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).

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.

Two months into the new administration, federal workers and contractors remain off-balance as the Trump administration ramps up its efforts to cancel jobs and programs — even as federal judges declare many of those efforts illegal and/or unconstitutional.

As it eliminates programs deemed duplicative or unnecessary, however, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is also cutting programs and workers aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Kennedy’s comments this week about allowing bird flu to spread unchecked through farms provided another example of the new secretary of health and human services making claims that lack scientific support and could instead undermine public health.
• The Trump administration is experiencing more pushback from the federal courts over its efforts to reduce and dismantle federal agencies, and federal workers who have been rehired under court orders report returning to uncertainty and instability within government agencies.
• The second Trump administration is signaling it plans to dismantle HIV prevention programs in the United States, including efforts that the first Trump administration started. A Texas midwife is accused of performing illegal abortions. And a Trump appointee resigns after being targeted by a Republican senator.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “The Free-Living Bureaucrat,” by Michael Lewis.

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” by Carolyn Y. Johnson.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KFF Health News’ “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them To Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” by Arthur Allen.

Jessie Hellmann: Stat’s “NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease,” by Elaine Chen.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Wall Street Journal’s “Trump Administration Weighing Major Cuts to Funding for Domestic HIV Prevention,” by Liz Essley White, Dominique Mosbergen, and Jonathan D. Rockoff.
• The Washington Post’s “Disabled Americans Fear Losing Protections if States’ Lawsuit Succeeds,” by Amanda Morris.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Federal Health Work in Flux

[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 20, 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 Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hello. 

Rovner: No interview today, but, as usual, way more news than we can get to, so let us jump right in. In case you missed it, there’s a bonus podcast episode in your feed. After last week’s Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing for Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, my KFF Health News colleagues Stephanie Armour and Rachana Pradhan and I summarized the hearing and caught up on all the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nomination actions. It will be the episode in your feed right before this one. 

So even without Senate-confirmed heads at — checks notes — all of the major agencies at HHS, the department does continue to make news. First, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new HHS secretary, speaks. Last week it was measles. This week it was bird flu, which he says should be allowed to spread unchecked in chicken flocks to see which birds are resistant or immune. This feels kind of like what some people recommended during covid. Sarah, is there any science to suggest this might be a good idea? 

Karlin-Smith: No, it seems like the science actually suggests the opposite, because doctors and veterinary specialists are saying basically every time you let the infection continue to infect birds, you’re giving the virus more and more chances to mutate, which can lead to more problems down the road. The other thing is they were talking about the way we raise animals, and for food these days, there isn’t going to be a lot of genetic variation for the chickens, so it’s not like you’re going to be able to find a huge subset of them that are going to survive bird flu. 

And then the other thing I thought is really interesting is just it doesn’t seem economically to make the most sense either as well, both for the individual farmers but then for U.S. industry as a whole, because it seems like other countries will be particularly unhappy with us and even maybe put prohibitions on trading with us or those products due to the spread of bird flu. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was eyebrow-raising, let us say. Well, HHS this week also announced its first big policy effort, called Operation Stork Speed. It will press infant formula makers for more complete lists of ingredients, increase testing for heavy metals in formula, make it easier to import formula from other countries, and order more research into the health outcomes of feeding infant formula. This feels like maybe one of those things that’s not totally controversial, except for the part that the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] workers who have been monitoring the infant formula shortage were part of the big DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs. 

Roubein: I talked to some experts about this idea, and, like you said, they thought it kind of sounded good, but they basically needed more details. Like, what does it mean? Who’s going to review these ingredients? To your point, some people did say that the agency would need to staff up, and there was a neonatologist who is heading up infant formula that was hired after the 2022 shortage who was part of the probationary worker terminations. However, when the FDA rescinded the terminations of some workers, so, that doctor has been hired back. So I think that’s worth noting. 

Rovner: Yes. This is also, I guess, where we get to note that Calley Means, one of RFK Jr.’s, I guess, brain trusts in the MAHA movement, has been hired as, I guess, in an Elon Musk-like position in the White House as an adviser. But this is certainly an area where he would expect to weigh in. 

Hellmann: Yeah, I saw he’s really excited about this on Twitter, or X. There’s just been concerns in the MAHA movement, “Make America Healthy Again,” about the ingredients that are in baby formula. And the only thing is I saw that he also retweeted somebody who said that “breast is best,” and I’m just hoping that we’re not going back down that road again, because I feel like public health did a lot of work in pushing the message that formula and breast milk is good for the child, and so that’s just another angle that I’ve been thinking about on this. 

Rovner: Yes, I think this is one of those things that everybody agrees we should look at and has the potential to get really controversial at some point. While we are on the subject of the federal workforce and layoffs, federal judges and DOGE continue to play cat-and-mouse, with lots of real people’s lives and careers at stake. Various judges have ordered the reinstatement, as you mentioned, Rachel, of probationary and other workers. Although in many cases workers have been reinstated to an administrative leave status, meaning they get put back on the payroll and they get their benefits back, but they still can’t do their jobs. At least one judge has said that does not satisfy his order, and this is all changing so fast it’s basically impossible to keep up. But is it fair to say that it’s not a very stable time to be a federal worker? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s probably the nicest possible way to put it. When you talk to federal workers, everybody seems stressed and just unsure of their status. And if they do have a job, it’s often from their perspective tougher to do their job lately, and then they’re just not sure how stable it is. And many people are considering what options they have outside the federal government at this point. 

Rovner: So for those lucky federal workers who do still have jobs, the Trump administration has also ordered everyone back to offices, even if those offices aren’t equipped to accommodate them. FDA headquarters here in Maryland’s kind of been the poster child for this this week. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, FDA is an interesting one because well before covid normalized working from home and transitioned a lot of people to working from home, FDA’s headquarters couldn’t accommodate a lot of the new growth in the agency over the years, like the tobacco part of the FDA. So it was typical that people at least worked part of their workweek at home, and FDA really found once covid gave them additional work-from-home flexibilities, they were able to recruit staff they really, really needed with specialized degrees and training who don’t live near here, and it actually turned out to be quite a benefit from them. 

And now they’re saying everybody needs to be in an office five days a week, and you have people basically cramped into conference rooms. There’s not enough parking. People are trying to review technical scientific data, and you kind of can’t hear yourself think. Or you’re a lawyer — I heard of a situation where people are basically being told, Well, if you need to do a private phone call because of the confidentiality around what you’re doing, go take the call in your car. So I think in addition to all of the concerns people have around the stability of their jobs, there’s now this element of, on a personal level, I think for many of them it’s just made their lives more challenging. And then they just feel like they’re not actually able to do, have the same level of efficiency at their work as they normally would. 

Rovner: And for those who don’t know, the FDA campus is on a former military installation in the Maryland suburbs. It’s not really near any public transportation. So you pretty much have to drive to get there. And I think that the parking lots are not that big, because, as you pointed out, Sarah, the workforce is now bigger than the headquarters was created to accommodate it. And we’re seeing this across the government. This week it happened to be FDA. You have to ask the question: Is this really just an effort to make the government not work, to make federal workers, if they can’t fire them, to make them quit? 

Hellmann: I definitely think that’s part of the underlying goal. If you see some of the stuff that Elon Musk says about the federal workforce, it’s very dismissive. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for the civil servants. And they’ve been running into a lot of pushback from federal judges over many lawsuits targeting these terminations. And so I think just making conditions as frustrating as possible for some of these workers until they quit is definitely part of the strategy. 

Roubein: And I think this is overlaid with the additional buyout offers, the additional early retirement offers. There’s also the reduction-in-force plans that federal workers have been unnerved about, bracing for future layoffs. So it’s very clear that they want to shrink the size of the federal workforce. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve seen a lot of these people, I’ve seen interviews with them, who are being reinstated, but they’re still worried that now they’re going to be RIF-ed. They’re back on the payroll, they’re off the payroll. I mean there’s nothing — this does not feel like a very efficient way to run the federal government. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think that’s what a lot of people are talking about is, again, going back to offices, for many of these people, is not leading to productivity. I talked to one person who said: I’m just leaving my laptop at the office now. I’m not going to take it home and do the extra hours of work that they might’ve normally gotten from me. And that includes losing time to commute. FDA is paying for parking-garage spaces in downtown Silver Spring [Maryland] near the Metro so that they can then shuttle people to the FDA headquarters. I’ve taken buses from that Metro to FDA headquarters. In traffic, that’s a 30-minute drive. They’re spending money on things that, again, I think are not going to in the long run create any government efficiency. 

