The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or — as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding — kill it. 

Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings — as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
• Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely — and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
• Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
• And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, 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 (or wrote) this week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “Take the Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “A DNA Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” by Isabelle Taft.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• NOTUS.org’s “The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
• The Washington Post’s “White House MAHA Report May Have Garbled Science by Using AI, Experts Say,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up — there is a lot of it. 

We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions. 

Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it? 

Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations. 

But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys. 

Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this. 

Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates. 

Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO — it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head. 

Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark. 

Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill. 

It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax. 

Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out. 

Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize — well, here’s what she posted on Instagram. 

Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. 

So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren. 

Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back. 

So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead — combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor— I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback. 

Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.” 

So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts — and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House. 

Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough. 

Rovner: And we’re all going to die. 

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die. 

Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work. 

But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care. 

Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators. 

But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud. 

Rovner: Or by executive order. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist Maya Goldman over at Axios. The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage. 

It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it. 

Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do — short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see. 

But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think — and, it was interesting. I think the Guardian spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today. 

I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows? 

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout. 

Weber: Yeah. 

Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe— 

Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans. 

Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks. 

And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system. 

Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is. 

Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses. 

Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at the news service NOTUS decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues took that yet another step. So tell us about that. 

Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated — which is what they call it — which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI. 

And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report? 

And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say. 

Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts. 

The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this? 

Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it. 

A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this. 

Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something. 

Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition. 

He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find. 

Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state. 

In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive. 

Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for its series detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person. 

Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” — that’s the premature rupture of membranes — “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the American College of Emergency Physicians, quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.” 

So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban? 

Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate. 

It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose? 

Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

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

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital. 

Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City. 

But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City. 

Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it? 

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000. 

Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid? 

Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid. 

Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states? 

Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care. 

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right? 

Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll. 

And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare. 

Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to KFF Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care. 

All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection. 

Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge. 

Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways. 

Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas. 

Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do. 

So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have — you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice. 

Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much. 

Zionts: Thank you. 

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

Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “A [DNA] Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation. 

Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that. 

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren. 

Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “Take a Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group. 

Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back. 

Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?” 

These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers. 

And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks. 

And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look. 

Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice. 

Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it. 

Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at KFF Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years. 

I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and LinkedIn. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and on Bluesky, shockingly, now. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

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).

What do the KGB and the former CEO of Cincinnati Children’s Hospital have in common?

Eugene Litvak.

The Soviet intelligence agency and the children’s hospital have each separately looked to the Ukrainian émigré with a PhD in mathematics for help. He turned down the KGB, but Litvak saved Cincinnati Children’s Hospital more than $100 million a year. 

For decades, Litvak has been on a mission to save U.S. hospitals money and improve the lives of doctors, nurses, and patients. He says he has just the formula to do it.

Prominent experts vouch for his model, and he has documented impressive results so far: financial savings, fewer hospital-related deaths, lower staff turnover, and shorter wait times. Still, Litvak and his allies have struggled to persuade more hospitals to try his method.

Host Dan Weissmann speaks with Litvak about his unique life story, how he found the fix that he says could revolutionize American hospitals, and why he won’t stop fighting for it.

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

Claire Davenport
Producer

Ellen Weiss
Editor

Adam Raymonda
Audio wizard

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: A Mathematical Solution for US Hospitals?

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. Mark Taylor is a reporter, and when he started covering health care in the 1990s, the beat wasn’t his first choice.

Mark Taylor: I thought it was a punishment. I thought, I don’t know anything about healthcare. I was bad at science, I was bad at math. I didn’t understand any of this stuff, but I just was determined not to fail at it. And I dove into it head first and my wife said, you know, you used to read novels in bed and now you’re reading the CDCs mortality and morbidity report.

Dan: About twenty years in, he picked up some medical journals — like you do — and looked at some studies about work by a guy named Eugene Litvak.

Mark Taylor: I started reading these and going, wow, that’s a good story.

Dan: Litvak was a math PhD, with a background in operations management, systems engineering. He’d spent the first chunk of his career making telecommunications networks more efficient and reliable.

Many years later, One hospital that had implemented Litvak’s program had saved more than a hundred million dollars a year.

But the results were about more than money. Mark Taylor kept reading…

Mark Taylor: Reduces mortality rates in-hospital. That’s a good story. Improves nurse retention. We’ve got a nursing shortage. Reduces waiting times in ER and patient boarding.

Dan: Patient boarding sounds nerdy, but: We talked about this a couple of episodes ago, when we looked at the new HBO/Max medical drama “The Pitt.”

When hospital ERs get crowded — and way less effective — it’s generally because of crowding upstairs.

ER patients who need a bed upstairs can’t get one, so they wait in the ER. And clog it up. Wait times get longer. Medical mistakes happen. People die. 

On “The Pitt,” and in lots of hospitals, this gets treated as a fact of life.

Hospital administrators say they can’t afford to build the new wings or hire extra nurses to meet peak demands.

But Litvak’s work showed: They don’t need to.

Because — it turns out — random ER visits don’t cause those peaks.

Scheduled surgeries do. They get bunched up on certain days. Un-bunch them, and the peaks get smoother.

Nurses and doctors get less burned out. Fewer patients die. Hospitals waste less money.

In other words, Litvak’s work addressed some of the biggest problems Mark Taylor had been writing about for decades.

Mark Taylor: There’s a solution here. It’s been proven to work, and it’s been validated in the best medical journals in the country and in the world. How come this isn’t in every hospital?

Dan:  That was ten years ago. It’s still a good question. 

Mark wrote some newspaper stories about Litvak’s work, starting with one in the Chicago Tribune, and eventually started working on a book.

It came out in 2024, and it’s called “Hospital, Heal Thyself: One Brilliant Mathematician’s Proven Plan for Saving Hospitals, Many Lives and Billions of Dollars.”

By the time Eugene Litvak started working with hospitals, he was in his mid-40s. He had grown up in the Soviet Union, where he earned a PhD in math and worked as a systems engineer.

His career there came to a halt when he asked for an exit visa — and his request was refused for almost a decade. There was a word for people in that predicament, lots of them, like Litvak, Soviet Jews: refuseniks. 

Eventually he got to the U.S. — where he’s now spent decades trying to get hospitals to try his methods.

Eugene Litvak: I recently started telling people that I am a double refusenik, for 10 years refusing for the exit visa in Soviet Union, and now for 25 years in healthcare decision makers.

Dan: He’s not giving up any time soon. And he thinks eventually hospitals will come around. He thinks they’re gonna have to.

This is An Arm and a Leg– a show about why health care costs so freaking much, and what we can maybe do about it. I’m Dan Weissmann. I’m a reporter, and I like a challenge, so the job we’ve chosen here is to take one of the most enraging, terrifying, depressing parts of American life, and bring you something entertaining, empowering and useful.

Eugene Litvak was born in Kiev in 1949. Mark Taylor reports in his book that Eugene Litvak’s work in engineering and math attracted international attention in the 1970s.

Litvak also faced frustrating obstacles. A controlling boss. Semi-official antisemitism.

But what finally spurred him to try to leave the Soviet Union was an offer. From the secret police– the KGB. 

Eugene Litvak: And they were so nice, you know, like you’re talking to your long lost brother. They said, you have a lot of friends. You communicate with many people. How about you work for us?

Dan: Eugene says the offer terrified him. Because he knew immediately he couldn’t accept it.

Eugene Litvak: I would not be any longer in peace with myself. In addition to that,  I can tell you my father probably would stop talking to me if he would learn that I did something like that. So, these two factors –  look,  I didn’t think whether I should accept it or not. I didn’t think about that. The only thing that was immediately in my mind–  how can I avoid it to minimize the consequence for myself?

Dan: As he told Mark Taylor, he didn’t face immediate consequences for declining, but he knew he’d always be at risk. He and his wife decided to leave.

As they expected, they got fired from their jobs the day they applied for exit visas.

He says they were prepared to wait out a process that they figured would take months, maybe a year.

But their timing was bad. While they were waiting, in December 1979, the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan. The Cold War got hotter, and exit visas basically stopped getting approved. 

Eugene Litvak: So we, and many thousands of others, became victims of that.

Dan: Eugene says for most of the next decade, police and the KGB called him in, searched his house, threatened him with prison — while he and his wife worked basic jobs: she washed floors in a factory. He delivered telegrams.

When they finally got to the U.S., in 1988, with Eugene’s parents in tow, Eugene’s job prospects weren’t much better.

He says he had contacts with well-known scientists, but not great English. He worked in a hotel gift shop, then behind the desk.

And practiced his English by cold-calling stores from the Yellow Pages.

Eugene Litvak: Like Home Depot. Asking may I buy, you know, the air conditioner? And then the supermarket. The CVS. I was doing that on a regular basis until people started understanding what I want from them.

Dan: He eventually got some consulting work. And he found his calling — his obsession — bringing his training as an operations engineer to U.S. hospitals — when his father’s health went downhill.

Eugene Litvak: I saw the failures in operations at the hospital by spending a lot of time with my father.

Dan: And his chutzpah — and his persistence — all of that, really shows itself in what he did next:

Eugene Litvak: I sent a letter actually to every hospital president in Massachusetts, offering my services to help. 

Dan: No takers. No responses. But in 1995, the vice president of a big local hospital, Mass General, gave a lecture about how new market conditions meant hospitals would need to get more efficient.

Afterwards, Litvak stepped up, introduced himself– and got an invitation to drop by for a chat. In that meeting, his new pal the Vice President gave him a small assignment — one that Eugene didn’t get to finish. 

Eugene Litvak: He interrupted me before even implementation. He said, we have a more important project and that is operating room.

Dan: Operating room. Surgeries.

Eugene Litvak: So that’s how it started.

Dan: A doctor named Mike Long, who ran logistics for the hospitals surgeries, had been pushing to get things more efficient.

Some days, surgical patients crowded the hospital, so doctors and nurses sweated through expensive overtime. Others, the place was quiet and the hospital lost money staffing empty beds. Nobody could figure out why. 

Long and Litvak became a team, with two big strengths: One, they were kindred spirits.

Eugene Litvak: As he described it, you know, long lost twins.

Dan: And two, they had complimentary expertise:

Eugene Litvak: He knew healthcare very well, which I didn’t, and I knew operations management, that he didn’t know.

Dan: They dove in together, pulling data, talking to people, and observing. The two of them worked and worked. For months, Litvak watched the weekly 6am meetings where surgeons would set their schedules.

They had a hypothesis: Sometimes more people just showed up in the ER: More broken legs, more burst appendixes. The ER got crowded, and so did the rest of the hospital.

So they searched their data for ways to predict or manage that problem.

And then one day, a totally different answer literally showed itself to them.

This was the 1990s, before PowerPoint. To share their data, they printed charts onto transparencies — plastic sheets for an overhead projector.

One day, in Mike Long’s office, they noticed a couple of these sheets sitting one on top of the other.

One had a line showing scheduled surgeries — more this day, fewer that day. The other had a line showing, day by day, how many hospital beds were full. 

Eugene Litvak: And we look. Wow, it’s almost the same. We put it against the light in the window and they almost coincided. That was an aha moment. 

Dan: When the line showing scheduled surgeries went up, so did  the line showing full beds — crowding. They went down together too. 

Eugene Litvak: It was clear message.

Dan: The question they’d been working on– why does the hospital get so jammed sometimes?

The answer wasn’t random at all. It had nothing to do with random surges in patients showing up in the ER.

The hospital got jammed — and the ER got backed up with patients waiting for a bed upstairs — when there were more surgeries scheduled.

And there was a definite pattern: There were a LOT more scheduled surgeries early in the week, on Mondays and Tuesdays.

He’s taken to calling it “weekday-related disease”

Eugene Litvak: Weekday related disease that manifests on a particular week days. 

Dan: On those days, there was no give in the operating-room schedule, a lot fewer open beds on the wards. When a normal day’s batch of emergency cases showed up– wham. Things got jammed.

I told Eugene: Hearing all this after the fact, it just seems — obvious. You schedule a bunch of surgeries, you’re gonna fill up the hospital, right? He was like, well, yeah.

Eugene Litvak: As one of the hospital’s chief medical officers said, Eugene pointed us to absolutely unexpected event that during the winter we have snow.

Dan: Right, but this hadn’t kind of occurred to anybody before.

Eugene Litvak: No. And the first people reaction was practically calling me names.

Dan: People in the hospital did not want to believe what Eugene’s data showed. 

Which is easier to understand given what Eugene had seen when he observed the surgeons doing their 6 a.m. scheduling meetings for those six months.

Each surgeon basically called dibs on a block of time for each week. And certain blocks were highly coveted: 

Eugene Litvak: Every surgeon wanted to do the surgery Monday morning.

Dan: The intensity of the scramble for those times had puzzled Eugene. He asked his partner Mike Long about it.

Eugene Litvak: I said, Mike, I hear they’re fighting for this morning, block times as they would fight for their spouses. And he said, Eugene, you don’t get it. He said they would rather give up their spouses than the morning, Monday, block time. 

Dan: Would rather give up their spouses than Monday morning block times. There were reasons– beyond just wanting the rest of the week clear.

Like: Surgeons wanted to come in and do their best work when they were fresh from the weekend.

They wanted the early-morning slot for the same reason frequent travelers want early flights: Later in the day, your schedule could get delayed because of some problems that happened earlier.

And if you operated on somebody later in the week, they might have to spend the weekend in the hospital. When, yeah, you might get called in to check on them.

But also: hospitals operate with skeleton crews on weekends. Fewer nurses, less staff around for services like physical therapy. 

Surgeons may have been looking out for themselves, Eugene says, but they were also trying to look out for their patients. And failing on both counts.

Eugene Litvak: They’re the first and foremost victim along with their patients of this mismanaged operation. They’re trying to do their best, but, but the system is screwed up.

Dan: And they did NOT want to hear some engineer telling them when they should operate.

Eugene Litvak: I talked to one of the prominent cardiac surgeon, really talented person. And, he told me, Eugene, how dare you are to teach me when I supposed to operate on my patients. Even my patients do not know when they should be operated on. How can you do that? And I said, okay, uh, your point is well taken. May look at your data, talk to your data people. He said, sure. So I talked to the data people. I came back and I said, look, I would like to be your student. As such, I would like to learn what kind of a disease your patients have that manifests itself every Tuesday 

Dan: And how did he respond?

Eugene Litvak: From that point, he avoided talking with me.

Dan: In his book, Mark Taylor reports that resistance like this from surgeons prevented Mass General from actually implementing Eugene Litvak and Mike Long’s recommendations.

Mike Long retired from Mass General in 2000, and Litvak’s consulting contract ended.

But by then they had compiled enough evidence to start publishing their findings in medical journals. And attracting allies in the field.

At Boston University, Litvak set up a tiny research center with big names in medicine on the advisory committee: Like the CEO of the organization that accredits most U.S. hospitals.

Hospitals brought Litvak in to consult — including the Mayo Clinic and Johns Hopkins. Mark Taylor’s book says they undertook limited projects that achieved impressive results –but never expanded.

And then in 2004 a couple of doctors from Cincinnati Children’s Hospital went to one of Litvak’s talks, and came away… impressed. Litvak ended up talking with the hospital’s CEO, Jim Anderson.

Jim Anderson CCH: And I thought this would be a fun adventure to pursue.

Dan: So he did. The adventure they undertook at Cincinnati Children’s remains Eugene Litvak’s biggest success to date. That’s next.

This episode of An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News– that’s a nonprofit newsroom covering health issues in America. Their reporters do amazing work and win all kinds of awards every year. We’re honored to work with them.

As a first step, Cincinnati Children’s Hospital had Eugene Litvak do an evaluation and present recommendations to the lead medical staff.

Eugene Litvak: Vice president, chief of surgery, chief of anesthesia, et cetera, et cetera.

Dan: Eugene’s prescription: Change how you schedule surgeries, spread them out across the week. As he recalls, everybody seemed agreeable, and the CEO Jim Anderson made a proposal on the spot.

Eugene Litvak: So he asked me, Eugene, okay, would you do that for us now to implement what you are preaching for? And I said, no. And he said, how come? I said, because these very people who smile at me would create roadblocks, and I’m not sure I would overcome it. So he look around the room and said, okay, if you face any resistance, you call me directly. He looked at me again and said, would you do it now? I said, absolutely.

Dan: Jim Anderson recalls that part of the exchange a little differently.

Jim Anderson CCH: I remember telling them and said, look, we’re gonna do this anyway. We’d love to have you involved if you’re not. That’s fine. Go away. But, uh, we’re committed.

Dan: However that exchange went, the follow up was real.

With Litvak’s guidance, the hospital reorganized the way it scheduled surgeries– and saved a hundred thirty-seven million dollars a year. They’d been planning to build a hundred-million dollar new tower to increase capacity, but with their new systems, they decided they didn’t need to.

Actually, Jim Anderson told another interviewer: without adding a single bed, the hospital took on more cases, AND wait times for patients went down by 28 percent. Nurses, surgeons, and anesthesiologists reported they were able to take better care of patients.

Jim Anderson says the hospital was making other changes too, but he gives Litvak lots of credit. 

Jim Anderson CCH: Eugene was a wonderful stimulus, to helping us, think outside the box and reorganize and really, uh, be more effective at what we did. 

Dan: And yet, almost twenty years later, he’s had clients here and there. But few institutions have gone as far as Cincinnati Children’s in following Litvak’s advice.

Jim Anderson CCH: It’s been a mystery to me for decades now. I’m astonished by the lack of response. 

Dan: That’s the mystery Mark Taylor stumbled across when he started reading about Eugene Litvak’s work years later. He started calling sources for a reality check.​

Mark Taylor: Most people in the hospital business knew nothing of him, hadn’t heard of him at all. But some of my best sources as a healthcare journalist, told me, you know, this guy is really onto something. and it was like, Jesus, this guy’s right. How come nobody else knows this?

Dan: He started reporting his first story on Litvak for the Chicago Tribune and basically asked Litvak himself: Who are your opponents?

Eugene Litvak: He said, Eugene, I’m health care reporter. I should be objective. You have the names of supporters and coauthors. I would like to know the names of naysayers so I can interview them, and I said, here is what I can do. If you find the one, I owe you a dinner.

