The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

It’s a new year, but the abortion debate is raging like it’s 2023, with a new federal appeals court ruling that doctors in Texas don’t have to provide abortions in medical emergencies, despite a federal requirement to the contrary. The case, similar to one in Idaho, is almost certainly headed for the Supreme Court. Meanwhile, Congress returns to Washington with only days to avert a government shutdown by passing either full-year or temporary spending bills. And with almost no progress toward a spending deal since the last temporary bill passed in November, this time a shutdown might well happen.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• New year, same Congress. It’s likely lawmakers will fall short of their early-year goals to pass necessary spending bills, prompting another government shutdown or yet another short-term extension. And funding for pediatric medical training is among the latest casualties of the clash over gender-affirming care, raising the odds of a political fight over the federal health budget.
• The emergency abortion care decision out of Texas this week underscores the difficult position health care providers are in: Now, a doctor could be brought up on charges in Texas for performing an abortion in a medical emergency — or brought up on federal charges if they abstain.
• A new law in California makes it easier for out-of-state doctors to receive reproductive health training there, a change that could benefit medical residents in the 18 states where it is effectively impossible to be trained to perform an abortion. But some doctors say they still fear breaking another state’s laws.
• Another study raises questions about the quality of care at hospitals purchased by private equity firms, an issue that has drawn the Biden administration’s attention. From the Journal of the American Medical Association, new findings show that those private equity-owned hospitals experienced a 25% increase in adverse patient events from three years before they were purchased to three years after.
• And “This Week in Medical Misinformation”: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. earned PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year designation for his “campaign of conspiracy theories.” The anti-vaccination message he espouses has been around a while, but the movement is gaining political traction — including in statehouses, where more candidates who share RFK Jr.’s views are winning elections.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health, about how public health can regain the public’s trust.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “Why Democrats Can’t Rely on Abortion Ballot Initiatives to Help Them Win,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein, Jessica Piper, and Madison Fernandez.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Can the Exhausted, Angry People of Ottawa County Learn to Live Together?” by Greg Jaffe.

Victoria Knight: Politico’s “Georgia Offered Medicaid With a Work Requirement. Few Have Signed Up.” by Megan Messerly and Robert King.

Shefali Luthra: Stat News’ “Medical Marijuana Companies Are Using Pharma’s Sales Tactics With Little of the Same Scrutiny,” by Nicholas Florko.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Law Dork’s “ADF Is Providing Free Legal Representation to Idaho in Anti-Abortion, Anti-Trans Cases,” by Chris Geidner.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Barriers to Family Building Among Physicians and Medical Students,” by Zoe King, Qiang Zhang, Jane Liang, et al.
• The Journal of the American Medical Association’s “Changes in Hospital Adverse Events and Patient Outcomes Associated With Private Equity Acquisition,” by Sneha Kannan, Joseph Dov Bruch, and Zirui Song.
• KFF Health News’ “RFK Jr.’s Campaign of Conspiracy Theories Is PolitiFact’s 2023 Lie of the Year,” by Madison Czopek, PolitiFact, and Katie Sanders, PolitiFact.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: New Year, Same Abortion Debate

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: New Year, Same Abortion DebateEpisode Number: 328Published: Jan. 4, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, Happy New Year, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 4, 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 Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hey, everyone.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: An entire panel of KFF Health News alums. I’m pretty sure that is a first. Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Boston University School of Public Health dean Dr. Sandro Galea. He has a new and pretty provocative prescription for how public health can regain public trust. But first, there was plenty of news over the holiday break, in addition to my Michigan Wolverines going to the national championship — sorry, Lauren — plenty of health news, that is. So we shall get to it. We will start on Capitol Hill, where Congress is poised to come back into session — apparently no closer to a deal on the appropriations bills that keep the government open than they were when they left for Christmas, and now it’s only two weeks until the latest continuing resolution ends. Victoria, are we looking at a shutdown again?

Knight: I was texting a lot of people yesterday trying to feel out the vibes. I think a lot of people think a shutdown seems pretty likely. A reminder that we have another member of Congress that is leaving on the Republican side in the House, so now the Republicans can only lose two votes if they’re trying to pass a bill. So when you have House Freedom Caucus members saying, “Hey, we don’t want to agree to any appropriations bills without doing something about the border,” and Democrats unlikely to agree to any border demands that the Freedom Caucus is wanting, it seems like we may be at a standstill. I know there is some reporting this morning that possibly they may just do another fiscal year continuing resolution until …

Rovner: You mean like the last couple of years we’ve done a full-year CR?

Knight: Yeah, exactly. So …

Rovner: The thing they swore they wouldn’t do.

Knight: And [House] Speaker [Mike] Johnson said, he promised he wouldn’t do that, so it’ll be interesting to see how that all plays out. As far as I’ve heard the latest, there’s no top-line funding number, but it does seem like a shutdown may be looming.

Rovner: Well, assuming there is a spending deal at some point, and the fact that 2024 is an election year where not much gets passed, a lot of lawmakers have a lot of things they would like to attach to a moving spending train, assuming there is a moving spending train. What’s the outlook for the bill that we were talking about all of December on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and health transparency and some extensions of some expiring programs That’s still kicking around, right?

Knight: Yeah. That’s definitely still kicking around. So there are some extenders like for community health centers and averting some cuts to safety-net hospitals. Those are really high priority for lawmakers. I think those will make their way onto any kind of deal most likely. What seems more up in the air is the transparency measures for PBMs and for hospitals and for insurers. That was the big, as you mentioned, the big pass the House in December. The Senate has introduced their own versions of the bill and there’s talk that maybe some of that could ride onto if there is some kind of funding deal, but it’s also possible that maybe it’s more likely to be punted to the lame duck session. So, post-election, when Republicans are trying in the House and Senate Democrats are trying to do their last hurrah before the new Congress comes in. So we’ll see. Latest I heard yesterday there were some negotiations around the transparency stuff, so it’s still possible, but who knows?

Rovner: Congress is the ultimate college student. They don’t do anything until they have a deadline. Meanwhile, we have yet another health program caught up in the culture wars, this time the Children’s Hospital Graduate Medical Education [Payment] program. Because most medical residencies are funded by Medicare and because Medicare doesn’t have a lot of patients in children’s hospitals, this program was created in 1999 to remedy that. Yes, I covered it at the time. Republicans in the House are happy to reauthorize it or just to fund it through the appropriations process, which keeps the money flowing, but only if it bans funding for children’s hospitals that don’t provide gender-affirming care for transgender minors. It appears that has killed the reauthorization bill that was moving for this year. Is that the kind of thing that could also threaten the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] spending bill?

Knight: Yeah, I mean there are provisions within the HHS bill to ban Medicare, Medicaid paying for gender-affirming care. I don’t know. We haven’t done much debate on the Labor-HHS bill. It’s been the one that’s been put to the side. It hasn’t even gone through the full committee, so we haven’t …

Rovner: In the House, right?

Knight: Yeah, in the House, yes. Yeah. But yeah, I think it’s definitely possible. Just broader picture, this is an issue that Republicans are trying to make a bigger thing that they’re running on in different congressional districts, talking about banning gender-affirming care. So I think even if we don’t see it now, it’s probably something that we’re going to continue seeing.

Rovner: Well, we will obviously talk more as Congress comes back and tries to do things. So new year, same old abortion debate. This week’s big entry is a decision by a panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that EMTALA, the federal law that requires hospitals to at least screen and provide stabilizing care to anyone who presents in their emergency room, does not supersede Texas’ abortion ban. In other words, if a pregnant woman needs an abortion to stabilize her condition, she’d also have to meet one of the exceptions in the Texas abortion ban. Given that we don’t really know what the Texas exceptions are, since we’ve had litigation on that, that could be a tall order, right, Shefali?

Luthra: Yes. Doctors have basically said that the Texas exceptions in the state law are unworkable. And I think it’s worth noting that what EMTALA would require and what is in effect in other states with abortion bans is again very narrow. We are talking about the smallest subset of abortions, the smallest subset of medical emergency abortions, because this doesn’t apply to someone with a fetal anomaly who cannot give birth to a viable child. This doesn’t apply to someone who maybe is undergoing chemotherapy and can’t stay pregnant. This is for people who have situations such as sepsis or preterm premature membrane rupture. These are really, really specific instances, and even then, Texas is arguing and the 5th Circuit says, hospitals don’t have to provide care that would by all accounts be lifesaving.

Rovner: This puts doctors, particularly in Texas, in an untenable situation where if a woman presents, say, with an ectopic pregnancy, which is neither going to produce a live baby and is likely or could definitely kill the woman, if they perform that abortion, they could be brought up on charges in Texas, but if they don’t perform the abortion, they could be brought up on federal charges.

Luthra: And this is the bind that doctors have found themselves in over and over again. And I do want to reiterate that this isn’t actually unique to Texas because even in states where the EMTALA guidance is in effect, doctors and hospitals remain very afraid of coming up against the very onerous abortion penalties that their laws have. I was talking to a physician from Tennessee earlier this week, and she made the point that what your doctor feels safe doing, it comes down to luck in a lot of ways. Which city you happen to live in, which hospital you happen to go to, what the lawyers on that hospital staff happen to think the law says. It’s really untenable for physicians, for hospitals, and more than anyone else for patients.

Rovner: Now, despite Justice [Samuel] Alito’s hope in his Dobbs opinion overturning Roe that the Supreme Court would no longer have to adjudicate this issue, that’s exactly what’s going to happen. There’s already an emergency petition at SCOTUS from Idaho wanting to reverse a 9th Circuit ruling, preventing them from enforcing their abortion ban over EMTALA. In other words, the 9th Circuit basically said, no, we’re going to put this Idaho ban on hold to the extent that it conflicts with EMTALA until it’s all the way through the courts. Not to mention the mifepristone case that could roll back availability of the abortion pill. Is it fair to say that Justice Alito’s reasoning backfired here, or was he being disingenuous when he … did he know this was going to come back to the court?

Luthra: Not one of us can see inside any individual justice’s heart or mind, but I think we can say that anyone who seriously thought that overturning Roe v. Wade, which had been in effect for almost 50 years, would bring up no legal questions to be answered again and again by the courts clearly hadn’t thought this through. I was talking to scholars this week who think that we’ll be spending the next decade answering through the courts all of the new questions that have been instigated by the decision.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s definitely not going to lower their workload. Well, speaking of Idaho, the “Law Dork” blog has an interesting story this week about how the Alliance Defending Freedom — it’s a self-identified Christian law firm that represents mostly anti-abortion and other conservative groups in court — is now providing free representation to the state of Idaho in its effort to keep its state abortion ban in place. ADF is also representing Idaho in a case about bathroom use by transgender people. Now, conservative organizations and states often work together on cases, as do liberal organizations in states, that is not rare. But in this case, ADF is actually representing the state, which poses all kinds of conflicts-of-interest questions, right? Lauren, you’re nodding.

Weber: Yeah, I mean it’s pretty wild to see this kind of overlap. As you pointed out, Julie, it’s not rare for attorney general’s offices to seek outside legal help, that happens all the time. They’re understaffed. There’s a lot of problems they can address. But to fully turn over a case essentially to an ideological group is something different altogether because it also implies that that group is giving a gift to the government. It implies that they may be able to take on more cases because if it’s for free, then who knows? And I want to point out that this group really is at the forefront of many of the battles that we’re seeing play out in health issues legally across the country. I mean, they’re involved in a lot of the gender-affirming care cases and even in dealing with some of the groups that are promoting some of the legislation in places across the country. So this is quite a novel step and something to definitely be on the lookout for as we pay attention to many court cases that are going to play out over the next couple of years.

Rovner: Yeah, this was something I hadn’t really focused on until I saw this story and I was like, “Oh, that is a little bit different from what we’ve seen.” Well, while we were on the subject of doctors and lawsuits and the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, a panel there kept alive a case filed by three doctors against the FDA, charging that it overstepped its authority by recommending that doctors not prescribe ivermectin, an anti-parasite drug, for covid. We’ve talked a lot about how the mifepristone case could undermine FDA’s drug approval process. Obviously, if anyone can sue to effectively get a drug approval reversed, this case could basically stop the FDA from telling the public about evidence-based research, couldn’t it?

Weber: This case is quite wild. I mean, as someone that covers misinformation and disinformation and has extensively covered the ivermectin sagas over the last couple of years, the idea that the FDA cannot come out and say, “Look, this drug is not recommended,” it would be a severe restricting of its authority. I mean, government agencies are known to give advice, which does not always have to be neutral. Historically, that is what has been considered just the status quo legally. And so for the court to restrict the FDA’s authority in this way — if this does, it’s obviously still up for appeal, so who knows? But if it were to be successful, essentially everything the FDA ever put out would have to say, “But go talk to your physician,” which would lead to a little bit more of a wild, wild West when it comes to evidence-based medicine as we know it today.

Rovner: Back on the abortion beat, the news isn’t all about bans in California. The new year is bringing several new laws aimed at making abortion easier to access. Shefali, tell us about some of those.

Luthra: California is really interesting because they really position themselves as the antithesis of states banning abortion. And the law that you’re discussing here, Julie, this is part of a real concern that a lot of physicians have, which is that in states with abortion bans, it’ll be harder for medical residents to be trained in appropriate health care. That means providing abortion care. It means providing comprehensive OB-GYN care in general, right? Miscarriage management, you learn how to do that in part by providing abortions. California has implemented a law this year that would try to help more out-of-state doctors come to California to get trained in how to provide this kind of care.

I think where this gets tricky and where doctors I’ve spoken to remain concerned, confused, it’s not a panacea, is the concern about whether any single state in and of itself can do enough to rectify what is happening in 18 states across the country. That’s a very, very tall order, and it comes with other concerns of: Will residents feel safe, able to come to California? Will their institutions want to send them? These are all open questions, and I think this California law, this project that they’re taking on, is incredibly interesting. I think it’ll take some time for us to see both what the impact is and what the kinks and challenges are that emerge along the way.

Rovner: I was also interested in a California law that says that California officials don’t have to cooperate with out-of-state investigations into doctors prescribing abortion pills or gender-affirming care.

Luthra: This is, again, really interesting, and I mean, I think what we are going to see is individual state laws continuing to run up against each other and questions over whose authority applies in what situations. This has come up for doctors constantly, right? The ones who live in states with abortion protections but want to provide care in other states. What happens if they are flying across the country and have a layover in a state with an abortion ban? What happens if they have a medical emergency in a state that they have maybe broken the law of, whose law applies there? These are things that have left a lot of doctors really concerned. I know I’ve spoken to physicians who say that even despite the legal protections in their states, in a state like California for instance, they still don’t feel safe actively breaking another state’s laws. And again, this is just one of those questions we’re going to keep watching and seeing play out. Who ultimately is able to decide what happens and what role would the federal government eventually have to play?

Rovner: I think these were things, these were the kinds of questions that I don’t think the Supreme Court really considered when they overturned Roe. There’s so many ramifications that we just didn’t expect. I mean, there were some that we did, but this seems to be an extent that it’s gone to that was not anticipated.

Luthra: It’s just a whole mess of, if not undesired, then perhaps unanticipated or not fully planned-for questions and concerns that are now emerging.

Rovner: So I wanted to call out a survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association about reproduction more broadly, not about abortion. How hard it is for medical students and young doctors to build families early in their careers — a time when most people are building their families. Medical training takes so long in many cases that women, in particular, may find it much more difficult or impossible to get pregnant if they wait until after their training is done. And the pace of medical care delivery and the patriarchal structure of most medical practice frowns on women doing things like getting pregnant and having babies and trying to raise children. I vividly remember a doctor retreat I spoke at in 2004 when a 30-something OB-GYN said that when she got pregnant, her residency adviser accused her of wasting a residency spot that could have gone to someone who wasn’t going to take time out of their career. I think things have progressed since then, but apparently not all that much, according to this survey.

Luthra: And this, I think, is really interesting because especially after the covid pandemic, we saw obviously, health care workers leave the field in droves. We saw more women leave the field than men. And what that spoke to was, in part, that working through covid was really taxing. Women were more often in positions that were on the front lines, but what it also spoke to is that the culture of medicine has long been very unfriendly toward the family-building burdens that often fall on women, and that hasn’t gotten better. If anything, it’s gotten worse because child care is even harder to come by. Moms, in particular, have way more to juggle and to balance than they once did. And the support, it’s not even fair to say it hasn’t caught up. It was never there to begin with.

Weber: And just to add on that, I mean, I find it — that study is great, and I will say I have family members that struggle with this currently. It’s wild to me that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a 12-week parental leave, and you possibly couldn’t finish your residency or qualify for a surgery residency if you take more than six weeks. I mean, I think that, in itself, that factoid really says exactly what Shefali was getting at. The culture of medicine is not at all friendly to folks that are considering this whatsoever.

Rovner: There’s so many women in medicine now. Now it’s making a problem not just for the women in medicine, but for everybody who wants medical care. So maybe that will get some attention paid to it. Moving on to “This Week in Private Equity,” we have another study from the Journal of the American Medical Association. It found that hospitals that were bought by private equity firms had a 25% increase in adverse events in the three years following their acquisition. Adverse events include things like falls, hospital-acquired infections, and other harm that, in theory, could or should have been prevented. It’s not really hard to connect the dots here, right? Private equity wants to raise more money, and that tends to want to cut staff, so bad things happen. I see you nodding, Victoria.

Knight: Yeah, I mean, I think this is an ongoing issue. It’s something that the Biden administration has said they want to look into, just decreasing quality of care in places that are taken over by private equity. I’m not sure there’s a really good solution to it at this point in time. And I think it also speaks to the broader issues of consolidation among the health care industry and the business of health care and what that means in regards to quality for patients. But yeah, I think this study is just another piece in building up a case of why sometimes private equity doesn’t always seem to equate to the best care for patients.

Luthra: If we go back in time a little bit, there is more evidence that shows the role that private equity has played in not only reduction in quality of care, but in the opposition between the health care industry and consumers. And the example I’m thinking of is air ambulances and surprise billing by those ER staffing firms, all of which were eventually owned by private equity firms that have their own set of incentives that is at odds with the goal of providing care that people can afford and can access, and that keeps them healthy.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, following “This Week in Private Equity,” we have “This Week in Health Misinformation.” My winner this week is Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who was awarded the “Lie of the Year” from PolitiFact for not just his repeated and repeatedly debunked claims about vaccines, but other fanciful conspiracy theories about covid-19, mass shootings, and the rise in gender dysphoria. I will post the link so I don’t have to repeat all of those things here. Which brings us to the story I asked Lauren here to talk about, how the anti-vax movement is quietly gaining a foothold in state houses. Lauren, tell us what you found.

Weber: Well, I found that it’s becoming very politically advantageous, to some extent. Political clout around anti-vaccine movement is growing. So you’re seeing more and more state legislators get elected that have anti-vaccine or vaccine-skeptical views. And I went down to Baton Rouge and 29 folks that were supported by Stanford Health Freedom, which is against vaccine mandates, got elected in this year’s off-cycle elections. So who knows what will happen next year, but you’re already seeing this reflected in other states. In Iowa, legislators this year stopped the requirement that you can talk about the HPV vaccines in schools. In Tennessee, home-schooled kids no longer have vaccine requirements. In Florida, they banned any possible requiring of covid vaccines, which experts said they worry if you just strike “covid” from that, that could lead to the banning of other requirements for vaccines. You’re seeing this momentum grow, and as you mentioned, Julie, RFK Jr. has played a role in this.

As I talk about in my story, back in 2021, he went down to Louisiana and really riled up some anti-vaccine fever in a legislative hearing about the covid vaccine. And so it’s a combination of things. People are reacting to a lot of misinformation that was spread during covid about the covid vaccine. And that distrust of the covid vaccine is seeping into childhood vaccinations. I mean, this year we saw data that came out that said in the 2022-2023 school year, we saw the highest rate of exemption rates for kindergartners getting their vaccinations. That’s a bad trend for the United States when it comes to herd immunity to protect against things like measles or other preventable diseases. So we will see how the next year plays out legislatively, but as it stands right now, I expect to see much more anti-vaccine movement in the statehouses in 2024.

Rovner: I’ve been covering the anti-vax movement for, I don’t know, 25, 30 years. There’s always been an anti-vax movement. It’s actually this combination of people on the far left and people on the far right, they tend to both be anti-vax, but I think this is the first time we’ve really seen it come into actual legislating way. In fact, the trend over the last couple of years has been to get rid of things like religious exemptions for families getting their children vaccinated in order to attend public school. So now we’re expecting to see the reverse, right?

Weber: Yeah, as you said, this is a horseshoe political issue that it’s been far left, far right, but now it’s really seeped into the far-right conservative consciousness in a way that has become a political advantage for some candidates. And so you’re seeing stuff that would previously be, not even make it to the floor for a vote, have to be vetoed, make it out of a committee, where previously some of these things would’ve looked at the signs and said, this is just not true. Now there’s more political power behind the ideology of some of these anti-mandate freedom pushes. So it’s really going to be something to track in this upcoming year.

Rovner: I think the other trend we’re seeing is actual health officials talking about these kinds of things, led by the Florida Surgeon General, Dr. [Joseph] Ladapo. He’s now moved on beyond recommending that young men not get the covid vaccine, right?

Weber: Yeah. So yesterday he sent out a health bulletin, and I just want to take a step back to say this is incredibly unprecedented because this is a state health officer sending out a bulletin to the state saying that he does not recommend anyone … he wants to halt the use of mRNA covid vaccinations. Now, that is not a position that any other state health officer has taken. It’s not a position that any national health agency has taken. He made it based on claims that have been debunked. He primarily based it on a study that several of the experts I talked to said it is not one that they would base assumptions on.

His claims were implausible, but needless to say, I mean, he’s the health director for the third-largest state in the union. I mean, his words carry weight, and his political patron is Ron DeSantis. Now, DeSantis has not commented publicly yet on this, but oftentimes it seems that they both have worked hand in hand to fight against vaccine mandates and to cause a ruckus around things like this. So it needs to be seen the politicization of this as this continues to play out.

Rovner: Well, that is a wonderful segue into our interview this week with Dr. Sandro Galea about the future of public health. So we will play that now and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Sandro Galea, dean of the Boston University School of Public Health. Longtime listeners will know I’ve been concerned about the state of public health since even before the pandemic. Dr. Galea has a new book of essays called “Within Reason: A Liberal Public Health for an Illiberal Time” that takes a pretty provocative look at what’s gone wrong for public health and how it might win back the support of the actual public. Dr. Galea, thank you so much for joining us.

Sandro Galea: Thank you for having me.

Rovner: So I want to start with your diagnosis of what it is that ails public health in 2024.

Galea: Well, I suppose I start from the data, and the data show that there is a tremendous loss of trust in science broadly, in public health more specifically. Data from Pew that came out just a few months ago show, really, a 25-point drop in trust in medicine and in health from before the pandemic. So the question becomes why is that? What’s going on? And what I try to do in the book is to identify a number of things that I think have really hurt us, and I could numerate those. No. 1, it is we took a very narrow approach to our perception of what should have been done without leaving space for a plurality of voices that weigh different inputs differently.

No. 2, that through the mediation of social media as a way of extending our voice, we were perhaps inhabited false certitude much more than we ever meant to or much more than we do when we think about our science. And No. 3, we allowed ourselves to become politicized in a way that’s unhealthy. Perhaps partisanized is an even better term because public health is always political, but we allowed ourselves to become blue versus red, and that doesn’t serve anybody because public health should be there to serve the whole public. And I think those three big buckets, obviously in the book I write about them in much more detail, but I think they capture the fundamental problems that then have resulted in this loss of trust we face right now.

Rovner: So I’ve had experts note that the lack of public trust in public health isn’t necessarily because of anything the public health community has done. It’s because of a broader pushback against elites and people in power of all kinds. Do you think that’s the case, or has public health also contributed to its own, I won’t say downfall, but lack of status?

Galea: I feel like the answer to that is “and,” meaning that, yes, there’s no question that there are forces that have tried to undermine public health, forces that tried to undermine science. And in the book, I’m very clear that I do realize there are outside forces that have had mal intent, that they have not acted in good faith and they have tried to undermine public health and science, but that’s not what the book is about. I say that is there, I recognize it’s there, but I wanted to write about public health from within public health. It would be shortsighted of us not to realize that we are contributing to how public perceives us. In many respects, I feel like we should have the agency and the confidence to say, well, there are things that we are doing that we should look at. And now, after the acute phase of the pandemic, is the time to look at that.

I was clear in my other writing that I did not write this book in 2021 or 2022 intentionally, because it was too close. But I feel like now that we’re over the acute phase of the pandemic, now is the time to ask hard questions and to say, “What should we be learning?” And I do that in the book, very much looking forward. I’m not naming names, I’m not pointing fingers. All I’m simply saying is we now have the benefit of time passing. Let us see what we should have done better so we can learn how to be better in future.

Rovner: One of the things I think that frustrated me as a journalist, as somebody who communicates to a lay audience for a living, is that public health and science in general during the pandemic seemed unable to say that yes, as we learn more, we’re going to change what we recommend. It becomes, to the public, well, they said this and now they’re saying that, so they were wrong. Does public health need to show its work more?

Galea: This is the term that I use, which is false certitude, which is that we conveyed confidence when we should not have conveyed confidence. Now, there are many reasons for that. Things were happening quickly. It was a fast-moving pandemic. Everybody was scared. And, also, our communication was mediated through social media, which was a new medium for communication of public health. And that does not leave space for the asterisk, for the caveat. And I think our mistake was not recognizing how much harm it was going to do and not being upfront about this is what we know today, but tomorrow we may know more, and we may then have to change our recommendations. And as one pauses and thinks about how should we do better, surely this is front and center to learn how to communicate by saying, “Today, based on what we know, this is what we think is best, but we reserve the right to come back tomorrow and be clear, tell you that the data have changed, hence the recommendations have changed.”

Rovner: Do you think public health has been slow to embrace things like social media? I mean, there are organizations on social media. I think one that comes to mind is the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the National Park Service. I mean that they’re very cheeky, but they get out really important information in a very quick and understandable way. Is that something that public health needs to be doing better?

Galea: Perhaps. I’m not sure I’m willing to say that public health is any worse than the National Park Service on social media. I think we are all, as a society, struggling with communicating important facts rapidly in a time of crisis. One analogy, which I use in the book, is the analogy to 9/11, meaning in 9/11, it was the first national crisis that was lived through in a time of 24/7 cable news. And as a result, there was a lot of noise on cable news that was happening that was distorting how we dealt with the event. Similarly, covid-19 was the first national crisis that was lived through the lens of social media, and we did not really know how to use it. So, at the same time as I’m labeling this as a real challenge that public health faced, I’m also trying to understand and have the compassion to realize that in public health we were struggling to learn how to do this as everybody else was.

Rovner: So let’s turn to the future. What should public health do first to try and regain some of the trust that it’s lost?

Galea: Well, I suppose first we should be having this conversation, and I’m grateful to you for having a conversation, but I actually mean that, at a large scale, I actually think that I meant my book to be a place marker. And I say in it clearly, I expect people will disagree with elements of the book, and that’s OK. And I hope that the book encourages others to write their books that talks about the things, how they see it. Because I do think that this conversation should open up space for public health to say, what are the things that we didn’t do well? What are the things that we should do better? Because from that is going to emerge a new consensus about how we should act.

If the only thing that emerges is simply this, what you and I just talked about, which is communicating with due humility, recognizing the complexity of rapidly evolving facts, and being clear with the population that things may change. If that’s the only thing that emerges, we’ve already made progress. So I think the first thing that should happen is having the conversation, opening this up, being honest that there are things that public health did that it should do better. That is going to lead us to a new consensus about how we should do better.

Rovner: And beyond the conversation, is there one thing that you wish that policymakers could do that could help public health regain its prominence and its trust? I mean, there really is no other word here.

Galea: I think the one thing that I would want to see in policy is a moving away from abolishing of the notion that we can “follow the science.” One of my least favorite things that happened during the pandemic was this notion that we could “follow the science.” Now, why do I say that? I’m a scientist! But I say that because “follow the science” implies that science leads to linear answers, to linear solutions. And that phrase, “follow the science,” became a fig leaf for policymakers, saying, “Well, the science says we should do X, therefore we’re going to do X.” That is simply false. Policymaking should rest on multiple inputs, science being one of them, but also values, but also the importance of other sectors of the economy.

And I would like us to see as a society being honest about that, that policymaking shouldn’t take science into account centrally. I agree with that. As I said, it’s my bread and butter, it’s what I do. But to pretend that science has the answer is simply wrong. We elect people in elected positions, and there are people who are appointed in decision-making positions in other circumstances. It is their job to weigh all the inputs, science being one of those inputs.

Rovner: Well, Dr. Galea, thank you so much. I will do my part to keep the conversation going. I’m sure you will do yours as well.

Galea: I will. And thank you for doing the part you’re doing.

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

Luthra: Sure. My story is from Stat by Nicholas Florko. The headline is “Medical Marijuana Companies Are Using Pharma’s Sales Tactics With Little of the Same Scrutiny.” And I think this is such a smart investigation, and I’m so grateful that Nicholas wrote it. It really gets into the fact that medical marijuana is a tremendous industry now, right? It’s not just in the Colorados or the Californias or Massachusetts that you think of. It’s all over the country and it’s a huge business. And because it’s so new, it hasn’t gotten the same scrutiny in terms of how it markets its products to consumers, the relationship it has with providers, et cetera. I think this is just a really important topic, and it’s something that we should all be paying attention to as the industry continues to grow in the coming years.

Rovner: Indeed. Victoria?

Knight: Yeah. So my extra credit this week is a Politico story by Megan Messerly and Robert King titled “Georgia Offered Medicaid With a Work Requirement. Few Have Signed Up.” And so it’s talking about just the rollout of Georgia implementing a work requirement for their Medicaid program, which they did expand Medicaid, but they included a work requirement. So I thought this was just really stunning. It said through the first four months, only 1,800 people have enrolled when the governor, Brian Kemp, expected 31,000 people to sign up.

Rovner: Contrast that with North Carolina, which expanded Medicaid without the work requirement and got, like, 200,000 people to sign up.

Knight: Yeah. So that’s just a stunning number. And they’re talking about in the story there. They’re not sure why all the reasons are, but part of it is that there is a lot of paperwork involved. And so I think it was just a really interesting example. Obviously, we have seen work requirements play out before, but we haven’t seen it in a while. And so it’s interesting to see how difficult it can be for people to access Medicaid if this is put in place. And I also think it’s important to remind people that last year, in 2023, during the debt ceiling debate, Republicans did for a while talk about wanting to implement work requirements in Medicaid again. And so, if this was something that they put into place, it would mean probably a lot of people would drop off the rolls. So it’s an idea that resurfaces. So just important to remember that.

Rovner: Indeed. Lauren.

Weber: I was obsessed with Greg Jaffe story from The Washington Post titled “Can the Exhausted, Angry People of Ottawa County Learn to Live Together?” And it’s this incredible portrait of this Michigan county where the county public health officer, Adeline Hambley, has come under tremendous pressure and threat from the conservative county board. And this is a story we have seen play out in different iterations all around the country in the wake of covid. It’s the “we don’t believe in masks, we don’t believe in shutdowns” versus the county public health folks who are trying to follow the science and how does that play out at a people level, which Greg just does a fantastic way of showing. And it’s interesting, the board was so fed up with her and making such political statements that they offered her $4 million to quit. Now this fell apart because the county doesn’t seem to have the money that would affect them, et cetera.

But it just goes to show how deep the divisions are between what used to be a very non-politicized, normal government job of being a public health officer who keeps your water safe and tries to keep you from catching bad diseases at restaurants, to the post-covid era, where [they’re] just absolutely vilified and hated, really, it seems in some of these comments in the story — so much so that they would be paid this much money to quit. So I think this speaks a lot to the tension that we see in America around public health today, and I really recommend everybody to give it a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really remarkable story. Well, my extra credit this week is from our podcast pal Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, along with her colleagues Jessica Piper and Madison Fernandez at Politico. It’s called Why Democrats Can’t Rely on Abortion Ballot Initiatives to Help Them Win.” And it’s a warning for Democrats not to get too smug about the popularity and success of abortion rights ballot measures around the country. They dug into the numbers and found that in many of those states, the very same voters who supported the abortion rights measures also turned around and voted for Republican candidates. As usual, in politics, things are rarely as simple as they seem.

All right, that is our show for this first week of 2024. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, my fellow Wolverine, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Shefali, where are you these days?

Luthra: I am @shefalil on X and Blue Sky, and then on Threads, I’m @shefali.luthra.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk on X and Threads.

Luthra: Lauren.

Weber: And then I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and clearly still need to work on my social media game.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In this episode of “An Arm and a Leg,” Dan Weissmann goes toe-to-toe with Scott Purcell, CEO of ACA International, a trade association for the collection industry, on the effects these lawsuits have on patients.

With help from The Baltimore Banner and Scripps News, Weissmann pulls back the curtain on hospital bill lawsuits in three states — Maryland, Wisconsin, and New York — and discovers some good news for a change.

Dan Weissmann

@danweissmann

Host and producer of "An Arm and a Leg." Previously, Dan was a staff reporter for Marketplace and Chicago's WBEZ. His work also appears on All Things Considered, Marketplace, the BBC, 99 Percent Invisible, and Reveal, from the Center for Investigative Reporting.

Credits

Emily Pisacreta
Producer

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: ‘An Arm and a Leg’: When Hospitals Sue Patients (Part 2)

Note: “An Arm and a Leg” uses speech-recognition software to generate transcripts, which may contain errors. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast.

Dan: Hey there – So, this is part two of a two-part story. If you missed part one, or just want a refresher, here’s three quick things: 

First: Some hospitals – definitely not all – sue a LOT of patients over unpaid bills. Hundreds or even thousands every year. 

Second: There’s very little money in it for these hospitals. When reporters and researchers add up the total amounts they’re suing for, it looks tiny compared to, say, their annual surplus. Or what they pay executives. Tiny.

Third: There’s data showing a LOT of the people being sued are … pretty hard up already. 

That a lot of them would qualify for charity care under the hospitals’ own financial-assistance policies.