And in fact, I’ve been talking to people who are worried it’s going to do the opposite, that drug review, device review, medical product review times and things like that are going to slow. We talked about food safety. I think The New York Times had a really good story this week about concerns about losing the people. We need to make sure that baby formula is actually safe. So there’s a lot of contradictions in the messaging of what they’re trying to accomplish and how the actions actually are playing out. 

Rovner: Well, and finally, I’m going to lay one more layer on this. There’s the question of whether you can even put the toothpaste back in the tube if you wanted to. After weeks of back-and-forth, the federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the dissolution of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] was illegal and probably unconstitutional, and ordered email and computer access restored for the remaining workers while blocking further cuts. But with nearly everybody fired, called back from overseas, and contracts canceled, USAID couldn’t possibly come close to doing what it did before DOGE basically took it apart, right?. 

Karlin-Smith: You hear stories of if someone already takes a new job, they’re lucky enough to find a new job, why are they going to come back? Again, even if you’re brought back, my expectation is a lot of people who have been brought back are probably looking for new jobs regardless because you don’t have that stability. And I think the USAID thing is interesting, too, because again, you have people that were working in all corners of the world and you have partnerships with other countries and contractors that have to be able to trust you moving forward. And the question is, do those countries and those organizations want to continue working with the U.S. if they can’t have that sort of trust? And as people said, the U.S. government was known as, they could pay contractors less because they always paid you. And when you take that away, that creates a lot of problems for negotiating deals to work with them moving forward. 

Rovner: And I think that’s true for federal workers, too. There’s always been the idea that you probably could earn more in the private sector than you can working for the federal government, but it’s always been a pretty stable job. And I think right now it’s anything but, so comes the question of: Are we deterring people from wanting to work for the federal government? Eventually one would assume there’s still going to be a federal government to work for, and there may not be anybody who wants to do it. 

Roubein: Yeah, you saw various hiring authorities given to try and recruit scientists and other researchers who make a lot, lot more in the public health sector, and some of those were a part of the probationary workforce because they had been hired recently under those authorities. 

Rovner: Yeah, and now this is all sort of coming apart. Well, meanwhile, the cuts are continuing even faster than federal judges can rule against them. Last week, the administration said it would reduce the number of HHS regional offices from 10 to four. Considering these are where the department’s major fraud-fighting efforts take place, that doesn’t seem a very effective way of going after fraud and abuse in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Those regional offices are also where lots of beneficiary protections come from, like inspections of nursing homes and Head Start facilities. How does this serve RFK Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s not clear that it does, right? You’re talking about, again, the Department of Government Efficiency has focused on efficiency, cost savings, and Medicare and Medicaid does a pretty good job of fighting fraud and making HHS OIG [Office of Inspector General], all those organizations, they collect a lot of money back. So when you lose people— 

Rovner: And of course the inspector general has also been laid off in all of this. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. It’s not clear to me, I think one of the things with that whole reorganization of their chief counsel is people are suggesting, again, this is sort of a power move of HHS wanting to get a little bit more control of the legal operations at the lower agencies, whether it’s NIH [the National Institutes of Health] or FDA and so forth. But, right, it’s reducing head count without really thinking about what people’s roles actually were and what you lose when you let them go. 

Rovner: Well, the Trump administration is also continuing to cut grants and contracts that seem like they’d be the kind of things that directly relate to Make America Healthy Again. Jessie, you’ve chosen one of those as your extra credit this week. Tell us about it. 

Hellmann: Yeah. So my story is from Stat [“NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease”], and it’s about a nationwide study that tracks patients with prediabetes and diabetes. And it was housed at Columbia University, which as we know has been the subject of some criticism from the Trump administration. They had lost about $400 million in grants because the administration didn’t like Columbia’s response to some of the protests that were on campus last year. But that has an effect on some research that really doesn’t have much to do with that, including a study that looked at diabetes over a really long period of time. 

So it was able to over decades result in 200 publications about prediabetes and diabetes, and led to some of the knowledge that we have now about the interventions for that. And the latest stage was going to focus on dementia and cognitive impairment, since some of the people that they’ve been following for years are now in their older ages. And now they have to put a stop to that. They don’t even have funding to analyze blood samples that they’ve done and the brain scans that they’ve collected. So it’s just another example of how what’s being done at the administration level is contradicting some of the goals that they say that they have. 

Rovner: Yeah, and it’s important to remember that Columbia’s funding is being cut not because they deemed this particular project to be not helpful but because they are, as you said, angry at Columbia for not cracking down more on pro-Palestinian protesters after Oct. 7. 

Well, meanwhile, people are bracing for still more cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting the administration plans to cut domestic AIDS-HIV programming on top of the cuts to the international PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] program that was hammered as part of the USAID cancellation. Is fighting AIDS and HIV just way too George W. Bush for this administration? 

Hellmann: It’s interesting because President [Donald] Trump unveiled the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in his first term, and the goal was to end the epidemic in the United States. And so if they were talking about reducing some of that funding, or I know there were reports that maybe they would move the funding from CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to HRSA [the Health Resources and Services Administration], it’s very unclear at this point. Then it raises questions about whether it would undermine that effort. And there’s already actions that the Trump administration has done to undermine the initiative, like the attacks on trans people. They’ve canceled grants to researchers studying HIV. They have done a whole host of things. They canceled funding to HIV services organizations because they have “trans” in their programming or on their websites. So it’s already caused a lot of anxiety in this community. And yeah, it’s just a total turnaround from the first administration. 

Rovner: I know the Whitman-Walker clinic here in Washington, which has long been one of the premier AIDS-HIV clinics, had just huge layoffs. This is already happening, and as you point out, this was something that President Trump in his first term vowed to end AIDS-HIV in the U.S. So this is not one would think how one would go about that. 

Well, it’s not just the administration that’s working to constrict rights and services. A group of 17 states, led by Texas, of course, are suing to have Biden-era regulations concerning discrimination against trans people struck down, except as part of that suit, the states are asking that the entirety of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act be declared unconstitutional. Now, you may never have heard of Section 504, but it is a very big deal. It was the forerunner of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and it prevents discrimination on the basis of disability in all federally funded activities. It is literally a lifeline for millions of disabled people that enables them to live in the community rather than in institutions. Are we looking at an actual attempt to roll back basically all civil rights as part of this war on “woke” and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and trans people? 

Hellmann: The story is interesting, because it seems like some of the attorneys general are saying, That’s not our intent. But if you look at the court filings, it definitely seems like it is. And yeah, like you said, this is something that would just have a tremendous impact. And Medicaid coverage of home- and community-based services is one of those things that states are constantly struggling to pay for. You’re just continuing to see more and more people need these services. Some states have waiting lists, so— 

Rovner: I think most states have waiting lists. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s something, you have to really question what the intent is here. Even if people are saying, This isn’t our intent, it’s pretty black-and-white on paper in the court records, so— 

Rovner: Yeah, just to be clear, this was a Biden administration regulation, updating the rules for Section 504, that included reference to trans people. But in the process of trying to get that struck down, the court filings do, as you say, call for the entirety of Section 504 to be declared unconstitutional. This is obviously one of those court cases that’s still before the district court, so it’s a long way to go. But the entire disability community, certainly it has their attention. 

Well, we haven’t had any big abortion news the past couple of weeks, but that is changing. In Texas, a midwife and her associate have become the first people arrested under the state’s 2022 abortion ban. The details of the case are still pretty fuzzy, but if convicted, the midwife who reportedly worked as an OB-GYN doctor in her native Peru and served a mostly Spanish-speaking clientele, could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. So, obviously, be watching that one. Meanwhile, here in Washington, Hilary Perkins, a career lawyer chosen by FDA commissioner nominee Marty Makary to serve as the agency’s general counsel, resigned less than two days into her new position after complaints from Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley that she defended the Biden administration’s position on the abortion pill mifepristone. 

Now, Hilary Perkins is no liberal trying to hide out in the bureaucracy. She’s a self-described pro-life Christian conservative hired in the first Trump administration, but she was apparently forced out for the high crime of doing her job as a career lawyer. Is this administration really going to try to evict anyone who ever supported a Biden position? Will that leave anybody left? 

