Rather, these are journals whose articles are peer-reviewed and based on scientific evidence. 

This strikes me as more than a little bit chilling and not at all in keeping with the radical transparency that this administration has promised. I honestly don’t know what to make of this. I’m curious as to what your guys’ take is. Is this one rogue U.S. attorney or the tip of the spear of an administration that really does want to go after the entire scientific establishment? 

Ollstein: I think we can see a pattern of the administration going after many entities and institutions that they perceive as providing a check on their power and rhetoric. So we’re seeing that with universities. We’re seeing that with news organizations. We are seeing that with quasi-independent government agencies and nonprofits. Now we’re seeing it with these medical journals. 

I’m not sure what their jurisdiction is here. These are not federally run or supported entities. These are private entities that theoretically have the right to set their own criteria for publication. But this may be intimidating and, like you said, chilling to some. So we’ll have to see what the response is. 

Rovner: Sarah, what are you hearing? 

Karlin-Smith: I think that it is interesting to me that they’re going after medical journals, because I’ve noticed a lot of the parts of the health industry are not willing to speak out and go after [President] Trump, even though probably privately behind the scenes a lot of people are very nervous about some of the activities. And the medical journals have been one place where I think you’ve seen a bit more freedom and seen the editorials and the viewpoints that have been harsher. 

So I wouldn’t be surprised if these are the entities that are willing to sort of cave to this kind of pressure, but I do think we’re in a very difficult environment. Again, being at this vaccine conference and talking to people about what you are doing to try and preserve your products that are so valuable to society, people don’t know what to do. They don’t know when pushing back will end up with them being in a worse situation. They don’t know when doing nothing will end up with them being in the worse situation. And it’s a really difficult place for all different kinds of groups, whether it’s a medical journal or a university or a drug company, to navigate. 

Rovner: We’ll add this to the list of stories that we are watching. All right, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play my interview with KFF Health News’ Rae Ellen Bichell. Then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Rae Ellen Bichell, who’s here to talk to us about a story she did on how services are changing for transgender youth and their families in Colorado. Hi, Rae. 

Rae Ellen Bichell: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, Colorado has long been considered a haven for gender-affirming care, but even there, health care for transgender youth temporarily flickered as hospitals responded to executive orders from the Trump administration trying to limit what kinds of care can be provided to minors. Let’s start with, what kind of health care are we talking about? 

Bichell: There’s a lot of different things that count as gender-affirming care. It can really be anything from talk therapy or a haircut all the way to medications and surgery. 

For medical interventions, on that side of things, the process for getting those is long and thorough. To give you an idea, the guidelines for this typically come from the World Professional Association for Transgender Health, and the latest document is 260 pages long. So this was very thorough. 

With medications, there’s puberty blockers that pause puberty and are reversible, and then the ones that are less reversible are testosterone and estrogen. So patients who need and want them will get puberty blockers first as puberty is setting in — so the timing matters, just to put everything on the ice — and then would start hormones later on. It is important to note, lots of trans kids don’t get these medications. Researchers found that transgender youth are not likely to get them, and politicians like to talk about surgery, of course, but it’s really rare for teens to get surgery. So for every 100,000 trans minors, fewer than three undergo surgery. 

Rovner: So when we talk about transgender care, as you said, particularly the Trump administration presents this as go to school one gender and come home another. That’s not what this is. 

Bichell: It is not an easy or fast process by any measure. 

Rovner: So, remind us what the president’s executive order said. 

Bichell: There were two of them. So one, right out of the gate on his first day in office, said it is a, quote, “false claim that males can identify as and thus become women and vice versa.” And then a second one called puberty blockers and hormones, for anyone under age 19, a form of chemical, quote, “mutilation” and a, quote, “a stain on our Nation’s history.” And that one directed agencies to take steps to ensure that recipients of federal research or education grants stop providing that care. 

Rovner: And that’s where the hospitals got involved in this, right? 

Bichell: Right. That’s where we started to see changes in Colorado and in other states as well. Here, there were three major health care organizations — so that’s Children’s Hospital Colorado, Denver Health, and UCHealth — and they all announced changes to the gender-affirming care that they provide to patients under 19. So this is in direct response to the executive order. 

Those changes were effective immediately and included no new hormone or puberty blocker prescriptions for patients who hadn’t had them before, limited or no renewals for those who had had such prescriptions before, and no surgeries. Some of that care has since resumed, and that happened after Colorado joined a U.S. District Court lawsuit in Washington state. And the situation there is there’s a preliminary injunction that’s blocking the orders from taking effect but only applies to the four states that are involved in the lawsuit. 

But even though the care has been restored, even though Colorado joined that Washington lawsuit, it was still enough to shake people’s confidence in this state. 

Here’s Louise. We’re using her middle name. She’s the mom of a trans teenager. 

Louise: I mean, Colorado, as a state, was supposed to be a safe haven, right? We have a law that makes it a right for trans people to have health care, and yet our health care systems are taking that away and not making sure that our trans people can have health care, especially our trans kids. 

Rovner: So what kind of impact did that have on patients, even if it was just temporary? 

Bichell: Pretty profound. One family I spoke to with a 14-year-old, they predicted this might happen. They started stockpiling testosterone, the mom said, as soon as the election happened. And what that means is kind of just saving anything that was left over in the vial after the teen took his dose so they could stretch it for as long as possible. 

That teen also had a kind of surprise moment where even his birth control came into question. And that’s because his birth control suppresses his period, which is considered part of his gender-affirming care. So his doctor had to have this special meeting just to make sure that he could keep getting that prescription, too. 

And then one part of this health care that has not turned back on is surgery. And so, even though it’s rare, for the patients who want and need it, that’s a significant gap. 

Rovner: And what does that mean for patients? 

Bichell: So, Louise’s son, David — that’s his middle name, too. He’s 18 years old. And I visited him in his dorm room in Gunnison. That’s a mountain town here. He told me that testosterone has helped him a lot. 

David: I don’t know if you noticed, but there are no mirrors in here. 

Bichell: I did not notice that. 

David: Yeah. 

Bichell: You’re right. 

David: My sister and best friend will come up and stay the weekend or something like that. And every time they come up, they complain that I don’t have a mirror. And I’m like, I don’t want to look at myself, because, I don’t know, for the longest time I just had so much body dysphoria and dysmorphia that it can be kind of hard to look in the mirror. But when I do, most of the time I see something that I really like. 

Bichell: So his confidence and mental health has really improved with the testosterone, but he also would really like to get a mastectomy and thought that he could do it this summer so that he’d have enough recovery time before the new school year started in the fall. But he’s not aware of anyone now in Colorado who will do this surgery for 18-year-old patients, so he has to wait until he turns 19. He has taken a significant mental health hit because of having to wait. 

The irony here is that he could easily get surgery to enhance his breasts but can’t reduce or remove them. And the other irony here is that cisgender men and boys can still get gender-affirming breast reduction surgeries and do. In fact, they’re more likely to get that kind of surgery than transgender men and boys. 

Rovner: So what do things look like going forward in Colorado? 

Bichell: There is a bill making its way through the state capitol right now. It’s about protecting access to gender-affirming care. So let’s see where that lands. But in the meantime, the families that I’ve been speaking with, a moment that really stood out to them was, in early April, the Trump administration came out with a proclamation that said, quote, “One of the most prevalent forms of child abuse facing our country today is the sinister threat of gender ideology,” end quote. So they’re still feeling pretty apprehensive about the future. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll watch this as it goes forward. Rae Ellen Bichell, thank you so much. 

Bichell: Thanks again. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the 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. I’ve already done mine. Alice, you’ve got a lighter story this week. Why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: A sweeter story, you might say. So I have a piece from The New York Times that is about — it’s a great exposé of a researcher who is in the pocket of Big Maple Syrup, according to this reporting. The article is “A Scientist Is Paid to Study Maple Syrup. He’s Also Paid to Promote It.” This is a great piece of how he exaggerated the health benefits of maple syrup. He cherry-picked findings that appeared to make this a health-promotion food more than the findings really showed. 

But it all really, on a serious note, made me think about the current federal cuts to research and how, in the absence of that taxpayer public support, more and more scientists may need to turn to industry support for their work. And that brings all of these ethical problems that you really see in this article. Pressure to come to certain findings. Pressure to not release certain findings if they don’t fit with the agenda, etc. So I think this is a little bit silly but also serious. 

Rovner: I was personally disappointed to read this story because maple is my favorite sweetener. 

Ollstein: Well— 

Rovner: And I was really happy when I started seeing the research that said it’s really good for you. It will still be my favorite sweetener. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story from Alexandra Glorioso and Lawrence Mower of the Miami Herald/[Tampa Bay] Times [“Countering DeSantis, $10M Hope Florida Donation Came From Medicaid, Draft Shows”] that documents how it appears that Gov. [Ron] DeSantis in Florida steered about $10 million that the state got back through a settlement with one of their Medicaid contractors to a nonprofit run by his wife, and then seeming to having to kept steering the money to political committees that are supporting Republicans. 

And as Julie mentioned, this is probably one of those things that would’ve gotten tons of attention, much slower news time, but it’s a fascinating story and just very interesting to watch just how they were able to figure out and document how all this money was being transferred. And that even the, in some of the stories you see, even the Republican lawmakers and Congress and their state legislature are pretty frustrated about it. 

Rovner: Local journalism still matters. Tami. 

Luhby: I looked at a story out of Stat News by Andrew Joseph titled “In Ireland, a Global Hub for the Pharma Industry, Trump Tariffs Are a Source of Deep Worry.” So, many of us, including me, have been writing about the potential for tariffs on pharmaceutical imports since Trump, unlike his first term, has been promising to impose them on the drug industry. 

Well what I liked about this story was that it focused on drug manufacturing in Ireland, with Joseph reporting from Dublin and County Cork. I’d like to get that assignment myself. But he shows how America pharma companies, how important they are to the Irish economy. Ireland has lured them with low taxes and concerted efforts to build its manufacturing workforce. And interestingly, the country started to move foreign investment in the 1950s. It mentions, interestingly, that President Trump had specifically called out pharma operations in Ireland, criticizing the U.S. trade balance while meeting with the Irish prime minister for St. Patrick’s Day. 

But there were a lot of good details in the piece. Of the 72.6 billion euros’ worth of exports that Ireland sent to the U.S. last year, 58.3 billion were classified as chemical and related products, the bulk of them pharmaceutical goods. The biopharma industry now employs 50,000 people in Ireland. 

And, another little tidbit that I liked, the National Institute for Bioprocessing Research and Training in Dublin actually has a mock plant where thousands of workers have been trained for careers in the industry. And it talks about, even getting down to the county and local levels, how Ireland is concerned that tariffs could prompt American drugmakers to invest less in the country in the future, which will hurt Ireland’s export business, its corporate tax base, the jobs, and the economy overall. 

Rovner: Yeah, globalization’s a real thing, and you can’t just turn it off by turning a switch. It was a really interesting story. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I feel like I’m trying to be everywhere on social media. So you can find me, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith on Bluesky, LinkedIn, all those fun places. 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda. Still on X, @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Tami. 

Luhby: Mostly at CNN at cnn.com. 

Rovner: There you go. 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).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

A week into the reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services announced by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the scope of the staff cuts and program cutbacks is starting to become clear. Among the biggest targets for reductions were the nation’s premier public health agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the FDA.

Meanwhile, Kennedy did not show up as invited to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, known as HELP, but he did visit families in Texas whose unvaccinated children died of measles in the current outbreak and called for an end to water fluoridation during a stop in Utah.

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

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria'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:

• Amid a dearth of public information about federal health cutbacks, HHS employees currently on administrative leave report they were given no opportunity to hand off their responsibilities, suggesting important work will simply be discontinued. Critical staff members have been cut from the FDA offices funded by user fees, for instance — affecting the drugmakers that pay the fees in exchange for timely evaluation of their products, as well as the patients hoping for access to those drugs. Even if the cuts were reversed, the damage could linger, especially in areas where there will be gaps in data such as disease surveillance.
• Meanwhile, the temporary public communications freeze implemented in the Trump administration’s early days apparently has not ended. State officials, desperate for information from federal health officials about ongoing programs, are receiving no response as they seek guidance from offices in which most or all staffers were laid off.
• President Donald Trump issued an executive order this week that instructs federal department heads to summarily repeal any regulation they deem “unlawful.” The order threatens to effectively short-circuit the federal regulatory process, which involves public notices and opportunities to comment. Businesses rely on that process to make decisions, and Trump’s order could create further instability for health care and other industries.
• And Kennedy traveled West this week, using his public appearances to call for removing fluoride from the water supply and to discuss the measles outbreak. He issued his strongest endorsement of the measles vaccine yet, but he also praised doctors who have used alternative and unapproved remedies to treat measles patients. Senators had called him to testify before Congress this week about the ongoing upheaval at HHS, but the hearing was canceled.
• Legislators in a growing number of states are introducing abortion bans that would punish women seeking abortions as well as abortion providers, suggesting a long game for abortion opponents that goes well beyond overturning a nationwide right to the procedure.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Georgetown Law School professor Stephen Vladeck about the limits of presidential power.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin,” by Richard Fausset.  

Victoria Knight: Wired’s “Dr. Oz Pushed for AI Health Care in First Medicare Agency Town Hall,” by Leah Feiger and Steven Levy.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Guardian’s “‘We Are Failing’: Doctors and Students in the US Look to Mexico for Basic Abortion Training,” by Carter Sherman.  

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “In Sweden, a Focus on Smokeless Tobacco,” by Sandhya Raman. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “The Three States That Are Especially Stuck if Congress Cuts Medicaid,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• The AP’s “Ex-Official Says He Was Forced out of FDA After Trying To Protect Vaccine Safety Data From RFK Jr.,” by Matthew Perrone.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Dismantling of HHS

[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 10, 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios news. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who will talk about the limits of presidential power — if there are any left. But first, this week’s news. 

So the dust is starting to settle, sort of, in that ginormous reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services launched by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week, which I am now calling “The Great Dismantling.” Here’s some of what we know about the casualties at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Offices that worked on sexually transmitted disease prevention, injury prevention, lead poisoning surveillance, and tobacco were basically gutted. At NIH [the National Institutes of Health], the chronic pain division was eliminated, as was the Office of Long Covid. And at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], offices handling veterinary medicine, generic drugs, and food safety were dramatically reduced. Now that we’ve had a week to absorb what’s been done and, despite claims of the contrary from Secretary Kennedy, we are told there is no plan to hire back some of those workers who were apparently let go in error, what are you guys hearing about where we are? 

Ollstein: Yeah, there’s a lot of people who were put on administrative leave, which is going to run out in a few weeks. By and large, they are not expecting to be called back. They are holding out hope. They would love to be called back. They keep telling me that they would love to get back to the work they were doing. They’re really worried about it not continuing without them, but they’re mostly assuming that these cuts are permanent for now. And contrary to claims from HHS that work isn’t being eliminated, it’s just being consolidated or folded in or there’s different words they’re using, all of these different laid-off workers told me from different divisions that they were basically given no opportunity to hand over their ongoing projects to anyone else, to train anyone else, to make sure it keeps going. So as far as they know, a lot of this surveillance work, research work, coordination work is just not going to be happening going forward. 