Dan: He’s had a lot of time since then. Since that was like what, seven, eight years ago?

Eugene Litvak: Yeah.

Mark Taylor: I talked to well over a hundred sources and I called all kinds of hospital executives, consulting firms, and I couldn’t find anyone who said, a, this doesn’t work. B, his, algorithms are wrong. C this is a fraud. They’re making up details in that.

Dan: So what’s the holdup? In my first conversation with Eugene Litvak, we talked about why more hospitals don’t go with his recommendations– even after they hear about successes at institutions like Cincinnati Children’s.

Eugene Litvak: I’ve been told by other hospital leadership, those are special hospitals. Our hospital is different. Our patients are sicker. Uh, at one hospital, they asked me, it was in South Carolina. They asked me whether I ever implemented that in South Carolina.

Dan: Implemented his idea that by reorganizing surgeries, hospitals can save money and take better care of patients. 

Eugene Litvak: And I said, that’s a management law has nothing to do with the state. And they said, no, no, no, it does. Uh, and I said, then let, let me, I’m curious whether gravitation law works in South Carolina.

Dan: How did they respond to that? 

Eugene Litvak: Uh, people just get angry from some of my comments. 

Dan: Political maneuvering, may not be your strong suit, not to tell you anything you may not have heard before. 

Eugene Litvak: Yeah.

Dan: So I left that conversation with a hypothesis: Maybe this guy just doesn’t have the diplomatic skills for this kind of work.

But when I ran that hypothesis by Mark Taylor, he had a counter-example from Litvak’s work at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.

The administration was backing him, but they said eventually the various department heads would vote his specific plan up or down– so he needed to secure *yes* votes.

Mark Taylor: He said, Mark, I, I lied a little bit. I would meet with these different constituencies, the orthopedic surgeons, the anesthesiologists, the nurses, the administration, and each one I would go to, I would tell now don’t tell anyone else, but your group is gonna benefit disproportionately from this

Dan: And then — as Eugene told me — the leaders met to vote on his plan.

Eugene Litvak:  So everybody raise his or her hand and look at his peers around with a slight smile. Say, oh guys, I know something you don’t, you know, I benefit more than you.

Dan: Eugene Litvak’s diplomatic skils — or lack thereof — maybe aren’t the whole issue. 

He and his supporters have another hypothesis. 

Namely: It’s hard to change institutions. 

Surgeons are trained to fight for those Monday morning block times– and in hospitals, they have a lot of clout. They bring in patients, and administrators are afraid to cross them.

Here’s one of Eugene Litvak’s most vocal allies

Peter Viccellio: My name is Peter Viccellio. I work at Stony Brook on Long Island, and I’m an. Emergency physician

Peter Viccellio:  and I am in my 48th year of practicing emergency medicine

Dan: Peter’s published big studies with Litvak, goes on conference panels with him.

And he’s got a very long view on medicine and hospitals. Not only has Peter himself been practicing for decades, his dad was a doctor.  Peter used to go with him on house calls when he was a kid. He says in those days

Peter Viccellio: If you had a stroke, you stayed at home. If you had heart attack, you stayed at home. ’cause the hospitals had nothing to offer you. So it made sense to have a hospital nine to five, Monday through Friday with a skeleton crew on evenings, nights, and weekends.

Dan: He’s seen the role of medicine and hospitals change dramatically

Peter Viccellio: When I was in medical school, if you had lupus, you died when you were 18 years old. Now I see 70 year olds with lupus. It’s amazing what I’ve seen. I think when I graduated from medical school, the only cancer that you could really cure was Hodgkin’s Lymphoma. That was it. And there are so many cancers now that can be cured, or at least can be substantially slowed down and contained. So it’s just a dramatic change.

Dan: But even though hospitals do so much more now, they haven’t changed their basic schedule.

Peter Viccellio: We have a seven day a week problem, and we’re still trying to solve it with a five day a week. Solution. And when I say five days a week, I mean eight hours each day of those five days a week. So that’s 24% of the week that we are running full fledged. 

Dan: And just changing the schedules for surgeons wouldn’t be enough– as Peter says a surgeon would tell you.

Peter Viccellio:If you wanna do a hip case on a Thursday or Friday, is there enough physical therapy present on weekends to get the patient up and walking around? Do you have the needed ancillary services and whatnot to get stuff done?

Dan: And he says hiring extra staff for weekends may sound expensive. But…

Peter Viccellio: if you’re doing more stuff on the weekends. But you have the same volume. It means you’re doing less somewhere else. So it’s called redistributing the load.

Dan:And people’s lives get more predictable — less emergency overtime. And according to Eugene Litvak’s modeling, you don’t necessarily need to go twenty-four seven. 

Peter Viccellio: if you went at this for six days a week, so that a Saturday was just like a Tuesday, then you’d get a huge gain.

Dan: But Peter says the old five-day-a-week schedule — and the problems that come with it– aren’t just U.S. phenomena.

Peter Viccellio: I’ve been to Italy and Korea and England and Scotland and all sorts of different places talking about the same exact problems that we have here. 

Dan: So while the capacity of medicine has exploded, the culture of hospitals is entrenched. 

Instead of asking, Why haven’t more hospitals done what Cincinnati Children’s did, it might have been smarter to ask: How did Cincinnati Children’s decide to jump in with both feet?

The answer turns out to be: Jim Anderson, the CEO, had taken a fairly unusual path. Before becoming the CEO, he had never worked for a hospital before.

He’d been a lawyer for most of his career — but had taken a few years out to run a local manufacturing company. While in that job, he joined the board at Children’s — and stayed on it for almost twenty years.

Jim Anderson: I ended up being chairman of the board and we needed a new CEO. And, um, we looked around and I lost control of the search committee and they turned on me and wanted me to do it. And so I agreed.

Dan: That was in 1996. By the time Eugene Litvak came to Children’s, Jim Anderson had been the CEO for ten years. He had been part of the organization’s leadership for a quarter century. 

Jim Anderson: I am much more comfortable, much more comfortable taking risks and pursuing adventures, than the typical medical community.

Dan: And even though he had that outsider’s perspective, he had the insiders’ trust.

Jim Anderson: The presumption was because we all knew each other and had worked together for so long that I wasn’t gonna do crazy things.

Dan: And to Jim Anderson, there was nothing crazy or unfamiliar about operations management. Because like Eugene Litvak — and, as far as he knows, unlike most health care executives — he had worked in industry, in manufacturing. 

Jim Anderson: I mean, if you went out and laid those out as criteria for your next CEO, you’d have a hard time filling it. It’s a lot, a lot of luck involved. 

Dan: Eugene Litvak has continued to attract clients one at a time — a hospital in Toronto, a clinic in New Orleans — and sometimes more. He says he’s currently working with the Canadian province of Alberta.

His ideas haven’t been adopted at that kind of scale in the U.S., but he thinks eventually hospitals will come around. Because they’ll have to. Many of them are in trouble financially. 

Litvak compares hospital CEOs to a guy falling from a skyscraper.

Eugene Litvak: And, in the middle of his fall, he said, oh, where I’m going, but touching his arms and legs are so far so good. 

Dan: Republicans in Congress are talking about cutting hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicaid. That’s a lot less money for hospitals.

Eugene Litvak says the government could save much more by offering hospitals technical support to adopt his program. He couldn’t do it all himself. 

Eugene Litvak: We are a small organization, but we can teach many other big sharks like Optum, Ernst & Young consulting company, Deloitte, McKinsey, how to do that. We could certify them and teach them how to do that. They have thousand, hundred thousand boots on the ground, so you can do that.

Dan: One way or another, he’ll keep at it. He tells me about an exchange with one of his advisory board members, a guy named Bill.

Eugene Litvak: At one of our board meetings, he told me, Eugene, I admire your persistence. And my answer was, Bill, if at one point, you feel like you want to call me an idiot, don’t mince your words.

Dan: If Eugene Litvak is an idiot, I would like to meet a lot more idiots like this.  

Meanwhile: We’ve been working hard on a two part series for next month.  About dealing with the high cost of drugs. 

A while back, we asked you to share your stories about sticker shock at the pharmacy

Listener:  The pharmacist would burst out laughing every time I showed up to pick up the prescription and he saw the charge.

Dan: And we asked you what you’d learned. You came through in a big way. Your responses taught us things we hadn’t understood before. And in our next two episodes, we’ll be sharing it all.

That starts in a few weeks.

Till then, take care of yourself. 

This episode of An Arm and a Leg was produced by me, Dan Weissmann, with help from Emily Pisacreta and Claire Davenport — and edited by Ellen Weiss. 

Adam Raymonda is our audio wizard. 

Our music is by Dave Weiner and Blue Dot Sessions. 

Bea Bosco is our consulting director of operations.

Lynne Johnson is our operations manager.

An Arm and a Leg is produced in partnership with KFF Health News. That’s a national newsroom producing in-depth journalism about health issues in America – and a core program at KFF:  an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism.

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

An Arm and a Leg is distributed by KUOW — Seattle’s NPR News station. 

And thanks to the Institute for Nonprofit News for serving as our fiscal sponsor.

They allow us to accept tax-exempt donations. You can learn more about INN at INN.org.

Finally, thank you to everybody who supports this show financially.

You can join in any time at arm and a leg show, dot com, slash: support. 

Thanks! And thanks for listening.

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

For more from the team at “An Arm and a Leg,” subscribe to its weekly newsletter, First Aid Kit. You can also follow the show on Facebook and the social platform X. 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

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Cuts to health programs made by the second Trump administration in its first 100 days are already having an impact at the state and local level. And additional reductions under consideration in Congress could have even more far-reaching effects on the nation’s health care system writ large.

In this special episode of “KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’” national and local experts join host Julie Rovner for a live conversation at the Association of Health Care Journalists’ annual meeting in Los Angeles. This conversation was taped on Friday, May 30.

Joining Rovner are Rachel Nuzum, senior vice president for policy at The Commonwealth Fund; Berenice Núñez Constant, senior vice president of government relations and civic engagement at AltaMed Health Services; and Anish Mahajan, chief deputy director of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health.

Panelists

Rachel Nuzum
The Commonwealth Fund

Berenice Núñez Constant
AltaMed Health Services

Anish Mahajan
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live From AHCJ: Shock and Awe in Federal Health Policy

[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. We have a special episode today, direct from the annual meeting of the Association of Health Care Journalists in Los Angeles, where I moderated a panel called “Shock and Awe in Federal Health Policy,” featuring some pretty impressive guests. This was taped on Friday, May 30, at 1 p.m. Pacific time. As always, things might have happened by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Thank you all for joining us. We have a lot to cover, so I want to dive right in. I’m going to exercise a point of personal privilege for a moment, just to set the stage. In March, I started my 40th year of covering health policy in Washington, D.C. That was not supposed to be an applause line. I can safely say that what we’ve witnessed in terms of sweeping policy change these last four months is like nothing that I have ever seen or experienced before. I spend so much of my time telling editors and other reporters, “Yeah, that’s like what happened in 1993,” or, “Yeah, that’s like what happened in 2005.” But 2025 in terms of health policy is literally witnessing the dismantling of programs that I’ve spent my entire career chronicling the building of. It’s more than a little bit disorienting, to say the least. 

So that is my perspective, but you’re not here to see me. You’re here to see these very smart people around me. We are lucky to have a national expert and two local experts from Southern California. You have their full bios in the conference program, so I’ll just do the short versions. Our D.C. expert next to me here is Rachel Nuzum, senior vice president for policy at the Commonwealth Fund. And to help us get an idea of how this is all playing out on the ground here in Southern California, we’re also joined by Berenice Núñez Constant, senior vice president of government relations and external affairs at AltaMed Health Services, and Anish Mahajan, who’s the chief deputy director of the L.A. County Public Health Department. 

I thought we’d actually divide up this conversation into two parts — what’s happened so far and what the fallout has been from that, and what might happen in the coming weeks or months with the budget reconciliation bill and the rest of the federal budget. I know it’s really confusing with all the headlines about what’s been done and what’s being proposed, so let’s start with what has actually occurred. Rachel, give us the very short version. 

Rachel Nuzum: Sure. Thanks, Julie. Hi, everybody. Thanks so much for having us. Before we get started, I just want to say a little bit about the Commonwealth Fund. So we are a private foundation. We’re based in New York, and we also have an office in D.C. Our focus is making grants and doing our own research to really understand what the implications of some potential policy changes would be. So when we speak on behalf of the Commonwealth Fund, we’re talking about what we know from the evidence. Maybe that’s a state that’s tried a policy before, maybe it’s researchers that have modeled potential implications, but that we’re coming at it from an evidence-based perspective. It’s not an ideological kind of debate. So I just wanted to say that about the fund. A lot of the things that I’ll talk about today we have on our website, including state-by-state data, so that might be helpful for you all as you think about your pieces. 

But to get back to your question, Julie, I would just agree. I’ve also been in D.C. a long time, not quite 40 years, but I was on the Hill in several places. I’ve worked at the state level as well. And I think I would agree. I don’t think we were fully anticipating the sheer amount of the volume, right? We saw executive orders kind of at an unprecedented level. Those were then followed by litigation. So we’ve got, I think, an unprecedented number of cases that are happening right now, which just kind of puts a lot of uncertainty around some of the policies that have been proposed. We’ve seen pretty big HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] reorganizations. We talked a little bit about, in the last panel, a reduction of 20% of federal staff that run really important, critical programs. I think the effects are still being felt and sorted out, how that’s going to play out. 

Obviously, we knew that one of the top priorities would be the tax bill that is pending in Congress right now, and that’s really where a lot of the current policy conversations are happening in Congress. So that has been underway for the past three months, and it’s still going and gearing up for the summer. And a lot of uncertainty about funding and funding freezes. I think we’ve seen some stops and starts in terms of federal funding. So it hasn’t been that long. It’s been a lot of activity, a lot of people trying to get the lay of the land, letting new folks get settled in their positions, and really understanding: What can we take away from the executive orders in terms of policy direction? We’ve seen things like an outline for the skinny budget that also gives us a sense of administration priority, but we’re just over the first-hundred-days mark, and we’ve seen quite a lot of activity so far. 

Rovner: Berenice, how has what’s happened so far impacted your ability to provide the services that you provide? And why don’t you tell everybody what is it you do? 

Berenice Núñez Constant: Absolutely. Good afternoon, and great job on my name. We practiced. You did a great job. So AltaMed Health Services is the largest federally qualified health center in the nation. We serve about 700,000 patients in L.A. and Orange County, employ approaching 5,700-plus employees, providers, nurses, nurse practitioners, and predominantly serve a majority of Latino patients in Southern California on the primary care front, and bringing in a lot of the innovative models and really setting the best practice in a lot of spaces that we are in. 

We come at the work and have always come at the work from a social justice perspective and making sure that the most vulnerable have what they need in order to be successful and healthy. So for us, it has really been a moment of taking a look at how we speak about the programs that we administer and provide every single day. How do we make sure that patients continue to come into the clinic while there is activity happening in the communities and in the local surrounding areas that may be targeting them, their family, their community in a way that we haven’t seen in a while? 

And so what we actually do is really leverage our position as a trusted messenger. We are brick and mortar in these communities. I often say, regardless of what the issue is, whether it’s access to medical care, whether it’s an upcoming election, whether it’s a covid pandemic or a fire, as we had recently, we are that trusted voice and that trusted messenger. And I’m really proud that because of that, we’ve done so much work in this space, for some community health centers, more than 60 years — we’ve been around more than 57. So we thankfully are still not seeing a drastic decline for our appointments coming in, because we’ve done a lot of work to make sure that folks feel that they can come in and access their programs. 

But of course, for us, there are just so many questions. I know for you, there are also a lot of questions, but the questions that we’re hearing every single day from our patients, our communities, are: Am I going to lose my Medi-Cal? I don’t have Medi-Cal. I have Covered California. There’s a lack of understanding in terms of the programs that they qualify for. And then, of course, because we have made such progress here in California with innovative models using promotoras, or community health workers, for example, that started in the community health center as a position, we are also watching things like food benefits and social services and housing supports and all of that, all the way to the local level, while we are also facing a state deficit here in the state of California. And so together, that leaves me with sleepless nights and a lot of questions every single day. But thankfully, because of our role in the community, so far, so good. But we are obviously worried with what’s to come. 

Rovner: We heard early on about FQHCs [federally qualified health centers] not being able to draw down federal payments. Has that been an issue? And has it been resolved? 

Núñez Constant: Initially, right? Initially, I think, we were all in the same boat. We actually received notices that we were not going to be able to do that, so we initiated an immediate kind of emergency proactive drawdown. We were successful in doing that. We all had the same great idea — right? — to advance that request, and so we were able to do that, and we were really thankful for that. Then there have been a lot of questions around grants that we have, given the executive orders. Are they going to be canceled? So far, we really have only had one of our grants impacted out of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], but everything else, thankfully, is still in place, and so we are hopeful that those will stay in place. 

Rovner: Dr. Mahajan, public health has not been so lucky in this, have they? 

Anish Mahajan: Yeah, that’s right, Julie. Thanks so much. It’s a pleasure and honor to represent public health here and the L.A .County Department of Public Health, which works to ensure the health of 10 million Angelenos every day. I’m going to start by saying public health work is nonpartisan, but it’s also not well understood by the public, and I’m so delighted to have a room full of journalists to try to help tell the story. I want to just say a couple words about what public health is. Public health works to keep entire populations healthy. It focuses on things that you think of, like acute infectious diseases, but it also focuses on chronic diseases. It works on preventing heart disease and diabetes and cancer. It looks at environmental toxins, ocean water safety. If you’re going to go for a swim today out in the ocean, you’re glad that we’re testing the ocean water right now to make sure it doesn’t have bacterial overgrowth or other problems. Lots of surfers in L.A. are looking at our reports every single day. 

Public health has a gamut of programs, which is why it’s a hard story to tell. But we have not been fortunate so far, and Julie started with saying: What have the impacts been so far? In public health, unfortunately, we’ve already had some impacts. And I’m going to also say that public health is an essential upstream component of what we spend a lot of our time focusing on, which is health care delivery. All of us go to the doctor, but our goal is to try to stay out of the doctor’s office and work on prevention. And so it’s easier to cut prevention than it is to cut care, and so we’re facing that. 