Roubein: I think what’s notable is Sen. Josh Hawley here, who expressed concerns and I had heard expressed concerns to the White House, and the post on X from the FDA came an hour before the hearing. There were concerns that he was not going to make it out of committee and— 

Rovner: Before the Marty Makary hearing. 

Roubein: Yes, sorry, before the vote in the HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee on Marty Makary. And Hawley said because of that, he would vote to support him. What was interesting is two Democrats actually ended up supporting him, so he could have passed without Hawley’s vote. But I think in general it poses a test for Marty Makary when he’s an FDA commissioner, and how and whether he’s going to get his people in and how he’ll respond to different pressure points in Congress and with HHS and with the White House. 

Rovner: And of course, Hawley’s not a disinterested bystander here, right? 

Karlin-Smith: So his wife was one of the key attorneys in the recent big Supreme Court case that was pushed down to the lower courts for a lack of standing, but she was trying to essentially get tighter controls on the abortion pill mifepristone. But it seems like almost maybe Hawley jumped too soon before doing all of his research or fully understanding the role of people at Justice. Because even before this whole controversy erupted, I had talked to people the day before about this and asked them, “Should we read into this, her being involved in this?” And everybody I talked to, including, I think, a lot of people that have different views than Perkins does on the case, that they were saying she was in a role as a career attorney. You do what your boss, what the administration, wants. 

If you really, really had a big moral problem with that, you can quit your job. But it’s perfectly normal for an attorney in that kind of position to defend a client’s interest and then have another client and maybe have to defend them wrongly. So it seems like if they had just maybe even picked up the phone and had a conversation with her, the whole crisis could have been averted. And she was on CNN yesterday trying to plead her case and, again, emphasize her positions because perhaps she’s worried about her future career prospects, I guess, over this debacle. 

Rovner: Yeah, now she’s going to be blackballed by both sides for having done her job, basically. Anyway, all right, well, one big Biden initiative that looks like it will continue is the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation program. And we think we know this because CMS announced last week that the makers of all of the 15 drugs selected for the second round of negotiations have agreed to, well, negotiate. Sarah, this is news, right? Because we were wondering whether this was really going to go forward. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they’ve made some other signals since taking over that they were going to keep going with this, including last week at his confirmation hearing, Dr. Oz, for CMS, also indicated he seemed like he would uphold that law and they were looking for ways to lower drug costs. So I think what people are going to be watching for is whether they yield around the edges in terms of tweaks the industry wants to the law, or is there something about the prices they actually negotiate that signal they’re not really trying to get them as low as they can go? But this seems to be one populist issue for Trump that he wants to keep leaning into and keep the same consistency, I think, from his first administration, where he always took a pretty hard line on the drug industry and drug pricing. 

Rovner: And I know Ozempic is on that list of 15 drugs, but the administration hasn’t said yet. I assume that’s Ozempic for its original purpose in treating diabetes. This administration hasn’t said yet whether they’ll continue the Biden declaration that these drugs could be available for people for weight loss, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. And I think that’s going to be more complicated because that’s so costly. So negotiating the price of drugs saves money. So yes, basically because Ozempic and Wegovy are the same drug, that price should be available regardless of the indication. But I’m more skeptical that they continue that policy, because of the cost and also just because, again, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy seems to be particularly skeptical of the drugs, or at least using that as a first line of defense, widespread use, reliance on that. He tends to, in general, I think, support other ways of medical, I guess, treatment or health treatments before turning to pharmaceuticals. 

Rovner: Eating better and exercising. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct, right. So I think that’s going to be a hard sell for them because it’s just so costly. 

Rovner: We will see. All right, that is as much news as we have time for this week. Now, it is 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, you’ve done yours already this week. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Roubein: My extra credit, the headline is “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” In The Washington Post by my colleague Carolyn Y. Johnson. And I thought the story was particularly interesting because it really dove into the personal level. You hear about all these cuts from a high level, but you don’t always really know what it means and how it came about. So the backstory is the National Institutes of Health terminated dozens of research grants that focused on why some people are hesitant to accept vaccines. 

And Carolyn profiled one researcher, Nisha Acharya, but there was a twist, and the twist was she doesn’t actually study how to combat vaccine hesitancy or ways to increase vaccine uptake. Instead, she studies how well the shingles vaccine works to prevent the infection, with a focus on whether the shot also prevents the virus from affecting people’s eyes. But in the summary of her project, she had used the word “hesitancy” once and used the word “uptake” once. And so this highlights the sweeping approach to halting some of these vaccine hesitancy research grants. 

Rovner: Yeah that was like the DOD [Department of Defense] getting rid of the picture of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb, because it had the word “Gay” in it. This is the downside, I guess, of using AI for these sorts of things. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a KFF story by Arthur Allen, “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them to Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” and it’s about NIH officials urging people to remove any reference to mRNA vaccine technology from their grants. And the story indicates it’s not yet clear if that is going to translate to defunding of such research, but the implications are quite vast. I think most people probably remember the mRNA vaccine technology is really what helped many of us survive the covid pandemic and is credited with saving millions of lives, but the technology promise seems vast even beyond infectious diseases, and there’s a lot of hope for it in cancer. 

And so this has a lot of people worried. It’s not particularly surprising, I guess, because again, the anti-vaccine movement, which Kennedy has been a leader of, has been particularly skeptical of the mRNA technology. But it is problematic, I think, for research. And we spent a lot of time on this call talking about the decimation of the federal workforce that may happen here, and I think this story and some of the other things we talked about today also show how we may just decimate our entire scientific research infrastructure and workforce in the U.S. outside of just the federal government, because so much of it is funded by NIH, and the decisions they’re making are going to make it impossible for a lot of scientists to do their job. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’re also seeing scientists going to other countries, but that’s for another time. Well, my extra credit this week, probably along the same lines, also from The Washington Post. It’s part of a series called “Who Is Government?” This particular piece [“The Free-Living Bureaucrat”] is by bestselling author Michael Lewis, and it’s a sprawling — and I mean sprawling — story of how a mid-level FDA employee who wanted to help find new treatments for rare diseases ended up not only figuring out a cure for a child who was dying of a rare brain amoeba but managed to obtain the drug for the family in time to save her. It’s a really good piece, and it’s a really excellent series that tells the stories of mostly faceless bureaucrats who actually are working to try to make the country a better place. 

OK, that’s 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 guys these days? Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: A little bit everywhere. X, Bluesky, LinkedIn — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and I’m also on LinkedIn more these days. 

Rovner: Great. Rachel. 

Roubein: @rachelroubein at Bluesky, @rachel_roubein on X, and also on LinkedIn. 

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.

As abortion and other reproductive issues gain more prominence in the looming election, some Republicans are trying to moderate their anti-abortion positions, particularly in states where access to the procedure remains politically popular. 

Meanwhile, open enrollment is underway for Medicare, even as some health plans are challenging in court the federal government’s decision to reduce their quality ratings — with millions of dollars at stake. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• With polls showing more voters citing abortion as a top voting issue, some candidates with long track records opposing abortion rights are working to moderate their positions.
• Many older Americans will spend less on prescription drugs next year due to a new out-of-pocket pricing cap, among other changes in store as provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act take effect. But some are realizing the limits on those benefits, as deeper problems persist in drug pricing, insurance coverage, and access.
• The FDA is reconsidering a weight-loss drug decision that caused confusion for patients and compounding pharmacies. Compounded drugs are intended for individual issues, like needing a different dosage — and while the process can be used to augment mass manufacturing during times of drug shortages, it is not well suited to address access and pricing issues.
• In abortion news, a comprehensive study shows abortions have increased since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, even among women in states with strict restrictions — and those states are seeing higher infant mortality rates, according to separate research. And an effort is underway to revive in a Texas court the challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval. The last challenge failed because the Supreme Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Tricia Neuman, senior vice president of KFF and executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy, about Medicare open enrollment and the changes to the program for 2025. 

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Vanity Fair’s “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health,” by Katherine Eban. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Atlantic’s “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch.  

Victoria Knight: NPR’s “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year,” by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Abortions Have Increased, Even for Women in States With Rigid Bans, Study Says,” by Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• CNN’s “Infants Died at Higher Rates After Abortion Bans in the US, Research Shows,” by Deidre McPhillips.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Less Than Two Weeks To Go

[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, Oct. 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 video conference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

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 friend and KFF colleague Tricia Neuman about Medicare open enrollment and what to expect in Medicare in the coming year. 