Rovner: As far as I can tell, money that’s supposed to be going out the door from places like the NIH isn’t. 

Knight: Yeah, you hit some of the offices, programs that have been cut, but also I think at FDA, we did some reporting this week on the user drug fee program and how staff that do the evaluating drugs and things like that have been cut. And it’s interesting because pharmaceutical companies pay these fees hoping that they’ll get timely evaluations of their drugs, and also— 

Rovner: They pay these fees and are told they will get timely evaluation of these drugs in exchange. That’s the deal. 

Knight: Exactly. And I know pharmaceutical companies are definitely concerned about this, and it’s also concerning for patients who may be waiting for certain drugs to be approved and things like that. And I think it’s interesting, also, Republicans like to talk a lot about innovation and getting new drugs approved and things like that, and this would harm that process if the staff are not rehired. I haven’t really heard an update on that, so— 

Raman: I would also add that part of it is that we just don’t have a lot of information, right? We had Secretary Kennedy invited to come testify before the Senate HELP Committee this week and go through some of these things and explain the rationale and get into that, and that did not happen. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ll get to that. 

Raman: Yes, and I think, at the same time, a lot of those cuts were also to the communications folks within those agencies that could be disseminating this information to external folks, to internal folks to provide more clarity about where things would be going. And we don’t have those there now, so it will take some time to kind of see where things are going, and even when there’s going to be a delay in some of that stuff, getting that information out is going to be difficult. 

Ollstein: Sandhya is absolutely right about the communications issue here, and I’m just hearing that on so many fronts. States are desperate to get in contact with someone in the federal government to understand what’s going on. Do they have to keep collecting data and sending it to the federal government even though there’s no one left to compile and process it? They’re reaching out asking: Are certain grants going to continue or not? What should we do? Are we going to be in legal trouble if we continue some of this work? And there’s just no one answering, sometimes because all the people that would’ve answered have been let go. But also the communications freeze that was supposed to be temporary at the very beginning of the administration, a lot of federal workers told me that never really ended. 

So there are these email accounts that they were ordered to stop checking and responding to. So one example is the entire team that worked on IVF [in vitro fertilization], evaluating which IVF clinics had the best pregnancy success rates, monitoring safety, all of that — they were all eliminated. And one consequence of that is that there was this email account that doctors, patients, anybody could reach out to for information and to ask questions, and no one’s checking it, no one’s responding. 

Rovner: I don’t know about you guys. I am starting to hear from health care stakeholders. The federal government is so intertwined in, basically it’s a fifth of the economy, what we spend on health care, and it’s creating so much uncertainty. As you were saying, people don’t know if they’re going to get in trouble for not doing things or for doing things. But we do know, as we said, we talked about last week, FDA missed a deadline to rule on a Novavax vaccine. This is going to have ramifications way beyond just the people who are losing their jobs in the federal government, right? 

Raman: There’s so many people that receive the services that we contract out, that we put grants through across the country. And I think that even in speaking to some of these employees that have lost their jobs, one of the top concerns is not even for their own job but that no one else can do the work that they did. Or in some cases, the only person that could have done that work has also already been let go. And just that those things are going to fall through the cracks for a lot of vulnerable communities. 

Ollstein: Some of the folks also told me that even if this is reversed in the future, the damage will just be there for a very long time, especially on things like surveillance and data collection. If you have a gap in there, that skews things. That messes things up for the future. It makes it harder to make comparisons. It makes it harder to know if things are getting better or worse on, like, asthma rates and levels of lead in people’s blood, all kinds of things, things that are not politically controversial or partisan. And so it’ll just be really difficult going forward to know which programs are working, which interventions are working or not working. 

Rovner: So things are happening almost too fast to keep track of. But in his latest round of executive orders on Wednesday, President [Donald] Trump signed one called Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, in which he basically instructs the heads of all departments to repeal rules they consider unlawful, without notice or comment, which is not how this is supposed to work. I’m not sure even, though, quite what to make of all this. And it seems to be going mostly unnoticed in all of the attention, deservedly, to the other news that’s happening, some of which we’ll get to. But repealing rules basically on a whim could be as important to how the federal government functions as firing all these people, right? 

Raman: Yeah, there’s a reason that the rulemaking process is the way it is, that it takes a certain amount of time. You allow stakeholders to weigh in, to meet, to revise, and that the things aren’t changing too drastically. And there are some rules that go back and forth between the administrations, but a lot of things last over time, and the process is the way it is to make sure that you get the best possible result for whatever you’re changing and— 

Rovner: That you get stability. 

Raman: Yes. 

Rovner: I think that’s the theme here, is that that’s what we’re lacking right now. Nobody can count on what the rules are. 

Knight: And I was going to say, from an industry perspective, industries make decisions based on these rules and knowing when they’re going to come out and when they might change. Think about the insurance industry, physicians, people within the health care industry. And so that could really impact those groups as well a lot. So, and exactly, going back to what you said about stability, so it’ll make it really hard to make business decisions. 

Rovner: Right. So this goes along with the stuff with the tariffs, is that we have no idea what the rules of the road are going to be going forward if rules can be sort of disappeared in a matter of days the way staff is being. Well, let’s move to Congress. Remember Congress? Late last Friday, or I guess it was technically early Saturday, the Senate passed what was supposed to be a compromise Republican budget resolution between the House and the Senate. For those who have forgotten, while the House passed a resolution that would lead to a single gigantic budget reconciliation bill, including tax cuts and likely big cuts to Medicaid, the Senate’s original budget resolution would only have led to a bill on immigration and energy, saving the tax and health fights for later in the year. 

Well, it seems like the compromise, which is kind of a vaguer version of the House blueprint, didn’t go over so well in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson had hoped to push it through this week. A vote was scheduled for Wednesday, then it got delayed, then it got shelved, at least for the night. They’re apparently trying to regroup and do this this morning. Where are we in this? 

Knight: Yeah, so you gave a pretty good rundown. I was here late last night talking to Freedom Caucus members, the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-liners. Their concerns with, this is basically a Senate amendment to the House’s resolution. And so what the Senate passed was an amendment, and it technically really just gives instructions for the Senate. It didn’t touch the House’s resolution. So the House’s budget resolution they passed is the same thing, but House Freedom Caucus members had issue that the Senate ceilings for cuts is much lower than the House’s. And so they’re saying— 

Rovner: It’s in the billions instead of trillions. 

Knight: Exactly. Exactly. So coming out, they holed up with Speaker Johnson last night and House GOP leadership and were saying, We need more binding cuts on the Senate side, and were like: We need you guys to commit to this, otherwise we’re unhappy with this amount of cuts. This is going to increase spending. There’s been a lot of discussion on how to do the budget math for these things, but it’s pretty clear the Senate’s resolution would not cut spending as much as the House’s. So that was what they came out demanding last night. This morning, Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune came out, did a press conference, and said: We’re going to proceed with this. We’ll see if that changes. But it was interesting to note that Thune said, he noted that there are Senate Republicans that do want cuts that may be up to the $1.5 trillion, but he did not commit to making cuts on his side. So we’ll see how this goes. That seems to be the state of play. It’s very in flux. That could change over time. So if anyone has anything to add, I think that’s a rundown. 

Rovner: Yeah, it feels like they’re kind of buying time to see if they can keep together what’s clearly a very fractious group here. 

Knight: Yeah, and jet fumes are always a good motivator, and also holidays. So there’s supposed to be a two-week recess right after this, and Passover starts this weekend and Easter next weekend, so we’ll see if that motivates people to vote for it. I will say, an argument that we’ve heard from a lot of the moderates that are concerned about the Medicaid cuts, when they voted for these, they’ve said: This is just an outline. It’s just a blueprint. It’s not committing us to anything. But hard-liners don’t seem to like that argument as much. So can they convince them that way? I don’t know. 

Rovner: Well, let’s talk about those Medicaid cuts for a minute, which, by the way, as you pointed out, Victoria, is not really what’s holding up the vote in the House. Our New York Times podcast pals Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz had a really interesting story over the weekend about three red states that would really be stuck if Medicaid gets cut. Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Dakota all passed their Medicaid expansions by ballot measure, including it as part of their state constitutions. Now this is exactly the opposite of those states that would immediately cancel their expansions if Congress cuts the Medicaid match. These three states would be totally stuck, unless they could have another ballot measure that would then eliminate what they added. I guess that helps explain why very conservative Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley says he is so opposed to reducing the Medicaid match. But he seems OK with Medicaid work requirements that would also cut people off the rolls, just not necessarily in a way that would cost the state so much money, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I think we’re going to see a lot of interesting semantic games going forward. I think we’re going to see a lot of different interpretations of what a cut is. We’re going to see a lot of claims made about who does and doesn’t deserve Medicaid coverage. We’ve been seeing this for a long time, but as these tough decisions have to be made on the Hill, I think a lot of that is going to come to a head. And so I think you see a lot of conservatives wrestling with believing very strongly in cutting government spending but also recognizing that a lot of their constituents could be harmed by these policies and they would be very angry with their members if that happened. 

And so trying to thread that needle, we’ll see how they do it, whether they can do it successfully without getting a lot of political blowback. Even though there has been a lot of turnover in Congress, you have a decent number of folks who were there last time Congress tried to take a big whack at Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act repeal fight. 

Rovner: In 2017. 

Ollstein: Exactly. Exactly. And the impact on Medicaid is one of the biggest things that garnered a backlash. And Capitol Hill was covered in folks with disabilities protesting, and it was a really bad look, and it contributed to that effort failing. 

Knight: And I think interesting talking about Hawley, but also the Republican Governors Association joined up with some other conservative groups this week to start an ad saying, Don’t cut Medicaid, basically. And so we’re starting to hear that from the states. States are really concerned how this could affect their budgets. They’ve already expanded the program. It would be really hard for them to have to make up in the state that amount of money if the federal government takes away money from the Medicaid program for them or caps it or whatever. It’s interesting to see people walk that line. And House GOP moderates, they are more likely to fold, I think, than hard-liners, but they keep telling me when I talk to them, We’re OK with work requirements, but anything past that might be really hard for us to vote for. But who knows? They could fold if they have enough pressure, but they’re trying to walk the line at this moment. 

Rovner: This is going to be a very different Medicaid fight than it was in 2017. Well, turning to this week in “Make America Healthy Again,” I think we mentioned last week that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. had been invited to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee today. Well, as Sandhya pointed out, that did not happen. We’re not entirely sure why, but the secretary continues to do things, well, things he kind of promised senators that he wouldn’t, like saying that he’s going to order the CDC to stop recommending adding fluoride to public water supplies, which he did on a trip to Utah this week. Once more for those in the back, why do most public health professionals support water fluoridation? 

Raman: It really reduces dental decay, by like 25%. ADA [the American Dental Association] has been recommending fluoride for years. So it’s a big proponent of that. 

Rovner: And as someone pointed out, it’s against dentists’ interests to be recommending something that gives them less work and yet they’re still recommending it. 

Ollstein: And even though we have a very silly system in the U.S. where dental care is siloed off from the rest of health care, it does impact your overall health a lot. So it could lead to lung issues, heart issues, all kinds of things if you have dental issues. So it’s not just a cosmetic problem, it can be a very serious health problem. And I will say, too, people should keep in mind that there’s a lot of pointing at studies about negative health impacts from excessive consumption of fluoride, but those studies have a level that is much, much higher than what’s in the U.S. tap water right now. So anything in excess can be bad for you — even just plain water can kill you if you have too much of it. And so I think that people should keep that in mind and remain skeptical about claims being made. 

Rovner: Well, RFK Jr. also continues to make news in his handling of the measles outbreak in Texas, which is now the largest in the nation in the past 30 years, having sickened nearly 600 people, mostly unvaccinated children. Kennedy traveled to the heart of the outbreak last week and visited with the families of the two children that we know have died so far of the virus. He also praised the measles vaccine, but then just hours later posed with and praised two doctors who are using unapproved treatments for measles, including one who was disciplined by Texas medical regulators. Meanwhile, Peter Marks, the FDA vaccine official forced to resign last month, is speaking out, calling Kennedy’s actions thus far, quote, “very scary” in an interview with The Wall Street Journal and telling the AP [Associated Press] that he got fired for trying to keep Kennedy’s team from editing or possibly erasing the very sensitive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System kept by the FDA. Is there any way we didn’t see all of this coming? 

Knight: Well, going back to the congressional aspect. The HELP chair, [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, he had both the HELP hearing and the Senate Finance hearing where he questioned Kennedy repeatedly about his views on vaccines, his views on the link between vaccines and autism, I think also measles and autism. And he didn’t really ever get a super substantial answer from Kennedy. And yet the compromise was somewhat that Cassidy said, You’ll have to come quarterly before the HELP Committee and testify about what’s going on, what your views are. And we saw Cassidy try to do that last week. And Kennedy has, as far as I know, the latest is that he received the request but he hasn’t accepted it yet, and unclear if he will. 

So that congressional oversight was supposed to be the way to keep him in check, somewhat. And that’s not happening. It’s not really that enforceable. So I think it’s pretty predictable what’s happening. I think what will be interesting is if the White House gets unhappy with some of Kennedy’s things that he’s doing. There’s been some stories of how they’re having to take over his communications because there’s been no communications from HHS on it, and so they’re kind of unhappy with that. We’ll see if that reaches to a level where they could change leadership or something. But, not there yet, certainly, but something to watch. 

Rovner: Again, so much going on. I think this would normally rise to a higher level than it has given all of the other news that’s happening. Moving on to abortion. We talked last week, or maybe it was the week before, about the Overton window moving towards criminalizing women who have or even seek abortions. That’s apparently the point of a bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature. In North Carolina, a new bill could subject anyone convicted of performing or receiving an abortion to life in prison. We talked a few weeks ago about a similar bill in Georgia that got a legislative hearing. Even if none of these bills pass — and it seems that none of them will pass, at least this year — it certainly seems that claims by the anti-abortion movement that they don’t want to punish women are either not true or falling on deaf ears. 

Ollstein: So the anti-abortion movement, just like the pro-abortion-rights movement, is not a monolith. And just like the political parties, there are moderates and hard-liners. There are people who disagree on tactics. And so I think for so long the movement appeared united because their main goal was just overturning Roe v. Wade. And they were able to paper over other divisions by focusing pretty exclusively on that, or not exclusively but that being the overriding goal. And now that they’ve accomplished that and now that there are a lot more opportunities for them, you’re seeing these divisions. And we’ve seen that over the past few years. There were people who said, OK, a 15-week ban is better than nothing, and we can build on it. And there are people who say: No, that’s an unacceptable compromise, and it has to be a total ban or nothing. And if you do a 15-week ban, you’re endorsing the murder of most babies, because most abortions happen before 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

So I think this is a continuation of that. And it’s also a reflection that there is a lot of frustration in the anti-abortion movement that not only have abortions not ceased when states enact bans, in some cases they’ve gone up, nationally. And that’s a combination of people traveling, that’s a combination of people using telehealth and getting pills mailed to them. That’s become a huge thing that people rely on. And so looking at ways to crack down on those things, including this kind of criminalization of the pregnant patient that’s been sort of a third rail that is now more in the conversation. Of course, people have been proposing such things for a while now, but it’s getting more prominent attention than before. 

