As US Bumps Against Debt Ceiling, Medicare Becomes a Bargaining Chip
The Host
Julie Rovner
KHN
Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s 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.
While repealing the Affordable Care Act seems to have fallen off congressional Republicans’ to-do list for 2023, plans to cut Medicare and Medicaid are back. The GOP wants Democrats to agree to cut spending on both programs in exchange for a vote to prevent the government from defaulting on its debts.
Meanwhile, the nation’s health care workers — from nurses to doctors to pharmacists — are feeling the strain of caring not just for the rising number of insured patients seeking care, but also more seriously ill patients who are difficult and sometimes even violent.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Victoria Knight of Axios.
Panelists
Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico
Tami Luhby
CNN
Victoria Knight
Axios
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- Conservative House Republicans are hoping to capitalize on their new legislative clout to slash government spending, as the fight over raising the debt ceiling offers a preview of possible debates this year over costly federal entitlement programs like Medicare.
- House Speaker Kevin McCarthy said Republicans will protect Medicare and Social Security, but the elevation of conservative firebrands — like the new chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee — raises questions about what “protecting” those programs means to Republicans.
- Record numbers of Americans enrolled for insurance coverage this year under the Affordable Care Act. Years after congressional Republicans last attempted to repeal it, the once highly controversial program also known as Obamacare appears to be following the trajectory of other established federal entitlement programs: evolving, growing, and becoming less controversial over time.
- Recent reports show that while Americans had less trouble paying for health care last year, many still delayed care due to costs. The findings highlight that being insured is not enough to keep care affordable for many Americans.
- Health care workers are growing louder in their calls for better staffing, with a nursing strike in New York City and recent reports about pharmacist burnout providing some of the latest arguments for how widespread staffing issues may be harming patient care. There is bipartisan agreement in Congress for addressing the nursing shortage, but what they would do is another question.
Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: Roll Call’s “NIH Missing Top Leadership at Start of a Divided Congress,” by Ariel Cohen
Tami Luhby: CNN’s “ER on the Field: An Inside Look at How NFL Medical Teams Prepare for a Game Day Emergency,” by Nadia Kounang and Amanda Sealy
Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Don’t Fear the Handshake,” by Katherine J. Wu
Victoria Knight: The Washington Post’s “‘The Last of Us’ Zombie Fungus Is Real, and It’s Found in Health Supplements,” by Mike Hume
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
The New York Times’ “As France Moves to Delay Retirement, Older Workers Are in a Quandary,” by Liz Alderman
Stat’s “Congressional Medicare Advisers Warn of Higher Drug Prices, Despite New Price Negotiation,” by John Wilkerson
Click to Expand
Episode 280 Transcript
KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: As US Bumps Against Debt Ceiling, Medicare Becomes a Bargaining ChipEpisode Number: 280Published: Dec. 19, 2023
Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.
Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.
Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?
Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Julie Rovner: Hello! Welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 19, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.
Joanne Kenen: Good morning, everybody.
Rovner: Tami Luhby of CNN.
Tami Luhby: Good morning.
Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios.
Victoria Knight: Good morning.
Rovner: So Congress is in recess this week, but there is still plenty of news, so we’ll get right to it. The new Congress is taking a breather for the MLK holiday, having worked very hard the first two weeks of the session. But there’s still plenty going on on Capitol Hill. Late last week, House Republicans leaked to The Washington Post a plan to pay only some of the nation’s bills if the standoff over raising the debt ceiling later this year results in the U.S. actually defaulting. Republicans say they won’t agree to raise the debt ceiling, something that’s been done every couple of years for decades, unless Democrats agree to deep spending cuts, including for entitlement programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — why we are talking about this. Democrats say that a default, even a partial one, could trigger not just a crisis in U.S. financial markets, but possibly a worldwide recession. It’s worth remembering that the last time the U.S. neared a default but didn’t actually get there, in 2011, the U.S. still got its credit rating downgraded. So who blinks in this standoff? And, Tami, what happens if nobody does?
Luhby: That’s going to be a major problem for a lot of people. I mean, the U.S. economy, potentially the global economy, global financial markets, but also practical things like Social Security recipients getting their payments and federal employees in the military getting paid, and Treasury bond holders getting their interest payments. So it would be a giant mess. [Treasury Secretary Janet] Yellen last week in her letter to [House Speaker Kevin] McCarthy, signaling that we were going to hit the debt ceiling, likely today, urged Congress to act quickly. But instead, of course, what just happened was they dug their heels in on either side. So, you know, we have the Republicans saying that we can’t keep spending like we are. We don’t have just an unlimited credit card. We have to change our behavior to save the country in the future. And the White House and Senate Democrats saying this is not a negotiable subject. You know, we’ve been here before. We haven’t actually crossed the line before. So we’ll see what happens. But one of the differences is, this year, that McCarthy has a very narrow margin in the House. Any one of his members — this is among the negotiations that he did not want to agree to but had to after 15 rounds of voting for his job — any member can make a motion to vacate the speaker’s chair. And if that happens, then we don’t have to worry about the debt ceiling because we have to worry more about who’s going to be leading the House, because we can’t deal with the debt ceiling until we actually have someone leading the House. So this is going to be even more complicated than in the past.
Rovner: Just to be clear, even if we hit the debt ceiling today, that doesn’t mean we’re going to default, right? I mean, that’s not coming for several months.
Luhby: Right. So Social Security, seniors and people with disabilities, and the military and federal employees don’t have to yet worry about their payments. They’re going to be paid. The Treasury secretary and Treasury Department will take what’s called “extraordinary measures.” They’re mainly just behind-the-scenes accounting maneuvers. They won’t actually hurt anybody. Yellen had said that she expects these extraordinary measures in cash to last at least until early June, although she did warn that the forecast has considerable uncertainty, as does everything around the debt ceiling.
Rovner: So, Victoria, obviously, the sides are shaping up. Is this going to be the big major health fight this year?
Knight: I think it’s going to be one of the big topics that we’re definitely talking about this year in Congress. I think it’s going to be a dramatic year, as we’ve already seen in these first two weeks. My colleagues at Axios, we talked to some Republicans last week, asking them about: Do you actually think they will make cuts to entitlement programs, to Medicare, Medicaid? Is that realistic? It’s kind of a mixed bag. Some are like, yeah, we should look at this, and some are like, we don’t really want to touch it. I think they know it’s really a touchy subject. There are a lot of Medicare beneficiaries that don’t want the age increase. You know, there’s some talk of increasing the age to 67 rather than 65. They know that is a touchy subject. Last week in a press conference, McCarthy said, “We’re Republicans; we’ll protect Medicare and Social Security,” so they know people are talking about this. They know people are looking at it. So I think in a divided government, obviously, the Senate is in Democratic control. I think it seems pretty unlikely, but I think they’re going to talk about it. And we have a new Ways and Means chairman, Jason Smith from Missouri. He’s kind of a firebrand. He’s talked about wanting to do reform on the U.S. spending. So I think it’s something they’re going to be talking about. But I don’t know if that much will actually happen. So we’ll see. I have been talking to Republicans on what else they want to work on this year in Congress. I think a big thing will be PBM [pharmacy benefit managers] reform. It’s a big topic that’s actually bipartisan. So I think that’s something that we’ll see. These are the middlemen in regards to between pharmacies and insurers. And they’re negotiating drug prices. And we know there are going to be hearings on that. I think health care costs. There’s some talk about fentanyl, scheduling. But I think in regards to big health care reform, there probably isn’t going to be a lot, because we are in a divided government now.
Kenen: Just one thing about how people talk about protecting Medicare and Social Security, it doesn’t mean they don’t want to make changes to it. We’ve been through this before. Entitlement reform was the driving force for Republicans for quite a few years under … when Paul Ryan was both, I guess it was budget chair before he was speaker. I mean, that was the thing, right? And he wanted to make very dramatic changes to Medicare, but he called it protecting Medicare. So there’s no one like Ryan with a policy really driving what it should look like. I mean, he had a plan, yet the plan never got through anywhere. It died, but it was an animating force for many years. It went away for a minute in the face of the last 10 years that were about the Affordable Care Act. So I don’t think they’re clear on what they want to do. But we do know some conservative Republicans want to make some kind of changes to Medicare. TBD.
Rovner: And Tami, we know the debt ceiling isn’t the only place where House Republicans are setting themselves up for deep cuts that they might not be able to make while still giving themselves the ability to cut taxes. They finessed some of this in their rules package, didn’t they?
Luhby: Yes, they did. And they made it very clear that they, in the rules, they made it harder to raise taxes. They increased it to a supermajority, 3/5 of the House. They made it easier to cut spending in the debt ceiling and elsewhere. And, you know, the debt ceiling isn’t our only issue that we have coming up. It’s going to be right around the same time, generally, maybe, as the fiscal 2024 budget, which will necessitate discussion on spending cuts and may result in spending cuts and changes possibly to some of our favorite health programs. So we will see. But also just getting back to what we were talking about with Medicare. Remember, the trustees estimate that the trust fund is going to run out of money by 2028. So we’ll see in a couple of months what the latest forecast is. But, you know, something needs to be done relatively soon. I mean … the years keep inching out slowly. So we keep being able to put this off. But at some point …
Rovner: Yeah, we keep getting to this sort of brinksmanship, but nobody, as Joanne points out, ever really has a plan because it would be unpopular. Speaking of which, while cutting entitlement programs here is still just a talking point, we have kind of a real-life cautionary tale out of France, where the retirement age may be raised from 62 to 64, which is still younger than the 67, the U.S. retirement age is marching toward. It seems that an unintended consequence of what’s going on in France is that employers don’t want to hire older workers. So now they can’t get retirement and they can’t find a job. And currently, only half of the French population is still employed by age 62, which is way lower than other members of the European Union. France is looking at protests and strikes over this. Could the same thing happen here, if we might get to that point? It’s been a while since we’ve seen the silver-haired set out on the street with picket signs.
Knight: I think it would be pretty contentious, I think, if they decide to actually raise the age. It’ll be interesting to see [if] there are actual protests, but I think people will be very upset, for sure, especially people reaching retirement age having counted on this. So …
Kenen: They probably wouldn’t do it like … if you’re 62, you wouldn’t [go] to 67. When they’ve talked about these kinds of changes in the past, they’ve talked about phasing it in over a number of years or starting it in the …
Rovner: Right, affecting people in the future.
Kenen: Right.
Rovner: But I’m thinking not just raising the retirement age. I’m thinking of making actual big changes to Medicare or even Medicaid.
Kenen: Well, there’s two things since the last debate about this. Well, first of all, Social Security was raised and it didn’t cause … it was raised slowly, a couple of months at a time over, what, a 20-year period. Is that right? Am I remembering that right, Julie?
Rovner: Yeah, my retirement age is 66 and eight months.
Kenen: Right. So … it used to be 65. And they’ve been going, like, 65 and one month, 65 and two months. It’s crept up. And that was done on a bipartisan basis, which, of course, not a whole lot is looking very bipartisan right now. But I mean, that’s the other pathway we could get. We could get a commission. We could move toward some kind of changes after … last time there was a commission that failed, but the Social Security commission did work. The last Medicare commission did not. The two sides are so intractable and so far apart on debt right now that there’s probably going to have to be some kind of saving grace down the road for somebody. So it could be yet another commission. And also in 2011, 2012, which was the last time there was the big debate over Medicare age, was pre-ACA [Affordable Care Act] implementation. And, you know, if you’re 65 and you’re not working, if they do change the Medicare in the out years, it’s complicated what it would do to the risk pools and premiums and all that. But you do have an option. I mean, the Affordable Care Act would … right now you only get it to Medicare. That would have to be changed. So it’s not totally the same … I’m not advocating for this. I’m just saying it is a slightly different world of options and the chessboard’s a little different.
Rovner: Well, clearly, we are not there yet, although we may be there in the next couple of months. Finally, on the new Congress front. Last week, we talked about some of the new committee chairs in the House and Senate. This week, House Republicans are filling out some of those critical subcommittee chairs. Rep. Andy Harris, a Republican from Maryland who’s also an anesthesiologist who bragged about prescribing ivermectin for covid, will chair the Appropriations subcommittee responsible for the FDA’s budget [the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration subcommittee]. Things could get kind of interesting there, right?
Knight: Yeah. And there is talk that he wanted to chair the Labor [Health and Human Services, Education] subcommittee, which would have been really interesting. He’s not.
Rovner: Which would’ve been the rest of HHS. We should point out that in the world of appropriations, FDA is with Agriculture for reasons I once tried to figure out, but they go back to the late 1940s. But the rest of HHS is the Labor HHS Appropriations subcommittee, which he won’t chair.
Knight: Right, he is not. Rep. Robert Aderholt is chairing Labor HHS. But this is, as we were talking about, they’re going to have to fund the government. Republicans are talking about wanting to pass 12 appropriations bills. If they actually want to try to do that, they’re going to have to do a lot of negotiations on what goes into the Labor HHS bill, what goes into the AG bill with FDA, with these chairs over the subcommittees, they’re going to want certain things in there. They’re going to maybe want oversight of these agencies, especially in regards to what’s happening with covid, what’s going on with the abortion pills. So I think it’ll be really interesting to see what happens. It seems unlikely they’re actually going to be able to pass 12 appropriations bills, but it’s just another thing to watch.
Rovner: I would point out that every single Congress, Republican and Democrat, comes in saying, we’re going to go back to regular order. We’re going to pass the appropriations bills separately, which is what we were supposed to do. I believe the last time that they passed separately, and that wasn’t even all of them, was the year 2000; it was the last year of President [Bill], it might have been. It was definitely right around then. When I started covering Congress, they always did it all separately, but no more.
Luhby: And they want to pass the debt ceiling vote separately.
Rovner: Right, exactly. Not that much going on this year. All right. Well, last week we talked about health insurance coverage. Now it is official. Obamacare enrollment has never been higher and there are still several weeks to go to sign up in some states, even though enrollment through the federal marketplace ended for the year on Sunday. Tami, have we finally gotten to the point that this program is too big to fail or is it always going to hang by a political thread?
Luhby: Well, I think the fact that we’re all not reporting on the weekly or biweekly enrollment numbers, saying “It’s popular, people are still signing up!” or under the Trump years, “Fewer people are signing up and it’s lost interest.” I think that in and of itself is very indicative of the fact that it is becoming part of our health care system. And I mean, I guess one day I’m not going to write the story that says enrollment opens on Nov. 1, then another one that says it’s ending on Jan. 15.
Rovner: I think we’ll always do that because we’re still doing it with Medicare.
Luhby: Well, but I’m not. So … it’s possible, although now with Medicare Advantage, I think it is actually worth a story. So that’s a separate issue.
Rovner: Yes, that is a separate issue.
Luhby: But yeah, no, I mean, you know, I think it’s here to stay. We’ll see what [District Judge Reed] O’Connor does in Texas with the preventive treatment, but …
Rovner: Yes, there will always be another lawsuit.