And so what have we faced so far? We have faced a sort of chaotic immediate rescission of key public health grants nationwide. Example: HIV prevention and STD prevention. The CDC center, division for HIV prevention is proposed to be eliminated. Many of the people who work there no longer, they may be still on the books, but they don’t work anymore. For example, we have a five-year cooperative grant agreement with the CDC for HIV prevention going back decades, and our most recent five-year grant, we’re about to enter our second year starting — day after tomorrow is the start of the second year of this grant. It’s $19 million that comes to us, the local health department, each year, and we use that money to give to our community partners, as we heard from Berenice and many of them out there, who mount HIV testing, education, biomedical kinds of HIV prevention like pre-exposure prophylaxis. I’m sure you’ve heard of this. This is where antiretroviral drugs help prevent the acquisition of HIV among high-risk groups. This funding is critical to do all of this work. 

We simply never received the notice of award for June 1. We still haven’t. We can still hope that over the next 24 to 48 hours we will, but we know we won’t. There was never a notification from the government as to whether we would in fact receive anything or if the program is over. It’s left the entire infrastructure for HIV prevention, not just here in L.A. but across the nation, with a giant question mark of: What are we supposed to do beginning June 1? This is a massive dismantling. Another thing that’s occurred, back in late March, jurisdictions around the country received notices that their CDC grants for Epidemiological and Laboratory Capacity grants, these are called ELC grants, are immediately terminated midstream during their grant period. This meant about $45 million of potential loss to us at L.A. County Department of Public Health. 

We used this money from these grants to pay for outbreak response for infectious diseases in places like jails and schools and other congregate care settings. This money was being used to improve the laboratory capacity of public health so that we could do genomic sequencing better and faster. It was also being used to modernize our data systems so that data could transfer more quickly from the field to the hospital and to other entities that need it so that we can respond timely. The immediate rescission fortunately was taken to court, and there’s currently a preliminary injunction, so the money is still flowing. But it’s sort of senseless to have these kind of immediate rescissions, because so much money has gone into creating these projects of infrastructure, laboratory modernization, computer system modernization, that if you pull the rug out from underneath, you end up having a lot of sunk costs, let alone the lack of those services. And so this has been very difficult and challenging for us. 

Rovner: I want you to talk about — obviously administrations change, administration priorities change, but we’ve never seen this kind of, sort of wholesale, We don’t agree with this so we’re going to stop spending the money, right? 

Núñez Constant: No. Oh my gosh. I’ve realized that, probably, laughing and smiling has become a little bit of a coping mechanism. But, no, we have not. In fact, for the last few decades we’ve really, in this space, have enjoyed really a growth trajectory, right? We’ve been able to expand the benefit model, making it a lot more comprehensive. We’ve been able to put forth innovation, right? When the community health center was once small — the free clinic is what everybody remembers it as a local community free clinic — now there are a lot of us that are really sophisticated, Medi-Cal health care delivery systems. We have become that at AltaMed — right? — because the system has sustained that level of innovation and growth, and so, though, I think it was really kind of more rose-colored glasses at the beginning. 

We got one of our grants canceled immediately out of the CDC. We are expecting that, as of now — right? — no HIV funding coming, and hopefully the state will do something about it in the May revise. I know we will get there, but it is really alarming. We have built this very sophisticated system that is actually producing the outcomes that we have all been working so hard to produce. Our folks are getting healthier. Our folks who didn’t have access to care in a sustainable, consistent way, now they do, all the way from birth to earth as they say, right? And so it has been really amazing, and that is slipping through our fingers as we speak. 

Rovner: So that’s a wonderful segue to actually what I wanted to talk about next, which is what’s potentially coming down the pike. We have this skinny budget for HHS that we’ve seen that proposes pretty dramatic cuts. We keep being told of a possibility of a rescissions package to officially take back some of the money that’s been appropriated. And then of course we have the tax bill. So Rachel, why don’t you sort of give us an idea of what’s on the horizon? 

Nuzum: The tax bill is real. The tax bill is happening, and the tax bill’s concrete. So where we are in the process right now is the House last week passed a piece of legislation that has about a $880 billion cut to Medicaid. I will say that again. It’s an $880 billion cut to Medicaid. Because we just saw some recent polling that showed that 40% of voters, if they know about the bill, they don’t know that there’s Medicaid cuts in there, and there are. It would be the largest reduction of resources, federal resources, for the Medicaid program since its inception. So that’s kind of one key thing to know. 

I think the other thing is there’s a lot of implications for Medicaid, for the beneficiaries, for the families, but a tremendous amount of implications for state and local economies. There’s job loss associated with cuts of this magnitude, and it just kind of goes on and on. We’re talking about community health centers. Forty-five percent of community health centers’ revenue, on average — in some places it’s higher, some places it’s lower — comes from Medicaid, right? So you can’t really talk about these issues in isolation. We’re dealing with rescissions. We’re dealing with changes to the way the Health Resources and Services Administration office that oversees community health centers, how they’re staffed, and we’re also potentially talking about a pretty major cut to the Medicaid program. 

So at the fund, we focus a lot on people’s ability to access care and to afford care. So one of the first things we look at when we’re looking at potential policy implications is: Will this expand or contract access to health care? And with the policies in this bill, we could see as many as 13.7 million people losing coverage. That could take us back to kind of pre-ACA-level cuts. So what I would say is that there is still time. This is going to the Senate next week. The Senate will go through their exercise. They will think about what they need to do to kind of get a bill across the finish line, and then if there are major differences with the House bill, the House will have to vote on it again. So we are maybe in the fifth inning, maybe rounding home and getting ready to start the sixth inning, but there are a lot of implications in this bill. It’s a thousand pages. It came together pretty quickly. So there’s just a lot to kind of … 

Rovner: Those who listened to last week’s “What the Health?” will know that at the last minute there were a lot of changes inserted for the Affordable Care Act [ACA], too. At first it was just this matter of, well, they’re not going to extend these additional subsidies and that will cause a lot of people to be priced out of their coverage. But it’s more than that, right? 

Nuzum: I think we just saw an estimate — we put out a piece last week — 24 million people that have marketplace coverage could see major changes to their plans. That’s above and beyond the people that may lose coverage under the bill. So in general, there is nothing in the reconciliation bill or the budget bill that changes how we’re delivering care, or it doesn’t make health care more affordable. What it does is it shifts costs to the states or to beneficiaries or their families. It is primarily an exercise to reduce the federal resources we’re spending on these programs. The need doesn’t go away. These programs are designed to grow when the economy has a downturn. That’s why they’re called entitlement programs. They grow as they’re needed. And so this is really about reducing the federal share. So again, a much bigger proportion going to states and states feeling that hit as well. 

Rovner: So I want to hear from both of you about what this level of reduction could mean to your ability to continue to do what you do. 

Núñez Constant: So stating the obvious, right? We don’t pay it up front. We will pay it times 10 on the back end. We all understand that, and it really frustrates me when I hear the conversation about savings up front, because it’s not going to be that, and we’ve seen that and we’ve been there before, for community health centers that serve 32 million patients nationally, about 8 million patients here in California. And even though, for example, children — right? — are thankfully not included, we understand that families enroll together, right? We know that there are mixed-status families. We know that if someone is fearful, they’re not going to go, and go access the care regularly as we need them to, as we think about population health and public health and the strides that we need to make. 

But in a very real way, clinics will close. Hospitals, emergency rooms will fill up. Folks will go to the ER for a flu instead of accessing it at a provider, because they no longer have care. Things like a dental benefit here in California that’s being eliminated for the folks with unsatisfactory immigration status, is the new term that we are using, that can lead to what it leads to. We’ve done so much work to make sure that dental care is included as a person’s overall health. And so clinic doors will close. It will shutter the health care delivery system across the country, and we will see folks showing up in the ER for services that they do not need to show up for. And more generally, and I will hand it over to my colleague, there will be implications to public health, and the public health of the most vulnerable communities more disproportionately. 

Mahajan: Yeah, thanks so much. I’ll just mention that Medicaid changes certainly could impact our ability to effectively treat those who are suffering from substance use disorders as well. But in public health, apart from Medicaid we’re looking at the skinny budget and the budget proposal from Congress and the reorganization that was noted at HHS, and the tea leaves are very concerning, extremely concerning. I’m going to give a few examples. Something that’s not in the proposed budget from Congress is the Public Health Emergency Preparedness grant. This is a national grant that supports the emergency preparedness of communities around the country to be ready for things like emerging infectious diseases, things like mpox, Ebola, covid. They also help jurisdictions deal with weather-related events, wildfire like we had here in L.A., earthquakes, floods, and also acts of terrorism, bioterrorism specifically, in medical countermeasures or having the coordinated response you would need in the event of a biological attack to access the stockpiles of medications to help prevent the fallout from the deployment of such things. 

And so, for example, here, these are over $20-, $25 million worth of grants to this jurisdiction here in L.A. County annually. It’s eliminated. It’s not in the budget proposal. There has been rhetoric about it being something called a state’s responsibility. If this were to be eliminated, our ability to coordinate on things like the BioWatch system, which is a system set up by the Department of Homeland Security that monitors the air at major events like the Olympics or the Super Bowl, which we in public health deploy as well as in certain jurisdictions including this one. There are 30 around the nation, but one here in L.A., where there are 30 locations around the city where BioWatch is deployed. And it looks for these things like anthrax, tularemia, and other dangerous biological weapons, and it’s constantly monitored in our public health lab daily. We test for it. This is what the Public Health Emergency Preparedness grant funds, and so it’s an immediate risk to public safety with what we’re seeing in the budget. 

I also want to mention there’s a lot of discussion about cutting the Vaccines for Children’s program and generally support for vaccination in the president’s proposed skinny budget and in Congress’ budget. I just want to remind folks that back in the late ’80s we had a large measles outbreak in the United States. We had 55,000 people infected, some 11,000 hospitalizations, 123 children lost their lives. And what we’ve learned from that in history is that there were mainly Black and brown populations that were having trouble accessing care. The cost of vaccines were too high. Even individuals who were going see the doctor couldn’t get the vaccine. There was vaccine hesitancy. And it led to the Vaccines for Children’s program. And here we are now, and we’re looking at the situation and the sort of undermining of potential funding streams to continue to support the deployment of vaccination, and we are going to see more and more outbreaks. 

At the end of the day, what we see in the proposed budget is a complete decrease in our ability to fund outbreak response. A single person who flies into LAX here, just a few yards from here, who’s discovered to have measles results in hundreds of contact tracing that’s needed. We have specialized experts who go out into the community and figure out who might’ve come into contact with that individual who’s now tested positive for something like measles, and we deploy the testing and the medications and the connection to care. All of this is at risk in what’s being proposed. 

Rovner: So a lot of people think, Well, I’m not on Medicaid, or, I’m not on a marketplace plan, so this isn’t really relevant to me. But what happens to those programs impacts the rest of the health care delivery system. You’ve just given such a wonderful example of how it impacts a public health system. What would it mean to the rest of the health care delivery system if we see cuts of this magnitude? 

Nuzum: I think this is where it just illustrates what a web this all is. If you have safety net hospitals or hospitals in rural areas that are disproportionately dependent on Medicaid and we blow a hole through those budgets, they are more likely to close. We see hospital closures, and I know a lot of you are writing about these issues all across the country, especially in rural areas. Or maybe the hospital’s not closing but the OB wards are closing and you can’t find a place to have a baby in states like Kansas that have lost 17 rural hospitals in the last decade. Those changes will be felt by everyone living in that area kind of regardless of your ability to pay or who your coverage source is. So if a hospital closes, the hospital closes. If providers say, I can’t make it work here, I can’t pay my bills and raise my family, that’s a loss for the entire community. And so I think keeping in mind how connected these pieces are is really critical. 

We also know that programs like Medicaid, direct cuts to those don’t just impact Medicaid families. Thirty percent of Medicaid resources are directed towards Medicare beneficiaries because there are cost-sharing expectations that happen in the Medicare program and Medicaid steps in to be able to help low-income seniors pay for out-of-pocket costs, pay for long-term care. Most of us know it is the default long-term care program in our country, Medicaid, and it’s our default behavioral health, mental health, addiction program in our country. It’s the number one payer for inpatient mental health stays. Everybody knows, I think, how much of a shortage and how difficult it is to find an inpatient bed for mental health services, so just imagine if the largest payer is no longer able to kind of step up. So those are things that are going to be felt by every single person here. We already talked about how these changes in the marketplace and uncertainty around those policies would impact commercial pricing and plans. So it’s just a kind of a domino effect. 

Mahajan: Yeah, I just want to quickly add to that. I think there’s things that Congress has the power to do, and there are things that we just heard from the previous acting CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator on Medicaid waivers. Just to pick up on a point Rachel’s making, we in California rely on a Medicaid waiver for substance use residential treatment that allows us to be paid by Medicaid for institutions that have more than 16 beds, and we’re able to get paid by Medicaid to put a substance use sufferer into those beds, because of a Medicaid waiver. If CMS decides not to continue that waiver when it’s due in 2026 or decides to rescind it, we will suddenly have a sudden drop in the ability to actually house people that are needing housing while they’re receiving substance use care. 

Nuzum: Can I just say one other thing on the waiver point? Even if the waivers are allowed to continue, we have to ask ourselves what will happen and what will states be able to continue to do, again, if we have cuts of this magnitude. So even without kind of ending waivers that have been approved, I’m very worried about some of those voluntary, optional activities that states have taken on through the waiver process. 

Núñez Constant: So my add would be that folks say, I don’t, I’m not impacted. You don’t need Medicaid, but you don’t need Medicaid now. I think it’s important because it’s a safety net program for a reason. And so any changes in any formulas for federal funding or federal matches that states receive, obviously, if there’s a big cut it’s going to cause a budget hole. That will have economic implications to jobs. Those folks that are, and we are already seeing major deficits — city of Los Angeles, monumental deficit. We’re seeing layoffs in different industries already happening, starting with the federal level. So these folks will eventually qualify for Medicaid and really need this program. 

The other thing that I will say is, health care, we produce jobs in communities, very well-paying jobs — nurses, doctors, behavioral health specialists, but even folks like me on the administrative side as well. And we have also done so much work to train the next generation of doctors and nurses and done so much work to get them to come to the community health center, because that’s a whole other conversation. And so we’re going to lose that. All of that infrastructure that is now in place, we’re going to lose. And so when something changes in the future, we’re going to have to rebuild all of that. But also all the investments that we made to date are just going to go away, and that’s really a frustrating part. 

Rovner: It’s obviously not just health care that’s getting shaken up right now in terms of policy. Immigration is a gigantic priority for this administration, both in terms of stopping the inflow and ejecting immigrants already here, including those here legally. That really impacts both health care delivery and public health, right? 

Mahajan: Yeah. No, I think when we think about sort of the approaches that are being taken at the moment, it started with executive orders and it sort of has flown down into policy perspectives about ensuring that federal dollars are not utilized on folks who are — what’s the new— 

Núñez Constant: Unsatisfactory immigration status. 

Mahajan: Thank you. Unsatisfactory immigration status. And I think this is going to be a huge challenge nationwide for us to understand how we maintain continuity of services for people in need to prevent the fallout on individual health, and then certainly the implications on population and public health. 

Núñez Constant: For us, we are in the business of taking care of anyone and everyone who needs care. That is why federally qualified health centers started, received the designation, receive the funding that they do, because we are located in all of the high-need communities across the country to care for some of the most complex patients. And so for us, a health care provider, that is not our business to really get into the status of someone. Where I really worry is where there are proposals now being proposed in this last bill that penalize states who have expanded programs to cover the UIS [unsatisfactory immigration status] population and penalizing and bringing down that federal match. That’s going to be from 90% to 80%, and obviously that’s going to cause another budget hole that we’re going to have to solve for. 

Rovner: All right. Well, I’m sitting here in a room full of health reporters, so I know you guys have questions. If you want to start lining up, there’s a microphone right here. I will ask you to please tell us who you are and where you’re from, and while you’re sort of getting yourselves together, I’m going to ask one more question. Reproductive health hasn’t gotten the headlines that it did before [President Donald] Trump came back to office, but that doesn’t mean it’s not still being affected in a big way. What have we maybe missed looking at all of these other things on the reproductive health front? 

Nuzum: I’m going to sound like a broken record, but Medicaid is a major payer of women’s health services. It’s the number one payer for live births, for births, in this country, and it’s a major cover source for newborns. So again, any changes to Medicaid is going to really impact that. We’ve seen, I think we’re up to 40 states that have decided to move forward and extend Medicaid coverage for women after birth, so the postpartum extension up to 12 months. Again, that’s all through a waiver, which is great. It’s really exciting to see kind of the evidence be reflected in the fact that blue states, red states, purple states, everyone is kind of recognizing that the time for complications or for death, it doesn’t just happen in those first few weeks but it can really extend into that first year. That’s one of those other programs that I am worried about as an optional program for states to take on and do through waivers, again, that if they don’t have the ability and the resources to do that. 

Rovner: In other words, so if the federal government makes them pay a larger share of other Medicaid costs, they’re going to have to cut back on the option. 

Nuzum: Right, and I think there’s a lot of uncertainty around: Where does this leave Title X safety net family planning clinics and services? Again, we still haven’t seen the full skinny budget. So we’ve seen outlines, but what we’ve seen so far is not really encouraging in terms of what would be available for contraceptive coverage or cervical cancer screenings across the country. 

Núñez Constant: I would just add, just one of the callouts were on essential health benefits. We got that out of the Affordable Care Act. Women’s reproductive health became something that we didn’t have to pay copays for, really kind of provided some equity and access there for many women, and so that’s concerning that the “essential health benefit” term is starting to come back up. And then just here in California, we constitutionalized a women’s reproductive right to choose, and some of the proposals that we’re now starting to see here in California are defunding that. We do not provide abortion services. We provide women’s services, reproductive health support, at federally qualified health centers at AltaMed. However, there obviously will be implications just more generally. 