Rovner: Yeah. And that was my question, is it used to be a real outlier, and now we’ve seen legislation introduced in 10 states that would criminalize the woman in some way, shape, or form. Sandhya, you wanted to add something. 

Raman: I was going to say it’s also a long game. There are things that we’ve had proposed years ago that I think garnered attention then as being very outside the realm of something that people would consider. And then a few years later, when we first saw some of these personhood bills years ago, I think those got attention as being a little different than some of the other things that were being considered. And now that has become more mainstream. We see that in a lot of states now. And I think that something like this, even though it is very different than the messaging we’ve seen in the past, it doesn’t mean that, down the line, a greater portion of the movement pivots toward this. Because we’ve seen so much of this throw the spaghetti at the wall with seeing different things that they can see, what can pass, what doesn’t get litigated, that kind of thing. So a lot of this is kind of a long game. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And there is an imbalance between the two sides where the right is much more willing to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks, much more willing to throw out things that could anger people, could generate controversy, could generate backlash, but they do believe will advance the goal. And you’re not really seeing the same willingness on the left. You’re not really seeing states propose, Let’s get rid of all abortion restrictions in total. And so you have this imbalance of what each side is willing to even consider, where the left has been, overall, not exclusively, but overall much more cautious and much more consensus-seeking. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in Texas, where over the past few years we’ve had story after story about women with wanted pregnancies nearly dying from complications, the legislature finally has before it a compromise bill that would better define when doctors can end a doomed pregnancy without risking going to prison, except it’s turning out to be not as much of a compromise as its backers had hoped. Is there any way to actually find a compromise on what is a necessary abortion and what is saving the woman’s life? They write these things and they say: Well, look. Here are the exceptions, and they should work. But now they’re trying to spell out the exceptions and they can’t seem to agree on those, either. 

Ollstein: So it’s really a catch-22. And I was just in Texas. I was interviewing OB-GYNs, and they were explaining — and those in other states with bans have said the same thing — that, look, it’s really tough, because if a law is too broad and too vague, then doctors don’t feel comfortable doing even things they feel are absolutely medically necessary. But if a law is too prescriptive — if, for example, it tries to list every single possible condition that would necessitate an emergency abortion or an abortion to save someone’s life for health — you’re never going to be able to list everything. So many things can go wrong during a pregnancy, and so any attempt to be comprehensive will inevitably leave something out. And so if you go the route of listing specific conditions and someone comes in with a condition that’s not on the list, doctors won’t feel comfortable, because they’ll feel that, Oh, well, because the law lists these other conditions, that must mean that anything else is not allowed. 

But on the other hand, if it’s too vague, you have the opposite problem. And so really a lot of mainstream medical groups like ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have really come down on, like: Just don’t legislate this at all. Just let us do our jobs. Because they are in this conundrum. I will say, there are divides within the medical community despite that, where some feel like, OK, well, if we can add a few more exceptions and that can even help a few more people, that’s at least something to consider, where others think, OK, no, if we endorse these quote-unquote “fixes,” that kind of in a way is endorsing the underlying ban, and we don’t want to do that. And so there’s some tension there as well. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is going to continue to be an issue going forward. All right, well, finally this week there is some other policy news. The Trump administration last week reversed a Biden administration decision to start covering those GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] drugs for people with obesity as well as those with diabetes. According to The New York Times, the administration didn’t attribute the decision to Secretary Kennedy’s known dislike of the drugs, which he has said are inferior to people just, you know, eating better, and that it may reconsider the decision in the future. But obviously cost is a huge issue here. These drugs are less expensive than they were, but they are still super expensive if they’re going to be taken by the millions of people who would qualify for an indefinite period of time. Is there any talk of finding a way to bring that cost down? That would obviously be popular and something that President Trump has said he wants to do in terms of drug prices overall. 

Raman: I have not heard of anything on bringing the cost down. I think that the only discussions that really come about are really tailoring who would qualify within that bucket, and to narrow that as a piece to bring the cost down rather than the cost of the specific drugs. And we’ve been — yeah. 

Rovner: I would say, I know that Ozempic is on the list of Medicare drugs to be negotiated this year, but I think that’s only for the diabetic indication. So on the one hand, that could bring down the cost for— 

Ollstein: And that wouldn’t help people for years and years. Yeah. 

Rovner: Exactly. So I mean we might — if you have diabetes, Medicare could start saving money on one of the GLP drugs, but I guess it’s going to be a while before we see the cost fall. And of course, we didn’t even talk about the potential tariffs on prescription drugs, because we’re not going to talk about that this week. 

That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with law professor Stephen Vladeck, then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Stephen Vladeck, professor at Georgetown University Law School and author of the invaluable Substack “One First,” which helps explain the workings of the Supreme Court to us lay folks. Steve Vladeck, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Stephen Vladeck: Thanks, Julie. Great to be with you. 

Rovner: So I’ve asked you to help us with the next in a series I’m calling “How Things Are Supposed to Work in Health Policy.” And I’m particularly interested in how much power the president has vis-à-vis Congress and the courts. Is there kind of a 30-second law school description of who has the power to do what? 

Vladeck: It’s a little longer than 30 seconds, but to make the long version shorter: Congress makes laws, the president carries those laws into effect, and the courts decide whether everyone’s playing by the rules and abiding by those laws. That’s how it’s supposed to go — and if only that were how it actually was. 

Rovner: Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have been at this for a long time, and I always understood that executive orders from presidents were mostly for show. They were expressions of intent that needed to be carried out by someone else in the executive branch most of the time, usually using the formal regulatory process. But that is not at all what this administration is doing with its executive orders, right? 

Vladeck: So, Julie, I think part of the problem is that we really are at the apex of something that’s been building for a while, which is that as Congress has stopped doing its job, as Congress has stopped passing statutes to respond to our pressing issues of the day, presidents of both parties have been left to govern more and more aggressively based on increasingly, for lack of a better word, creative interpretations of old statutes and constitutional authorities. And so, yes, I think we’re seeing differences in both degree and kind from President Trump, but some of this has been building for a while where, we haven’t had meaningful immigration reform since 1986. We haven’t had meaningful financial systems reform in 25 years. And so in those spaces, presidents are going to do what they can to try to accomplish their policy goals, which means more and more executive orders where the presidents are at least purporting to interpret authorities that they’ve been given, either by statute or the Constitution, as we get further and further away from those authorities themselves. 

Rovner: So this is the unitary executive theory that we’ve, those of us who play to be lawyers sometimes, have heard about. But how abnormal is what Trump is doing now? Is this even legal, a lot of what he’s doing? 

Vladeck: So a lot of what he’s doing is not legal, but some of it is legal. And one of the complications is that the illegalities are at scales and in ways that we haven’t really seen before and that therefore our existing legal processes aren’t necessarily well set up to respond to. I would break Trump’s behavior into a couple of categories. So I think there’s the internal stuff, which is firing tons of people, hollowing out the bureaucracy, demanding political fealty from even those who are civil servants. And we’ve seen, Julie, I think, flash points of those before. What’s novel about what’s happening now is just the sheer scale on which it’s happening. I think the biggest area of real novel action is the effort by Trump really to sort of change how all federal money is spent, right? Money is supposed to be Congress’s, like, superpower. Not only is appropriations Congress’ most important function, but it’s actually the only thing that the Constitution specifically says only Congress can do. 

And yet we’re seeing really novel assertions by the president of the power to not spend money Congress has appropriated, of the power to stop paying for contracts where the work has already been performed, of the power to threaten Maine and other jurisdictions with the withholding of federal funds if they don’t just bend the knee to Trump. And that is really, I think, both shocking and dangerous because it basically means that the president’s trying to seize unilateral control over what has historically been Congress’ principal vehicle for doing policy. And at that point, you don’t really have much of a separation of powers anymore. You’ve just got a president. 

Rovner: Could Congress take back this authority if it wanted to? 

Vladeck: Sure. But just before letting folks get too optimistic, one of the problems is that taking back this authority probably means, at the very least, passing new statutes, and Trump’s not going to sign those statutes. So one of the things that has been a fear of separation-of-power scholars for a long time is that when Congress delegates authority to the president, or when Congress acquiesces in the drift of power to the president, it’s actually really hard for Congress to get that power back, because it’s usually going to require veto-proof supermajorities, and really hard to see in our current political climate a veto-proof supermajority agreeing even to the fact that today is Tuesday, let alone that we should take back power from the president. So Congress could do tons of things. The problem is that assuming Congress won’t, we really are left to these series of confrontations between the president and the courts, because the courts are all that’s left. 

Rovner: Which brings me to something that I think most people would think would be not really health-policy-related but really is, which are all these threats against these big law firms. How does that play into this whole thing? 

Vladeck: So I think it’s a big piece of the puzzle because what the threats, I think, are really intended to do is to cow law firms into submission, to try to increase the cost both economically and politically of bringing lawsuits challenging what the federal government’s doing. And Julie, I think that the long-term idea is to chill people from suing the federal government, to chill people from hiring folks who worked in administrations from the wrong party in ways that I think are really disruptive not just to the economics of law firms but to the courts. The courts depend upon a strong, robust, and independent bar that is able to actually move freely when it comes to challenging the government. Courts can’t go out and find cases. Lawyers bring the cases to them. And if the lawyers are for some reason disincentivized from bringing those cases, part of the separation of powers breaks down even further. 

Rovner: Or basically, in this case, I guess they’re promising not to bring cases that the administration doesn’t like. 

Vladeck: Exactly. We should be terrified. No matter what you think of lawyers, no matter what you think of the administration, we should want a world in which there’s no disincentive to challenge what the government’s doing in court. We should want a world, as James Madison put it, where ambition is counteracting ambition, where the branches are pushing up against each other, not where they are stunned into submission. 

Rovner: And finally, you’re an expert in the Supreme Court. Is there any chance that the Supreme Court’s going to rescue us here? 

Vladeck: No, but I think what I would say — to try to both be a little more optimistic and to try to put a little more depth into my one-word answer — it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to rescue us. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to protect the separation of powers. And as you and I are sitting here, we’ve seen a couple of early rulings from the court that have kind of sided with Trump in these sort of very, very fleeting technical emergency postures without actually saying anything about what he’s doing is legal. I have at least a modicum of faith, Julie, that when the courts get to the legality questions, they’re going to find that most of this stuff actually is illegal. 

I think the question is, what happens then? And this is why, although I’m as big a believer in a powerful and independent judiciary as anyone, the courts alone can’t save us, right? What we need is we need the courts backed by Congress, by the people, by our other institutions, universities, law firms. I mean it should be all of the institutions of our civil society, not opposing Trump to oppose Trump but standing up for the notion that our institutions matter and that the way that we can be confident that the government is working the way it’s supposed to is when the institutions are pushing up against each other with all their might and without the fear of what’s going to happen to them if they lose. 

Rovner: I feel like one of the bright spots out of this is that finally the nation is getting the lesson in civics that it’s needed for a while. 

Vladeck: I couldn’t agree more. I think we are seeing the very, very real costs of generations of insufficient civics education, but I also think this opens the door to real conversation about how to fix this. And in the short term, some of it is about stopping a lot of what Trump is doing, and that’s what a lot of these lawsuits are about. When we talk about, Julie, building back institutions, whether it’s in the public health space or more broadly, I hope that we keep having the civics lesson, and I hope that we don’t forget that it’s actually really important to have independent agencies, and it’s important to have a civil service, and it’s important to have institutions that are actually not just subject to the whims of whoever happens to be the current president. And the more that we can build off of that going forward, maybe the more that we can prevent what has happened already over the first 11 weeks of the second Trump administration from becoming a permanent feature of our constitutional system. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep at it. I hope you’ll come back and join us again. 

Vladeck: I’d love to. Thanks for having me. 

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

Raman: So my piece for extra credit is from me, on Roll Call. It’s called “In Sweden, a Focus on Smokeless Tobacco,” and it’s the first in my series I’m doing through the Association of Health Care Journalists, where I went to Sweden to learn about smoking cessation and public health between Sweden and what we can learn in the U.S. And the story looks at the different political factions of the Parliament over there and how they found some common ground in areas to become hopefully the first country in Europe below 5% daily smokers, and just what lessons the U.S. can learn as they’re trying to reduce smoking here as well. 

Rovner: So jealous that you got to do this. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: I chose a piece from The Guardian by Carter Sherman [“‘We Are Failing’: Doctors and Students in the US Look to Mexico for Basic Abortion Training”] on an issue that has interested me for a long time, which is how U.S. residents are learning how to provide abortions when their training opportunities have been eliminated in so many states. I’ve been covering those who have been traveling to different U.S. states, but this piece is about a small but growing number who are traveling to Mexico for this training. Mexico, like many countries in Latin America and really around the world over the last few years, has moved in the direction of decriminalizing abortion as the U.S. has moved in the opposite direction and is very eager to help train more people. 

But the article stresses that this is not a solution for everyone in the U.S. who needs this training, because you have to be able to speak fluent Spanish in order to do it. You have to already have some abortion experience, which not every medical resident has. And it’s also expensive. There are fellowships, but the trip and the training and everything costs thousands of dollars. And so I think it’s a very interesting opportunity for some people. And the article also talks about folks who are doing some training in the U.K., as well. And so I wonder if these international opportunities will become more of a piece of the puzzle in the future. 

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: OK, my extra credit for this week is an article in Wired called “Dr. Oz Pushed for AI Health Care in First Medicare Agency Town Hall.” So basically this was Dr. [Mehmet] Oz’s first town hall talking to CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] staff, and he talked about a lot of his personal story and not as much of the goals of the agency, seemed to be the vibe of the meeting. But also, interestingly, he talked about using AI avatars instead of actual people. So that’s like people that do simple health diagnoses using AI instead to diagnose people, is kind of what it sounded like. And that’s in part because— 

Rovner: My comment to this story was: Not at all creepy. Sorry. 

Knight: Right. And— 

Rovner: I interrupted you, Victoria. 

Knight: No, no, that’s OK. But he was saying the benefit of this is that it could cost less because it could only cost maybe like $2 an hour versus a doctor could be a hundred dollars for a consult. And so people interviewed in the story were CMS employees that felt very concerned about that and also felt like it could come off a bit tone-deaf when there have been a bunch of CMS staff also just recently let go. And CMS was actually on the agencies that was hit with less workforce cuts. But even so, people are still upset about it. And so, it was like, Why are you replacing great people that worked here with AI? It was just an interesting look at his first week at the agency 

Rovner: Yeah. And it’s a big agency with a lot of money. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin,” by Richard Fausset. And it’s a pretty hair-raising story of medical malfeasance, foisted on people by those seeking political or financial gain or both. Quoting from the story: “Ivermectin has become a sort of enduring pharmacological MAGA hat: a symbol of resistance to what some of the movement described as an elitist and corrupt cabal of politicians, scientists and medical experts.” This is another in a long list of unproven remedies people take just to thumb their noses at treatments that have, you know, actual scientific evidence behind them. It’s a really interesting read. 