In fact, as we reported last time, a guy named Nick McLaughlin, who spent a decade working for a medical-bill collections agency… now runs a business telling hospitals they’d be better off – financially – writing these bills off through charity care or financial assistance programs. 

And I should point out: Nick’s not a do-good crusader. He has started a business, to help hospitals do this. And he’s staked his family’s financial future on it.

Nick: I had a good but challenging conversation with my wife. And she said, hey, so is the reason we’re not doing this full time because we’re scared the money’s not gonna come in? And I said, well as the sole provider of a family of five that’s kind of a big deal. She said, yeah, I think we should do it.

Dan: And at the end of our last episode, I asked Nick: So, why would some hospitals make the decision to sue people, if there’s no money in it? What’s behind that decision:

Nick: It’s really, I would say, philosophically based.

Dan: So, in this episode, we’ll do two things: One, we’ll try to get a peek at that philosophy – inside the heads of the people who might hold it.

And TWO: We’re gonna share some hard data about what’s going on with these lawsuits in three states. We partnered with two awesome news organizations to get this data. 

And I’m gonna tell you: we found what really looks like some good news.

And the whole inquiry really drove home ways we can help ourselves, and each other. 

Here we go.

With Scripps News and the Baltimore Banner, this is An Arm and a Leg – a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can may be do about it. 

I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge. So our job on this show is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life and bring you something entertaining, empowering, and useful.

So, let’s talk about that philosophy. You could call it a form of… not thinking too hard. Let’s start with a witness. 

These days, Ruth Lande works for a nonprofit you may have heard of – RIP Medical Debt – to get hospital bills forgiven.

But WE talked with her because she spent more than 25 years working in hospital billing, most of it at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. And by the way, she loved it.

Ruth Landé: In general, I think it’s good if a job has three things. It’s for a good mission. Two, it should be hard. It should be complicated so it engages your brain every day. And third, it should be with really good colleagues. And I got to tell you, working revenue cycle satisfied all three of those for me. 

Dan: And of course, during her quarter-century in the business, the question of whether or not to file lawsuits over hospital bills did come up. 

When she got a promotion. 

In her earlier role, she’d run one part of the billing department, where they never sued. Now she was taking over another part of the billing department, a bigger one, where sometimes they did. 

She says her new colleagues were aware that in her earlier position, she’d taken a no-lawsuits approach.

Ruth Landé: There was an assumption, oh yeah, Ruth won’t allow that. 

Dan: But, she told me, she didn’t want to be in conflict with her new colleagues from Day One. 

Ruth Landé: And so I said, well, I’m not going to just ban it, but you know, bring me cases. If you believe that we should be suing a person, then just bring me the case so I can review it. And they never brought a case to me ever. 

Dan: Never ever. She thinks those colleagues maybe hadn’t stopped to look at who they were suing.

Ruth Landé: When you really examine closely you see the harm. I They would have probably imagined that they’re only suing some really rich people sitting up in a mansion somewhere, not bothering to pay their bills.

You might imagine: It would be interesting to talk with someone who thinks this way – really talk with them, push them on their point of view.

And that did happen. Kind of. 

It was honestly one of the most confusing conversations I’ve ever had. It was with this guy. 

Scott Purcell: My name is Scott Purcell. I’m the CEO of ACA International.

Dan: That’s the industry association for folks in the bill-collection business. Scott was super-accommodating – got on Zoom with me within a day of my first email to him. So quickly that it wasn’t till we got on that I realized we hadn’t set a length. 

Dan: How long do I actually have you for?

Scott Purcell: How long do you need us for?

Dan: Uh, I like to talk to people for a long time, but we start with a half an hour and maybe…

Scott Purcell: um, bum bum bum. I just need to change one meeting. 

Dan: We talked for more than an hour. 

The first half-hour was one kind of frustrating. 

I’d describe our findings and findings from other people’s reports — for instance, how little money hospitals seem to gain from these lawsuits — and ask if he had data to help understand what we’re seeing, and he kept saying, effectively: 

Hey, let’s not jump to policy conclusions. How would a new policy on debt collection affect a medical office with just three doctors? 

Scott Purcell: And I would say that three person doctor office is different from one of the top 10 nonprofit health care system. Their economics are completely different. And yet we’re talking about policy positions. that impact both

Dan: And then, in retrospect I’ve figured out a spot where we really, really lost each other. I was talking about one observer’s take on why these lawsuits don’t bring in much money:

Dan: A lot of the people that end up as your defendants are effectively indigent. Um, you know, they don’t have a lot of income. They may not have W2 employment that you could garnish. They don’t have other assets you can take. So, the amount that you get is not, not what you might expect from looking at the number of cases and the number of judgments. So that was another…

Scott Purcell: If I could stop you there, I’d love to see that data. Do you know that it takes a lot of money to file a lawsuit? I can’t think. And so my lived experience, I cannot think of one instance where either the hospital or the collection agency or the attorney would choose to sue an indigent person because if they are going to have a low probability of being able to repay that that over time, why would you invest? 

Dan: What I didn’t realize then, was: when I said some people were “effectively indigent,” Scott Purcell had latched onto the word “indigent” and had a very specific image in his mind, of absolute destitution. From that point forward, anything I would say about people being sued who were hard up, who qualified for charity care, who really couldn’t pay – was gonna run through this filter. 

And: Any example I’d bring up of someone being sued who got put in an extremely tough position… was just gonna sound to him like a novel anecdote.

A half-hour in, I got pretty direct with Scott, so I asked:

Dan: How did this happen? How did it happen that we, like, got to the point where so many people are being sued over debts they can’t pay? What do you know about that?

And this is where things got really confusing to me. Because here’s how Scott responded:

Scott Purcell: Well, if you just sued somebody who can’t pay, they’re not going to pay you. So, they’re not out any money. So you made a bad business decision, but truly Dan, what is the harm they’re experiencing? The fact that they got sued and they can’t pay?

Dan: I didn’t see that coming – the idea that being sued could be “harmless”?. Here’s what I said:

My gosh. Well, I can tell you that, you know, people, by the time they’ve been sued, they’ve been getting tons of collections calls, their credit may have suffered, and they have a judgment against them that says like any money that shows up in their bank account can be seized or that, you know, the next time they get a job, their wages can be garnished. That’s pretty significant harm. 

I described to Scott the story of Liz Jurado, a woman on Long Island who says she found out, years after the fact, that she had been sued over a bill relating to the birth of one of her kids. A bill she says she thought insurance had paid. Her husband was the main breadwinner, until he got laid off. Liz took a job working for DoorDash to support the family – her first W2 paycheck – and she says that’s how she found out about the lawsuit. Because once she starts the job, she starts getting letters, saying her wages are going to be garnished. And she’s like:

Liz Jurado: What is this? Where did it come from? How could they not tell me about it until now?  I get a job and three months later, you’re coming after me. I mean, this is my family’s bread and butter.  This is horrible.

Dan: I said to Scott: That seems bad, right?

Dan: So I’m, I’m, I’m trying to give you the opportunity to respond to that point that lots of people make that. If you get sued over a debt you can’t pay, there’s harm. That’s, that’s a lot of people’s positions, and I find it fairly persuasive. How do you respond to that? 

Scott Purcell: You and I were using a hypothetical. You said somebody got sued who’s indigent. Has no money.

Dan: Do you think that doesn’t happen?

Scott Purcell: I don’t understand the business case as to why that would. 

Dan: But, like, do you think it doesn’t happen because, like, do you think the reports that show that it happens a lot are wrong? I mean, I talked to a couple, a couple months ago who got sued over a debt. I mean, their story was like, they got hit with a bunch of medical problems.

I described to him the story of Casey and Ron Gasior, who we met in our last episode. The bills for those medical adventures threw their finances completely out of whack.

Casey: We would dig little bit out of our hole, and then we’d go right back down. 

Dan: … until they were in danger of losing their house. They filed for chapter 13 bankruptcy – wrapping everything they owed into a five year payment plan. They’d just about made it through, when they got a letter from a law firm earlier this year: They were being sued over a medical bill, that had arrived just after their bankruptcy started. I was getting a little worked up. 

Dan: So, these are not hypothetical, and these are not, like, you know, these stories are just entirely consistent with the data that, that gets collected. So, when you ask me, like, what’s the harm? I want to give you this opportunity to say, like, you sure that’s your position?

Scott Purcell: So, first of all, that was on a different, that was a different question. I made an assumption of that story that they were indigent now and would be indigent – I was saying, I don’t know why that decision got made if indeed that person, um, is indigent, why a particular, um, provider has whatever parameters they’ve set for their lawsuit program. I can’t speak to the business decisions they’re making. I can speak to, societally, what do we expect people to pay and not pay? 

Dan: With the case of the couple in Wisconsin, if they couldn’t pay ever, if their chapter 13 hadn’t worked out, and they’d lost their house, and they’d lost their jobs, and they couldn’t pay ever, are you saying they wouldn’t be harmed?

Scott Purcell: I’m saying the answer lies in taking those stories to the table. And let’s take a look at what are the other policy changes that should be made in order to get better outcomes. So, in the situation you did outline, I am sure that individual actually went through emotional stress. But there’re safeguards throughout. 

Dan: So you’re saying you view this as a kind of exceptional case and that generally there are, from what you know, guidelines and guardrails, as you say, to prevent this sort of thing from happening.

Scott Purcell: It’s the thing I don’t have data to answer it. 

Dan: Yeah, it’s — I mean, I just need to say: It’s striking, um, that you asked — you’re, yeah, like: Where’s, where’s the harm?

Scott Purcell: I made an assumption of that story that they were indigent now and would be indigent–

Dan: Well, I guess I just don’t understand, I, I don’t really quite understand the difference. Can you explain the distinction between someone being indigent right now, being indigent forever, I don’t really get the distinction at all. And I don’t know in which case, in which case there is harm, in which case there isn’t in your view.

Scott Purcell: So, um, I wasn’t being flippant. I was taking a very extreme… um, I’m in D.C. I see homeless people now. So when I heard you say indigent, I’m thinking somebody who’s living under a bridge. They deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. I was thinking that level of indigency. You’re talking about, I think, the, the working class, and people beyond that. And up to the higher end scale is your question. And for that, my question or my answer is back to there are safeguards that should be occurring. And if those safeguards don’t occur, harm does happen. And we collectively need to look at why there are gaps in those safeguards.

Dan: So in retrospect – knowing how Scott Purcell took that word indigent – I’m a little less mystified. But the conversation still seems really… striking to me.

For one thing, there’s the idea — even if it’s not a conscious philosophy  — that some people are beyond hope, so they’re beyond harm. So morally, it wouldn’t matter if, say, you sued them.

But the other thing that strikes me is the difficulty Scott Purcell had understanding – believing – that people being really harmed is something that happens at scale. That last thing he said: “There are safeguards that should be occurring, and IF those safeguards don’t occur, harm does happen.”

That word “IF” seems to be doing a lot of work there. 

Beyond the mountains of data that folks have compiled – showing that people get sued who qualify for charity care, and that people who get sued over medical bills tend to live in neighborhoods where poverty is high – there’s the finding that’s practically a cliche: 

About four out of ten Americans don’t have enough money on hand to cover a 400 hundred dollar emergency expense. Maybe I should have explained that to Scott Purcell. 

But I just didn’t think I’d need to. He’s sitting atop a whole industry that NEEDS to know, basically, how much money people have. Since we talked, I’ve seen a report for folks in his industry – third-party collections – that goes into a lot of detail on that topic. 

Of course, third-party collections agencies are for-profit businesses. And at least for some of them, lawsuits like these are part of the business. 

So, I guess I’m starting to understand – maybe belatedly – how hard it is to get some people to reconsider business as usual. Is business as usual a philosophy?

But sometimes business as usual does change. In fact, I’m about to share some much more cheerful news with you. It’s what our partners found when we went looking for details on these hospital bill lawsuits in three states. 

Because the big surprise was in what we DIDN’T find.

That’s coming right up. 

This episode is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health care in America. Their incredible journalists win all kinds of awards every year. I’m so glad to get to work with them. 

This investigation builds directly on reporting by KFF reporters like Jay Hancock, Noam Levey and Jordan Rau. Respect. 

OK, so this whole inquiry — into why some hospitals sue so many patients who could just get charity care — started a couple of years ago. 

That’s when I spotted what looked like a clue – in a big report done by National Nurses United. It looked at 145 thousand hospital lawsuits against patients in Maryland over a ten-year period.

And in addition to documenting how little money hospitals were getting from these suits — compared to the million-dollar salaries they paid a lot of executives — 

This report also noted– just kind of by-the-way, on page 18 of a 68-page report – that a relatively small number of attorneys were filing most of these lawsuits.

Just five attorneys filed almost two-thirds of the cases.

And just one attorney filed more than 40,000 cases. 

I was like, huh! Maybe that’s a clue. 

It seems like hospitals don’t get a lot of benefit from these lawsuits. But maybe we’re looking at someone who does. We should find out more. 

Starting with the names of those lawyers, which weren’t in the report.

And I was gonna want a big update on Maryland.

That report was part of a big advocacy campaign – which really worked. 

In 2021, Maryland enacted a new law saying hospitals couldn’t sue anybody without checking to see if they qualified for free care.

Which in retrospect, may seem like an obvious requirement. Here’s Malcolm Heflin, one of the organizers who worked on the campaign.

Malcolm Heflin: It’s like reading the postscript in a Dickens novel almost. It’d be like, “Oh yeah. Hey, look, now we can’t chain children to factory machines.” Like what? Wait, what? That was legal before? 

Dan: Anyway, if that report was the “before” picture, what would “after” look like? I was gonna need help. And I got some.

Ryan Little: my name is Ryan Little and I am the data editor at the Baltimore Banner.

Dan: The Banner is a new nonprofit daily newspaper – without the paper. Data reporting is a big specialty, and Ryan is the big specialist. Pulling a LOT of Maryland courts data was already on his to-do list.

Ryan Little: And so I said, maybe there’s a way that we can make a partnership happen. And then many months later, you’ve probably regretted that, but we’ve had a good time doing it. Anyways…

Dan: No way. Are you kidding me?

Ryan’s amazing. I am so lucky to get to work with him. 

But I wanted to know about more than just Maryland. And I got lucky there too. 

Maryland’s not the only state where advocates compiled a bunch of court data to push for change. You might remember Elisabeth Benjamin in New York from our last episode. 

She’s the one who pointed out how little money is involved in these suits – for hospitals she has looked at.

Elisabeth Benjamin: They’re suing people for pennies. right. The average law suits maybe 1900 bucks. So they’re suing them for chump change, but that $1,900 is like life ruining for the patient.

Dan: She knew that because she had pulled more than 50 thousand hospital-bill lawsuits from across the state. She used that data in a series of reports that got new laws passed – like one banning wage garnishment to pay medical debts. 

And she shared a giant spreadsheet with me, which included the names of attorneys in 40 thousand cases.

And guess what? Just three law firms handled the majority of those cases. So now we knew: This wasn’t just a Maryland thing.

But we were gonna want to look somewhere else too. Someplace where no new laws had been passed. Someplace that was still a “before” picture. Someplace like Wisconsin.

I’d been getting reports from a public-interest lawyer there named Bobby Peterson. He’d been publishing some data about lawsuits, but hadn’t gotten laws passed. And he also wasn’t able to share data. I was gonna need MORE help. 

Rosie Cima: My name is Rosie Cima and I manage a data reporting team at Scripps News. I also report for them. 

Dan: YES! More data help. Scripps News came aboard as a partner, and Rosie started looking for the data we’d need in Wisconsin.

And at this point, it may be getting clearer why it has taken us more than a year to bring this story to you. Let’s just recap for a second all the moving parts we’ve got in play here:

We’ve got Ryan, pulling cases in Maryland, Rosie doing the same in Wisconsin, and me with some New York cases.

We’re looking to see what the “after” picture looks like in Maryland and New York, and we’re looking at the role of a few lawyers.

And this is where I admit: that initial hypothesis? That the lawyers were driving these lawsuits, sweet-talking hospitals to drum up business?

It didn’t really pan out. As far as I can tell, after talking with a bunch of people and looking at a bunch of reports, it doesn’t seem to work that way. 

A lot of the time, anyway, it seems like the lawyers are often freelancers. They get hired by the collection agencies.

Who get their marching orders from the hospital revenue office.

But I’m so glad we went looking, because of what we did find. 

Or, you could say, what we didn’t.

In Maryland, Ryan spent months and months and months collecting hundreds of thousands of cases, then weeks and weeks crunching the numbers. And then… 

Ryan Little: On Wednesday, September 6th, I sent this email. I find this hard to believe. But it may be that there were zero medical debt lawsuits filed by hospitals against individuals in 2022 and 2023. 

Dan: He found it hard to believe – like, it must be wrong – so he went back to try to find his mistake. That took almost a week.

Ryan Little: On Monday, September 11th, I emailed, Hey Dan, news that hospital debt collection lawsuits had ended in Maryland was wrong. It looks like the Maryland Judiciary is somehow suppressing them in case search. Either intentionally or not, I’m rewriting the code to account for this.

Dan: He thought the Maryland court system was HIDING these cases. Not only did he rewrite the code, he went to the courthouse to go hunt for whatever was missing. 

It took him another week. And then I got one more email.

Ryan Little: So on September 18th, I said, Maryland hospitals are dot, dot, dot. Basically not suing anyone for medical debt anymore. 

Dan: Basically not suing anyone for medical debt this year. WOW. I mean, we had expected a significant drop– if only because Maryland had passed that 2021 law, which required hospitals to see if people were eligible for charity care before suing them. 

But zero was a much bigger drop than we’d expected. 

Next stop, New York. A few months ago, we looked at those three law firms – the ones that handled the majority of hospital-bill cases there. 

And as far as we could tell, two of them were just not doing any work for hospitals at all anymore.

But OK, again: We’d expected an “after” picture in both these states. What about Wisconsin?

Well, for one thing, it turned out to be TOUGH. 

Rosie Cima: When we took this on the first time, it definitely seemed like it’d be a lot easier than it ended up being. 

Dan: You can pull some case data from the web, but there’s a problem: Once a case has been dismissed, it gets taken off that website after a few years. 

Rosie Cima: So all the data that we had from before 2020 was missing some unknown number of cases

We can laugh about it now, but that sucked. We did find some guys who had data on older cases socked away. From them, we got the full caseloads for two lawyers we’d heard did a lot of medical-bill lawsuits.

Rosie Cima: We found more than 8000 cases in one year, um, for two lawyers, 

Dan: That was 2019. Pre-pandemic. 

Rosie Cima: And in 2022, There were fewer than 1400 for both of them.

Dan: In other words, these two lawyers were doing less than a quarter as much medical-bill business as they’d been doing three years earlier.

And Rosie pulled numbers year by year, client by client, which was super-revealing. 

Because for both of them, many of their biggest clients – hospitals and medical practices for whom they had been filing hundreds of cases a year – weren’t filing any cases.

Which wasn’t totally conclusive. We knew these lawyers were getting less work…

Rosie Cima: The thing that we didn’t know was, like, whether, Hospital A had stopped suing, or whether they just stopped hiring this lawyer.

Dan: Right. So Rosie went back to the public data website to see whether those hospitals A, B, C and so on were suing. And for the most part, they weren’t — at least not like they used to. 

Rosie Cima: Yeah, we now know that those cases weren’t going to a different lawyer. Right? They’re just not, they’re just not being filed.

Dan: Just not. Being filed. And it wasn’t just the hospitals that had been using these two lawyers that had fallen away. Other hospitals that had been suing tons of patients had cut way back. 

From more than a thousand in 2019 to a few dozen, or less than a dozen. Or one. Or zero. 

One hospital system sued more than 47 hundred people in 2019. In 2023 so far, they’ve sued one.

And remember, because older cases get wiped from the web, there’s some unknown number of cases from 2019 we aren’t seeing. The decline is probably bigger than what we see.

So, one thing to say is: We don’t know WHY this is happening. In any of these states. Our colleagues at the Baltimore Banner called every hospital in Maryland to ask about these changes, and got a bunch of no-comment. We emailed dozens of hospitals in Wisconsin and basically got the same answer.

So we’re left with some guessing – and here are some of our best guesses: 

Those new laws in New York and Maryland didn’t outlaw lawsuits… but the Maryland law made them more difficult, and the New York laws made it harder to collect. 

And the campaigns that led to those laws brought a LOT of negative attention to hospitals that filed a lot of lawsuits. So one way or another, it seems like a lot of hospitals decided it wasn’t worth it.

And in Wisconsin? Laws didn’t change, but the reports that the lawyer Bobby Peterson put out there did get some attention locally. 

We know in Wisconsin, lawsuits halted altogether for a while when the pandemic started. Maybe hospitals noticed that they weren’t exactly losing a ton of money when that happened?

Here’s one last data point from Rosie. She looked closely at the cases she had for those two lawyers from 2019. The ones where the hospital was awarded a judgment.

Rosie Cima: We found that the majority of those awards were never fulfilled, like, I, I feel like that’s important, a judge said, yes, you defendant owe this case. company, the plaintiff, this much money and in a lot of cases, the plaintiff hasn’t paid out. And it’s been years.

Dan: Which I don’t think is evidence that “Wow, these folks were really good at dodging payment!” No, because in a lot of these old cases, the judge gave an OK to garnish these folks’ wages: To take money directly from their paycheck.

So if these debts haven’t been paid, years later – and remember, these are often amounts of a thousand dollars or less – it seems like these folks may be earning so little that garnishing their wages for years doesn’t get you much. 

So, to start wrapping up: There’s a TON we don’t know. For one thing, there’s 47 other states we haven’t looked at. And we don’t know if hospitals in these three states will start suing again, when they think nobody’s looking.

But here’s something I do know: A surprising number of those other states have been passing new laws and regulations in the last couple years, to prevent hospitals from filing so many lawsuits against folks who qualify for charity care: 

Illinois, Arizona, Colorado, Minnesota, Washington, Oregon. I’m probably missing some. 

But here’s the single biggest thing I’m taking away from this whole adventure: A LOT more people qualify for charity care– free or discounted care from the hospital– than we think.

And we can help ourselves and each other, just by spreading the word.

I called Casey Gasior in Wisconsin a couple weeks ago. It wasn’t a great day for her.

Casey: Everybody in my house is sick and I just tested positive for covid. And now we’re going to lose work time.

Dan: Right.

Casey: I tell you, it never ends.

Dan: I was calling because I knew: Casey and her husband Ron have had more medical adventures this year. More knee trouble for him, emergency surgery for her, time away from work and lost income for both of them. And thousands of dollars of new medical bills. 

I said to her: It seems like maybe you and Ron might qualify to have some of those bills forgiven through charity care.

Casey: I think my, my husband makes too much. 

And I was like, well, maybe. But as we learned from Nick McLaughlin in our last episode, almost 60 percent of Americans qualify for charity care at a bunch of hospitals. 

And the nonprofit Dollar For has created a database of the charity care policies of almost every hospital in the country – and they’ve built it into their website. 

So you can type in a few details – where you were treated, how much you make – and it’ll tell you whether you’re likely to qualify for help.

Dan: So, I’m looking at their website right now.

And would it be okay with you to just kind of walk through kind of what they’re asking you, what they, um…

Casey: Yeah, sure.

Dan: Questions included: Where’d you get seen, and when?

Casey: Um, my surgery was July 24th.

Dan: Casey and I went line by line, filling out the form. I had her hunting for tax returns, and other documents

Casey: Hey, Ron. Can you send me a, um, a pay stub? Can you send me a picture of it? Like, now?

Dan: Okay. Alright, I’m going to add those up. There we go.

And yeah, so Dollar For thinks that you would qualify, 

Casey: Wow. That surprises me. 

Dan: This is good.

Casey: This is really…

Dan: Yeah. I’m really glad that we took this step.

Casey: Yeah, me too, because I was kind of, I didn’t know where to go and like, it, it seems so weird asking for charity.

Dan: But Casey was ready to take the next step.

Casey: Now this application that I’m filling out now do I have to do one for myself and one for Ron. 

Dan: Yes. Yeah. 

Casey: Okay, I’m going to work on this

Dan: Okay. Fantastic.

And this is a thing that we can do for ourselves, and each other. Spread the word: The majority of people qualify for at least some charity care – at least partially wiping out your bill – at a LOT of hospitals. 

The Dollar For website is set up to tell you if you’re likely to qualify, and to help you apply. They’ve also got actual human beings on staff to help if you get stuck.

Their website is Dollar For – that’s Dollar F-O-R dot org. Dollar F-O-R dot org. 

And that is our story. We never got all the way to the bottom of the question of WHY these bulk lawsuits happened – or why they seem to have stopped in some places – but we did get a peek into the process. 

And we learned some things that are heartening – a lot fewer lawsuits in these three states!

I’ve learned a lot more, along the way – there’ll be follow-ups. 

This has been a HUGE project for our little outfit. We got a ton of help from our partners, and we put a TON of resources into it: Travel to Wisconsin and Michigan, MONTHS of phone calls, 1600 bucks to get court records. 

We’ve been able to do that because you’ve been supporting us– giving us the resources to do the job. And this is the absolute best time to pitch in: 

Every dollar you give is matched. A few generous Arm and a Leg listeners have put up more than 10 thousand dollars in matching funds ON TOP of what the Institute for Nonprofit News does through their NewsMatch program – and I want to max it out. 

The place to go is Arm and a Leg Show, dot org, slash support. And there’s a link in the show notes – pretty much anywhere you’re listening to this. 

We’ll be back next week with a quick little coda to this story.

Meanwhile, thank you so much for helping us make this show. I’m gonna give that address one more time: Arm and a Leg show dot com, slash support. 

I’ll catch you next week.

Till then, take care of yourself.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with Emily Pisacreta and Bella Czakowski. 

In partnership with Scripps News, thanks to Rosie Chima, Amber Strong, Claire Malloy, Jacqueline Baylon and Zach Toombs and the Baltimore Banner, thanks to Ryan Little, Meredith Cohn, Brenna Smith and Kimi Yoshino and the McGraw Center for Business Journalism at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York, with thanks to Jane Sasseen.

Our work on this story is supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism, and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

Big thanks also to Jared Walker, Bobby Peterson, Luke Messac, Jeff Bloom, Emily Stuart, Berneta Hayes, Matt Szaflarski, Amanda Dunkler, and Marceline White! Plus Barry and Jo from Court Data Techologies, in Wisconsin.

Gabrielle Healy is An Arm and a Leg’s managing editor for audience – she edits the First Aid Kit newsletter.

Sarah Ballema is our Operations Manager. Bea Bosco is our Consulting Director of Operations.

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. 

That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health care in America, and a core program at KFF — an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. 

You can learn more about KFF Health News at arm and a leg show dot com, slash KFF. 

Zach Dyer is senior audio producer at KFF Health News. He is an editorial liaison to this show. 

Thanks to the INSTITUTE FOR NONPROFIT NEWS for serving as our fiscal sponsor, allowing us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at I-N-N dot org. 

And thanks to everybody who supports this show financially. 

If you haven’t yet, we’d love for you to pitch in to join us. Again, the place for that is arm and a leg show dot com, slash support.

And now, time for one of my favorite parts: Shouting out some of the folks who have made donations since our last episode. Thanks this time to…

[DAN READS NAMES]

Thank you so much!

“An Arm and a Leg” is a co-production of KFF Health News and Public Road Productions.

This episode was produced in partnership with Scripps News, The Baltimore Banner, and the McGraw Center for Business Journalism at the Craig Newmark Graduate School of Journalism at the City University of New York.

Work by “An Arm and a Leg” on this article is supported by the Fund for Investigative Journalism.

To keep in touch with “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to the newsletter. You can also follow the show on Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter. And if you’ve got stories to tell about the health care system, the producers would love to hear from you.

To hear all KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to “An Arm and a Leg” on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Even without covid dominating the headlines, 2023 was a busy year for health policy. The ever-rising cost of health care remained an issue plaguing patients and policymakers alike, while millions of Americans lost insurance coverage as states redetermined eligibility for their Medicaid programs in the wake of the public health emergency.

Meanwhile, women experiencing pregnancy complications continue to get caught up in the ongoing abortion debate, with both women and their doctors potentially facing prison time in some cases.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As the next election year fast approaches, the Biden administration is touting how much it has accomplished in health care. Whether the voting public is paying attention is a different story. Affordable Care Act enrollment has reached record levels due in part to expanded financial help available to pay premiums, and the administration is also pointing to its enforcement efforts to rein in high drug prices.
• The federal government is adding staff to go after “corporate greed” in health care, targeting in particular the fast-growing role of private equity. The complicated, opaque, and evolving nature of corporate ownership in the nation’s health system makes legislation and regulation a challenge. But increased interest and oversight could lead to a better understanding of the problems of and, eventually, remedies for a profit-focused system of health care.
• Concluding a year that saw many low-income Americans lose insurance coverage as states reviewed eligibility for everyone in the Medicaid program, there’s no shortage of access issues left to tackle. The Biden administration is urging states to take action to help millions of children regain coverage that was stripped from them.
• Also, many patients are all too familiar with the challenges of obtaining insurance approval for care. There is support in Congress to scrutinize and rein in the use of algorithms to deny care to Medicare Advantage patients based on broad comparisons rather than individual patient circumstances.
• And in abortion news, some conservative states are trying to block efforts to put abortion on the ballot next year — a tactic some used in the past against Medicaid expansion.
• This week in health misinformation is an ad from Florida’s All Family Pharmacy touting the benefits of ivermectin for treating covid-19. (Rigorous scientific studies have found that the antibacterial drug does not work against covid and should not be used for that purpose.)

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Jordan Rau about his joint KFF Health News-New York Times series “Dying Broke.”

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

Julie Rovner: Business Insider’s “‘I Feel Conned Into Keeping This Baby,’” by Bethany Dawson, Louise Ridley, and Sarah Posner.

Joanne Kenen: The Trace’s “Chicago Shooting Survivors, in Their Own Words,” by Justin Agrelo.

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Work for Insurers, Deciding if They’ll Pay for Care,” by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum; and David Armstrong and Doris Burke, ProPublica.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “Mississippi Community Workers Battle Maternal Mortality Crisis,” by Lauren Clason.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat News’ “Humana Used Algorithm in ‘Fraudulent Scheme’ to Deny Care to Medicare Advantage Patients, Lawsuit Alleges,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.
• USA Today’s “Cigna Denied a Lung Transplant for a Cancer Patient. Insurer Now Says That Was an Eerror.’ By Ken Alltucker.
• Politico’s “Conservatives Move to Keep Abortion off the 2024 Ballot,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly.
• The New York Times’ “Why Democracy Hasn’t Settled the Abortion Question,” by Kate Zernike.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: 2023 Is a Wrap

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 2023 Is a WrapEpisode Number: 327Published: Dec. 21, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 21, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Jordan Rau, co-author of a super scary series done with The New York Times about long-term care. It’s called “Dying Broke.” But first, this week’s news. I thought we would try something a little bit different this week. It just happened that most of this week’s news also illustrates themes that we’ve been following throughout the year. So we get a this-week update plus a little review of the last 12 months, since this is our last podcast of the year. I want to start with the theme of, “The Biden administration has gotten a ton of things done in health, but nobody seems to have noticed.”

We learned this week that, with a month still to go, Affordable Care Act plan sign-ups are already at historic highs, topping 15 million, thanks, at least in part, to extra premium subsidies that the administration helped get past this Congress and which Congress may or may not extend next year. The administration has also managed to score some wins in the battle against high drug prices, which is something that has eluded even previous Democratic administrations. Its latest effort is the unveiling of 48 prescription drugs officially on the naughty list — that’s my phrase, not theirs — for having raised their prices by more than inflation during the last quarter of this year, and whose manufacturers may now have to pay rebates. This is something in addition to the negotiations for the high-priced drugs, right, Rachel?

Cohrs: Yeah, this was just a routine announcement about the drugs that are expected to be charged rebates and drugmakers don’t have to pay immediately; I think they’re kind of pushing that a little further down the road, as to when they’ll actually invoice those rebates. But the announcement raised a question in my mind of — certainly they want to tout that they’re enforcing the law; that’s been a big theme of this year — but it brought up a question for me as to whether the law is working to deter price hikes if these companies are all doing it anyway, so just a thought.

Rovner: It is the first year.

Cohrs: It is. This started going into effect at the end of last year, so it’s been a little over a year, but this is assessed quarterly, so the list has grown as time has gone on. But just a thought. Certainly there’s time for things to play out differently, but that’s at least what we’ve seen so far.

Rovner: They could say, which they did this week, it’s like, Look, these are drugs because they raised the prices, they’re going to have to give back some of that money. At least in theory, they’re going to have to give back some of that money.

Cohrs: In Medicare.

Rovner: Right. In Medicare. Some of this is still in court though, right?

Cohrs: Yes. So I think at any moment, I think this has been a theme of this year and will be carrying into next year, that there are several lawsuits filed by drugmakers, by trade associations, that just have not been resolved yet, and I think some of the cases are close to being fully briefed. So we may see kind of initial court rulings as to whether the law as a whole is constitutional. It is worth noting that most of those lawsuits are solely challenging the negotiation piece of the law and not the inflation rebates, but this could fall apart at any moment. There could be a stay, and I expect that the first court ruling is not going to be the last. There’s going to be a long appeals process. Who knows how long it’s going to take, how high it will go, but I think there is just a lot of uncertainty around the law as a whole.

Rovner: So the administration gets to stand there and say, “We did something about drug prices,” and the drug companies get to stand there and say, “Not yet you didn’t.”

Cohrs: Exactly. Yes, and they can both be correct.

Rovner: That’s basically where we are.

Cohrs: Yes.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, meanwhile, in other news from this week and from this year, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services are all adding staff to go after what Biden officials call “corporate greed” — that is their words — in health care. Apparently these new staffers are going to focus on private equity ownership of health care providers, something we have talked about a lot and so-called roll-ups, which we haven’t talked about as much. Somebody explain what a roll-up is please.

Kenen: Julie, why don’t you?