Mahajan: Well, the first thing that came to mind, Julie, with your question was the Women’s Health Initiative and the cancellation for one day by NIH [the National Institutes of Health]. And I’m glad it was only one day. And I think that it raises for us the question of the focus on DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion], as it were, and the executive orders around it and sort of the policy approaches that are being sort of embedded in the budget proposals around DEI. DEI doesn’t feel really well explained. And when we think about health inequities, my argument would be DEI doesn’t have anything to say about health inequities. Health inequities are a fact, and we see health inequities in Black and brown perinatal morbidity and mortality, and that needs to remain a focus even if federal dollars are utilized for it, and I hope that we can continue to do that. 

Rovner: We have a long line, so please tell us who you are, and please make your question a question. 

Christine Herman: I’m Christine Herman with Illinois Public Media, and I’m on the board of AHCJ. Thank you for being here. We got a little pushback on a question that we had to our former speaker, CMS Deputy Administrator Stephanie Carlton, about Medicaid cuts. And she said it’s not cuts — it’s a reduction in the rate of growth of Medicaid expenses. Is it wrong for us to talk about this in terms of Medicaid cuts? Is that the accurate phrasing? And is there any conceivable way that you see the proposed changes to Medicaid leading to improvements to Medicaid in part or in whole? I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thank you. 

Nuzum: I would say that I think it’s hard to argue with the Congressional Budget Office that shows the reduction in federal spending. We have direct savings mapped to the changes in Medicaid, and it’s about $880 billion in savings over 10 years, and we see the coverage loss associated with that. So I think it’s fair to say that on the federal side we are talking about a pretty massive reduction in resources towards the program. They have to make assumptions about what states do in response, right? And we could have a long conversation about, well, a state could fill the hole or a state could do this or that. It’s hard to see any state being in the position to kind of fully fill that hole, which is why I think it’s more realistic to talk about it as a reduction of federal resources and a shift to the states to really make that determination. 

Núñez Constant: I would add also just the fact that it puts more rigid requirements on things like provider taxes, for example, and how a state utilizes those dollars is also going to be limiting. We use a lot. We receive some, what we call wraparound payments, or some additional payments for quality programs. And so there will be implications if there are reductions to funds, if there are reductions to provider taxes and how we can — or limitations on how we can use them, restrictions. And then penalizing states for certain expansions that they have put in place and literally bringing a match rate from 90 to 80%, for example. And then ultimately whatever happens on women’s health and reproductive health and changes to maybe essential health benefits, programs like HIV services and funding for that. For me, I also agree it’s hard to argue that that’s not a cut when we will see it as less funding ultimately at the state level and local level. 

Mahajan: Yeah, I’ll just quickly add that clearly coverage reductions means a reduction in spending, which is — you can call it a cut, but it’s a reduction in spending. I do want to say, or at least the rhetoric is that it’s about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse at Medicaid. I’m also a primary care doctor, and I took care of patients for 10 years in primary care, many in, basically, in the safety net, in Medicaid and uninsured people. These are working people. Many of them are working people, and those who weren’t working, I can tell you, at least in my experience, were unable to work, for good reasons. I think about the administrative cost of trying to ascertain and document everybody’s work requirements is a cost and just adds to the administrative burden of our insurance programs rather than actually doing what it needs to do, which is expand access to care. 

Nuzum: Can I add one more thing on work requirements? So this is an example of where we have seen states give this a try, so we have real experience and ability to kind of look and see what happened. So Georgia’s a great example. Georgia’s the most recent state to roll out the Georgia Pathways program, which was unique because it both expanded Medicaid and brought the work requirement with it at the same time, right? And so the projections for the Georgia Pathways program was that they were going to enroll a hundred thousand people in the first year and 250,000 total. They spent $26 million to implement the program and to staff up, to put the processes in place. They enrolled 4,500 people in Georgia in the first year. We see in Michigan — they invested $30 million — that they only had the program around for two years before it was struck down. 

But we have real data from states and from folks who have been trying to follow the law and implement some of these programs, and so hopefully as we kind of see some of these policies come back, taking those earlier experiences into consideration, thinking about: If a policy is to move forward, what resources do states and local economies and providers need to actually make this work? States have to balance their budget every year. The federal government does not. So it is not an option for them to take action in these spaces. 

Rovner: So I stayed up all night last week watching the House Rules Committee and then the House itself work through this bill, and I heard from any number of Republicans: But we’re not cutting Medicaid for kids or for pregnant women or for elderly people. It’s just the people who should be working and aren’t. But as you were saying with the maternal health part, that’s not how the Medicaid budget works, right? 

Nuzum: It’s just more interrelated than that. What we know from decades of research, of studying what happens when you give a child continuous Medicaid coverage, is that not only are their childhood health outcomes improved, their educational attainments improved, but their health status in their adult years is better and their earning potential is better, right? So this is the upstream points you were making before that investing in kids — you asked what was different. Medicaid coverage for kids never used to be political, right? We all remember the stories, the Democratic and Republican senators hanging out together talking about the CHIP program [the Children’s Health Insurance Program]. Community health center funding never used to be political. That could be something that you could join hands on, and no one wanted to see this— 

Rovner: NIH funding never used to be political. 

Nuzum: Right? We could go on and on. And so, but the reality is when you start pulling dollars out of the system, you start seeing how fragile these connections are and how connected. 

Mahajan: I just want to add one quick point to the sort of hard-to-reach folks, folks who are homebound and groups that have trouble accessing care in a traditional way. We have funding from the CDC that we hope persists that we’re very worried about, which we’ve dedicated to an experiment here in L.A. called Community Public Health Teams. We’ve taken eight census or eight locations where we see the worst inequities in health outcomes and where people have the hardest access, for a variety of reasons, hardest ability to access health care, even if they’re insured, and we’ve created teams of a federally qualified health center, a community-based organization, and public health professionals, along with community health workers, to really use a Costa Rica public health model to go out there and know the community, engage them, connect them to the services. These other upstream strategies, these strategies to try to get at folks who are really being left behind, the funding for that is even, is clearly, at risk when we’re talking about Medicaid being at risk. 

Maia Anderson: Hi, my name is Maia Anderson. I’m a reporter at Morning Brew. My question is for Dr. Mahajan specifically. With so many of your grants being canceled, I’m curious: What is your department doing to combat that? Are you looking for other sources of funding? Or what kind of work are you doing to combat that? 

Mahajan: Thanks so much for the question. I really appreciate it. I do want to say, the CDC’s budget prior to its proposed cuts, nearly 80% of it goes to state and local health jurisdictions like us. Public health is local, and local health jurisdictions and states have the authority and statute to do public health. At L.A. County Department of Public Health, 50% of our budget is federal dollars. Some jurisdictions it’s as high as 70, 80%. Other jurisdictions may be less, a little less than that. But as we see a closure of funding or reductions, major reductions of funding for public health, there doesn’t appear to be any other places to look to fill the gap. There is a budget crisis here in L.A. city and county. There’s a budget crisis at the state-of-California level, and we are now looking at strategically downsizing our services. It will likely mean workforce reductions and certainly program closures and slower responses to an outbreak of measles coming through LAX, as an example. We may not be able to test the ocean water if these cuts come to pass. 

And so these are very real things that we want our community to know. How are we doing it? We are engaging our community and our stakeholders and explaining to them what we are facing and asking them for their input about what’s most important to do with the limited dollars that we’ll have left. We’re looking at what are the criteria with which we can downsize and reserve whatever money that is in federal to continue it. These are extremely hard choices, and I fear for the public health outcomes that we’re going to see as a result. 

Cassie McGrath: Hi. Good afternoon. My name’s Cassie McGrath. I also work with the Morning Brew. We’re a curious bunch. My question is asking a response to the CMS chief of staff’s proposal that some of the programs that Medicaid currently covers could go to other departments, like the Department of Education funding student loan repayment, things like that. So I’m wondering what your response is to that. How possible is it to reallocate those Medicaid dollars in your eyes and that sort of restructuring? 

Nuzum: There’s a number of places where agencies have been proposed to be cut. The Administration for Children and Families said, We can deliver these services in other areas. I don’t think anyone is arguing that there aren’t any efficiencies in the way the federal government is organized. I do think the Medicaid program is uniquely complicated, with all of the populations that we’ve talked about — from there’s Medicaid in schools, there’s Medicaid for moms and babies, there’s Medicaid for the dual-eligibles. It’s just a very complicated program. And in general, pulling pieces of programs apart and spreading them out doesn’t usually provide a more coordinated, kind of thoughtful response. So that said, I’m sure there are efficiencies within HHS and the rest of the federal government, but thinking about the complexity of the Medicaid program and the populations that all have very different needs, that seems concerning to start pulling it apart. 

Nathan O’Hara: Hi. I’m Nathan O’Hara. I’m a researcher at the University of Maryland. Thank you very much for a very insightful discussion. As a researcher, I’m very concerned about reductions in federal research funding, and you’ve highlighted a number of major health shocks that have started or are potentially coming. I’m curious on your comments on how these reductions in health care research funding are going to influence our ability to understand the magnitude of these changes. 

Nuzum: I think that’s a really great question. My colleague Dave Radley did a workshop this morning, too, on data availability and how important that is. We do a number of our own kind of intramural research pieces at the Commonwealth Fund, too, and we’re very reliant on publicly reported, regularly updated, trustworthy data at the federal level. So first off, I would just say that could and should be a bipartisan place for us all to agree on how important it is to have that data, to know: Are we moving in the right direction on things like maternal mortality? Are we getting in on top of emerging infections before it kind of gets out of hand? So just a major plug for kind of the need for data and really maintaining that, and I know there’s a lot of efforts underway to kind of push on that. 

I think the other signals that are going to universities in terms of research, we also see that as a foundation. A lot of these universities are our research partners. Several of them have research areas that are on pause, or they’re having to kind of halt the work. And so I think it’s going to take some time for us to kind of fully grasp and see the results of some of these reductions. And they’re not all concrete endings of research priorities. There’s a lot of kind of fear about getting it wrong, kind of given some of the executive orders are kind of overstepping. And so it’s a hard time to be doing research, whether you’re at NIH, whether you’re at a university. So I sympathize. I think it’s going to take some time for us to figure out kind where everything lands. 

Rovner: I want to piggyback on that question because it was a question I wanted to ask, which is there seems to be sort of a war on expertise, if you will, both in terms of medical research, in terms of public health, in terms of just health care in general. How much of that is going to influence sort of what happens going forward, just a rejection of evidence? 

Mahajan: Well, I was surprised and shocked at the secretary’s notion that the major medical journals that we look to for the top-line, highest-quality research may not be something he would want to see federal-dollar research being published in, and it was very surprising to me. I look at the MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] report on children’s health that just came out, and there’s a lot in there that’s good that we want to have related to children’s nutrition. Yet we’re looking at SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] being ended, and we’re looking at SNAP-Ed, which is a small component of SNAP which is around how we do the education component to vulnerable groups who are behind on nutrition, especially children, on how to eat healthy. And so there is sort of these mixed signals coming, and there’s great research just to know SNAP-Ed works, peer-reviewed research, but I’m not sure that that’s going to win the day anymore, because there doesn’t seem to be an appreciation, widely, about the importance of that expertise. 

Núñez Constant: I would add that on the federally qualified health center front, we really rely on data that designates certain areas as medically underserved or health professional shortage areas, and so that’s where we’re located. And so we are also in the business of the social determinants of health, and we really leverage a lot of the public health data that’s available. And as we look at innovations and opportunities to build out new programs, we really are relying on a lot of these reports that are coming from the federal level. And obviously we’re administered by these federal departments, HRSA being our administrator. And so we need correct data, but also we need to make sure that that data is also reflecting the actual communities and the actual local picture in a very accurate way. 

Lisa Aliferis: Hi. I’m Lisa Aliferis. I’m a longtime former health journalist and now at the California Health Care Foundation. So you talked about the lessons we have from states that instituted work requirements, yet we also heard Stephanie Carlton say that we’ve learned from the experience from those states and the feds will help the states put together better systems so that will be, I guess, easier for people to demonstrate that they’re working. Can you talk about how realistic it is that these better systems can come to pass in the next two to three years that the feds are talking about instituting work requirements? 

Nuzum: What I will say is that if anyone has worked at the state level, you know the state of their IT systems. 

Unidentified speaker: That’s very kind. 

Nuzum: Right? And so they’ve been working with these systems for decades, and regardless of if the resources do materialize, it will take time, to your point. And it’s not just: Do we have an infrastructure for getting the word out? Someone made the analogy a couple days ago — I forget now who, I’ve talked to so many people. What we’re potentially asking Medicaid beneficiaries to do is the equivalent of doing your taxes twice a month. Who of us have access to those documents or the time or the kind of wherewithal? And then, so there’s a really great piece on a man in Georgia who was really excited to get on. He lost his coverage three times in nine months, just from administrative hurdles. They had a system, but he kept getting kicked off the system. So it’s not just having a system in place. That’s a big part of it. But also, how do the beneficiaries interact with that system? Because we know that a lot of the people that are losing coverage or are projected to lose coverage under the work requirements, they’re still eligible, but they’re losing coverage because of the administrative burden. 

Mahajan: Yeah, I’ll just quickly add, leaving even the institution of work requirements out of it, just annually the redetermination, or when somebody’s on Medicaid, or Medi-Cal in California, and they come up on their year and they have to renew, we see such a churn and a loss of people falling off. And then suddenly they can’t get their meds and then they realize. It’s administratively extremely challenging with our systems in place currently, and for a variety of reasons, to maintain these kinds of things for the people who need it most. 

Drew Hawkins: Hello. My name is Drew Hawkins. I cover public health in the Gulf States Newsroom, so I cover Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama. Mississippi, Alabama — two non-expansion. Louisiana, an expansion state. I was in [Louisiana’s] District 4 last weekend, Speaker Mike Johnson’s district, and I was talking to a lot of people who are on Medicaid, many of them who didn’t work or worked part time —hairdressers, did some mechanic work — a lot of people I think that could lose coverage. I heard several times Medicaid is really important to them. It’s all they have, some people said. But not this connection that these cuts are happening or could impact them. I’m curious to get y’all’s perspective on what or why that disconnect might exist between a lot of people who have Medicaid coverage but maybe aren’t realizing that this is coming down the line for them. 

Nuzum: Well, that’s why we’re here talking to all of you. We want your help telling the stories. But one of the things we were talking about in the hall, Medicaid can be called something different in every state depending on where you are. So it’s BadgerCare in Wisconsin. It’s Medi-Cal here in California. So one of the easiest things to do, or kind of the low-hanging fruit, is just make sure people know. You can still have Medicaid and have a card that says Aetna, right? So a lot of people don’t potentially know. And then I think just being able to put those real stories in front of them and talk about: What is it that you need? How do you use your benefits? Oh, actually, those are safe because you’re disabled. Or, Those are safe because you are a mom and baby. Or, Those are potentially at risk. So again, just the nature of the complexity of the program, there’s so many different coverage eligibility categories depending on the population. I think just getting really specific and having those conversations like you were doing, just keeping it up. 

Núñez Constant: I would add that there’s a lot of — y’all are doing a really great job at talking about the cuts that are to come. How that’s being translated and, I think, absorbed at a patient level is: Oh no, I’m going to lose my Medicaid. And it’s happened already, right? And so just reminding folks as well that these are proposals, that this is coming maybe, right? It’s being worked out. But also we keep reminding our patients — and our workforce, by the way, because they ask us also: Am I going to lose my job? Is there going to be a reduction in workforce? And we just keep reminding them when something happens that it is a proposal and ultimately that we will let them know. 

But also, I do a lot of work in these communities. Obviously you’ve heard that. Sometimes — right? —these folks need one, two, three, four, five times hearing the same message for them to begin to understand. We all know that these folks are vulnerable. They’re left out of the systems, right? And so these systems are built essentially to lock out sometimes. It’s so complex. There’s language issues. There are cultural issues. And so we continue to do the work, and we understand that when we are serving our patients that it is a much heavier lift and we are going to have to invest resources to get the — make sure it’s in language, make sure they’re getting it one, two, three, four, five times, and make sure that they’re hearing from a trusted messenger. 

So figuring out how you bring the community health center voice forward, the promotoras, the community health workers, the folks who are in the community, in addition to the patients themselves, to share their story. That goes really far for engaging and really educating the communities that we are in. But they won’t open the door, they won’t come and show up, if they really don’t have that trust. So the trusted messengers are really key to any messaging. 

Rovner: All right, well, we are out of time. I want to ask you one very quick question before we go, because this has been so heavy. Is there something, briefly, that keeps you optimistic? OK. 

Nuzum: Man. So what I will say that keeps me optimistic about just kind of what’s happening in Congress is that it feels like every day there’s more understanding and appreciation of kind of what’s in the bill, what’s at stake. We’re finding different ways to talk to different communities about it. And again, this isn’t to kind of raise up one provision over the other, but at the end of the day we want people to understand what’s in the bill, what the potential implications are, and then make informed choices. And I do think there’s an effort going on, in large part thanks to the stories that you all are writing and the data that has been collected, to help shift that narrative. 

Núñez Constant: People are talking about Medicaid, right? When this all started, we were like: Oh no, we are going to be left behind. This is going to be — that voice is not going to emerge in the conversation. And it has become front and center. So the advocacy work that we are doing together is working. Folks are asking the questions, and so I’m really excited about that. And it is actually getting to community, because we receive the questions all the time. And oftentimes, even in our own workforces, folks don’t really understand policy and the implications. And so as these things have rolled out, doctors are engaged. They want to know more. Our nurses want to advocate. Folks want to get involved. 

And to me — right? — I am in the business. In order to do my job every single day, I have to remain hopeful. And it really does give me a lot of hope that we’ve done the work to engage folks that are typically left out, and that folks are seeing this work as meaningful, and that Medicaid has really emerged as a priority program and a safety net program and something that we are all trying to protect and preserve. 

Mahajan: Yeah, I’ll say I am encouraged, maybe not optimistic, but I’m encouraged by advocacy for sure, and I’m also encouraged by the actions that are being taken in court to ensure that we follow a process in how we make decisions about budget in the United States of America. 