OK, that is this week’s 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. Thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Alice, you’re the birthday girl. Where can we all wish you a happy birthday? 

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda, but still hanging on X, @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: On X and Bluesky, @sandhyawrites. 

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: I’m just on X, @victoriaregisk. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Department of Health and Human Services underwent an unprecedented purge this week, as thousands of employees from the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies across the department were fired, placed on administrative leave, or offered transfers to far-flung Indian Health Service facilities in such places as New Mexico, Montana, and Alaska. Altogether, the layoffs mean the federal government, in a single day, shed hundreds if not thousands of years of health and science expertise.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court heard a case about whether states can bar Planned Parenthood from providing non-abortion-related services to Medicaid patients. But by the time the case is settled, it’s unclear how much of Medicaid or the Title X Family Planning Program will remain intact.

 This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Bloomberg News

@rachelcohrs

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As details trickle out about the major staffing purge underway at HHS, long-serving and high-ranking health officials are among those who have been shown the door: in particular, senior scientists at FDA, including the top vaccine regulator, and even the head veterinarian working on bird flu response.
• The Trump administration has also gutted entire offices, including the FDA’s tobacco division — even though the division’s elimination would not save taxpayer money because it’s not funded by taxpayers. Still, the tobacco industry stands to benefit from less regulatory oversight. Many health agencies have their own examples of federal jobs cut under the auspices of saving taxpayer money when the true effect will be undermining federal health work.
• Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey set a record this week during a marathon, 25-hour-plus chamber floor speech railing against Trump administration actions, and he used much of his time discussing the risks posed to Americans’ health care. With Republicans considering deep cuts that could hit Medicaid hard, it’s possible that health changes could be the area that resonates most with Americans and garner key support for Democrats come midterm elections.
• And the tariffs unveiled by President Donald Trump this week reportedly touch at least some pharmaceuticals, leaving the drug industry scrambling to sort out the impact. It seems likely tariffs would raise the prices Americans pay for drugs, as tariffs are expected to do for other consumer products — leaving it unclear how Americans stand to benefit from the president’s decision to upend global trade.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby, whose latest “Bill of the Month” feature is about a short-term health plan and a very expensive colonoscopy. Do you have a baffling, confusing, or outrageous medical bill to share with us? You can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Uber for Nursing Is Here — And It’s Not Good for Patients or Nurses,” by Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: MSNBC’s “Florida Considers Easing Child Labor Laws After Pushing Out Immigrants,” by Ja’han Jones.

Lauren Weber: The Atlantic’s “Miscarriage and Motherhood,” by Ashley Parker.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Wall Street Journal’s “FDA Punts on Major Covid-19 Vaccine Decision After Ouster of Top Official,” by Liz Essley White.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “Laid-Off HHS Leaders Offered Transfers to Remote Indian Health Service Regions,” by Usha Lee McFarling.
• The Washington Post’s “Fired Health Workers Were Told To Contact an Employee. She’s Dead.” By Lauren Weber.
• Georgia Recorder’s “Bill That Criminalizes Abortion, Undermines IVF Access Gets Georgia House Panel Hearing,” by Jill Nolin.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: American Health Gets a Pink Slip

[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 3, 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 Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello hello. 

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast Rachel Cohrs Zhang, now at Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about yet another very expensive colonoscopy. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week, as usual, with the latest changes to the Department of Health and Human Services from the Trump administration. But before we dive in, I want to exercise my host prerogative to make a personal observation for those who think that what’s happening here is, quote, “politics as usual.” I am now a month into my 40th year of covering health policy in Washington and HHS in particular. When I began, Ronald Reagan was still president. So I’ve been through Democratic and Republican administrations, and Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses, and all the changeovers that have resulted therefrom. 

And obviously the HHS I cover today is far different from the one I covered in 1986, but I can safely say I have never seen such a swift and sweeping dismantling of the structure that oversees the U.S. health system as we’ve witnessed these past 60 days. Agencies and programs that were the result of years of expert consultations and political compromises have been summarily eliminated, and health and science professionals with thousands of years of combined experience cut loose via middle-of-the-night form emails. To call the scope and speed of the changes breathtaking is an understatement, and while I won’t take any more personal time here, if you want to hear me expand further on just how different this all really is, I’m on this week’s episode of my friend Dan Gorenstein’s “Tradeoffs” podcast, which you should all be listening to anyway. 

All right. That said, now let’s dive in. I suppose it was inevitable that we would see the results of last week’s announced reorganization of HHS on April Fools’ Day. Let’s start with who was let go. While the announcement last week suggested it would mostly be redundancies and things like IT and HR and procurement, there were a bunch of longtime leaders included in this purge, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. At FDA [the Food and Drug Administration] there were some of the most senior scientists, like their Office of New Drugs directors, their chief medical officer, almost everybody who works on policy, legislative affairs, entire communications offices, external affairs. And even in the case where they are laying off people whose job titles might sound extraneous, or not as important to the health of people in the U.S., I think you can sort of debate that, but they did it in such a way that they laid off so many people in those departments that the people they said, We are protecting, because we do at least understand these jobs are important, cannot actually fully do their jobs. So scientists are not able to access the supplies they need. It’s not even clear how people at FDA are going to get paid and do their timesheets and track time given how many people they laid off. 

And it also just seems like there’s been a ton of, again, to the extent they were trying to protect certain positions that they deemed more critical to U.S. health and well-being, like medical reviewers or inspectors, they didn’t quite understand who actually is critical to doing that work, because it’s not just somebody who has, like, “inspector” in the title. Vanity Fair had a great piece about this man who really has saved people in the U.S. from going blind by helping inspectors catch sterility issues in eye drops, and they walk through very clearly how people like him do not have a title of inspector but are absolutely needed to ensure we have drugs that are safe for people in the U.S. So, probably not surprising to people who’ve tracked the administration so far, but it’s been a lot of the move-fast -break-things, and then realize on the back end that they maybe broke things they didn’t necessarily mean to, or don’t actually care as much about whether it’s broken. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: They got rid of the head veterinarian on the bird flu response. That would seem to be a thing that is surprising. I spoke to a congressman yesterday who said that seems very dumb. It’s not just that. They also eliminated entire swaths of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], small agencies that maybe a lot of people have no idea alphabetically what they do but are pivotal in preventing injury deaths, and in really the preventative and chronic disease care that RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] has said is really vital to getting America back on track. When we talk about dollars and cents saved in health care, a lot of that is in chronic disease and in preventative care. And to see some of these places get hit so broadly is quite shocking considering the end goal is allegedly to save money. 

Rovner: There are also a lot of things that seem sort of at odds with [President Donald] Trump’s own agenda. David Kessler, the former FDA commissioner, was on TV last night talking about how the people who answer the phones when a doctor wants to get an emergency use authorization for a drug that’s not yet approved. That’s something that’s been a very big deal for Donald Trump. The people who answer the phones got fired. So, when a doctor has a patient who, nothing else will work and they need an experimental drug, and they’re supposed to be able to call FDA. And I think there are rules about how fast FDA is supposed to respond. But now there’s nobody to actually answer the phone and take those requests. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think the list of things that don’t seem to align is very long. One thing I was talking to somebody about yesterday who said, well, pretty much everybody who deals with tracking pesticides in foods, and food safety at the FDA in regards to pesticides was let go. And making our food system healthier and safer, and concerns about pesticides, has actually been a big focus of RFK. Similarly, Martin Makary talked a lot in his opening speech to FDA employees yesterday about obesity, and they are basically gutting offices that work on pediatrics, minority health. They’ve laid off lots of people in their tobacco division at FDA, and FDA’s tobacco division actually is not funded at all by taxpayer funding. So, I have a hard time understanding how anybody besides the tobacco industry really benefits from this loss. As Lauren said, it’s like every health agency, you can kind of find examples of that. They say America is not healthy, but they’re cutting these top researchers that have found incredible advances in Parkinson’s and some of the chronic diseases he’s most cared about. 

Rovner: They also, I mean, there are some big names who were let go. We didn’t even — the Peter Marks firing at FDA happened last week after we taped, so we haven’t even talked about that. Somebody tell us who Peter Marks is and why everybody’s all freaked out about that. 

Cohrs Zhang: Well, Peter Marks was head of the division of biologics and the top regulator of vaccines, and complicated injectable medicines like insulin products, too, fell under his purview. And I think we saw markets react in a panic on Monday. The shares of vaccine makers like Moderna were falling. And we saw companies selling gene therapies that Peter Marks has been really involved in regulating and championing through some of those processes, they were kind of freaked out because it just creates uncertainty as to kind of what the new philosophy toward these medicines will be. And the Trump administration, we’ve seen, especially on the Marks being pushed out, I think they’ve tried to highlight some of his more controversial actions in the past. 

We saw a White House adviser, Calley Means, was personally attacking Marks for some conflicts he had with vaccine regulators during debate over the covid booster approvals, and just his decisions to overrule recommendations by FDA experts on some innovative medications that some people disagreed with. But the perspective from former officials has been that, like Peter Marks or not, the idea that scientific expertise is being purged in this way is concerning. And it wasn’t just Peter Marks. There’s another regulator at the Office of New Drugs, Peter Stein. who was pushed out. We have Anthony Fauci’s successor at NIH [the National Institutes of Health] was pushed out, Jeanne Marrazzo, as well as a couple other heads of scientific research institutes at NIH. 

Rovner: Anthony Fauci’s wife was pushed out— 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: —as the head of the office of bioethics at NIH. 

Cohrs Zhang: Truly, and I think we had heard that some of these more politically sensitive center leader positions would be at risk. We’ve heard this for a very long time, but it seems like they took advantage of the chaos to implement some of these high-level cuts to people that they may have disagreed with. But, like, people will be filling those positions. I don’t know that there’s a cost-saving argument there. But it certainly seems like they were trying to push out senior leaders with a lot of experience. 

Rovner: It also feels like, the way that people were let go seems, to put it bluntly, purposely cruel, like sending out RIF [reduction in force] notices at 5 a.m. and then having people find out they’ve been let go when they stand in long lines only to find out that their IDs no longer work, or CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] employees being directed to contact a person who died last year. Is there a strategy here? Lauren, you wanted to add something. 

Weber: I wrote a story on the CMS employees being told to contact someone who was dead. And I spoke to one of this woman Anita Pinder’s former colleagues who said she was just heartbroken. She said CMS employees who got that email had gone to this woman’s funeral, and what a gut punch. She said, Look — this person who was talking to me is a former CMS employee — said: Look, you know, there always is a way to reorganize. It’s not that there isn’t waste or ability to consolidate or streamline in the federal government. She’s like, That’s not my problem. My problem, this woman told me, was that it was done in such a way that you really can’t take that back. People getting a dead woman’s name as their point of contact to contest their firings is something that is difficult to take back. 

Rovner: I guess my question is: Is this just sloppy, or are they actually trying to be cruel in this? Because it certainly feels like they’re trying to be cruel. 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s possible. It’s both, a combination, one or the other. Again, it seems like the people who are doing this are not expert, right? They didn’t actually take the time to assess HHS and all what the agency does to understand what people do for the government beyond just looking at their job titles. And so some of it may be intentional cruelty, and some of it just may be really just rushing and not understanding the process. I mean, there were other notices at FDA that were signed by somebody that no longer worked there. People’s performance scores were wrong. The sense is they didn’t follow the normal process of, like, when you do a RIF, you have to give — there’s certain people that get preferences and who stays and who goes and whether it’s veteran status, disability, all those things. 

And I think some of that will probably result in legal challenges down the line, including they got rid of certain offices, or everybody in them, that were mandated by Congress. So some of it’s probably sloppy, but some of it is — right? — they don’t really care how they treat people, because there is like a very clear message that comes from their rhetoric of kind of lack of respect for government bureaucracy. 

Rovner: And I know some of these senior leaders, they figured out that they can’t just summarily fire them. So a number of them were offered transfers to the Indian Health Service in places like Alaska and Montana, and they were given 36 hours to decide whether they would accept the transfer. And we are told that Secretary Kennedy is very concerned about Native populations and the Indian Health Service, which is short of workers in a lot of places. But this seemed to be insulting to both the people who were given these quote-unquote “transfers” and to the Indian Health Service, because it wasn’t sending the Indian Health Service what it actually needs, which are practitioners, doctors and nurses, and laboratory workers. It was sending research analysts and bench scientists and people whose qualifications do not match what the IHS needs. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. They wanted to send, I think, the FDA’s tobacco head to the IHS to do, I think, medical care. So it enraged people in the IHS. 

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the Native population was really thrilled about this, either. Lauren, you wanted to add something. 

Weber: Yeah, I would just say that this is a playbook the Trump administration has executed in other government agencies. Members of the FBI, top leaders of the FBI were reassigned to child sex trafficking crimes or faraway distant lands in the hopes of getting them to resign. So, I think we are seeing that play out at HHS, but it certainly is a tactic they’ve used in other federal agencies to, quote-unquote, “drain the swamp.” 

Rovner: Right. And in the first Trump administration, they did move some offices out of Washington to the middle of the country, if you will, and most people obviously didn’t go. And now there’s a lot of expertise that, again, that we lost. I think that really can’t be overstated, is how much expertise is being pushed out the door right now, in terms of things that, as I said, this administration says that it wants to do or get accomplished. Meanwhile, Secretary Kennedy has been invited — or should I say summoned — to come testify next week before the Senate health committee at the behest of Republican Chairman Bill Cassidy, Democratic ranking member Bernie Sanders. So far Congress has mostly just been kind of sitting back and watching all of this happen. Is there any indication that that’s about to change? 

Karlin-Smith: I think Democrats are pushing a little bit harder, but I’m not sure they have enough power or have enough, again, momentum yet to actually do what they can with their power. I’m interested to see how Cassidy handles this hearing going forward because his statement the day of the big reduction in force seemed to suggest that the media was maybe unfairly reporting on it and that Kennedy may have another side to the story to share to justify it. And it didn’t sound like somebody that was necessarily going to go particularly hard at RFK. It seemed like somebody who wanted to give him a chance to justify his moves. But we’ll see what happens. I think Cassidy has been, despite RFK walking back a lot of his promises he made to Cassidy around vaccines and so forth, Cassidy has not been that willing to go hard on him so far. 