But first, this week’s news. We will start on the campaign trail since Election Day is now less than two weeks away. Let that sink in. Abortion is, at least according to many polls, on the upswing as a voting issue and, probably not coincidentally, abortion-adjacent issues, like contraception, are also getting more attention. But while it’s clear that Democrats are still pretty much the party of abortion rights and Republicans are pretty much the party representing anti-abortion activists, we’re seeing some Republican candidates working pretty hard to muddy the waters. Yes? 

Knight: Yeah, it’s been interesting this election cycle. We have seen some Republicans saying that they are pro-choice. And this is at a time when, finally, on the Democratic side in Congress, there really are not many anti-abortion Democrats left. We have in the House congressman Henry Cuellar [of Texas] is really the only one left. [Pennsylvania] Sen. Bob Casey, we’ve kind of seen him swing over time to be more in the camp of pro-choice, pro-abortion rights and so … 

Rovner: … which was really, in Casey’s case, really interesting, because his father, who was the governor of Pennsylvania, was sort of the original anti-abortion Democrat back in the early 1990s. 

Knight: Yeah. I’m interested to see if this works in — we’re seeing, particularly in some more moderate, swinging House seats, that Republicans are trying to message in this way that they’re more moderate on abortion, saying they’re more pro-choice. I’m interested to see if this actually works. And then we have perhaps this caucus within the House, if that works, that are more moderate. I mean, you already see in the current makeup of the House, there are some House Republicans, particularly the New York Republicans, that were really careful in this 118th Congress when they were having to vote on certain bills that would restrict, for example, access to mifepristone. That was kind of a rider in the FDA appropriations bill, and they didn’t want to vote for it, and they helped cause chaos on the House floor for that bill, particularly, because they didn’t want to pass it because they knew that would look bad on their record and they were having to run for the House again. So, will this messaging work for the kind of new people that are running this cycle? I’m not sure, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: I was kind of surprised to see Liz Cheney this week (who was out campaigning with Vice President [Kamala] Harris), who’s strongly anti-abortion, has been her entire career, actually pipe up on her own — and she’s not running for anything; she’s basically a person without a party at the moment — but say that even though she’s anti-abortion, she is not in favor of some of the things that are happening with some of these abortion bans, like women having miscarriages not being able to get immediate medical [care]. I was fascinated to see somebody who, with as strong anti-abortion credentials as she has, speak out about these things that one would assume even people who are anti-abortion would not be against. We do see the anti-abortion group saying making abortion illegal doesn’t make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage care, even though it gets all muddled when you’re actually on the ground doing it and you’re a doctor facing potential jail time. 

Knight: Well, and I think the thing is, people are seeing the realities of the abortion bans a couple of years in. I think that’s really the consequences. … When these first happened two years ago, people can say all these kind of things, but now that they’ve been in place for a couple years and women have died, we’re hearing these stories from news outlets of how that happens and it’s often women that want the babies. It’s like people are having to moderate their stances somewhat, I think. 

Rovner: It’s — there’s nuance. … Politics is not great with nuance, but we’re seeing nuance. 

Well, one abortion-adjacent story that jumped out at me this week is happening in Florida, where it seems that the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis himself was behind legal threats to TV stations running ads in favor of the ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Florida Department of Health general counsel John Wilson said he was given prewritten letters from one of DeSantis’ lawyers … Oct. 3 and told to send them under his own name, he wrote in a sworn affidavit.” Wilson subsequently resigned rather than send out more letters. In between, a judge warned the state to cease and desist with the threat, saying, and I quote, “It’s the First Amendment, stupid.” I have honestly never seen anything quite like this, although I would also point out I’ve never seen anything quite like Florida’s surgeon general recommending against people getting vaccines. What the heck is going on in Florida? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’ve seen state officials in Florida try to enact their will and challenge public health recommendations. Certainly, we saw that happen during the covid-19 pandemic. They were trying to put out their own guidelines on vaccination, and so I don’t think it’s a particular surprise. I think it is just uglier than usual now that we get the full backstory on how these letters came to be. And court cases take a long time, and I think that’ll extend to beyond the next couple of weeks. But it’s an interesting publicity stunt for what it is, and yeah I … 

Rovner: I wouldn’t want to be one of the TV stations threatening to have its license canceled, although the head of the FCC, I think, got involved too and said, “Um, this is not how this works.” 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think so. I don’t expect that the court would find that political ads you don’t like are illegal, so, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the governor can tell you to pull political ads that they don’t like. Pretty sure that’s not how these things work. 

Well, meanwhile, given the very real possibility that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the D.C. rumor mill is already spinning out names of those who could fill Cabinet and other senior health posts. What are you guys hearing? And is RFK Jr. really going to end up in some big health policymaking job? 

Knight: That’s funny that you say that because I was just having a talk with my editors about the names that we’re hearing. I have heard, and I am sure Rachel and Sarah have names on their mind as well, but someone said this to me, I think it’s funny: A very 2004 pick would be Bobby Jindal. He’s at the America First Policy Institute, which has a lot of former Trump administration people there, and it’s kind of seen this swing, I think recently, now that Project 2025 is kind of like no one wants to touch Project 2025 anymore. It seems like more people are, like, OK, AFPI is the place to pick people from if there’s a new Trump administration. And there’s been some stories this week about the chief of staff potentially coming from AFPI. So, people have been telling me Bobby Jindal, but I think he seems to have some solid grounding in that. You probably are more familiar with him, Julie, than I am, but … 

Rovner: Oh, yes. I’ve known him since 2004. I’ve known him since before 2004. He was actually … he was brought to Washington by Democratic Sen. John Breaux to staff a Medicare commission back in, I think it was the very late 1990s. He served in Congress, he was the governor of Louisiana, and he served in HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in the George W. Bush administration. So he’s got lots of experience, and he’s coincidentally all over Twitter this week with a paid ad, trashing Kamala Harris’ support for “Medicare for All,” which, of course, she hasn’t supported since 2019. But yeah, suddenly Bobby Jindal, who we hadn’t seen in a while, is kind of everywhere. He was one of the bright young lights about, what, eight years ago? 

Knight: Right, right. 

Rovner: But I guess before Trump, he was one of the bright young Republican lights. So yeah, I keep hearing his name too. 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t know … 

Rovner: Go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that I don’t think there are a lot of people that we’ve been talking to who are worried about RFK himself getting appointed to one of these posts, but I think there has been a lot of buzz about some of his allies, like Calley and Casey Means. I know my colleague Isa Cueto did a great — just, profile of kind of who they are and kind of how their rise has just been so meteoric, and I think we’re also seeing some allies. So people who rose in the conservative movement over skepticism, over vaccine mandates, and just like the whole public health establishment have really gotten a new platform. And so I think people are a little nervous, as we’ve reported, both health care industry leaders who are worried about anti-pharmaceutical industry sentiment, anti-science sentiment, and even establishment Republican leaders and officials who served in prior Trump administrations that the picks could be more extreme than a Bobby Jindal establishment-Republican type and that this could be taking a turn. 

Rovner: Sarah, what are you hearing with FDA? 

Karlin-Smith: I mean, it’s a little less clear, I think, who might end up in FDA, but the sentiment has been probably a more typical Trump pick than maybe we got last time. FDA was sort of insulated in some ways, I think, from some of the drama, if you will, of the Trump administration last time. Scott Gottlieb was able to run FDA with pretty hands-off from other parts of the administration, and I think he ran FDA more like you would expect a traditional Republican to run FDA, not necessarily a Trump Republican. And I think people are recognizing that FDA will be a lot more vulnerable this time around that we’re probably not going to get another kind of Scott Gottlieb to save FDA if Trump is president. There’s certainly more concerns about how that impacts staff turnover as well, among civil service folks. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will see. 

All right, well, moving on. Open enrollment for Medicare began last week and continues until Dec. 7. That’s when people on Medicare can join or change their private prescription drug and/or Medicare Advantage plans. We explore this in more detail in my interview later in this episode with KFF’s Tricia Neuman. We know that most people with Medicare and most people with private insurance, where they can change plans during an open enrollment season, don’t actually bother to do anything. But this year there really are a lot of changes coming in Medicare, particularly on the prescription drug side. Why is it extra important this year that people take a look at their coverage? 