Luhby: There will be chips around the edges.
Kenen: I mean, this court has done … we all thought that litigation was over, like we thought, OK, it’s done. They’ve … upheld it, you know, however many times, move on. But this Supreme Court has done some pretty dramatic rulings and not just Roe [v. Wade], on many public health measures, about gun control and the environment and vaccine mandates. And, of course, you know, obviously, Roe. Do I think that there’s going to be another huge existential threat to the ACA arising out of this preventive care thing? No, but we didn’t think a lot of the things that the Supreme Court would do. There’s a real ideological shift in how they approach these issues. So politically, no, we’re not going to see more repeal votes. In the wings could there be more legal issues to bite us? I don’t think it’s likely, but I wouldn’t say never.
Rovner: In other words, just because congressional Republicans aren’t still harping on this, it doesn’t mean that nobody is.
Kenen: Right. But it’s also, I mean, I agree with Tami … I wrote a similar story a year ago on the 10th anniversary: It’s here. They spent a lot of political capital trying to repeal it and they could not. People do rely on it and more … Biden has made improvements to it. It’s like every other American entitlement: It evolves over time. It gets bigger over time. And it gets less controversial over time.
Rovner: Well, we still have problems with health care costs. And this week we have two sort of contradictory studies about health care costs. One from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a three-percentage-point decline in the number of Americans who had trouble paying medical bills in 2021 compared to the pre-pandemic year of 2019. That’s likely a result of extra pandemic payments and more people with health insurance. But in 2022, according to a survey by Gallup, the 38% of patients reported they delayed care because of cost. That was the biggest increase ever since Gallup has been keeping track over the past two decades, up 12 percentage points from 2020 and 2021. This has me scratching my head a little bit. Is it maybe because even though more people have insurance, which we saw from the previous year. Also more have high-deductible health plans. So perhaps they don’t want to go out and spend money or they don’t have the money to spend initially on their health care. Anybody got another theory? Victoria, I see you sort of nodding.
Knight: I mean, that’s kind of my theory is, like, I think they just have high-deductible plans, so they’re still having to pay a lot out-of-pocket. And I know my brother had to get an ACA plan because he is interning for an electrician and — so he doesn’t have insurance on his own, and I know that, like, it’s still pretty high and he just has to pay a lot out-of-pocket. He’s had medical debt before. So even though more people have health insurance, it’s still a huge issue, it doesn’t make that go away.
Rovner: And speaking of high medical prices, we are going to talk about prescription drugs because you can’t really talk about high prices without talking about drugs. Stat News reports this week that some of the members of the Medicare Payment Advisory Committee, or MedPAC, are warning that even with the changes to Medicare that are designed to save money on drugs for both the government and patients — those are ones taking effect this year — we should still expect very high prices on new drugs. Partly that’s due to the new Medicare cap on drug costs for patients. If insurers have to cover even the most expensive drugs, aside from those few whose price will be negotiated, then patients will be more likely to use them and they can set the price higher. Are we ever going to be able to get a handle on what the public says consistently is its biggest health spending headache? Victoria, you kind of previewed this with the talk about doing something about the middlemen, the PBMs.
Knight: Yeah, I think it’s really difficult. I mean, the drug pricing provisions, they only target 20 of the highest-cost drugs. I can’t remember exactly how they determine it, but it’s only 20 drugs and it’s implemented over years. So it’s still leaving out a lot of drugs. We still have years to go before it’s actually going into effect. And I think drugmakers are going to try to find ways around it, raising the prices of other drugs, you’re talking about. And even though they’re hurt by the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act], they’re not completely down and out. So I don’t know what the answer is to rein in drug prices. I think maybe PBM reform, as I said, definitely a bipartisan issue. This Congress … I think will actually have maybe some movement and we’ll see if actually legislation can be passed. But I know they want to talk about it. So, I mean, that could help a little bit. But I think drugmakers are still a huge reason for a lot of these costs. And so it won’t completely go away even if PBMs have some reforms.
Rovner: And certainly the American public sees drug costs as one of the biggest issues just because so many Americans use prescription drugs. So they see every dollar.
Knight: Yes.
Rovner: So the good news is that more people are getting access to medical care. The bad news is that the workforce to take care of them is burned out, angry, and simply not large enough for the task at hand. The people who’ve been most outspoken about that are the nation’s nurses, who’ve given the majority of the care during the pandemic and taken the majority of patient anger and frustration and sometimes even violence. We’re seeing quite a few nurses’ strikes lately, and they’re mostly not striking for higher wages, but for more help. Tami, you talked to some nurses on the picket line in New York last week. What did they tell you?
Luhby: Yeah, I had a fun assignment last week. Since I live in the Bronx, I spent two days with the striking nurses at the Montefiore Medical Center, and there were 7,000 nurses at Mount Sinai Hospital in Manhattan and Montefiore in the Bronx that went on strike for three days. It was a party atmosphere there much of the time, but they did have serious concerns that they wanted to relay and get their word out. There was a lot of media coverage as well. Their main issue was staffing shortages. I mean, the nurses told me about terrible working conditions, particularly in the ER. Some of them had to put babies on towels on the floor of the pediatric ER or tell sick adults that they have to stand because there aren’t even chairs available in the adult ER, much less beds or cots. And every day, they feared for their licenses. One said that she would go to sleep right when she got home because she didn’t want to think about the day because she was concerned she might not want to go back the next day. And she said, heartbreakingly, that she was tired of apologizing to families and patients, that she was stretched too thin to deliver better care, that she was giving patients their medicines late because she had seven other patients she had to give medicine to and probably handle an emergency. So the nurses at Montefiore, interestingly, they’re demanding staffing. But one thing they kept repeating to me, you know, the leaders, was that they wanted enforcement ability of the staffing. They didn’t just want paper staffing ratios, and they wanted to be more involved in recruitment. While the hospitals — interestingly, this is not necessarily over in New York as it probably won’t be elsewhere. These hospitals reached a tentative agreement with the unions, but there’s another battle brewing. The nurses’ contract for the public hospital system expires on March 2, and the union is already warning that will demand better pay and staffing.
Rovner: Yeah. Well, it’s not just the nurses, though. Doctors are burnt out by angry and sometimes ungrateful patients. Doctors in training, too. And I saw one story this week about how pharmacists, who are being asked to do more and more with no more help — a similar story — are getting fried from dealing with short-tempered and sometimes abusive patients. Is there any solution to this, other than people trying to behave better? Is Congress looking at ways to buttress the health care workforce? This is a big problem. You know, they talked about, when they were passing the Affordable Care Act, that if you’re going to give all these people more insurance, you’re going to need more health care professionals to take care of them.
Knight: Yeah.
Rovner: Yet we haven’t seemed to do that.
Knight: Yeah, I know. It’s something that is being talked about. My colleague Peter [Sullivan] at Axios talked to both Sen. [Bernie] Sanders and Sen. [Bill] Cassidy about things they might want to work on on the HELP [Health, Education, Labor & Pensions] Committee. And I know that the nursing workforce shortage is one thing they do actually agree on. So it’s definitely possible. I do think the medical provider workforce shortage is maybe a bipartisan area in this Congress that they could work on. But I mean, they’ve been talking about it forever. And will they actually do something? I’m not sure. So we’ll see. But I know nursing …
Rovner: Yeah, the spirit of bipartisanship does not seem to be alive and well, at least yet, in this Congress.
Knight: Yeah, well, between the House and the Senate. Yeah, well, we’ll see.
Kenen: But the nursing shortage is, I mean, been documented and talked about for many, many years now and hasn’t changed. The doctor shortage is more controversial because there’s some debate about whether it’s numbers of doctors or what specialties they go into. I mean, and, also, do they go to rich neighborhoods or poor neighborhoods? I mean, if you’re in a wealthy suburb, there’s plenty of dermatologists. Right? But in rural areas, certain urban areas … So it’s not just in quantity. It’s also an allocation both by geography and specialty. Some of that Congress could theoretically deal with. I mean, the graduate medical education residency payment … they’ve been talking about reforming that since before half of the people listening to this were born. There’s been no resolution on a path forward. So some of these are things that Congress can nudge or fix with funding. Some of it is just things that have to happen within the medical community, some cultural shift. Also student debt. I mean, one reason people start out saying they’re going to go into primary care and end up being orthopedic surgeons is their debt. So it’s complicated. Some of it is Congress. Not all of it is Congress. But Congress has been talking about this for a very, very, very, very, very long time.
Rovner: I will point out — and Joanne was with me when this happened — when Congress passed the Balanced Budget Act in 1997, they cut the number of residencies that Medicare would pay for with the promise — and I believe this is in the report, if not in the legislation — that they would create an all-payer program to help pay for graduate medical education by the next year, 1998. Well, now it’s 2023, and they never did that.
Kenen: They meant the next century.
Rovner: We’re a fifth — almost a quarter of the way — through the next century, and they still haven’t done it.
Kenen: And if you were on the front lines of covid, the doctors and the nurses, I mean, at the beginning they had no tools. So many people died. They didn’t know how to treat it. There were so many patients, you know, in New York and other places early on. I mean, it was these nurses that were holding iPads so that people could say goodbye to their loved ones. I don’t think any of us can really understand what it was like to be in that situation, not for 10 minutes, but for weeks and over and over …
Rovner: And months and years, in some cases.
Kenen: Right. But I mean, the really bad … it’s years. But these crunches, the really traumatic experiences, I mean, we’ve also talked in the past about the suicide rate among health care providers. It’s been not just physically exhausting, it’s become emotionally unimaginable for those of us who haven’t been in those ICU or ERs.
Rovner: Well, it’s clear that the pandemic experiences have created a mental health crisis for a lot of people. Clearly, people on the front lines of health care, but also lots of other people. This week, finally, a little bit of good news for at least one population. Starting this week, any U.S. military veteran in a mental health crisis can get free emergency care, not just at any VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] facility, but at any private facility as well. They don’t even have to be in the VA health system because many former members of the military are not actually eligible for VA health care. This is for all veterans. It’s actually the result of a law passed in 2020 and signed by then-President [Donald] Trump. How much of difference could this change, at least, make? I mean, veterans in suicidal crises are also, unfortunately, fairly common, aren’t they?
Kenen: Yeah, but I mean, we have a provider shortage, so giving them greater access to a system that doesn’t have enough providers, I mean, will it help? I would assume so. Is it going to fix everything? I would assume not. You know, we don’t have enough providers, period. And there are complicated reasons for that. And that’s also … they’re not all doctors. They’re, you know, psychologists and social workers, etc. But that’s a huge problem for veterans and every human being on Earth right now. I mean, everybody was traumatized. There’s degrees of how much trauma people had, but nobody was untraumatized by the last three years. And the ongoing stresses. You can be well-adjusted traumatized. You could be in-crisis traumatized. But we’re all on that spectrum of having been traumatized.
Knight: Yeah.
Rovner: Well, lots more work to do. OK. That’s the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment, where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?
Knight: The story that I’m recommending is called “‘The Last of Us’ Zombie Fungus Is Real, and It’s Found in Health Supplements.” It’s in The Washington Post by Mike Hume. “The Last of Us” is a new HBO show everyone’s kind of talking about. And, basically, people become zombies from this fungus. Turns out that fungus is real in real life. It’s spread by insects that basically infect people and then kind of take over their minds and then shoot little spores out. And in the show, they do that as well, except they don’t spread by spores. They spread by bites. But it’s used in health supplements for different things like strength, stamina, immune boost. So it’s kind of just a fun little dive into a real-life fungus.
Rovner: To be clear, it doesn’t turn people into zombies.
Knight: Yes. To be clear, it does not turn people into zombies. If you eat it, that will not happen to you. But it is based on a real-life fungus that does infect insects and make them zombies.
Rovner: Yes. [laughter] It’s definitely creepy. Tami.
Luhby: My story is by my fantastic CNN colleagues this week. It’s called “ER on the Field: An Inside Look at How NFL Medical Teams Prepare for a Game Day Emergency.” It’s by my colleagues Nadia Kounang, Amanda Sealy, and Sanjay Gupta. Listen, I don’t know anything about football, but I happened to be watching TV with my husband when we flipped to the channel with the Bills-Bengals game earlier this month, and we saw the ambulance on the field. So like so many others, I was closely following the story of Damar Hamlin’s progress. What we heard on the news was that the team and the medical experts repeatedly said that it was the care on the field that saved Hamlin’s life. So Nadia, Amanda, and Sanjay provide a rare behind-the-scenes look at how hospital-quality treatment can be given on the field when needed. I learned that — from the story and the video — that there are about 30 medical personnel at every game. All teams have emergency action plans. They run drills an hour before kickoff. The medical staff from both teams review the plan and confirm the details. They station certified athletic trainers to serve as spotters who are positioned around the stadium to catch any injuries. And then they communicate with the medical team on the sidelines. But then — and this is what even my husband, who is a major football fan, didn’t know this — there’s the all-important red hat, which signifies the person who is the emergency physician or the airway physician, who stands along the 30-yard line and takes over if he or she has to come out onto the field. And that doctor said, apparently, they have all the resources available in an emergency room and can essentially do surgery on the field to intubate a player. So I thought it was a fascinating story and video even for non-football fans like me, and I highly recommend them.
Rovner: I thought it was very cool. I read it when Tami recommended it. Although my only question is what happens when there’s a team, one whose color is red and there are lots of people wearing red hats on the sidelines?
Luhby: That’s a good point.
Rovner: I assume they still can find the doctor. OK, Joanne.
Kenen: There was a piece in The Atlantic by Katherine J. Wu called “Covid Couldn’t Kill the Handshake.” It had a separate headline, depending on how you Googled it, saying “Don’t Fear the Handshake.” So, basically, we stopped shaking hands. We had fist bumps and, you know, bows and all sorts of other stuff. And the handshake is pretty much back. And yes, your hands are dirty, unless you’re constantly washing them, your hands are dirty. But they are not quite as dirty as we might think. We’re not quite as dangerous as we may think. So, you know, if you can’t get out of shaking someone’s hand, you probably won’t die.
Rovner: Good. Good to know. All right. My extra credit this week is a story I wish I had written. It’s from Roll Call, and it’s called “NIH Missing Top Leadership at Start of a Divided Congress,” by Ariel Cohen. And it’s not just about not having a replacement for Dr. Tony Fauci, who just retired as the longtime head of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases last month, but about having no nominated replacement for Frances Collins, who stepped down as NIH [National Institutes of Health] director more than a year ago. In a year when pressure on domestic spending is likely to be severe, as we’ve been discussing, and when science in general and NIH in particular are going to be under a microscope in the Republican-led House, it doesn’t help to have no one ready to catch the incoming spears. On the other hand, Collins’ replacement at NIH will have to be vetted by the Senate HELP Committee with a new chairman, Bernie Sanders, and a new ranking member, Bill Cassidy. I am old enough to remember when appointing a new NIH director and getting it through the Senate was a really controversial thing. I imagine we are back to exactly that today.