Rovner: Well, I want to thank the panel, and I want to thank the audience for your great questions, and thank you, AHCJ. 

OK, that’s our special show for this week. As always, if you have comments or questions, you can write us at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or hit me up on social media, @jrovner on X or @julierovner on Bluesky. We’ll be back in your feed later this week with all the regular news. 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

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
• Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old. 
• People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
• The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
• This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies. 
• HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
• The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
• The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, who has a new book out on the history and possible future of the “personhood” movement. But first, this week’s news. 

So, against all odds and many predictions, including my own, the House around 7 a.m. Thursday morning, after being in session all night, passed President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — that is its actual, official name — by a vote of 215-214, with one Republican voting present. Before we get into the details of the House-passed bill, what are the prospects for this budget reconciliation bill in this form in the Senate? Very different, I would think. 

Ollstein: Yeah, this is not going to come out the way it went in. Senate is already openly talking about a “‘One, Big Beautiful’ Rewrite” — that was the headline at Politico. 

And you’re going to see some of the same dynamics. You’re going to see hard-liners saying this doesn’t go far enough, this actually adds a lot to the deficit even with all of the deep cuts to government programs. And you’re going to have moderates who have a lot of people in their state who depend on Medicaid and other programs that are set to be cut who say this goes too far. And so you’re going to have that same push and pull. And the House, barely, by one vote, got this through. And so we’ll see if the Senate is able to do the same. 

Rovner: Yeah, so all eyes on [Sen.] John McCain in 2017. This year it could be all eyes on Josh Hawley, I suspect, the very conservative senator from Missouri who keeps saying “Don’t touch Medicaid.” 

But back to the House bill. We don’t have official scores yet from the Congressional Budget Office, and we won’t for a while, I suspect. But given some last-minute changes made to pacify conservatives who, as Alice pointed out, said this bill didn’t cut deeply enough, I think it’s clear that if it became law in this form, it would represent the biggest cuts to federal health programs in the 60-year history of Medicare and Medicaid. 

Those last-minute changes also took pretty square aim at the Affordable Care Act, too, so much that I think it’s safe to call this even more than a partial repeal of the health law. And Medicare does not go unscathed in this measure, either, despite repeated promises by President Trump on the campaign trail and since he took office. 

Let’s take these one at a time, starting with Medicaid. I would note that at a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, President Trump told them not to expletive around with Medicaid. You can go look up the exact quote yourself if you like. But apparently he’s OK with the $700 billion plus that would be cut in the bill, which Republicans say is just waste, fraud, and abuse. Where does that money come from? And would Medicaid really continue to cover everyone who’s eligible now, which is kind of what the president and moderate Republicans are promising? 

Edney: Well, it sounds like the bulk of it is coming from the work requirements that Alice mentioned earlier. And would it be able to cover them? Sure, but will it? No, in the sense that, as Alice has talked about often on this podcast, it’s basically a time tax. It’s not easy to comply with. All federal regulations, they’re not going to a website and putting in what you did for work. Particularly, if you are a freelancer or something, it can be really difficult to meet all the requirements that they’re looking for. And also, for some people, they just don’t have the ability, even the internet, to be able to do that reliably. So they’re going to save money because people are going to lose their health care. 

Rovner: I saw a lot of people referring to them this week not as work requirements anymore but as work reporting requirements. Somebody suggested it was like the equivalent of having to file your income taxes every month. It’s not just check a box and say, I worked this month. It’s producing documentation. And a lot of people have jobs that are inconsistent. They may work some hours some week and other hours the other week. And even people who work for small businesses, that would put an enormous burden on the employers to come up with all this. 

Obviously, the CBO thinks that a lot of people won’t be able to do this and therefore people are going to lose their health insurance. But Alice, as you have told us numerous times when we did this in Arkansas, it’s not that people aren’t working — it’s that people aren’t successfully reporting their work. 

Ollstein: Right. And we’ve seen this in Georgia, too, where this has been implemented, where there are many different ways that people who are working lose their insurance with this. People who don’t have good internet access struggle. People who have fluctuating work schedules, whether it’s agricultural work, tourism work, things that are more seasonal, they can’t comply with this strict monthly requirement. 

So there are numerous reports from the ground of people who should be eligible losing their coverage. And I’ll note that one of the last-minute changes the House made was moving up the start date of the requirements. And I’m hearing a lot of state officials and advocates warn that that gives states less time to set up a system where people won’t fall through the cracks. And so the predicted larger savings is in part because they imagine more people will be kicked off the program. 

Rovner: It’s also the most stringent work requirement we’ve seen. It would cover people from age 19 through age 64, like right up until you’re eligible for Medicare. And if you lose Medicaid because you fail to meet these reporting requirements, you’re no longer eligible for a subsidy to buy insurance in the ACA exchange. Is there a policy point to this? Or are they just trying to get the most people off the program so they can get the most savings? 

Edney: If you ask Republicans, they would tell you: We’re going to get people back working. We’re going to give them the pride of working — as if people don’t want that on their own. But the actual outcome is not that people end up working more. And there are cases even where they lose their health insurance and can’t work a job they already had. On the surface, and this is why it’s such a popular program, because it seems like it would get more people working. Even a large swath of Democrats support the idea when they just hear the name — of voters. But the actual outcome, that doesn’t happen. People aren’t in Medicaid because they aren’t working. 

Rovner: Right. And I get to say for the millionth time, nobody is sitting on their couch living on their Medicaid coverage. 

Edney: Right, right. 

Rovner: There’s no money that comes with Medicaid. It’s just health insurance. The health providers get paid for Medicaid and occasionally the managed-care companies. But there’s no check to the beneficiary, so there’s no way to live on your Medicaid. 

As Alice points out, most of the people who are working and have Medicaid are working at jobs, obviously, that don’t offer employer health insurance. So having, in many cases, as you say, Anna, having Medicaid is what enables you to work. 

All right, well, our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff have an excellent Medicaid story out this week on a new study that looks very broadly at Medicaid and finds that it actually does improve the health of its beneficiaries. Now this seems logical, but that has been quite a talking point for Republicans for many years, that we spend all this money and it doesn’t produce better health, because we’ve had a lot of studies that have been kind of neither here nor there on this. 

Do we finally have proof that Democrats need? Because I have heard, over many years — there was a big Oregon study in 2011 that found that it helped people financially and that it helped their mental health, but there was not a lot of physical health benefit that they saw. Of course, it was a brief. It was like two years. And it takes a longer time to figure out the importance of health insurance. But I’m wondering if maybe the Democrats will finally be able to put down that talking point. I didn’t hear it, actually, as much this week as I have in years past: Why are we spending all this money on Medicaid when we don’t know whether it’s producing better health? 

Karlin-Smith: One of the interesting things I thought about this study and sort of the timing of it, post-Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and more younger people being covered, is that it seems to really show that, not only does this study show it saves lives, but it’s really helping these younger populations. 

And I think there are some theories as to why it might have been harder to show the economic cost-effectiveness benefits people were looking for before, when you had Medicaid covering populations that were already either severely ill or older. Which doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, right? To provide health coverage to somebody who’s 75 or 80, but unfortunately we have not found the everlasting secret to life yet. 

So, but I think for economists who want to be able to show this sort of, as they show in this paper, this “quality-adjusted life year” benefit, this provides some really good evidence of what that expansion of Medicaid — which is a lot of what’s being rolled back, potentially, under the reconciliation process — did, which is, helps younger people be healthier and thus, right, hopefully, ideally, live a higher quality of life, and where you need less health coverage over time, and cost the government less. 

It’s quite interesting, for people who want to go look at the graph The New York Times put in their story, of just where Medicaid fits, in terms of other sort of interventions we spend a lot of money on to help save lives. Because I was kind of surprised, given how much health insurance does cover, that it comes out on sort of the lower end, as being a pretty good bargain. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we don’t have time to get into everything that’s in this bill, and there is a lot. It also includes a full ban of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. And it cuts reimbursement to states that use their own funds to provide coverage to undocumented people. Is this a twofer for Republicans, saving money while fighting the culture wars? 

Edney: Certainly. And I was surprised to see some very liberal states on the immigration front saying: We just have to deal with this. And this really sucks, but we have to balance our budget. And if we’re not going to get those tax dollars, then we aren’t going to be able to offer health insurance to people who are undocumented, or Medicaid to people who are undocumented. 

Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably. 

Edney: Yeah, California for sure. And they found a way to do it, hit them in the pocketbook, and that that’s a way for them to win the culture war, for sure. 

Rovner: Alice, you’ve spent a lot of time looking at gender-affirming care. Were you surprised to see it banned for adults, too? Obviously the gender-affirming care for minors has been a continuing issue for a while. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I would say not surprised, because this is sort of a common pattern that we see across different things, including in the abortion space, where first policies are targeted just at minors. That often is more politically palatable. And then it gets expanded to the general population. And so I think, given the wave of state bans on care for minors that we’ve seen, I think a lot of people had been projecting that this was the trajectory. 

I think that there’s been some really good reporting from The 19th and other outlets about what an impact this would have. Trans people are disproportionately low-income and dependent on Medicaid, and so this would have really sweeping impacts on a lot of people. 

Rovner: Well, turning to the Affordable Care Act, if you thought Republicans weren’t going to try to repeal the health law this time around, you thought wrong. There are a bucket of provisions in this bill that will make the Affordable Care Act coverage both more expensive and harder to get, so much that some analysts think it could reduce enrollment by as much as half of the 24 million people who have it now. Hasn’t someone told Republicans that many of these people are their voters? 

Edney: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know what the Republican strategists are telling them. But certainly they needed to save money. And so they found their loopholes and their different things that they thought they could scrape from. And maybe no one will notice? But I don’t think that’s going to happen. 

A lot of people suddenly have much higher ACA premiums because of the way they’re going to take away this ability that the insurers have had to silver-load, essentially, the way that they deal with the premium tax credits by setting some of the savings, kind of the cost sharing that they need to do, right into the silver plan, because the silver plan is where the premiums are set off of. And so they were able to offer the plans with lower premiums, essentially, but still get paid for cost-sharing reductions. So they were able to still get that money taken away from them. 

Rovner: So let me see if I can do it. It was, and this was something that Trump tried to do in 2017, that he thought was going to hurt the marketplace plans. And it ended up doing the opposite— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —because it basically shifted money from the insurance companies and the beneficiaries back to the federal government, because it made the premium subsidies bigger. 

So I think the point I want to make is that we’ve been talking all year about these extra subsidies that are going to expire, and that will make premiums go up, and the Republicans did not move to extend those subsidies. But this going back to the government paying these cost-sharing reduction payments is going to basically reverse the accidental lowering of premiums that Trump did in 2017. And therefore, raise them again. 

So now we have a double whammy. We have premiums going up because the extra subsidies expire, and then we’ll have premiums going up even more because they’re going back to this original cost-sharing reduction. And yet, as we have said many times, a lot of these additional people who are now on the Affordable Care Act are people in the very red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. These are Republican voters. 

Karlin-Smith: We haven’t talked a lot about the process of how they got this bill through this week. It was incredibly fast and done literally in the dead of night. 

Ollstein: Multiple nights. 

Karlin-Smith: So you have to wonder, particularly, if you think back to the last time Republicans tried to overturn Obamacare — and they did come pretty close — eventually, I think, that unpalatableness of taking away health care from so many of their own constituents came back to really hurt them. And you do have to wonder if the jamming was in part to make more people unaware of what was happening. You’d still think there’d be political repercussions later down the line when they realize it. But I think, especially, again, just thinking back on all the years when Republicans were saying Democrats were pushing the ACA through too fast and nobody could read the bill, or their CBO scores. This was a much, much faster version of that, with a lot less debate and public transparency and so forth. 

Rovner: Yeah, they went to the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday, so Tuesday night. The Rules Committee went until almost 9 o’clock the next evening, just consecutively. And shout out to Rules Committee chairman Virginia Foxx, who sat there for, I think, the entire time. And then they went straight from rules to the floor. 

So it’s now Wednesday night at 10 o’clock at night, and then went all the way through and voted, I think, just before 7 a.m. I’ve done a lot of all-nighters in the Capitol. I haven’t seen one that was two nights in a row like this. And I have great admiration for the people who really were up for 48 hours to push this thing through. 

Well, finally, let’s remember President Trump’s vow not to touch Medicare. Well, Medicare gets touched in this bill, too. In addition to restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants who are able to get coverage now, and making it harder for some low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get extra financial help, mostly through Medicaid, the bill as a whole is also likely to trigger a 4% Medicare sequester. Because, even all those other health cuts and food stamp cuts and other cuts don’t pay for all the huge tax breaks in the bill. Alice, you pointed that out. Is there any suggestion that this part might give people some pause, maybe when it gets to the Senate? 

Edney: I’ve heard the Senate mostly seem upset about Medicaid. And I also feel like this idea that sequestration is coming back up into our consciousness is a little bit new. Like you said, it was pushed through and it was like, Oh, wait, this is enough to trigger sequestration. I think it certainly could become a talking point, because Trump said he would not cut Medicare. I don’t think, if senators are worried about Medicaid — and I think maybe some of us were a little surprised that that is coming from some red-state senators. Medicare is a whole different thing, and in the sense of being even more wildly popular with a lot of members of Congress. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this whole thing hasn’t, you’re right, sort of seeped into the general consciousness yet. Alice, did you want to say something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so a couple things, a couple patterns we’ve seen. So one, there are a lot of lawmakers on the right who have been discrediting the CBO, even in advance of estimates coming out, basically disparaging their methodology and trying to convince the public that it’s not accurate. And so I think that’s both around the deficit projections as well as how many people would be uninsured under different policies. So that’s been one reaction to this. 

We’ve seen a pattern over many administrations where certain politicians are very concerned about things adding to the deficit when the opposition party is in power. And suddenly those concerns evaporate when their own party is in power and they don’t mind running up the deficit if it’s to advance policies that they want to advance. And so I think, yes, this could bother some fiscal hawks, and we saw that in the House, but I think, also, these other factors are at play. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this has a long way to go. There’s still a lot that people, I think you’re right, have not quite realized is in there. And we will get to more of it in coming weeks, because this has a long process in the Senate. 

All right, well, segueing to abortion, the One Big Beautiful Bill also includes a couple of pretty significant abortion provisions. One would effectively ban abortion and marketplace plans for people with lower incomes. Affordable Care Act plans are not currently a big source of insurance coverage for abortion. Many states already ban abortion from coverage in these plans. But this would disrupt one of the big compromises that ultimately got the ACA passed in 2010. 

The other provision would evict Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, even though federal Medicaid funds don’t and never have been used for abortions. Many, many Medicaid patients use Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, including contraception and cancer screenings, and that is covered by Medicaid. 

But while I see lots of anti-abortion groups taking victory laps over this, when the House passed a similar provision in 2017 as part of its repeal bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not go in a budget reconciliation bill, because its purpose was not, quote, “primarily budgetary.” So is this all for show? Or is there a belief that something different might happen this time? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there is more interest in ignoring or overruling the parliamentarian among Senate Republicans than there has been in the past. We’re seeing that now on an unrelated environmental issue. And so that could signal that they’re willing to do it more in the future. Of course, things like that cut both ways, and that raises the idea that the Democrats could also do that the next time they’re in power. 

Rovner: And we should say, that if you overrule the parliamentarian in reconciliation — it’s a she right now — when she says it can’t go in reconciliation, that is equivalent to getting rid of the filibuster. 

Ollstein: Correct. 

Rovner: So I mean, that’s why both parties say, We want to keep the filibuster. But the moment you say, Hey, parliamentarian, we disagree with you and we’re just going to ignore that, that has ramifications way beyond budget reconciliation legislation. 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so that’s been a line that a lot of senators have not been willing to cross, but I think you’re seeing more willingness than before. So that’s definitely something to watch on that. But I think, in terms of abortion, I think this is a real expansion of trends that were already underway, in ever-expanding the concept of what federal dollars going to abortion means. And it’s now in this very indirect way, where it’s reaching into the private insurance market, and it’s using federal funding as a cudgel to prevent groups like Planned Parenthood, and then also these private plans, from using other non-federal money to support abortions. And so it’s a real expansion beyond just you can’t use federal money to pay directly for abortions. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, two other reproductive-associated health stories worth mentioning. In California, a fertility clinic got bombed. The bomber apparently died in the explosion, but this is the first time I can remember a purposeful bombing to a health center that was not an abortion clinic. How significant is it to the debate, that we’re now seeing fertility clinics bombed as well? And what do we know, if anything, about why the bomber went after a fertility clinic? 

Karlin-Smith: There has been, obviously, some pressure on the right, I think, to go after fertility processes, and IVF [in vitro fertilization], and lump that in with abortion. Although, I think Trump and others have pushed back a bit on that, realizing how common and popular some of these fertility treatments are. And also it conflicts, I think, to some extent with their desire to grow the American population. 

The motives of this particular person don’t seem aligned with, I guess, the anti-abortion movement. He sort of seems more anti-natalist movement and stuff. So from that perspective, I didn’t see it as being aligned with kind of a bigger, more common political debate we’ve had recently, which is, again, does the Republican Party want to expand the anti-abortion debate even further into fertility treatments and stuff. 

Rovner: I was going to say, it certainly has drawn fertility clinics into the abortion debate, even if neither side in the abortion debate would presumably have an interest in blowing up a fertility clinic. But it is now sort of, I guess, in the general consciousness of antisocial people, if you will, that’s out there. 

The other story in the news this week is about a woman named Adriana Smith, a nurse and mother from Georgia who was nine weeks pregnant in February when she was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency. Smith has been kept alive on life support ever since, not because her family wants that but because her medical team at Emory University Hospital is worried about running afoul of Georgia’s abortion ban, which prohibits terminations after cardiac activity can be detected. Even if the mother is clinically dead? I feel like this case could have really ominous repercussions at some point. 