Karlin-Smith: So, some of the big changes with the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that kick in this year for Medicare and the prescription side, like the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap. Your plan actually has to cover that. One thing, I was at a conference this week and they’re saying that drug has to be, actually be on your plan for you to reap those savings of hitting that cap, which seems obvious, but … 

Rovner: Oh, I don’t know. I think people don’t quite realize that. It’s like they think that there’s a $2,000 cap no matter what, and it’s important. It’s, like, if your drug is not one of the drugs that’s covered by your plan, does not count. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, and so it’s looking for all of those things to make sure all the pieces of your plan actually fit together with your medical needs. There’s been, I think, a reduction, in some degree, into the amount of particularly Part D stand-alone plans for people who elect to use traditional Medicare for their other health benefits. So you may just want to look a little bit more closely at what the options are, what the premiums are, because some of these changes to Part D have impacted premiums a bit, though the federal government has stepped in to try to alleviate that. 

But I think this is seen as an adjustment year for the plans because one of the ideas behind the IRA is to put both health insurance companies as well as the pharmaceutical companies more on the hook, in some ways, for the cost of drugs. The old way Part D plans worked, the government ended up bearing a lot of the costs of the drugs to a point where it didn’t give a lot of incentives for both the drug companies to want to lower the prices, for the insurance companies to push for that. So I think it may take a little bit of time for them to figure out now how to adjust the benefits and the premiums and so forth, given this new dynamic. So people just may want to pay a little bit more close attention for premium aspects and others as well to the plans they’re picking. 

Rovner: And if you’re helping someone on Medicare, which I know many people are, it’s good to do a little extra homework this year. 

Well, another story that caught my eye is a survey of independent drugstores that suggests many of them won’t stock the very expensive drugs that Medicare negotiations are making less expensive, because they would actually lose money dispensing them. Sarah, is this an unexpected glitch, and can it be fixed, or is this just the price of bringing down drug prices? 

Karlin-Smith: I would say not entirely unexpected. These independent pharmacies have warned CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and tried to push in guidance so that when they’re dispensing a drug, basically, they will be entitled to get quicker rebates from the drug companies so that they can make stocking these drugs more reasonable for them. And these pharmacies, I think in particular, have been raising alarm bells outside of Medicare drug price negotiations for a while now, that they’re being placed in these difficult positions where they have to buy drugs at whatever the wholesale acquisition cost is. And then there’s all of this insurance back-end stuff going on, and they sometimes get reimbursed by the plans and so forth for less than they’ve actually bought the drugs. 

So it’s not just a Medicare drug price negotiation issue here. Some of it is, again, about the time that the pharmaceutical companies have to rebate the costs and they ask Medicare for a bit of leeway. And others, it’s just this broader way our system works, where they’re buying wholesale. You have a patient come to the counter that pays their small portion of it, their plan pays, whatever, and everybody has to sort of, right at the end … and these pharmacies are saying, “We can’t afford to do that.” I do think, politically, if this becomes a problem, if patients can’t get the negotiated prices/drugs at the pharmacies they’re used to, this could be politically problematic for the IRA moving forward. Even though, again, I’m not entirely sure. It’s illuminating a broader problem in the system that I think existed without it. 

Rovner: Right, it’s all a big mess, and it’s underlining it. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, but that doesn’t mean that politics won’t come into play and blame drug price negotiation. And certainly, anytime an opposing party hates something — we know Democrats are really into this, Republicans aren’t, and I’m sure they will try and blame it on the IRA as much as possible. And we’ll see if CMS maybe realizes that they had a little more leverage to try and make this a little bit easier and fixes it for the next round. 

Rovner: Yeah. Before we leave Medicare, I want to talk briefly about Medicare Advantage. This Medicare Advantage market is so valuable to insurers and so competitive that we now have at least two lawsuits charging that Medicare wrongly lowered the number of quality stars some plans received. Now, this feels like a restaurant suing Yelp for lowering its rating from four stars to three, but in Medicare Advantage, this is a really big deal, right, when they lose a star? 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, I think if the Yelp rating was worth $70 million, or whatever that figure is, then yeah, maybe they would sue. So I think we certainly — I think it’s a measure that is so important to insurers, to regulators, but that individual people might not understand. And there were some really interesting details from that lawsuit about the potential that there was one call-center call that tipped the balance into a quality measure and that there might’ve been some technical difficulties, and it does just cast these larger questions that I think I’ll be interested to see what documents come out during these lawsuits. And just questioning how useful these metrics really are, if that really was the case. 

Rovner: Yeah, I found it, I also was taken aback. It’s like, really, one call to a customer service center didn’t happen properly, and so the whole plan loses a star? That seemed a little bit dramatic, but yes, like you, I’ll be interested to see. There’s a lot of pressure on Medicare Advantage from every conceivable angle, but we are now in litigation over it. 

Well, while we are on the subject of private health companies suing the federal government, the compounding pharmacies who have been legally selling unapproved copies of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound have apparently successfully gotten the FDA to reverse its earlier finding, based on the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ say-so, that those drugs are no longer in shortage. That’s a decision that would’ve made it illegal for the compounders to continue to make and sell those drugs. At the same time, Novo Nordisk, maker of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, are trying to get the FDA to stop compounders from copying their drugs, which are still in shortage. Can somebody please explain what’s going on here? 

Karlin-Smith: So, basically, compounding is where pharmacists can sometimes make drugs in a more customized fashion because a person maybe can’t swallow a pill or needs a slightly different dose or a different inactive ingredient, but there’s not … 

Rovner: And they add flavoring for kids too, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Isn’t that a big compounding thing? 

Karlin-Smith: But it’s not supposed to be something that takes the place of mass-manufactured drugs. But one of the times when it kind of can — and FDA, after some big safety incidents in 2013, developed a sort of scheme where there can be some degree mass compounding, but there’s a little bit more safety oversight from their end. 

And one of the cases where you can do more compounding is when a drug is in shortage. But once FDA flipped the switch and said, “Oh, OK, actually, these drugs are no longer in shortage,” that makes it illegal. So these companies sued. My understanding from talking to legal experts is it’s not necessarily clear that FDA is entirely reversing course and agreeing that drugs aren’t in shortage. They’re agreeing to re-look at their decision, which may mean they are going to bolster their case so when they get back into court, they have a much clearer documentation of why the drugs are actually out of shortage. But in the meantime, we have probably at least another four weeks or so where everybody can compound these products. 

At the same time, I think Novo Nordisk and, actually, Eli Lilly before them had also submitted a similar citizen petition to FDA trying to basically get these drugs from being on lists where you really could not compound them at all. And there’s clearly a lot of money at stake here. These are probably some of the most well-known drugs right now with huge markets in the U.S., but they’re also really expensive and they haven’t been picked up and covered by a lot of insurance plans, particularly when you’re talking about the weight loss element. I think for Type 2 diabetes, there’s pretty good coverage. And the thing here that’s really so significant is this is probably one of the first times in the U.S. where we’ve seen this mass-market compounding for a drug kind of at the beginning-ish of its exclusivity, at least when you’re talking about weight loss — again, not diabetes. And it’s not like a niche thing. So many people are using it,  through compounding. And again, it’s really like … 

Rovner: The advertising is everywhere on social media. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, that just surprised me, I think, at first to begin with, how open these companies were about it being available via compounding pharmacies. And so I think FDA is in a really tricky position, particularly if they can clearly document it’s not a shortage situation anymore, because there still probably is going to be a lot of demand because of the cheaper prices coming from compounders, because of health insurance coverage issues. But, again, the compounding system is not meant to address those sorts of price and access issues. Right? It’s supposed to be for very particular situations where people really can’t use the exact manufactured drug, in most cases. And so maybe this tension will force us to address the other issues of price and insurance coverage, but it’s an awkward position for FDA to be in. 

And again, because, I think, it’s just also important just to go backtrack and remember, you know, FDA facilitates an important role of inspecting the manufacturing facilities, ensuring every lot is being manufactured to a consistent quality, approving the drug to begin with. So there’s certainly this delicate dance of you want people to be able to get drugs they need and you also don’t want this kerfuffle to undermine the entire drug-approval system we have that ensures that when you get a drug, a prescription drug, you know it’s a certain quality. 