Rovner: OK. I guess I’m going to explain what a roll-up is. I finally learned what a roll-up is. When companies merge and they make a really big company, then the Federal Trade Commission gets to say, “Mmm, you may be too big, and that’s going to hurt trade.” What a roll-up is is when a big company goes and buys a bunch of little companies, so each one doesn’t make it too big, but together they become this enormous — either a hospital system or a nursing home system or something that, again, is not necessarily going to make free trade and price limits by trade happen. So this is something that we have been seeing all year. Can the government really do anything about this? This also feels like sort of a lot of, in theory, they can do these things and in practice it’s really hard.

Cohrs: I feel like what we’ve seen in this space — I think my colleague Brittany wrote about kind of this move — is that the corporate structures around these entities are so complicated. Is it going to discourage companies from doing anything by hiring a couple people? Probably not. But I think the people power behind understanding how these structures work can lay the groundwork for future steps on understanding the landscape, understanding the tactics, and what we see, at least on the congressional side, is that a lot of times Congress is working 10 years behind some of the tactics that these companies are using to build market power and influence prices. So I think the more people power, the better, in terms of understanding what the most current tactics are, but it doesn’t seem like this will have significant immediate difference on these practices.

Kenen: I think that the gap between where the government is and where the industry is is so enormous. I think the role of PE [private equity] in health care has grown so fast in a relatively short period of time. Was there a presence before? Yes, but it’s just really taken off. So I think that if those who advocate for greater oversight, if they could just get some transparency, that would be their win, at the moment. They cannot go in and stop private equity. They would like to get to the point where they could curb abuse or set parameters or however you want to phrase it, and different people would phrase it in different ways, but right now they don’t even really know what’s going on. So, even among the Democrats, there was a fight this year about whether to include transparency language between [the House committees on] Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, and I don’t think that was ever resolved.

I think that’s part of the “Let’s do it in January” mess. But I think they just sort of want not only greater insight for the government, but also for the public: What is going on here and what are its implications? People who criticize private equity — the defenders can always find some examples of companies that are doing good things. They exist. We all know who the two or three companies we hear all the time are, but I think it’s a really enormous black box, and not only is it a black box, but it’s a black box that’s both growing and shifting, and getting into areas that we didn’t anticipate a few years ago, like ophthalmology. We’ve seen some of these studies this year about specialties that we didn’t think of as PE targets. So it’s a big catch-up for roll-up.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think it’s also another place that the administration — and I think the Trump administration tried to do this too. Republicans don’t love some of these things either. The public complains about high health care costs. They’re right; we have ridiculously high health care costs in this country, much higher than in other countries, and this is one of the reasons why, is that there are companies going in who are looking to simply do it to make a profit and they can go in and buy these things up and raise prices. That’s a lot of what we’re seeing and a lot of why people are so frustrated. I think at very least it at least shows them: It’s like, “See, this is what’s happening, and this is one of the reasons why you’re paying so much.”

Kenen: It’s also changing how providers and practitioners work, and how much autonomy they have and who they work for. It’s in an era when we have workforce shortages in some sectors and burnout and dissatisfaction. There are pockets at least, and again, we don’t really know how big, because we don’t have our arms around this, but there are pockets; at least we do know where the PE ownership and how they dictate practice is worsening these issues of burnout and dissatisfaction. I’m having dinner tomorrow night with a expert on health care antitrust, so if we were doing this next week, I would be so much smarter.

Rovner: We will be sure to call on you in January. Workforce burnout: This is another theme that we’ve talked about a lot this year.

Kenen: It’s getting into places you just wouldn’t think. I was talking to a physical therapist the other day and her firm has been bought up, and it’s changing the way she practices and her ability to make decisions and how often she’s allowed to see a patient.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another continuing theme. Well, yet another big issue this year has been the so-called Medicaid unwinding, as states redetermine eligibility for the first time since the pandemic began. All year, we’ve been hearing stories about people who are still eligible being dropped from the rolls, either mistakenly or because they failed to file paperwork they may never have received. Among the more common mistakes that states are making is cutting off children’s coverage because their parents are no longer eligible, even though children are eligible for coverage up to much higher family incomes than their parents. So even if the parents aren’t eligible anymore, the children most likely are.

This week, the federal government reached out to the nine states that have the highest rates of discontinuing children’s coverage, including some pretty big states, like Texas and Florida, urging them to use shortcuts that could get those children’s insurance back. But this has been a push-and-pull effort all year between the states and the federal government, with the feds trying not to push too hard. At one point, they wouldn’t even tell us which states they were sort of chiding for taking too many people off too fast. And it feels like some of the states don’t really want to have all these people on Medicaid and they would just as soon drop them even if they might be eligible. Is that kind of where we are?

Raman: You can kind of look to see the tea leaves at what some of these states are. The states that the health secretary wrote to, that have 60% of the decline in the kids being disenrolled, align pretty well with the states that have not expanded Medicaid. So they’re already going to have much fewer people enrolled than states where the eligibility levels are a lot more generous. So it’s not surprising, and some of these states have been just a little bit more aggressive from the get-go or said that they wanted to do the eligibility redeterminations a lot faster than some of the other states that wanted to take the longer time, reevaluate different ways to see if someone was still eligible, whether they were maybe getting SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits or other things like that. So it’s not surprising.

Rovner: You mean do it more carefully.

Raman: Yeah, yeah, so I think that the letter is one step, but if those states are really going to take up implementing these other strategies to kind of decrease that drop-off, unclear, just because they have been pretty proactive about doing this in a quick process.

Rovner: I also noticed that the states that the HHS secretary wrote to kind of tracked with the states that didn’t expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but interestingly, that meant that there would’ve been fewer parents who were eligible in the first place. So there shouldn’t have been as many children cut off, because there weren’t as many parents who ever got onto Medicaid in those states, which is why it made me raise my eyebrows a little bit. Again, I think this is something that we shall continue to follow going into next year.

Kenen: But we should also point out that even the more pro-Medicaid, liberal states have not done a great job with unwinding. It’s been bumpy pretty much across the board. It’s been very problematic. It’s a clumsy process in a normal year, and trying to catch up on three years’ worth — this is a population where people’s income varies a lot. Are you just over the line? Are you just under the line? It’s fluctuating, the eligibility changes. But you try to do three years at once after all the chaos, with political undercurrents such as the nonexpansion states, and it makes it harder and messier.

Rovner: Which was predicted and came true. So yet another theme from this year is what I’m calling the managed care backlash redux. In the late 1990s, when lots of people were herded into managed care for the first time, there were lots of horror stories about patients being denied care, doctors being put through bureaucratic hoops, unqualified people making medical decisions. There’s a bipartisan bill that almost came to fruition in 2001 for what was called a patient’s bill of rights, but it was pushed off the agenda by 9/11. Most of the protections in that bill, however, were eventually included in the Affordable Care Act.

So now it’s 2023, and lo and behold, those same issues are back. A top issue for the American Medical Association this year is reining in prior authorization requirements, which require doctors to actually get permission before their patients can get recommended care. In one particularly painful story recently, a woman who’d been approved for a lung transplant had her surgery canceled by her insurer, literally on the way to the OR [operating room]. Later, and not coincidentally after a public outcry, the insurer, Cigna, called the whole thing, quote, “An error.” So she did finally get her lung transplant. Joanne, you covered the patient’s bill of rights fight with me back in the day. Most things that are being complained about now are now illegal. So why are we seeing so much of it again?

Kenen: Because there’s confusion about — patients don’t know what their rights are. All of us are savvy and all of us have had something in our own insurance that we don’t understand, or maybe we end up navigating it, but it’s not ever easy. Things like prior authorization — they say, “Well, we have to make sure people are getting appropriate care.” There is an element of truth there; there is overuse in American health care. There are people who get things they don’t really need or should try something less intrusive and less expensive first. So you have this genuine issue of overtreatment, back surgery being the classic example. Many people will do just as well with physical therapy and things like that than they will with an $80,000 operation. In fact, they might do better with the PT and not with the $80,000 operation.

So is there any validity to the idea of making sure people get appropriate care? Yes, but they say no to stuff that they should be covering. That’s clear, and that patients don’t always know what the right pathway is, because doctors also have incentives, or just the way they’re trained and the way they look at their — surgeons like to cut. It’s what they’re trained to do. They trained for years. So it’s really complicated, because there’s this collision between overuse and overtreatment and overcharging and all the over, over, over stuff that comes from the provider world and the no, no, no, no, no, no, no, “you can’t have that” stuff that comes from the insurer world, sometimes appropriately, but often not appropriately.

Rovner: Then I guess you load onto that the private equity and now the providers whose overlords are in it to make a profit. Then you have sort of private equity butting heads with insurance, which is one of the reasons I think we are sort of ending up here. But it certainly does feel very reminiscent of things that I’ve been through before. We’re seeing yet a similar story with Medicare Advantage, which is the private Medicare managed care program that now enrolls more than half of the Medicare population and makes lots of money for its private insurance companies that offer them.

Rachel, your colleagues wrote about a Humana algorithm that was being used to deny care after a patient had received it for, quote-unquote, “an average period of time, regardless of the patient’s condition,” meaning that if patient is sicker than average, they were saying, “Too bad, we’re only going to give this to you for 18 days because that’s what the average patient needs. If you need more, sorry about that.” So Congress is now trying to get into the act, trying to ensure that Medicare patients, who tend to vote in disproportionate numbers, get their needed care. The insurance industry is pushing back against the pushback. What’s the outlook for Congress actually getting something done on this issue? I’ve heard a lot of talk. I haven’t seen a whole lot of action.

Cohrs: Yeah, I mean certainly there has been talk — and just to point out that the Humana lawsuit is related to the UnitedHealth Group lawsuit that we saw earlier; it’s the same company making the algorithm. Bob and Casey’s reporting was just more focused on UnitedHealth Group, because they got internal documents showing the correlation between the quote-unquote “recommendation” of this algorithm and care decisions and denials and people being cut off from their rehab services. So I think certainly, I think there has been a lot of outcry. We’re seeing this play out in the legal system beforehand. This is an issue that we’ve discussed as well.

Are we going to regulate through the courts, because everything else is too slow? I think AI is certainly a hot topic on the Hill at the moment, and there is lawmaker interest, but this is just a very complicated space. Lawmakers, though they might try their best, are not the most tech-savvy people. These are very powerful interests that I would imagine would oppose some of these regulations if they were to actually materialize. So, there’s nothing imminent. Certainly if we see these lawsuits keep piling up, if we see discovery, if we see some more examples of this happening where other companies are using the algorithms as well, a groundswell — as you mentioned, Medicare patients are an important constituency — I think we could see some action, but it’s not looking imminent at this time.

Kenen: The other thing is there’s been a number of reports from a number of media outlets, Stat and others, that these algorithms are being used without any people to work with them. Like, OK, here’s this algorithm and it’s doing these batches of like, I’m going to say no to 50,000 people in 20 seconds. I’m exaggerating a little bit there, but yes, is there legitimate questions about what is appropriate treatment? Yes.

Or you hear these stories about people told, “You can’t have this drug; you have to have that drug at first,” but they would try that drug and it didn’t work for them, and there’s just no way of — the reason we have five or six similar drugs is that in some cases, those slight differences, people respond differently, mental health being a huge example of that, right? Where it could be very hard to get people on the right drugs, if person A doesn’t respond the same way as person B, even if they have the same condition. But 50,000, I don’t know if that’s the right number, but I think I remember reading one where it was 50,000 going through an algorithm. That’s not appropriate use; that’s mass production of saying no to some legitimate needs.

Rovner: Sandhya, I see you nodding there. I know that this is something that’s kind of bipartisan, right? Members of Congress get complaints about Medicare, which is something that they do, members of Congress, oversee. It is a government program, even though these are being run by private companies. I’m sort of wondering when this is going to reach a boiling point that’s going to require something to be done.

Raman: I think with some of these issues that we face that are kind of evergreen here, there has been a bipartisan push to find kind of ways to reform the prior authorization process. We’ve had people as different as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) say they want reform, or Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is very different from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and they’ve both said that, similar things that …

Rovner: Some of the most conservative and the most liberal members of Congress.

Raman: Yeah, so we’ve got a broad stretch, but I think at the same time, if you look at some of the other things that we have to deal with here — Congress is out for the year, but for next year, we are fairly behind in that we have a long list of things that need to be extended by mid-January. Then we have just funding all of HHS and a number of other government things by early February. So getting something from start to finish next year, which is also an election year, is going to be tough. So I think that there’s interest there, but I don’t know that getting something hashed out is going to be the easiest next year of all years.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that Congress took an incomplete in most subjects this year. Well, finally this week, the topic that I think has been in every podcast this year, which is abortion. One of the threads that has wound through this year’s coverage is the strong support for abortion rights from voters, even in red and red-ish states. This year, Ohio voters affirmed a right to abortion, twice actually; there was a technical vote back in the summer. And in Virginia, Democrats flipped the legislature by running against Republican promises to impose a compromise 15-week ban, which apparently did not seem to be a compromise to most of the voters. That was after a half a dozen states voted in favor of the abortion rights position in the 2022 midterms. So this week we have a pair of stories, one from Politico and one from The New York Times, about how anti-abortion forces are working to keep future abortion-related questions off of the ballot in states where there’s still that possibility, including Florida, Missouri, Arizona, and Nevada.

One Republican Missouri lawmaker said that the right to life, quote, “should not be taken away because of a vote by a simple majority,” which frankly felt a little breathtaking to me. He has filed a bill that would require ballot measures to pass not just statewide, but with a majority in more than half of the state’s congressional districts. So basically in the really red parts of the states, a majority there would also have to vote for this. These people are getting very creative in their attempts to stop these votes from happening, maybe because they don’t think they can win them if it’s just straight up or down.

Raman: I think one thing to look at is kind of how we see some of these similar tactics in the same way that we saw with Medicaid. When Medicaid expansion started winning on different ballots, there were states that tried to put in measures to kind of tamp that down, saying, “You need a higher threshold,” and maybe that doesn’t pass, but still putting in different tactics to reduce the likelihood of that passing. I think that’s kind of what we’ve been seeing here, whether or not it’s Ohio trying to change its threshold, or we’ve had states say that even if something passed, let’s try to tear that back so that it doesn’t actually get implemented, or ahead of the ones for next year, let us find tactics to reduce the likelihood they’ll get the signatures to be on the ballot or reduce the likelihood of it passing by changing the language or pushing for challenging the language.

So there’s kind of what we saw right after the Dobbs decision, which was just a very “throw spaghetti at the wall, see what sticks,” just kind of ramp up things and see what will work, given that the last — all of the elections that we’ve had post-Dobbs have been in the favor of abortion rights. Even when we’ve tried to pass an anti-abortion measure, it’s not passed at the ballot. In the stories that you mentioned, there was another quote that stuck out to me, where they’d also mentioned that maybe this should not be subject to majority vote, I think in the Politico piece as well. So I think that’s something that is interesting that I haven’t really seen vocalized before, that this should be done in a different manner rather than this is how the majority of people feel one way or the other.

Rovner: Yeah, it felt so ironic because when in the Dobbs decision, Justice [Samuel] Alito wrote, “Well, now we’re turning this back to the states to be decided by their voters.” Well, here are their voters deciding, and it turns out the anti-abortion side don’t like the way the voters are voting, so they’re going to try to not have the voters vote, basically. We will see how this one all plays out. The other continuing story this year is women being prosecuted basically for bad pregnancy outcomes. Last week we talked about the case of Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who was sent home from a hospital emergency room twice, had a miscarriage, and this week had formal charges filed against her for, quote, “abusing a corpse.” This case hasn’t gotten nearly the attention of the case of Kate Cox, the Texas woman whose fetus was diagnosed with fatal defects and who filed suit to be allowed to have an abortion.

She eventually had to go to another state, and that was even before the permission that had been granted by a lower-court judge was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court. It may be at least in part because Brittany Watts is black, or that she didn’t put herself out in public the way Kate Cox did, but this is a way that prosecutors can punish women even in states where abortion remains legal. Remember Ohio voted twice this year to keep abortion legal, and this wasn’t even an abortion; it was a miscarriage. The medical examiner determined that the fetus was already dead when it passed. What are the prosecutors trying to do here? We talk about chilling effects. This is kind of the ultimate chilling effect, right?

Raman: It really is, because here we have someone that was not, as you said, seeking an abortion. She miscarried, and I think that she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant, and then they had the 21-week cutoff. So it gets sent into really murky waters here because I’m not sure what they’re going for, kind of picking this case to prosecute and go with. We’ve had this happen before where people have self-managed or miscarried, and then they’ve ended up being prosecuted. But at this point, I’m not sure why they’re making a case out of this particular woman, kind of dragging this into the debate.

Rovner: Yeah, there was a famous case in Indiana — 2013, may have been even before that — a pregnant woman who tried to kill herself and failed to kill herself, but did kill her fetus, and she was put in jail for several years. There have been, at least there was sort of the question there, were you trying to self-abort at that point? But there was nothing here. This was a woman with a wanted pregnancy whose pregnancy ended via natural circumstances, which happens, I think we’ve discovered now, a lot more than people realize.

I think people don’t talk about unhappy pregnancy outcomes, so people don’t realize how common they actually are. But I wonder — and I’ve been saying this all year — again, if women are fearing prosecution, even women who want babies, they may fear getting pregnant. I’ve seen some stories about more permanent types of birth control happening because women don’t want to get pregnant, because they don’t want to end up in a place where their health is being risked or they’re trying to get health care they need and their doctor or they could be facing prison time.

Kenen: And in this case, she had gone to the hospital. It’s complicated. She went in and out of the hospital. She went to the ER; they sent her home. I think then once they sent her home another time, she left against medical advice, but she wasn’t trying to get an abortion. She was having pregnancy complications. It’s documented. She was in and out of medical care. Pregnancies can fail, and early, the first trimester, it’s a very high rate. It’s less common later on, but it still happens. There are times when an early miscarriage, you might not even know that it’s a miscarriage. It’s early. You don’t know what’s even going on with your own body, or you’re not certain. So she didn’t know what to do at home when she did miscarry. It seems very punitive. Did she behave in an absolutely ideal, textbook-perfect, the way you wish she might have? But she did what she could do at the time.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to know what to do. Well, we will watch this case, I think, even though it’s not, as I say, it’s not getting quite the attention of some of the other cases. Our final this week in health information of 2023 goes to an ad that came to my email from the All Family Pharmacy in Boca Raton, Florida. The headline is “Miracle Drug Ivermectin for Covid-19 Could Save Lives,” and it claims that, quote, “a growing body of evidence from dozens of studies worldwide demonstrates ivermectin’s unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and aid in the recovery from covid-19.”

That sounded not quite right to me, so I looked up some of the studies that they cited and found that most had been thoroughly debunked, that ivermectin is not really good treatment for covid-19. I even found one study from an open-access journal that had to publish a correction, noting that two of its authors were paid consultants to ivermectin manufacturers, though they had failed to disclose that conflict. Meanwhile, if you don’t want ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which the All Family Pharmacy also sells, they will also sell you semaglutide, which is the scientific name of the hard-to-get weight loss drug Ozempic. And they say their price even includes a doctor consult. I will post the links in the show notes. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Jordan Rau about his long-term care financing series. Then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Jordan Rau. I asked Jordan to join us to talk about his latest project, “Dying Broke,” done in partnership with The New York Times. It’s about the growing expense of long-term care and the declining ability of Americans to pay for it. Jordan, welcome to “What the Health?”

Jordan Rau: Glad to be here, Julie.

Rovner: So I want you to start with the 30-second elevator pitch about what you found working on this, for two years?

Rau: Just about. The big-picture view is that when you’re elderly, if you need long-term care, by which we’re talking about nonmedical things, like personal aides, if you need help in your daily activities going to the bathroom or eating or such, or if you have a cognitive impairment like dementia, it’s exceedingly expensive, except if you are destitute. The private market solutions, which are long-term care insurance, really don’t work, and most people don’t hold it. The government solution, which is Medicaid, is only available to you once you’ve exhausted just about all of your assets and have very low income. And that’s led the vast majority of people out on their own financially to either rely on themselves or their family or other people to take up the burden. And that burden is significant for the children of older people.

Rovner: So it’s not just nursing home care that costs more than all but the richest can afford; assisted living and home care, which people assume are going to be a lot cheaper and that maybe their retirement savings will cover — they’re also increasingly out of reach. Why has the price of long-term care gone up so much faster than Americans’ retirement savings?

Rau: All of medical inflation has gone up enormously, but I think a lot of it is that there’s so little regulation on prices. There’s frankly no regulation on prices of assisted living, and you don’t have a large payer that can control prices. That’s one of the good things about Medicare, is that they set their own prices and that’s helped keep prices down. That’s why it’s less expensive for Medicare to send someone to a nursing home than for someone to pay out-of-pocket. But there’s none of that. So the prices have just gone where they’ve gone, and now you have a scarcity of workers as well. So that’s driving up wages.

Rovner: People who’ve been socking away money and thinking they’re going to be able to pay for this themselves get kind of a rude awakening when they need, and it’s not — as you say, it’s not even medical long-term care; it’s just help with activities of daily living.

Rau: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think one of the problems is that people assume they have the best-case scenario when they’re envisioning their retirement. They’re going to be off golfing, they’re going to be playing around with their grandkids, they’re going to be taking trips. The fact is, you’re very likely — if you live well into your 80s and 90s, as many people do — to not be able to live independently anymore, to need help with at least a little bit of things, and in worst-case scenario everything. People just don’t expect that that’s going to happen.

Rovner: So why do so many Americans still not know that Medicare doesn’t pay for long-term care? I feel like I’ve been saying this since 1980-something.

Rau: I wonder how much of it would’ve been different if they had decided to name Medicaid something that isn’t so close to Medicare. Maybe that would’ve helped, but realistically, everyone I think has a sense. Well, first of all, who’s paying attention to this stuff when you’re in your 30s and 40s, right? You’re not thinking about what’s going to happen to you in the 60s. And then I think that people just don’t expect that this is going to happen to them, and Medicare has a well-earned reputation as being pretty comprehensive. It doesn’t cover certain things, and there is a “donut hole” situation, so you’ve got to get supplemental. But people know that for the most part, it’s covered. And people don’t understand that long-term care, the nonmedical side, is — not just here, everywhere — it’s the backwater of health care. It’s not even considered health care in some ways.

So you just assume — I mean, I would assume, right, if Medicare is going to cover my heart transplant, why would I not think that it’s going to cover someone to come to my house a couple hours a day to help me with stuff or to put me in an assisted living facility if it covers nursing home care? It’s such a complicated, Byzantine system. You and I, we’ve been doing this probably combined, well, I don’t want to say how long, but it’s been a long time, and it’s hard for us to untangle exactly what is covered and what overlaps with what and what are the eligibility rules. So to expect a regular person, who isn’t paid to do this 50 hours a week, to know it is highly unrealistic.

Rovner: Yeah, and I was going to say the fact that Medicare actually has a home care benefit and it has a nursing home benefit; they’re just super limited. I think that sort of adds to the confusion too, doesn’t it?

Rau: Yeah. Well, even Medicare is confused about its home care benefit, right? There’s the whole Jimmo case and a whole debate about what you need to qualify for it.

Rovner: So listeners will know that long-term care and our country’s complete lack of a long-term care policy is a pet issue of mine and has been since I started writing about it in 1986. It isn’t like the government hasn’t tried to do something. There was the ill-fated Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988 that ended up getting repealed. There were efforts to subsidize private long-term care insurance in the 1990s that didn’t really go anywhere, and there was the CLASS [Community Living Assistance Services and Supports] Act that was briefly part of the Affordable Care Act when it passed in 2010, only to be abandoned as financially unfeasible. Why has this been such a hard issue to address from a policy point of view?

Rau: The one-word answer obviously is money. It’s incredibly expensive. So to have that type of lift, it would be to expand either Medicaid or Medicare or to create a new program; would be inordinately expensive. But beyond that, I think basically, to do this, you either have to tag on something to one of those existing programs, which is a major expansion, or you have to have a mandatory insurance program. It could be a public one; it can be a private one. I think that it’s hard because it’s not universal. Auto insurance — everybody drives, right? So if you say, OK, you all know you’re going to drive, and people know like, Oh, I may get into an accident. So then you have a functioning insurance market.

Health insurance, sort of the same thing. Everyone knows that they’re going to need health insurance maybe next year. So that’s an easier sell. Even that, right, with the Affordable Care Act — that passed by just one vote. That was a heavy lift. So here you’re saying, here’s something that you may need but you very well may never tap. By the way, we want you to pay for it now or buy into it now, and it’s not relevant for your life until 30 years. I just think that’s a hard sell politically to the population, to the political system. It’s a hard sell.

Rovner: So if there was just one message that you hope people take away after reading this exhaustive series, what do you think it should be?

Rau: Printing the series out and frame it and put it on your wall would be my main message. But I would say that this stuff is so unpredictable that you really have to have some flexibility in your expectations and planning, because you can’t plan to not get early-onset dementia. You can’t plan to need help. So I think that you need to — people obviously need to have as much of a cash cushion as they can, and they need to bone up on this before it’s a crisis, because by the time it’s a crisis — and this is a problem, right, with health insurance too. By the time you’ve got the emotional and health issues, to throw on top of it a bureaucratic sort of financial issue is just so hard for most people to juggle. So there isn’t an easy solution, but it is important for people to realize that this is as much of a risk as smashing your car into a telephone pole and that you cannot have one answer.

Your answer cannot be like, “Oh, well I’m just going to stay in my house, because you may not be able to stay in your house.” Or your answer can’t be, “Well, I’m going to go into a fancy assisted living facility with a great chandelier and great food,” because unless you save an inordinate amount of money, even if you go in there, you may not be able to afford to stay there. So it’s really a recognition that you can’t really concretely plan for this, but you may very well not be able to live independently if you are lucky enough to live into your eighth and ninth decade.

Rovner: Great. Jordan Rau, anything I didn’t ask?

Rau: Never. Never, Julie.

Rovner: Jordan Rau, thank you so much for joining us.

Rau: Great to see you.

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

Cohrs: Sure. The story I chose is in ProPublica. The headline is “Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Work for Insurers, Deciding If They’ll Pay for Care,” by Patrick Rucker at The Capitol Forum and David Armstrong and Doris Burke at ProPublica. I think this article very much fits into the larger theme we were talking about earlier about insurance denials. This was pretty shocking still to me, of these instances of doctors with big malpractice settlements that had been disciplined by medical boards failing up essentially and getting jobs. If they can’t practice anymore, then they’re getting jobs in insurance companies instead, deciding whether a much larger volume of patients get care. So I think it was just a fascinating, really well-done investigation. It sounded like it was really difficult to match up all the records with the lawsuits and the settlements, and there aren’t necessarily databases that exist of what doctors work for insurance companies. So it was just really well done and just a really important space that we’ll continue to talk about.

Kenen: That was a great piece. These doctors are making $300,000 to $400,000 a year, these people who failed up, as Rachel just put it. Yeah.

Rovner: Yeah. That’s the perfect phrase. Sandhya.

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Mississippi Community Workers Battle Maternal Mortality Crisis,” and it’s from my colleague at Roll Call Lauren Clason. This story also illustrates a combination of themes from this year. It touches on some of the maternal health inequities, the racial inequities, and rural health inequities, and how politics kind of comes into all of that. Mississippi Black women die at a rate four times higher than white women, and the state also leads in infant mortality rates nationwide. At the same time, it’s also a nonexpansion state for Medicaid. So Lauren went to Mississippi to look at some of the community and state-led groups that are trying to reduce these inequities that are caused by the different racial, socioeconomic, and access factors that are happening at the same time that an increasing number of hospitals are closing in the state.

Rovner: Also another really good story. Joanne?

Kenen: The theme of the day is yearlong, or decades-long in some cases, but ongoing health stories that have dominated the year. Another one that we didn’t touch on today but clearly is an ongoing multiyear health crisis is gun violence, which is a public health problem as well as a criminal justice problem. The Trace did a fantastic end-of-year project by Justin Agrelo. It’s called “Chicago Shooting Survivors, in Their Own Words.” They worked with both people who had survived shootings as well as people who had lost family members to shootings, and they worked with them about how to write and tell stories.

These five stories are in these people’s own words, and it was partnered with a bunch of other Chicago-based publications. They’re very powerful. In the introduction, they wrote that the Chicago media has been really good about trying to cover every homicide but that these people end up being defined by their death, not everything else about their life. These essays, they didn’t just talk about grief, which is obviously a huge — grief and trauma — but also the lives, not just the deaths. It’s really, really worth spending some time with.

Rovner: Yeah, and we haven’t talked as much as we probably should have about gun violence, but we will put that on the list for 2024. My extra credit this week is from Business Insider. It’s called “I Feel Conned Into Keeping This Baby.” It’s by Bethany Dawson, Louise Ridley, and Sarah Posner. It’s about an anti-abortion group that promised pregnant women financial support for their babies if they agreed not to get an abortion. But even though the women signed contracts, the group, called Let Them Live, did not provide the aid promised. Apparently they promised more money than they could raise in contributions. Now, I have heard of pregnancy crisis centers promising things like diapers and formula, but this group said it would help with groceries and rent and other significant expenses until it didn’t. Apparently the small print in the contract said the benefits could be reduced or stopped at any time. This was supposed to help answer the criticism that anti-abortion groups don’t actually care about the women, particularly after they give birth, except maybe promising things that you can’t deliver isn’t the best way to do that.

OK. That is our show for this week and for this year. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sandhya, where are you on social media these days?

Raman: I’m @SandhyaWrites on both X and Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X, @rachelcohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @joannekenen1 on Threads. I’m occasionally on X — or, as you all know, I’ve been calling it Y — @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in 2024. Until then, have a great holiday season, and be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In September 2022, Elyse Greenblatt of Queens returned home from a trip to Rwanda with a rather unwelcome-back gift: persistent congestion.

She felt a pain in her sinuses and sought a quick resolution.

Covid-19 couldn’t be ruled out, so rather than risk passing on an unknown infection to others in a waiting room, the New Yorker booked a telehealth visit through her usual health system, Mount Sinai — a perennial on best-hospitals lists.

That proved an expensive decision. She remembers the visit as taking barely any time. The doctor decided it was likely a sinus infection, not covid, and prescribed her fluticasone, a nasal spray that relieves congestion, and an antibiotic, Keflex. (The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says antibiotics “are not needed for many sinus infections, but your doctor can decide if you need” one.)

Then the bill came.

The Patient: Elyse Greenblatt, now 38, had insurance coverage through Empire BlueCross BlueShield, a New York-based insurer.

Medical Services: A telehealth urgent care visit through Mount Sinai’s personal record app. Greenblatt was connected with an urgent care doctor through the luck of the draw. She was diagnosed with sinusitis, prescribed an antibiotic and Flonase, and told to come back if there was no improvement.

All this meant a big bill. The insurer said the telehealth visit was deemed an out-of-network service — a charge Greenblatt said the digital service didn’t do a great job of warning her about. It came as a surprise. “In my mind, if all my doctors are ‘in-insurance,’ why would they pair me with someone who was ‘out-of-insurance’?” she asked. And the hospital system tried its best to make contesting the charge difficult, she said.

Service Provider: The doctor was affiliated with Mount Sinai’s health system, though where the bill came from was unclear: Was it from one of the system’s hospitals or another unit?

Total Bill: $660 for what was billed as a 45- to 59-minute visit. The insurer paid nothing, ruling it out of network.

What Gives: The bill was puzzling on multiple levels. Most notably: How could this be an out-of-network service? Generally, urgent care visits delivered via video are a competitive part of the health care economy, and they’re not typically terribly expensive.

Mount Sinai’s telehealth booking process is at pains to assure bookers they’re getting a low price. After receiving the bill, Greenblatt went back to the app to recreate her steps — and she took a screenshot of one particular part of the app: the details. She got an estimated wait time of 10 minutes, for a cost of $60. “Cost may be less based on insurance,” the app said; this information, Mount Sinai spokesperson Lucia Lee said, is “for the patient’s benefit,” and the “cost may differ depending on the patient’s insurance.”

A $60 fee would be in line with, if not a bit cheaper than, many other telehealth services. Doctor on Demand, for example, offers visits from a clinician for $79 for a 15-minute visit, assuming the customer’s insurance doesn’t cover it. Amazon’s new clinic service, offering telehealth care for a wide range of conditions, advertises that charges start at $30 for a sinus infection.

The Health Care Cost Institute, an organization that analyzes health care claims data, told KFF Health News its data shows an urgent care telehealth visit runs, on average, $120 in total costs — but only $14 in out-of-pocket charges.

So how did this visit end up costing astronomically so much more than the average? After all, one of the selling points of telemedicine is not only convenience but cost savings.

First, there was the length of the visit. The doctor’s bill described it as moderately lengthy. But Greenblatt recalled the visit as simple and straightforward; she described her symptoms and got an antibiotic prescription — not a moderately complex visit requiring the better part of an hour to resolve.

The choice of description is a somewhat wonky part of health care billing that plays a big part in how expensive care can get. The more complex the case, and the longer it takes to diagnose and treat, the more providers can charge patients and insurers.

Greenblatt’s doctor billed her at a moderate level of care — curious, given her memory of the visit as quick, almost perfunctory. “I think it was five minutes,” she recalled. “I said it was a sinus infection; she told me I was right. ‘Take some meds, you’ll be fine.’”

Ishani Ganguli, a doctor at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston who studies telehealth, said she didn’t know the exact circumstances of care but was “a bit surprised that it was not billed at a lower level” if it was indeed a quick visit.

That leaves the out-of-network aspect of the bill, allowing the insurer to pay nothing for the care. (Stephanie DuBois, a spokesperson for Empire BlueCross BlueShield, Greenblatt’s insurer, said the payer covers virtual visits through two services, or through in-network doctors. The Mount Sinai doctor fit neither criteria.) Still, why did Mount Sinai, Greenblatt’s usual health care system, assign her an out-of-network doctor?

“If one gets their care from the Mount Sinai system and the care is within network, I don’t think it is reasonable for the patients to expect or understand that one of the Mount Sinai clinicians is suddenly going to be out of network,” said Ateev Mehrotra, a hospitalist and telehealth researcher at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

It struck the doctors specializing in telehealth research whom KFF Health News consulted as an unusual situation, especially since the doctor who provided the care was employed by the prestigious health system.

The doctor in question may have been in network for no insurers whatsoever: A review of the doctor’s Mount Sinai profile page — archived in November 2022 — does not list any accepted insurance. (That’s in contrast to other doctors in the system.)