Ollstein: Well, I just want to point out that, yes, the state’s abortion ban is playing a role here, but this was happening while Roe v. Wade was still in place. There were cases like this. Some of it has to do with legislation around advanced directives and pregnancy. So I will point out that this is not solely a post-Dobbs phenomenon. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think it also bears watching. Well, there was lots of vaccine news this week — I’m so glad we have Anna and Sarah here — with both the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declaring an end to recommending covid vaccines for what seems to be most of the population. Sarah, what did they do? And what does this mean? 

Karlin-Smith: So the new director of FDA’s biologics center and the FDA commissioner released a framework for approving covid shots moving forward. And basically they are saying that, because covid, the virus, shifts, and we want to try and update our vaccines at least yearly, usually, to keep up with the changing viruses, but we want to do that in a reasonable time so that by the time when you update the vaccine it’s actually available within that time — right? — FDA has allowed companies to do studies that don’t require full clinical trials anymore, because we sort of have already done those trials. We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We’re making minor tweaks to them, and they do immunogenicity studies, which are studies that basically show they mount the proper immune response. And then they approve them. 

FDA is now, seems to be, saying, We’re only going to allow those studies to approve new covid vaccine updates for people who are over 65, or under 65 and have health conditions, because they are saying, in their mind, the risk-benefit balance of offering these shots doesn’t necessarily pan out favorably for younger, healthier populations, and we should do clinical trials. 

It’s not entirely clear yet, despite them rolling out a framework, how this will actually play out. Can they relabel shots already approved? Will this only impact once companies do need to do a strain change next as the virus adapts? Did they go about doing this in a sort of legal manner? It came out through a journal kind of editorial commentary piece, not through the Federal Register or formal guidance. There’s been no notice of comment. 

So there’s a lot of questions to remain as to how this will be implemented, which products it would affect, and when. But there is a lot of concern that there may be reduced access to the products moving forward. 

Rovner: That’s because the vaccine makers aren’t going to — it’s not probably worth it financially to them — to remount all these studies. Right? 

Karlin-Smith: First off, a lot of people I’ve talked to, and this came up yesterday at a meeting FDA had, don’t believe it’s actually ethical to do some of the studies FDA is now calling for. Even though the benefits, particularly when you’re talking about boosting people who already had a primary vaccination series for covid, or some covid, is not the same as the benefits of getting an original covid vaccine series. 

There still are benefits, and there still are benefits for pretty much everybody that outweigh the risks. On average, these are extremely safe shots. We know a lot about their safety, and the balance is positive. So people are saying, once that exists, you cannot ethically test it on placebo. Even as [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary says, Well, so many Americans are declining to take the shot, so let’s test it and see. A lot of ethicists would say it’s actually, even if people are willing to do something that may not be ideal for their health, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical to test it in a trial. 

So, I think there’s questions about, just, ethics, but also, right, whether companies would want to invest the time and money it would take to achieve and try to do them under this situation. So that is a big elephant in the room here. And I think some people feel like this is just sort of a push by Makary and his new CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director, essentially, to cut off vaccine access in a little bit of a sneaky way. 

Rovner: Well, I did see, also this week, was I think it was Moderna, that was going to make a combination flu covid vaccine, has decided not to. I assume that’s related to all of this? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So Moderna had a, what people call a next-generation vaccine, which is supposed to be an improved update over the original shot, which is a bigger deal than just making a strain change. They actually think they provide a better response to protecting against the virus. And then they also added flu vaccine into it to sort of make it easier for people to get protected from both, and also provided solid data to show it would work well for flu. 

And they seem to have probably pulled their application at this point over, again, these new concerns, and what we know Novavax went through in trying to get their covid vaccine across the finish line dealing with this new administration. So I think people have their sort of alert lights up going forward as to how this administration is going to handle vaccine approvals and what that will mean for access going forward. 

Rovner: Well, in somewhat related news, we got the long-awaited report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which is supposed to lay out a blueprint for an action plan that will come later this summer. Not much in the 68-page report seems all that surprising. Some is fairly noncontroversial, calling for more study of ultra-processed foods and less screen time and more physical activity for kids. 

And some is controversial but at this point kind of predictable, calling for another look at the childhood vaccine schedule, including, as we just discussed, more placebo studies for vaccines, and also less fluoride available, except in toothpaste. Anything jump out at you guys from the report that we should keep an eye on? 

Karlin-Smith: I think one thing to think about is what it doesn’t address and doesn’t talk about. It’s not surprising the issues they call out for harming health in America, and some of them are debatable as to how much they do or don’t harm health, or whether their solutions would actually address those problems. 

But they never talk about the U.S.’ lack of a health insurance system that assures people have coverage. They don’t mention the Republican Party’s and likely president’s willingness to sign onto a major bill that’s going to impact health. They don’t really talk about the socioeconomic drivers that impact health, which I find particularly interesting when they talk about food, because, obviously, the U.S. has a lot of healthy and unhealthy food available. And a lot of people know sort of how they could make better choices, but there are these situational factors outside of, often, an individual’s control to lead to that. 

And I think the other thing that jumped out to me is, I think The Washington Post had a good line in their paragraph about just how many of the points are either overstated or misstated scientific findings. And they did a pretty good job of going through some of those. And it’s a difficult situation, I think, for the public to grapple with when you have leadership and the top echelons of our health department that is pushing so much misinformation, often very carefully, and having to weed out what is correct, where is the grains of truth, where does it go off into misinformation. 

I don’t know. I find it really hard as a journalist. And so I do worry about, again, how this all plays into public perception and misunderstanding of these topics. 

Rovner: And apparently they forgot about gun violence in all of this, which is rather notably not there. 

Ollstein: Cars and guns are the big killers. And yeah, no mention of that. 

Edney: I thought another glaring omission was tobacco. Kids are using e-cigarettes at high rates. We don’t really know much about them. And to Sarah’s point about misinformation, too, I think the hard part of being able to discern a lot of this, even as a member of the public, is everything they’ve done so far is only rhetoric. There hasn’t been actual regulation, or — this could be anything that you’re talking about. It could be food dyes. It could be “most favored nations.” We don’t know what they actually want to implement and what the potential for doing so — I think maybe on vaccines we’re seeing the most action. But as Sarah mentioned, we don’t know how that, whether it legally is going to be something that they can continue doing. 

So even with this report, it was highly anticipated, but I don’t think we got anything beyond what I probably heard Kennedy say over and over throughout the campaign and in his bid for health secretary. So I am wondering when they actually decide to move into the policymaking part of it, instead of just telling us they’re going to do something. 

Rovner: And interestingly, Secretary Kennedy was interviewed on CNN last night and walked back some of the timelines, even, including that vow that they were going to know the cause of autism by September and that they were going to have an action plan for this ready in another, I think, a hundred days. So this is going to be a hurry-up-and-wait. 

All right, well, that is as much news as we have time for in this incredibly busy week. Now we will play my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis. She’s also a historian of the abortion movement. And her newest book, just out, is called “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.” 

Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again. 

Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked about personhood a lot on our podcast, including with you, but it means different things to different people. What’s your working definition, at least for the purpose of this book? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I’m interested in this book in the legal fight for personhood, right? Some people have religious ideas of personhood. Bioethicists have ideas of personhood. Philosophers debate personhood. But I’m really interested in the legal claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, which gives us liberty and equality, applies the moment an egg is fertilized. Because it’s that legal claim that’s had a lot of knock-on effects with abortion, with IVF, and potentially even beyond. 

Rovner: So if we as a society were to accept that fetuses or embryos or zygotes were people with full constitutional rights at the moment of creation, that can impact things way beyond abortion, right? 

Ziegler: Definitely, yeah, especially if you make the moves that the anti-abortion movement, or the pro-life movement, in the United States has made, right? So one of the other things that’s probably worth saying is, if you believe the claim I laid out about fetal personhood, that doesn’t mean you necessarily think abortion should be criminalized or that IVF should be criminalized, either. 

But the people who are leading the anti-abortion movement do, in large part, right? So it would have ramifications in lots of other contexts, because there’s a conclusion not only that human life begins at fertilization and that constitutional rights begin at fertilization but that the way you honor those constitutional rights is primarily by restricting or criminalizing certain things that threaten that life, in the views of the people who advocate for it. 

Rovner: Right. And that includes IVF and forms of contraception. That’s where we sort of get to this idea that an abortion is murder or that, in this case, doing anything that harms even a zygote is murder. 

Ziegler: Yeah. And it gets us to the Adriana Smith case in Georgia, too. So there’s sort of end-of-life cases that emerge. So, it obviously would have a big impact on abortion. So it’s not wrong to think about abortion in this context. It’s just that would definitely not be the stopping point. 

Rovner: So, many people have only talked about personhood, really, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, but the concept is a lot older than that. I started covering personhood in like 2010, I think, when a couple of states were trying to vote on it. I didn’t realize until I read your book that it goes back well beyond even that. 

Ziegler: Yeah. So I think a lot of people had that conception. And in the 2010s, there were state constitutional amendment efforts to write the idea of fetal personhood into state constitutions. And they all failed. So I think the narrative coming out of that was that you had the anti-abortion movement on the one hand, and then you had this more extreme fetal personhood movement on the other hand. 

And that narrative fundamentally is wrong. There is no one in the anti-abortion movement who’s opposed to fetal personhood. There are disagreements about how and when it can be recognized. There’s strategic disagreements. There are no substantive disagreements much to speak of on the basics of fetal personhood. 

So the idea goes all the way back to the 1960s, when states were first reforming the 19th-century criminal laws you sometimes see coming back to life as zombie laws. And initially it started as a strategic necessity, because it was very hard for the early anti-abortion movement to stop this reform wave, right? They were saying things like, Oh, abortion is going to lead to more sexual promiscuity, or, No one really needs abortion, because pregnancy is no longer dangerous. And that just wasn’t getting the job done. 

So they began to argue that no one had a choice to legalize abortion in worse circumstances, because it would violate the rights of the unborn child. What’s interesting is that argument went from being this kind of strategic expedient to being this tremendously emotionally resonant long-term thing that has lived on the American right for now like a half-century. Even in moments when, I think arguably like right now, when it’s not politically smart to be making the argument, people will continue to, because this speaks to something, I think, for a lot of people who are opposed to abortion and other things like IVF. 

Rovner: I know you’ve got access in writing this book to a lot of internal documents from people in the anti-abortion movement. I’m jealous, I have to say. Was there something there that surprised you? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I think I was somewhat surprised by how much people talked this language of personhood when they were alone, right? This was not just something for the consumption of judges, or the consumption of politicians, or sort of like a nicer way to talk about what people really wanted. This was what people said when there was no one else there. 

That didn’t mean they didn’t say other things that suggested that there were lots of other values and beliefs underlying this concept of personhood. But I think one of the important lessons of that is if you’re trying to understand people who are opposed to abortion, just assuming that everything they’re saying is just pure strategy is not helpful, right? Any more than it would be for people who support reproductive rights, to have it assume that everything they’re saying is not genuine. You just fail to understand what people are doing, I think. And I think that was probably what I was the most surprised about. 

Rovner: I was struck that you point out that personhood doesn’t have to begin and end with the criminalization of abortion. How could more acceptance of the rights of the unborn change society in perhaps less polarized ways? 

Ziegler: Yeah, one of the things that’s really striking is that there are other countries that recognize a right to life for a fetus or unborn child that don’t criminalize abortion or don’t enforce criminal abortion laws. And often what they say is that it’s not OK for the state to start with criminalization when it isn’t doing things to support pregnant women, who after all are necessary for a fetus or unborn child to survive, right? 

So there are strategies that you could use to reduce infant mortality, for example, to reduce neonatal mortality, to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth, to improve maternal health, to really eliminate some of the reasons that people who may want, all things being equal, to carry a child to term. That’s not, obviously, going to be everybody. Some people don’t want to be parents at all. 

But there are other people for whom it’s a matter of resources, or it’s a matter of overcoming racial discrimination, or it’s a matter of leaving an abusive relationship. And if governments were more committed to doing some of those things, it’s reasonable to assume that a subset of those people would carry pregnancies to term, right? 

So there are lots of ways that if a state were serious about honoring fetal life, that it could. I think one of the other things that’s striking that I realized in writing the book is that that tracks with what a subset of Americans think. You’ll find these artifacts in polls where you’ll get something like 33% of people in Pew Forum’s 2022 poll saying they thought that life and rights began at conception, but also that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized. 

So there are a subset of Americans who, whether they’re coming from a place of faith or otherwise, can hold those two beliefs at once. So I think an interesting question is, could we have a politics that accommodates that kind of belief? And at the moment the answer is probably not, but it’s interesting to imagine how that could change. 

Rovner: It’s nice to know that there is a place that we can hope to get. 

Ziegler: Yeah, exactly. 

Rovner: Mary Ziegler, thank you so much for joining us again. 

Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I purposely chose a sort of light story from Australia, where scientists studied remote work, and the headline is “[Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have] Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier.’” And it just goes through some of the benefits and perks people have found from working remotely, including more sleep, more time with friends and family, things like that. And it just felt like a nice, interesting read in a time where there’s a lot of heavy health news. 

Rovner: Also, scientific evidence of things that I think we all could have predicted. Anna. 

Edney: Apologies for going the other direction here, but it’s a story that I wrote this week, an investigation that I’ve been working on for a long time, “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug.” So this is one, in particularly a lot of women have used. You can go in any CVS, Target, Walmart, stores like that, and buy it. Called Azo, for urinary tract infections. And all these stores sell their own generic versions as well, under phenazopyridine. 

And this drug, I was kind of shocked to learn, is not FDA-approved. There are prescription versions that are not FDA-approved, either. It’s just been around so long that it’s been grandfathered in. And that may not be a big deal, except that this one, the FDA has raised questions about whether it causes cancer and whether it needs a stronger cancer warning, because the National Cancer Institute found in 1978 that it causes tumors in rats and mice. But no other work has been done on this drug, because it hasn’t been approved. So no one’s looked at it in humans. And it masks issues that really need antibiotics and causes a host of other issues. 

There were — University of Virginia toxicologists told me they found, in the last 20 years, at least 200 suspected teen suicides where they used this drug, because of how dangerous this drug can be in any higher amounts than what’s on the box. So I went through this drug, but there are other ones on the market as well that are not approved. And there’s this whole FDA system that has allowed the OTC [over-the-counter] market to be pretty lax. 

Rovner: OK, that’s terrifying. But thank you for your work. Alice. 

Ollstein: Speaking of terrifying, I chose a piece from NPR called, “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago.” And this is a look at all of the ways our public health agency that is supposed to be letting us know when outbreaks are happening, and where, and how to protect ourselves, they’ve gone dark. They are not posting on social media. They are not sending out alerts. They are not sending out newsletters. And it walks through the danger of all of that happening, with interviews with people who are still on the inside and on the outside experiencing the repercussions. 

Rovner: Well, my extra credit, it helps explain why Alice’s extra credit, because it’s about all the people who were doing that who have been fired or laid off from the federal government. It’s called, “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson. 

And it’s the result of interviews with more than 30 current and former federal workers, along with the families of some who died or killed themselves. And it’s a review of documents to confirm those stories. It’s a super-depressing but beautifully told piece about the dramatic mental health impact of the federal DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs and firings, and the impact that that’s been having on these workers, their families, and their communities. 

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

Edney: Both of those [X and Bluesky], @annaedney. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Everywhere — X, Bluesky, LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: I am off to California next week, where we’ll be taping the podcast at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Care Journalists, which we won’t post until the following Monday. So everyone please have a great Memorial Day holiday week. And until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
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

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

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

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

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldman: Yeah. 

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

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

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

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: That’s where. 

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

Edney: Right. 

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

Edney: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

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

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

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

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

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

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

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

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

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

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

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

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

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

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

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

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

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

Sausser: Right. 

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

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

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

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

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

Sausser: Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “As a Diversity Grant Dies, Young Scientists Fear It Will Haunt Their Careers,” by Brett Kelman. 

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: 100 Days of Health Policy Upheaval

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 1, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might change by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times. 

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sanger-Katz: Can I say one more thing— 

Rovner: Yes, go ahead. 

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

Rovner: We talked about your story, Margot. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: I had a feeling you would know this. 

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

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

Kenen: If they go away, what happens? 

Rovner: There would be alternate accrediting bodies. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Margot. 

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: They put out a statement highlighting— 

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

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

Rovner: No. 

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: He, Marty Makary, the FDA commissioner. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Cut NIH from 27 institutes to eight. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Thank you. That was a great summary, and we’re on to the next hundred days. All right. That’s the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Interesting. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Margot? 

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

Rovner: Excellent. Alice? 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on Twitter and @alicemiranda on Bluesky. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Hello. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Sarah, what are you hearing? 

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

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

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

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

Rae Ellen Bichell: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And what does that mean for patients? 

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

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

Bichell: I did not notice that. 

David: Yeah. 

Bichell: You’re right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bichell: Thanks again. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. I’ve already done mine. Alice, you’ve got a lighter story this week. Why don’t you go next? 

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

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

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

Ollstein: Well— 

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

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

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

Rovner: Local journalism still matters. Tami. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Alice? 

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

Rovner: Tami. 

Luhby: Mostly at CNN at cnn.com. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Dismantling of HHS

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios news. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, we’ll get to that. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: That you get stability. 

Raman: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: In 2017. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Victoria. 

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

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

Knight: Right. And— 

Rovner: I interrupted you, Victoria. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: On X and Bluesky, @sandhyawrites. 

Rovner: Victoria. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Bloomberg News

@rachelcohrs

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: American Health Gets a Pink Slip

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

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

Today we are joined via videoconference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello hello. 

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

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Lauren. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Anthony Fauci’s wife was pushed out— 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Rachel. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So how did this eventually work out? 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Appleby: There you go. 

Rovner: Julie Appleby, thank you very much. 

Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, agree. Lauren. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Excellent. Sarah. 

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

Rovner: Lauren. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As had been rumored for weeks, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled a plan to reorganize the department. It involves the downsizing of its workforce, which formerly was roughly 80,000 people, by a quarter and consolidating dozens of agencies that were created and authorized by Congress.