OK. That’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying, and to our KHN webteam, who have given the podcast a spiffy new page. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still at Twitter, for now, where I’m @jrovner. Tami?
Luhby: I’m @Luhby — L-U-H-B-Y
Rovner: Victoria.
Knight: @victoriaregisk
Rovner: Joanne.
Kenen: @JoanneKenen
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 KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 years 5 months ago
Capitol Desk, Elections, Health Industry, Insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, Multimedia, Uninsured, Hospitals, KHN's 'What The Health?', Nurses, Obamacare Plans, Podcasts
GOP House Opens With Abortion Agenda
The Host
Julie Rovner
KHN
Julie Rovner is Chief Washington Correspondent and host of KHN’s 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-Z,” now in its third edition.
Having spent its entire first week choosing a speaker, the Republican-led U.S. House finally got down to legislative business, including passing two bills backed by anti-abortion groups. Neither is likely to become law, because they won’t pass the Senate nor be signed by President Joe Biden. But the move highlights how abortion is sure to remain a high-visibility issue in the nation’s capital.
Meanwhile, as open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act nears its Jan. 15 close, a record number of people have signed up, taking advantage of renewed subsidies and other help with medical costs.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.
Panelists
Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet
Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico
Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times
https://www.nytimes.com/by/margot-sanger-katz
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- The House now has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll call votes. That paved the way for members to be sworn in, committee assignments to be made, and new committee chairs to be named. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Jason Smith (R-Mo.) will be taking the helm of major health committees.
- McMorris Rodgers will lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Smith will be the chairman of Ways and Means. Unlike McMorris Rodgers, Smith has little background in health issues and has mostly focused on tax issues in his public talking points. But Medicare is likely to be on the agenda, which will require the input of the chairs of both committees.
- One thing is certain: The new GOP-controlled House will do a lot of investigations. Republicans have already reconstituted a committee to investigate covid-19, although, unlike the Democrats’ panel, this one is likely to spend time trying to find the origin of the virus and track where federal dollars may have been misspent.
- The House this week began considering a series of abortion-related bills — “statement” or “messaging” bills — that are unlikely to see the light of day in the Senate. However, some in the caucus question the wisdom of holding votes on issues like these that could make their more moderate members more vulnerable. So far, bills have had mostly unanimous support from the GOP. Divisions are more likely to emerge on topics like a national abortion ban. Meanwhile, the Title X program, which pays for things like contraception and testing for sexually transmitted infections, is becoming a hot topic at the state level and in some lawsuits. A case in Texas would restrict contraception availability for minors through this program.
- It’s increasingly clear that abortion pills are going to become an even bigger part of the abortion debate. On one hand, the FDA has relaxed some of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) from the prescribing rules surrounding abortion pills. The FDA puts these extra restrictions or safeguards in place for certain drugs to add additional protection. Some advocates say these pills simply do not bring that level or risk.
- Anti-abortion groups are planning protests in early February at large pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens to try to get them to walk back plans to distribute abortion pills in states where they are legal.
- A growing number of states are pressuring the Department of Health and Human Services to allow them to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada — or, more accurately, importing Canada’s price controls. While this has long been a bipartisan issue, it has also long been controversial. Officials at the FDA remain concerned about breaking the closed supply chain between drugs being manufactured and delivered to approved U.S. buyers. The policy is popular, however, because it promises lower prices on at least some drugs.
- Also in the news from the FDA: The agency granted accelerated approval for Leqembi for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Leqembi is another expensive drug that appears to work, but also carries big risks. However, it is generally viewed as an improvement over the even more controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. Still to be determined is whether Medicare — which provides insurance to most people with Alzheimer’s — will cover the drug.
- As the Affordable Care Act enrolls a record number of Americans, it is notable that repealing the law has not been mentioned as a priority for the new GOP majority in the House. Rather, the top health issue is likely to be how to reduce the price of Medicare and other health “entitlement” programs.
Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein
Margot Sanger-Katz: Roll Call’s “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit,” by Jessie Hellmann
Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Grant Wahl Was a Loving Husband. I Will Always Protect His Legacy.” By Céline Gounder
Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say,” by Lauren Sausser
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
- KHN’s “States Challenge Biden to Lower Drug Prices by Allowing Imports From Canada,” by Phil Galewitz
- Politico’s “Next Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Your Local CVS,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Lauren Gardner
- KFF’s “Millions of Uninsured People Can Get Free ACA Plans,” by Jared Ortaliza, Justin Lo, Gary Claxton, Krutika Amin, and Cynthia Cox
TRANSCRIPT
Click here for a transcript of the episode.
KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: GOP House Opens With Abortion AgendaEpisode Number: 279Published: Dec. 12, 2023
Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.
Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.
Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?
Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.
Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.
Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.
Rovner: Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.
Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello.
Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.
Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.
Rovner: So no interview this week, but lots of news, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with the new Congress, where the House finally has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll calls. Settling the speaker meant that the rest of the House could be sworn in and things like committee chairs elected. Two key health committees, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, will both have new chairs, not just new because they’re Republican, but new because they have not chaired the committee previously. Energy and Commerce will be headed by a woman for the first time, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, who’s had a longtime interest in health policy and was also in the Republican leadership. Over at Ways and Means, the new chairman is Jason Smith of Missouri, who I confess I had never heard of before this. Does anyone know anything about him? And does he have any interest in health care?
Ollstein: Most of what he said about chairing the committee has been about things other than health care. It’s been a lot on taxes, for instance. The new House majority is very “exorcised” about the IRS funding that the previous Congress approved and trying to get rid of that. But he has shown some interest in some telehealth provisions. And so I think also I’m sure we’re going to discuss some interest in, shall we say, revisiting Medicare’s benefits and funding …
Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to get to that next.
Ollstein: So there could be some things, but it doesn’t seem that he’s been a big health care guy or will be a big health care guy going forward.
Rovner: In the olden days, when I started covering this, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee frequently did not have either an interest or an expertise in health care. But the chairman of the Ways and Means health subcommittee did. That’s where pretty much everything came from. Do we know yet who is going to chair the Ways and Means health subcommittee …? We do not. So we’ll wait to see that. But yes …. even though I read Chairman Smith’s little introduction about what he’s interested in — and I know he mentioned rural health — but he did not anywhere mention Medicare. And of course, the Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over most of Medicare in the House. It is going to come up, as far as we can tell, right?
Sanger-Katz: One imagines so because some of the promises that leadership has made to its members to think about how to balance the budget in the long term, to consider entitlement reform, whatever that may mean. And, you know, Medicare is where the money is. So you would think that the Ways and Means Committee would want to be looking seriously at how to reform the program, if that’s the interest of leadership on this policy area.
Rovner: And they’ve already said that they want to tie any debt ceiling vote, which [is] one of those things that Congress absolutely has to do to reforms, quote-unquote, of the Medicare and Social Security programs. Because, again, as Margot said, that’s where the money goes. So we expect to see Medicare as an issue, regardless of what the Ways and Means Committee does, right?
Ollstein: That’s right. There were a lot of calls for Democrats to address the debt ceiling issue during their final months in power. They did not do so. That means that it’s going to be a big, messy fight this year. One of the biggest things to watch. This is an instance where the Republican House majority will be able to flex its muscles even though they don’t have the Senate and White House, because they can trigger a budget standoff that puts the faith and credit of the country in jeopardy and demand concessions, including cuts to Medicare. So we’ll see how that goes.
Rovner: Although I will say, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii was on Twitter, and he didn’t ask me anything much to the horror of his communications staff. But one of the questions that somebody asked him was, “Why didn’t you do the debt ceiling?” And he just said: We didn’t have the votes. So that at least answers the question of why didn’t they take care of this before the Republicans took the majority back? Well, one thing we do know is going to happen is that the new Republican-controlled House is going to do a lot of investigations. Indeed, one of the first orders of business in the new Congress was the re-establishment of a committee on the covid pandemic with a new focus on investigating the origins of the virus and the government’s response to it. What are we expecting out of that?
Karlin-Smith: As you said, Julie, I think two of the things is, one, they’re going to do more investigation into the origin of the virus. Republicans have pushed the potential theory that this was borne out of a lab in China, not necessarily something more naturally occurring. And I think a lot of scientists have said this theory has been fairly close to disproven and find that the focus on it distracts from really dealing with the current pandemic. But I think we should expect a lot of that. And that will include, I think, a lot of relitigation of Anthony Fauci and his particular role in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and funding different types of research on viruses, both in the U.S. and abroad. The second thing I think they’re going to look very closely at is how the U.S. has spent the covid funding that Congress has doled out and appropriated. That’s certainly a lot of money. And I think, again, oversight is always probably … it’s a good thing to see if Congress gives money, are we spending it? … Does it actually get to where it needs to go? Does it go to where it’s supposed to go? I think that … in general, I think most people think that’s a good thing. Sometimes what ends up happening is it gets taken a little bit to … this disingenuous step forward in Washington, where everything gets questioned or they pick on jurisdictions for not spending the money fast enough when it’s just not realistic. So you have to read between the lines really carefully when you’re looking at some of the findings from that type of work. Because sometimes, again, when you give a state $1,000,000 to do something, they’re not often able to make that change in two months.
Rovner: And then if they do, they get criticized for spending it on the wrong thing, so …
Karlin-Smith: Right.
Sanger-Katz: But I will say, speaking as a journalist, not as a congressional investigator, I do think that the covid funding is really ripe for a lot of investigation. There’s already been very good reporting that a lot of the small-business programs were broadly defrauded. I think there was a real emphasis by Congress and — in a bipartisan way, Republicans obviously voted for these bills as well. But I think there was a real emphasis on just getting money out the door. People were so scared of a catastrophic economic collapse that, unlike a lot of programs that Congress designs that fund various things, there weren’t a lot of initial safeguards, there wasn’t a lot of process or administrative burden associated with getting money. And so that means it really is valuable to look and see where did it go, who may have defrauded the program, what are ways that in the next crisis it might be possible to do these kinds of programs in a way that is more efficient. You know, it occurs to me that in addition to the small-business money, hospitals got a whole lot of money as part of these programs. And again, there’s been some journalism about this, but I do think I’m all for more oversight, trying to learn some real lessons. I agree with Sarah that there is probably some of this that’s going to veer into the disingenuous and kind of “gotcha.” But there may be some useful and interesting findings as a result of this process as well.
Rovner: And as we saw with the Jan. 6 committee, Congress has powers that journalists don’t. As we know, the Justice Department has powers that Congress doesn’t. But Congress has pretty good investigatory powers. They can subpoena things when they need to. So, yes, I imagine we’re going to learn something about the fate of all of those dollars that went out the door.
Ollstein: Just to be fair, Republicans have sort of claimed that the Democrat-led effort to investigate covid didn’t have any financial accountability aspect. That’s not true. It did. They really scrutinized a lot of government contracts — like no-bid government contracts that funneled lots and lots of money to things that did not pan out or help anybody. There has been some of that already. But I agree that there’s definitely more to look at.
Rovner: And there … obviously, there was a Republican and a Democratic administration handling the covid pandemic. So one presumes there are things to investigate on both sides. Well, even while the House committees are gearing up, Republicans are bringing “statement” bills to the floor, bills that we know the Senate won’t take up and the president won’t sign. And despite the fact that abortion rights drove a lot of the midterm elections in the other direction, two of the first bills brought to the floor by the new Republican majority seek to do the bidding of anti-abortion groups. This, apparently, making Republican moderates, particularly those in swing districts, not so happy. Alice, are we looking at pretty much the same split in the Republicans in the House as in a lot of states — the people who think that the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done more and people who think the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done less?
Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s a split on how to talk about it or whether to talk about it as well. It’s not just the actions, it’s the messaging in addition. And so, yes, there are some in the House who are, like, why are we doing this? Why are we taking these votes that have no chance of becoming law? It just puts our members from swing districts in a more vulnerable position. The things they voted on so far this week have pretty unanimous support on the Republican side, I would say. I think where you could start to see some bigger divides are when they get into votes on an actual national abortion restriction that would put a gestational limit on the procedure, or something like that, which absolutely some members want to do and want to take a vote on. I think that’s where you could start to see some Republicans being, like, wait, wait, wait, wait, why are we doing this? But the things so far are, like you said, they’re “messaging” bills, but they’re ones that have pretty broad support on the conservative side.
Rovner: And we should mention, I mean, one of them was just a sense of Congress that, you know, that bombing pregnancy crisis centers is bad. Or that violence against pregnancy centers …
Sanger-Katz: I’m not going to give credit for this correctly, but I saw a tweet on this topic last week when the list of demands and the list of these bills that we’re going to get a vote on was released where someone asked, Oh, did D-Triple-C [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] co-author this list? Where I do think there is an interesting tension, as Alice said, where the particular message bills that the most conservative members of the House Republican caucus want to vote on are those issues where we see in public opinion polling, where we see in the last election that the majority of Americans are not really with those most conservative Republicans. And I think a lot of moderate Republicans would just prefer not to vote on those issues, particularly because they know that they can’t make them policy. And we were talking about changes to Medicare and Social Security, and I think that also falls very much in that category where there might be a situation in which if Republicans really thought that they could reform these programs, maybe they would want to take the political risk, because I do think it’s an important long-term goal of many Republicans. But I think there’s also a frustration, you know, why would we take all these votes on something that is generally unpopular? Everyone knows that both Social Security and Medicare are really, really popular programs and people are very wary of changes to them. There is a political risk in taking a bunch of votes saying that you want to pull money out of those programs or change them structurally when you can’t even achieve it.
Rovner: Yeah. Well, speaking of that, during Wednesday’s abortion debate on the House floor, Republican moderate Nancy Mace of South Carolina kept saying to any cable outlet that would put a microphone in front of her that Congress should be making birth control more widely available instead of voting on abortion. But we are also seeing the first shots fired in an effort to restrict birth control. Well, last month, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the Title X family planning program is illegally providing contraception to minors. Now, this is a fight that dates back to even before I started covering it. It was called “the Squeal Rule” in the early 1980s, an effort by the Reagan administration to require parental involvement before teens could use Title X family planning services. It was eventually struck down in federal court, but now it’s back. Is this where we’re headed?
Ollstein: I think it’s really important to watch things in law and policy that are just directed at minors because inevitably it does not stop there. Like, that’s sort of the testing ground. It’s where people are more comfortable with more restrictions and more hoops to jump through. But as we’ve seen with gender-affirming care, it doesn’t stop there. What’s tested out as a policy for minors is inevitably proposed for adults as well, and so …
Sanger-Katz: What’s the adult version of this, Alice? Like who? Like spousal consent?