Rovner: And it is what it says it is. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Yes. All right, well, turning back to abortion. A new study out this week suggests that not only has the number of abortions not gone down since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it actually might’ve gone up. Now there are lots of caveats with these numbers and, clearly, one big reason is the loosening of restrictions on obtaining abortion medication by mail. We also have a separate study this week that found infant mortality in states with abortion bans are rising, perhaps due to less available medical care in some of those states, as well as more fetuses with deadly anomalies being carried to term. But I have to wonder what these numbers will prompt from the anti-abortion side. Are they going to double down on efforts to impose some sort of nationwide restrictions or bans if Republicans regain control of the White House and Congress? And how are they going to address the rising infant mortality numbers? Victoria, are you hearing anything from the anti-abortion side? I’ve heard kind of not a lot. I’ve been surprised at how much I have not heard. 

Knight: Yeah, I mean I think this has been an interesting election for them because I think Trump has said different things throughout this election cycle on his stance on abortion and being — taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, but then at the same time being, like, it’s a states issue. And I’ve seen some reporting on that a lot of these groups are frustrated with Trump, but they kind of are sticking with him for the moment because they’re, like, this is the guy we have. 

So I think that perhaps they will put more pressure, depending on what the makeup of Congress is, and I think it’s important to remember it really depends on the majorities, this upcoming Congress, what will that look like? So if there is a Republican sweep, how many senators will be there? How many Republican senators? Also in the House, it may not be a huge majority either. And as we talked about earlier in this episode, there are some Republicans that are trying to walk the line more and be more moderate on abortion. And will they want to vote for a national abortion ban? That seems doubtful to me. And, for now, the filibuster is still in place in the Senate, so you still need 60 votes to pass anything. So, I think that they’re being quiet for now, but I think, depending on what Congress looks like, they could up their ante later. 

Cohrs Zhang: Again, I think Congress just has no appetite really to talk about these things, and I don’t expect that to change, especially, like you said, with narrow majorities. And I just think that the cost-benefit, maybe we’re going to see new leadership in the Senate Republican party too, and I think a lot of that could shape how much appetite they have to pick a fight on this. So yeah, just a lot of unknowns at this point. 

Rovner: And, as we’ve discussed before, if Trump is elected, he can do a lot from the executive branch that wouldn’t require Congress, and I completely agree with Rachel: I think Congress does not have a whole lot of appetite for this. 

Knight: Right. 

Rovner: Possibly on either side. 

Knight: And I think one more thing also interesting to point out is that the current House speaker, Mike Johnson, is very anti-abortion. Throughout his congressional career and even his career as a state lawmaker, he’s always been very anti-abortion, but he’s been in power now over a year, at least a year, and he has done, really, nothing on this. And he has a slim majority, but also I think you see that, yeah, as Rachel said, there’s just not an appetite for it, so … 

Rovner: He doesn’t have the votes. 

Knight: Yeah, exactly. He doesn’t have the votes, but he’s staunchly anti-abortion, has done really nothing, so. 

Rovner: Well, Sarah, you have a story on the revived lawsuit challenging the FDA over its rules for the abortion pill mifepristone. This is my chance to say I told you so, when the Supreme Court ruled that the original plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to sue. We said at the time: not over. Not over, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, three states are trying to revive that case in the court in Texas, where it originated. And it’s not particularly a surprise, like you said, the Supreme Court didn’t totally throw out the case. They said, “You guys don’t have standing,” that the doctors’ group that filed suit there. One of the interesting things now, given the timing, is as this case moves forward and if Trump wins the election, it’s not really clear to me whether his FDA and his Justice Department and so forth would actually want to defend this case or whether they would just, again, use the powers they have and push FDA to go back to the older restrictions around mifepristone’s availability. And basically make it … 

Rovner: We’re no longer talking about pulling it from the market right now? We’re just talking about the changes that were made in 2016 that makes it more easily available? 

Karlin-Smith: Right, so they sort of … 

Rovner: Is that a fair way to put it? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s like one change, which by the time we got to the Supreme Court, we were largely arguing about this as well, but they had initially started to just — by trying to get it off the market entirely. But now we’re basically arguing about changes that have made it easier to take later in pregnancy, so up to 10 weeks, and just made it easier to access. So you can now get it via telehealth and via mail and so forth, which has been really important given some of the state-specific bans on abortion. And it’s why abortion pills have become a really much more popular method for abortion. So a lot of legal experts don’t actually think these three states have standing either, or have jurisdiction, certainly in this court. However, I think they also acknowledge there’s a good chance this case proceeds and proceeds very similarly to how it did before, if for no other reason than the judges involved in the past have been willing to let these states be heard in their courtroom. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is in the 5th Circuit land of mostly Republican anti-abortion judges. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So there’s a good chance, again, barring this sort of scenario where Trump administration comes in and just says, “We’re not going to defend this. We’re going to revert to the old restrictions anyway.” But under a Democratic administration, they could end up back all the way at the Supreme Court having to defend mifepristone’s newer availability as well. 

And the other thing that there’s been a number of mifepristone cases around the country, but there’s one that’s very similar in the 9th Circuit, where judges have basically ruled that the entire, what’s known as a REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy], these restrictions related to mifepristone should actually be removed altogether. And they, actually, in some ways, want to make it more easily accessible. So whenever you have a circuits … but you also know that the Supreme Court is likely to take things up against. So yeah, I think the big thing is if people thought that last June’s Supreme Court ruling was kind of like Eh, it’s over, mifepristone is here to stay, that was just sort of the first round of many fights in access and availability of that in the courts. 

Rovner: Could a Trump administration just say, “The FDA should never have approved this drug,” and pull it from the market? Or does somebody have to file a petition for that to happen? 

Karlin-Smith: Ooh, that’s a good, tough question. I mean, there are very formal processes that go around withdrawing a drug. I think it would be challenging because at least the generic companies that manufacture the drug still want to be manufacturing it at this point. And I would imagine there would be quite a process FDA would have to go through, particularly to try and declare it no longer safe and effective to be marketed. And you, again, to raise strange history, I think if you looked at all the documents in science, because you have FDA scientists who over the years have declared it’s safe and effective and said, “Actually, as we’ve got more use with this, we realize you can actually give it to more women at different parts of pregnancy, and it’s safer than we thought. We don’t need to monitor a woman at a doctor’s office while she takes it.” So I think it would be challenging. I certainly wouldn’t put it past them trying this. 

But it does get to, I think, what’s been worrying about this mifepristone case to begin with for just people outside of the abortion space, but who follow FDA and the drug industry, which is this lack of certainty you start to lose when politicians come in and start trying to undermine the scientific drug-approval process and using politics instead, and their whims, to shift what is available or not available, because, obviously, it undermines FDA’s authority. 

And for the drug industry, I mean, a big thing they dislike is certainty, right? You’re investing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars to bring a drug to market. You want some confidence that if it’s successful and FDA says yes, it’s going to stay there unless some new, real, true safety event happens, which it does occasionally happen, but for the most part, you don’t want a new president to come into office or a new member of the Congress to flip and all of a sudden you have a drug that they’ve decided to challenge. So it’s an abortion case that’s always had these broader undertones of just confidence and trust and certainty around our scientific agencies in the U.S. 

Rovner: Yet another space we will continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with KFF’s Tricia Neuman, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Tricia Newman, who’s KFF’s senior vice president and executive director of KFF’s Program on Medicare Policy, and senior adviser to the president, and the person I always turn to first when I have a question about Medicare and have done so for more than three decades. Tricia, welcome back to “What the Health?” 

Tricia Neuman: Hi, Julie. Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So, as anybody who watches over-the-air or cable TV knows, it’s Medicare open enrollment right now until Dec. 7. What should people in Medicare or people helping people in Medicare know about changes coming for 2025? 

Neuman: This is the time for people to really compare coverage options. What we’ve seen in our own research is that most people don’t compare options during the open enrollment period, but plans change, people’s needs change, and this is a great moment. People have between now until Dec. 7, as you said. The important thing to do is figure out what is actually most important to either yourself or the person you’re helping. 

Some people really need certain drugs covered by their plan, and so that might be the go-to question. Other people care very much about being able to see certain doctors or hospitals. So, for them, it’s a question of do they want to be in traditional Medicare, where they can see virtually any doctor and go to any hospital? Or if they want to be in a Medicare Advantage plan for a variety of reasons, the question is, are the doctors that they care most about covered by their plan? 