Meanwhile, in just the past week, HHS abruptly cut off billions in funding to state and local public health departments, and canceled all research studies into covid-19, as well as diseases that could develop into the next pandemic.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Maya Goldman of Axios News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

Read Maya's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As federal health officials reveal the targets of a significant workforce purge and reorganization, the GOP-controlled Congress has been notably quiet about the Trump administration’s intrusions on its constitutional powers. Many of the administration’s attempts to revoke and reorganize federally funded work are underway despite Congress’ previous approval of that funding. And while changes might be warranted, reviewing how the federal government works (or doesn’t) — in the public forums of congressional hearings and floor debate — is part of Congress’ responsibilities.
• The news of a major reorganization at HHS also comes before the Senate finishes confirming its leadership team. New leaders of the National Institutes of Health and the FDA were confirmed just this week; Mehmet Oz, the nominated director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, had not yet been confirmed when HHS made its announcement; and President Donald Trump only recently named a replacement nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after withdrawing his first pick.
• While changes early in Trump’s second term have targeted the federal government and workforce, the impacts continue to be felt far outside the nation’s capital. Indeed, cuts to jobs and funding touch every congressional district in the nation. They’re also being felt in research areas that the Trump administration claims as priorities, such as chronic disease: The administration said this week it will shutter the office devoted to studying long covid, a chronic disease that continues to undermine millions of Americans’ health.
• Meanwhile, in the states, doctors in Texas report a rise in cases of children with liver damage due to ingesting too much vitamin A — a supplement pushed by Kennedy in response to the measles outbreak. The governor of West Virginia signed a sweeping ban on food dyes and additives. And a woman in Georgia who experienced a miscarriage was arrested in connection with the improper disposal of fetal remains.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF senior vice president Larry Levitt about the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and the threats the health law continues to face.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “State Lawmakers Are Looking To Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Wirecutter’s “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now,” by Max Eddy. 

Maya Goldman: KFF Health News’ “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers,” by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani. 

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “West Virginia Bans 7 Artificial Food Dyes, Citing Health Concerns,” by Alice Callahan.
• The Washington Post’s “Why I Left My Job Leading Public Health Messaging for the CDC,” by Kevin Griffis.
• Politico’s “The Limits of RFK Jr.’s Power,” by Joanne Kenen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Ax Falls at HHS

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 27, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast — really fast this week — and things might well have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Senior Vice President Larry Levitt, who will riff on the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and what its immediate future might hold. But first, this week’s news. 

So for this second week in a row, we have news breaking literally as we sit down to tape, this time in the form of an announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services with the headline “HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again.” The plan calls for 10,000 full-time employees to lose their jobs at HHS, and when combined with early retirement and other reductions, it will reduce the department’s workforce by roughly 25%, from about 82,000 to about 62,000. It calls for creation of a new “Administration for a Healthy America” that will combine a number of existing HHS agencies, including the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under one umbrella. 

Reading through the announcement, a lot of it actually seems to make some sense, as many HHS programs do overlap. But the big overriding question is: Can they really do this? Isn’t this kind of reorganization Congress’ job? 

Ollstein: Congress has not stood up for itself in its power-of-the-purse role so far in the Trump administration. They have stood by, largely, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, or they’ve offered sort of mild concerns. But they have not said, Hey guys, this is our job, all of these cuts that are happening. There’s talk of a legislative package that would codify the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts that are already happening, rubber-stamping it after the fact. But Congress has not made moves to claw back its authority in terms of saying, Hey, we approved this funding, and you can’t just go back and take it. There’s lawsuits to that effect, but not from the members — from outside groups, from labor unions, from impacted folks, but not our dear legislative branch. 

Rovner: You know, Joanne, you were there for a lot of this. We covered the creation of a lot of these agencies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, I covered the creation of its predecessor agency, which there were huge compromises that went into this, lots of policymaking. It just seems that RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. going to say: We don’t actually care all these things you did. We’re just going to redo the whole thing. 

Kenen: As many of the listeners know, many laws that Congress passes have to be reauthorized every five years or every 10 years. Five is the most typical, and they often don’t get around to it and they extend and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But basically the idea is that things do change and things do need to be reevaluated. So, normally when you do reauthorization — we all just got this press release announcing all these mergers of departments and so forth at HHS. None of us are experts in procurement and IT. Maybe those two departments do need to be merged. I mean, I don’t know. That’s the kind of thing that, reauthorization, Congress looks at and Congress thinks about. Well, and agencies and legislation do get updated. Maybe the NIH [National Institutes of Health] doesn’t need 28 institutes and they should have 15 or whatever. But it’s just sort of this, somebody coming in and waving a magic DOGE wand, and Congress is not involved. And there’s not as much public input and expert input as you’d have because Congress holds hearings and listens to people who do have expertise. 

So it’s not just Congress not exercising power to make decisions. It’s also Congress not deliberating and learning. I mean all of us learned health policy partly by listening to experts at congressional panels. We listen to people at Finance, and Energy and Commerce, and so forth. So it’s not just Congress’ voice being silenced. It’s this whole review and fact-based — and experts don’t always agree and Congress makes the final call. But that’s just been short-circuited. And I mean we all know there’s duplication in government, but this isn’t the process we have historically used to address it. 

Rovner: You know, one other thing, I think they’re merging agencies that are in different locations, which on the one hand might make sense. But if you have one central IT or one central procurement agency in Washington or around Washington, you’ve got a lot of these organizations that are outside of Washington. And they’re outside of Washington because members of Congress put them there. A lot of them are in particular places because they were parochial decisions made by Congress. That may or may not make sense, but that’s where they are. It might or might not make sense. Maya, sorry I interrupted you. 

Goldman: No, I was just going to add to Joanne’s point. Julie, I think before we started recording you mentioned that the administration is saying: We’ve thought this all out. These are well-researched decisions. But they’ve been in office for two months. How much research can you really do in that time and how intentional can those decisions really be in that time frame? 

Ollstein: Especially because all of the leaders aren’t even in place yet. Some people were just confirmed, which we’re going to talk about. Some people are on their way to confirmation but not there yet. They haven’t had the chance to talk to career staff, figure out what the redundancies are, figure out what work is currently happening that would be disrupted by various closures and mergers and stuff. So Maya’s exactly right on that. 

Goldman: You know there’s — the administration chose a lead for HRSA and other offices. And so what happens to those positions now? Do they just get demoted effectively because they’re no longer heads of offices? I would be pretty— 

Rovner: But we have a secretary of education whose job is to close the department down, so—. 

Goldman: Good point. 

Rovner: That’s apparently not unprecedented in this administration. Well, as Alice was saying, into this maelstrom of change comes those that President [Donald] Trump has selected to lead these key federal health agencies. The Senate Tuesday night confirmed policy researcher Jay Bhattacharya to head the NIH and Johns Hopkins surgeon and policy analyst Marty Makary to head the Food and Drug Administration. Bhattacharya was approved on a straight party-line vote, while Makary, who I think it’s fair to say was probably the least controversial of the top HHS nominees, won the votes of three Democrats: Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and New Hampshire’s Democrats, [Sens.] Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, along with all of the Republicans. What are any of you watching as these two people take up their new positions? 

Kenen: Well, I mean, the NIH, Bhattacharya — who I hope I’ve learned to pronounce correctly and I apologize if I have not yet mastered it — he’s really always talked about major reorganization, reprioritization. And as I said, maybe it’s time to look at some overlap, and science has changed so much in the last decade or so. I mean are the 28 — I think the number’s 28 — are the 28 current institutes the right— 

Rovner: I think it’s 27. 

Kenen: Twenty-seven. I mean, are there some things that need to be merged or need to be reorganized? Probably. You could make a case for that. But that’s just one thing. The amount of cuts that the administration announced before he got there, and there is a question in some things he’s hinted at, is he going to go for that? His background is in academia, and he does have some understanding of what this money is used for. We’ve talked before, when you talk to a layperson, when you hear the word “overhead,” “indirect costs,” what that conjures up to people as waste, when in fact it’s like paying for the electricity, paying for the staff to comply with the government regulations about ethical research on human beings. It’s not parties. It’s security. It’s cleaning the animal cages. It’s all this stuff. So is he going to cut as deeply as universities have been told to expect? We don’t know yet. And that’s something that every research institution in America is looking at. 

The FDA, he’s a contrarian on certain things but not across the board. I mean, as you just said, Julie, he’s a little less controversial than the others. He is a pancreatic surgeon. He does have a record as a physician. He has never been a regulator, and we don’t know exactly where his contrarian views will be unconventional and where — there’s a lot of agreement with certain things Secretary Kennedy wants to do, not everything. But there is some broad agreement on, some of his food issues do make sense. And the FDA will have a role in that. 

Rovner: I will say that under this reorganization plan the FDA is going to lose 3,500 people, which is a big chunk of its workforce. 

Kenen: Well things like moving SAMHSA [the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration], which is the agency that works on drug abuse within and drug addiction within HHS, that’s being folded into something else. And that’s been a national priority. The money was voted to help with addiction on a bipartisan basis several times in recent years. The grants to states, that’s all being cut back. The subagency with HHS is being folded into something else. And we don’t know. We know 20,000 jobs are being cut. The 10 announced today and the 10 we already knew about. We don’t know where they’re all coming from and what happens to the expertise and experience addressing something like the addiction crisis and the drug abuse crisis in America, which is not partisan. 

Rovner: All right. Well we’ll get to the cuts in a second. Also on Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted, also along party lines, to advance to the Senate floor the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. And while he would seem likely to get confirmed by the full Senate, I did not have on my bingo card Dr. Oz’s nomination being more in doubt due to Republicans than Democrats. Did anybody else? 

Ollstein: Based on our reporting, it’s not really in doubt. [Sen.] Josh Hawley has raised concerns about Dr. Oz being too squishy on abortion and trans health care, but it does not seem that other Republicans are really jumping on board with that crusade. It sort of reminds me of concerns that were raised about RFK Jr.’s background on abortion that pretty much just fizzled and Republicans overwhelmingly fell in line. And that seems to be what’s going to happen now. Although you never know. 

Rovner: At least it hasn’t been, as you point out, it hasn’t failed anybody else. Well, the one nominee who did not make it through HHS was former Congressman Dave Weldon to head the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. So now we have a new nominee. It’s actually the acting director, Susan Monarez, who by the way has a long history in federal health programs but no history at the CDC. Who can tell us anything about her? 

Goldman: She seems like a very interesting and in some ways unconventional pick, especially for this administration. She was a career civil servant, and she worked under the Obama administration. And it’s interesting to see them be OK with that, I think. And she also has a lot of health care background but not in CDC. She’s done a lot of work on AI in health care and disaster preparedness, I think. And clearly she’s been leading the CDC for the last couple months. So she knows to that extent. But it will be very interesting when she gets around to confirmation hearings to hear what her priorities are, because we really have no idea. 

Rovner: Yeah, she’s not one of those good-on-Fox News people that we’ve seen so many of in this administration. So while Monarez’s nomination seems fairly noncontroversial, at least so far, the nominee to be the new HHS inspector general is definitely not. Remember that President Trump fired HHS IG Christi Grimm just days after he took office, along with the IGs of several other departments. Grimm is still suing to get her job back, since that firing violated the terms of the 1978 Inspector General Act. But now the administration wants to replace her with Thomas Bell, who’s had a number of partisan Republican jobs for what’s traditionally been a very nonpartisan position and who was fired by the state of Virginia in 1997 for apparently mishandling state taxpayer funds. That feels like it might raise some eyebrows as somebody who’s supposed to be in charge of waste, fraud, and abuse. Or am I being naive? 

Goldman: My eyebrows were definitely raised when I saw that news. I, to be honest, don’t know very much about him but will be very interested to see how things go, especially given that fraud, waste, and abuse and rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse are high priorities for this administration, but also things that are very up to interpretation in a certain way. 

Ollstein: Yes, although it’s clearly been very mixed on that front because the administration is also dismantling entire agencies that go after fraud and abuse— 

Goldman: Exactly. 

Ollstein: —like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So there is some mixed messaging on that front for sure. 

Rovner: Well, as Joanne mentioned, the DOGE cuts continue at the NIH. In just the last week, billions of dollars in grants have been terminated that were being used to study AIDS and HIV, covid and other potential pandemic viruses, and climate change, among other things. The NIH also closed its office studying long covid. Thank you, Alice, for writing that story. This is, I repeat, not normal. NIH only generally cancels grants that have been peer reviewed and approved for reasons of fraud or scientific misconduct, yet one termination letter obtained by Science Magazine simply stated, quote, “The end of the pandemic provides cause to terminate COVID-related grant funds.” Why aren’t we hearing more about this, particularly for members of Congress whose universities are the ones that are being cut? 

Kenen: I mean, the one Republican we heard at the very beginning was [Sen.] Katie Britt because the University of Alabama is a big, excellent, and well-respected national medical and science center, and they were targeted for a lot of cuts. She’s the only Republican, really, and she got quiet. I mean, she raised her voice very loud and clear. We may go into a situation — and everybody sort of knows this is how Washington sometimes works — where individual universities will end up negotiating with NIH over their funds and that— 

Rovner: Columbia. Cough, cough. 

Kenen: Right. And Alabama may come out great and Columbia might not, or many other leading research institutions. But these job cuts affect people in every congressional district across the country. And the funding cuts affect every congressional district across the country. So it’s not just their constitutional responsibilities. It’s also, like, their constituents are affected, and we’re not hearing it. 

Rovner: And as I point out for the millionth time, it’s not a coincidence that these things are located in every congressional district. Members of Congress, if not the ones who are currently in office then their predecessors, lobbied and worked to get these funds to their states and to their district. And yet the silence is deafening. 

Ollstein: To state the obvious, one, covid is not over. People are still contracting it. People are still dying from it. But not only that, a lot of this research was about preparing for the inevitable next pandemic that we know is coming at some point and to not be caught as unawares as we were this past time, to be more prepared, to have better tools so that there don’t have to be widespread lockdowns, things can remain open because we have more effective prevention and treatment efforts. And that’s what’s being defunded here. 

Kenen: The other thing is that long covid is in fact a chronic disease and even though it’s caused by an infectious disease, a virus. But people have long covid but it is a chronic disease, and HHS says that’s their priority, chronic disease, but they’re not including long covid. And there’s also more and more. When we think of long covid, we think of brain fog and being short of breath and tired and unable to function. There’s increasing evidence or conversation in the medical world about other problems people have long-term that probably stem from covid infections or multiple covid infections. So this is affecting millions of Americans as a chronic disease that is not well understood, and we’ve just basically said, That one doesn’t count, or: We’re not going to pay attention to that one. We’re going to, you know, we’re looking at diabetes. Yeah, we need to look at diabetes. That’s one of the things that Kennedy has bipartisan support. This country does not eat well. I wrote about this about a week ago. But what he can and can’t do, because he can’t wave a magic wand and have us all eating well. But it’s very selective in how we’re defining both the causes of diseases and what diseases we’re prioritizing. We basically just shrunk addiction. 

Goldman: In the press release announcing the reorganization this morning, there was a line talking about how the HHS is going to create this new Administration for a Healthy America to investigate chronic disease and to make sure that we have, I think it was, wholesome food, clean water, and no environmental toxins, in order to prevent chronic disease. And those are the only three things that it mentions that lead to chronic disease. 

Rovner: And none of which are under HHS’ purview. 

Goldman: Right, right. Yeah. 

Rovner: With the exception of— 

Goldman: There are things that HHS does in that space. But yeah, we’re being very selective about what constitutes a chronic disease and what causes a chronic disease. If you’re trying to actually solve a problem, maybe you should be more expansive. 

Kenen: So HHS has some authority over food, not significant authority of it, but it is shared with the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]. Like school lunches are USDA, the nutritional guidelines are shared between USDA and HHS, things like that. So yeah, it has some control about, over food but not entirely control over food. 

And then EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], which has also been completely reoriented to be a pro-fossil-fuel agency, is in charge of clean water and the environmental contaminants. That’s not an HHS bailiwick. And Kennedy is not aligned with other elements of the administration on environmental issues. And also genetics, right? Genetics is also, you know, who knows? That’s NIH? But who knows what’s going to happen to the National Cancer Institute and other genetic research at NIH? We don’t know. 

Rovner: Yes. Clearly much to be determined. Well, speaking of members of Congress whose states and districts are losing federal funds, federal aid is also being cut by the CDC. In a story first reported by NBC News, CDC is reportedly clawing back more than $11 billion in covid-related grants. Among other things, that’s impacting funding that was being used in Texas to fight the ongoing measles outbreak. How exactly does clawing back this money from state and local public health agencies make America healthy again? 

Goldman: That’s a great question, and I’m curious to see how it plays out. I don’t have the answer. 

Rovner: And it’s not just domestic spending. The fate of PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], the international AIDS/HIV program that’s credited with saving more than 20 million lives, remains in question. And The New York Times has gotten hold of a spreadsheet including more global health cuts, including those for projects to fight malaria and to pull the U.S. out of Gavi. That’s the global vaccine alliance that’s helped vaccinate more than 1.1 billion children in 78 countries. Wasn’t there a court order stopping all of these cuts? 

Ollstein: So there was for some USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] work, but not all of these things fall under that umbrella. And that is still an ongoing saga that has flipped back and forth depending on various rulings. But I think it’s worth pointing out, as always, that infectious diseases don’t respect international borders, and any pullback on efforts to fight various things abroad inevitably will impact Americans as well. 

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, we’ve seen these measles cases obviously in Texas, but now we’re getting measles cases in other parts of the country, and many of them are people coming from other countries. We had somebody come through Washington, D.C.’s Union Station with measles, and we’ve had all of these alerts. I mean, this is what happens when you don’t try and work with infectious diseases where they are, then they spread. That’s kind of the nature of infectious disease. 

Well, at the same time, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. is putting his Make America Healthy Again agenda into practice in smaller ways as well. First up, remember that study that Kennedy promised again to look into any links between childhood vaccines and autism? It will reportedly be led by a vaccine skeptic who was disciplined by the Maryland Board of Physicians for practicing medicine without a license and who has pushed the repeatedly debunked assertion that autism can be caused by the preservative thimerosal, which used to be used in childhood vaccines but has long since been discontinued. One autism group referred to the person who’s going to be running this study as, quote, “a known conspiracy theorist and quack.” Sen. [Bill] Cassidy seemed to promise us that this wasn’t going to happen. 