Rovner: Yes, there had been — I was just going to say — not so much in contraception, although originally it was, but also on abortion that, yeah, if there’s a partner that the partner would have to consent.
Ollstein: But there’s also been spousal consent stuff for more permanent … getting your tubes tied, those kinds of things. That’s been a debate as well. And, I mean, in the abortion space we’ve seen this for, in terms of like traveling across state lines for an abortion. That’s been a restriction for minors that’s also been proposed for adults. So it’s just this phase we should absolutely watch — as well as Title X program continues to be a space for proposed restrictions. It’s a lever that they’re able to hold because it does have federal funding and it does have constraints that other pots of money don’t have.
Rovner: My favorite piece of trivia is that the Title X program has not been reauthorized since 1984 because Congress has never been able to find the votes. You know, when the Democrats were in charge and wanted to do it, the Republicans would have all of these amendments that the Democrats probably couldn’t fight off. The Republicans wanted to do it and put all these stringent rules that the Democrats wouldn’t have. So, literally, this program has been … it gets funded every year, but it’s been marching along for now several decades without Congress having formally reauthorized it.
Ollstein: Yeah, that’s why you keep seeing different presidential administrations trying to put their stamp on it through rulemaking, which, of course, can be rolled back by the subsequent president, as we’ve seen with [Donald] Trump and [Joe] Biden. And so it just keeps going back and forth. And these clinics that are out there getting this funding, which, again, can’t be used for abortion, for contraception, STD testing, fertility stuff, all kinds of stuff, but not abortion. But they keep having to comply with these wildly different rules. It’s really difficult.
Rovner: Yeah, it is. All right. Well, last week we talked about the Biden administration’s effort to make abortion pills more available through both pharmacies and the mail. On the one hand, some abortion rights advocates say that the FDA is still overregulating the abortion pill by requiring extra hoops for both pharmacies and doctors to jump through in order to offer or write prescriptions for a medication that’s proved safe and effective over two decades. On the other hand, we now have the specter of abortion opponents protesting at CVSes or Walgreens near you. And Alice, they’re already planning to do that, right?
Ollstein: Yeah, that’s right. They would have done it sooner, but they didn’t want to step on the March for Life, which is coming up in a couple of weeks. And so they’re planning these protests at CVS and Walgreens around the country for early February, trying to pressure the company to walk back its announcement that they will participate in the distribution of abortion pills in states where they remain legal, which is, by our count, currently 18 can’t do this either because abortion is banned entirely or because there are laws specifically restricting how people get the pills.
Rovner: Sarah, I want you to talk about some of these extra hoops that have to be jumped through because a lot of people think it’s just for this pill and it’s not. This is something that the FDA has for any drug that’s potentially abusable, right?
Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I wouldn’t say abusable is the right word, but basically people call this a REMS. It stands for risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. And it’s actually an authority Congress gave the FDA to — we use this term “safe and effective,” but we know all drugs, even when we say that “safe” term, will come with risks. And the idea here is that when the benefit-risk balance would be … so that it would be … FDA might say, OK, this is actually too risky to approve. However, we think we could make it kind of safe enough if we put in a little extra safeguards instead of just letting it go out there. Here’s a drug, doctors, you can prescribe it, follow the normal pathway, which is that the federal government, or at least the FDA, doesn’t really have a lot of say in exactly how the practice of medicine works. That’s left up to states. And, you know, doctors individually. They implement other practices to help ensure that safety balance is there. So one famous example is Accutane, which is an acne drug. It’s incredibly harmful to a developing fetus and birth defects. So women of pregnancy, bearing age are usually required to take regular pregnancy tests and so forth and monitor the status of that. And you’re not supposed to use the drug while pregnant because of the incredible harm you do to a baby. So there’s everything from things like that to just simply more written literature might be provided for certain drugs. Sometimes in the cases of the abortion pill, you know, who could actually dispense it and when was restricted. Sometimes there are particular sorts of trainings doctors have to take to get that extra authority to prescribe the drug. And again, the idea is that just to provide a little extra safeguard. Again, the controversy over the years with this pill is that people feel like it doesn’t meet that standard to have a REMS, that it can be safe and effective through our normal prescribing systems. Actually, Stat this week had an interesting interview with Jane Henney, who was the FDA commissioner when they first approved this drug. And she …
Rovner: Yeah, in the year 2000.
Karlin-Smith: Right. Which is actually …
Rovner: Right at the end of the Clinton administration.
Karlin-Smith: Actually predates this formal REMS authority. But there were others, different authorities that then evolved into REMS. But she said she thought that a lot of these restrictions would be gone by now and that what, at the time, what they were waiting for was more U.S.-specific experience with the drug, because what they were basing the original approval on was a lot of use of the drug in France, which had such a different health system than the U.S., they were a little bit uncomfortable, I guess, opening the floodgates in a way. So I thought that was an interesting historical point that came out this week.
Rovner: But clearly, Alice, I mean, this is going to be the next big fight in abortion, right, is trying to restrict the abortion pill?
Ollstein: Absolutely. I’ve been writing about this since before Roe v. Wade was overturned. The pills were already becoming one of the most popular and now are the most popular way to terminate a pregnancy in the U.S., which makes sense. You can take them in the comfort of your home with the people that you want to be with you, not in a scary medical environment. It’s also a lot cheaper than having a surgical procedure. So but then, of course, with the pandemic, people started using them even more because it was more dangerous to go to a clinical setting. And so this has been a big focus of both sides of this fight for a long time: either how to increase access to the pills or restrict them. Also, now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, the pills and the ability to order them online from overseas in this legal gray area, that’s been a major way people have been getting around state bans, and the anti-abortion groups know that. And so they want to look at any way they can to crack down on this. And so with the Biden administration opening up a new potential pathway with these local retail pharmacies, they’re of course going to try to crack down on that as well.
Karlin-Smith: I mean, we talked about this before in the podcast, but I think this issue of federal preemption, if it gets teed up, is going to be a big thing that’s beyond just abortion, in terms of when does FDA’s approval of a drug trump state regulations around how it’s going to be used? And, you know, I feel like some people have not been satisfied on the … who want more access to abortion drugs in terms of how FDA has handled the rollback of the REMS. But you also have to wonder if they’re operating in this setting where, again, if you push things too far and you get a legal challenge, given how our courts are, right? And how politically it can backfire. And so it’s a complicated balance there.
Rovner: Well, speaking of drugs that are in gray areas that people order online, my KHN colleague Phil Galewitz reports that four states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico — are now pressuring the Biden administration to allow them to import prescription drugs from Canada in an effort to reduce the cost of drugs for their residents. Now, despite the fact that this has been and remains a very bipartisan ask, the FDA, under both Republican and Democratic commissioners, has strongly objected to it over the years. Somebody remind us why this is so controversial.
Karlin-Smith: I think the big thing FDA has objected to is that when you allow importation in the way states have often asked for it, you basically often give up the supply chain oversight that we have in the U.S. that ensures people are not getting drugs that are counterfeit and have somehow been tampered with as they’ve gotten through the supply chain. And so, actually, I was refreshing my memory, and I can’t believe how long ago it is. When the Trump administration first became the first administration to say, Oh, actually, OK, we are going to agree that we think this could be come safely. Then they put out regulations that tried to … basically like made it so that to do importation, you would almost have to mimic the same supply-chain safety measures we already have for the FDA. So it became this double-edged sword of, sure, you can do the importation, but you’re going to have to jump to this level of hurdles that then makes it unusable. And so I think that’s the key barrier here, is that can a state actually propose a program that would get sign-off? And I think it’s not really surprising to me that the Trump team tried to thread the needle in that way of giving people the win of saying, Oh, we’ll allow it without actually making it feasible.
Sanger-Katz: I think it also highlights what a weird ask this is in some ways because what the states are looking to do is they are not looking to import drugs from other countries because they think that other countries have better manufacturing, have better safety protocols, have different drugs. They just want to import the lower prices that other countries pay for the same drugs. And so this is, in some ways, a very cludgy workaround that the states are basically asking for price regulation of drugs. But that obviously is a very difficult political act. So instead they’re saying, well, can we just import the prices that some other country has negotiated. And then it raises all these other issues about, Well, you know, there is like a reason why, in general, the United States has regulatory control over the drug supply.
Rovner: Also, Canada doesn’t have enough drugs to serve all of these states. I mean, that’s the thing that I’ve never managed to get over. And, in fact, Canada has said that they’re not anxious to do this because they don’t have enough drugs to serve both Canada and the United States. I mean, it also seems just literally impractical.
Sanger-Katz: I mean, we are seeing, of course, like in the Inflation Reduction Act, there were new measures that would allow Medicare, in particular, to start negotiating for lower prices for certain drugs. Obviously, that policy has a fair number of limitations, including that it’s only for Medicare, it’s only for certain drugs, and it’s not going to be instant. But while we did get some new timeline from the Biden administration this week, and it looks like that policy is going to start rolling out. So I think states are asking for this now because they want to import prices from other countries. But also, for the first time, Medicare, or the federal government is starting to take on drug prices directly. And we’re going to see how that looks relatively soon.
Rovner: Yes, this ship turns very slowly, but it does seem to be turning a little bit. Well, as we previewed last week, the FDA has approved another controversial Alzheimer’s disease drug, Leqembi. I think that’s how you say it, which has a Q without a U. Sarah, you’ve been following this. Are we headed down potentially the same road we traveled with Aduhelm? It feels kind of familiar. It’s a drug that we think works, but we don’t really know, and it has some big risks and will be expensive.
Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I mean, similar, but slightly different. And perhaps the analogy that things slowly make their way in a different direction is also right here. This drug, I think most people see it as an improvement on Aduhelm because it has, in one major clinical trial, shown some benefit on people’s cognitive decline slowing a bit. However, the big debate there is that … how meaningful the change that was seen in the trial is. Is it really going to be meaningful in people’s lives and is that worth the price? The company is … actually a similar company is involved here, but they priced it quite a bit lower than the original Aduhelm price, even lower than the price of Aduhelm now. It’s still seen as on the very high end of what a lot of cost-effective watchdogs say is a fair price. And as of right now, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] or Medicare is not going to be covering it at all because right now the drug only has what’s known as an accelerated approval. So we’re going to, over the next probably less than a year, in about nine months or so, FDA will have to weigh in on whether it gives the drug a full formal approval. And at that point, we’ll see if Medicare also gives the sign-off that they think this drug might actually be effective for people and are willing to pay for it. I think my bottom line on this drug is, you know, it provides some hope and some improvement for people, but it looks like to be a small clinical benefit for a big trade-off in risks. So I think as more data comes out over time, we’ll see again if that benefit-risk trade-off for most people falls on the right side of the coin.
Rovner: And we’ll watch this whole process go forward again. All right. Finally this week, but not least, there’s also news on the health insurance coverage front. With the end of open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act coverage rapidly approaching in most states, by Jan. 15, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services this week reported that enrollment is already up 13% from last year to almost 16 million people, including about 3.1 million people who are new enrollees. In the meantime, though, my colleagues over the firewall at KFF report that some 5 million more uninsured Americans are actually eligible for free health care coverage under the ACA. It feels ironic because this is not the first year of expanded subsidies and there’s been relatively little media coverage of open enrollment. Is it just that it takes time for knowledge of these offers to trickle down to people? Or that the Biden administration put a lot more effort into outreach this year?
Sanger-Katz: I think it’s all of the above. I think for the first few years of the Obamacare program, there were a lot of complaints that this insurance really wasn’t affordable enough for people. And, obviously, that’s why Congress, first in part of the pandemic stimulus bill and now again in the Inflation Reduction Act, really jacked up the subsidies and made the plans cheaper and, in many cases, have more wraparound benefits so that low-income people could get insurance that was either free or relatively low-premium and also didn’t ask them to pay a lot out-of-pocket for their own care. And we can see also that the Biden administration did a lot of outreach. I mean, it’s definitely the case that they both, through Congress, made the plans cheaper and also, through various administrative actions, made the plans more widely publicized. And I just want to highlight, I think last year was the record year for Obamacare enrollment. And now we’re seeing this huge increase on top of a record year. So these things seem to matter. I think the affordability of plans, the availability of free plans for a lot of uninsured Americans is very appealing. And yet the people who are uninsured and poor, I think, are difficult to reach. There is a lot of long-standing opposition to Obamacare. There are a lot of places where there are a lot of uninsured Americans, where there’s not particularly effective and robust outreach. People don’t know how to find these things, how to sign up. And it is really administratively complex to sign up for these plans. I mean, I don’t know how many of our listeners have tried to do it. It’s not impossible. It is on the internet. You know, anyone can do it. And you don’t have to have someone holding your hand. But I think in many cases you probably do want someone holding your hand if it’s your first time doing it. There are, in many markets, lots of choices. It’s confusing. It’s hard to know what the best option is, sometimes it’s a little bit hard to figure out what it’s going to cost you until you enter in a lot of information about your income. And you might also be scared that if you’re not sure or you put something in wrong, you could get in trouble. So I think this is just an ongoing challenge of getting all these people who are now eligible for these really low-cost plans to actually interact with the system and get insurance.
Rovner: One thing I guess bears mentioning is that with the Republicans just, you know, plan to do all of these things like try to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act because they don’t like the drug price provisions … [but] they are not talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act anymore, right? Have we finally come to the end of that particular fight?
Sanger-Katz: It sure looks that way.
Ollstein: Yeah. The right the writing has been on the wall in terms of the lack of that talk on the campaign trail for a few years now. I was joking with some colleagues that, you know, the “repeal Obamacare” is tired; the “repeal the drug price negotiation provisions” is wired. That’s the new talking point, although that’s not going to happen either, obviously, because of the control of the Senate and because of how insanely expensive it would be to repeal that. But the Republicans definitely have moved on to other targets.
Sanger-Katz: Although I will say, you know, once again, the fact that House leadership has committed to proposing cuts to health entitlement programs, the fact that they have committed to proposing a budget that balances in 10 years means that, I think, it will be extremely difficult for them to avoid talking about particular cuts or changes to Affordable Care Act programs. You know, again, it’s just like this is where the dollars are. They can take a lot of dollars out of Medicare, that is very politically unpopular. They can take some dollars out of Medicaid, you know, the largest expansion of which is part of ACA. They can take money out of these subsidies, which, you know, have been supercharged in recent years beyond even what Congress initially passed in 2010. And I do think, as Alice said, you know, this is not a popular talking point. I don’t think Republicans, by and large, want to be talking about repealing Obamacare anymore. And yet I think they are backed into this corner where they’re going to have to make and propose specific modifications and cuts to these programs in order to achieve these high-level philosophical goals that they’ve signed up for. And so I think it will be interesting to see what does it look like, maybe they’re not going to call it Obamacare repeal anymore, but they might still be sucking $1,000,000,000,000 out of Medicaid, like some of the Trump administration budgets did.