Lee, Mount Sinai’s spokesperson, said the doctor did take at least some insurance. When asked about the doctor’s webpage not showing any accepted plans, she responded the site “instructs patients to contact her office for the most up-to-date information.”

Attempting to solve this billing puzzle turned into a major league headache for Greenblatt. Deepening the mystery: After calling Mount Sinai’s billing department, she was told the case had been routed to disputes and marked as “urgent.”

But the doctor’s office would seemingly not respond. “In most other professions, you can’t just ignore a message for a year,” she observed.

The bill would disappear on her patient portal, then come back again. Another call revealed a new twist: She was told by a staffer that she’d signed a form consenting to the out-of-network charge. But “when I asked to get a copy of the form I signed, she asked if she could fax it,” Greenblatt said. Greenblatt said no. The billing department then asked whether they could put the form in her patient portal, for which Greenblatt gave permission. No form materialized.

When KFF Health News asked Mount Sinai about the case in mid-October of this year, Lee, the system’s spokesperson, forwarded a copy of the three-page form — which Greenblatt didn’t remember signing. Lee said the forms are presented as part of the flow of the check-in process and “intended to be obvious to the patient as required by law.” Lee said on average, a patient signs two to four forms before checking into the visit.

But, according to the time stamp on the forms, Greenblatt’s visit concluded before she signed. Lee said it is “not standard” to sign forms after the visit has concluded, and said that once informed, patients “may contact the office and reschedule with an ‘in-network provider.’”

“If it was provided after the service was rendered, that is an exception and situational,” she concluded.

The business with the forms — their timing and their obviousness — is potentially a vital distinction. In December 2020, Congress enacted the No Surprises Act, designed to crack down on so-called surprise medical bills that arise when patients think their care is covered by insurance but actually isn’t. Allie Shalom, a lawyer with Foley & Lardner, said the law requires notice to be given to patients, and consent obtained in advance.

More from Bill of the Month

• Out for Blood? For Routine Lab Work, the Hospital Billed Her $2,400

  Nov 21, 2023

• When That Supposedly Free Annual Physical Generates a Bill

  Oct 30, 2023

• She Received Chemo in Two States. Why Did It Cost So Much More in Alaska?

  Sep 29, 2023

More from the Series

But the legislation provides an exception. It applies only to hospitals, hospital outpatient facilities, critical access hospitals, and ambulatory surgery centers. Greenblatt’s medical bill variously presents her visit as “Office/Outpatient” or “Episodic Telehealth,” making it hard to “tell the exact entity that provided the services,” Shalom said.

That, in turn, makes its status under the No Surprises Act unclear. The rules apply when an out-of-network provider charges a patient for care received at an in-network facility. But Shalom couldn’t be sure what entity charged Greenblatt, and, therefore, whether that entity was in network.

As for Mount Sinai, Lee said asking for consent post-visit does not comply with the No Surprises Act, though she said the system needed more time to research whether Greenblatt was billed by the hospital or another entity.

The Resolution: Greenblatt’s bill is unpaid and unresolved.

The Takeaway: Unfortunately, patients need to be on guard to protect their wallets.

If you want to be a smart shopper, consider timing the length of your visit. The “Bill of the Month” team regularly receives submissions from patients who were billed for a visit significantly longer than what took place. You shouldn’t, for example, be charged for time sitting in a virtual waiting room.

Most important, even when you seek care at an in-network hospital, whose doctors are typically in network, always ask if a particular physician you’ve not seen before is in your network. Many practices and hospitals offer providers in both categories (even if that logically feels unfair to patients). Providers are supposed to inform you that the care being rendered is out of network. But that “informed consent” is often buried in a pile of consent forms that you auto-sign, in rapid fire. And the language is often a blanket statement, such as “I understand that some of my care may be provided by caregivers not in my insurance network” or “I agree to pay for services not covered by my insurance.”

To a patient trying to quickly book care, that may not feel like “informed consent” at all.

“It’s problematic to expect patients to read the fine print, especially when they feel unwell,” Ganguli said.

Emily Siner reported the audio story.

Bill of the Month is a crowdsourced investigation by KFF Health News and NPR that dissects and explains medical bills. Do you have an interesting medical bill you want to share with us? Tell us about it!

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Supreme Court this week agreed to hear a case that could further restrict abortion — even in states where it remains legal. The case to determine the fate of the abortion pill mifepristone is the first major abortion case to come before the court since its overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. It could also set a precedent for judges to second-guess scientific rulings by the FDA.

Meanwhile, legislation is finally moving in the House and Senate to renew a long list of health programs that technically expired at the end of the last fiscal year, on Sept. 30. But the bills to fund community health centers and build on programs to fight the opioid epidemic are unlikely to become law until January, at the soonest.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court will consider a case challenging access to mifepristone, opting to review FDA decisions in recent years governing the loosening some requirements for distribution and use of the so-called abortion pill — such as the agency’s call allowing pregnant people to obtain the drug without a doctor’s visit. While the drug’s overall approval is not in question in this case, the drug industry argues undermining the FDA’s authority could open the floodgates for challenges to other pharmaceuticals and have a chilling effect on drug development.
• Legal experts say the Texas high court’s ruling blocking the abortion of a pregnant woman whose fetus has a fatal condition calls into question whether doctors are able to identify any medically necessary circumstance under existing legal exceptions. And, in other court news, the Supreme Court will let stand a Washington state law banning conversion therapy.
• On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are bundling an assortment of bipartisan, generally unrelated health measures so they can be approved, possibly as part of a government spending package in January. But can this Congress — which has proved unproductive even by recent standards — finish its work in a presidential election year?
• One piece of legislation under consideration would address the opioid epidemic, renewing grants for state efforts to prevent and treat opioid use disorder. The epidemic has taken a toll, but it is not the only problem contributing to a troubling drop in U.S. life expectancy.
• And cyberattacks are on the upswing in health care, with new revelations about an attack that targeted the Department of Health and Human Services at the onset of the pandemic.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of Maryland professor and social media superstar Jen Golbeck about her new book, “The Purest Bond,” which lays out the science of the human-canine relationship.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “They Watched Their Husbands Win the Heisman — Then Lost Them to CTE,” by Kent Babb.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “A Deadly Delivery Highlights ‘Falsified’ Heat Records at USPS,” by Ariel Wittenberg.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Applesauce Lead Cases in Kids Surge Amid Questions on FDA Oversight,” by Amanda Morris, Teddy Amenabar, Laura Reiley, and Jenna Portnoy.

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “The Next Blockbuster Drug Might Be Made in Space,” by Robert Langreth.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• The American Prospect’s “The Life-and-Death Cost of Conservative Power,” by Paul Starr.
• Bloomberg Businessweek’s “The Untold Story of a Massive Hack at HHS in Covid’s Early Days,” by Jordan Robertson and Riley Griffin.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Abortion and SCOTUS, Together Again

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Abortion and SCOTUS, Together AgainEpisode Number: 326Published: Dec. 14, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 14, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And we welcome to the podcast for the first time Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with University of Maryland professor Jen Golbeck, who is probably better known to anyone on social media as “GR Mom,” the woman who takes in half a dozen special-needs golden retrievers at a time. She’s co-author of a new book called “The Purest Bond” that explains why our love for dogs is not just all in our heads. But first, this week’s news.

We will start with abortion this week. In news, Alice, that you anticipated last week, the Supreme Court has decided to hear a case out of Texas regarding the abortion pill mifepristone. Depending on how the court rules, it could make abortion less available even in states where it remains legal. But Alice, this might not be as consequential as it looks at first blush because they didn’t take the case that could have impacted the overall approval of the drug, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. So they’re basically taking up what the 5th Circuit decided, not what the district court decided. The district court, as we remember very dramatically, decided that FDA approval of mifepristone decades ago was done incorrectly and would have moved to effectively ban the drug nationwide. What’s at issue before the Supreme Court are subsequent FDA decisions to make the pill more easily accessible, but those are really important and sweeping. I mean, I feel like the mail delivery piece is getting a lot of attention, but it’s not just that.

These are decisions that, one, approved a generic version of the pill, which made it cheaper and more accessible all over the country. It expanded its use from just the first seven weeks of pregnancy to the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. Those crucial weeks are when a lot of people realize they’re pregnant and make a decision about that. And more recently, allowing retail pharmacies to dispense the pills and, crucially, not requiring an in-person doctor visit to obtain them.

So the companies that make the pills say that if the Supreme Court were to side with the groups challenging these rules, it would be a de facto ban, at least temporarily, while they have to go through relabeling and retooling and everything. And that could take a while. So I think while abortion rights groups are celebrating that the overall approval of the pills is not in question, this is still very, very consequential, and it’s going to be decided just months before the presidential election, keeping this really front and center in people’s minds.

Rovner: Just to confirm though, the Supreme Court has already weighed in and put even what the 5th Circuit did on hold, right?

Ollstein: Yes.

Rovner: So nothing has changed at the moment from what’s originally available.

Ollstein: That’s right. And so in states that have their own bans, the bills are still banned. In states where they’re protected, they’re still protected, and that will continue until the high court hears and rules on the case.

Rovner: But even though, I mean, the court is not going to take up the case where the lower-court judge said that the FDA shouldn’t have approved this in the first place, this could still be the Supreme Court basically overruling FDA’s judgment about what’s safe and effective, which could have big implications for drugs way beyond mifepristone, right?

Ollstein: That’s what the companies that make the pills and other unrelated pharmaceutical companies have been arguing. They say that this could open the floodgates for anyone with a grievance against any drug to try to challenge it. People are worried about contraception. People are worried about covid shots. Anything that’s generated any level of pushback and controversy, that would greenlight this strategy for them.

And the pharmaceutical industry has also argued that it could put a chilling effect on companies even submitting new drugs for approval, saying, if they don’t have the confidence that a court could come in later and yank away the approval, why would they feel confident in putting this out on the market? So this has the potential to be really disruptive. And I would note it comes at a time when the Supreme Court is overall really questioning deference to federal agency decisions across the board, anything from the Commerce Department to … there was a case about phishing regulations. And so, overall, it’s this “war on the administrative state” effort and this is definitely a piece of it, and it could affect health care in a lot of ways.

Rovner: Riley, you watch the drug industry. First, they were staying out of it, and then they finally decided, oh, we should get a little bit exercise because this could be important. Where are they these days?

Griffin: I think what’s been so novel for me situated here in D.C. is to watch industry lobby conservatives on this agenda. To say, this is about business interests. And if you break this house of cards, what else is going to come crashing down? So Alice made that point, and it’s a really important one. The implications here are far-reaching. And in questioning the FDA’s authority in this space, you are really going so much further, and it calls into question other drugs.

Rovner: So great, we’ll have something to talk about for weeks and weeks to come. Well, still in Texas — why does it seem that all the abortion news comes out of Texas? Last week we talked about Kate Cox, a 31-year-old mom of two, whose fetus was diagnosed at 20 weeks with a birth defect incompatible with life.

When we left off taping last Thursday morning, her lawyers were asking a Texas state judge for permission for her to have an abortion because her doctor said continuing the pregnancy could threaten her health and/or her ability to have more children in the future. Alice, a whole bunch of things happened after that. Catch us up.

Ollstein: People are really seizing on this case because it really calls the question on a lot of the assumptions of our post-Roe legal and health care landscape. And so a lower court ruled in her favor and said she should be able to get an abortion to protect her health and her ability to have another child. They said that the state should be barred from bringing criminal charges against the doctor performing the procedure. So that was all set to go forward.

And then the Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who recently survived an impeachment attempt, I should note, moved to intervene and moved to ask the Texas Supreme Court to stop this abortion from happening. He argued that the woman should not qualify for a medical exemption, and the Texas Supreme Court put a hold on the lower-court ruling and said it needed a little more time to think about it. And then they came back and ruled against the woman and said she should not be allowed to get an abortion. But it was moot in terms of her specific situation because of the threats to her health. She had already been to the emergency room several times at this point, and so she decided to go out of state for the procedure.

When I wrote about this, I tried to look into what are the bigger implications here. And a legal expert said something that really struck me, which is that the entire Dobbs premise is that you could ban so-called elective abortions, but maintain access to medically necessary ones. Sometimes they’re called therapeutic abortions. There’s a lot of weird terminology. And this really calls that question, can you always distinguish between those two?

Who’s to say? Here, the doctor’s interpretation of which was which clashed with the state’s interpretation of which was which. A lot of states have these so-called “life of the mother” exemptions, and this really shows that they are very difficult to use in practice.

Rovner: I’ve covered this for so many years at the federal level with little wording changes to the Hyde Amendment, and the big fight has always been between exceptions for the life of the mother and for the health of the mother. And the anti-abortion movement has always said, you can’t have a health exception because that would include mental health and it would just include anyone who said she doesn’t want to be pregnant.

So the phrase is always “It’s a loophole you can drive a truck through.” But then you get to these cases where it clearly is women whose water breaks at 20 weeks, it will eventually be life-threatening, but is immediately health-threatening. But a lot of these states don’t have health exceptions because they say that they could be used too broadly, and that’s kind of where they get stuck, right?

Weber: Yeah. I just wanted to chime in and say that I think what’s interesting about this case is this is the first time I’ve heard a lot from folks that aren’t in the media at all, don’t read the media every day, don’t see the flood of stories that this podcast group and folks, probably many of the listeners to this podcast, have seen about abortion coverage. It’s the first time I got a wave of phone calls being like, “Hey, can you explain this to me? What does this mean?” So I think that this story out of Texas, this reality, this lawsuit, has broken through to the rest of the country.

I mean, granted, this is an anecdotal sample size of my family and friends that live in the heart of the country, but I do think this has broken through in a way that many of the other stories that we’ve all written here have not. And so I’m very curious to see how this continues to play out because I do think this is gaining a lot more awareness with these lawsuits. We have this one, and then I know there’s one in Kentucky that I think we’ll see play out in the next couple weeks and months, obviously.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think one of the things that’s really important about this is that we know her name and we know what she looks like because she’s been brave enough to come forward in the middle of this medical crisis and allow them to use her name and do TV interviews. And Alice, I interrupted you.

Ollstein: Oh, yes. A couple things. We haven’t mentioned that this was a non-viable pregnancy. Her fetus was diagnosed with a almost certainly fatal condition. So I think that’s another key piece of it. Other states have an exemption for fetal diagnoses like this where someone can get an abortion. Texas does not. And I talked to some Texas anti-abortion groups who were insistent that she should not be granted an exception and that the “compassionate” thing to do would be to force her to give birth and then watch the child die and mourn it. They were very explicit about that.

And so I think that is also capturing a lot of people’s attention, like Lauren was saying, where they’re fighting for a potential life that is very potential at this point. And you’re hearing a lot of rhetoric from conservatives right now that are insisting that allowing exemption for fatal fetal conditions is akin to eugenics. They say that these fetuses should be given every chance at life, even if that life is very brief and sometimes painful. So I think this is a debate we’ll continue to see play out.

Rovner: Yeah, I was surprised. I mean, Kellyanne Conway, of all people, who’s not just the former Trump aide, a prominent Republican pollster, actually had a tweet this week that suggested this is not great for Republicans. What’s happening to this woman? The fact that it’s so public. Riley, you wanted to say something?

Griffin: Yeah, just another point Alice mentioned, “this potential life,” but the attorneys have also mentioned the potential for future lives … that this woman, it’s not just her health being impacted, but it also could decrease her ability to have children in the future, which is another part of this story that I think is really tugging at people’s heartstrings. And just that the ruling came hours after she made the announcement that she’d left the state to get the procedure. I mean, all of these things combined make for such a poignant story.

And I want to bring in some research that has also recently been published, which suggests she’s not alone. Nearly 1 in 5 people seeking an abortion have traveled out of state, according to the Guttmacher Institute, citing data from the first half of 2023. And experts are saying this is probably an underestimate. And when you do get to those states in places where abortion remains legal, wait times are increasingly long.

So there are so many dynamics at play. It’s not just the states where access is limited and we’re seeing these very difficult rulings come down, but what are the consequences in the places where access remains available? But that flood of folks trying to get these procedures have to make that travel. Sorry, I jumbled my words there, but you understand what I’m saying, or I can try again.

Rovner: The other piece of that, if you play that all the way out, where women are having to travel and they often have other kids, so they have to get someone to watch their kids and they have to get time off of work, and they have trouble getting appointments in other states, and that means that these abortions are happening later in pregnancy, which is, I know, not what the anti-abortion movement wants. And also the later in pregnancy you get, the more risks there are and the more expensive the whole thing gets.

So it’s just the whole thing is piling on each other. But I think, Riley, something you said that I think I keep highlighting and want to keep highlighting, most of the women we’ve been talking about individually are women who got pregnant because they wanted to have a baby. These are not women who weren’t using birth control and like, oops, I got pregnant. Kate Cox wants to have more children. This was a very wanted pregnancy. … I think one of the things we’re discovering through all of this is that more pregnancies go wrong than people realize. It’s just that when pregnancies go wrong, people tend not to want to talk about it. It’s painful and awful, and it’s not like having your appendix out. So I think we’re kind of, as a population, discovering that pregnancy is fairly fraught. For every baby that’s born happy and healthy, there are a lot of pregnancies that just don’t work the way they’re supposed to.

Ollstein: And I also have seen a lot of chatter saying, “This is the new frontier. We’re going to see this wave of individual women suing for the right to have an abortion.” And I don’t think that’s true. Kate Cox’s lawyers don’t think that’s true. Most women in this circumstance can’t do this or are not willing to be the public face of a lawsuit and get all kinds of threats and harassment.

And a lot of people aren’t able physically to wait for a court to rule. Even Kate Cox wasn’t. And so the idea that there’s going to be so many people who are actively pregnant and seeking an abortion and have the resources to find an attorney willing to represent them and are willing to go through this, I think I’m hearing that that is not likely at all, that this is somewhat of an outlier.

Rovner: While we were talking about asking permission for courts, the Supreme Court this week declined to review a challenge to a Washington state law that banned so-called conversion therapy. I’m still having trouble wrapping my head around this because it’s like a quadruple negative, but what is conversion therapy and where are we now that the appeals court ruling is being allowed to stand?

Weber: I think a lot of people don’t realize this, but there was actually a report that just came out from The Trevor Project. Conversion therapy is a process in which people try to, they call it, convert LGBTQ folks to have heterosexual relationships, and there could be a wide array of what that means. It involves sometimes psychological therapy, sometimes physical therapy, all kinds of things. Many, many states have banned this because science has shown it is not an effective treatment and can lead to mental health effects.

But I think why this ruling is important is that, as I was saying, The Trevor Project has identified there’s over 1,300 practitioners of conversion therapies across the country. Even though this is banned in so many states, this is a practice that goes on and on and on, despite what seems to be a lot of negative health impacts of it. So the fact that the Supreme Court decided not to take this up at all is considered very much a win for the LGBTQ community, especially considering the fact that this does still go on in many, many states.

Rovner: At least … that’s one thing that’s off the table, at least for the very moment. Well, let us go back to Capitol Hill, where lawmakers are actually passing stuff, albeit so late in the session that these policies are unlikely to make it over the finish line until 2024.

The House Monday night passed a bill that includes a bunch of things we’ve been talking about all year: site-neutral payments in Medicare to prevent hospital outpatient departments from charging multiples more to Medicare than non-hospital affiliated facilities; banning some pricing practices by pharmacy benefit managers; clarifying and extending some price transparency rules for hospitals and insurers, particularly those not making their prices public even though it is now required by law; funding community health centers; and stopping some scheduled cuts to hospitals that serve a high proportion of low-income patients.

Yes, that’s a whole lot of things that don’t necessarily go together, but this is how Congress works. All of these things were supposed to happen before the start of the new fiscal year, Oct. 1. Now, let me check, it is the second week of December. These are pretty bipartisan policies, most of them. What the heck took them until December to get this through?

Ollstein: This has been, even by Congress’ standards, a historically unproductive Congress. We spent a lot of the year battling over who should be the House speaker, for instance. That took up a lot of time. They took a really long summer recess, and there’s been all kinds of back and forth over just keeping the government funded. So that has not left a lot of room for basic policymaking. And there’s the fear that heading into next year — a lot of this stuff is getting punted into next year — that only gets harder in an election year. They’re in session less time. There’s less of an incentive to compromise. People are really retreating into their corners. And so it’s not a great outlook, even for things that really are popular on both sides of the aisle.

I will say, on the site-neutral payments piece, that’s been a long-time goal for a lot of people. And what’s being debated now is seen by some as inadequate, way not enough. It’s only a narrow set of drugs within Medicare. People would like this to be implemented way more broadly.

But you also have the hospital industry really mobilizing against it and saying, “You know all those rural hospitals that are closing down and going out of business? That’s going to get worse if you do this.” And as we know, hospitals are often the biggest employer in a lot of congressional districts, and so that could make this hard to pass as well.

Rovner: The same thing with the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reforms, and you’ve got the drug industry and you’ve got the hospital industry. So even though these things are “bipartisan,” that doesn’t mean that there isn’t plenty of opposition out there, which I guess kind of answers my question of why this took so long. I imagine we expect this — now that it’s in a package — to go on the next government funding bill, which should be in January, right? That’s what we’re looking for?

Weber: Yes, it should go in the next government possible spending bill, but who knows? Are we headed towards another shutdown when that happens? I mean, we’ll have to see. And I just want to echo what Alice said. I mean, not doing a lot of lawmaking this year does have real consequences. I mean, when we talk about these site-neutral payments — I’ll never forget when I was at KHN [KFF Health News], I wrote a story about a seamstress who had rheumatoid arthritis, and she went to the same doctor’s office every time to get arthritis shots. Very normal treatment, right? Her doctor’s office moved up one floor and her bill went up 10 times. Her shots went from $30 to $300 because they were then considered an in-hospital facility. So when we talk about things like site-neutral payments, which are jargony words, they disguise what happens to everyday Americans and the actual cost — literal cost, physical and emotional and financial — of legislation like this not making it through.

Rovner: And I think the biggest irony is that when you look at public opinion polls, Democrats and Republicans are so divided on so many things, but one of the things that they are not divided on at all is that health care costs too much and the Congress should be doing things to make health care cost less. So these are things that, if they can get them over the finish line, would actually be popular.

Well, speaking of things Congress was supposed to do before the start of the fiscal year, Riley, you’re watching the progress of another bill we’ve been following, the SUPPORT [Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and Communities] Act, that authorized programs to fight the opioid epidemic. Remember the opioid epidemic? What’s the status of that bill?

Griffin: Yeah, great question. So more than two months ago, provisions from a major 2018 opioid law, the SUPPORT Act, which provides grants for states to pay prevention, treatment, and recovery services for people with opioid use disorders, expired. But on Tuesday, the House and Senate HELP Committee advanced that legislation in an effort to expand treatment for opioid use disorder amid the ongoing epidemic. And, as you’d mentioned, this is known as the Support for Patients and Communities Reauthorization Act and the Modernizing Opioid Treatment Access Act.

And we saw the House overwhelmingly vote to reauthorize the law. And, meanwhile, the Senate HELP Committee also approved its version of the bill, setting up consideration by the full Senate and likely enactment of a new law quite soon. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said that passing this $4.3 billion piece of legislation to reauthorize and expand the SUPPORT Act would be a huge success and will do a lot to increase the number of substance abuse counselors and mental health professionals.

Rovner: But again, not likely before the end of the year, this bill that should have been done before Oct. 1.

Griffin: Precisely. But again, also a place where you see that bipartisan support. I mean, the opioid epidemic is something that is coming up on the debate stage. Fentanyl is a buzzword that is being used by Democrats and Republicans alike. And not just to talk about the state of affairs here in the United States, where more than 100,000 people die every year of overdose-related deaths, but also to talk about immigration reform and China, right? These topics have all become a swirling part of the discourse on the opioid epidemic, and it’s something to watch going into the 2024 election.

Rovner: Yes. Something else that is linked to the whole opioid epidemic is this concern about life expectancy. We’ve had some new statistics on life expectancy, which is creeping back up now that deaths from covid are falling off, but not as fast as in many other industrialized countries. Women’s life expectancy is still substantially longer than men’s. What is up with this and what is holding the U.S. back? Why is our life expectancy still so much worse than people across the pond?

Weber: I think there’s a lot of things at play in the U.S. and a lot of it has to do … right now, we’re seeing it creep up because of the covid numbers. But what covid exposed was an absolute failure of primary care across the United States, an absolute failure of public health, an absolute failure to confront the fact that the vast majority of the reason that our life expectancy is so much worse than other countries is because of our chronic disease problem that is not getting dealt with.

And frankly, post-covid, it’s not like we’ve seen some sort of ginormous wake-up call overhaul either. I mean, this is the reality that we’re continuing to live in. So while it is heartening to see that the life expectancy numbers are changing a little bit because the covid death rates have gone down, I think the U.S. still has to grapple with the fact that we live in a country that is not addressing these issues. And I mean, I’ve talked about this on this podcast, but to reiterate again, politics does play into this.

As you see, there are … red states’ life expectancies are typically lower than blue states’ life expectancies. And that’s due in part to the fact that in the 1980s, Reagan and Congress allowed the states to decide how they were going to spend their public health and safety-net dollars in different ways, and we’ve seen that play out in this grand experiment over the last couple decades. And, again, doesn’t seem to be much reckoning with that either. So I think these life expectancy trends, where the U.S. lags behind other countries, are going to continue.

Rovner: Yeah, I wanted to actually call out a piece that Paul Starr at Princeton wrote about these red state-blue state differences because a lot of them we had talked about. Red states had earlier death rates because of the opioid epidemic and fentanyl and these deaths of despair.

But, actually, what the research that Paul Starr looked at was more what you’re saying, Lauren, which is that the states that enrolled children in Medicaid earlier are having better outcomes now, 30, 40, 50 years later, than the states that didn’t. And, also, the states that had restrictive gun laws are having longer life expectancies than states that didn’t. Riley, you’re nodding your head.

Griffin: It’s an amazingly unique American paradox to see greater spending on health care and yet shorter lives compared to other countries. Wealthy nations which spend half per person on health care compared to the United States are seeing their citizens outlive Americans by an average of more than five years. I mean, that data when you put it together is just so jarring. And it, as Lauren has been saying, has been cementing itself before the covid pandemic, which obviously had such a devastating toll.

But as we start to see that trend shift, where in 2022 life expectancy at birth was 77.5 years compared to 76.4 the year prior, that change is largely due to a decrease in covid deaths. We’re still seeing deaths from flu, pneumonia, fetal and infant conditions continue to rise. So the infectious disease front doesn’t look good in other spaces. And as you mentioned, Lauren, these chronic diseases that really set the U.S. apart from its peers, GDP-size-wise, is just so jarring.

Rovner: Finally, this week, because there isn’t already enough for us to worry about with the health system, cyberattacks appear on the upswing. Every week we hear about hospital IT systems literally being held for ransom and hacks into databases with our very most sensitive personal information, like 23andMe. Riley, you have a story about a hack at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] that was more serious than we thought.

Griffin: Yeah, thank you for allowing me to speak about this story. So my colleague Jordan Robertson and I investigated a cyberattack that hit HHS at the very outset of the pandemic. And at the time, we found that it was downplayed by department leadership. So only years later, it’s three-plus years down the road, we’ve learned through on-record interviews and other discussions that it was actually quite an unusual and rather concerning case. Some of the officials described the attack as an attempt by a nation-state to break into the department managing the U.S. covid response just as HHS’ IT staff were temporarily loosening security to its more than 80,000 employees so that they could log in remotely. They used a common technique, which is called a DDoS, or a distributed denial-of-service attack, where hackers disrupt a computer network by flooding it with traffic.

Now, typically when people think of this kind of attack, it’s meant to overwhelm and then shut down the system. But what we learned through interviews with these officials is that it was more of an act of espionage. Rather than shutting down the system, it was intended to map HHS’ network. So a pretty concerning story to say the least. And another novel part of this is that the officials, the Chief Information Officer Jose Arrieta and Chief Information Security Officer Janet Vogel, said the attack began ramping up as early as October of 2019.

So a lot of strange pieces at play. Those two officials attribute the attack to China, though HHS has said it did not come to that conclusion. And the Office of Inspector General complicated the picture further by saying that they actually found it was connected to a person, an entity in Ukraine. So not all the questions are yet answered, but I think the takeaway from this story is that when a cyberattack hits, not everything is as it seems.

Rovner: Yeah, OK. All right, one more thing that we will consider on our watch list. All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Jen Golbeck about her book on the science of dog love, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am so excited to welcome to the podcast Jen Golbeck, a computer science professor at the University of Maryland who studies the internet for a living. She does serious research about some pretty grim corners of the online community, which we will talk about in a moment. But she’s probably better known on social media as “GR Mom,” head wrangler of The Golden Ratio media universe that brings the joy of her ever-changing pack of special-needs golden retrievers to her hundreds of thousands of followers every day, myself included, I have to say. Jen, thanks so much for being here.

Jen Golbeck: My pleasure. Thank you.

Rovner: So we’ll get to your new book, “The Purest Bond,” in a moment. But first, I know you spent a lot of time tracking the behavior of some of the most unpleasant and reprehensible people online. Is that part of why you started your little social media corner of happiness?

Golbeck: Yes. So I am very on social media. I’m a computer scientist by training. And after [President Donald] Trump got elected, everybody was angry online. Regardless of who you voted for, everyone was angry. And I just found myself needing an escape from that and I couldn’t really find it. And at the time, I had four golden retrievers and I was like, you know what? That can’t get much happier, so let’s just start putting pictures of them up.

So it was as much therapy for me as anything else, but it really ended up resonating with people and bringing together this wonderful community of people. And anybody who’s not nice, we block and keep them out of there. Things have not necessarily gotten better, but different, since 2016, 2017, and people still need that escape, including me. So yeah, it’s been a real balm in contrast to my regular research work to do that.

Rovner: Which is, you should say, looking at how hate spreads online. Is that a lot of what you do?

Golbeck: That’s pretty close, yeah. I think my technical term I use is malicious online behaviors. So we look at hate speech and extremism, misinformation, conspiracy theories, all that kind of stuff. So dogs are a really nice antidote to that.

Rovner: So with all the terrible things that go on online, I’m fascinated by the devotion of little groups of people who share interests and love to interact with each other. I still obviously have to be on Twitter, or whatever it’s called now, for my job. And I remember when I first met Matt Nelson, actually at your live show, who’s the creator of WeRateDogs (dogrates), I thanked him for making the online hellscape just a little bit less hellish. Do we underestimate how much online relationships can benefit people as much as cause mischief?

Golbeck: Yeah. The research on this is so interesting. Because since Facebook became a thing, we’ve been really interested in what’s the impact, the psychological impact, of social media? And the answer is always it’s super mixed, which is a kind of an academic cop-out answer, but totally true. There’s all kinds of ways that, obviously, the internet can harm people, and we see that now especially with Instagram and girls with eating disorders and body image issues. We know that generally people who spend a lot of time on social media are less happy than people who don’t.

So there are unquestionably some negative impacts, but it’s a little bit easy to forget, and some people weren’t even alive, when we didn’t have access to communities online and how profoundly isolating life could be and how difficult it was to get access to anything, especially social support. So now you can be in a very rural isolated space and very different from what the social mores of your community would dictate you should be. And that’s something where, in the 1990s, you probably would’ve ended up very lonely and depressed and totally unsupported. And with the internet, you’re not. You can find all kinds of people in exactly the same position as you and get that social support. And that’s an extreme example of what we find, which is you can form real relationships online. And that’s why I tend to resist this distinction between the real world and online. The real world absolutely exists online, and I’ve found lots of real friends who I’ve met offline, but also just keep up relationships with online, and it’s so important.

Rovner: So you and your husband, Ingo, don’t just take in rescue golden retrievers, you take in rescue golden retrievers that are often older and sicker and who have been the most neglected and the most mistreated. Was that something intentional or did it just happen?

Golbeck: It a little bit evolved that way. I got to say, I am always drawn to the seniors, and when I started fostering really wanted to get some seniors. That’s not most of the dogs that come into rescue, actually. It’s usually young dogs who people got and weren’t prepared for, and we fostered 20 of those dogs, too. But, eventually, we did get a pair of seniors. I always thought three dogs was too many, so we would have three with a foster. But I was like, I’ll never actually have three dogs. And then we got this bonded pair. Both were seniors, and so there were four dogs. And as soon as they showed up at my house, I was like, oh, they have always lived here. Now I have four dogs. What am I going to do? And it was great, of course. And about a year later, the rescue was like, “We have this 13-year-old and her people don’t want her. Will you take her?” And I asked my husband, I’m like, “What do you think about five dogs?” And he said, “What’s the difference between four and five? It’s fine.” So then we had five kind of old dogs, or old rescues, three of them were old rescues.

And I think, eventually, the rescue group started realizing that I’d just say yes to whatever they would give me. And so the dogs that they were having a hard time finding someone to take, I’d be like, “Yeah, sure, send them over.” It’s been so rewarding, though, to take these dogs who need a lot of love and attention and care and who haven’t been getting it and being able to give them the love and support and medical care that they need. It’s really rewarding. So I was interested, and then we stumbled our way into something that’s turned into a mission for both of us.

Rovner: So I know a lot has been written over the years about the science of how pets can improve human health and vice versa. I actually looked it up. I wrote my first pet therapy story in 1982. I was 5. No, seriously, it was my first job out of college. But you’ve done something with this book that I haven’t really seen before. You’ve merged a lot of the scientific study with some actual practical advice for pet owners. I assume that was very much on purpose.

Golbeck: Yeah. We didn’t want this to be a self-help book or a dog-training book. At the same time, there’s a lot of things that people want to know as they’re discovering the science of how they bond with their dogs. And so we try to work a little bit of tips in there, along with a lot of science and then stories from people who have really seen those benefits in their everyday relationship with their dogs.

Rovner: What’s been the response?

Golbeck: It’s interesting. I was like, I don’t know that all of this is super surprising. There are some surprising results in there. At the same time, what we’re basically saying is that dogs make us feel good and they love us back and we love them a whole lot. And I think anybody who has a dog knows that that’s true. And the response has been consistently people saying, “I was so excited to see my experience reflected in there.”