Rovner: Yeah, the other thing we’ve seen is that most of the big health groups that you would expect to be out on the front lines, hair on fire, have actually been keeping their heads down through most of these huge changes. But that seems to be maybe changing a little bit, too. This is a pretty dramatic change to get not a huge response from. I’ve seen way lesser changes get way bigger responses. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think I spend a lot of time thinking about what is going to be the last straw for some of these organizations. And I think we saw some more effective organizing from the, like, medical device industry when actual medical device reviewers were laid off, and I think they went public pretty quickly, and those people were rehired. But I think it’s important to remember that some of these larger trade organizations in these companies are looking at a broader picture here. And there are all these different pieces of the puzzle. And certainly I think we’ve seen some trade groups that represent, like, pharmaceutical companies criticize some of the cutbacks at HHS, but also for now they were spared in a tariff announcement this week. 

And so I think they are trying to walk this tightrope where they have to figure out how to get the wins that they think they need and take losses in other place, and hope it kind of all evens out for them. So, I think they’re in a tough situation, and I think there’s much more concern behind the scenes than we’re seeing spill out into the public. But I think at some point maybe the line will be crossed, and I just don’t think we’ve seen that quite yet. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think the dam is definitely starting to break a bit, though. I was shocked — I guess, what day was it, Tuesday, when all this happened? — when finally late in the day, pharma sent a statement, and it was more scathing than you might even expect. And I think it was the first time they’ve actually responded to anything I’ve asked them to respond to that the administration does. And they said that it’s going to raise crucial questions about the FDA’s ability to fulfill its role. And so I think that is a big sign because, as Rachel mentioned, the medical device community was willing to stick their neck out there when they felt they were really harmed. Smaller trade associations have been starting to push back, but the silence has really been notable, and notable I think by people outside who were hoping that these powerful industries that have sort of more connections to the Republican Party would use that leverage, and they sort of felt abandoned by them. So, I think that is a significant crack to follow. 

Rovner: I feel like everybody’s waiting for somebody else to stand up and see if they get their head chopped off. I agree. I mean, I’m hearing, quietly, I’m hearing the concern, too, but publicly not so much. Well, moving to Capitol Hill, Congress is in this week. Well, they were in. We’ll get to the House in a minute. But first in the Senate, New Jersey’s Cory Booker set a new record for holding the floor, which is saying something for a place where being long-winded is basically a prerequisite. Twenty-five hours and five minutes, besting by almost an hour the 1957 filibuster against the Civil Rights Act by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Much of what Booker talked about during his more than a day on the Senate floor was health care. Is this still the issue that Democrats are hoping to ride to their political return? 

Weber: I was going to say, if the massive Medicaid cuts that are forecast come through, I do think that will be the midterm political return of Democrats. I think the writing is on the wall politically for Republicans if those do go through, which is why I think you’re seeing a lot of Republican leaders start to say: Oh, no. No, no, no. We don’t want some of these Medicaid cuts like this. But to be determined how that actually plays out. 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that Democrats are just trying to figure out something that will break through to people. They’re just trying to throw spaghetti at the wall and see if there’s some strategy they can find to get through to people. And I think this, just given the viewership of Sen. Booker’s speech, seemed to break through in a way and felt like even though Democrats do have really limited levers of power in Washington right now, that at least somebody was doing something, you know. And that’s kind of the takeaway that I had from that speech. 

But I will say I think Congressman Jake Auchincloss appeared after White House adviser Calley Means criticized the scientific establishment and HHS and was defending these cuts, and Congressman Auchincloss, I think, did have a more forceful tone in pushing back and just arguing for the scientific advances that have happened and had some really camera-ready little tidbits about the new administration being run by like conspiracy theorists and podcast bros. And I think they’re trying to figure out how to push back and how to get through to people and what approaches are going to work. And I think that was just a new tactic that we saw break through. 

Rovner: Well, if the Democrats did want to make a statement about Medicaid, they could make a stand against President Trump’s nominee to head the Medicaid program, as well as Medicare and the ACA [Affordable Care Act], Dr. Mehmet Oz. That vote is scheduled in the Senate for today after we finish taping. But we’re not really seeing that much pushback. Are we, Lauren? 

Weber: Not so far. I guess we’ll see. We’re taping before this happens. But Mehmet Oz really waltzed through his confirmation hearing process. It’s rare that you see someone who will lead such a massive agency on health care mention the multiple Daytime Emmys he’s won, but I think that helped in his charming of legislators. His daytime bona fides were on high display. He was able to dodge multiple questions about what he would do about cuts to Medicaid, and even Democratic senators were inviting him to come to church. I would be surprised if we see some sort of big stand today. 

Rovner: He was super well prepped, which we said — we did a special after the hearing — which is of all of the Trump nominees, I think he was the best prepped of anybody I’ve seen. He was ready with tidbits from every single member of the committee. But I will say that, going back years, and as I said, you know, 40 years, this is a position that one party or the other has frequently blocked, not for reasons that the nominee was not qualified but because they wanted to make a point about something that was going on at the agency. And it kind of surprises me that we haven’t seen that sort of thing. There were years where we did not have a Senate-approved head of Medicare and Medicaid. Sarah, as you pointed out, there were years when we didn’t have a Senate-approved head of the FDA for the same reason. Had nothing to do with the nominee. Had everything to do with the party that was out of power trying to use that as leverage to make a point. And we’re just not even seeing the Democrats try that. 

Weber: I guess we’ll see this afternoon. You could be forecasting what’s going to happen, Julie. But I think on top of him being well prepped, Oz does have a history in health care, is a very accomplished surgeon. But what is fascinating to me is that he’s coming back to the Senate after a 2014 grilling by the Senate on his pushing of supplements and other things for, quote, “fat blasting” and, quote, “weight loss” products. And it’s just the turnaround of daytime TV star to failed Senate candidate to potential administrator for CMS, which runs hundreds of millions Americans’ health insurance, potentially at a very consequential period in which there are massive cuts to them, is really going to be something. 

Rovner: Yes. Yet another eye-opening thing out of this administration. Well, over in the House, things are a little more confusing. On Tuesday, the usually unified Republicans rejected a rule, normally a party-line , because Speaker Mike Johnson was using it to avoid a vote on a bill that would allow new parents to vote by proxy, basically granting them parental leave. I did not have this fight on my bingo card for this year. It’s actually less a partisan fight than one between younger — read, childbearing age — members of Congress and older ones from both parties. I’m kind of surprised that this of all things is what stopped the House from doing business this week. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think that it is an interesting contrast here because House Republicans have had this very pro-family rhetoric in the campaign, but they also have been so against remote work in any fashion, and members of Congress travel really far. There’s a time in pregnancy when you can no longer fly on a plane. And so I think given Republicans’ really, really slim majority in the House, it puts them in kind of a pickle where they need these votes to keep the majority, but it kind of sits at the intersection of all these different forces at play. So, I think, yeah, just a really weird political pickle that House Republicans have found themselves in this week. 

Rovner: Yeah, and of course this was a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a Republican member of the House Freedom Caucus, who was pushing this, who got a majority of the House to sign her discharge petition, which is supposed to bring this bill to the floor. So, we will see how that one plays out. Obviously, with everything else that’s going on, it’s not the biggest story, but it sure is interesting. 

Well, the big non-health news of the week are the tariffs that President Trump announced in the Rose Garden Wednesday afternoon. There is a health care angle to this story. The tariffs reportedly include at least some drugs and drug ingredients that are manufactured overseas. This, again, feels like it’s going to do exactly the opposite of what the president says he wants to do in terms of reducing drug prices, right? 

Weber: I mean, yes, yes. That would seem to be exactly how that is likely to go. Even look at drugs we get from Canada. They’re going to have tariffs on them. I think we have to wait and see exactly what happens. Trump has had a history of proposing these and then taking them back. Obviously these are much more sweeping than the ones we’ve seen so far. So, I think it, the jury is out on how exactly this will play out over the next couple weeks. 

Rovner: Right. And I said there’s also the exception process, right? 

Karlin-Smith: So, yeah, there’s been I think a lot of confusion and lack of clarity around exactly what happened yesterday here. It seems like the drug industry did get some key exemptions, but people are trying to kind of clarify some of those, including, like: Do you just apply to finished product? Do ingredients that they need lower down in the supply chain get impacted? So, I think it seems like pharma at least got some amount of a win here and got some of the typical exemptions for medicines, but people are not confident in all of that and how it’s going to play out. And I’ve seen sort of mixed reactions from analysts in the space. But yeah, it’s just like other parts of the economy that people have talked about with tariffs. It’s not entirely clear how the average American consumer would actually benefit from these tariffs versus having to just pay more money for goods. 

Rovner: We are apparently going to tariff penguins from islands off the coast of Australia. That much we seem clear on this morning. Turning to abortion, this week, as we mentioned last week, the Supreme Court heard a case out of South Carolina testing whether a state can kick Planned Parenthood not just out of the federal Family Planning Program, Title X, but whether Planned Parenthood can be disallowed from providing Medicaid services as well. Now, Planned Parenthood gets way more money from Medicaid than it does from Title X, and neither program allows the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. I will say that again: Neither program allows the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Interestingly, it seems the high court might actually be leaning towards Planned Parenthood in this case, not because the conservative justices have any sympathy towards Planned Parenthood but because the court has fairly recently made it clear that the provision of Medicaid law that says patients can choose any qualified provider actually means what it says: The patient can choose any qualified provider. 

At the same time, though, the Trump administration this week declined to distribute a big swath of that Title X funding. And you have to wonder whether, even if Planned Parenthood wins this South Carolina case, what’s going to be left of either Title X or the Medicaid program. Possibly a Pyrrhic victory coming here? It seems that this administration is just whacking things, and even if the court ultimately says you can’t kick them out, there’s going to be nothing for them to stay in. 

Karlin-Smith: Well, the any-willing-provider debate struck me as sort of most interesting here because that type of clause seems to be something you typically see conservatives want to put into a government health program. They don’t feel comfortable kind of restricting people and choices in that way around who they see. So that was one of the elements of this case. The other thing that I think is being watched is this argument that the state is making around, like, how you enforce disagreements, I guess, around how the Medicaid program is being operated. And that seems like it could have a lot of long-lasting impacts as well if people, depending on if the court weighs in on that and so forth, just what rights people have to contest problematic decisions made in state Medicaid programs. 

Rovner: Yeah, for the first hour of the debate, the word “abortion” wasn’t mentioned. The word “Planned Parenthood” wasn’t mentioned. This was really about whether patients actually have a right to sue over not being able to get the kind of care that they want, which has been a long-standing fight in Medicaid, back to, I think, pretty much the beginning of Medicaid. So, we’ll see how this one comes out. Well, turning to the states and another case we have talked about, Texas wants to prosecute a New York doctor who was acting legally under New York law from prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine to a Texas patient. The latest is that the court clerk in Ulster County, New York, has refused to file a judgment for the $100,000 fine that Texas says the New York doctor owes. 

At the other end of the spectrum, in Georgia, meanwhile, lawmakers held a hearing on a bill that would — and I’m quoting from a Georgia state news service here — “ban abortions in Georgia from the moment of fertilization and codify it as a felony homicide crime unless a pregnant woman was threatened with violence to have the procedure.” Now, under this bill, both the woman and the doctor could be charged with murder. This bill is unlikely to be enacted this year, but I feel like the Overton window on this continues to move towards maybe punishing women with poor pregnancy outcomes. 

Karlin-Smith: Well, and punishing women who have trouble getting pregnant, as some of the opponents of this bill are arguing. It’s not clear whether it will really be possible to do IVF procedures if the bill was enacted how it was written. And even it seems like some of the reason why some pretty anti-abortion groups are concerned about this law, because they feel uncomfortable that it’s penalizing or going after the woman rather than other people involved in the abortion system. 

Rovner: I feel like we’ve been creeping this direction for a while, though. Obviously, this bill’s probably not going to move this cycle, but it got a hearing. We’ve seen a lot of things like this introduced. We’ve rarely seen it progress to the hearing stage. Another thing that bears watching. So, last week in the segment that I’m now calling “MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] in the States,” we talked about West Virginia banning food dyes and additives. Well, hold my beer — um, make that water, says Utah. Utah has now become the first state to ban fluoride in public water systems, something takes effect next month. Lauren, I feel like states are rushing to match RFK Jr. Is that what we’re seeing? 

Weber: There is some interest at the state level, but I also think it speaks to RFK’s limitations. I think everybody always thinks the game is always in D.C., but there’s a lot the states can do. And so I think it’ll be fascinating to kind of see how this continues to play out. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will keep watching it. All right, that is this week’s health news. Now we will play my interview with KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby. Then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ other Julie, Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Julie, welcome back. 

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, this month’s patient is yet another with a gigantic colonoscopy bill, but there’s a twist with this one. Tell us who he is and, important for this story, what kind of health insurance he has. 

Appleby: Yes, absolutely. His name is Tim Winard, and he lives in Addison, Illinois. He bought his own health insurance after he left his management job to launch his own business. So he shopped around a little bit. This is the first time he’s bought insurance. And he chose a short-term policy, which is good for six months in his state. And the first six months went pretty well. And he was still working on starting his business, so he signed up for another short-term policy with a different insurer. And this one cost about $500 a month. 

Rovner: So, remind us again. What is short-term health insurance? And how is it different from most employer and Affordable Care Act coverage? 

Appleby: Right. These types of policies have been sold for years. They’re generally intended for people who are, like, between jobs or maybe just getting out of school. They’re a temporary bridge to more comprehensive insurance, and as such they are not considered Affordable Care Act-qualified plans. So they don’t have to meet the rules that are set under the Affordable Care Act. So, for example, they might look like comprehensive major medical policies, but they all have sort of significant caveats. And some of these might surprise people who are accustomed to work-based or ACA plans. So, for example, like in Tim Winard’s plan, some set specific dollar caps on certain types of medical care, and sometimes those are, like, per day or per visit or something like that, and they can be sometimes far below what it actually costs. 

And all of them — this is a key difference with ACA plans — all of these types of short-term plans screen applicants for health conditions, and they can reject people because of health problems or exclude those conditions from coverage. Many also do not cover drugs or maternity care. So people really have to read their policies carefully to see what they cover and what they don’t cover. 

Rovner: So this is sort of like pre-ACA. It’s cheap because it doesn’t cover that much. 

Appleby: Exactly. That’s why they can offer them lower premiums. Now, again, some people with a subsidized ACA plan, these are not necessarily cheaper, but for others these are less expensive. 

Rovner: So back to our patient this month. He does what we always advise and calls his insurance company before he goes for this, because it is obviously scheduled care, not an emergency. What did they tell him? 

Appleby: Well, I think he only asked where he could go. He was concerned that he would go to a facility that was in-network, and they told him he could pretty much go anywhere. He did not ask about cost in that phone call. 

Rovner: Yeah, so he gets his colonoscopy. Everything turns out OK medically. And then, as we say, the bill comes. How big was it? 

Appleby: He was left owing $7,226 after his plan paid about $817 towards the bill. They got a little bit of a discount for being insured, but then he was still left owing more than $7,000. 

Rovner: And what was the explanation for him owing that much? Just a reminder that this should have been fully covered if he’d had an ACA plan, right? 