Rovner: Yeah. And it’s important to mention, again, I mean, the Republicans talk about all these things they’re going to do and people are thinking, Oh, my God, if they vote for this balanced budget, in 10 years it’s going to happen. They can’t do most of these things without the Senate and/or the president unless they have two-thirds to override, which they don’t. The one place that we do think they could exercise some leverage, obviously, is this debt ceiling vote where the Congress has to vote to raise the debt ceiling or the U.S. will default on things that it has already bought but not paid for — basically paying the credit card bill. And that, certainly, they’re going to try to make some entitlement changes. But all of these other things that they say they’re, quote-unquote, “going to do,” they’re mostly just quote-unquote, “making political statements,” right?
Sanger-Katz: But they’re going to have to talk about them. They’re going to have to write things down. They’re going to have to have specific dollars attached to this. I do think that it will be politically salient and that it will create some visibility into, like, well, how do you balance the budget in 10 years? What does entitlement reform look like? And they’re not saying Obamacare repeal anymore and they don’t want to, they understand that they don’t want to. And yet I think they’re going to be in this position where they’re going to effectively have to lay out something that looks like Obamacare repeal, something that looks like Social Security reform, something that looks like big changes to Medicare. And we will have a political debate about that because Democrats are just salivating to have those conversations. I think they feel like that is very strong political ground on them. They think that voters trust them to protect those very popular programs if they’re under assault. And, you know, which is very similar to the political dynamic we saw when Republicans were really trying in earnest, when they had full control of government and wanted to repeal Obamacare.
Rovner: Yes. And I would say, as we absolutely saw in 2017, when they failed to repeal it, Republicans very much agree on their goals, but they very much disagree on how to get there. There is no unified Republican plan for either reforming, you know, the Affordable Care Act or Medicare or Medicaid, I mean, except for basically cutting money out of it. So I will be interested, as Margot says, to see what they actually put down on paper.
Sanger-Katz: And, sorry, just one more thing on this point, which is, again, I think that the kinds of show votes that the Republican House leadership is going to have to put on these issues are probably not going to be particularly politically productive and may be politically damaging to them. But I do think, setting that aside for the moment, I do think we are entering in an environment of much higher interest rates, of really more accelerating federal debt. You know, there are a lot of conditions right now that are potentially ripe for thinking about government spending and particularly thinking about these big categories of government spending that are our federal health care programs. I think the last few years there’s been this sense that, you know, debt is free and the deficit doesn’t matter. And I think inflation is high, interest rates are rising. I do think that we’re in a moment where there may be a greater sense of a need to confront this problem. And I’m interested in what that conversation looks like, which may be a little bit different than the kind of highly ideological conversation that we’re going to see in the very near term.
Rovner: I was going to say that that would require actually having substantive talks about what might work, which we don’t know is going to happen, but we can cross our fingers and hope. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?
Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a story by Kaiser Health News’ Lauren Sausser: “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say.” I thought this was a fascinating story about hospitals’ reliance on volunteers, not for the types of activities I usually associate hospital volunteers with, which would be …
Rovner: Like candy stripers.
Karlin-Smith: Right. Like light … I don’t know, “light” is not the right word, but, you know, visiting people, comforting them in some way, providing added benefit of sorts. And this is really people that are being asked to do medical care and the basics, some of the basic care you need when you are in a hospital. And I think her story cites about $5 billion maybe in the U.S. of free labor through these types of volunteers. And the question becomes, you know, is this violating labor laws? And should these people be getting paid for the work, or should they … are they basically, because they’re using volunteers, taking money and job opportunities away from other people? And I thought it was a fascinating story just because I had no idea of all of this, you know, volunteer labor was being used and the impacts on these hospitals during the pandemic, when they couldn’t have volunteers. And just, I think, important to think about, too, how this impacts the quality of care as well people receive.
Rovner: Hospitals are very clever. Margot.
Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from Jessie Hellman at Roll Call called “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit.” And I’ve been doing a lot of reporting on the Medicare Advantage program lately. And so I was a little bit jealous of this story. Congress just recently required Medicare to pay for methadone. You know, a very evidence-based treatment for opioid addiction that it hadn’t been covering before. And what this article found is that these Medicare Advantage plans, or private competitors to the government Medicare program, have been enacting a lot of roadblocks that make it hard for people to get this treatment. So they technically cover it, but they require often what’s called prior authorization, where you have to … doctors and others have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove that the person really needs it. And when I saw this article, I put out a bat signal on my Twitter and I said, Can anyone think of the medical reason why you would want to have … restrict access to methadone treatment? And, you know, this is just a Twitter poll, but no one could come up with the reason. They could think of lots of reasons why the insurance company might not want to cover it, because it’s expensive, because patients who have opioid addiction probably are pretty expensive in general. And so, you know, this could be a way to avoid paying for a complex treatment or a way to discourage patients who have complex health care needs from choosing a Medicare Advantage plan. Anyway, so just a good story and just, you know, another illustration of, you know, even after Congress does something like add a new benefit, there’s always value in doing oversight to see how is that actually working in the real world and is it giving patients the care that was intended?
Rovner: Yes. And we will be talking, I think, much more about Medicare Advantage this year. Alice.
Ollstein: So I have a very sad piece to recommend. It is an op-ed by Céline Gounder, who is a public health expert that we all know well, as well as the widow of Grant Wahl, the soccer journalist who died covering the World Cup. And she wrote about how her husband’s death has been co-opted by anti-vax conspiracy theorists who are trying to draw some connection to what happened to him and being vaccinated for covid. But she really smartly walks through the misinformation playbook because it is a very sort of predictable playbook with very predictable points and, you know, dismantles them one by one. And I think it’s really helpful for the inevitable next time we see this come up to be prepared in advance and be able to refute those points. Very tragic but very helpful thing to know.
Rovner: Yeah. Céline is our colleague now at KHN, in addition to everything else that she does, and I can just say to these trolls: Don’t mess with Céline. It really was a very good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post, and it’s a great story that ran in the dead week between Christmas and New Year’s. So I … gave it an extra week. It’s called “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein. And while I’ve known for a long time that the Social Security disability program has a multiyear backlog, one thing I didn’t know until I read this story is that a lot of otherwise likely eligible people get their benefits denied because they could theoretically do jobs that largely no longer exist. Among the jobs the government says people who are disabled might be able to do are nuts sorter, dowel inspector, or egg processor. That’s because the last time the labor market data used to determine if a disabled person might be able to do a job was last updated 45 years ago. The agency has been working since 2012 to update its listing of jobs that could be done by sedentary individuals. But somehow the new directory of jobs has not made it into use yet. Meanwhile, thousands of people deserving of disability benefits are being steered to jobs that are now largely automated, offshored, or otherwise obsolete, something that clearly needs to be fixed.
OK, that is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you’ve left us a review — that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still at Twitter for now: @jrovner. Sarah?
Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin
Rovner: Margot?
Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz
Rovner: Alice.
Ollstein: @AliceOllstein
Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. In the meantime, be healthy.
Credits
Francis Ying
Audio Producer
Stephanie Stapleton
Editor
To hear all our podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 years 6 months ago
Insurance, Multimedia, Pharmaceuticals, States, The Health Law, Abortion, Alzheimer's, Contraception, Dementia, FDA, KHN's 'What The Health?', Open Enrollment, Podcasts, Sexual Health, U.S. Congress, Women's Health
KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Year-End Bill Holds Big Health Changes
The Host
Julie Rovner
KHN
Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s 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-Z,” now in its third edition.
The year-end government spending bill includes a lot of changes to federal health programs, including changes to Medicare payments and some structure for states to begin to disenroll people on Medicaid whose eligibility has been maintained through the pandemic.
Separately, the Biden administration took several steps to expand the availability of the abortion pill, which in combination with another drug can end a pregnancy within about 10 weeks of gestation. Anti-abortion forces have launched their own campaign to limit the reach of the abortion pill.
This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.
Panelists
Rachel Cohrs
Stat News
Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico
Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post
Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:
- Congress ended the year by passing a nearly $1.7 trillion government spending package. The legislation included smaller-than-scheduled cuts to Medicare payments for physicians, extended telehealth flexibilities, and funding boosts for programs like the Indian Health Service and the federal 988 mental health hotline.
- But lawmakers left out many priorities, such as more money in response to the covid-19 emergency, and included a change to Medicaid eligibility that could result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
- The Biden administration took perhaps its biggest stand on abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, with the FDA announcing that retail pharmacies will be permitted to dispense abortion pills for the first time, and the Justice Department confirming that it is legal to send the pills through the U.S. Postal Service.
- A new congressional report on Aduhelm, the controversial Alzheimer’s drug, reveals its manufacturer, Biogen, knew the impact its pricing could have on the Medicare program — and priced it high anyway. The report also raises big questions about the FDA’s decision-making in approving the drug and what some officials were willing to do to make it happen.
- And in price transparency news, insurers are now required to provide patients with cost-estimating tools designed to make more than 500 nonemergency services “shoppable.” But it is unclear whether insurance companies are prepared to help consumers access and use that information.
Also this week, Rovner interviews Mark Kreidler, who wrote the latest NPR-KHN “Bill of the Month” feature, about two patients with the same name and a mistaken bill. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.
Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:
Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Now Says It Plainly: Morning-After Pills Are Not Abortion Pills,” by Pam Belluck
Joanne Kenen: Politico Magazine’s “Racist Doctors and Organ Thieves: Why So Many Black People Distrust the Health Care System,” by Joanne Kenen and Elaine Batchlor
Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “‘Major Trustee, Please Prioritize’: How NYU’s E.R. Favors the Rich,” by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg
Rachel Roubien: KHN’s “Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” by Noam N. Levey
Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:
Stat’s “‘Rife With Irregularities’: Congressional Investigation Reveals FDA’s Approval of Aduhelm Marked by Secret Discussions, Breaches of Protocol,” by Rachel Cohrs
KHN’s “Want a Clue on Health Care Costs in Advance? New Tools Take a Crack at it,” by Julie Appleby
Stat’s “Congress Reaches Major Health Policy Deal on Medicare, Medicaid, and Pandemic Preparedness,” by Rachel Cohrs and Sarah Owermohle
USA Today’s “Half of Ambulance Rides Yield Surprise Medical Bills. What’s Being Done to Protect People?” by Ken Alltucker
Click to expand
Episode Transcript
Julie Rovner: Hello, Happy New Year, and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.
Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. Welcome back.
Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.
Rachel Cohrs: Hi, Julie.
Rovner: And we welcome to the podcast panel this week Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.
Rachel Roubein: Thanks for having me.
Rovner: So I plan to call you guys “Rachel C.” and “Rachel R.” since I have you both today. Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with Mark Kreidler. This month’s patient got a bill for care that was actually delivered to someone else and eventually had that bill sent to collections. We will try to sort this all out in far less time than it took her. But first, the news. And there’s plenty with what happened over the break. So we’re going to start with the bill that ended the 117th Congress. That huge omnibus spending bill that included all 12 of the annual appropriations that fund much of the government through the end of the fiscal year. That bill also served as a vehicle for a lot of other bills, including an array of health legislation. Rachel C., why don’t you start us off with what the bill did for Medicare and Medicaid? Both of which are pretty significant.
Cohrs: Sure. For Medicare, I think, doctors had been worried that they were going to see pay cuts at the end of the year, and they had been asking Congress to make sure they were budget-neutral there. Congress didn’t quite meet their demands all the way. They blunted the effect of the cuts. So a little bit of cuts will go into effect this year, and then those cuts will increase a little bit next year as well. So it’s some of what they asked for, not all of it. On Medicaid, there was a really big change to what we call in D.C. the redetermination process. Basically, to get extra money from the federal government during the pandemic, states had to agree not to kick people off Medicaid — even if they were no longer eligible. But starting in April, states are going to be able to start kicking people off Medicaid if they are no longer eligible. And there’s a phase-out of that extra money that states were getting to treat these people as well.
Rovner: This has been the big concern about the public health emergency and why everybody’s cared whether or not when it ends, because when it ended, states were going to start being able to basically kick off the program people who weren’t eligible. And there was a whole lot of concern about how they would do it and how long it would take. And this basically sets up a process, right?
Cohrs: Right. It provides a lot more certainty. And states and CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] have been preparing for this for months. There’s resources. But I think the ultimate question is whether these people are going to transition from Medicaid onto another form of coverage or whether there’s going to become uninsured. And, I think KFF estimates about … between maybe 5 million and 14 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. And if there’s not a smooth transition, that could have really big implications for coverage. So those were the two big things. There were many other smaller policies that this paid for, though, because it saved money based on all the congressional budget magic that CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] uses. So I think there’s more protections for children on Medicaid as well. It extends CHIP [the Children’s Health Insurance Program] until 2029, makes permanent maternal health programs. So there were improvements that Congress decided to make to the Medicaid program with this money. But I think it does … it’s a little bit of a tighter timeline than some people were expecting.
Rovner: They basically are, to some extent, divorcing the Medicaid unwinding from the end of the public health emergency, which people expect will be sometime this year. But we’ve expected that public health emergency to end for a while. Joanne, you want to add something.
Kenen: And I think this is the time to point out, yet again, they’ll probably be a certain amount of chaos and disruption. But most people in most states who are leaving this enhanced Medicaid will in fact be eligible for Affordable Care Act coverage with good subsidies, if they’re low-income. But we still have the Medicaid gap, so there are about a dozen states — it might be down to 11 now — but there are about a dozen, 11 or 12 states where people who won’t have enhanced Medicaid won’t have anything.
Rovner: Yeah.
Kenen: And that’s just political reality.
Rovner: That was something that the Democratic Congress tried very hard to fix last year and it ended up on the cutting-room floor. It didn’t make it into the Inflation Reduction Act …
Kenen: Yes, it was in Build Back Better. It was sent …
Rovner: Right. It was in Build Back Better and it didn’t pass.
Kenen: An attempt to fix it was in Build Back Better and it did not make it into the final what did pass, which was the so-called Inflation Reduction Act.
Rovner: And there were a bunch of things that members had tried to get into this last-minute package, this year-end package, that didn’t make it either, right? Like the child tax credit. Yeah.
Kenen: I mean, there’s some mental health provisions and substance abuse provisions, but many of them didn’t make it.
Rovner: The covid money didn’t make it. Rachel R., you would like to add something?
Roubein: I think there’s a lot of under-the-radar provisions that people had championed for a long time that did make it. And obviously covid money didn’t. There was some pandemic preparedness that didn’t. But a bipartisan independent commission to study covid did not make it into the package, but some kind of interesting under-the-radar provisions, I think, included like a longer-term funding fix for the Indian Health Service, which Native Americans have been championing for a long time. And there was a pretty big funding boost for the 988 mental health crisis hotline, like a $400 million increase.