So we have, for example, a chapter about dogs in the community and how if you have a dog, you meet everybody in your neighborhood by walking your dog. And you don’t even know their names. You maybe know their dogs’ names. And people are like, “Oh yeah, that’s totally it.” But they also feel really validated because we have these feelings about our relationship with our dogs, and some people tell us that we’re crazy. Some people say that we’re making it up. And what people are finding in the book is that there’s actually a ton of really rigorous scientific research to support them having those feelings that they already have. So it’s this great way of being like, “Yes, I’m not crazy. My dog really does love me back. This really is as deep as I feel like it is.” So that’s been a great response that I wasn’t necessarily expecting that’s what it would be.

Rovner: Well, good. Well, Jen Golbeck, thank you for the book. Thank you for all you do. Thank you for what you do for golden retrievers and for the rest of us dog lovers out in the community.

Golbeck: My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

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

Ollstein: Yes. I chose a really upsetting and important investigation by my colleague Ariel Wittenberg. It hits at the intersection of health, labor, climate. It’s about mail carriers around the country who are dying from heat exposure. This is actually killing more male carriers than car crashes or dog bites or any of the things you think of being the hazards of that job. And not only is this happening amid soaring temperatures in the summers in a lot of places in the South, but the Postal Service is not following its own rules for training workers on how to notice the signs of dangerous heat exposure and take steps to protect themselves. And not only are they lying, according to these documents she obtained about having done these trainings, they are pressuring these workers to move faster, to not take breaks because of the competition from other private delivery services like Amazon. So really, really important piece.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think also important for everybody who works outside, with climate change. Riley, why don’t you go next?

Griffin: Yes, my colleague Robert Langreth also has a story in this week’s Bloomberg Businessweek issue, and it is titled “The Next Blockbuster Drug Might Be Made in Space.” It’s a fun one. It describes how companies, including Big Pharma names like Eli Lilly, are using microgravity to develop drugs and improve formulations of existing blockbusters. So it’s a fun read. You can find it in print or online.

Rovner: Not everything in tech is bad. Lauren.

Griffin: Not everything is bad.

Weber: I’m continuing the trend of shouting-out my colleagues this week. So a bunch of my colleagues had an investigation titled “Applesauce Lead Cases in Kids Surge Amid Questions on FDA Oversight.” And so we’ve all heard about these applesauce packets for toddlers and babies that were contaminated with lead, but the official FDA numbers say it’s only like 60-something cases, but my colleagues called around the state health departments and they believe it’s at least suspected in over 118 cases, potentially more, which leads to the question of how widespread is all of this.

It lends itself to the questions of: Is the FDA’s oversight enough, especially when it comes to baby food? This is not the first baby food issue we’ve obviously had in the last couple years. It really is just a horror story for everyone. I mean, you’re just trying to feed your kids stuff that they like and then they’re sucking on something that could damage their brain development and hurt them for years to come. Really heart-rending storyline, and my colleagues did a great job showing that this is much further-reaching than has been previously disclosed.

Rovner: So another continuing theme of this year, the FDA’s regulation of food as opposed to the FDA’s regulation of drugs and how that sometimes falls by the wayside. Well, my story is also from The Washington Post, by Kent Babb. It’s called “They Watched Their Husbands Win the Heisman — Then Lost Them to CTE.” And it’s a really wrenching story about how the very best players in college football have something else in common besides athletic talent: That, over the years, more and more have joined the not-so-exclusive club of ex-players with brain injuries and related behavioral … excuse me. Over the years, more and more have joined the not-so-exclusive club of ex-players with brain injuries and related behavioral issues.

It’s the serious dark side of a sport that is so beloved in the United States, including by me, and that deserves not just a hard look but action to prevent some of these horrendous aftereffects.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to Francis Ying for his technical expertise and amazing patience. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Alice.

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X and @alicemiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and clearly need to improve the rest of my social media profiles.

Rovner: Riley.

Griffin: You can find me on Threads and X @rileyraygriffin.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

With other GOP presidential candidates following Donald Trump’s lead in calling for an end to the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are jumping on an issue they think will favor them in the 2024 elections. The Biden administration almost immediately rolled out a controversial proposal that could dramatically decrease the price of drugs developed with federally funded research dollars. The drug industry and the business community at large are vehemently opposed to the proposal, but it is likely to be popular with voters.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case to decide whether the Sackler family should be able to shield billions of dollars taken from its bankrupt drug company, Purdue Pharma, from further lawsuits regarding the company’s highly addictive drug OxyContin.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The ACA may end up back on the proverbial chopping block if Trump is reelected. But as many in both parties know, it is unlikely to be a winning political strategy for Republicans. ACA enrollment numbers are high, as is the law’s popularity, and years after a failed effort during Trump’s presidency, Republicans still have not unified around a proposal to replace it.
• Democrats are eager to capitalize on the revival of “repeal and replace.” This week, the Biden administration announced plans to exercise so-called “march-in rights,” which it argues allow the government to seize certain patent-protected drugs whose prices have gotten too high and open them to price competition. The plan, once largely embraced by progressives, could give President Joe Biden another opportunity to claim his administration has proven more effective than Trump’s heading into the 2024 election.
• The Senate voted to approve more than 400 military promotions this week, effectively ending the 10-month blockade by Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama over a Pentagon policy that helps service members travel to obtain abortions. At the state level, the Texas courts are considering cases over its exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, while in Ohio, a woman who miscarried after being sent home from the hospital is facing criminal charges.
• Meanwhile, the Supreme Court soon could rule on whether EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, requires doctors to perform abortions in emergencies. And justices are also considering whether to allow a settlement deal to move forward that does not hold the Sacker family accountable for the harm caused by opioids.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Pfizer of failing to end the covid-19 pandemic with its vaccine.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’ sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg,” about his investigation into hospitals suing their patients for unpaid medical bills.

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

Julie Rovner: The Wisconsin State Journal’s “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs,” by David Wahlberg.  

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own,” by Madison Muller.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “New Abortion Restrictions Pose a Serious Threat to Fetal Surgery,” by Francois I. Luks, Tippi Mackenzie, and Thomas F. Tracy Jr. 

Rachana Pradhan: KFF Health News’ “Patients Expected Profemur Artificial Hips to Last. Then They Snapped in Half,” by Brett Kelman and Anna Werner, CBS News.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Bloomberg News’ “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way,” by Anna Edney and Riley Griffin.
• Ars Technica’s “Texas Sues Pfizer With COVID Anti-Fax Argument That Is Pure Stupid,” by Beth Mole.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health Law 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health LawEpisode Number: 325Published: Dec. 7, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve 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: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hello.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Good morning, Julie.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Dan Weissmann, host of our sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan’s been working on a very cool two-part episode about hospitals suing their patients that he will explain. But first, this week’s news. So now that former President [Donald] Trump has raised the possibility of revisiting a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, all of the other Republican presidential wannabes are adding their two cents.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says that rather than repeal and replace the health law, he would “repeal and supersede,” whatever that means. Nikki Haley has been talking up her anti-ACA bona fides in New Hampshire, and the leading Republican candidate for Senate in Montana is calling for a return to full health care privatization, which would mean getting rid of not only the Affordable Care Act, but also Medicare and Medicaid.

But the Affordable Care Act is more popular than ever, at least judging from this year’s still very brisk open enrollment signups. Alice, you wrote an entire story about how the ACA of 2023 is not the ACA of 2017, the last time Republicans took a serious run at it. How much harder would it be to repeal now?

Ollstein: It would be a lot harder. So, not only have a bunch of red and purple states expanded Medicaid since Republicans took their last swing at the law — meaning that a bunch more constituents in those states are getting coverage they weren’t getting before and might be upset if it was threatened by a repeal — but also just non-Medicaid enrollment is up as well, fueled in large part by all the new subsidies that were implemented over the last few years. And that’s true even in states that resisted expansions.

DeSantis’ Florida, for instance, has the highest exchange enrollment in the country. There’s just a lot more people with a lot more invested in maintaining the program. You have that higher enrollment, you have the higher popularity, and we still haven’t seen a real replacement or “supersede” plan, or whatever they want to call it. And folks I talk to on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers, even those that were pretty involved last time, do not think such a plan is coming.

Rovner: It did get asked about at the “last” Republican presidential primary debate last night, and there was an awful lot of hemming and hawing about greedy drug companies and greedy insurance companies, and I heard exactly nothing about any kind of plan. Has anybody else seen any sign of something that Republicans would actually do if they got rid of the Affordable Care Act?

Pradhan: No. There was a time, immediately after the ACA’s passage, that health care was a winning political issue for Republicans, right? It was multiple election cycles that they capitalized on Obamacare and used it to regain House majorities, Senate majorities, and the presidency eventually. But that has not been true for multiple years now. And I think they know that. I think establishment Republicans know that health care is not a winning issue for the party, which is why Democrats are so eager to capitalize on this reopening of ACA repeal, if you will.

Rovner: What a perfect segue, because I was going to say the Biden administration is wasting no time jumping back into health care with both feet, trying to capitalize on what it sees as a gigantic Republican misstep. Just this morning, they are rolling out new proposals aimed at further lowering prescription drug prices, and to highlight the fact that they’ve actually gotten somewhere in some lowering of prescription drug prices.

Now they would like to make it easier to use government “march-in rights,” which would let the government basically tell prescription drug companies, “You’re going to lower your price because we’re going to let other people compete against you, despite your patent.” They’re also doing, and I will use their words, a cross-government public inquiry into corporate greed in health care. Now, some of these things are super controversial. I mean, the march-in rights even before this was unveiled, we saw the drug industry complaining against. But they could also have a real impact if they did some of this, right? Anna, you’ve watched the drug price issue.

Edney: Yeah, I think they definitely could have an impact. This is one of those situations with the march-in rights where we don’t have any clue on where or how exactly, because we haven’t been told that this drug or this class of drugs are kind of what we’re aiming at at this point. It sounds like maybe there’s a little bit more of the plan to be baked, but I am sure there are a lot of progressives, particularly, who had pushed for this that, over the years, who are very excited to even see it mentioned and moving in some sort of way, which hasn’t really happened before.

And, clearly, the Biden administration wants to, like you said, capitalize on health care being part of the campaign. And they’ve done a lot on drug prices, at least a lot in the sense of what can be done. There’s negotiation in Medicare now for some drugs. They kept insulin for Medicare as well. So this is just another step they can say, “We’re doing something else,” and we’d have to see down the line exactly where they’d even plan to use it.

And, of course, as pharma always does, they said that this will hurt innovation and we won’t get any drugs. Not that things have been in place that long, but, clearly, we haven’t seen that so far.

Rovner: Yes, that is always their excuse. I feel like this is one of those times where it doesn’t even matter if any of these things get done, they’re putting them out there just to keep the debate going. This is obviously ground that the Biden campaign would love to campaign on — rather than talking about the economy that makes people mostly unhappy. I assume we’ll be seeing more of this.

Edney: Yeah. Your food prices and other things are very high right now. But if they can talk about getting drug prices lower, that’s a totally different thing that they can point to.

Ollstein: And it’s an easy way to draw the contrast. For people who might be apathetic and think, “Oh, it doesn’t matter who wins the presidential election,” this is an area where the Biden administration can credibly claim, based on what Trump recently said, “This is what’s at stake. This is the difference between my opponent and me. The health care of millions is on the line,” which has been a winning message in past elections.

And what’s been really striking to me is that even talking to a bunch of conservatives now, even though they don’t like the Affordable Care Act, they even are starting to argue that full-scale repeal and replace — now that it’s the status quo — that’s not even a conservative proposal.

They’re saying that it’s more conservative to propose smaller changes that chip around the edges and create some alternatives, but mainly leave it in place, which I think is really interesting, because for so long the litmus test was: Are you for full repeal, root and branch? And we’re just not really hearing that much anymore — except from Trump!

Rovner: The difficulty from the beginning is that the basis of the ACA was a Republican proposal. I mean, they were defanged from the start. It’s been very hard for them to come up with a replacement. What it already is is what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Well, let us turn to the other big issue that Democrats hope will be this coming election year, and that’s abortion, where there was lots of news this week.

We will start with the fact that the 10-month blockade of military promotions by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is over. Well, mostly over. On Tuesday, the Senate approved by voice vote more than 400 promotions that Tuberville had held up, with only a few four-star nominees still in question. Tuberville’s protests had angered not just Senate Democrats and the Biden administration, who said it was threatening national security, but increasingly his own Senate Republican colleagues.

Tuberville said he was holding up the nominations to protest the Biden administration’s policy of allowing active-duty military members and their dependents to travel out of state for an abortion if they’re stationed where it’s illegal, like in, you know, Alabama. So Alice, what did Tuberville get in exchange for dropping his 10-month blockade?

Ollstein: So, not much. I mean, his aim was to force the Biden administration to change the policy, and that didn’t happen — the policy supporting folks in the military traveling if they’re based in a state where abortion is banned and they need an abortion, supporting the travel to another state, still not paying for the abortion itself, which is still banned. And so that was the policy Tuberville was trying to get overturned, and he did not get that. So he’s claiming that what he got was drawing attention to it, basically. So we’ll see if he tries to use this little bit of remaining leverage to do anything. It does not seem like much was accomplished through this means, although there is a lot of anxiety that this sets a precedent for the future, not just on abortion issues, but, really, could inspire any senator to try to do this and hold a bunch of nominees hostage for whatever policy purpose they want.

Rovner: I know. I mean, senators traditionally sit on nominees for Cabinet posts. And the FDA and the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t have a director for, like, three administrations because members were angry at the administration for something about Medicare and Medicaid. But I had never seen anybody hold up military promotions before. This was definitely something new. Rachana, you were going to add something?

Pradhan: Oh, I mean, I was just thinking on Alabama specifically. I mean, I don’t claim to know, even though there was rising anger in Sen. Tuberville’s own party about this move. I mean, I’m not saying I know that this is a factor or not, but in Alabama, regardless of what he tried to do, I think that the attorney general in Alabama has made it clear that he might try to prosecute organizations that help people travel out of state to get abortions.

And so, it’s not like this is only the last word when you’re even talking about military officers or people in the military. Even in his home state, you might see some greater activity on that anyway, which might make it easier for him to honestly, in a way, give it up because it’s not the only way that you could presumably prosecute organizations or people who tried to help others go out of state to access abortion.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s important to say that while he irritated a lot of people in Washington, he probably had a lot of support from people back home in Alabama, which he kept pointing out.

Ollstein: Right. And I saw national anti-abortion groups really cheering him on and urging their members to send him thank-you letters and such. And so definitely not just in his home state. There are conservatives who were backing this.

Rovner: Well, moving on to Texas, because there is always abortion news out of Texas, we have talked quite a bit about the lawsuit filed by women who experienced pregnancy complications and couldn’t get abortions. Well, now we have a separate emergency lawsuit from a woman named Kate Cox, who is currently seeking an abortion because of the threat to her health and life.

Both of these lawsuits aren’t trying to strike the Texas ban, just to clarify when a doctor can perform a medically needed abortion without possibly facing jail time or loss of their medical license. Alice, I know the hearing for Kate Cox is happening even now as we are taping. What’s the status of the other case? We’re waiting to hear from the Texas Supreme Court. Is that where it is?

Ollstein: Yeah. So oral arguments were the other day and a bunch of new plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit. So it’s expanded to a few dozen people now, mostly patients, but some doctors as well who are directly impacted by the law. There was some interesting back and forth in the oral arguments over standing.

And one of the things the state was hammering was that they don’t have standing to sue because they aren’t in this situation that this other woman is in today, where they’re actively pregnant, actively in crisis, and being actively prevented from accessing the health care that they need that their doctor recommends, which in some circumstances is an abortion. And so I think this is an interesting test of the state’s argument on that front.

Rovner: Also, the idea, I mean, that a woman who literally is in the throes of this crisis would step forward and have her name in public and it’s going to court in an emergency hearing today.

Ollstein: Right, as opposed to the other women who were harmed previously. By the time they are seeking relief in court, their pregnancy is already over and the damage has already been done, but they’re saying it’s a threat of a future pregnancy. It’s impacting their willingness to become pregnant again, knowing what could happen, what already happened. But the state was saying like, “Oh, but because you’re not actively in the moment, you shouldn’t have the right to sue.” And so now we’ll see what they say when someone is really in the throes of it.

Rovner: In the moment. Well, another troubling story this week comes from Warren, Ohio, where a woman who experienced a miscarriage is being charged with “abuse of a corpse” because she was sent home from the hospital after her water broke early and miscarried into her toilet, which is gross, but that’s how most miscarriages happen.

The medical examiner has since determined that the fetus was, in fact, born dead and was too premature to survive anyway. Yet the case seems to be going forward. Is this what we can expect to see in places like Ohio where abortion remains legal, but prosecutors want to find other ways to punish women?

Ollstein: I mean, I also think it’s an important reminder that people were criminalized for pregnancy loss while Roe [v. Wade] was still in place. I mean, it was rare, but it did happen. And there are groups tracking it. And so I think that it’s not a huge surprise that it could happen even more now, in this post-Roe era, even in states like Ohio that just voted overwhelmingly to maintain access to abortion.

Pradhan: Julie, do we know what hospital? Because when I was looking at the story, do we know what kind of hospital it was that sent this person away?

Rovner: No. The information is still pretty sketchy about this case, although we do know the prosecutor is sending it to a grand jury. We know that much. I mean, the case is going forward. And we do know that her water broke early and that she did visit, I believe, it was two hospitals, although I have not seen them named. I mean, there’s clearly more information to come about this case.

But yeah, Alice is right. I mean, I wrote about a case in Indiana that was in 2012 or 2013, it was a long time ago, about a woman who tried to kill herself and ended up only killing her fetus and ended up in jail for a year. I mean, was eventually released, but … it’s unusual but not unprecedented for women to be prosecuted, basically, for pregnancy loss.

Ollstein: Yeah, especially people who are struggling with substance abuse. That’s been a major area where that’s happened.

Pradhan: I would personally be very interested in knowing the hospitals that are a part of this and whether they are religiously affiliated, because there’s a standard of care in medicine for what happens if you have your water break before the fetus is viable and what’s supposed to happen versus what can happen.

Rovner: There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where it was a Catholic hospital. The woman, her water broke early. She was in a Catholic hospital, and they also sent her home. I’m trying to remember where she finally got care. But yeah, that has been an issue also over the years. Well, meanwhile, back here in Washington, the Supreme Court is likely to tell us shortly, I believe, whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA, requires doctors to perform abortions in life-threatening situations, as the Biden administration maintains.

Alice, this case is on what’s known as the “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court, meaning it has not been fully briefed and argued. It’s only asking if the court will overturn a lower court’s ruling that the federal law trumps the state’s ban. When are we expecting to hear something?

Ollstein: It could be after justices meet on Friday. Really, it could be whenever after that. As we’ve seen in the last few years, the shadow docket can be very unpredictable, and we could just get, at very odd times, major decisions that impact the whole country or just one state. And so, yes, I mean, this issue of abortion care and emergency circumstances is playing out in court in a couple different states, and the federal government is getting involved in some of those states.

And so I think this could be a big test. Unlike a lot of lawsuits going on right now, this is not seeking to strike down the state’s abortion ban entirely. It’s just trying to expand and clarify that people who are in the middle of a medical emergency shouldn’t be subject to the ban.

Rovner: It’s similar to what they’re fighting about in Texas, actually.

Ollstein: Yeah, exactly. And this is still playing out at the 9th Circuit, but they’re trying to leapfrog that and get the Supreme Court to weigh in the meantime.

Rovner: Yeah, and we shall see. All right, well, while we’re on the subject of “This Week in Court,” let us move on to the case that was argued in public at the Supreme Court this week about whether the Sackler family can keep much of its wealth while declaring bankruptcy for its drug company, Purdue Pharma, that’s been found liable for exacerbating, if not causing much of the nation’s opioid epidemic.

The case involves basically two bad choices: Let the Sacklers manipulate the federal bankruptcy code to shield billions of dollars from future lawsuits or further delay justice for millions of people injured by the company’s behavior. And the justices themselves seem pretty divided over which way to go. Anna, what’s at stake here? This is a lot, isn’t it?

Edney: Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting how it doesn’t exactly break down on ideological lines. The justices were — I don’t want to say all over the place, because that sounds disrespectful — but they had concerns on many different levels. And one is that the victims and their lawyers negotiated the settlement because for them it was the best way they felt that they could get compensation, and they didn’t feel that they could get it without letting the Sacklers off the hook, that the Sacklers basically would not sign the settlement agreement, and they were willing to go that route.

And the government is worried about using that and letting the Sacklers off the hook in this way and using this bankruptcy deal to be able to shield a lot of their money that they took out of the company, essentially, and have in their personal wealth now. And so that’s something that a lot of companies are, not a lot, but companies are looking to hope to use the sign of bankruptcy protection when it comes to big class-action lawsuits and harm to consumers.

And so I think that what the worry is is that that then becomes the precedent, that the ones at the very top will always get off because it’s easier to negotiate the settlement that way.

Rovner: We’ll obviously have to wait until — as this goes a few months — to see the decisions in this case, but it’s going to be interesting. I think everybody, including the justices, are unhappy with the set of facts here, but that’s why it was in front of the Supreme Court. So our final entry in “This Week in Court” is a twofer. It is also “This Week in Health Misinformation.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit against Pfizer for allegedly violating Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act because its covid vaccine did not, in fact, end the covid epidemic. Quoting from the attorney general’s press release, “We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies.” It’s hard to even know where to start with this, except that, I guess, anyone can sue anyone for anything in Texas, right?

Edney: Yeah, that’s a very good point. The entire concept of it feels so weird. I mean, a vaccine doesn’t cure anything, right? That’s not the point of a vaccine. It’s not a drug. It is a vaccine that is supposed to prevent you from getting something, and not everybody took it. So that feels like the end of the story, but, clearly, the attorney general would prefer attention, I think, on this, and to continue to sow doubt in vaccines and the government and the Food and Drug Administration seems to be maybe more of the point here.

Rovner: I noticed he’s only suing for, I think, it’s $10 million, which is frankly not a ton of money to a company as big as Pfizer. So one would assume that he’s doing this more for the publicity than for the actual possibility of getting something.

Pradhan: Yeah, I think Pfizer’s CEO’s annual salary is more than the damages that are being sought in this case. So it’s really not very much money at all. I mean, more broadly speaking, I mean, Texas, Florida, I think you see especially post-public-health-emergency-covid times, the medical freedom movement has really taken root in a lot of these places.

And I think that it just seems like this is adding onto that, where doctors say they should be able to give ivermectin to covid patients and it helped them and not be at risk of losing their license. And that’s really kind of an anti-vaccine sentiment. Obviously, it’s very alive and well.

Rovner: We are post-belief-in-scientific-expertise.

Edney: Well, I was going to say, I appreciated The Texas Tribune’s story on this because they called out every time in this lawsuit that he was twisting the truth or just completely not telling the truth at all in the sense that he said that more people who took the vaccine died, and that’s clearly not the case. And so I appreciated that they were trying to call him out every time that he said something that wasn’t true, but was just completely willing to put that out in the public sphere as if it was.

Rovner: There was also a great story on Ars Technica, which is a scientific website, about how the lawsuit completely misrepresents the use of statistics, just got it completely backwards. We’ll post a link to that one too. Well, while we are talking about drug companies, let’s talk about some drugs that really may not be what companies say they are.

Anna, you have a new story up this week about the Pentagon’s effort to ensure that generic drugs are actually copies of the drugs they’re supposed to be. That effort’s running into a roadblock. Tell us a little about that.

Edney: Yeah, thanks for letting me talk about this one. It’s “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way.” So the FDA is the roadblock to trying to figure out whether the drugs, particularly that the military and their family members are taking, work well and don’t have side effects that could be extremely harmful. So what’s going on here is that the Defense Department and others, the White House even, has grown skeptical of the FDA’s ability to police generic drugs, largely that are made overseas.

We did some analysis and we found that it was actually 2019 was the first time that generic drug-making facilities in India surpassed the number of those in the U.S. So we are making more, not just active ingredients, but finished products over in India. And the FDA just doesn’t have a good line into India. They don’t do many unannounced inspections. They usually have to tell the company they’re coming weeks in advance. And what we found is when the Defense Department started looking into this, they partnered with a lab to test some of these drugs.

They got some early results. Those results were concerning, as far as the drug might not work, and also could cause kidney failure, seizures. And even despite this, they’ve been facing the FDA around every corner trying to stop them and trying to get them not to test drugs. They say it’s a waste of money, when, in fact, Kaiser Permanente has been doing this for its 12.7 million members for several years.

And it just seems like something is going on at the FDA and that they don’t want people to have any questions about generic drugs. They really just want everyone to accept that they’re always exactly the same, and they even derail the White House effort to try to look into this more as well. But the Pentagon said, “Thank you very much, FDA, but we’re going forward with this.”

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, I could see that the FDA would be concerned about … they’re supposed to be the last word on these things. But, as you point out and as much of your reporting has pointed out over the last couple of years, the FDA has not been able to keep up with really making sure that these drugs are what they say they are.

Edney: One thing I learned that was interesting, and this is that in Europe, actually, there’s a network of 70 labs that do this kind of testing before drugs reach patients and after they reach patients. So it’s not a totally unusual thing. And for some reason, the FDA does not want that to happen.

Rovner: Well, finally on the drug beat this week, CVS announced earlier that it would overhaul its drug pricing to better reflect how much it pays for the drugs, all of which sounds great, but the fact is that how much CVS pays for the drugs doesn’t have all that much effect on how much we end up paying CVS for those same drugs, right? They’re just changing how they get the drugs from the manufacturers, not necessarily how they price it for the customers.

Pradhan: I think my main question would be, what does that mean for a patient’s out-of-pocket cost for prescriptions? I don’t know how much of this has to do with … for CVS as the pharmacy, but we have CVS Caremark, which is a major PBM, and how this affects the pricing models there. And PBMs, of course, have been under scrutiny in Congress. And there’s outside pressure too, right? The story that you highlighted, Julie, talks about Mark Cuban’s affordable-drug effort. And so, yeah, I don’t know. I mean, I think it sounds good until maybe we see some more details, right?

Rovner: I saw one story that said, “This could really help lower drug prices for consumers,” and one that said, “This could actually raise drug prices for consumers.” So I’m assuming that this is another one where we’re going to have to wait and see the details of. All right, well, that is this week’s news.

Now we will play my interview with Dan Weissmann of the “Arm and a Leg” podcast, and then we will come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’s sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan has a cool two-part story on hospitals suing patients for overdue bills that he’s here to tell us about. Dan, welcome back.

Dan Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: So over the past few years, there have been a lot of stories about hospitals suing former patients, including a big investigation by KFF Health News. But you came at this from kind of a different perspective. Tell us what you were trying to find out.

Weissmann: We were trying to figure out why hospitals file lawsuits in bulk. Investigative reporters like Jay Hancock at KFF [Health News] have documented this practice, and one of the things that they note frequently is how little money hospitals get from these lawsuits. Jay Hancock compared the amount that VCU [Health] was seeking from patients and compared it to that hospital system’s annual surplus, their profit margin, and it looked tiny. And other studies document essentially the same thing. So why do they do it?

And we got a clue from a big report done by National Nurses United in Maryland, which, in addition to documenting how little money hospitals were getting compared to the million-dollar salaries they were paying executives in this case, also noted that a relatively small number of attorneys were filing most of these lawsuits. Just five attorneys filed two-thirds of the 145,000 lawsuits they documented across 10 years, and just one attorney filed more than 40,000 cases. So we were like, huh, maybe that’s a clue. Maybe we found somebody who is getting something out of this. We should find out more.

Rovner: So you keep saying “we” — you had some help working on this. Tell us about your partners.

Weissmann: Oh my God, we were so, so lucky. We work with The Baltimore Banner, which is a new daily news outlet in Baltimore, new nonprofit news outlet in Baltimore, that specializes in data reporting. Their data editor, Ryan Little, pulled untold numbers of cases, hundreds of thousands of cases, from the Maryland courts’ website and analyzed them to an inch of their life and taught us more than I could ever have imagined.

And Scripps News also came in as a partner and one of their data journalists, Rosie Cima, pulled untold numbers of records from the Wisconsin court system and worked to analyze data that we also got from a commercial firm that has a cache of data that has more detail than what we could pull off the website. It was a heroic effort by those folks.

Rovner: So what did you find? Not what you were expecting, right?

Weissmann: No. While Rosie and Ryan were especially gathering all this data and figuring out what to do with it, I was out talking to a lot of people. And what I found out is that in the main, it appears that frequently when these lawsuits happen and when hospitals file lawsuits in general, they’re not being approached by attorneys. They’re working with collection agencies. And most hospitals do work with a collection agency, and it’s essentially like, I put it like, you get a menu, oh, I’m having a hamburger, I’m going to pursue people for bills.

Like, OK, do you want onions? Do you want mustard? Do you want relish? What do you want on it? And in this case, it’s like, how hard do you want us to go after people? Do you want us to hit their credit reports — if you still can do that, because the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] has been making regulations about that — but do you want us to do that? How often can we call them? And do you want us to file lawsuits if we don’t get results? And so that is essentially in consultation with the hospital’s revenue department and the collection agency, and it’s a strategic decision between them.

That was what we found out through talking to people. What Rosie and Ryan turned up, and the data we had from the folks in New York backed up, is that, surprisingly, in the three states that we looked at, there’s just so much less of this activity than we had expected to find. In Maryland, Ryan sent me a series of emails, the first saying, like, “I’m not actually seeing any this year. That’s got to be wrong. They must be hiding them somewhere. I’m going to go investigate.” And a week later he was like, “I think I found them, and then we’ll go run some more numbers.”

And then a week later, after going to the courthouse and looking at everything you could find, he was like, “No, actually Maryland hospitals just do not seem to be suing anybody this year.” And we had expected there to be fewer lawsuits, but zero was a surprise to everybody. In New York, we appear to have found that two of those three law firms handling all those cases are no longer handling medical bill cases. And in Wisconsin, final numbers are still being crunched. Our second part will have all those numbers.

The Banner is coming out with their numbers this week. But Scripps News and us are still crunching numbers in Wisconsin. But what was the biggest shocker was, I can just tell you, there were so many fewer lawsuits than we had expected, and many of the most active plaintiffs had either cut the practice entirely, like filing zero lawsuits or filing hardly any. One of the things that a lot of these reports that look at across a state, like in New York and the Maryland report, note, and that we found in Wisconsin too, is that most hospitals don’t do this.

Noam Levey at KFF [Health News] found that many hospitals have policies that say, “We might file a lawsuit,” and some larger number of hospitals file some lawsuits. But in all these cases where you’re seeing tons of lawsuits filed, the phenomenon of suing people in bulk is actually not business as usual for most hospitals. That is driven by a relatively small group of players. There was a study in North Carolina by the state treasurers, obviously and Duke University, that found 95% of all the lawsuits were filed by just a few institutions.

The New York people found this. We’ve seen it in Wisconsin. So I mean, it’s another very interesting question when you’re looking at why does this happen. It’s like it’s not something that most institutions do. And again, in Wisconsin, we found that most of the players that had been the most active had basically stopped.

Rovner: Do we know why? Is it just all of the attention that we’ve seen to this issue?

Weissmann: Probably the answer is we don’t know why. Our colleagues at The Banner called every hospital in Maryland and were not told very much. We emailed all the hospitals in Wisconsin that we could that we had seen dramatically decrease, and nobody came to the phone. So we don’t really know.

But it does seem like, certainly in Maryland and New York, there were these huge campaigns that got tons of publicity and got laws changed, got laws passed. And there has been attention. The reports that Bobby Peterson put out in Wisconsin got attention locally. Sarah Kliff of The New York Times, who’s been writing about these kinds of lawsuits, has written multiple times about hospitals in Wisconsin. So it seems like a good first guess, but it’s a guess. Yeah.

Rovner: Well, one thing that I was interested that you did turn up, as you pointed out at the top, hospitals don’t get very much money from doing this. You’re basically suing people for money that they don’t have. So you did find other ways that hospitals could get reimbursed. I mean, they are losing a lot of money from people who can’t pay, even people with insurance, who can’t pay their multi-thousand-dollar deductible. So what could they be doing instead?

Weissmann: They could be doing a better job of evaluating people’s ability to pay upfront. The majority of hospitals in the United States are obligated by the Affordable Care Act to have charity care policies, financial assistance policies, in which they spell out, if you make less than a certain amount of money, it’s a multiple of the federal poverty level that they choose, we’ll forgive some or all of your bill. And, frequently, that number is as much as four times the federal poverty level. They might knock 75% off your bill, which is a huge help.

And as a guy that I met noted, using data from KFF, 58% of Americans make less than 75% of the federal poverty level. That is a lot of people. And so if you’re chasing someone for a medical bill, they might very well have been someone you could have extended financial assistance to. This guy, his name is Nick McLaughlin, he worked for 10 years for a medical bill collections agency. Someone in his family had a medical bill they were having a hard time paying, and he figured out that they qualified for charity care, but the application process, he noted, was really cumbersome, and even just figuring out how to apply was a big process. And so he thought, I know that chasing people for money they don’t have isn’t really the best business model and that we’re often chasing people for money they don’t have. What if we encourage hospitals to be more proactive about figuring out if someone should be getting charity care from them in the first place?

Because, as he said, every time you send someone a bill, you’re spending two bucks. And you’re not just sending one bill, you’re sending like three bills and a final notice. That all adds up, and you’re manning a call center. You’re spending money and you’re missing opportunities by not evaluating people. Because while you’re asking about their income, you might find out they’re eligible for Medicaid, and you can get paid by Medicaid rather than chasing them for money they don’t have.

And two, they might update their insurance information from you and you can get money from their insurance. You can extend financial assistance to somebody, as you said, who has a deductible they can’t pay, and they might actually come to you for care that you can unlock money from their insurance if they’re going to come to you because they’re not afraid of the bill.

I should absolutely say, while Nick McLaughlin is selling hospitals on the idea of adopting new software, which is a great idea, they should do that, they should be more proactive, an entity called Dollar For, a nonprofit organization out of the Pacific Northwest that’s been doing work all over the country, has been beating the drum about this and has a tool that anybody can use.