Kenen: Well, we think that Sen. Cassidy was promised it wouldn’t happen, and it’s all happening. And in fact, when a recent hearing, he was very outspoken that there’s no need to research the autism link, because it’s been researched over and over and over and over and over again and there’s a lot of reputable scientific evidence establishing that vaccination does not cause autism. We don’t know what causes autism, so— 

Rovner: But we know it’s not thimerosal. 

Kenen: Right, which has been removed from many vaccines, in fact, and autism rates went up. So Cassidy has not come out and said, Yeah, I’m the guy who pulled the plug on Weldon. But it’s sort of obvious that he had, at least was, a role in. It is widely understood in Washington that he and a few other Republicans, [Sens. Lisa] Murkowski and [Susan] Collins, I believe — I think Murkowski said it in public — said that the CDC could not go down that route. 

Rovner: Well, I would like to be inadvertently invited to the Signal chat between Secretary Kennedy and Sen. Cassidy. I would very much wish to see that conversation. 

Meanwhile, in Texas, where HHS just confiscated public health funding, as we said, a hospital in Lubbock says it’s now treating children with liver damage from too much vitamin A, which Secretary Kennedy recommended as a way to prevent and or treat measles. Which it doesn’t, by the way. But that points to, that some of these — I hesitate of how to describe these people who are “making America healthy again.” But some of the things that they point to can be actively dangerous, not just not helpful. 

Goldman: Yeah. And I think it also shows how much messaging from the top matters, right? People are listening to what Secretary Kennedy says, which makes sense because he’s the secretary of health and human services. But if he’s pedaling misinformation or disinformation, that can have real harmful effects on people. 

Kenen: And his messages are being amplified even if some people are not, their parents, who aren’t maybe directly tuned in to what Kennedy personally is saying, but they follow various influencers on health who are then echoing what Kennedy’s saying about vitamin A. Yeah, we all need vitamin A in our diet. It’s something, part of healthy nutrition. But this supplement’s unnecessary, or excess supplements, vitamin A or cod liver oil or other things that can make them sick, including liver damage. And that’s what we’re seeing now. Vitamin A does have a place in measles under very specific circumstances, under medical supervision in individual cases. But no, people should not be going to the drugstore and pouring huge numbers of tablets of vitamin C down their children’s throat. It’s dangerous. 

Rovner: And actually the head of communications at the CDC not only quit his job this week but wrote a rather impassioned op-ed in The Washington Post, which I will post in our show notes, talking about he feels like he cannot work for an agency that is not giving advice that is based in science and that that’s what he feels right now. Again, that’s before we get a new head of the CDC. Well, MAHA is apparently spreading to the states as well. West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey this week signed a bill to ban most artificial food coloring and two preservatives in all foods sold in the state starting in 2028. Nearly half the rest of the states are considering similar types of bans. But unless most of those other states follow, companies aren’t going to remake their products just for West Virginia, right? 

Kenen: West Virginia is not big enough, but they sometimes do remake their products for California, which is big. The whole food additive issue is, traditionally the food manufacturers have had a lot of control over deciding what’s safe. It’s the industry that has decided. Kennedy has some support across the board and saying that’s too loose and we should look at some of these additives that have not been examined. There are others, including some preservatives, that have been studied and that are safe. Some preservatives have not been studied and should be studied. There are others that have been studied and are safe and they keep food from going rotten or they can prevent foodborne disease outbreaks. Something that does make our food healthy, we probably want to keep them in there. So, and are there some that— 

Rovner: I think people get mixed up between the dyes and the preservatives. Dyes are just to make things look more attractive. The preservatives were put there for a reason. 

Kenen: Right. And there’s some healthy ways of making dyes, too, if you need your food to be red. There’s berry abstracts instead of chemical extracts. So things get overly simplified in a way that does not end up necessarily promoting health across the board. 

Rovner: Well, not all of the news is coming from the Trump administration. The Supreme Court next week will hear a case out of South Carolina about whether Medicaid recipients can sue to enforce their right to get care from any qualified health care providers. But this is really another case about Planned Parenthood, right, Alice? 

Ollstein: Yep. If South Carolina gets the green light to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program, which is really what is at the heart of this case, even though it’s sort of about whether beneficiaries can sue if their rights are denied. A right isn’t a right if you can’t enforce it, so it’s expected that a ruling in that direction would cause a stampede of other conservative states to do the same, to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Many have tried already, and that’s gone around and around in the courts for a while, and so this is really the big showdown at the high court to really decide this. 

And as I’ve been writing about, this is just one of many prongs of the right’s bigger strategy to defund Planned Parenthood. So there are efforts at the federal level. There are efforts at the state level. There are efforts in the courts. They are pushing executive actions on that front. We can talk. There was some news on Title X this week. 

Rovner: That was my next question. Go ahead. 

Ollstein: Some potential news. 

Rovner: What’s happening with Title X? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So HHS told us when we inquired that nothing’s final yet, but they’re reviewing tens of millions of Title X federal family planning grants that currently go to some Planned Parenthood affiliates to provide subsidized contraception, STI [sexually transmitted infection] screenings, various non-abortion services. And so they are reviewing those grants now. They are supposed to be going out next week, so we’ll have to see what happens there. There was some sort of back-and-forth in the reporting about whether they’re going to be cut or not. 

Rovner: What surprises me about the Title X grant, and there has been, there have been efforts, as you point out, going back to the 1980s to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Title X program. That’s separate from kicking Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, which is where Planned Parenthood gets a lot more money. 

But the first Trump administration did kick Planned Parenthood out of Title X, and they went through the regulatory process to do it. And then the Biden administration went through the regulatory process to rescind the Trump administration regulations that kicked them out. Now it looks like the Trump administration thinks that it can just stop it without going through the regulatory process, right? 

Ollstein: That’s right. So not only are they going around Congress, which approves Title X funding every year, they are also going around their own rulemaking and just going for it. Although, again, it has not been finally announced whether or not there will be cuts. They’re just reviewing these grants. 

Rovner: But I repeat for those in the back, this is not normal. It’s not how these things are supposed to work it. 

Kenen: It’s normal now, Julie. 

Rovner: Yeah, clearly it’s becoming normal. Well, finally this week, another case of a woman arrested for a poor pregnancy outcome. This happened in Georgia where the woman suffered a natural miscarriage, not an abortion, which was confirmed by the medical examiner, but has been arrested on charges of improperly disposing of the fetal remains. Alice, this is turning into a trend, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. And it’s important for people to remember that this was happening before Dobbs. This was happening when Roe v. Wade was still in place. This has happened since then in states where abortion is legal. Some prosecutors are finding other ways to charge people. Whether it’s related to, yeah, the disposal of the fetus, whether it’s related to substance abuse, substance use during pregnancy, even sometimes the use of substances that are actually legal, but people have been charged, arrested for using them during pregnancy. So yes, it’s important to remember that even if there’s not a quote-unquote “abortion ban” on the books, there are still efforts underway in many places to criminalize pregnancy loss however it happens, naturally or via some abortifacient method. 

Rovner: Well, something else we’ll be keeping an eye on. All right, that’s as much news as we have time for this week. Now, we will play my interview with KFF’s Larry Levitt. Then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

So, last Sunday was the 15th anniversary of President Barack Obama’s signing of the original Affordable Care Act. And before you ask, yes, I was there in the White House East Room that day. Anyway, to discuss what the law has meant to the U.S. health system over the last decade and a half and what its future might be, I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF colleague Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy. 

Larry, thanks for joining us again. 

Larry Levitt: Oh, thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, [then-House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi was mercilessly derided when she said that once the American people learned exactly what was in the ACA, they would come to like it. But that’s exactly what’s happened, right? 

Levitt: It is. Yes. I think people took her comments so out of context, but the ACA was incredibly controversial and divisive when it was being debated. Frankly, after a pass, the ACA became pretty unpopular. If you go back to 2014, just before the main provisions of the ACA were being implemented, there was all this controversy over the individual mandate, over people’s plans being canceled because they didn’t comply with the ACA’s rules. And then, of course, healthcare.gov, the website, didn’t work. So the ACA was very underwater in public opinion. And even after it first went into effect and people started getting coverage, that didn’t necessarily turn around immediately, there was still a lot of divisiveness over the law. 

What changed is, No. 1, over time, more and more people got covered, people with preexisting conditions, people who couldn’t afford health insurance, people who turned 26 or could stay on their parents’ plans until 26 and then could enroll in the ACA or Medicaid after turning 26. All these people got coverage and started to see the benefits of the law. The other thing that happened was in 2017, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to repeal and replace the ACA, and people really realized what they could be missing if the law went away. 

Rovner: So what’s turned out to be the biggest change to the health care system as a result of the ACA? And is it what you originally thought it would be? 

Levitt: Well, yeah, in this case it was not a surprise, I think. The biggest change was the number of people getting covered and a big decrease in the number of people uninsured. We have been at the lowest rate of uninsurance ever recently due to the ACA and some of the enhancements, which we’ll probably talk about. And that was what the law was intended to do, was to get more people covered. And I think you’d have to call that a success, in retrospect. 

Rovner: I will say I was surprised by how much Medicaid dominated the increased coverage. I know now it’s sort of balanced out because of reductions in premiums for private coverage, I think in large part. But I think during the 2017 fight to undo the ACA, that was the first time since I’ve been covering Medicaid that I think people really realized how big and how important Medicaid is to the health care system. 

Levitt: No, that’s right. I mean the ACA marketplace, healthcare.gov, the individual mandate, preexisting condition protections, I mean, those are the things that got a lot of the public attention. But in fact, yeah, in the early years of the ACA, I mean really up until just the last couple years, the Medicaid expansion in the ACA was really the engine of coverage. And that’s not what a lot of people expected. In fact, Congressional Budget Office in their original projections kind of got that wrong, too. 

Rovner: So what was the biggest disappointment about something the ACA was supposed to do but didn’t do or didn’t do very well? 

Levitt: Yeah, I mean, I would have to point to health care costs as the biggest disappointment. The ACA really wasn’t intended to address health care costs head-on. And that was both a policy judgment but also a political decision. If you go back to the debate over the Clinton health plan in the early ’90s, which failed spectacularly — you and I were both there — it addressed health care costs aggressively, took on every segment of the health care industry, and died under that political weight. The political judgment of Obama and Democrats in Congress with the ACA was to not take on those vested health care interests and not really address health care costs head-on. That’s what enabled it to get passed. But it sort of lacked teeth in that regard. There were some things in the ACA like expansion of ACOs, accountable care organizations, which maybe had some promise but frankly have not done a whole lot. 

Rovner: And of course, Congress undoing what teeth there were in the ensuing years probably didn’t help very much, either. 

Levitt: No. I mean there was this provision in the ACA called the Cadillac plan tax, right? The idea was to tax so-called Cadillac health plans, very generous health plans. That probably would’ve had an effect. I’m not sure it would’ve done what people intended for it to do. I mean, I think it would’ve actually shifted costs to workers and caused deductibles to rise even higher. But no one but economists liked that Cadillac plan tax, and it was repealed. 

Rovner: So, as you mentioned, you and I are both also veterans of the 1993, 1994 failed effort by President Bill Clinton to overhaul the nation’s health care system, which, like the fight over the ACA, featured large-scale, deliberate mis- and disinformation by opponents about what a major piece of health legislation could do. In fact, and I have done lots of stories on this, scare tactics about the possible impact of providing universal health insurance coverage date back to the early 1900s and have been a feature of every single major health care debate since then. What did we learn from the ACA debate about combating this kind of deliberate misinformation? 

Levitt: Yeah, you’re so right about the disinformation, and I was actually looking yesterday — we have a timeline of health policy over the decades in our KFF headquarters in San Francisco, and we have an ad up there from the debate over the Truman health plan. You and I were not there for that debate. 

Rovner: Thank you. 

Levitt: And the AMA [American Medical Association] opposed that as socialized medicine and ran these ads featuring robots who were going to be your doctor if the Truman plan passed. So this is certainly nothing new. And we saw it in the ACA with death panels, right? I mean, which just spread like wildfire through the media and over social media. I would kind of hope we learned some lessons from the ACA. I’m not sure we have. And I kind of worry that with declining trust in institutions, particularly government institutions, I just wonder whether we’ll get back to a place where, yeah, we’ll disagree about policy. There will be spin, there will be scare tactics, but at least there’s some trusted source of facts and data that we can rely on, and I’m not so hopeful there. 

Rovner: Somebody asked former [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a 15th-anniversary event what she regretted most about not having in the ACA, and she said, With all the talk of our actually taking over the health care system, we should have just taken over the health care system, since that’s what everybody was accusing it of. It might’ve worked better. 

Levitt: Yeah, there is — we could have a whole other session on “Medicare for All” and single payer and the pros and cons of that. But one thing I think we did learn from the ACA, that complexity is just a huge problem. Even what’s supposed to be the simplest part of our health care system now, Medicare, has become incredibly complex with Part A and Part B and Part C and Part D. Seniors kind of scratch their heads trying to figure out what to do, and the ACA even more so. 

And I think back to your original question, part of what made the ACA so hard for people to grasp is there was not one single, Oh, I’m going to sign up for the ACA. There were so many pieces of it. And over time, I’m not even sure people identify those pieces with the ACA anymore. 

Rovner: Yeah. Oh, no, I am surprised at how many younger people have no idea of what the insurance market was like before the ACA and how many people were simply redlined out of getting coverage. 

Levitt: Right. No. I mean, once you fix those problems, then people don’t see them anymore. 

Rovner: So let’s look forward quickly. It seemed at least for a while after the Republicans failed in 2017 to repeal and replace the law that efforts to undo it were finally over. But while this administration isn’t saying directly that they want to end it, they do have some big targets for undoing big pieces of it. What are some of those and what are the likelihood of them happening? 

Levitt: Yeah, in some ways we have an ACA repeal-and-replace debate going on right now, just not in name. And there are really kind of two big pieces on the table. One, of course, is potential cuts to Medicaid. The House has passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts, by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid. The vast majority of those cuts would have to be in Medicaid. The math is simply inescapable. And a big target on the table is that expansion of Medicaid that was in the ACA. 

And interestingly, you’re even hearing Republicans on the Hill talking about repealing the enhanced federal matching payments for the ACA Medicaid expansion and saying: Well, that’s not Medicaid cuts. That’s Obamacare. That’s not Medicaid. But 20 million people are covered under that Medicaid expansion. So it would lead to the biggest increase in the number of people uninsured we’ve ever had, if that gets repealed. 

The other issue really has not gotten a lot of attention yet this year, which is the extra premium assistance that was passed under [President Joe] Biden and by Democrats in Congress. And that’s led to a dramatic increase in ACA marketplace enrollment. ACA enrollment has more than doubled to 24 million since 2020. Those subsidies expire at the end of this year. So if Congress does nothing, people would be faced with very big out-of-pocket premium increases. And I suspect it’s going to get more attention as we get closer to the end of the year, but so far there hasn’t been a big debate over it yet. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll continue to talk about it. Larry Levitt, thank you so much. 

Levitt: Oh, thanks. Great conversation. 

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

Kenen: There’s a piece in The Atlantic this week called “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag, and it’s basically saying that half of the people who said they were vegan or vegetarian were lying and that meat is very much back in fashion. That the new pejorative term — some of us may remember from 20 years or so ago, the “quiche eaters” —now it’s the “soy boy.” And that one of the new “in” foods, and I think this is the first for the podcast to use the phrase, raw beef testicles. So when we’re talking about political red meat, it’s not just political red meat. America is, we’re eating a lot more meat than we said we did, and we’re no longer saying that we’re not eating it. 

Rovner: Real red meat for the masses. 

Ollstein: For what it’s worth, “soy boy” has been a slur since the Obama administration. 

Kenen: Well, it’s just new to me. Thank you. I welcome the— 

Ollstein: I unfortunately have been in the online fever swamps where people say things like that. 

Kenen: Thank you, Alice. Now I know. 

Rovner: Maya, why don’t you go next? 

Goldman: My extra credit is a KFF Health News article by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani called “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers.” And I think it’s just worth remembering that there are real consequences, real mental health consequences to mass upheaval at the scale of what’s going on in the federal government right now with so many people losing their jobs and just not sure if their jobs are stable, especially in light of this morning’s news about HHS reorganizations. But also I think this article does a really good job of highlighting how this chaos and instability is only going to exacerbate already ongoing mental health crises that some of these workers that have been laid off were trying to help solve. And so it’s just this cycle that keeps running through. It’s worth remembering. 

Rovner: The chaos is the point. Alice. 

Ollstein: So, I have a piece from the New York Times Wirecutter section called “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now.” And it’s what it says. The company that millions and millions of people have sent samples of their DNA to over the years to find out what percent European they are and all this stuff and their propensity for various inherited diseases, that company is going bankrupt, and there is the expectation that it will be sold off for parts, including people’s very sensitive DNA. And the article points out that because they are not a health care provider, they are not subject to HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]. And so many elected officials and privacy advocates are recommending that people, very quickly, if they have given their DNA to this company, go and delete their information now before it gets sold off to who knows who. 

Rovner: And for who knows what reason. My extra credit this week is something I really did think at first was from The Onion. It’s actually from CNN, and it’s called “State Lawmakers Are Looking to Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller, who’s a CNN meteorologist. It seems that several states are moving to ban those white lines the jets leave behind them, on the theory that they are full of toxic chemicals and/or intended to manipulate the weather. In fact, they’re mostly just water vapor. They’re called contrails because the con is for condensation. But these laws could outlaw some new types of technologies that are aimed at addressing things like climate change. Clearly we need to teach more science along with more civics. 

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

Goldman: I am on X and Bluesky. If you search Maya Goldman, you’ll find me. And also increasingly on LinkedIn. Find me there. 

Rovner: Hearing that a lot. Alice. 

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

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly at Bluesky, and I’m also using LinkedIn a lot. @joannekenen at Bluesky. LinkedIn is reverberating more. 

Rovner: All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week with still more breaking news. 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).