Kenen: Another thing is — this is a little obscure — but normally Medicare drug coverage does not include something that would be under an emergency authorization. My understanding is — right? You’re shaking your heads — that they did fix that so that as the covid money didn’t get in, some of these drugs and therapeutics, and shots, and everything else that was not going to be subsidized by the government, they’re not gonna be free. And there was a problem with Paxlovid, which is the outpatient oral drug that you can get at a drugstore. Very important for the senior population that that was going to be really expensive, hundreds of dollars, because it’s an emergency authorization. So Medicare wasn’t going to be able to cover it. They did fix that. So seniors who do get covid, which is — may we repeat it yet again — still here and still spreading and yet another subvariant, can in fact get that under their drug coverage. They don’t have to put out hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket, which would have really been an impediment to some people. And it’s a really good drug. It’s one of the few things we have that really works.
Rovner: And before we move away from this, it also included the pandemic preparedness bill that had been pushed by Sen. [Patty] Murray and retiring Sen. [Richard] Burr, the bipartisan bill, right?
Cohrs: It’s not in its full form, but it’s pretty close to what they introduced. And a couple pieces to highlight there is that now the future CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] directors will have to be Senate-confirmed. And there’s a new pandemic office at the White House, which I think it’ll be really interesting to see how the infrastructure there shifts to instead of having, you know, a czar for covid and monkeypox and Ebola, you know, there’s going to be some sort of permanent infrastructure there. There’s also some public health data provisions and, like, recruitment for infectious disease doctors. There’s a lot in that package, but I think it’s definitely worth highlighting, as you said. The one other item that I think we haven’t touched on is that pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities have been extended for two years, which provides a lot of certainty with something that the health care industry really wanted. So that’ll continue with business as usual for another couple of years as Congress figures out what they would actually want to make permanent.
Kenen: And the longer that goes on, right, the harder it is to take it away.
Rovner: That was another thing that people were worried about when the public health emergency ended is that that freedom to do telehealth was going to end. Sorry, Joanne.
Kenen: No, I mean, and the longer people have access to telehealth, the harder it will be for Congress to change it in two years. I mean, it’s probably here to stay.
Rovner: Yeah.
Kenen: They may tinker how they pay, or formulas, or certain limits. I mean, who knows what they’ll do in two years? It might not be exactly with the way it is right now, but the idea that telehealth is going to go away? It’s not going to happen.
Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s … I also think it’s here to stay. All right. Let us turn to abortion. There has been a lot of news since we last talked about this in mid-December. But some of the biggest news that’s happened just came in the last few days from the Biden administration, which is taking some pretty significant actions, particularly by the Food and Drug Administration and the Justice Department, to make the abortion pill more widely available. Rachel R., tell us what they did.
Roubein: On Tuesday night, and not with a ton of fanfare, there wasn’t a huge press release. But the Food and Drug Administration said that they will permit some retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills for the first time. So that’s potentially a major step towards easing access to medication abortion — I should say, in states where it is legal. I think the really big question was what will major retail pharmacy chains do? On Tuesday night, they said they were still looking at it. But yesterday, CVS and Walgreens did say they planned to seek certification to do that. There’s a few steps they have to go through. The expectation is those two major retailers deciding to do that could have implications for other pharmacy use decisions. They may follow suit as well.
Kenen: But to be clear, this still requires a prescription. This is not over-the-counter access. The so-called quote “morning-after” pill is over-the-counter. The abortion pill, which is [for] the first, I believe, 10 weeks of pregnancy, will still require a prescription, but it’ll be easier to fulfill that prescription. And there are time pressures when you can take that drug. It’s going to be easier to go to a neighborhood pharmacy and pick it up once you have the prescription.
Roubein: Exactly.
Rovner: When it first got approved, there were a lot of restrictions, including for a long time — and now in some states — that the doctor has to actually hand the pill to the pregnant person who has to then take it in the doctor’s presence. That obviously is starting to be relaxed because we now have 20 years of data that shows that this is a pretty safe way to end a pregnancy. But let’s not skip … what did the Justice Department do? They added to this, right?
Roubein: Yes. So the Justice Department essentially cleared the U.S. Postal Service to deliver abortion pills to women in states that have banned or restricted the medication to terminate a pregnancy. Basically, the gist is that Postal Service had requested an opinion from the office. And the legal opinion issued Tuesday basically concluded that mailing the drugs doesn’t violate a nearly 150-year-old statute.
Rovner: The Comstock law, for people who have covered the …
Roubein: Yes, the Comstock law.
Rovner: … the early history of birth control, that was what was used to ban the distribution of birth control until the 1960s. So I imagine that this is going to make the anti-abortion movement very angry because they seem to be honing in on the abortion pill, because they’re worried that in places where you ban abortion and you don’t have any more abortion clinics, people are going to turn to the abortion pill, which more than half of people are anyway, even in sort of the pre-end of Roe v. Wade world, when abortion was legal.
Roubein: There was a lot of backlash from the anti-abortion movement in the past few days. And we’ve already seen a major conservative group file a lawsuit even over the approval of the pills from the FDA.
Rovner: From the year 2000. The original approval, which seems a long time to wait, but I imagine that this will end up being maybe the biggest deal of anything the Biden administration has done. Because I can see …
Kenen: On abortion.
Rovner: Yeah, on abortion. Excuse me. Yes. When President [Joe] Biden said, after Roe v. Wade got overturned, that they were going to do everything they could to make abortion accessible and available, and they hadn’t done very much, all of a sudden, they seem to do a lot — at the last minute at the end of the year. Actually, there was one more thing that we should add to this last week in the middle of the break between Christmas and New Year, the Biden administration formally moved to reverse the Trump administration’s so-called conscience rules, which had been blocked by federal courts anyway. But that’s a fight that’s been going on since 2008, at the very tail end of the George W Bush administration, trying to balance the rights of individual health care workers to opt out of providing services that violate their conscience and balance that with the rights of patients to actually obtain care. The Biden administration signaled they were going to rewrite those rules in March of 2021. Does anybody have any idea what took them so long or is this just really hard to balance?
Kenen: And one more quick thing that happened over the break is the FDA came out and formally stated, or restated more publicly and explicitly, that the so-called morning-after pill does not cause abortion.
Rovner: That’s my extra credit. So we’ll get to that.
Kenen: All right.
Rovner: That’s another thing that I’ve been covering pretty much forever. All right. Well, let us move on. Also over the break, there was an unusually large amount of news between Christmas and New Year this year. We got a very juicy report from a congressional committee on its investigation into how Aduhelm, that promising, expensive, and ultimately mostly ineffective drug for Alzheimer’s disease, was approved by the FDA. Rachel C., you wrote about the report, and I know it’s very long, but what are a couple of the highlights here?
Cohrs: The most interesting findings fell into two buckets for me. The first was looking behind the curtain at how Biogen priced this drug. The initial price was around $56,000 a year, which is really expensive. They later dropped that. But, I mean, it caused a great upheaval in the Medicare program. It caused a dramatic spike in premiums and then a drop the next year. I mean, it really impacted people’s lives. And the documents that the committee uncovered showed that Biogen was well aware of the impact that this drug could have on the Medicare program. They knew that if they priced this drug above around $20,000 a year, that some patients wouldn’t be able to access it. And they chose a really high price point anyway. And I think it just offers some interesting graphs to show that they saw the breakdown and they understood all the finances and they just wanted to make it the biggest drug launch in history. They wanted the blockbuster; they wanted the glory. And it definitely was historic, but not for the reasons that they quite wanted.
Rovner: I was gonna say, they succeeded at making it a really big deal!
Cohrs: And I think the other aspect that was really interesting as we got a little bit more insight into the FDA’s reflection on this whole process. And there was an internal review that the agency conducted that was made public in part for the first time, and they decided to exonerate themselves. They thought that communications were appropriate and that was kind of their top-line takeaway. But they did go through and admit that there were some problems. And I think one big issue was that Biogen and some FDA officials were working together to prepare presentations for FDA advisers. But there were other parts of the FDA that were a little bit more skeptical of the drug that were almost entirely left out of that process. They said the skeptical division didn’t know that this report was happening. They didn’t know they were working with Biogen, and they only hav, like, two days to comment. And then ultimately, that dispute wasn’t resolved before advisers got this presentation that was supposed to represent this “unity FDA perspective” that didn’t really exist. And I think there was some reflection there. But we still have some unanswered questions. We don’t know if there’s been any discipline within the agency. We saw no reference to it. But again, with personnel issues that can be sensitive. We don’t know what progress exactly they’ve made toward any of the committee’s recommendations or any of the internal review findings or suggestions there. But I think there are some big questions about the agency’s decision-making and how badly they wanted this drug approved and what they were willing to do to make it happen.
Kenen: And … beyond the $56,000 [annual price] and beyond this whole controversy about the process within the FDA, there’s also the fact that this big controversial drug, expensive drug … there’s big questions about whether it works, how well it works, and how safe it is. I mean, it’s not like the hepatitis C drugs, which had these huge launches — eight? $84,000, you know, 10 years ago was a lot of money, or 12 years ago, whenever it was. They work. They cure hepatitis. I’m not defending the price point. But there’s a whole other thing. It’s this whole saga about this drug and, like, it’s not even a clear-cut, useful drug.
Rovner: Well, and that … it looks like history might be about to repeat itself. We’re expected to hear possibly by the end of this week, FDA’s decision on a similar drug, lecanemab, which seems to work somewhat better than Aduhelm, but which also has dangerous side effects. Do we assume the FDA is going to be more careful with this one?
Cohrs: I mean, I think there’s definitely a sensitivity by FDA as to how rebuilding public trust in the agency, because I think there was so much skepticism. Again, this is a different drug with the different data behind it that showing it maybe could be more clinically effective. But I think the agency is … I mean, we’ll see over time, but hopefully going to document and their decision-making process more clearly and being more accountable. But I think that there are going to be these lingering questions about this new drug, both for FDA and for Medicare, ultimately in deciding how they’re going to give Medicare beneficiaries access to this drug or not, because the parameters were based on this other drug, which is a strange situation. But that’s how these things work.
Rovner: Yeah, but I mean, but to be clear, though, I mean, finding a cure for … an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s would be an enormous medical breakthrough that people, scientists, have been working towards for a couple of generations now. So at least it feels like they’re getting closer, but perhaps they’re not there yet.
Cohrs: I think, yeah, there’s a little bit of a gap sometimes between, I think, what some people wish these drugs were and what they actually are.
Rovner: Yeah.
Kenen: So it’s sort of this first-draft phenomenon, like a drug will come out and it’s not great. But down the road — we’ve seen this with cancer, too — I mean, you have a certain kind of drug that’s the first of its kind and in the in the years to come, they’ll be a better version. I don’t think there’s a consensus on that with Alzheimer’s, though. I mean, they still don’t agree on what causes it.
Rovner: Yeah, So we may not be there yet. All right. Well, moving on, Jan. 1 brought us another step in the government quest to help patients figure out how much medical care might cost before they get it. In addition to hospitals and insurers having to post prices, insurers will have to give their clients access to a cost estimate or that takes into account out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The goal is to make 500 different nonemergency services, quote, “shoppable.” Joanne, price transparency is one of the few reforms to the health care system that Democrats and Republicans actually agree on. Why is that? What makes … yeah, to a point … what makes transparency something that transcends the partisan disagreements about health care?
Kenen: Well, I think that it’s hard to be against transparency. You know, you’re supposed to be for consumers not knowing anything? That politically is not great, right? So everybody’s for transparency. I think that the partisan difference is how much you think it matters. Like, the Democrats are for transparency, they’re not going to say, “No, consumers shouldn’t have tools” and that insurers and hospitals and everybody else shouldn’t empower us with more information that’s actually usable. The Republicans tend to think that this is much more of a cure-all for health care costs than the Democrats. Generally speaking, you’ll … it’s not 100%, but generally speaking, the Republicans have more faith in this as something that’ll really, really empower consumers and bring down prices and spur more competition. You know, I can see this provider charges this, this provider charges that; I’m going to go to the cheaper one. But that’s actually not how it always works in the real world. Sometimes people think in health care there’s two phenomena. One is like Hospital A can see that Hospital B is getting away with charging more and they raise their prices, or that people think the more expensive care is, the better care is, which is not true. So, yes, transparency is good. Yes, transparency is bipartisan. But how well this tool works in the real world? Health care is complicated, as we’ve all heard people say. It might be easier to find out, OK, you know, I need a mammogram. It’s going to be, you know, $30 here out-of-pocket and $90 there. That might be an easier call. But some of these really complicated conditions people have and treatments … and things go wrong. An insurer said that it’s going to cost $90. But then something happened and it cost $900. I mean, I just don’t see it as like, OK, we fixed health care.
Rovner: And plus, what we’ve discovered from the transparency that we have is that people don’t shop even when they can.
Kenen: Right.
Rovner: You know, if their doctor says you should go to this place, that’s where they go. So it’s been hard to get them to use the transparency that’s available. Rachel R., you wanted to say something?
Roubein: I think I found one of the interesting things about some of these debates over surprise bills and transparencies is sometimes it doesn’t always fall under ideological lines. Sometimes it is — at least in the surprise billing debate — lawmakers who are more hospital- or provider-friendly will stick together, whether they’re Republicans and Democrats. And then seven or more insurer-friendly will stick together. We saw some real fights between just committees in general on this.
Cohrs: There was one more item I wanted to add on this, and I think when I first saw this kicked in, I was like, oh, I’m curious, does my health plan have this? So I poked around, couldn’t really find … it wasn’t on the homepage, you know, we have this flashy new feature. So I called the number on my card and they didn’t know anything about it, couldn’t help me. And so then I asked the media line, and then I finally figured out … like, they taught me how to do it. But I think there’s a big possibility that people just don’t know about this. And if they’re not asking the media line, it’s possible customer service reps aren’t trained in how to help people find it. And I think there’s just this disconnect sometimes, as things are rolling out. So I’m curious to see how many people use it, and it shows kind of generally what your plan allows, like generally what you might be expected to pay. But it wasn’t necessarily, like, here’s your bill, like what that’s going to be at one provider versus another. So I think I’ll be curious to see, once the reports and once academics do their wonderful work on really evaluating compliance over the next couple of months, what the results of that are and how that compares with what we’ve seen from hospitals.
Rovner: I was already going to ask my next question: that politicians want this, but there’s been a lot of resistance from both health care providers and insurers who are loath to release what they consider proprietary information. And, Rachel C., as you pointed out, we have seen less than stellar showings for the information that’s supposed to be available already. We’ve also seen a lot of hospitals simply not post the information that they were supposed to post. Do we think that Congress might go back to this or is there some good way to nudge them to comply?
Cohrs: I think there are some signals that the oversight could be a priority for … especially the Energy and Commerce Committee, I believe? The chair and ranking member, I think, last Congress wrote a joint letter, which is sort of unusual for Democrats and Republicans to join together in that way, saying that it’s an area of interest for them and that they would like to check into that more. So I think there are not a whole lot of things that Democrats and Republicans will be agreeing on this session. So I think this is a really ripe area for oversight.