Essentially, go to their website, dollarfor.org, and type in where you were seen and an estimate of your income, and they will tell you, you’re likely to qualify for charity care at this hospital, because they have a database of every hospital’s policy. And if you need help applying, because some of these applications are burdensome, we’ll help you. So this exists, and everybody should know about it and everybody should tell everybody they know about it. I think the work they’re doing is absolutely heroic.

Rovner: Well, Dan Weissmann, thank you so much for joining us. We will post a link to Dan’s story in our show notes and on our podcast page.

Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

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

Edney: Sure. This is from my colleague Madison Muller, “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own.” And I thought she just did such an amazing job with this story, talking to Mark Bryant, who helped start an organization, Gun Violence Archive, which is essentially the only place that is trying to tally every instance of gun violence.

And because of a lot of the restrictions that the NRA has helped get into government regulations and things, some of them which are more recently loosening, but because of those in the past, this is really the only way you could try to look up these statistics. And he’s just given the last decade of his life, with no breaks, trying to do this and his health is failing. And I thought it was just a really poignant look at somebody who has no skin in the game, but just wanted the right information out there.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously this is a big deal. Alice.

Ollstein: I did an op-ed that was published in Stat by a group of fetal medicine specialists who are writing about how their work is being compromised by state abortion bans right now. They were saying these are very risky, high-stakes procedures where they perform operations in utero, latent pregnancy usually, and it’s an attempt to save the pregnancy where there is a big risk. But with all of these, there are risks that it could end the pregnancy, and now they’re afraid of being prosecuted for that.

And they describe a bunch of challenging situations that, even without these bans are challenging, things where there’s twins and something to help one could harm the other twin, and this could all affect the health and life of the parent as well. And so they’re saying that they’re really in this whole new era and have to think about the legal risks, as well as the medical and bioethical ones that they already have to deal with.

Rovner: I’ve reported about this over the years, and I can tell you that these are always really wrenching family decisions about trying to desperately save a pregnancy by doing this extraordinarily difficult and delicate kind of procedure. Rachana.

Pradhan: My extra credit is a story from our colleague Brett Kelman, who worked on this investigation with CBS News. It is about a type of artificial hip known as Profemur that literally were snapping in half in patients’ bodies. I told Brett earlier this week that I was cringing at every line that I read. So if folks want to get a really, frankly, pretty gruesome, awful story about how people around the country have received these artificial hips, and the fact that they broke inside their bodies has really caused a lot of damage.

And, frankly, I know we talked about the FDA, but also this story really sheds light on how the FDA has dropped the ball in not acting with more urgency. And had they done that, many of these injuries likely would’ve been avoided. So, I urge everyone to read it. It’s a great story.

Rovner: It is. I also flinched when I was reading a lot of it. Well, my story is from the Wisconsin State Journal by David Wahlberg, and it’s called “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs.” And while I have been covering Medicaid since the 1980s, and I never knew this even existed, it seems that a handful of states, Wisconsin among them, allows counties to go after the fathers of babies born on Medicaid, which is about half of all births — Medicaid’s about half of all births.

Not surprisingly, making moms choose between disclosing the father to whom she is not married to the state or losing Medicaid for her infant is not a great choice. And there’s lots of research to suggest that it can lead to bad birth outcomes, particularly in African American and Native American communities. I have long known that states can come after the estates of seniors who died after receiving Medicaid-paid nursing home or home care, but this one, at the other end of life, was a new one to me.

Now, I want to know how many other states are still doing this. And when I find out, I’ll report back.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us too. Thanks, as always, to our tireless tech guru, Francis Ying, who’s back from vacation. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Anna?

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

Rovner: Rachana.

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X, and @AliceMiranda on Bluesky.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Former president and current 2024 Republican front-runner Donald Trump is aiming to put a repeal of the Affordable Care Act back on the political agenda, much to the delight of Democrats, who point to the health law’s growing popularity.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the all-Republican state Supreme Court this week took up a lawsuit filed by more than two dozen women who said their lives were endangered when they experienced pregnancy complications due to the vague wording of the state’s near-total abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA recently approved another promising weight loss drug, offering another option to meet the huge demand for such drugs that promise notable health benefits. But Medicare and private insurers remain wary of paying the tab for these very expensive drugs.
• Speaking of expensive drugs, the courts are weighing in on the use of so-called copay accumulators offered by drug companies and others to reduce the cost of pricey pharmaceuticals for patients. The latest ruling called the federal government’s rules on the subject inconsistent and tied the use of copay accumulators to the availability of cheaper, generic alternatives.
• Congress will revisit government spending in January, but that isn’t soon enough to address the end-of-the-year policy changes for some health programs, such as pending cuts to Medicare payments for doctors.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a guide by the staff of Stat to help lay people decipher whether clinical study results truly represent a “breakthrough” or not.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a woman who visited a hospital lab for basic prenatal tests and ended up owing almost $2,400. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get,” by Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, and Samantha Liss.

Joanne Kenen: KFF Health News’ “She Once Advised the President on Aging Issues. Now, She’s Battling Serious Disability and Depression,” by Judith Graham.  

Victoria Knight: Business Insider’s “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God,” by Lauren Vespoli.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: ProPublica’s “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It,” by Maya Miller and Robin Fields.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Progressive and Anti-Abortion? New Group Plays Fast and Loose to Make Points,” by Darius Tahir.
• ProPublica’s “Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t,” by Kavitha Surana.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on Agenda

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on AgendaEpisode Number: 324Published: Nov. 30, 2023

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 30, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Rachana Pradhan about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient fell into an all-too-common trap of using a lab suggested by her doctor’s office for routine bloodwork without realizing she might be left on the hook for thousands of dollars. But first, this week’s news — and last week’s, too, because we were off.

Because nothing is ever gone for good, the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is back in the news, and it’s coming primarily from the likely Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Just to remind you, in case you’ve forgotten, Trump, during his presidency, even in the two years that Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, was unable to engineer a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, nor did his administration even manage to unveil an alternative. So what possible reason could he have for thinking that this is going to help him politically now?

Knight: My takeaway is that I think it’s a personal grudge that former President Trump still has, that he failed at this. And I think, when you talk to people, he’s still mad that Sen. John McCain did his famous thumbs-down when the rest of the Republican Party was on board. So I’m not sure that there is much political strategy besides wanting to just make it happen finally, because upset it didn’t happen.

Rovner: Is this part of his revenge tour?

Knight: I mean, I think somewhat. Because if you ask House Freedom Caucus people, they will say, “Yeah, we should repeal it.” But if you ask some more moderate Republican members, they’re like, “We’ve already been through that. We don’t want to do it again.” So I don’t think the Republican Party on the Hill has an appetite to do that, even if Congress goes to Republicans in both chambers.

Kenen: Trump never came up with a health plan and repeal died in the Senate, but remember, it was a struggle to even get anything through the House, and what the House Republicans finally voted for, they didn’t even like. So I don’t know if you call this a revenge tour, but it’s checking a box. But I think it’s important to remember that if you look closely at what Republican policies are, they don’t call it repeal, they don’t say, “We are going to repeal it.” That didn’t go so well for them, and it probably cost them an election.

But they still do have a lot of policy ideas that would water down or de facto repeal many key provisions of Obamacare. So they haven’t tried to go that route, and I’m not sure they would ever try a full-out repeal, but there are lots of other things they could do, some of which would have technical names: community rating and things like that, that voters might not quite understand what they were doing, that could really undermine the protections of Obamacare.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was going to say the Republican Party, in general, this has been the running joke since they started “repeal and replace” in 2010, is that they haven’t had the “replace” part of “repeal and replace” at all. Trump kept saying he was going to have a great plan, it’s coming in two weeks, and, of course, now he’s saying he’s going to have a great plan. We’ve never seen this great plan because the Republicans have never been able to agree on what should come next. Aside from, as Joanne says, tinkering around with the Affordable Care Act.

Kenen: Some of that tinkering would be significant.

Rovner: It could be.

Kenen: I mean there are things that they could tinker that wouldn’t be called repeal, but would actually really make the ACA not work very well.

Rovner: But most of the things that the Republicans wanted to do to the ACA have already been done, like repealing the individual mandate, getting rid of a lot of the industry-specific taxes that they didn’t like.

Kenen: Right. So they ended up getting rid of the spinach and they end up with the stuff that even Republicans, they might not say they like the ACA, but they’re being protected by it. And the individual mandate was the single-most unpopular, contentious part of the law and even a lot of Democrats didn’t like it. And so that target of the animus is gone. So by killing part of it, they also made it harder to do things in the future. They could do damage, though.

Rovner: Yeah. Or they could take on entitlements which, of course, is where the real money is. But we’ll get to that in a minute. Sarah, we have not seen you in a while, so we need to catch up on a bunch of things that are FDA-related. First, a couple of payment items since you were last here. The FDA has, as expected, approved a weight loss version of the diabetes drug Mounjaro that appears to be even more effective than the weight loss version of Ozempic. But insurers are still very reluctant to pay for these drugs, which are not only very expensive, they appear to need to be consumed very long-term, if not forever. Medicare has so far resisted calls to cover the drugs, despite some pressure from members of Congress, but that might be about to change.

Karlin-Smith: I think Medicare is getting a lot of pressure. They’re going to have to probably re-look at it at some point. What I found interesting is recently CMS [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] regulates other types of health plans as well, and in the ACA space they seem to be pushing for coverage of these obesity drugs. And I think they’re thinking around that. They note that the non-coverage allowance for these ACA plans was based on … they were following what Medicare was doing and there’s some acknowledgment that maybe the non-Medicare population is different from the Medicare population. But I think it’s also worth thinking about some of their other reasoning for coverage there, including that these drugs are different than some of the older weight loss drugs that provided more minimal weight loss, had worse side effects, and it came at a time when weight loss was seen as more of a cosmetic issue. So if that ACA provision rule goes through, I think that does help the case for people pushing for coverage in Medicare Part D of these drugs.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean this seems to be one of these “between a rock and a hard place” … that the demand for these drugs is huge. The evidence suggests that they work very well and that they work not just to help people lose weight, but perhaps when they lose weight to be less likely to have heart attacks and strokes and all that other stuff that you don’t want people to have. On the other hand, at the moment, they are super expensive and would bankrupt insurance companies and Medicare.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, we’ve seen this before where people worry there’s a new class of expensive drugs that a lot of people seem like they will need and it’s going to bankrupt the country, and oftentimes that doesn’t happen even whether it is, in theory, more coverage to some extent. We saw that with hep C. There was a new class of cholesterol drugs that came out a few years ago that just haven’t taken off in the way people worried they would. Some of these obesity drugs, they do work really well, not everybody really tolerates them as well as you would think. So there’s questions about whether that demand is really there. Sen. [Bill] Cassidy [R-La.] has made some interesting points about “Is there a way to use these drugs initially for people and then come up with something more for weight maintenance that wouldn’t be as expensive?”

Rovner: We should point out that Sen. Cassidy is a medical doctor.

Karlin-Smith: But I think the pressure is coming on the government. Recently, I got to hear the head of OPM [Office of Personnel Management], who deals with the insurance coverage for federal government employees, and they have a really permissible coverage of obesity drugs. Basically, they require all their health insurance plans to cover one of these GLP-1 drugs, and they have some really interesting language I’ve seen used by pharmaceutical companies to say, “Look, this part of the federal government has said obesity is a disease. It needs to be treated,” and so forth. So I don’t think the federal government is going to be able to use this argument of, “This is not a medical condition, and these are expensive, we’re not going to cover it.” But there’s definitely going to be tensions there in terms of costs.

Rovner: Well, definitely more to come here. Meanwhile, CMS is also looking at changing the rules, again, for some pharmacy copay assistance programs, which claim to assist patients but more often seem to enrich drug companies and payers. What is this one about? And can you explain it in English? Because I’m not sure I understand it.

Karlin-Smith: So most people, when you get a prescription for a drug, have some amount of copay, so your insurance company pays the bulk of the cost and you pay maybe $10, $20, $30 when you pick up your prescription. For really high-cost drugs, pharmaceutical companies and sometimes third-party charities often offer copay support, where they will actually pay your copay for you.

The criticism of these charities and pharma support is that it lets the companies keep the prices higher. Because once you take away the patient feeling the burden of the price, they can still keep that higher percentage that goes to your health plan and into your premiums that you don’t think about. And so health insurance companies have said, “OK, well we’re not going to actually count this coupon money towards your copay, your out-of-pocket max for the year, because you’re not actually paying it.”

So that doesn’t end up doing the patient much good in the end because, while you might get the drug for free the first part of the year, eventually you end up having to pay the money. The courts have weighed in, and the latest ruling was that the effect of it was essentially telling CMS, “You need to re-look at your rules. We don’t think your logic is consistent,” and they seem to potentially suggest that CMS should only allow copay accumulators if there’s a cheaper drug a patient could take.

So, basically, they’re saying it’s unfair to put this burden on patients and not let them benefit from the coupons if this is the only drug they can take. But if there’s a generic drug they should be taking, that’s the equivalent then, OK, insurance company, you can penalize them there. But interestingly, CMS has basically pushed back on the court ruling. They’re asking them for basically more information about what they’re exactly directing them to do and signaling that they want to keep their broader interpretation of the law.

It’s a tricky situation, I think, policy-wise, because there’s this tension of, yes, the drug prices are really high. The insurance companies have a point of how these coupons create these perverse incentives in the system, and, on the other hand, the person that gets stuck in the middle, the patient is not really the fair pawn in this game. And when talking about a similar topic with somebody recently, they brought up what happened with surprise billing and they made this parallel of we need to think about it as, OK, you big corporate entities need to figure out how to duke out this problem, but stop putting the patient in the middle because they’re the one that gets hurt. And that’s what happened in surprise billing. I’m not sure if there’s quite that solution of how you could do that in this pharmaceutical space though.

Rovner: I was just going to say that this sounds exactly like surprise billing, but for prescription drugs. Well, while we are talking about Capitol Hill, let’s turn to Capitol Hill, where the big news of the week is that House Republican conservatives, the so-called Freedom Caucus, have apparently agreed to abide by the deal they agreed to abide by earlier this year. At least that’s when it comes to the overall total for the annual spending bills. Then-Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy’s attempt to adhere to that deal is one of the things that led to his ouster. The conservatives had wanted to cut spending much more deeply than the deal that was cut, I think it was in May. Although I feel compelled to add: Cutting the appropriations bills, which is what we’re talking about here, doesn’t really do very much to help the federal budget deficit. Most of the money that the federal government spends doesn’t go through the appropriations process. It’s automatic, like Social Security and Medicare.

But I digress. Victoria, what prompted the Freedom Caucus to change their minds and what does that portend for actually getting some of these spending bills done before the next cutoff deadline, which is mid-January?

Knight: I mean, I think it’s the Freedom Caucus just facing reality and that it’s really hard to do budget cuts, and a lot of these bills, the cuts are very deep. For the Labor-HHS bill, which is the bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services, the cut is 18%. To the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], 12% to the department itself. Those are really big cuts. And all the bills, you look at them, they all have really deep cuts.

The agriculture bill has deep cuts to the Department of Agriculture that some moderate Republicans don’t like. So all of the bills have these issues, and so I think they’re realizing it is just not possible to get what they want. Some of them didn’t vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the deal that former Speaker McCarthy did with the debt limit that set funding levels. So they’re not necessarily going back on something that they voted for.

Rovner: They’re going back on something that the House voted for.

Knight: Yeah. So yeah, I think they’re just realizing the appropriations process, it’s difficult to make these deep spending cuts. I’ve also heard rumors that there might still be a big omnibus spending bill in January. Despite all this talk of doing the individual appropriations bills, I’ve heard that it may end up, despite all the efforts of the Republican Caucus, it may end where they have to just do a big bill because this is the easiest thing to do and then move on to the rest of the business of Congress for the next year. So we’ll see if that happens. But I have heard some rumors already swirling around that.

Rovner: I mean the idea they have now “agreed” to a spending limit that should have been done in the budget in April, which would’ve given them several months to work on the appropriations bills coming in under that level. And, of course, now we’re almost three months into the new fiscal year, so I mean they’re going to be late starting next year unless they resolve this pretty soon. But in the meantime, one thing that won’t happen is that we won’t get a big omnibus bill before Christmas because the deadline is now not until January, and that’s important for a bunch of health issues because we have a lot of policies that are going to end at the end of the year. Things like putting off cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, which a lot of people care about, including, obviously, all the doctors. Is there a chance that some of these “extender provisions” will find their way onto something else, maybe the defense authorization bill that I think they do want to finish before Christmas?

Knight: Yeah, I think that’s definitely possible. I’ve also heard they can retroactively do that, so even if they miss the deadline, it will probably be fixed. So it doesn’t seem like too big a worry,

Rovner: Although those doctor cuts, I mean, what happens is that CMS pens the claims, they don’t pay the claims until it’s been fixed retroactively. They have done it before, it’s a mess.

Kenen: And it’s bad for the doctors because they don’t get paid. It takes even longer to get paid because they’re put in a hold pile, which gets rather large.

Rovner: It does. Not that the defense bill doesn’t have its own issues around defense, but while we’re on the subject of defense, it looks like Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville might be ready to throw in the towel now on the more than 400 military promotions he’s been blocking to protest the Biden administration’s policy allowing members of active-duty military and their dependents to travel to other states for an abortion if it’s banned where they are stationed. This has been going on since February. My impression is that it’s his fellow Republicans who are getting worried about this.

Kenen: Yeah. They’re as fed up as the Democrats are now. Not 100% of them are, but there’s a number who’ve come out in public and basically told him to cut it out. And then there are others who aren’t saying it in public, but there are clearly signs that they’re not crazy about this either. But we keep hearing it’s about to break. We’ve been hearing for several weeks it’s about to be resolved, and until it’s resolved, it’s not resolved. So I think clearly there’s movement because the pressure has ramped up from his fellow Republicans.

Rovner: Well, to get really technical, I think that the Senate Rules Committee passed a resolution that could get around this whole thing-

Kenen: But they don’t really want to, I mean the Republicans would rather not confront him through a vote. They’d rather just stare him down and get him to pretend that he won and move on. And that’s what we’re waiting to see. Is it a formal action by the Senate or is there some negotiated way to move forward with at least a large number of these held-up nominations.

Rovner: It’s the George Santos-Bob Menendez health issue. In other words, they would like him to step down himself rather than have to vote to take it down, but they would definitely like him to back off.

Kenen: I mean, not confusing anybody but they’re not talking about expelling her from the Senate. They’re [inaudible] talking about “Cut this out and let these people get their promotions,” because some of them are very serious. These are major positions that are unfilled.

Rovner: Yes, I mean it’s backing up the entire military system because people can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go and the people who are going to take their place can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go, and it’s not great for the Department of Defense. All right, well, while we are on the subject of abortion, at least tangentially, the Texas Supreme Court this week heard that case filed by women who had serious pregnancy complications for which they were unable to get medical care because their doctors were afraid that Texas’ abortion ban would be used to take their medical licenses and/or put them in jail.

Kenen: For 99 years!

Rovner: Yeah, the Texas officials defending against the lawsuit say the women shouldn’t be suing the state. They should be suing their doctors. So what do we expect to happen here? This hearing isn’t even really on the merits. It’s just on whether the exceptions the lower court came up with will be allowed to take effect, which at the moment they’re not.

Kenen: The exception-by-exception policy, where things get written in, is problematic because it’s hard to write a law allowing every possible medical situation that could arise and then that would open it to all other litigation because people would disagree about is this close to death or not? So the plaintiffs want a broader, clearer exception where it’s up to the doctors to do what they think is correct for their patients’ health, all sorts of things can go wrong with people’s bodies.

It’s hard to legislate, which is OK and which isn’t. So the idea of suing your doctor, I mean, that’s just not going to go anywhere. I mean, the court is either going to clarify it or not clarify it. Either way, it’ll get appealed. These issues are not going away. There’s many, many, many documented cases of people not being able to get standard of care. Pregnancy complications are rare, but they’re serious and the state legislatures have been really resistant so far to broadening these exemptions.

Rovner: It’s not just Texas. ProPublica published an investigation this week that found that none of the dozen states with the strictest abortion bans broadened exceptions even after women and their doctors complained that they were being put at grave risk, as Joanne just pointed out. When we look at elections and polls, it feels like the abortion rights side very much has the upper hand, but the reverse seems to be the case in actual state legislatures. I mean, it looks like the anti-abortion forces who want as few exceptions as possible are still getting their way. At least that’s what ProPublica found.

Kenen: Right. One of the other points that the ProPublica piece made was many of these laws were trigger laws. They were written before Roe was toppled. They were written as just in case, if the Supreme Court lets us do this, we’ll do it. So they were symbolic and they were not necessarily written with a lot of medical input. And they were written by activists, not physicians or obstetricians.

And the resistance to changing them is coming from the same interest groups that want no abortions, who say it’s just not ever medically necessary or so rarely medically necessary, and it is medically necessary at times. I mean, there are people who, and this line saying, “Well, if you’re in trouble, you can’t have an abortion. But if you’re close to death you can,” that can happen in split seconds. You can be in trouble and then really be in real trouble. You can’t predict the course of an individual, and it’s tying the hands for physicians to do what needs to be done until it might be too late.

Knight: I think a lot of them don’t realize, until it starts happening, how many times it is sometimes medically necessary. It’s not even that a woman necessarily wants to get an abortion, it’s just something happens, and it’s safer for her to do that in order to save her life.

Karlin-Smith: And you’ve seen in some of these states, sometimes Republican women prominently coming out and pushing for this and trying to explain why it’s necessary. In some cases, they also have made the argument, too, that sometimes to preserve a woman’s fertility, these procedures are necessary given the current situations they face.

Kenen: There was a quote in that ProPublica story, and it’s not necessarily everybody on the anti-abortion rights side, but this individual was quoted as saying that the baby’s life is more important than the mother’s life. So that’s a judgment that a politician or activist is making. Plus, if the mother dies, the fetus can die too. So it doesn’t even make sense. It’s not even choosing one. I mean, in many cases if the pregnant person dies, the fetus will die.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, I want to give a shout-out to a story by my KFF Health News colleague Darius Tahir, who, by the way, became a father this week. Congratulations, Darius. The story’s about a group called the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising that purports to be both anti-abortion and progressively leftist and feminist. One of its goals appears to be to get courts to overturn the federal law that restricts protests in front of abortion clinics. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as FACE, is I think the only explicitly abortion rights legislation that became law in the entire 1990s, which makes you wonder if this group is really as leftist and feminist as it says it is, or if it’s just a front to try and go after this particular law.

Kenen: It sets limits of where people can be and tries to police it somewhat. But in Darius’ story, his reporting showed that they did, at least some of them, had ties to right-wing groups. So that they’re calling themselves leftist and progressive … it’s not so clear how accurate that is for everybody involved.

Rovner: Yeah, it was an interesting story that we will link to in the show notes. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” and it’s good news for a change. I chose a story from Stat News called “How to Spot When Drug Companies Spin Clinical Trial Results.” It’s actually an update of a 2020 guide that STAT did to interpret clinical trial results, and it’s basically a glossary to help understand company jargon and red flags, particularly in press releases, to help determine if that new medical “breakthrough” really is or not. It is really super helpful if you’re a layperson trying to make sense of this.

OK that is this week’s news, and I now will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Rachana Pradhan, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Always great to see you, Rachana.

Rachana Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

Rovner: So this month’s patient fell into what’s an all-too-common trap. She went to a lab for routine bloodwork suggested by her doctor without realizing she could be subjected to thousands of dollars in bills she’s expected to pay. Tell us who she is and how she managed to rack up such a big bill for things that should not have cost that much.

Pradhan: So our patient is Reesha Ahmed. She lives in Texas, just in a suburb of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and what happened to Reesha is she found out she was pregnant and she went to a doctor’s office that she had never gone to before for a standard prenatal checkup, and she also had health insurance. I want to underscore that that is an important detail in this story. So the nurse recommended that Reesha get routine blood tests just down the hall in a lab that was in the adjoining hospital. And it was routine. There was nothing unusual about the blood tests that Reesha received. So what she was advised to do is after her checkup, she was told, “Well, here’s the bloodwork you need, and just go down the hallway here, into the hospital,” to get her blood drawn.

Rovner: How convenient, they have their own lab.

Pradhan: Exactly. And Reesha did what she was told. She got bloodwork done. And then, soon after that, she started getting bills. And they first were small amounts, like there was a bill for $17, and she thought, “OK, well that’s not so bad.” Then she got a bill for over $300 and thought, “That’s unusual. Why would I get billed this?” Then came the huge one. It was over $2,000. In total, Reesha’s overall lab work bills were close to $2,400 for, again, standard bloodwork that every pregnant woman gets when they find out that they’re pregnant. And so she, needless to say, was shocked and immediately actually started trying to investigate herself as to how it was possible for her to get billed such astronomical amounts.

Rovner: And so what did she manage to find out?

Pradhan: She tried taking it up with the hospital and her insurance company. And she just got passed around over and over again. She appealed to her insurance. They denied her appeal saying that, “Well, this bloodwork was diagnostic and not preventive, so it was coded correctly based on the claim that was submitted to us,” and the hospital even sent her to collections for this bloodwork. Unfortunately for Reesha, this pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, and so it was particularly difficult. She was dealing with all the emotional, physical ramifications of that, and then on top of that, having to deal with this billing nightmare is just a lot for any one person to handle. It’s too much, honestly.

Rovner: So we, the experts in this, what did we discover about why she got billed so much?

Pradhan: You can get bloodwork at multiple places in our health system. You could get it maybe within a lab just in your doctor’s office. You can go to an outside lab, like an independent commercial one, to get bloodwork done and you can sometimes get labs within a hospital building. They may not look any different when you’re actually in there, but there’s a huge difference as to how much they will charge you.

Research has shown that if a patient is getting blood tests done, things that are relatively routine and just as a standalone service, hospital outpatient department labs charge much, much more. There’s research that we cite in the story about Reesha that … she lives in Texas … bloodwork in Texas, if it’s done in a hospital outpatient department is at least six times as expensive compared to if you get those same tests in a doctor’s office or in an independent commercial lab.

Rovner: To be clear, I would say it’s not just bloodwork. It’s any routine tests that you get in a hospital outpatient department.

Pradhan: That research, in particular, was looking at blood tests actually, in particular, just any lab work that you might get done. So the conclusion of that is really that there’s no meaningful quality difference. There’s really no difference at all when you get them in a doctor’s office versus a hospital or a lab, and yet the prices you pay will vary dramatically.

Rovner: Yeah, there should be a big sign on the door that says: “This may be more convenient, but if you go somewhere else, you might pay a lot less and so will your insurance.” What eventually happened with Reesha’s bill?

Pradhan: Well, eventually, the charges were waived and zeroed out and she was told that she would not have to pay anything and all the accounts would be zeroed out to nothing.

Rovner: Eventually, after we started asking questions?

Pradhan: Yes. It was a day after I had sent a litany of questions about her billing that they gave her a call and said, “You now won’t have to pay anything.” So it’s a big relief for her.

Rovner: Obviously this was not her fault. She did what was recommended by the nurse in her doctor’s office, but there are efforts to make this more transparent.

Pradhan: Yeah. I think in health care policy world, the issue that she experienced is a reflection of something called site-neutral payment, which essentially means if payment is site-neutral for a health care provider, it means that you get a service and regardless of where you get that service, there is no difference in the amount that you are paying. There are efforts in Congress and even in state legislatures to institute site-neutral pay for certain services.

Bloodwork is one that is not necessarily being targeted, at least in Congress. But I will say, I think one of the big takeaways about what patients can do is if they do get paperwork from your doctor’s office saying, “OK, you need to get some blood tests done,” you can always take that bloodwork request and get it done at an independent lab where the charges will be far, far less than in a hospital-based lab, to avoid these charges.

Rovner: Think of it like a prescription.

Pradhan: Exactly. It might not be as convenient in that moment. You might have to drive somewhere, you can’t just walk down a hallway and get your blood tests and labs done, but I think you will potentially avoid exorbitant costs, especially for bloodwork that is very standard and is not costly.

Rovner: Yet another cautionary tale. Rachana Pradhan, thank you very much.

Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a ProPublica piece by Maya Miller and Robin Fields, “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It.” And it tells the story of a Michigan man who had cancer, and the last resort treatment for him was CAR-T, which is a cellular therapy where they basically take some of your cells, reengineer them, and put them back into your body, and it is quite expensive and it can come with a lot of expensive side effects as well.

FDA considers it a drug, and Michigan state law requires cancer drugs be covered. The insurance company of this man, basically on a technicality, denied it, describing it as a gene therapy, and he did die before he was able to fully push this battle with the insurance company and get access to the treatment and so forth. But I think the piece raises these broader issues about [how] few states are able to proactively monitor whether insurance plans are properly implementing the laws around what is supposed to be covered and not covered.

Few people really have the knowledge or skill set, particularly when you’re dealing with devastating diseases like cancer, which are just taking all of your energy just to go through the treatment, to figure out how to fight the system. And it really demonstrates the huge power imbalances people face in getting health care, even if there are laws that, in theory, seem like they’re supposed to be protected.

I also thought there’s some really interesting statistics in the story about, yes, even though the price tag for these products are really expensive, that the health insurance company actually crunched the numbers and found that if they shifted the cost to premiums in their policyholders, it would lead to, like, 17 cents a month per premium. So I thought that was interesting, as well, because it gives you a sense of, again, where their motivation is coming from when you boil it down to how the costs actually add up.

Rovner: And we will, I promise, talk about the growing backlash against insurance company behavior next week. Victoria.

Knight: So my extra-credit article is a Business Insider story in which I’m quoted, but the title is “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God.” And it basically talks about the phenomenon of Celsius popping up around the Hill. So it’s an energy drink that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine. It tastes like sparkling water, it’s fruity, but it’s not like Monster or Red Bull. It tastes way better than them, which I think is partly why it’s become so popular.

But anyways, I’ve only been on the Hill reporting for about a year and in the past couple months it has really popped up everywhere. It’s all around in the different little stores within the Capitol complex, there’s machines devoted to it. So it talks about how that happened. And I personally drink almost one Celsius a day. I’m trying to be better about it, but the Hill is a hard place to work, and you’re running around all the time, and it just gets you as much caffeine as you need in a quick hit. But the FDA does recommend about 400 milligrams a day. So if you drink two, then you’re not going over the recommendation.

Rovner: Well, you can’t drink anything else with caffeine if you drink two.

Knight: That’s true. And I do drink coffee in the morning, but it has some funny quotes to our members of Congress and chiefs of staff and reporters about how we all rely on this energy drink to get through working on the Hill.

Rovner: I just loved this story because, forever, people wonder how these things happen in the middle of the night. It’s not the members, it’s the staff who are going 16 and 20 hours a day, and they’ve always had to rely on something. So, at least now, it’s something that tastes better.

Knight: It does taste better.

Rovner: That’s why it amused me, because it’s been ever thus that you cannot work the way Capitol Hill works without some artificial help, shall we say. Joanne.

Kenen: We used to just count how many pizza boxes were being delivered to know how long a night it was going to be. I guess now you count how many empty cans of Celsius.

Knight: Exactly.

Rovner: I personally ran more on sugar than caffeine.

Kenen: OK. This is a piece by Judy Graham of KFF Health News, and the headline is “A Life-Changing Injury Transformed an Expert’s View on Disability Services.” And it’s about a woman many of us know, actually Julie and I both know: Nora Super. I’ve known her for a long time. She’s an expert on aging. She ran one of the White House aging conferences. She worked at Milken for a long time. She worked at AARP for a while.

She’s in her late 50s now, and in midlife, she started having really severe episodes of depression, and she became very open about it, she became an advocate. Last summer, she had another episode and she couldn’t get an appointment for the treatment she needed quickly enough. And while she was waiting, which is the story of American health care right now, and while she was waiting for it, she did try to take her own life. She survived, but she now has no sensation from the waist down.

And her husband is a health economist, and I should disclose, my former boss at one point, I worked for and with Len for two years, Len Nichols. So this is a story about how she has now become an advocate for disability. And this is a couple with a lot of resources. I mean both knowledge, connections, and they’re not gazillionaires, but they have resources, and how hard it has been for them even with their resources and connections. And so now Nora who, when she’s well, she’s this effervescent force of nature, and this is how she is turning — her prognosis, it could get better, they don’t know yet — but clearly an extraordinarily difficult time. And she has now taken this opportunity to become not just an advocate for the aging and not just an advocate for people with severe depression, but now an advocate for people with severe disability.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it’s everything that’s wrong with the American health care system, and I will say that a lot of what I’ve learned about health policy over very many years came from both Len Nichols and Nora, his wife. So they do know a lot. And I think what shocked me about the story is just how expensive some of the things are that they need. And, again, this is a couple who should be well enough off to support themselves, but these are costs that basically nobody could or should have to bear.

Kenen: Even … it was just a lift to get her into their car, just that alone was $6,500. And there are many, many, many things like that. And then another thing that they pointed out in the article is that most physicians don’t have a way of getting somebody from a wheelchair onto the examining table other than having her 70-year-old husband hoist her. So that was one of the many small revelations in this story. Obviously, it’s heartbreaking because I know and like her, but it’s also another indictment of why we just don’t do things right.

Rovner: Yes. Where we are. Well, my story is yet another indictment of not doing things right. It’s by my colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, who you just heard, and Samantha Liss, and it’s called “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get.” And it’s just an infuriating story pointing out that everything we’ve talked about all year with state reviews of Medicaid eligibility, the endless waits on hold with call centers, lost applications, and other bureaucratic holdups, goes for more than just health insurance. The same overworked and under-resourced people who determine Medicaid eligibility are also the gatekeepers for other programs like food stamps and cash welfare assistance, and people who are eligible for those programs are also getting wrongly denied benefits.

Among the people quoted in the story was DeAnna Marchand of Missoula, Montana, who is trying to recertify herself and her grandson for both Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), but wasn’t sure what she needed to present to prove that eligibility. So she waited to speak to someone and picking up from the story, “After half an hour, she followed prompts to schedule a callback, but an automated voice announced slots were full and instructed her to wait on hold again. An hour later, the call was dropped.” It’s not really the fault of these workers. They cannot possibly do what needs to be done, and, once again, it’s the patients who are paying the price.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. Also, as always, you can email us your questions or comments. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, for now, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Joanne.