Rovner: There are big changes coming next year both for prescription drugs and for Medicare Advantage, right? 

Neuman: Absolutely. I mean, Medicare Advantage plans also cover prescription drugs, and what the big thing people need to know there is there’s a new out-of-pocket limit that’s coming. There’s not really much you have to do in order to get; it’s a Medicare benefit. So that’s really a huge change and it really is a change that helps people who take very expensive medications. I mean, I can tell you how helpful it would be to some family members of mine. I have a family member who is taking a drug, she had a Part D plan, and it was costing her $13,000 a year for this particular drug for her cancer treatment. With the new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, her costs would drop from $13,000 to $2,000. Keep in mind that half of all people on Medicare live on an income of $36,000 or less, so this is a big deal. And not everybody is going to need this benefit in any given year, but over time, you never know. And so it’s a big change that will be helpful to people who take expensive medications. 

Rovner: Over the spring and summer, it looked like, because of this $2,000 cap, Part D plans were going to raise their premiums dramatically. That mostly didn’t happen. Why not? 

Neuman: The administration, the government put in place what they call a demonstration or a model, and essentially what it did is it limited premium increases. So no Part D plan will have a premium increase greater than $35 between 2024 and 2025. 

Rovner: … of $35 a month. 

Neuman: … of $35-a-month increase. Now that said, some will increase by $35, some will decrease. There are going to be changes, and that’s an important thing for people to keep an eye on as they consider their drug coverage for next year. 

Rovner: There are Republicans in Congress who say that what the administration did was sort of unfairly politically tinkering with Medicare, but this isn’t the first time this kind of thing has been put into place, right? 

Neuman: That’s absolutely true. I mean, I would agree that there was some concern that people in Medicare would see big increases in their drug premiums, and that was part of the concern that motivated the administration. But that was also a concern that motivated prior administrations. In fact, right after the drug benefit went into effect, and that was under the Bush administration, there were similar demonstrations that took effect. And at the time, nobody really complained because the main issue was protecting people from higher premiums. 

Rovner: But now everything is more political. 

Well, regular listeners to the podcast know that Medicare Advantage has become not just more popular among beneficiaries, but also much more controversial. Some companies are even using artificial intelligence to deny benefits and micromanaging doctors and other health care providers. Has the cost-benefit analysis for Medicare Advantage shifted over the past few years? 

Neuman: I think the focus on Medicare Advantage has changed. The way people are thinking about it is changing. Medicare Advantage is quite popular among people because plans, for a variety of reasons related to their payments, are able to offer extra benefits, and they are appealing. I mean, dental, vision, hearing. Now, the latest thing is “flex cards,” which is just kind of offering money for people to sign up for a plan. So it’s really appealing, particularly for people with fixed incomes. But the medical community has sort of surfaced and started raising concerns about what these prior authorizations and other cost-management tools mean for them and for their patients. 

So hospitals, for example, have expressed concerns about delayed payments. Doctors are now talking about prior authorization hassles. We recently did a study that documented 46 million prior-authorization requests, close to 2 million requests per enrollee. That’s a hassle for doctors. It also can delay or lead to no care for beneficiaries when it’s been prescribed by their doctor. It could, of course, limit inappropriate care, not necessary care, but I think the medical community now sees that Medicare Advantage is a big part of their patient profile and has some concerns. 

We’ve also been reading stories about some medical groups that are saying that we’re not going to take any more Medicare Advantage patients. So I think there’s a little bit more of an eye toward, gee, this has gotten really big. We know it’s really popular, but it might require a closer look. 

Rovner: Speaking of which, I mean, Medicare hasn’t really been a big campaign issue in 2024 when maybe it should have been. It doesn’t seem that safe to leave a program of its size and importance on autopilot, which is kind of what former President Trump is promising. What do we know about what Vice President Harris would do for Medicare if she were elected and what former President Trump would do if he was elected? 

Neuman: We actually know very little about what former President Trump would do. 

Rovner: He says he wouldn’t touch it. 

Neuman: He said he wouldn’t touch it. He said he’s concerned about drug costs, but we’re not really sure what more he would do there. He was for a proposal called Most Favored Nation, but he’s now withdrawn support for that. So it’s hard to know whether he would implement anything new or scale back what has already become the law of the land. For example, it’s not clear what he would do about government negotiations and whether or not there would be sufficient pressure in his caucus to scale back that pretty popular proposal that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Vice President Harris has talked about strengthening Medicare and improving the solvency, mostly through revenues on higher-income people. So that is one major proposal she has with regard to solvency. She has recently put out a proposal that would add a home care benefit to Medicare. This responds to a huge issue that you and I have talked about, that a lot of families across the country have talked about where people are really struggling to care for a family member. Family members are dropping out of the workforce in order to care for somebody because they cannot afford to get help at home. Medicare really does not currently provide a home care benefit except under limited circumstances. So this is recognizing a huge issue for families that are, it’s an economic issue if people, mostly women, have to step out of the workforce. It’s also an issue if you just cannot afford or you’re paying huge amounts for people to come into your home to help a parent, grandparent, spouse who’s unable to care for themselves. So that’s a big initiative on her part that would be funded primarily out of expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drugs. 

Rovner: So neither candidate is talking about solvency issues with Medicare, though, and that’s a long-term issue that somebody’s going to need to address, right? 

Neuman: Yes, that is absolutely true. It is an issue that is not going away. We have more and more people aging onto Medicare and the people who are on Medicare are getting older. And as people grow older, they tend to be more expensive. So this is not an imminent concern, but it is an issue that policymakers will have to deal with one way or the other in the years to come. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep talking about it. Tricia Neuman, thank you so much. 

Neuman: And thank you for having me, Julie. 

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

Knight: Sure. My extra credit is a story on NPR, it’s called “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year.” It was on Weekend Edition, and it is by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins, basically detailing that in the past, the Catholic Church and bishops have been really big in the anti-abortion movement and that has also translated to donating a lot of money to anti-abortion campaigns. But this year, they’re kind of seeing almost a historic low in how little they’re donating to anti-abortion campaigns. And they didn’t really have a clear answer of what the reason for that was, except that maybe they’re just acknowledging the reality of the situation. When you look at particularly the ballot measures in states and how popular those have been — we’ve seen since 2022 that the ballot measures, even in more conservative-leaning states, that protect abortion access, and those vary depending on the state, what they look like, they’ve been really, really popular. And they really have been really overwhelmingly approved, even if there’s Republicans running on the same ballot with them and that people are voting for. People still really support abortion rights mostly. 

So that seems to be the reason — they didn’t really have a clear reason, but it was an interesting marker in the trend of just kind of following where abortion rights are going, as well as where the Catholic Church is moving as well. It seems to be becoming somewhat more progressive over time. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by this story, which I just heard on the radio as I was driving, because the Catholic Church is the originator of the right-to-life movement in the United States. And for a long time, it was almost exclusively the Catholic Church that was pushing this, and now it seems to have moved sort of into other places. So this is sort of the exclamation point on that, that it’s broadened and changed, but it’s no longer being driven as much by the Catholic Church as it used to be. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. So my piece is in The Atlantic, and the headline is “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch. And I just love this story because it’s a look back on this policy that seemed like a good idea at the time, where these really wealthy benefactors are donating to elite, often elite medical schools to make tuition free. And the whole idea was that more doctors will go into primary care if they don’t have debt, and it might open medical school to a more diverse cohort of students. And the opposite has almost happened, where they’re not seeing any more doctors going into primary care and their student body has actually gotten more wealthy than it was before. So I mean, it’s just a great check-in, because I feel like so often we’re just looking forward with the news that we don’t take a moment to question whether some of these policies or stories that we’ve covered, how they’ve worked out a couple of years later. So, I thought it was a great look back. 

Rovner: Yes, in health care, so many things go in, we try things with so much promise, and sometimes they don’t work. So it’s good to notice when they don’t work. Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a Vanity Fair piece by Katherine Eban: “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health.” And it’s a fascinating deep dive to the challenges the U.S. has faced in containing what is, right now at least, mostly just an epidemic in animals, but certainly has public health folks worried about the potential for a human spillover pandemic, if not properly contained. And it’s just a really great story that shows you all of the tensions, and how it has a lot of these flashbacks to early days of covid, where you had different parts of the government with different responsibilities, not quite working together well, and not quite knowing how to play together well. Because you have the USDA in this case, which in many ways has the economics of farmers and the dairy industry in mind more than perhaps broader health concerns. You have FDA, which regulates milk; CDC, which comes in and does the human health; and then you have states, which don’t necessarily always have to answer to everything the federal government would like them to be doing here. 