Rovner: Yes. Rachel R.
Roubein: Off of what the other Rachel is saying, I think another place to watch here is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, because over the summer they had done the first warning shot and fined two hospitals for flouting federal price transparency rules. So if they kick up more fines, etc., that could put pressure on other hospitals.
Rovner: And finally, this week, while we’re talking about price transparency, there’s a new study from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group that finds that half of ambulance rides result in an out-of-network balance bill. Yet — we’ve talked about this before — air ambulances were covered in the surprise bill law, but ground ambulances were not. Any chance that might change?
Roubein: You’re right. Ground ambulances were not. Basically, what Congress had [done] was said that they were going to require that an advisory committee begin, and that advisory committee work is going to start in January. CMS released the names of the people who are going to be part of it, and they will essentially have to issue a report to Congress within, like, 180 days of their first meeting, which I think is mid-January.
Rovner: So stay tuned for that one. Obviously, more to come on this. All right. Well, that’s as much news as we have time for. Now we’re going to play my interview for the “Bill of the Month” with Mark Kreidler, and then we will be back with our extra credits.
We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Mark Kreidler, who reported and wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Mark, welcome to “What the Health?”
Mark Kreidler: Hi, Julie. Nice to be with you.
Rovner: So this month’s patient definitely got an outrageous bill, although the outrageous part was not so much the amount. It was the fact that she got a bill at all. Tell us who the patient is and what happened.
Kreidler: Well, if we’re really getting serious about it, there were two patients. They’re both named Grace Elliott and that lies at the heart of the confusion. Our patient, the woman that we first interviewed to talk to about this story, is Grace E. Elliott. She’s 31 years old. She’s a preschool teacher now living in San Francisco, California. There’s another Grace Elliott. She’s 81 years old, a retiree living in Venice, Florida. Younger Grace, for lack of a better way to put it, once used a hospital in Venice, Florida. It was in 2013. She was a kid home from college on break. Younger Grace was taken to the hospital in Venice, which at that time was really just called Venice Hospital or Venice Regional Hospital. She was treated, held overnight for a kidney infection, received a prescription for antibiotics the next morning, and sent on her way. She remembers that it cost her about 100 bucks, which as a college kid, struck her as exorbitant. Those were the good old days. And that was the last time that Grace Elliott, the younger, ever used the hospital in Venice. In fact, it apparently was the first and last time. But that doesn’t mean her name wasn’t still in their records system. It was. And about this time one year ago, her mother, still living in Venice, received a letter from the hospital, now owned by a hospital corporation called ShorePoint, with her daughter’s name on it. She got a bad feeling about that letter, called her daughter in California. Younger Grace Elliott asked her mother to please open it, and what she found inside was a bill for $1,170 for hospital services at Venice, rendered over a six-day period the previous September. So Grace was a little bit confused.
Rovner: So September of 2021.
Kreidler: We’re now talking about nearly 10 years after she’d been to the hospital, she received a bill for services that she’d obviously never had.
Rovner: So she actually must have started to go after to figure out what it was, right?
Kreidler: Her first reaction was to do what any of us would do and say, “Oh, this is a case of mistaken identity.” Called the hospital, explained it very nicely: “Oh, you’ve got the wrong person.” The hospital basically at that point said, “We don’t think so. We’re pretty sure we have the right person.” And so this young woman was basically plunged into the medical billing system nightmare in which she has been misidentified. We now know because we reported the story, we know what happened. We know that when Grace Ann Elliott, an 81-year-old, as I mentioned earlier, living in Venice, needed a shoulder replacement, she went to the Venice hospital, she was checked in, and a registration clerk typed in her name, Grace Elliott. Clearly errantly retrieved the file of a 50-year-younger person, and then didn’t verify — and that’s where the story breaks down — the registration desk employee simply never confirmed via birth date or photo ID or anything like that. And at that point, two medical patients’ records functionally become one. That’s what younger Grace Elliott, the woman we spent most of our time with, wound up having to deal with.
Rovner: I mean, this should have been easy to sort out. You call the hospital and say, “No, these are two different people. This is not my bill. I have not been to Venice, Florida. Obviously, this is not me.” And they take care of it. That’s what would usually happen in this situation. But that’s not what happened in this situation, was it?
Kreidler: No. One of the things that happened to younger Grace Elliott was that she simply had been straight-up identified as the patient. The hospital was at that point simply trying to collect a bill. And so, in the early stages, Grace is calling this hospital. And then at a later point, she’s calling the medical system, you know, the owner of the hospital. But at each step, she’s just getting someone who never had anything to do with the case in the first place. And it’s simply part of the bill collection process. They’re just doing billing and records. And so even though Grace at one point was really able to definitively establish that she was not the person in question, and even though the hospital, at least one person in this hospital food chain, did say to her, “You’re right, we’ve got the wrong person.” Again, she made — I don’t even want to call it a mistake; she reacted the way most of us would. She exhaled a little bit and thought, “Well, good, this will be taken care of.” The next thing that she knew, she was being sent a letter from a collection agency because the hospital had done — hospitals do this all the time — if they have trouble collecting a bill, they’ll eventually pass it over to a collection agency. Now, Grace had a collection agency after her, so that’s got two problems.
Rovner: So the whole thing sounds funny. The younger Grace Elliott got a bill for someone else’s care and got it sent to collections. The older Grace Elliott got her private medical records sent to the younger Grace Elliott, right?
Kreidler: Yeah.
Rovner: So how did this all get sorted out?
Kreidler: Well, that is the really stunning thing that happened. And yes, she received, essentially as she appealed to the collection agency, in their denial of her appeal, they furnished medical records, which they thought was proof that they had the right person. In fact, they were sending her the records of Grace Elliott, this 81-year-old retiree who was obviously terribly upset to learn that her medical information had been shared. Luckily for her, I would say, it was shared with a very responsible younger person who not only started acting on her own behalf, but acting on older Grace Elliott’s behalf. The takeaway is that Grace was denied her appeal. She was denied a second time. She contacted us, and I’m not even really sure how she knew to do that. But I’m happy that she did because after we made a few phone inquiries, Grace began to see action. The hospital acknowledged that it had made a mistake. The hospital then went back and corrected its electronic records and took her out of the database of the collection agency. So they say, I mean, I think she’s being careful. She wants to see that this actually all happens the way it’s said that it would have happened. But yeah, they did eventually. And they acknowledged the mistake so that it was a straight-up human error. And that’s where the problem started. But for Grace, the nightmare was that once the problem started, even though as we sit here talking about it, Julie, it seems like such an easy fix. It took her one year to get this done. And really only journalists getting involved to really moved the needle on it.
Rovner: What’s the takeaway here for other people? I mean, obviously, clerical errors do happen. Should either of these women have done something that would have avoided this or that would have cleaned it up faster?
Kreidler: One of the big takeaways for medical patients is your information can be incorrectly entered and once it’s there, unless you forcefully push back, and I mean early and hard, it can be very difficult for that information to get removed. You know, database information lives on for generations. It can be hard to fix. So one big takeaway for anyone who’s using a hospital system, who sees a doctor regularly and has a health plan: Get online, look at your medical profile. Look at what your own profile says about you. And I have personal experience with this from a person very close to me who found a mistake in her medical record that took much pushback to eliminate. And it can be something as basic as a medication you never took. It can be a procedure you never had done. Sometimes things get eerily entered. So big takeaway is: Check your profile. Know what your medical record says about you so that if you need to push back on any aspect of it, you have your forces ready to be marshaled.
Rovner: And obviously you can always complain to us, but there are other places that you can complain to, right?
Kreidler: You certainly can. And you can go to the Better Business Bureau. These are, on some levels, consumer protection and consumer rights issues. So there are consumer agencies, federal agencies and state agencies, that can get involved on your behalf. In this case, the best defense is a good offense. Be very aggressive. Know what your profile says about you. Check your records often and do all the grunt work that we normally don’t want to do. But in a case like this, it becomes obvious pretty quickly how important it is.
Rovner: Good advice. Glad this worked out for both of the Grace Elliotts. And Mark Kreidler, thank you very much.
Kreidler: You bet. Thank you.
Rovner: We are back now. It’s time for our extra-credit segment, where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel C., why don’t you go first this week?
Cohrs: Sure. The piece I chose is headlined “‘Major Trustee, Please Prioritize’: How NYU’s E.R. Favors the Rich,” in The New York Times by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. And I think this piece is the last installment in the Times’ series on nonprofit hospitals. And this one really stood out to me because it seemed like it was a new phenomenon. Like, I hadn’t really read a whole lot of stories about a case like NYU’s ER, where the reporters describe this dynamic where — theoretically in an ER, everyone comes in, you know, the urgency of your medical issue, the severity determines what priority you get. But they showed here that children of donors, politicians, family members were getting special treatment. There was even a special room that they typically went to that could have negatively impacted other patients’ care. And I think it was remarkable how many doctors that used to work there, they got on the record saying that this was morally questionable. And yeah, it was just really well done, really comprehensively documented. And I thought it was interesting as well how the hospital chose to engage with them by calling into question the integrity of the doctors that spoke with the Times. And it was just really not something that we see every day from hospitals’ emergency departments.
Rovner: Yeah, it was a very interesting story.
Cohrs: It was wild, great, well done, highly recommend.
Rovner: Rachel R.
Roubein: The piece I chose was titled “Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” And it was by Noam N. Levey, and this was part of a long-running series, I believe all year, a partnership between Kaiser Health News and NPR. And I just think they’ve been doing really interesting, impactful journalism on this. What really stood out to me here was reading the numbers, and I feel like the data tells a powerful story. So some snapshots of the numbers from KHN’s analysis was more than two-thirds of hospitals sue patients or take other legal action against them, such as garnishing wages or placing liens on their home or property. And about 1 in 5 deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt.
Rovner: Yeah, which is quite a number. Joanne.
Kenen: This is a story I wrote and I spent many months talking to people for it, and I wrote it with a physician in California who’s also a hospital executive in a poor neighborhood of L.A. And it was called “Racist Doctors and Organ Thieves: Why So Many Black People Distrust the Health Care System.” I think the takeaways of that is, you know, I think we tend — or at least white people tend — to blame the distrust on historical atrocities like Tuskegee. And there are many others that are not as famous. But … and I wrote about them, and people recalled them and told me about them.
Rovner: Henrietta Lacks.
Kenen: Henrietta Lacks, but … I mean, one person I talked about growing up poor and Black in the South and a kid in the neighborhood cut himself — a Black child, a poor Black child — and the doctor stitched his hand up. And when they found out he couldn’t pay, he took the stitches out. And this was in our lifetimes, right? At least, Julie, in my lifetime. So, you know, it’s not just a historical legacy. It’s today. It’s subtler today. It may be implicit and unintentional, but it exists. And the other thing, it’s not income-related. It’s not just poor people. It’s just pervasive. It was a really eye-opening story for me. And I have some follow-ups I’m working on. And the organ thieves. There was a heart transplant in Richmond, Virginia. A Black laborer. His family didn’t find out. It’s one of the first heart transplants in the country, and the family didn’t find out about it until the funeral home called and asked where his heart was or said they didn’t know where his heart was.
Rovner: It is quite a story, and I think everybody really needs to read it. Well, as Joanne teased earlier, my story this week is from The New York Times by Pam Belluck. It’s called “The F.D.A. Now Says It Plainly: Morning-After Pills Are Not Abortion Pills.” And this is a story that I’ve been tracking personally for more than a decade. In 2012, Pam Belluck wrote the first story of the studies that found that, contrary to previous belief, the morning-after pill does not work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. It only works by preventing ovulation, meaning there’s not an egg available to be fertilized. It was the possibility that the morning-after pill might prevent implantation that led many abortion opponents to oppose the pill. This … remember the morning-after pill, not the abortion pill. But they call preventing implantation a very early abortion, even though that’s not the medical definition of pregnancy or abortion. I was surprised at the time that Pam’s story didn’t seem to get a lot of traction. So I did my own version of it the next year for NPR, which also didn’t get a whole lot of traction, which is another story that I have found out the reason for. But one of the things that I uncovered is that European drug regulators had already changed their labels to say that morning-after pills only work by preventing ovulation. Yet the FDA didn’t get around to changing the label here until last week. Maybe now some of this confusion will stop.
OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying, who makes the weekly magic happen. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at what the health — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still on Twitter: @jrovner. Joanne?
Kenen: I’m marginally still on Twitter: @JoanneKenen
Rovner: Rachel C.
Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs
Rovner: Rachel R.
Roubein: @rachel_roubein
Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.
Credits
Francis Ying
Audio producer
Emmarie Huetteman
Editor
To hear all our podcasts, click here.
And subscribe to KHN’s “What the Health?” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 years 6 months ago
Multimedia, Abortion, KHN's 'What The Health?', Podcasts, U.S. Congress, Women's Health
Sick Profit: Investigating Private Equity’s Stealthy Takeover of Health Care Across Cities and Specialties
Two-year-old Zion Gastelum died just days after dentists performed root canals and put crowns on six baby teeth at a clinic affiliated with a private equity firm.
His parents sued the Kool Smiles dental clinic in Yuma, Arizona, and its private equity investor, FFL Partners. They argued the procedures were done needlessly, in keeping with a corporate strategy to maximize profits by overtreating kids from lower-income families enrolled in Medicaid. Zion died after being diagnosed with “brain damage caused by a lack of oxygen,” according to the lawsuit.
Kool Smiles “overtreats, underperforms and overbills,” the family alleged in the suit, which was settled last year under confidential terms. FFL Partners and Kool Smiles had no comment but denied liability in court filings.
Private equity is rapidly moving to reshape health care in America, coming off a banner year in 2021, when the deep-pocketed firms plowed $206 billion into more than 1,400 health care acquisitions, according to industry tracker PitchBook.
Seeking quick returns, these investors are buying into eye care clinics, dental management chains, physician practices, hospices, pet care providers, and thousands of other companies that render medical care nearly from cradle to grave. Private equity-backed groups have even set up special “obstetric emergency departments” at some hospitals, which can charge expectant mothers hundreds of dollars extra for routine perinatal care.
As private equity extends its reach into health care, evidence is mounting that the penetration has led to higher prices and diminished quality of care, a KHN investigation has found. KHN found that companies owned or managed by private equity firms have agreed to pay fines of more than $500 million since 2014 to settle at least 34 lawsuits filed under the False Claims Act, a federal law that punishes false billing submissions to the federal government with fines. Most of the time, the private equity owners have avoided liability.
New research by the University of California-Berkeley has identified “hot spots” where private equity firms have quietly moved from having a small foothold to controlling more than two-thirds of the market for physician services such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology in 2021. And KHN found that in San Antonio, more than two dozen gastroenterology offices are controlled by a private equity-backed group that billed a patient $1,100 for her share of a colonoscopy charge — about three times what she paid in another state.