Kenen: I’m mostly at Threads, @joannekenen1. Occasionally I’m still on X, but not very often, that’s @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I am @SarahKarlin, or @sarahkarlin-smith, depending on the platform.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk [on X and Threads]. Still mostly on X, but also on Threads at the same name.

Rovner: We’re all trying to branch out. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

At 19, Velasquez Lopez knows a lot about ammunition because many of his friends own guns, he said. They carry to defend themselves in East Oakland, where metal bars protect shop windows and churches stand behind tall, chain-link fences.

Some people even hide AR-15-style assault weapons down their pants legs, he said.

“It doesn’t feel safe. Wherever you’re at, you’re always anxious,” said Velasquez Lopez, who dreams of leaving the city where he was born. “You’re always wondering what’s going to happen.”

Last year, two gunmen in ski masks stormed his high school, killing a school district carpenter and injuring five other adults, including two students.

Oakland won acclaim just a few years ago as a national model for gun violence prevention, in part by bringing police and community groups together to target the small number of people suspected of driving the gun violence.

Then, in 2020, the covid-19 pandemic shut down schools, businesses, and critical social services nationwide, leaving many low-income people isolated and desperate — facing the loss of their jobs, homes, or both. The same year, police murdered George Floyd, a Black man in Minneapolis, which released pent-up fury over racial discrimination by law enforcement, education, and other institutions — sparking nationwide protests and calls to cut police funding.

In the midst of this racial reckoning and facing the threats of an unknown and deadly virus, Americans bought even more guns, forcing some cities, such as Raleigh, North Carolina; Chicago; New York City; and Oakland, to confront a new wave of violent crime.

“There was emotional damage. There was physical damage,” said James Jackson, CEO of Alameda Health System, whose Wilma Chan Highland Hospital Campus, a regional trauma center in Oakland, treated 502 gunshot victims last year, compared with 283 in 2019. “And I think some of this violence that we’re seeing is a manifestation of the damage that people experienced.”

Jackson is among a growing chorus of health experts who describe gun violence as a public health crisis that disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic residents in poor neighborhoods, the very people who disproportionately struggle with Type 2 diabetes and other preventable health conditions. Covid further eviscerated these communities, Jackson added.

While the pandemic has retreated, gun violence has not. Oaklanders, many of whom take pride in the ethnic diversity of their city, are overwhelmingly upset about the rise in violent crime — the shootings, thefts, and other street crimes. At town halls, City Council meetings, and protests, a broad cross-section of residents say they no longer feel safe.

Programs that worked a few years ago don’t seem to be making a dent now. City leaders are spending millions to hire more police officers and fund dozens of community initiatives, such as placing violence prevention teams at high schools to steer kids away from guns and crime.

Yet gun ownership in America is at a historic high, even in California, which gun control advocates say has the strictest gun laws in the country. More than 1 million Californians bought a gun during the first year of the pandemic, according to the latest data from the state attorney general.

As Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price told an audience at a September town hall in East Oakland: “We are in a unique, crazy time where everybody in this community has a gun.”

The Streets of Oakland

Oakland’s flatlands southeast of downtown are the backdrop of most of the city’s shootings and murders.

The area stands in stark contrast to the extreme wealth of the millionaire homes that dot the Oakland Hills and the immaculate, flower-lined streets of downtown. The city’s revived waterfront, named after famed author and local hero Jack London, draws tourists to trendy restaurants.

On a Saturday night in August, Shawn Upshaw drove through the flatlands along International Boulevard, past the prostitutes who gather on nearly every corner for at least a mile, and into “hot spots,” where someone is shot nearly every weekend, he said.

“When I grew up, women and kids would get a pass. They wouldn’t get caught in the crossfire,” said Upshaw, 52, who was born and raised in Oakland. “But now women and kids get it, too.”

Upshaw works as a violence interrupter for the city’s Department of Violence Prevention, which coordinates with the police department and community organizations in a program called Ceasefire.

When there’s a shooting, the police department alerts Upshaw on his phone and he heads to the scene. He doesn’t wear a police uniform. He’s a civilian in street clothes: jeans and a black zip-up jacket. It makes him more approachable, he said, and he’s not there to place blame, but rather to offer help and services to survivors and bystanders.

The goal, he said, is to stop a retaliatory shooting by a rival gang or grieving family member.

Police also use crime data to approach people with gang affiliations or long criminal records who are likely to use a gun in a crime — or be shot. Community groups follow up with offers of job training, education, meals, and more.

“We tell them they’re on our radar and try to get them to recognize there are alternatives to street violence,” said Oakland Police Department Capt. Trevelyon Jones, head of Ceasefire. “We give them a safe way of backing out of a conflict while maintaining their street honor.”

Every Thursday at police headquarters, officers convene a “shooting review.” They team up with representatives from community groups to make house calls to victims and their relatives.

After the program launched in 2012, Oakland’s homicides plummeted and were down 39% in 2019, according to a report commissioned by the Oakland Police Department.

Then covid hit.

“You had primary care that became an issue. You had housing that became an issue. You had employment that became an issue,” said Maury Nation, an associate professor at Vanderbilt University. “It created a surplus of the people who fit that highest risk group, and that overwhelms something like Ceasefire.”

With ever-rising housing prices in Oakland and across California, homeless encampments have multiplied on sidewalks and under freeway bypasses. The city is also bracing for the loss of jobs and civic pride if the Oakland Athletics baseball team relocates after April 2024, following departures by the NBA’s Golden State Warriors in 2019 and the NFL’s Raiders in 2020.

“Housing, food insecurity, not having jobs that pay wages for folks, all can lead to violence and mental health issues,” said Sabrina Valadez-Rios, who works at the Freedom Community Clinic in Oakland and teaches a high school class for students who have experienced gun violence. Her father was fatally shot outside their Oakland home when she was a child. “We need to teach kids how to deal with trauma. Violence is not going to stop in Oakland.”

Shared with permission from The Trace.

Homicides in Oakland climbed to 123 people in 2021, police reports show, dipping slightly to 120 last year. Police have tallied 108 homicides as of Nov. 12 this year. Neither the police department nor the city provided statistics on how many of those killings involved firearms, despite repeated requests from KFF Health News.

Experts also blame the rise in killings in Oakland and other American cities on the prevalence of gun ownership in the U.S., which has more guns than people. For all the pandemic disruption worldwide, homicide rates didn’t go up in countries with strict gun laws, said Thomas Abt, director of the Center for the Study and Practice of Violence Reduction at the University of Maryland.

“We saw gun violence, homicides, shootings spike up all around the country. And interestingly, it did not happen internationally,” Abt said. “The pandemic did not lead to more violence in other nations.”

Unrest in Oakland

Oakland residents are angry. One by one, business owners, community organizers, church leaders, and teenagers have stood at town halls and City Council meetings this year with an alarming message: They no longer feel safe anywhere in their city — at any time.

“It’s not just a small number of people in the evening or nighttime. This is all hours, day and night,” said Noha Aboelata, founder of the Roots Community Health Center in Oakland. “Someone’s over here pushing a stroller and someone’s getting shot right next to them.”

One morning in early April, automatic gunfire erupted outside a Roots clinic. Patients and staff members dropped to the ground and took cover. After the shooting stopped, medical assistants and a doctor gave first aid to a man in his 20s who had been shot six times.

Everyone is blaming someone or something else for the bloodshed.

Business owners have had enough. In September, Target announced it would close nine stores in four states, including in Oakland because of organized retail theft; the famed Vietnamese restaurant Le Cheval shut its doors after 38 years, partly blaming car break-ins and other criminal activity for depressing its business; and more than 200 business owners staged an hours-long strike to protest the rise in crime.

The leadership of the local NAACP, the nation’s oldest civil rights organization, made headlines this summer when it said Oakland was seeing a “heyday” for criminals, and pointed to the area’s “failed leadership” and “movement to defund the police.”

“It feels like there’s a dark cloud over Oakland,” said Cynthia Adams, head of the local chapter, which has called on the city to hire 250 more police officers.

Price, a progressive elected last year, already faces a recall effort, in part because she rejects blanket enhanced sentences for gangs and weapons charges, and has declined to charge youths as adults.

The new mayor, Sheng Thao, was criticized for firing the police chief for misconduct and breaking a campaign promise to double funding at the city’s Department of Violence Prevention. In her first State of the City address last month, Thao described the surge in crime as “totally and completely unacceptable,” and acknowledged that Oaklanders are hurting and scared. She said the city has expanded police foot patrols and funded six new police academies, as well as boosted funding for violence prevention and affordable housing.

“Not a day goes by where I don’t wish I could just wave a magic wand and silence the gunfire,” Thao said.

Many in the community, including Valadez-Rios, advocate for broader investment in Oakland’s poorest neighborhoods over more law enforcement.

City councils, states, and the federal government are putting their faith in violence prevention programs, in some cases bankrolling them from nontraditional sources, such as the state-federal Medicaid health insurance program for low-income people.

Last month, California’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom approved an 11% state tax on guns and ammunition, and $75 million of the revenue annually is expected to go to violence prevention programs.

Although these programs are growing in popularity, it is unclear how successful they are. In some cases, proven programs that involve law enforcement, such as Ceasefire, were cut back or shelved after George Floyd was murdered, said Abt, the Maryland researcher.

“The intense opposition to law enforcement means that the city was unwilling to use a portion of the tools that have been proven,” Abt said. “It’s good to work on preventing youth violence, but the vast majority of serious violence is perpetrated by adults.”

Not a day goes by where I don’t wish I could just wave a magic wand and silence the gunfire.

Oakland Mayor Sheng Thao

A Focus on Schools

Kentrell Killens, interim chief at the Oakland Department of Violence Prevention, acknowledges that young adults drive Oakland’s gun violence, not high school kids. But, he said, shootings on the streets affect children. Of the 171 homicides in 2019 and 2020, 4% of victims were 17 or under, while 59% were ages 18 to 34, according to the Oakland Police Department.

The number of children injured in nonfatal shootings is also worrisome, he said. Roughly 6% of victims and 14% of suspects in nonfatal shootings were 17 or younger in 2019 and 2020.

“We’ve seen the impact of violence on young people and how they have to make decisions around what roles they want to play,” said Killens, who spent a decade as a case manager working with schoolkids.

By being in the schools, “we can deal with the conflicts” that could spill into the community, he added.

At Fremont High School, Principal Nidya Baez has welcomed a three-person team to her campus to confront gun violence. One caseworker focuses on gun violence and another on sexual assaults and healthy relationships. The third is a social worker who connects students and their families to services.

They are part of a $2 million city pilot program created after the Oakland School Board eliminated school-based police in 2020 — about one month after George Floyd was killed and after a nine-year push by community activists to kick police out of schools.

“We’ve been at a lot of funerals, unfortunately, for gang-related stuff or targeting of kids, wrong-place-wrong-time kind of thing,” said Baez, whose father was shot and injured on his ice cream truck when she was a child.

When Francisco “Cisco” Cisneros, a violence interrupter from the nonprofit group Communities United for Restorative Youth Justice, arrived at Fremont in January, students were wary, he said. Many still are. Students are hard-wired not to share information — not to be a “snitch” — or open up about themselves or their home life, especially to an adult, Cisneros said. And they don’t want to talk to fellow students from another network, group, or gang.

“If we catch them at an early age, right now, we can change that mindset,” said Cisneros, who was born and raised in Oakland.

Cisneros pulls from his past to build a rapport with students. This summer, for example, when he overheard a student chatting on the phone to an uncle in jail, Cisneros asked about him. It turns out Cisneros and the boy’s uncle had grown up in the same neighborhood.

That was enough to begin a relationship between Cisneros and the student, “J,” who declined to be identified by his full name for fear of retribution. The 16-year-old credits Cisneros, whom he describes as “like a dad,” with keeping him engaged in school and employed with summer jobs — away from trouble. Still, he regularly worries about making a wrong move.

“You could do one thing and you could end up in a situation where your life is at risk,” J said in Cisneros’ office. “You go from being in school one day to being in a very bad, sticky situation.”

The program is underway in seven high schools, and Cisneros believes he has helped prevent a handful of conflicts from escalating into gun violence.

A Better Life

After his school counselor was shot at Rudsdale High School in September 2022, Velasquez Lopez heard that the man and other victims were treated at nearby Highland Hospital.

“Seeing him get hurt, he obviously needed medical attention,” Velasquez Lopez said. “That made it obvious I could help my community if I were to be a nurse to help people that live around my area.”

When a recruiter from the Alameda Health System came to campus to promote a six-week internship at Highland Hospital, Velasquez Lopez applied. It was, he said, a dramatic step for a student who had never cared about school or sought vocational training.

Over the summer, he volunteered in the emergency room, learned how to take a patient’s vitals, watched blood transfusions, and translated for Spanish-speaking patients.

Velasquez Lopez, who graduated this year, is now looking for ways to get a nursing degree. The cost of college is out of reach at the moment, but he knows he doesn’t want to stay in a city where you can easily buy a gun for $1,000 — or half that, if it’s been used in a crime.

Velasquez Lopez said he has bigger goals for himself.

Young people in East Oakland “always feel like we’re trapped in that community, and we can’t get out,” he said. “But I feel like we still have a chance to change our lives.”

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Congress narrowly avoided a federal government shutdown for the second time in as many months, as House Democrats provided the needed votes for new House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson to avoid his first legislative catastrophe of his brief tenure. But funding the federal government won’t get any easier when the latest temporary patches expire in early 2024. It seems House Republicans have not yet accepted that they cannot accomplish the steep spending cuts they want as long as the Senate and the White House are controlled by Democrats.

Meanwhile, a pair of investigations unveiled this week underscored the difficulty of obtaining needed long-term care for seniors. One, from KFF Health News and The New York Times, chronicles the financial toll on families for people who need help for activities of daily living. The other, from Stat, details how some insurance companies are using artificial intelligence algorithms to deny needed rehabilitation care for Medicare patients.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress passed a two-part continuing resolution this week that will prevent the federal government from shutting down when the current CR expires Nov. 18 at 12:01 a.m. The new measure extends some current spending levels, including funding for the FDA, through Jan. 19. The rest of federal agencies, including most of the Department of Health and Human Services, are extended to Feb. 2.
• House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said he wants to use the next two months to finish work on individual appropriations bills, none of which have passed both the House and Senate so far. The problem: They would deeply cut many popular federal programs. They also are full of changes to abortion restrictions and transgender policies, highlighting the split between the GOP caucus’ far-right wing and its more moderate members.
• In the wake of abortion rights successes in passing abortion rights ballot initiatives, new efforts are taking shape in Ohio and Michigan among state lawmakers who are arguing that when Dobbs turned this decision back to states, it meant to the state legislatures — not to the courts or voters. Most experts agree the approach is unlikely to prevail. Still, it highlights continuing efforts to change the rules surrounding this polarized issue.
• Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) — who was the only remaining Republican presidential candidate pushing for a national, 15-week abortion ban — suspended his campaign last week. He, along with former Vice President Mike Pence, who bowed out of the race at the end of October, were the field’s strongest anti-abortion candidates. This seems to suggest that the 15-week ban is not drawing voter support, even among Republicans. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s front-runner by miles, continues to be willing to play both sides of the abortion debate.
• Amid increasing concern about the use of artificial intelligence in health care, a California class-action lawsuit charges that UnitedHealth Group is using algorithms to deny rehabilitation care to enrollees in its Medicare Advantage program. The suit comes in the wake of an investigation by Stat into insurer requirements that case managers hew to the AI estimates of how long the company would pay for rehabilitation care, regardless of the patient’s actual medical situation.
• More than 10 million people have lost Medicaid coverage since states began reviewing eligibility earlier in the year. Advocates for Medicaid patients worry that the Biden administration has not done enough to ensure that people who are still eligible for the program — particularly children — are not mistakenly terminated.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts,” by Amy Maxmen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead,” by Jack Healy.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “UnitedHealth Pushed Employees to Follow an Algorithm to Cut Off Medicare Patients’ Rehab Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards,” by Isabelle Taft, Mississippi Today.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Facing Financial Ruin as Costs Soar for Elder Care,” by Reed Abelson, The New York Times, and Jordan Rau.
• JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” by Jacob Wallace, et al.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Congress Kicks the (Budget) Can Down the Road. Again.

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we will get right to it. So the federal government is not going to shut down when the current continuing spending resolution expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday. In basically a rerun of what happened at the end of September, new House Speaker Mike Johnson ended up having to turn to Democrats to pass another CR. This one extends a bunch of federal programs until Jan.19 and the rest of them until Feb. 2. Most of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is in the latter category, but the FDA, because it’s funded through the Department of Agriculture, its spending bill would be in the group that’s funded only through Jan. 19. Don’t worry if you don’t remember that.

The stated goal here is to use the next two months, minus what’s likely to be a sizable Christmas break, to finish work on the individual appropriation bills, of which exactly zero of 12 have passed both the House and Senate and been sent to the president. Meanwhile, in just the last week, House Republicans have been unable to pass any of the individual appropriations they have brought to the floor and a few haven’t been able to even get to the floor. Yesterday, Republican leaders pulled the plug on the rest of the week’s floor schedule, literally in the middle of a series of votes on the HHS spending bill. So Democrats are not going to bail them out on these individual bills the way they have on the relatively clean continuing resolutions because the individual bills include very deep spending cuts and lots of abortion and transgender and other culture wars riders. So what exactly do they think is going to change between now and the next deadline?

Ollstein: Well, there’s been a lot of chatter about how cranky members of Congress have gotten because they worked 10 weeks in a row. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without destroying each other, but there it is. And so there’s the hope that when they come back …

Rovner: Yes, there were threats of physical violence this week.

Ollstein: And allegedly some actual physical violence. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without assaulting our colleagues, but we are not members of Congress. So the idea is they could take some time to cool off and come back and be more collaborative, but really this is a problem the Republican Caucus has not been able to solve. You have dissent on the right of the caucus and the sort of more moderate left or more left side of the caucus. You have moderate members who are worried about getting reelected in districts that voted for [President Joe] Biden who are not wanting to vote for these spending bills that are full of anti-trans and anti-abortion provisions, which you could easily picture that being used against them in campaign ads. And then you have folks on the far right in the Freedom Caucus who are sort of tanking these individual bills to protest the overall trajectory of spending and the overall process. So this is not going away anytime soon. And, like you said, Democrats are not bailing them out here.

Cohrs: One other point I wanted to make, sorry, Julie, on the deadlines is that for people who are interested in health policy and PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform and DSH [Medicaid’s Disproportionate Share Hospital] cuts, all of those. Those all have a Jan. 19 deadline. So those will come with the first round. So I think for the people out there who are worried about those policies, community health centers, extenders, that will happen with the first deadline even though the full Labor, HHS preparations aren’t until the second one.

Rovner: Yeah, these continuing resolutions do carry some of these extraneous, what we like to call “extender,” provisions that would otherwise have expired. And so they’ll keep them going for another couple of months and keep lobbyists busy wringing their hands and keep all of our inboxes full of emails of people warning of terrible things that will happen if these programs aren’t continued. But I want to go back to the underlying problem here, though, is that first of all, the conservative Republicans say they want to put the budget on a different trajectory. Well, discretionary spending, which is what we’re talking about here with the 12 spending bills, is a tiny portion of what makes up the budget and the budget deficit. So even if they were to cut all of these programs as dramatically as they like, they wouldn’t have much of an impact on the overall budget. I’m sort of mystified that people don’t keep pointing that out.

Ollstein: Well, and they’re also cutting things that won’t save money. I mean, they wanted to cut things like IRS enforcement, which would lose money because then the IRS wouldn’t be going after wealthy tax cheats and recouping that government spending. And so some of this is ideological. They’re going after health care programs that support LGBT people, for instance, and that doesn’t save that much money. But there’s been a lot of speeches from Republicans railing against the substance of the programs and calling them “woke” and inappropriate and such. And so, yes, some of this is fiscal, but a lot of it is also ideological.

Kenen: Yeah, it’s a relatively small portion of federal dollars, but a relatively large portion of culture war.

Rovner: Yes, I think that is a very good way to put it because, of course, it’s a place where they can put culture war things because they have to come up every year. But yeah, I think that’s why we end up fighting over this. All right, well this fight has been put off until 2024, although it’ll be the first thing when we get back.

Kenen: Yeah. And nothing’s really going to change except maybe cooler heads prevail. Anyone see any cooler heads around there? They may come back a little bit more personally tolerant when they’ve had some time off over the holidays. But the basic ideological and political alignment and the loggerheads, it’s like the only thing that changes between November, December, and January is it’s colder here then.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s exactly correct. Yeah. The far right of the House Republican Caucus is going to have to realize that there is a Senate and there is a president and they all get a say in what these final bills look like too. So they can’t just dictate we’re going to make all these cuts and, if not, we’re going to close down the government, unless that’s what they decide to do.

Kenen: But I think they skipped that session in their orientation.

Rovner: Yeah. Apparently.

Kenen: They’re not finding, “OK, where’s the compromise? What do we really, really, really want? And what are we willing to trade that for?” They’re not doing that. If you give and take, everybody gets some victory, and you have to identify what victory you can get that satisfies you. But there’s no sign of any kind of realistic grasp that this is divided government.

Rovner: Right. And they yet to figure that out. All right, well let us turn to abortion, where there is always news. We are going to start in Ohio, where last week voters, by a pretty healthy margin, approved a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Now, though, some anti-abortion lawmakers in Ohio say, “Never mind, we can overrule that.” Really, Alice?

Ollstein: So there are efforts going on in both Ohio and Michigan to block, undo, undermine what voters voted for in these referenda and, based on talking to sources, it seems like neither of these really have legs. They’re sort of seen as just messaging. But I think that even the attempt to try to undermine or undo what voters overwhelmingly approved is telling and interesting. And, of course, it builds on all of the attempts leading up to the votes that we saw from these same forces to try to change the rules, make it more difficult. So I think when state legislatures around the country come back into session in January, we’re going to be watching closely to see if they pass things that aim to block these votes. So definitely something to keep an eye on.

Rovner: I did see that this speaker of the Ohio House has poured at least some cold water on this effort. The argument had been from some of these lawmakers that because the Supreme Court gave this decision back to the states, that means only state legislatures and not the courts and not the voters directly. Am I interpreting that right?

Kenen: Yeah, the speaker was pretty firm. He said … what did he say? It was “Schoolhouse Rock”? He basically said that the voters, they matter.

Rovner: Yeah.

Ollstein: And what’s interesting is that the court that they want to cut out of this in Ohio is very conservative. And so this isn’t like, “Oh, we want to block these liberal activist judges from weighing in here.” This is “We want to keep this solely in the hands of the legislature and not have, really, courts have a role in it at all,” although the courts are very conservative and tilt in the anti-abortion direction anyway, which I think is notable.

Rovner: We’ll definitely watch that space in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes. Well, elsewhere, in Alabama, in a story that I didn’t think got the coverage it deserved, the Justice Department is joining a case brought by an abortion fund and some former abortion providers about whether the state might be able to prosecute them for helping women travel to obtain an abortion in another state. Department of Justice says, “Of course, states can’t prevent people from traveling to other states for things that are legal in another state, but not in their state. Otherwise, very few people would be able to go to Las Vegas.” But the state attorney general has yet threatened to try to prosecute, has he not?

Ollstein: Yeah, so this is happening in a few states, but it’s sort of come to a head in Alabama in terms of treating groups that either provide material support for people to travel across state lines for an abortion or even just information, even just “Here’s a clinic that you can call in this other state.” Not even a formal referral, medical referral, but just information about where to go. The attorney general has threatened to consider that kind of a criminal conspiracy to violate Alabama’s abortion ban.

So this is an interesting test, and I think it may — like the travel bans we’ve been seeing proposed and even implemented in some cities, states, et cetera. They’re sort of trying a bunch of different things. But these are basically impossible to enforce. And so, really, what’s happening here is an attempt to undo some of the chilling effect of these laws. Right now, people are so afraid of being charged with criminal conspiracy that they’re holding off on, even providing publicly available information that’s likely protected by the First Amendment. And so they’re hoping that a court ruling saying “You do have the right to at least discuss this and even give people support to travel” will undo some of that chilling effect. And yeah, I think that’s sort of the key here.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, moving on to Texas, where a lot of these other travel bans have been tried, at least in some cities and counties, we want to go back to that case where a half a dozen women who couldn’t get care for pregnancy complications, because of the state’s abortion ban, sued. Well, now there are 22 plaintiffs in that case, including two doctors and a then-medical student who discovered her fetus’s lethal abnormalities at an 18-week scan. The Texas Supreme Court is supposed to hear this case later this month, but, Alice, this could really end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, couldn’t it? This is the concern of women who are not trying to have abortions. They were basically trying to complete pregnancies and have had things go terribly wrong. And, as you just said, doctors are afraid to treat them for fear that they’re going to be prosecuted.

Ollstein: Yeah. And so this is where state abortion bans are running up against federal protections for … you have to treat a patient who comes in who’s experiencing a medical emergency. This is the EMTALA, a federal law, and these things are in conflict. Anti-abortion groups and advocates say that they are not, and that medical care in these situations is already protected. But as we’ve seen with this chilling effect, doctors are afraid to act in these situations and they’re telling patients to go away and come back when things are more dire. And that, in some cases, in these plaintiff’s cases, has led to pretty permanent damage, damage to their future fertility, threats to their lives. And so these cases are not seeking to get rid of the abortion bans entirely, as some other lawsuits are, but they are seeking to really make clear, because it’s not clear to medical providers right now, make clear what is allowed in these really sensitive and precarious medical situations.

Rovner: Yeah, I keep hearing a lot of the anti-abortion forces saying, “Well, it’s not technically an abortion in these cases. If it’s an ectopic pregnancy or something or the woman’s water has broken early and she’s going to get septic.” And it’s like, “Except that medically, yes, they are. A termination of pregnancy is termination of pregnancy.” And that’s why the doctors are saying, “You can call this anything you want. We’re the ones who are going to get thrown in jail and lose our medical licenses.” All right. Well, before we move on, I want to talk some abortion politics. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who had been the only Republican presidential candidate strongly pushing for a federal 15-week abortion ban, suspended his campaign this week after what happened in Virginia last week, which we talked about at some length. When Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin tried to win back the state legislature for Republicans by promising to sign his own 15-week ban and lost spectacularly. Where does that leave Republicans on abortion going into 2024? Obviously, the 15-week ban as a compromise doesn’t seem to be flying.

Ollstein: No, it’s certainly not. And Tim Scott and Mike Pence were some of anti-abortion groups’ favorite candidates who were saying what they wanted to hear, and both of their campaigns have now ended. And so, meanwhile, you have the people who have been a little more squishy, from anti-abortion advocates’ perspective anyways, like Nikki Haley and [former President Donald] Trump himself, doing the best. DeSantis also sort of middling right now on the downward trajectory, seemingly.

Rovner: DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in Florida.

Ollstein: Exactly, but was also kind of unclear about what he would do as president, which the anti-abortion groups did not like. It’s interesting, maybe telling, that the people who were sort of the staunchest anti-abortion voices have not seemed to do well in this moment, but let’s be real. Trump is the far-and-away front-runner here. It’s most important to examine Trump. And he’s sort of trying to have it both ways. He’s both touting his anti-abortion bona fides by talking about appointing the justices to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, taking credit for that. And at the same time sort of pushing this line of, “Oh, we’ll strike some sort of compromise.” He really talks up exemptions for rape and incest, which, by the way, a lot of anti-abortion groups don’t want those. And so he’s sort of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but, at least according to the polls, it seems to be working.

Rovner: Yeah, maybe that’s the answer for Republicans is tell everybody what you think they want them to know. I guess we will see going forward. Well, I want to move on. I’m calling this next segment, “Getting Old Sucks: Ask Me How I Know.” I want to start with a joint project that KFF Health News has out this week with The New York Times called “Dying Broke.” It’s about, and stop me if you’ve heard me say this before, the fact that the U.S. has no policy to help pay for long-term care, save for Medicaid, which only pays if you basically bankrupt yourself and your family.

There is a lot in this series, and I highly recommend it, but one of the things that jumped out to me is that the cost of long-term care has risen so much faster than incomes that even if you started saving for retirement in your 20s — I started saving for retirement in my 20s — you’d still be unlikely to have enough to self-insure for long-term care when you’re 75 or 80. Joanne, you’ve spent as much time as I have, probably more, writing about our lack of a long-term care policy. Anything jump out at you from this project?

Kenen: It was a terrific, terrific story, and it brought to life that even people who are definitely what you would think of as economically comfortable, it’s not enough. It’s just the luck of the draw, right? I mean, if you die fast, you can at least leave money to your kids. If you die slow, you can’t. It was a really good story. But what I always am left with when I read these stories is it doesn’t make a difference. Congress does not want to deal with this. Julie and I actually did a panel for a health group a few weeks ago, and one of the state … someone from California came up to talk about us and asked, “Why doesn’t the United States have a long-term care policy? I’m going to change that.” And we were trying to be polite, but it was like, “OK, good luck with that.” And this is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats both get old and Republicans and Democrats both end up needing long-term care, whether it’s in the nursing home or assistance in your own home. Republicans and Democrats both get Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. They both get disabled. And we have a government that just plugs up its ears because it costs so much money and it’s an entitlement and they just don’t even want to deal with it. And generation after generation, it’s a disaster. It’s inhumane.

Rovner: And, of course, there was this brief effort in the Affordable Care Act with the CLASS Act that everybody was very excited …

Kenen: To nibble around the edges of it. The CLASS Act was good, but it wasn’t even solving the problem.

Rovner: And it went away because they discovered that even that was going to be too expensive. It could not be self-sustaining. And that’s been the problem with the private long-term care insurance market too, that you basically can’t get private long-term care insurance anymore because insurers cannot afford to sell it. They lose too much money on it, and therefore it would be too expensive if they actually charged what they needed to to even break even.

Kenen: Right. And there is an idea circulating, but it’s not getting any traction. It’s circulated in the past too, a joint approach, a reinsurance approach, that you’d try to strengthen the private long-term care insurance market, which is very broken. You’d try to fix that, but you wouldn’t expect the private insurance market to do the whole problem, so that there’d be reinsurance from the government. So for people who had maybe, I don’t know exactly how it works, say a year or two of expenses that private insurance would kick in and we would make that market work better and be there when you needed it. But then if you were somebody who had multiple years and you exhausted that benefit, there would be a backup entitlement.

Rovner: But I’ve heard this talked about for at least 10 years, and it’s never gone anywhere.

Kenen: It’s revived and it’s not getting … I don’t think it has a sponsor in this Congress. It did in the last Congress. There’s no discussion. There’s no … a lot of people think that Medicare actually pays for nursing homes, and then that’s a pretty big surprise because it only pays for very limited … it pays, like if you have surgery and you need some rehab at a nursing home for, what is it? Is it 12 weeks? I forget what it is, but it’s short-term. It’s a couple of months. It’s not dementia care. And even the other thing is when you read about the cost of long-term care, that’s just the room and board, that doesn’t include your doctors’ bills, your medication, clothing, personal aide, because people who are complicated and need a lot of care often need a personal aide in addition to the staff. It’s just a phenomenal amount of money. My kids don’t understand when I say we need to save money, they say, “Don’t you have enough?” And no, nobody has enough. Bill Gates has enough.

Rovner: Yeah, Warren Buffett has enough. Well, so, as I mentioned, one of the big problems with long-term care is that there’s essentially no private insurance for it anymore because it’s so expensive and because so many people end up needing it. That’s very different from Medicare Advantage, where insurers are and have been making lots of money providing benefits that would otherwise be paid for by the federal government. But Rachel, some of your colleagues have discovered that, and in at least some cases, those insurers are making all that money because they’re denying care to patients who need it. This is your extra credit this week, but I want you to talk about it now.

Cohrs: I’ll talk about it early. Yes. So my colleagues, Casey Ross and Bob Herman have been digging into the role of algorithms in insurance decisions for the past year. And they just released a new story this week about — with internal documents of a subsidiary called naviHealth of UnitedHealth — showing that the company was instructing managers to keep care timelines for a really expensive rehab that older people, I think, need after having injuries or something like that within 1% of the time that this algorithm was predicting, regardless of what their actual human doctors were saying. And truly, the stories behind these care denials are just really horrifying … of somebody who had a knee surgery and was expected to slide on their butt down the stairs because they weren’t paying for rehab. Families who’ve had to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket after this care was denied because they saw that their loved one clearly needed money, and there was a class-action lawsuit filed, then after the story was published, by people who had deceased relatives who had UnitedHealthcare MA plans, and were denied rehab and later died. And so I think it’s just really eye-opening as to the actual instructions by managers inside the company saying that this is your expectation, and if you’re not keeping coverage care rehab timelines within this 1% margin, then you aren’t performing up to our standards.

Rovner: So this is basically AI being used to deny care. We keep talking about AI and health care. This is it, right? This is an algorithm that says, “Person who goes into rehab with these kinds of problems should only need 19 days.” And if you need more than that, tough. That’s essentially what’s going on here, right?

Cohrs: And the lawsuit did highlight as well that when people did appeal, they won most of the time, but most people didn’t appeal, and the company knew that. And so I think that was also part of the lawsuit that came up. It’s hard to prove intent with these things or what is a denial based on an algorithm? But I think this lays out the case in as explicit terms as we’ve ever seen from the internal side.

Rovner: It does. All right, well let us move on from Medicare to Medicaid, the unwinding — involving reviewing everyone on the program to make sure they’re still eligible now that the pandemic emergency has expired — continues with more than 10 million people now having lost their coverage, according to the tracker being updated by my KFF colleagues. And state Medicaid directors are predicting a year-over-year decrease in enrollment of 8.6%, which is pretty dramatically large. We also know that more than 70% of those being disenrolled may in fact still be eligible, but the state was unable to locate them or they didn’t file the right paperwork. Ironically, even with a much smaller caseload, state Medicaid spending is likely to rise because the additional payments that were provided by the federal government also expired at the end of the public health emergency. So states are basically having to pay more per enrollee than they were paying even when they were leaving everybody on the rolls. Advocates have been complaining all year that the Biden administration isn’t doing enough to ensure that states aren’t tossing people off who should still be covered. Has anything changed on that front? I know that the administration is sort of caught between this rock and a hard place. They don’t want to come out guns blazing and have states saying that they’re making this politicized. On the other hand, the numbers are getting pretty big and there’s increasing evidence that a lot of the people who are being relieved of their coverage should still have it.