Appleby: That’s correct. Under the ACA, screening colonoscopies and other types of cancer screenings are covered without a copay for the patient. But he didn’t have an ACA plan here. So, what was the explanation? Well, this time he did email his insurance company, which is Companion Life Insurance of Columbia, South Carolina, and they wrote him back, and they told him his policy classified the procedure and all of its costs, including the anesthesia, under his policy’s outpatient surgery facility benefit. What is that? you might ask. Well, in his policy, that benefit caps insurance payments within that facility to a maximum of a thousand dollars per day. So, the most they were going to pay towards this was a thousand dollars, because they classified the whole thing as an outpatient procedure with that cap. And this surprised Winard because he thought the cancer screening was covered and he would only owe 20% of the bill, not almost the entire thing, basically. 

Rovner: So how did this eventually work out? 

Appleby: Well, we reached out and tried to reach Companion Life, and we also talked to Scott Wood, who works as a program manager and is a co-founder of a marketing company that markets Companion Life and other insurance plans. And he thought there was some room for interpretation in the billing and in the policy language. So he asked Companion Life to take another look. And shortly after that, Winard said he was contacted by his insurer, and a representative told him that upon reconsideration the bill had been adjusted. And he wasn’t really given a reason why that happened, but as it turns out his new bill showed he owed only $770. 

Rovner: Which is, I assume, about what he expected when he went into this, right? 

Appleby: That’s, yes, correct. He didn’t think he was going to have to pay as much as it was initially billed at. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here other than to come to us if you have a bill that you can’t deal with? 

Appleby: Right. Well, I think experts say to be very cautious and read the plans very carefully if you’re shopping for a short-term plan. And realize they have some of these limits and they may not cover everything. They may not cover preexisting conditions. And this could become more widespread in the coming years as — short-term plans have been somewhat of a political football. So, out of concern that people would choose them over more comprehensive coverage, President Barack Obama’s administration limited them to terms of three months. Those rules were lifted during the first Trump administration, and he allowed the plans to again be sold as 364-day policies, just one day short of a year, and then you could try to get another one. Or in some cases the insurer could opt to renew them. 

And then Joe Biden came in, and President Biden called them “junk insurance,” and he restricted the policies to four months. So, it’s been bouncing back and forth, back and forth. Everybody really expects the Trump administration to do what it did the last time and make them available for longer periods. So I think if we’re going to hear more about short-term plans. They may become more common. And again, it’s just a matter of trying to understand what you’re buying, and why they might be less expensive in your mind than an ACA plan, but they might not turn out to be. 

Rovner: And you can always ask for an estimate, right? 

Appleby: And always ask for an estimate. That’s a given. Experts always say, before any kind of scheduled procedure, call your insurer, call the provider, ask for an estimate on how much this might cost you out-of-pocket. 

Rovner: Good. And if all else fails, then you can write to us. 

Appleby: There you go. 

Rovner: Julie Appleby, thank you very much. 

Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. 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. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Cohrs Zhang: All right. My extra credit is a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the headline is “FDA Punts on Major COVID-19 Vaccine Decision After Ouster of Top Official,” by Liz Essley White. It’s a great story, and I think, as we talked about earlier, I’m thinking about: What are the breaking points for companies, for industries, as they look at how the HHS is changing? And I think one of those metrics is if the FDA starts missing deadlines to approve products. I think this one is a little bit of a special case because it is a covid-19 vaccine, which is, like, the most highly politicized medical product right now. But I think there could be other cases, and I think industry is watching this so closely to see if some of these changes at FDA really do bleed into approvals, whether the approval process will be politicized, whether they’re going to start missing deadlines. And given just the amount of financial support that industry provides to fund routine activities, I think this was kind of a really good marker in this process as we learn what the impacts are. 

Rovner: Yeah, agree. Lauren. 

Weber: I read “Miscarriage and Motherhood” by Ashley Parker, now at The Atlantic. And I’ve got to be honest — if you read it, be in a place where you can cry. It’s an incredibly moving piece about tragedies of miscarriage, and frankly about women’s health care, and how little support and understanding there is in general about what surrounds that entire field. And some of the fascinating parts in it is when Ashley details going in for a D&C [dilation and curettage] and being told that is an abortion. And it’s kind of an interesting interplay between how what words mean, what people understand what words mean, and what exactly parenthood entails in modern America today. 

Rovner: And how extremely common miscarriage is. I think people just don’t realize, because it’s something that’s just not talked about very much. It’s a really beautiful story. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I looked at an MSNBC piece [“Florida Considers Easing Child Labor Laws After Pushing Out Immigrants”] by Ja’han Jones, about Florida considering easing their child labor laws after pushing out immigrants. And, yeah, the state is considering bills that would allow very young teenagers to work overnight, to maybe work at the kinds of jobs that would normally be seen as too unsafe for such young people. And, yeah, it just seems like an interesting sort of consequence of pushing out immigrant workers. But also it comes after some really moving reports over the past few years, too, about just how dangerous some of this work is, and how even under current law that is supposed to prevent this, particularly immigrants and the most vulnerable workers have ended up with young people in this job, and they’ve really — these types of jobs — and they’ve been harmed by it. 

Rovner: Who could have possibly seen this coming? Sorry. My extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Uber for Nursing is Here — and It’s Not Good for Patients or Nurses,” by Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda. And it’s yet another case of something that sounds really good, using an app to help nurses who want to find extra work and set their own schedules get it, and helping facilities that need extra help find workers. But like so many of these things, it’s not as rosy as it appears unless you’re the one that’s collecting the fees from the app. Workers are basically all temps. They may not be familiar with the facilities they’ve been assigned to, much less the patients, which doesn’t always result in optimal care. And they bid against each other for who will do the job for the lowest rate, creating a race to the bottom for wages. It’s another one of those quote-unquote “advances” that’s a lot less than meets the eye. 

All right, that is this week’s 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 producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys these days? Rachel, you’re still on LinkedIn, right? 

Cohrs Zhang: Still on LinkedIn. Still on X. I do have a Bluesky account, too. But any and all the places. 

Rovner: Excellent. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I’m at Bluesky, some X, some LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m still on X, and I am on Bluesky, @LaurenWeberHP. And as a member of — a congressional staffer asked me: Does the “HP” really stand for “health policy”? And yes, it does. So, still there. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The 2024 campaign — particularly the one for president — has been notably vague on policy. But health issues, especially those surrounding abortion and other reproductive health care, have nonetheless played a key role. And while the Affordable Care Act has not been the focus of debate the way it was over the previous three presidential campaigns, who becomes the next president will have a major impact on the fate of the 2010 health law.

The panelists for this week’s special election preview, taped before a live audience at KFF’s offices in Washington, are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Tamara Keith of NPR, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Cynthia Cox and Ashley Kirzinger of KFF.

Panelists

Ashley Kirzinger
KFF

@AshleyKirzinger

Read Ashley's bio.

Cynthia Cox
KFF

@cynthiaccox

Read Cynthia's bio.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Tamara Keith
NPR

@tamarakeithNPR

Read and listen to Tamara's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As Election Day nears, who will emerge victorious from the presidential race is anyone’s guess. Enthusiasm among Democratic women has grown with the elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket, with more saying they are likely to turn out to vote. But broadly, polling reveals a margin-of-error race — too close to call.
• Several states have abortion measures on the ballot. Proponents of abortion rights are striving to frame the issue as nonpartisan, acknowledging that recent measures have passed thanks in part to Republican support. For some voters, resisting government control of women’s health is a conservative value. Many are willing to split their votes, supporting both an abortion rights measure and also candidates who oppose abortion rights.
• While policy debates have been noticeably lacking from this presidential election, the future of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act hinges on its outcome. Republicans want to undermine the federal funding behind Medicaid expansion, and former President Donald Trump has a record of opposition to the ACA. Potentially on the chopping block are the federal subsidies expiring next year that have transformed the ACA by boosting enrollment and lowering premium costs.
• And as misinformation and disinformation proliferate, one area of concern is the “malleable middle”: people who are uncertain of whom or what to trust and therefore especially susceptible to misleading or downright false information. Could a second Trump administration embed misinformation in federal policy? The push to soften or even eliminate school vaccination mandates shows the public health consequences of falsehood creep.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Resistance to Public Health, No Longer Fringe, Gains Foothold in G.O.P. Politics,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
• KFF Health News’ “‘What the Health?’: SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies.”
• KFF’s Health Misinformation and Trust Initiative, a program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: LIVE From KFF: Health Care and the 2024 Election

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Please put your hands together and join me in welcoming our panel and our host, Julie Rovner. 

Julie Rovner: Hello, good morning, 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 very best and smartest health reporters in Washington, along with some very special guests today. We’re taping this special election episode on Thursday, October 17th, at 11:30 a.m., in front of a live audience at the Barbara Jordan Conference Center here at KFF in downtown D.C. Say hi, audience. 

As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

So I am super lucky to work at and have worked at some pretty great places and with some pretty great, smart people. And when I started to think about who I wanted to help us break down what this year’s elections might mean for health policy, it was pretty easy to assemble an all-star cast. So first, my former colleague from NPR, senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Tam, thanks for joining us. 

Tamara Keith: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: Next, our regular “What the Health?” podcast panelist and my right hand all year on reproductive health issues, Alice Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi Julie. 

Rovner: Finally, two of my incredible KFF colleagues. Cynthia Cox is a KFF vice president and director of the program on the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and one of the nation’s very top experts on what we know as Obamacare. Thank you, Cynthia. 

Cynthia Cox: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And finally, Ashley Kirzinger is director of survey methodology and associate director of our KFF Public Opinion and Survey Research Program, and my favorite explainer of all things polling. 

Ashley Kirzinger: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, welcome to all of you. Thanks again for being here. We’re going to chat amongst ourselves for a half hour or so, and then we will open the floor to questions. So be ready here in the room. Tam, I want to start with the big picture. What’s the state of the race as of October 17th, both for president and for Congress? 

Keith: Well, let’s start with the race for President. That’s what I cover most closely. This is what you would call a margin-of-error race, and it has been a margin-of-error race pretty much the entire time, despite some really dramatic events, like a whole new candidate and two assassination attempts and things that we don’t expect to see in our lifetimes and yet they’ve happened. And yet it is an incredibly close race. What I would say is that at this exact moment, there seems to have been a slight shift in the average of polls in the direction of former President [Donald] Trump. He is in a slightly better position than he was before and is in a somewhat more comfortable position than Vice President [Kamala] Harris. 

She has been running as an underdog the whole time, though there was a time where she didn’t feel like an underdog, and right now she is also running like an underdog and the vibes have shifted, if you will. There’s been a more dramatic shift in the vibes than there has been in the polls. And the thing that we don’t know and we won’t know until Election Day is in 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Trump’s support. So at this moment, Harris looks to be in a weaker position against Trump than either [Hillary] Clinton or [Joe] Biden looked to be. It turns out that the polls were underestimating Trump both of those years. But in 2022 after the Dobbs decision, the polls overestimated Republican support and underestimated Democratic support. 

So what’s happening now? We don’t know. So there you go. That is my overview, I think, of the presidential race. The campaigning has really intensified in the last week or so, like really intensified, and it’s only going to get more intense. I think Harris has gotten a bit darker in her language and descriptions. The joyful warrior has been replaced somewhat by the person warning of dire consequences for democracy. And in terms of the House and the Senate, which will matter a lot, a lot a lot, whether Trump wins or Harris wins, if Harris wins and Democrats lose the Senate, Harris may not even be able to get Cabinet members confirmed. 

So it matters a lot, and the conventional wisdom — which is as useful as it is and sometimes is not all that useful — the conventional wisdom is that something kind of unusual could happen, which is that the House could flip to Democrats and the Senate could flip to Republicans, and usually these things don’t move in opposite directions in the same year. 

Rovner: And usually the presidential candidate has coattails, but we’re not really seeing that either, are we? 

Keith: Right. In fact, it’s the reverse. Several of the Senate candidates in key swing states, the Democratic candidates are polling much better than the Republican candidates in those races and polling with greater strength than Harris has in those states. Is this a polling error, or is this the return of split-ticket voting? I don’t know. 

Rovner: Well, leads us to our polling expert. Ashley, what are the latest polls telling us, and what should we keep in mind about the limitations of polling? I feel like every year people depend a lot on the polls and every year we say, Don’t depend too much on the polls. 

Kirzinger: Well, can I just steal Tamara’s line and say I don’t know? So in really close elections, when turnout is going to matter a lot, what the polls are really good at is telling us what is motivating voters to turn out and why. And so what the polls have been telling us for a while is that the economy is top of mind for voters. Now, health care costs — we’re at KFF. So health care plays a big role in how people think about the economy, in really two big ways. The first is unexpected costs. So unexpected medical bills, health care costs, are topping the list of the public’s financial worries, things that they’re worried about, what might happen to them or their family members. And putting off care. What we’re seeing is about a quarter of the public these days are putting off care because they say they can’t afford the cost of getting that needed care. 

So that really shows the way that the financial burdens are playing heavily on the electorate. What we have seen in recent polling is Harris is doing better on the household expenses than Biden did and is better than the Democratic Party largely. And that’s really important, especially among Black women and Latina voters. We are seeing some movement among those two groups of the electorate saying that Harris is doing a better job and they trust her more on those issues. But historically, if the election is about the economy, Republican candidates do better. The party does better on economic issues among the electorate. 

What we haven’t mentioned yet is abortion, and this is the first presidential election since post-Dobbs, in the post-Dobbs era, and we don’t know how abortion policy will play in a presidential election. It hasn’t happened before, so that’s something that we’re also keeping an eye on. We know that Harris is campaigning around reproductive rights, is working among a key group of the electorate, especially younger women voters. She is seen as a genuine candidate who can talk about these issues and an advocate for reproductive rights. We’re seeing abortion rise in importance as a voting issue among young women voters, and she’s seen as more authentic on this issue than Biden was. 

Rovner: Talk about last week’s poll about young women voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, one of the great things that we can do in polling is, when we see big changes in the campaign, is we can go back to our polls and respondents and ask how things have changed to them. So we worked on a poll of women voters back in June. Lots have changed since June, so we went back to them in September to see how things were changing for this one group, right? So we went back to the same people and we saw increased motivation to turn out, especially among Democratic women. Republican women were about the same level of motivation. They’re more enthusiastic and satisfied about their candidate, and they’re more likely to say abortion is a major reason why they’re going to be turning out. But we still don’t know how that will play across the electorate in all the states. 

Because for most voters, a candidate’s stance on abortion policy is just one of many factors that they’re weighing when it comes to turnout. And so those are one of the things that we’re looking at as well. I will say that I’m not a forecaster, thank goodness. I’m a pollster, and polls are not good at forecasts, right? So polls are very good at giving a snapshot of the electorate at a moment in time. So two weeks out, that’s what I know from the polls. What will happen in the next two weeks, I’m not sure. 

Rovner: Well, Alice, just to pick up on that, abortion, reproductive health writ large are by far the biggest health issues in this campaign. What impact is it having on the presidential race and the congressional races and the ballot issues? It’s all kind of a clutter, isn’t it? 