It’s not just prices that are drawing scrutiny.
Whistleblowers and injured patients are turning to the courts to press allegations of misconduct or other improper business dealings. The lawsuits allege that some private equity firms, or companies they invested in, have boosted the bottom line by violating federal false claims and anti-kickback laws or through other profit-boosting strategies that could harm patients.
“Their model is to deliver short-term financial goals and in order to do that you have to cut corners,” said Mary Inman, an attorney who represents whistleblowers.
Federal regulators, meanwhile, are almost blind to the incursion, since private equity typically acquires practices and hospitals below the regulatory radar. KHN found that more than 90% of private equity takeovers or investments fall below the $101 million threshold that triggers an antitrust review by the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Justice Department.
Spurring Growth
Private equity firms pool money from investors, ranging from wealthy people to college endowments and pension funds. They use that money to buy into businesses they hope to flip at a sizable profit, usually within three to seven years, by making them more efficient and lucrative.
Private equity has poured nearly $1 trillion into nearly 8,000 health care transactions during the past decade, according to PitchBook.
Fund managers who back the deals often say they have the expertise to reduce waste and turn around inefficient, or moribund, businesses, and they tout their role in helping to finance new drugs and technologies expected to benefit patients in years to come.
Critics see a far less rosy picture. They argue that private equity’s playbook, while it may work in some industries, is ill suited for health care, when people’s lives are on the line.
In the health care sphere, private equity has tended to find legal ways to bill more for medical services: trimming services that don’t turn a profit, cutting staff, or employing personnel with less training to perform skilled jobs — actions that may put patients at risk, critics say.
KHN, in a series of articles published this year, has examined a range of private equity forays into health care, from its marketing of America’s top-selling emergency contraception pill to buying up whole chains of ophthalmology and gastroenterology practices and investing in the booming hospice care industry and even funeral homes.
These deals happened on top of well-publicized takeovers of hospital emergency room staffing firms that led to outrageous “surprise” medical bills for some patients, as well as the buying up of entire rural hospital systems.
“Their only goal is to make outsize profits,” said Laura Olson, a political science professor at Lehigh University and a critic of the industry.
Hot Spots
When it comes to acquisitions, private equity firms have similar appetites, according to a KHN analysis of 600 deals by the 25 firms that PitchBook says have most frequently invested in health care.
Eighteen of the firms have dental companies listed in their portfolios, and 16 list centers that offer treatment of cataracts, eye surgery, or other vision care, KHN found.
Fourteen have bought stakes in animal hospitals or pet care clinics, a market in which rapid consolidation led to a recent antitrust action by the FTC. The agency reportedly also is investigating whether U.S. Anesthesia Partners, which operates anesthesia practices in nine states, has grown too dominant in some areas.
Private equity has flocked to companies that treat autism, drug addiction, and other behavioral health conditions. The firms have made inroads into ancillary services such as diagnostic and urine-testing and software for managing billing and other aspects of medical practice.
Private equity has done so much buying that it now dominates several specialized medical services, such as anesthesiology and gastroenterology, in a few metropolitan areas, according to new research made available to KHN by the Nicholas C. Petris Center at UC-Berkeley.
Although private equity plays a role in just 14% of gastroenterology practices nationwide, it controls nearly three-quarters of the market in at least five metropolitan areas across five states, including Texas and North Carolina, according to the Petris Center research.
Similarly, anesthesiology practices tied to private equity hold 12% of the market nationwide but have swallowed up more than two-thirds of it in parts of five states, including the Orlando, Florida, area, according to the data.
These expansions can lead to higher prices for patients, said Yashaswini Singh, a researcher at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University.
In a study of 578 physician practices in dermatology, ophthalmology, and gastroenterology published in JAMA Health Forum in September, Singh and her team tied private equity takeovers to an average increase of $71 per medical claim filed and a 9% increase in lengthy, more costly, patient visits.
Singh said in an interview that private equity may develop protocols that bring patients back to see physicians more often than in the past, which can drive up costs, or order more lucrative medical services, whether needed or not, that boost profits.
“There are more questions than answers,” Singh said. “It really is a black hole.”
Jean Hemphill, a Philadelphia health care attorney, said that in some cases private equity has merely taken advantage of the realities of operating a modern medical practice amid growing administrative costs.
Physicians sometimes sell practices to private equity firms because they promise to take over things like billing, regulatory compliance, and scheduling — allowing doctors to focus on practicing medicine. (The physicians also might reap a big payout.)
“You can’t do it on a scale like Marcus Welby used to do it,” Hemphill said, referring to an early 1970s television drama about a kindly family doctor who made house calls. “That’s what leads to larger groups,” she said. “It is a more efficient way to do it.”
But Laura Alexander, a former vice president of policy at the nonprofit American Antitrust Institute, which collaborated on the Petris Center research, said she is concerned about private equity’s growing dominance in some markets.
“We’re still at the stage of understanding the scope of the problem,” Alexander said. “One thing is clear: Much more transparency and scrutiny of these deals is needed.”
‘Revenue Maximization’
Private equity firms often bring a “hands-on” approach to management, taking steps such as placing their representatives on a company’s board of directors and influencing the hiring and firing of key staffers.
“Private equity exercises immense control over the operations of health care companies it buys an interest in,” said Jeanne Markey, a Philadelphia whistleblower attorney.
Markey represented physician assistant Michelle O’Connor in a 2015 whistleblower lawsuit filed against National Spine and Pain Centers and its private equity owner, Sentinel Capital Partners.
In just a year under private equity guidance, National Spine’s patient load quadrupled as it grew into one of the nation’s largest pain management chains, treating more than 160,000 people in about 40 offices across five East Coast states, according to the suit.
O’Connor, who worked at two National Spine clinics in Virginia, said the mega-growth strategy sprang from a “corporate culture in which money trumps the provision of appropriate patient care,” according to the suit.
She cited a “revenue maximization” policy that mandated medical staffers see at least 25 patients a day, up from 16 to 18 before the takeover.
The pain clinics also overcharged Medicare by billing up to $1,100 for “unnecessary and often worthless” back braces and charging up to $1,800 each for urine drug tests that were “medically unnecessary and often worthless,” according to the suit.
In April 2019, National Spine paid the Justice Department $3.3 million to settle the whistleblower’s civil case without admitting wrongdoing.
Sentinel Capital Partners, which by that time had sold the pain management chain to another private equity firm, paid no part of National Spine’s settlement, court records show. Sentinel Capital Partners had no comment.
In another whistleblower case, a South Florida pharmacy owned by RLH Equity Partners raked in what the lawsuit called an “extraordinarily high” profit on more than $68 million in painkilling and scar creams billed to the military health insurance plan Tricare.
The suit alleges that the pharmacy paid illegal kickbacks to telemarketers who drove the business. One doctor admitted prescribing the creams to scores of patients he had never seen, examined, or even spoken to, according to the suit.
RLH, based in Los Angeles, disputed the Justice Department’s claims. In 2019, RLH and the pharmacy paid a total of $21 million to settle the case. Neither admitted liability. RLH managing director Michel Glouchevitch told KHN that his company cooperated with the investigation and that “the individuals responsible for any problems have been terminated.”
In many fraud cases, however, private equity investors walk away scot-free because the companies they own pay the fines. Eileen O’Grady, a researcher at the nonprofit Private Equity Stakeholder Project, said government should require “added scrutiny” of private equity companies whose holdings run afoul of the law.
“Nothing like that exists,” she said.
Questions About Quality
Whether private equity influences the quality of medical care is tough to discern.
Robert Homchick, a Seattle health care regulatory attorney, said private equity firms “vary tremendously” in how conscientiously they manage health care holdings, which makes generalizing about their performance difficult.
“Private equity has some bad actors, but so does the rest of the [health care] industry,” he said. “I think it’s wrong to paint them all with the same brush.”
But incipient research paints a disturbing picture, which took center stage earlier this year.
On the eve of President Joe Biden’s State of the Union speech in March, the White House released a statement that accused private equity of "buying up struggling nursing homes” and putting “profits before people.”
The covid-19 pandemic had highlighted the “tragic impact” of staffing cuts and other moneysaving tactics in nursing homes, the statement said.
More than 200,000 nursing home residents and staffers had died from covid in the previous two years, according to the White House, and research had linked private equity to inflated nursing costs and elevated patient death rates.
Some injured patients are turning to the courts in hopes of holding the firms accountable for what the patients view as lapses in care or policies that favor profits over patients.
Dozens of lawsuits link patient harm to the sale of Florida medical device maker Exactech to TPG Capital, a Texas private equity firm. TPG acquired the device company in February 2018 for about $737 million.
In August 2021, Exactech recalled its Optetrak knee replacement system, warning that a defect in packaging might cause the implant to loosen or fracture and cause “pain, bone loss or recurrent swelling.” In the lawsuits, more than three dozen patients accuse Exactech of covering up the defects for years, including, some suits say, when “full disclosure of the magnitude of the problem … might have negatively impacted” Exactech’s sale to TPG.
Linda White is suing Exactech and TPG, which she asserts is “directly involved” in the device company’s affairs.
White had Optetrak implants inserted into both her knees at a Galesburg, Illinois, hospital in June 2012. The right one failed and was replaced with a second Optetrak implant in July 2015, according to her lawsuit. That one also failed, and she had it removed and replaced with a different company’s device in January 2019.
The Exactech implant in White’s left knee had to be removed in May 2019, according to the suit, which is pending in Cook County Circuit Court in Illinois.
In a statement to KHN, Exactech said it conducted an “extensive investigation” when it received reports of “unexpected wear of our implants.”
Exactech said the problem dated to 2005 but was discovered only in July of last year. “Exactech disputes the allegations in these lawsuits and intends to vigorously defend itself,” the statement said. TPG declined to comment but has denied the allegations in court filings.
‘Invasive Procedures’
In the past, private equity business tactics have been linked to scandalously bad care at some dental clinics that treated children from low-income families.
In early 2008, a Washington, D.C., television station aired a shocking report about a local branch of the dental chain Small Smiles that included video of screaming children strapped to straightjacket-like “papoose boards” before being anesthetized to undergo needless operations like baby root canals.
Five years later, a U.S. Senate report cited the TV exposé in voicing alarm at the "corporate practice of dentistry in the Medicaid program.” The Senate report stressed that most dentists turned away kids enrolled in Medicaid because of low payments and posed the question: How could private equity make money providing that care when others could not?
“The answer is ‘volume,’” according to the report.
Small Smiles settled several whistleblower cases in 2010 by paying the government $24 million. At the time, it was providing “business management and administrative services” to 69 clinics nationwide, according to the Justice Department. It later declared bankruptcy.
But complaints that volume-driven dentistry mills have harmed disadvantaged children didn’t stop.
According to the 2018 lawsuit filed by his parents, Zion Gastelum was hooked up to an oxygen tank after questionable root canals and crowns “that was empty or not operating properly” and put under the watch of poorly trained staffers who didn’t recognize the blunder until it was too late.
Zion never regained consciousness and died four days later at Phoenix Children’s Hospital, the suit states. The cause of death was “undetermined,” according to the Maricopa County medical examiner’s office. An Arizona state dental board investigation later concluded that the toddler’s care fell below standards, according to the suit.
Less than a month after Zion’s death in December 2017, the dental management company Benevis LLC and its affiliated Kool Smiles clinics agreed to pay the Justice Department $24 million to settle False Claims Act lawsuits. The government alleged that the chain performed “medically unnecessary” dental services, including baby root canals, from January 2009 through December 2011.
In their lawsuit, Zion’s parents blamed his death on corporate billing policies that enforced “production quotas for invasive procedures such as root canals and crowns” and threatened to fire or discipline dental staff “for generating less than a set dollar amount per patient.”
Kool Smiles billed Medicaid $2,604 for Zion’s care, according to the suit. FFL Partners did not respond to requests for comment. In court filings, it denied liability, arguing it did not provide “any medical services that harmed the patient.”
Covering Tracks
Under a 1976 federal law called the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act, deal-makers must report proposed mergers to the FTC and the Justice Department antitrust division for review. The intent is to block deals that stifle competition, which can lead to higher prices and lower-quality services.
But there’s a huge blind spot, which stymies government oversight of more than 90% of private equity investments in health care companies: The current threshold for reporting deals is $101 million.
KHN’s analysis of PitchBook data found that just 423 out of 7,839 private equity health care deals from 2012 through 2021 were known to have exceeded the current threshold.
In some deals, private equity takes a controlling interest in medical practices, and doctors work for the company. In other cases, notably in states whose laws prohibit corporate ownership of physician practices, the private equity firm handles a range of management duties.
Thomas Wollmann, a University of Chicago researcher, said antitrust authorities may not learn of consequential transactions “until long after they have been completed” and “it's very hard to break them up after the fact.”
In August, the FTC took aim at what it called “a growing trend toward consolidation” by veterinary medicine chains.
The FTC ordered JAB Consumer Partners, a private equity firm based in Luxembourg, to divest from some clinics in the San Francisco Bay and Austin, Texas, areas as part of a proposed $1.1 billion takeover of a rival.
The FTC said the deal would eliminate “head-to-head” competition, “increasing the likelihood that customers are forced to pay higher prices or experience a degradation in quality of the relevant services.”
Under the order, JAB must obtain FTC approval before buying veterinary clinics within 25 miles of the sites it owns in Texas and California.
The FTC would not say how much market consolidation is too much or whether it plans to step up scrutiny of health care mergers and acquisitions.
“Every case is fact-specific,” Betsy Lordan, an FTC spokesperson, told KHN.
Lordan, who has since left the agency, said regulators are considering updates to regulations governing mergers and are reviewing about 1,900 responses to the January 2022 request for public comment. At least 300 of the comments were from doctors or other health care workers.
Few industry observers expect the concerns to abate; they might even increase.
Investors are flush with “dry powder,” industry parlance for money waiting to stoke a deal.
The Healthcare Private Equity Association, which boasts about 100 investment companies as members, says the firms have $3 trillion in assets and are pursuing a vision for "building the future of healthcare.”
That kind of talk alarms Cornell University professor Rosemary Batt, a longtime critic of private equity. She predicts that investors chasing outsize profits will achieve their goals by “sucking the wealth” out of more and more health care providers.
“They are constantly looking for new financial tricks and strategies,” Batt said.
KHN’s Megan Kalata contributed to this article.
KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.
USE OUR CONTENT
This story can be republished for free (details).
2 years 8 months ago
Aging, Courts, Health Care Costs, Health Industry, Multimedia, Public Health, States, Arizona, Children's Health, Florida, Illinois, Investigation, North Carolina, Patient Safety, Patients for Profit, Pennsylvania, texas, Virginia