Ollstein: Including a lot of children who absolutely did not do anything wrong in this situation. And so it kind of reminds me of some stuff during covid, where the Biden administration did not want to get into a public fight with GOP-controlled states and was trying to negotiate behind the scenes to get the policies they wanted to protect people. But at the same time, not wanting that open confrontation means that a lot of this is continuing to go on unchecked. And so the data is coming out showing that a lot of people who are losing coverage are not reenrolling in other coverage. Some are, but a lot are not. And so I think now that we’re getting, going to get into Obamacare open enrollment, I think that’ll be really key to see — can we scoop up a lot of these newly uninsured people?

Rovner: And we did, we saw the administration put out a press release saying that the early part of open enrollment has seemed very large, much larger-than-expected enrollment. And you kind of wonder, I’m kind of wondering, how many of those people were people who got kicked off of Medicaid. And, of course, we know that when people got kicked off of Medicaid, they were supposed to be steered to the Affordable Care Act, for which they would’ve obviously been eligible. But I’m wondering whether some of those people didn’t get steered and now that they’re seeing that enrollment is open, it’s like, “Oh, maybe I can get this.” I have not seen anybody answer that question, but it’s certainly a question in my mind.

Cohrs: Right. And coverage is more affordable as well because subsidies from the covid-era spending bills do extend through 2025. But again, people might see increases in costs once those end, if Congress doesn’t extend them. So even if we do see some people moving from Medicaid to ACA enrollment, then there’s a chance that they could see spikes in a pretty short amount of time.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ll be curious to see as open enrollment continues, whether they can break down where some of those people are coming from. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation.” I have chosen a KFF Health News story, which is also my extra credit this week, from science journalist Amy Maxmen, called “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts.” It seems that in Texas health departments and other organizations funded by the states are now prohibited from advertising or recommending covid vaccines or even saying that they are available, unless that’s in conjunction with telling them about other vaccines that are available, too. In Florida, as we have talked about here before, the health department has issued specific guidance recommending against the new covid vaccine for children and teens and now men under the age of 40. Unless you think this hasn’t had any impact before the vaccines were available, Democrats and Republicans were dying of covid in roughly equal proportions in Florida and Ohio, according to a study published earlier this summer in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

But by the end of 2021, which was the first full year that covid vaccines were widely available, Republicans had an excess death rate of 43% higher than Democrats. So medical misinformation has consequences. All right, now it is time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, you’ve done yours already. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a very depressing one out of The New York Times by Jack Healy and it’s called “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead.” And it is about these fraudulent, scammy addiction treatment facilities in Arizona, but it notes that they do exist in other states as well, that have been bilking the state Medicaid program for just millions and millions and millions of dollars and providing inadequate or nonexistent treatment to really vulnerable people in need, with very deadly consequences. And the places profiled in this piece really went after Native American folks specifically. So very sad report, but it sounds like more attention on this is leading to the state cracking down on places like this. So, hopefully, we’ll make some progress there.

Rovner: Yeah, quite a story, Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story, part of an ongoing series from Mississippi Today, in conjunction with ProPublica’s local reporting network: “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards.” It’s by Isabella Taft. In Mississippi, if you’re unfortunate enough to have such serious mental illness that a court orders you to have treatment and there’s no room in a state hospital, they put you in jail while you wait for a room in state hospitals. And sometimes they’re housed in these facilities or rooms that are meant for people with severe mental illness, but they’re awful. And sometimes they’re just housed with a regular prison population. And the sheriffs say, “Wait a minute, it’s not really our problem to be housing … state hospitals have to fix this.” And they have a point! But in the meantime, that’s who they have. That’s where they end up. They end up in these jails, these local jails, and the sheriffs are responsible. And only one hospital meets the state certification for what these people need.

And some of these stays. They’re not like two days, they can be prolonged. There’ve been a lot of deaths, there’ve been a lot of suicides. It’s a really pretty disturbing situation. It’s sort of the mental health crisis and the mental health provider shortage and countrywide really writ large among some of the most vulnerable people.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ve had four grim extra credits this week, but they’re all good stories. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. We’re going to take next week off, too, for the Thanksgiving holiday. As always, you can email us your comments or questions or your suggestions for our medical misinformation segment. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X, and at AliceMiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and rchohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on X, and I’m increasingly switched to Threads at @joannekenen1.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in two weeks. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Supporters of abortion rights again scored big at the polls in several states’ off-year elections Nov. 7, including in some Republican-dominated states like Ohio and Kentucky. The biggest prize came in Ohio, where voters approved a ballot measure writing the right to an abortion into the state constitution, despite strong opposition from the governor and other top elected state officials.

Meanwhile, the Senate approved the nomination of Monica Bertagnolli to become the new director of the National Institutes of Health by a bipartisan 62-36 vote. Bertagnolli — previously director of the National Cancer Institute, a large NIH component — had seen her nomination held up for weeks by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) over a mostly unrelated fight with the Biden administration about prescription drug prices.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Tami Luhby of CNN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll.

Panelists

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Election night 2023 was a very good night for abortion rights supporters generally and, specifically, in Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Republican governors and state leaders invested significant political capital to defeat abortion rights ballot questions and candidates, and lost. Some anti-abortion leaders’ embrace of a 15-week abortion ban as a potential compromise didn’t seem to help their cause.
• Abortion rights supporters’ winning streak raises a broader point about ballot initiatives. State legislatures in some red-leaning states have not only enacted abortion restrictions but also fought off Democratic-backed issues like Medicaid expansion only to have the state’s voters reverse them through ballot questions. As a result, conservative leaders are pushing states to make it harder to get referendums on state ballots.
• On Capitol Hill, lawmakers are once again facing a potential government shutdown Nov. 17, with the expiration of the last “continuing resolution” to keep government spending going. But House Republicans are not making much progress on passing individual spending bills, as several measures have been pulled from the House floor because they lacked the votes to pass.
• The Federal Trade Commission this week announced it is challenging more than 100 patents on brand-name medicines. Although mind-numbingly complex, the action, which could open the door to more generic options for some commonly used medicines such as asthma inhalers, could lead to lowering drug costs.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a study from the Ohio State University that found much of the information available to gynecologic cancer patients on TikTok is inaccurate or of little value.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’s Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a woman who got billed for what should have been a no-cost physical exam. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Find Out Why Your Health Insurer Denied Your Claim.”

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Congenital Syphilis Jumped Tenfold Over the Last Decade,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Sandhya Raman: The Texas Tribune’s “Sex Trafficking, Drugs and Assault: Texas Foster Kids and Caseworkers Face Chaos in Rental Houses and Hotels,” by Karen Brooks Harper.

Tami Luhby: ProPublica’s “Big Insurance Met Its Match When It Turned Down a Top Trial Lawyer’s Request for Cancer Treatment,” by T. Christian Miller.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

The Journal of Gynecologic Oncology’s “‘More Than a Song and Dance’: Exploration of Patient Perspectives and Educational Quality of Gynecologic Cancer Content on TikTok,” by Molly Morton et al.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Very Good Night for Abortion Rights Backers

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 9, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Hello.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Julie Appleby, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient had a very small bill, but it violated an important principle. But first, this week’s news, and there is more than enough.

Election night 2023 has come and gone, and it was a very good night for abortion rights supporters in Ohio, Kentucky, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. Alice, catch us up here.

Ollstein: Yeah, so this was a really striking example that I think undermined some of the talking points from the anti-abortion side after the 2022 midterms, where they also did worse than they expected. The narrative after that was that they lose when Republican candidates shy away from the abortion issue and don’t forcefully campaign on it. And the results this week sort of undermined that because, in Ohio, the Republican state officials went all in. I was at rallies where they were speaking, they cut ads saying, “Vote no on this abortion rights amendment.” They really put political capital into it.

An even stronger example is in Virginia, where Gov. Glenn Youngkin went all in on promoting his 15-week ban, wanting to flip the state legislature in order to advance that. He put a lot of his own money into this, et cetera. And it just …

Rovner: And the state legislature did flip, just not his way.

Ollstein: Exactly. It flipped the other way. So it really flopped in both places. And so now you have another round of finger-pointing on the right and disagreements over why they lost and what they need to do better. And so you have some people staying on that same narrative from last year saying, “Oh, they need to campaign even harder on restricting abortion.” And then you have other people saying, “Look, this is clearly a loser for us. We need to talk about other topics.”

But what was really striking, you mentioned New Jersey, and that’s sort of a counter-example because there, the Republican candidates tried to sidestep the abortion issue and say, “Look, this is settled. Abortion is legal in our state. This is not something we’re going to touch.” And they still lost. So it’s like, they lose on abortion when they campaign hard on it, they lose on abortion when they don’t campaign hard on it. And you have people arguing over what sort of magic words to use to connect with voters, but it really seems that it’s not really about the words; it’s about the policy itself.

Rovner: I want to dig a little harder into the whole 15-week-ban thing, and in Ohio it was just a straight up or down, are we going to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution? And voters said yes, which did surprise a lot of people in a red state, although it’s, what, the fifth red state to do this?

But in Virginia, it was a little more subtle. The governor was trying to push a 15-week and they were calling it a limit, not a ban. And that’s apparently been the talking point for national Republicans, too, on federal, that this could be a compromise to have only a 15-week limit. Not working so well, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. I mean, that goes to what I was saying about you can sort of rebrand all you want. There’s been talk about rebranding “ban” to “limit.” There’s been talking about rebranding the term “pro-life,” but, ultimately, because of the events of the last several years, people associate Republicans with wanting to ban abortion. And that’s true whether it’s a total ban or a 15-week ban. It’s true whether you call it a ban or a limit or a restriction or whatever. And, like I said, it’s true when Republicans talk about it and when they don’t talk about it.

Most people, the country is still quite divided on this, but most people, a majority, enough to sway these elections, are saying that they would rather not have these kinds of imposed restrictions. And that’s really been galvanized by the overturning of Roe [v. Wade]. A lot of people were bringing up what Justice [Samuel] Alito wrote in his opinion overturning Roe saying, “Women are not without political power.” And people are saying, “Hey, look, that’s quite true. Thank you, Justice Alito.”

Rovner: So the other big political event obviously this week was the third Republican presidential candidate debate, this time with only five candidates on the stage, none of them named Trump.

As popular as abortion is turning out to be as a voting issue, President [Joe] Biden is not popular. In fact, I’ve seen many, many of these charts that showed that support for abortion rights is running 10 or 15 points better than President Biden. So these Republicans, who are hoping that something happens to Donald Trump, did finally talk about abortion, and most of them still seem to be in the “I’m proudly pro-life” stage. I mean, is there any way to walk this tightrope for them?

Ollstein: I think what was fascinating about the debate was you’re not really seeing a shift in reaction to this electoral shellacking that they got. The candidates who were for national bans and restrictions are still for national bans and restrictions. The candidates who want the states to decide say, “I want the states to decide.”

And it’s interesting that Nikki Haley is getting a lot of praise for her position, which she came out and said, “Yes, I’ll sign whatever Congress is able to pass that restricts abortion, but we should be upfront with voters and say that it is highly unlikely that anything will be able to pass the Senate.” It’s interesting that that seems to be appealing to people because …

Rovner: It’s true.

Ollstein: It is true, but it pisses off multiple groups. Democrats are zeroing in and hammering her on saying, “I will sign whatever ban Congress is able to pass” as evidence that she is still a threat to abortion access. Meanwhile, folks on the right, conservatives, anti-abortion people, they want her to champion a ban. They don’t want her to sort of downplay its likelihood. They want her to say, “Look, this might be very hard to get done, but I will be your champion for it.” And so she’s sort of not appealing to the left or the right with that stance, but it seems like there are some she is appealing to.

Rovner: Yeah. If anybody has ever succeeded in straddling the middle, she’s certainly making the effort.

I want to go back to the states for a minute. I think it was in your story that I read that one of the anti-abortion groups was talking about “the tyranny of the majority,” which took me a minute to think about, trying to get some of these states that could still put abortion constitutional amendments on their ballots, trying to get that stopped. Is that basically the next battleground we’re going to see?

Ollstein: Oh, yes. And it’s already started, but what really struck me is how open they’re being about it. So over the past year, a lot of states have quietly moved with legislation and through other means to try to make it harder or impossible to put an up-or-down question about abortion before voters, raising the threshold, raising the signature limit, mandating that people get signatures from this many counties and this and that and the other thing, making it more difficult. Mississippi is trying to make a carve-out so you can do a ballot measure on anything but abortion. We’ll see where that goes.

And so this has been going on, but the statements after Tuesday’s election from anti-abortion groups openly saying, “This is the tyranny of the majority and the human rights of babies should not be subject to a popular vote,” just completely going down this anti-Democratic road and being explicit about it. So I think it’s definitely something to keep an eye on.

Luhby: And this started with expanding Medicaid also because there’ve been multiple states now that have expanded Medicaid through ballot measures, multiple red states, and several states, including states that eventually passed that, have been trying to limit the ability of voters to pass it.

Rovner: Yes, we’ve got all these sort of Republican-dominated legislatures, but when the voters actually go to these single topics, they don’t necessarily agree with the legislators that they have elected.

Raman: Last year, one of the ones that abortion rights supporters had really championed was Michigan as the first citizen-led constitutional amendment to codify abortion rights. And then this week, we had a lawsuit brought against to invalidate that passing last year, and it’s unclear how that’ll go and play out in the courts, but it really seems like they’ve been slowly ramping up the strategies to see what sticks to be able to claw back some of this stuff.

Rovner: They, the anti-abortion force.

Raman: Yes, yes. And I was also going to say that when we’re talking about Mississippi, that is probably one of the one places where I think abortion opponents really had their win in that we had Lynn Fitch, their attorney general, who was the one that litigated the Dobbs decision that is making this such a big topic now, who pretty handily won reelection. And her opponent was pretty vocally an abortion rights supporter, Greta Kemp Martin. So that is one …

Rovner: The Republican governor also won in Mississippi.

Raman: Yes, yeah.

Rovner: It kind of prevented it from being a clean sweep for Democrats.

All right, well, I want to go back to the debate for a minute because they also talked mostly about foreign policy, but they did talk about entitlement reform, which had not come up, I don’t think, before. Talk about trying to straddle the middle. Here, Donald Trump has come out and vowed not to cut Social Security and Medicare, and yet we know that both programs need to have some kind of change or else they’re going to run out of money.

So how are these candidates trying to separate themselves on this thorny problem, Tami? They all seemed to say as much as they could without really saying anything.

Luhby: Exactly. I’m not sure there’s a lot of separation there, other than just saying, “We’ll look at it and we’ll see it.” But I mean, to some extent they’re right. The moderators were really trying to press them on what’s the age? What are you going to raise the age to? It’s now, the full retirement age is being ramped up to 67. The early retirement age has stayed at 62, and the moderators were like … they wanted a number.

And the candidates were sort of right in saying that they can’t just give a number because there are multiple things that can be done. I mean, a little bit more than I think what Nikki Haley said, or one of them had said it was three things that can be done. There’s more levers than that, but the age will ultimately depend on what they do with the formula, what they do with COLA, what they do with taxes. So there’s multiple things that can be done.

But what is definitely true is you can’t say that discussions are off the table because, according to the latest Trustees Report, Social Security will not be able to pay full benefits after 2034. At that time, it’ll only be able to pay about 80%. Medicare Part A can only pay full-schedule benefits till 2031. After that, it’ll only be able to cover 89%. And the new [House] speaker, Mike Johnson, has called for a debt commission and he says he wants to address Medicare and Social Security’s insolvency as part of the debt commission, which has really scared a lot of Social Security and Medicare advocates because of his Republican Study Committee background.

Rovner: Of actually wanting to cut Social Security and Medicare.

Luhby: Right. And do a lot of the things, although not raise taxes, but do a lot of things that the advocates don’t like. But yeah, there wasn’t really a lot to take away from the debate on Social Security and Medicare, other than them saying they wanted to do something, which they need to do.

Rovner: I was amused, though, that Nikki Haley said she wanted to expand Medicare Advantage without pointing out that Medicare … as if that was a way to save money because, as we’ve talked about many, many, many times, Medicare Advantage actually costs more than traditional Medicare at the moment. That’s one of the things that’s hastening the demise of Medicare’s trust fund in other places.

While we are on the subject of Washington and spending, we have yet another funding deadline coming up, this one Nov. 17, which is a week from Friday. We’ll obviously talk more about this next week, but Sandhya, how is it looking to keep the lights on?

Raman: I think we could just put a big question mark and that would be evergreen, but we’re still not close to a consensus, either short-term or long-term. So ideally, in the next several days, we’re going to get some sort of short-term selection, solution, and that it would get the votes. And those are big maybes.

Speaker Mike Johnson has said that he would come up with kind of a stopgap plan by the weekend, but this is all allegedly, and if that is something that would also be appeasable to the senators. And so a lot of that is still a question mark, but the House is still going ahead on trying to get HHS funding. So they recently released a revised version of their Labor, HHS, and Education bill. It’s still all the same topline spending, but it has additional …

Rovner: Which is lower than was agreed to. Right?

Raman: Yes, yeah.

Rovner: I mean, this bill’s having trouble … because of the magnitude of the cuts that it would make.

Raman: Yeah. They didn’t do any additional cuts to that, but they did add several more social policy riders. So the revised version would prevent funding from going to a hospital that requires abortion training or funding from athletic programs in schools that allow trans children to participate, which is something the House has passed legislation on earlier this year, calls for barring … calling for a public health emergency related to guns, a lot of just social issues that they’ve been messaging on.

So if this were to pass, this is also going to make it even more difficult to come to an agreement with the Senate. So the next thing to watch is that Monday, the House Rules Committee is going to meet and see the path to get it to the floor. And then even there, if it gets past the Rules Committee, it’s a will-or-will-not pass there. Because if you look at some of the other spending bills that have been going through, a lot of them have been getting pulled or not getting votes or getting pulled and repulled and all sorts of things.

Rovner: Pulled from the House floor?

Raman: Yes.

Rovner: Pulled like … they put them on the House floor and they don’t have the votes and they say, “Oops,” so they pull them back.

Raman: Yeah. So it’s all very tenuous. And I think one other interesting thing is that we didn’t have a full committee markup of this bill, which is something that the House has traditionally done and the Senate has not done in a few years. But the Senate did have their full markup. They did have a bipartisan consensus on it. And so we’ve kind of flipped roles, at least for now, in terms of how the regular order of Congress is going.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s right. Again, because the cuts were so big that the HHS bill couldn’t get through the Appropriations Committee.

Raman: Yeah. A lot of this is to be determined in the next few days.

Rovner: And this whole “laddered CR” that the speaker was talking about that nobody seems to quite understand except it would create different deadlines for different programs, that doesn’t seem to be on the table anymore or is it?

Raman: It also further complicates something that when they all have the same deadline, we’re still already struggling to get that done. So changing the dates is going to make it even more complicated to get to that point, but so much has really been in flux that I don’t think that that’s really on the table right now.

Rovner: Maybe he was hoping that having a partial shutdown would not be as disruptive or look as bad as having a full shutdown. I mean, I kept trying to figure out why he would try to do this because it just seemed, as you say, way more complicated.

Raman: If you look at the letter that he sent to other members of the House before he was elected as speaker, he did have a plan of outlining when he intends to get various bills done. And if you look at Labor, HHS, and Education, that one was one of the later ones kind of pegged to getting a deal for fiscal 2024 in April or so as the deadline, versus we’re still in November and the deadline was technically the end of September. There’s so many loose-hanging threads that hopefully they will come together with some sort of short-term solution over the next few days.

Rovner: They will, obviously, we shall see. Well, the House, as we say, is not getting a lot done, but the Senate is sort of.

The National Institutes of Health has a new director, former Cancer Institute director Monica Bertagnolli, whose nomination was approved on a bipartisan vote of 62 to 36 after being held up for months by Democrats who were upset that she wouldn’t, in the words of Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Chairman Bernie Sanders, “take on Big Pharma enough.”

So when did controlling drug prices become part of the NIH portfolio? That’s not something that I was aware necessarily went together.

Ollstein: I think it was just that her nomination was the one that was up, so you got to sort of dance with the partner you can find. Obviously, other agencies and other official positions would have made more sense and had more direct power over drug prices. But this was the open seat, and so this was the leverage they thought they could use, and whether what they got out of it made it worth it, that’s up for debate. But yeah, it is very unusual to see somebody going against a president with whom they are largely aligned.

So this was eventually cleared, but Bernie Sanders wasn’t the only one. There were some other Democratic senators who were asking for ethics pledges and other things around this nomination, but it did ultimately go through.

Rovner: Yeah, there was a statement from John Fetterman. He said, “I’m not going to vote for her because she’s not going to be tough enough on the drug industry.” It’s like, I’m pretty sure that’s not her job as the head of NIH.

I mean, before people start to complain, I know that there are some levers that NIH can pull in deciding how to do some of their clinical trials. They can have sort of a secondary effect on drug prices, but it’s certainly not …

Ollstein: Not as direct.

Rovner: … their main role in the federal bureaucracy.

Well, meanwhile, there was some actual real stuff on drug prices this week. The Federal Trade Commission, which the last time I checked was in charge of unfair pricing practices, is officially challenging 100 drug industry patent listings charging that the listings are inaccurate. And because those listings help prevent cheaper generics from entering the market, that’s not fair. This is one of those things that’s kind of mind-numbingly complex, but it can have a real impact, right? If some of these patents get disallowed or delisted, I guess, from the Orange Book, the official listing of patents for drugs?

Luhby: If that happens, it does clear the pathway for us to get generics and cheaper drugs that way. So there definitely is that that could lower the prices of some of these, and some of the ones listed are pretty commonly used things that people use on a regular basis like inhalers, that kind of stuff.

Rovner: So if there was a generic, it could have a big impact because a lot of people would end up using it.

Finally, this week the Biden administration — remember the Biden administration? — issued a rule that would crack down on some marketing tactics by Medicare Advantage plans. Meanwhile, the Senate Finance Committee approved a health “extenders” bill that extends programs that would otherwise expire, and it includes, among lots of Medicare and Medicaid odds and ends, a requirement that Medicare Advantage plans keep a more timely list of the providers that are in and out of network, which I think might be the most frustrating thing about most managed-care plans, not just Medicare Advantage.

Both the administration’s proposed rule and the finance bill are smallish, but they represent stuff that keeps these programs up to date. I mean, Tami, there’s some significant stuff here, isn’t there?

Luhby: Yeah. Medicare Advantage is getting more attention because it’s getting larger. I think this is the first year that it’s crossed the 50% threshold and it’s expected to just continue growing as younger baby boomers coming in who are used to employer health insurance want to keep that. And there are a lot of pros and cons about Medicare Advantage for the consumer, and the administration is making sure … or is trying incrementally to make sure that people understand what they’re getting into.

I’ve seen a couple, now that it’s open enrollment time, I’ve seen a couple of the ads, which interestingly do seem to be targeted towards older women, not necessarily baby boomers coming in, but they’re kind of crazy and they can be very misleading. And the administration, in this latest effort, is trying to limit commissions of brokers because there are additional incentives that companies and insurers can provide to brokers beyond just the fees. So they’re trying to rein that in. Previously, they were working on Medicare Advantage marketing, so there’s a lot that they’re trying to do to just make sure that people are aware of what they can do.

This proposed rule would require that these supplemental benefits, which are one of the attractive features of Medicare Advantage, because Medicare doesn’t cover vision, dental, hearing, et cetera, but the administration wants to make sure that people actually know about these benefits and are using them and it’s not just a sweetener that the insurers are dangling at open enrollment time.

Rovner: To get people to sign up.

Luhby: They’re incremental, but they’re trying to make it a little more transparent.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s just important to remember that the incessant marketing, and boy, it is incessant, suggests that these companies are making a lot of money on Medicare Advantage.

Luhby: Oh, yeah.

Rovner: They would not be spending all of this money to advertise if this were not a very profitable line of business for them.

Luhby: And a growing line, of course, because more and more people are going to be eligible.

Rovner: Yeah. So we will watch that space too.

Well, before we get to our “Bill of the Month” interview, it’s time for “This Week in Medical Misinformation.” I chose this week a study from the Ohio State University of health advice related to gynecologic cancers that was most popular on TikTok. The study found at least 73% of content was inaccurate and of poor educational quality and that it furthered already existing racial disparities in cancer care. We will link to the study in the notes, but at least we know that there are people trying to quantify the amount of misinformation that’s out there, if not figure out what to do about it.

OK. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with my colleague Julie Appleby, then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Julie, thanks for joining us again.

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient had a very small bill compared to most of them, but likely the kind that affects millions of patients. Tell us who she is and what brought her to our attention.

Appleby: Yes, exactly. Her name is Christine Rogers and she lives in Wake Forest, North Carolina. And like a lot of us, she went in for an exam with her doctor, sort of an annual-type exam. And while she was in the waiting room, they handed her a screening form for depression and for other mental health concerns, and she filled it out, and then went and saw her doctor.

During the discussion with her doctor, her doctor asked her about depression and her general mood, and Rogers had lost her mother that year, and so she told her doctor, “Yeah, it’s been a horrible year. I lost my mom.” So they had some discussion about that, and Rogers estimates it was about a five-minute discussion about depression, and then the visit wrapped up. Her doctor didn’t recommend any treatment or refer her for counseling or anything like that. It was just a discussion.

So Rogers was a little surprised when, later, she got a bill for that visit because, as you’ll remember, under the Affordable Care Act, preventive services, including depression screening, is supposed to be covered without a copay or a deductible. So she was a little surprised, and yeah, it wasn’t much. It was $67. That was her share of the visit. So she was just curious, why is this happening and what’s going on?

Rovner: So she calls the doctor’s office and said, “This is supposed to be free.” And what did they say?

Appleby: Right. She said that, and they explained to her that she had a discussion above and beyond just preventive, and so she was billed for a separate visit, basically, a 20- to 29-minute visit, specifically for the discussion treatment and that’s why she owed the money. So really, it wasn’t part of the wellness exam. It was part of a separate exam even though she was in the same office at the same time.

Rovner: But when I go for an annual physical, they give you a questionnaire. It’s not just about mental health. It’s about a lot of things, and it includes mental health. If you had a discussion about any of them, would that be billed separately? Could it be billed separately?

Appleby: Well, here’s where the nuance kicks in. So, as I said, under the Affordable Care Act, there’s a lot of preventive services that are covered without a copay. Things like certain cancer tests, certain vaccines, and yes, depression screening, but if you bring up something else during your wellness visit, they can indeed bill you for that.

So let’s say, for example, you mentioned to your doctor, “My shoulder’s really been killing me ever since I started playing pickleball,” and so then the doctor did some more exam of your shoulder. That could potentially be billed separately because it’s not part of the wellness visit. And in this case, initially, the doctor’s office coded it as two separate visits because it went above and beyond just a quick discussion of the questionnaire or just filling out the questionnaire.

Rovner: She goes to the doctor, the doctor says, “No, this is correct.” Then what happens?

Appleby: So then after we started calling around, we did talk to the insurer, Cigna, and the doctor’s practice, which is owned by WakeMed Physician Practices. And initially, they said the bill was coded correctly from the doctor’s office because it was a separate discussion. But after Cigna got involved, eventually after we talked to them, Rogers got a new explanation of benefits that zeroed out the visit. And a Cigna spokesperson said that the wellness visit was initially billed incorrectly with these two separate visit codes, basically, and that they had fixed that.

And so Christine Rogers did get her $67 back. But I think this does illustrate the issue of not all preventive services are covered without a copay if it goes beyond what they consider preventive. And that can be challenging. And many people that I spoke with for this article said Rogers did the exact right thing. She talked to her doctor honestly, and everybody emphasized that people should not avoid discussing health concerns with their doctors at a wellness visit for fear of getting a bill because, really, you’re there to get health care.

So what they do suggest is if after one of these wellness visits, if you do get a bill, you should ask about it, ask for an explanation of benefits, ask for an itemized billing statement. And if something seems off, question that. But keep in mind that some things, if they go beyond the preventive care guidelines, that you might get a separate bill even during what you might otherwise think would be a no-cost wellness visit.

Rovner: And if your shoulder’s bothering you after you take up pickleball, you probably should let a doctor look at it.

Appleby: You probably should.

Rovner: And I know that this was a fairly small bill, certainly in the scope of the bills that we usually look at, but this happened a lot with colonoscopies, that people would go in for the preventive colonoscopy that was paid for, but then if they found a polyp and took it off, suddenly they’d be charged for the surgery having the polyp removed. And that’s a lot more than $67.

Appleby: Right. And that has since been fixed. There’s been some clarification issued by CMS and others that that is not supposed to happen. So again, you go in for a screening colonoscopy, and that is supposed to be covered whether they find a polyp or not.

Now, if you go in because you have symptoms and there’s some other kind of problem, that’s where it can get more complicated. And we’ve seen that with other screenings too, such as mammograms. A screening mammogram is covered under the preventive services guidelines, but if you find a lump, there may be some questions to whether it’s gone from a screening mammogram to a diagnostic mammogram, which is covered under different guidelines.

Rovner: Bottom line, you should always look at your bill even if it’s for something small.

Appleby: Yes, that’s always a good rule of thumb. And if you have any questions, certainly contact your physician’s office and start there and ask about that. And you may also want to ask your insurer.

Rovner: Great. Julie Appleby, thanks for joining us.

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

Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week?

Raman: So my extra credit is called “Sex Trafficking, Drugs and Assault: Texas Foster Kids and Caseworkers Face Chaos in Rental Houses and Hotels,” and it’s by Karen Brooks Harper at the Texas Tribune.

Her story examines a report that looks at the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services that was done by some court-appointed watchdogs to report about some of the efforts to improve the foster care system. And they found a lot of overworked case workers that didn’t have training and no round-the-clock security. And it’s just a really important story about what’s trying to be done and what needs to be done for caring for some very vulnerable kids. Many of them, as the title suggests, are sex trafficking victims or from psychiatric facilities, and it’s just an unsafe environment for both the workers and the kids. So check that out.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: So I picked a piece I did this week that sort of fell through the cracks in the news, but people should really be paying attention to this. It was a pretty scary report out of the Centers for Disease Control [and Prevention] about congenital syphilis. This is syphilis in pregnant people that is passed to infants in birth. And when not treated, it can be really deadly. It can cause stillbirths, it can cause birth defects, it can cause all kinds of issues, infertility in the parent, et cetera. And this has jumped tenfold over the last decade. It is killing hundreds of infants.

This is really scary. They sound that … so many people are just getting no prenatal care at all. And even when they are, they’re not getting tested for syphilis. And even when they’re getting tested and even when it’s detected, they’re not getting the treatment. And so people are really falling through the cracks. And, hopefully, this gets some more attention on this, but it’s also coming at a time when Congress is debating cutting these kinds of sexual health programs and services even more, not expanding them, which is what the report says is needed.

Rovner: That’s right. These are some of the things that would be cut in the proposed HHS spending bill that’s still kicking around in the House. Tami?

Luhby: So I looked at a ProPublica story. ProPublica has done several excellent deep dives into health insurers’ rejections of policyholders’ claims. These are very hard stories to do. They really are good at pulling back the curtain on these decisions that most people know very little about. So the latest story is by T. Christian Miller. It’s titled, “Big Insurance Met Its Match When It Turned Down a Top Trial Lawyer’s Request for Cancer Treatment.” It’s a long story, but it’s a piece about Robert Salim, I think, a litigator who was diagnosed with stage 4 throat cancer in 2018. His doctor recommended proton therapy, which specifically would minimize the damage to the surrounding tissues. Some of the side effects could be loss of hearing, damage to the sense of taste and smell, brain issues, memory loss. But the insurer, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Louisiana, refused to pay for it, saying it was not medically necessary. So Salim was able to pay the nearly $100,000 cost of treatment because he didn’t want to do these additional therapies first, which could leave him with hearing loss and all these other problems.

Rovner: Yeah, because he’s a rich trial lawyer, so he could afford it.

Luhby: Right, so he could afford it and he didn’t want to waste the time. But he also decided to battle Blue Cross and Blue Shield because, as he put it, he’s paid them $100,000 in premiums for him and for his employees at his law firm. And he’s just like, “Now that I need it, they’re not there.” So the story goes into the lengths that Salim had to go to, including his doctor sending in a 225-page request to Blue Cross to do an independent medical review. But what was interesting was that multiple doctors that were hired by the insurer to battle Salim’s appeal kept referring to guidelines that are created by this company called AIM Specialty Health, which is actually part of Anthem. So Salim, who has now been cancer-free for nearly five years, the appeal didn’t work, so he ended up taking Blue Cross to court and he actually won, but he’s still waiting to get his reimbursement. So read the story. It has a lot of twists and turns and shows that even someone with means and expertise, the battle is still so difficult. How can people who don’t have the resources, both financially and legally to do this … he had to hire a friend of his to take them to court, like a childhood friend or a college friend, because it was such a difficult case to put before the courts. It’s a good story.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s the juicy story of the week.

Luhby: It’s a scary story.

Rovner: Scary and juicy. Well, my story actually builds on Tami’s story. It’s also from ProPublica. It also builds on our “Bill of the Month” project. It is a new tool that can help patients file the paperwork to find out why their insurer denied a claim. As we have pointed out so many times, most people simply don’t bother to argue with their health care providers or insurers because they don’t know how, and it is not easy. They make it difficult on purpose. This tool actually walks you through a key part of the process: how to ask for the information that the insurance company used to deny the claim. It’s super helpful and it’s a good place to go rather than doing the sort of one at a time, “I have this bill, will you look at it, journalist?” Here’s a way where people can at least start to do their own digging. As Tami says, it gets harder, but many people are being denied care that they are, in fact, eligible to. So here’s a way to at least start to try and get that care.

OK. That is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our tireless engineer, Francis Ying.

Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: Well, I’m at @Luhby, but it’s not really worth looking at it.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).