Ollstein: Yeah, well, I just really want to stress what Ashley said about this being uncharted territory. So we can gather some clues from the past few years where we’ve seen these abortion rights ballot measures win decisively in very red states, in very blue states, in very purple states. But presidential election years just have a different electorate. And so, yes, it did motivate more people to turn out in those midterm and off-year elections, but that’s just not the same group of folks and it’s not the same groups the candidates need this time, necessarily. And also we know that every time abortion has been on the ballot, it has won, but the impact and how that spills over into partisan races has been a real mixed bag. 

So we saw in Michigan in 2022, it really helped Democrats. It helped Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It helped Michigan Democrats take back control of the Statehouse for the first time in decades. But that didn’t work for Democrats in all states. My colleagues and I did an analysis of a bunch of different states that had these ballot measures, and these ballot measures largely succeeded because of Republican voters who voted for the ballot initiative and voted for Republican candidates. And that might seem contradictory. You’re voting for an abortion rights measure, and you’re voting for very anti-abortion candidates. We saw that in Kentucky, for example, where a lot of people voted for (Sen.) Rand Paul, who is very anti-abortion, and for the abortion rights side of the ballot measure. 

I’ve been on the road the last few months, and I think you’re going to see a lot of that again. I just got back from Arizona, and a lot of people are planning to vote for the abortion rights measure there and for candidates who have a record of opposing abortion rights. Part of that is Donald Trump’s somewhat recent line of: I won’t do any kind of national ban. I’ll leave it to the states. A lot of people are believing that, even though Democrats are like: Don’t believe him. It’s not true. But also, like Ashley said, folks are just prioritizing other issues. And so, yes, when you look at certain slices of the electorate, like young women, abortion is a top motivating issue. But when you look at the entire electorate, it’s, like, a distant fourth after the economy and immigration and several other things. 

I found the KFF polling really illuminating in that, yes, most people said that abortion is either just one of many factors in deciding their vote on the candidates or not a factor at all. And most people said that they would be willing to vote for a candidate who does not share their views on abortion. So I think that’s really key here. And these abortion rights ballot measures, the campaigns behind them are being really deliberate about remaining completely nonpartisan. They need to appeal to Republicans, Democrats, independents in order to pass, but that also … So their motivation is to appeal to everyone. Democrats’ motivation is to say: You have to vote for us, too. Abortion rights won’t be protected if you just pass the ballot measure. You also have to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot. Because, they argue, Trump could pursue a national ban that would override the state protections. 

Rovner: We’ve seen in the past — and this is for both of you — ballot measures as part of partisan strategies. In the early 2000s, there were anti-gay-marriage ballot measures that were intended to pull out Republicans, that were intended to drive turnout. That’s not exactly what’s happening this time, is it? 

Keith: So I was a reporter in the great state of Ohio in 2004, and there was an anti-gay-rights ballot measure on the ballot there, and it was a key part of George W. Bush’s reelection plan. And it worked. He won the state somewhat narrowly. We didn’t get the results until 5 a.m. the next day, but that’s better than we’ll likely have this time. And that was a critical part of driving Republican turnout. It’s remarkable how much has changed since then in terms of public views. It wouldn’t work in the same way this time. 

The interesting thing in Arizona, for instance, is that there’s also an anti-immigration ballot measure that’s also polling really well that was added by the legislature in sort of a rush to try to offset the expected Democratic-based turnout because of the abortion measure. But as you say, it is entirely possible that there could be a lot of Trump abortion, immigration and [House Democrat and Senate candidate] Ruben Gallego voters. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. And I met some of those voters, and one woman told me, look, she gets offended when people assume that she’s liberal because she identified as pro-choice. We don’t use that terminology in our reporting, but she identified as pro-choice, and she was saying: Look, to me, this is a very conservative value. I don’t want the government in my personal business. I believe in privacy. And so for her, that doesn’t translate over into, And therefore I am a Democrat. 

Rovner: I covered two abortion-related ballot measures in South Dakota that were two years, I think it was 2006 and 2008. 

Ollstein: They have another one this year. 

Rovner: Right. There is another one this year. But what was interesting, what I discovered in 2006 and 2008 is exactly what you were saying, that there’s a libertarian streak, particularly in the West, of people who vote Republican but who don’t believe that the government has any sort of business in your personal life, not just on abortion but on any number of other things, including guns. So this is one of those issues where there’s sort of a lot of distinction. Cynthia, this is the first time in however many elections the Affordable Care Act has not been a huge issue, but there’s an awful lot at stake for this law, depending on who gets elected, right? 

Cox: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, it’s the first time in recent memory that health care in general, aside from abortion, hasn’t really been the main topic of conversation in the race. And part of that is that the Affordable Care Act has really transformed the American health care system over the last decade or so. The uninsured rate is at a record low, and the ACA marketplaces, which had been really struggling 10 years ago, have started to not just survive but thrive. Maybe also less to dislike about the ACA, but it’s also not as much a policy election as previous elections had been. But yes, the future of the ACA still hinges on this election. 

So starting with President Trump, I think as anyone who follows health policy knows, or even politics or just turned on the TV in 2016 knows that Trump has a very, very clear history of opposing the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. He supported a number of efforts in Congress to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And when those weren’t successful, he took a number of regulatory steps, joined legal challenges, and proposed in his budgets to slash funding for the Affordable Care Act and for Medicaid. But now in 2024, it’s a little bit less clear exactly where he’s going. 

I would say earlier in the 2024 presidential cycle, he made some very clear comments about saying Obamacare sucks, for example, or that Republicans should never give up on trying to repeal and replace the ACA, that the failure to do so when he was president was a low point for the party. But then he also has seemed to kind of walk that back a little bit. Now he’s saying that he would replace the ACA with something better or that he would make the ACA itself much, much better or make it cost less, but he’s not providing specifics. Of course, in the debate, he famously said that he had “concepts” of a plan, but there’s no … Nothing really specific has materialized. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen any of those concepts. 

Cox: Yes, the concept is … But we can look at his record. And so we do know that he has a very, very clear record of opposing the ACA and really taking any steps he could when he was president to try to, if not repeal and replace it, then significantly weaken it or roll it back. Harris, by contrast, is in favor of the Affordable Care Act. When she was a primary candidate in 2020, she had expressed support for more-progressive reforms like “Medicare for All” or “Medicare for More.” But since becoming vice president, especially now as the presidential candidate, she’s taken a more incremental approach. 

She’s talking about building upon the Affordable Care Act. In particular, a key aspect of her record and Biden’s is these enhanced subsidies that exist in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They were first, I think … They really closely mirror what Biden had run on as president in 2019, 2020, but they were passed as part of covid relief. So they were temporary, then they were extended as part of the Inflation Reduction Act but, again, temporarily. And so they’re set to expire next year, which is setting up a political showdown of sorts for Republicans and Democrats on the Hill about whether or not to extend them. And Harris would like to make these subsidies permanent because they have been responsible for really transforming the ACA marketplaces. 

The number of people signing up for coverage has doubled since Biden took office. Premium payments were cut almost in half. And so this is, I think, a key part of, now, her record, but also what she wants to see go forward. But it’s going to be an uphill battle, I think, to extend them. 

Rovner: Cynthia, to sort of build on that a little bit, as we mentioned earlier, a Democratic president won’t be able to get a lot accomplished with a Republican House and/or Senate and a Republican president won’t be able to get that much done with a Democratic House and/or Senate. What are some of the things we might expect to see if either side wins a trifecta control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress? 

Cox: So I think, there … So I guess I’ll start with Republicans. So if there is a trifecta, the key thing there to keep in mind is while there may not be a lot of appetite in Congress to try to repeal and replace the ACA, since that wasn’t really a winning issue in 2017, and since then public support for the ACA has grown. And I think also it’s worth noting that the individual mandate penalty being reduced to $0. So essentially there’s no individual mandate anymore. There’s less to hate about the law. 

Rovner: All the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Cox: Yeah the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Rovner: So the lobbyists have less to hate. 

Cox: Yes, that too. And so I don’t think there’s a ton of appetite for this, even though Trump has been saying, still, some negative comments about the ACA. That being said, if Republicans want to pass tax cuts, then they need to find savings somewhere. And so that could be any number of places, but I think it’s likely that certain health programs and other programs are off-limits. So Medicare probably wouldn’t be touched, maybe Social Security, defense, but that leaves Medicaid and the ACA subsidies. 

And so if they need savings in order to pass tax cuts, then I do think in particular Medicaid is at risk, not just rolling back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion but also likely block-granting the program or implementing per capita caps or some other form of really restricting the amount of federal dollars that are going towards Medicaid. 

Rovner: And this is kind of where we get into the Project 2025 that we’ve talked about a lot on the podcast over the course of this year, that, of course, Donald Trump has disavowed. But apparently [Senate Republican and vice presidential candidate] JD Vance has not, because he keeps mentioning pieces of it. 

Ollstein: And they’re only … They’re just one of several groups that have pitched deep cuts to health safety net programs, including Medicaid. You also have the Paragon group, where a lot of former Trump officials are putting forward health policy pitches and several others. And so I also think given the uncertainty about a trifecta, it’s also worth keeping in mind what they could do through waivers and executive actions in terms of work requirements. 

Rovner: That was my next question. I’ve had trouble explaining this. I’ve done a bunch of interviews in the last couple of weeks to explain how much more power Donald Trump would have, if he was reelected, to do things via the executive branch than a President Harris would have. So I have not come up with a good way to explain that. Please, one of you give it a shot. 

Keith: Someone else. 

Rovner: Why is it that President Trump could probably do a lot more with his executive power than a President Harris could do with hers? 

Cox: I think we can look back at the last few years and just see. What did Trump do with his executive power? What did Biden do with his executive power? And as far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned or Medicaid. But Trump, after the failure to repeal and replace the ACA, took a number of regulatory steps. For example, trying to expand short-term plans, which are not ACA-compliant, and therefore can discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, or cutting funding for certain things in the ACA, including outreach and enrollment assistance. 

And so I think there were a number — and also we’ve talked about Medicaid work requirements in the form of state waivers. And a lot of what Biden did, regulatory actions, were just rolling that back, changing that, but it’s hard to expand coverage or to provide a new program without Congress acting to authorize that spending. 

Kirzinger: I think it’s also really important to think about the public’s view of the ACA at this point in time. I mean, what the polls aren’t mixed about is that the ACA has higher favorability than Harris, Biden, Trump, any politician, right? So we have about two-thirds of the public. 

Rovner: So Nancy Pelosi was right. 

Kirzinger: I won’t go that far, but about two-thirds of the public’s now view the law favorably, and the provisions are even more popular. So while, yes, a Republican trifecta will have a lot of power, the public — they’re going to have a hard time rolling back protections for people with preexisting conditions, which have bipartisan support. They’re going to have a hard time making it no longer available for adult children under the age of 26 to be on their parents’ health insurance. All of those components of the ACA are really popular, and once people are given protections, it’s really hard to take them away. 

Cox: Although I would say that there are at least 10 ways the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions. I think on the surface it’s easy to say that you would protect people with preexisting conditions if you say that a health insurer has to offer coverage to someone with a preexisting condition. But there’s all those other ways that they say also protects preexisting conditions, and it makes coverage more comprehensive, which makes coverage more expensive. 

And so that’s why the subsidies there are key to make comprehensive coverage that protects people with preexisting conditions affordable to individuals. But if you take those subsidies away, then that coverage is out of reach for most people. 

Rovner: That’s also what JD Vance was talking about with changing risk pools. I mean, which most people, it makes your eyes glaze over, but that would be super important to the affordability of insurance, right? 

Cox: And his comment about risk pools is — I think a lot of people were trying to read something into that because it was pretty vague. But what a lot of people did think about when he made that comment was that before the Affordable Care Act, it used to be that if you were declined health insurance coverage, especially by multiple insurance companies, if you were basically uninsurable, then you could apply to what existed in many states was a high-risk pool. 

But the problem was that these high-risk pools were consistently underfunded. And in most of those high-risk pools, there were even waiting periods or exclusions on coverage for preexisting conditions or very high premiums or deductibles. So even though these were theoretically an option for coverage for people with preexisting conditions before the ACA, the lack of funding or support made it such that that coverage didn’t work very well for people who were sick. 

Ollstein: And something conservatives really want to do if they gain power is go after the Medicaid expansion. They’ve sort of set up this dichotomy of sort of the deserving and undeserving. They don’t say it in those words, but they argue that childless adults who are able-bodied don’t need this safety net the way, quote-unquote, “traditional” Medicaid enrollees do. And so they want to go after that part of the program by reducing the federal match. That’s something I would watch out for. I don’t know if they’ll be able to do that. That would require Congress, but also several states have in their laws that if the federal matches decreased, they would automatically unexpand, and that would mean coverage losses for a lot of people. That would be very politically unpopular. 

It’s worth keeping in mind that a lot of states, mainly red states, have expanded Medicaid since Republicans last tried to go after the Affordable Care Act in 2017. And so there’s just a lot more buy-in now. So it would be politically more challenging to do that. And it was already very politically challenging. They weren’t able to do it back then. 

Rovner: So I feel like one of the reasons that Trump might be able to get more done than Harris just using executive authority is the makeup of the judiciary, which has been very conservative, particularly at the Supreme Court, and we actually have some breaking news on this yesterday. Three of the states who intervened in what was originally a Texas lawsuit trying to revoke the FDA’s [Federal Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, officially revived that lawsuit, which the Supreme Court had dismissed because the doctors who filed it initially didn’t have standing, according to the Supreme Court. 

The states want the courts to invoke the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing and receiving of, among other things, anything used in an abortion, to effectively ban the drug. This is one of those ways that Trump wouldn’t even have to lift a finger to bring about an abortion ban, right? I mean, he’d just have to let it happen. 

Ollstein: Right. I think so much of this election cycle has been dominated by, Would you sign a ban? And that’s just the wrong question. I mean, we’ve seen Congress unable to pass either abortion restrictions or abortion protections even when one party controls both chambers. It’s just really hard. 

Rovner: And going back 60 years. 

Ollstein: And so I think it’s way more important to look at what could happen administratively or through the courts. And so yes, lawsuits like that, that the Supreme Court punted on but didn’t totally resolve this term, could absolutely come back. A Trump administration could also direct the FDA to just unauthorize abortion pills, which are the majority of abortions that take place within the U.S. 

And so — or there’s this Comstock Act route. There’s — the Biden administration put out a memo saying, We do not think the Comstock Act applies to the mailing of abortion pills to patients. A Trump administration could put out their own memo and say, We believe the opposite. So there’s a lot that could happen. And so I really have been frustrated. All of the obsessive focus on: Would you sign a ban? Would you veto a ban? Because that is the least likely route that this would happen. 

Kirzinger: Well, and all of these court cases create an air of confusion among the public, right? And so, that also can have an effect in a way that signing a ban — I mean, if people don’t know what’s available to them in their state based on state policy or national policy. 

Ollstein: Or they’re afraid of getting arrested. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, even if it’s completely legal in their state, we’re finding that people aren’t aware of whether — what’s available to them in their state, what they can access legally or not. And so having those court cases pending creates this air of confusion among the public. 

Keith: Well, just to amplify the air of confusion, talking to Democrats who watch focus groups, they saw a lot of voters blaming President Biden for the Dobbs decision and saying: Well, why couldn’t he fix that? He’s president. At a much higher level, there is confusion about how our laws work. There’s a lot of confusion about civics, and as a result, you see blame landing in sort of unexpected places. 

Rovner: This is the vaguest presidential election I have ever covered. I’ve been doing this since 1988. We basically have both candidates refusing to answer specific questions — as a strategy, I mean, it’s not that I don’t think — I think they both would have a pretty good idea of what it is they would do, and both of them find it to their political advantage not to say. 

Keith: I think that’s absolutely right. I think that the Harris campaign, which I spend more time covering, has the view that if Trump is not going to answer questions directly and he is going to talk about “concepts” of a plan, and he’s just going to sort of, like, Well, if I was president, this wouldn’t be a problem, so I’m not going to answer your question — which is his answer to almost every question — then there’s not a lot of upside for them to get into great specifics about policy and to have think tank nerds telling them it won’t work, because there’s no upside to it. 

Cox: We’re right here. 

Panel: [Laughing] 

Rovner: So regular listeners to the podcast will know that one of my biggest personal frustrations with this campaign is the ever-increasing amount of mis- and outright disinformation in the health care realm, as we discussed at some length on last week’s podcast. You can go back and listen. This has become firmly established in public health, obviously pushed along by the divide over the covid pandemic. The New York Times last week had a pretty scary story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg — who’s working on a book about public health — about how some of these more fringe beliefs are getting embedded in the mainstream of the Republican Party. 

It used to be that we saw most of these kind of fringe, anti-science, anti-health beliefs were on the far right and on the far left, and that’s less the case. What could we be looking forward to on the public health front if Trump is returned to power, particularly with the help of anti-vaccine activist and now Trump endorser R.F.K. [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr.? 

Kirzinger: Oh, goodness to me. Well, so I’m going to talk about a group that I think is really important for us to focus on when we think about misinformation, and I call them the “malleable middle.” So it’s that group that once they hear misinformation or disinformation, they are unsure of whether that is true or false, right? So they’re stuck in this uncertainty of what to believe and who do they trust to get the right information. It used to be pre-pandemic that they would trust their government officials. 

We have seen declining trust in CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], all levels of public health officials. Who they still trust is their primary care providers. Unfortunately, the groups that are most susceptible to misinformation are also the groups that are less likely to have a primary care provider. So we’re not in a great scenario, where we have a group that is unsure of who to trust on information and doesn’t have someone to go to for good sources of information. I don’t have a solution. 

Cox: I also don’t have a solution. 

Rovner: No, I wasn’t — the question isn’t about a solution. The question is about, what can we expect? I mean, we’ve seen the sort of mis- and disinformation. Are we going to actually see it embedded in policy? I mean, we’ve mostly not, other than covid, which obviously now we see the big difference in some states where mask bans are banned and vaccine mandates are banned. Are we going to see childhood vaccines made voluntary for school? 

Ollstein: Well, there’s already a movement to massively broaden who can apply for an exception to those, and that’s already had some scary public health consequences. I mean, I think there are people who would absolutely push for that. 

Kirzinger: I think regardless of who wins the presidency, I think that the misinformation and disinformation is going to have an increasing role. Whether it makes it into policy will depend on who is in office and Congress and all of that. But I think that it is not something that’s going away, and I think we’re just going to continue to have to battle it. And that’s where I’m the most nervous. 

Keith: And when you talk about the trust for the media, those of us who are sitting here trying to get the truth out there, or to fact-check and debunk, trust for us is, like, in the basement, and it just keeps getting worse year after year after year. And the latest Gallup numbers have us worse than we were before, which is just, like, another institution that people are not turning to. We are in an era where some rando on YouTube who said they did their research is more trusted than what we publish. 

Rovner: And some of those randos on YouTube have millions of viewers, listeners. 

Keith: Yes, absolutely. 

Rovner: Subscribers, whatever you want to call them. 

Ollstein: One area where I’ve really seen this come forward, and it could definitely become part of policy in the future, is there’s just a lot of mis- and disinformation around transgender health care. There’s polling that show a lot of people believe what Trump and others have been saying, that, Oh, kids can come home from school and have a sex change operation. Which is obviously ridiculous. Everyone who has kids in school knows that they can’t even give them a Tylenol without parental permission. And it obviously doesn’t happen in a day, but people are like, Oh, well, I know it’s not happening at my school, but it’s sure happening somewhere. And that’s really resonating, and we’re already seeing a lot of legal restrictions on that front spilling. 

Rovner: All right, well, I’m going to open it up to the audience. Please wait to ask your question until you have a microphone, so the people who will be listening to the podcast will be able to hear your question. And please tell us who you are, and please make your question or question. 

Madeline: Hi, I’m Madeline. I am a grad student at the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington. My question is regarding polling. And I was just wondering, how has polling methodologies or tendencies to over-sample conservatives had on polls in the race? Are you seeing that as an issue or …? 

Kirzinger: OK. You know who’s less trusted than the media? It’s pollsters, but you can trust me. So I think what you’re seeing is there are now more polls than there have ever been, and I want to talk about legitimate scientific polls that are probability-based. They’re not letting people opt into taking the survey, and they’re making sure their samples are representative of the entire population that they’re surveying, whether it be the electorate or the American public, depending on that. 

I think what we have seen is that there have been some tendencies when people don’t like the poll results, they look at the makeup of that sample and say, oh, this poll’s too Democratic, or too conservative, has too many Trump voters. Or whatever it may be. That benefits no pollster to make their sample not look like the population that they’re aiming to represent. And so, yes, there are lots of really, really bad polls out there, but the ones that are legitimate and scientific are still striving to aim to make sure that it’s representative. The problem with election polls is we don’t know who the electorate’s going to be. We don’t know if Democrats are going to turn out more than Republicans. We don’t know if we’re going to see higher shares of rural voters than we saw in 2022. 

We don’t know. And so that’s where you really see the shifts in error happen. 

Keith: And if former President Trump’s — a big part of his strategy is turning out unlikely voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah. We have no idea who they are. 

Rovner: Well, yeah, we saw in Georgia, their first day of in-person early voting, we had this huge upswell of voters, but we have no idea who any of those are, right? I mean, we don’t know what is necessarily turning them out. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. And historically, Democrats have been more likely to vote early and vote by mail, but that has really shifted since the pandemic. And so you see these day voting totals now, but that really doesn’t tell you anything at this point in the race. 

Rovner: Lots we still don’t know. Another question. 

Rae Woods: Hi there. Rae Woods. I’m with Advisory Board, which means that I work with health leaders who need to implement based on the policies and the politics and the results of the election that’s coming up. My question is, outside some of the big things that we’ve talked about so far today, are there some more specific, smaller policies or state-level dynamics that you think today’s health leaders will need to respond to in the next six months, the next eight months? What do health leaders need to be focused on right now based on what could change most quickly? 

Ollstein: Something I’ve been trying to shine a light on are state Supreme Courts, which the makeup of them could change dramatically this November. States have all kinds of different ways to … Some elect them on a partisan basis. Some elect them on a nonpartisan basis. Some have appointments by the governor, but then they have to run in these retention elections. But they are going to just have so much power over … I mean, I am most focused on how it can impact abortion rights, but they just have so much power on so many things. 

And given the high likelihood of divided federal government, I think just a ton of health policy is going to happen at the state level. And so I would say the electorate often overlooks those races. There’s a huge drop-off. A lot of people just vote the top of the ticket and then just leave those races blank. But yes, I think we should all be paying more attention to state Supreme Court races. 

Rovner: I think the other thing that we didn’t, that nobody mentioned we were talking about, what the next president could do, is the impact of the change to the regulatory environment and what the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron is going to have on the next president. And we did a whole episode on this, so I can link back to that for those who don’t know. But basically, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for whoever becomes president next time to change rules via their executive authority, and put more onus back on Congress. And we will see how that all plays out, but I think that’s going to be really important next year. 

Natalie Bercutt: Hi. My name is Natalie Bercutt. I’m also a master’s student at George Washington. I study health policy. I wanted to know a little bit more about, obviously, abortion rights, a huge issue on the ballot in this election, but a little bit more about IVF [in vitro fertilization], which I feel like has kind of come to the forefront a little bit more, both in state races but also candidates making comments on a national level, especially folks who have been out in the field and interacting with voters. Is that something that more people are coming out to the ballot for, or people who are maybe voting split ticket but in support of IVF, but for Republican candidate? 

Ollstein: That’s been fascinating. And so most folks know that this really exploded into the public consciousness earlier this year when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people legally under the state’s abortion ban. And that disrupted IVF services temporarily until the state legislature swooped in. So Democrats’ argument is that because of these anti-abortion laws in lots of different states that were made possible by the Dobbs decision, lots of states could become the next Alabama. Republicans are saying: Oh, that’s ridiculous. Alabama was solved, and no other state’s going to do it. But they could. 

Rovner: Alabama could become the next Alabama. 

Ollstein: Alabama could certainly become the next Alabama. Buy tons of states have very similar language in their laws that would make that possible. Even as you see a lot of Republicans right now saying: Oh, Republicans are … We’re pro-IVF. We’re pro-family. We’re pro-babies. There are a lot of divisions on the right around IVF, including some who do want to prohibit it and others who want to restrict the way it’s most commonly practiced in the U.S., where excess embryos are created and only the most viable ones are implanted and the others are discarded. 

And so I think this will continue to be a huge fight. A lot of activists in the anti-abortion movement are really upset about how Republican candidates and officials have rushed to defend IVF and promised not to do anything to restrict it. And so I think that’s going to continue to be a huge fight no matter what happens. 

Rovner: Tam, are you seeing discussion about the threats to contraception? I know this is something that Democratic candidates are pushing, and Republican candidates are saying, Oh, no, that’s silly. 

Keith: Yeah, I think Democratic candidates are certainly talking about it. I think that because of that IVF situation in Alabama, because of concerns that it could move to contraception, I think Democrats have been able to talk about reproductive health care in a more expansive way and in a way that is perhaps more comfortable than just talking about abortion, in a way that’s more comfortable to voters that they’re talking to back when Joe Biden was running for president. Immediately when Dobbs happened, he was like, And this could affect contraception and it could affect gay rights. And Biden seemed much more comfortable in that realm. And so— 

Rovner: Yeah, Biden, who waited, I think it was a year and a half, before he said the word “abortion.” 

Keith: To say the word “abortion.” Yes. 

Rovner: There was a website: Has Biden Said Abortion Yet? 

Keith: Essentially what I’m saying is that there is this more expansive conversation about reproductive health care and reproductive freedom than there had been when Roe was in place and it was really just a debate about abortion. 

Rovner: Ashley, do people, particularly women voters, perceive that there’s a real threat to contraception? 

Kirzinger: I think what Tamara was saying about when Biden was the candidate, I do think that that was part of the larger conversation, that larger threat. And so they were more worried about IVF and contraception access during that. When you ask voters whether they’re worried about this, they’re not as worried, but they do give the Democratic Party and Harris a much stronger advantage on these issues. And so if you were to be motivated by that, you would be motivated to vote for Harris, but it really isn’t resonating with women voters and the way now that abortion, abortion access is resonating for them. 

Rovner: Basically, it won’t be resonating until they take it away. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. If, I think, the Alabama Supreme Court ruling happened yesterday, I think it would be a much bigger issue in the campaign, but all of this is timing. 

Ollstein: Well, and people really talked about a believability gap around the Dobbs decision, even though the activists who were following it closely were screaming that Roe is toast, from the moment the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and especially after they heard the case and people heard the tone of the arguments. And then of course the decision leaked, and even then there was a believability gap. And until it was actually gone, a lot of people just didn’t think that was possible. And I think you’re seeing that again around the idea of a national ban, and you’re seeing it around the idea of restrictions on contraception and IVF. There’s still this believability gap despite the evidence we’ve seen. 

Rovner: All right. I think we have time for one more question. 

Meg: Hi, my name’s Meg. I’m a freelance writer, and I wanted to ask you about something I’m not hearing about this election cycle, and that’s guns. Where do shootings and school shootings and gun violence fit into this conversation? 

Keith: I think that we have heard a fair bit about guns. It’s part of a laundry list, I guess you could say. In the Kamala Harris stump speech, she talks about freedom. She talks about reproductive freedom. She talks about freedom from being shot, going to the grocery store or at school. That’s where it fits into her stump speech. And certainly in terms of Trump, he is very pro–Second Amendment and has at times commented on the school shootings in ways that come across as insensitive. But for his base — and he is only running for his base — for his base, being very strongly pro–Second Amendment is critical. And I think there was even a question maybe in the Univision town hall yesterday to him about guns. 

It is not the issue in this campaign, but it is certainly an issue if we talk about how much politics have changed in a relatively short period of time. To have a Democratic nominee leaning in on restrictions on guns is a pretty big shift. When Hillary Clinton did it, it was like: Oh, gosh. She’s going there. She lost. I don’t think that’s why she lost, but certainly the NRA [National Rifle Association] spent a lot of money to help her lose. Biden, obviously an author of the assault weapons ban, was very much in that realm, and Harris has continued moving in that direction along with him, though also hilariously saying she has a Glock and she’d be willing to use it 

Ollstein: And emphasizing [Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz’s hunting. 

Keith: Oh, look, Tim Walz, he’s pheasant hunting this weekend. 

Rovner: And unlike John Kerry, he looked like he’d done it before. John Kerry rather famously went out hunting and clearly had not. 

Keith: I was at a rally in 2004 where John Kerry was wearing the jacket, the barn jacket, and the senator, the Democratic senator from Ohio hands him a shotgun, and he’s like … Ehh. 

Kirzinger: I was taken aback when Harris said that she had a Glock. I thought that was a very interesting response for a Democratic presidential candidate. I do think it is maybe part of her appeal to independent voters that, As a gun owner, I support Second Amendment rights, but with limitations. And I do think that that part of appeal, it could work for a more moderate voting block on gun rights. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen this sort of responsible gun owner faction in a long time. I mean, that was the origin of the NRA. 

Keith: But then more recently, Giffords has really taken on that mantle as, We own guns, but we want controls. 

Rovner: All right, well, I could go on for a while, but this is all the time we have. I want to thank you all for coming and helping me celebrate my birthday being a health nerd, because that’s what I do. We do have cake for those of you in the room. For those of you out in podcast land, as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcast. 

We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our live-show coordinator extraordinaire, Stephanie Stapleton, and our entire live-show team. Thanks a lot. This takes a lot more work than you realize. 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. I’m at X at @jrovner. Tam, where are you on social media? 

Keith: I’m @tamarakeithNPR. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Cynthia. 

Cox: @cynthiaccox. 

Rovner: Ashley. 

Kirzinger: @AshleyKirzinger. 

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).