And the biggest, I think, crisis we face now is just we don’t have a lot of data. We don’t have enough information to truly know the scope of this outbreak. And without knowing that, I think you risk something bad happening before we are on top of it. And that’s really what people are really concerned about now, particularly with seasonal flu season coming up, is if you mix this virus and a human being with seasonal flu or even in an animal, you could develop an even more dangerous virus. So, it’s a warning to everybody in the public health space that this is something we need to be paying attention to because, obviously, the best thing to do is contain it and tamp it out and not have to deal with a much larger human pandemic. 

Rovner: Yes, that would be nice. Something else to keep us awake at night. 

My story this week is from NBC News, it’s called “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks. She got a hold of the intake forms of a pregnancy center in Idaho, which included not just the typical medical questions, but also questions about religious and financial status. And one asking, “What decision would the father like you to make, regarding the outcome of your pregnancy?” The answers, which are not protected by HIPAA, because crisis pregnancy centers are not technically medical providers, allow the staff to score whether a patient is “abortion-vulnerable,” which would lead them to try to talk her out of ending the pregnancy. 

It also includes a story of one patient who was strung along so long waiting for test results from this crisis pregnancy center that she ended up needing a second-trimester abortion. It’s quite the look at what goes on behind the scenes at some of these centers, and I strongly recommend it. 

OK, that’s all the time we have today. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sarah, where are you hanging these days? 

Karlin-Smith: A little bit on X, a little bit on Bluesky, at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X @rachelcohrs and also spending some time on LinkedIn, so feel free to follow me there. 

Rovner: Great. Victoria? 

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk still on X. I am trying to post more on LinkedIn, too. 

Rovner: OK, well, we will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

Panelists

Ashley Kirzinger
KFF

@AshleyKirzinger

Read Ashley's bio.

Cynthia Cox
KFF

@cynthiaccox

Read Cynthia's bio.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Tamara Keith
NPR

@tamarakeithNPR

Read and listen to Tamara's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

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

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, good morning, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the very best and smartest health reporters in Washington, along with some very special guests today. We’re taping this special election episode on Thursday, October 17th, at 11:30 a.m., in front of a live audience at the Barbara Jordan Conference Center here at KFF in downtown D.C. Say hi, audience. 

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

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

Tamara Keith: Thank you for having me. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi Julie. 

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

Cynthia Cox: Great to be here. 

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

Ashley Kirzinger: Thanks for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: They have another one this year. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So the lobbyists have less to hate. 

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

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

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

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

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

Keith: Someone else. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So Nancy Pelosi was right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And going back 60 years. 

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

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

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

Ollstein: Or they’re afraid of getting arrested. 

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

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

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

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

Cox: We’re right here. 

Panel: [Laughing] 

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

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

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

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

Cox: I also don’t have a solution. 

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

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

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

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

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

Keith: Yes, absolutely. 

Rovner: Subscribers, whatever you want to call them. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Alabama could become the next Alabama. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our live-show coordinator extraordinaire, Stephanie Stapleton, and our entire live-show team. Thanks a lot. This takes a lot more work than you realize. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @KFF.org, or you can still find me. I’m at X at @jrovner. Tam, where are you on social media? 

Keith: I’m @tamarakeithNPR. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Cynthia. 

Cox: @cynthiaccox. 

Rovner: Ashley. 

Kirzinger: @AshleyKirzinger. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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 part of a media blitz aimed at women voters, Vice President Kamala Harris this week rolled out a plan for Medicare to provide in-home long-term care services. It’s popular, particularly for families struggling to care for both young children and older relatives, but its enormous expense has prevented similar plans from being implemented for decades.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden called out former President Donald Trump by name for having “led the onslaught of lies” about the federal efforts to help people affected by hurricanes Helene and Milton. Even some Republican officials say the misinformation about hurricane relief efforts is threatening public health.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to expand Medicare to cover more long-term care is popular but not new, and in the past has proved prohibitively expensive.
• Former President Donald Trump has abandoned support for a drug price policy he pursued during his first term. The idea, which would lower drug prices in the U.S. to their levels in other industrialized countries, is vehemently opposed by the drug industry, raising the question of whether Trump is softening his hard line on the issue.
• Abortion continues to be the biggest health policy issue of 2024, as Republican candidates — in what seems to be a replay of 2022 — try to distance themselves from their support of abortion bans and other limits. Voters continue to favor reproductive rights, which creates a brand problem for the GOP. Trump’s going back and forth on his abortion positions is an exception to the tack other candidates have taken.
• The Supreme Court returned from its summer break and immediately declined to hear two abortion-related cases. One case pits Texas’ near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires emergency abortions to be performed in certain cases. The other challenges a ruling earlier this year from the Alabama Supreme Court finding that embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization have the same legal rights as born humans.
• The 2024 KFF annual employer health benefits survey, released this week, showed a roughly 7% increase in premiums, with average family premiums now topping $25,000 per year. And that’s with most employers not covering two popular but expensive medical interventions: GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and IVF.

Also this week, excerpts from a KFF lunch with “Shark Tank” panelist and generic drug discounter Mark Cuban, who has been consulting with the Harris campaign about health care issues.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” by Mel Leonor Barclay.

Jessie Hellmann: The Assembly’s “Helene Left Some NC Elder-Care Homes Without Power,” by Carli Brosseau.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It,” by Kate Morgan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Outright Lies’ About Hurricane Response,” by Michael D. Shear.
• The Miami Herald’s “Florida Threatens To Prosecute TV Stations Over Abortion Ad. FCC Head Calls It ‘Dangerous,’” by Claire Healy and Ana Ceballos.
• KFF’s “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Yet Another Promise for Long-Term Care Coverage

[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, October 10th, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via teleconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Jesse Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Public Health and Nursing and Politico magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have some excerpts from the Newsmaker lunch we had here at KFF this week with Mark Cuban — “Shark Tank” star, part-owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team, and, for the purposes of our discussion, co-founder of the industry-disrupting pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Vice President [Kamala] Harris, who’s been making the media rounds on women-focused podcasts and TV shows like “The View.” To go along with that, she’s released a proposal to expand Medicare to include home-based long-term care, to be paid for in part by expanding the number of drugs whose price Medicare can negotiate. Sounds simple and really popular. Why has no one else ever proposed something like that? she asks, knowing full well the answer. Joanne, tell us! 

Kenen: As the one full-fledged member of the sandwich generation here, who has lived the experience of being a family caregiver while raising children and working full time, long-term care is the unfulfillable, extremely expensive, but incredibly important missing link in our health care system. We do not have a system for long-term care, and people do not realize that. Many people think Medicare will, in fact, cover it, where Medicare covers it in a very limited, short-term basis. So the estimates of what families spend both in terms of lost work hours and what they put out-of-pockets is in, I think it’s something like $400 billion. It’s extraordinarily high. But the reason it’s been hard to fix is it’s extraordinarily expensive. And although Harris put out a plan to pay for this, that plan is going to have to be vetted by economists and budget scorers and skeptical Republicans. And probably some skeptical Democrats. It’s really expensive. It’s really hard to do. Julie has covered this for years, too. It’s just— 

Rovner: I would say this is where I get to say one of my favorite things, which is that I started covering health care in 1986, and in 1986 my first big feature was: Why don’t we have a long-term care policy in this country? Thirty-eight years later, and we still don’t, and not that people have not tried. There, in fact, was a long-term-care-in-the-home piece of the Affordable Care Act that passed Congress, and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] discovered that they could not implement it in the way it was written, because only the people who would’ve needed it would’ve signed up for it. It would’ve been too expensive. And there it went. So this is the continuing promise of something that everybody agrees that we need and nobody has ever been able to figure out how to do. Shefali, I see you nodding here. 

Luthra: I mean, I’m just thinking again about the pay-fors in here, which are largely the savings from Medicare negotiating drug prices. And what Harris says in her plan is that they’re going to get more savings by expanding the list of drugs that get lower prices. But that also feels very politically suspect when we have already heard congressional Republicans say that they would like to weaken some of those drug negotiation price provisions. And we also know that Democrats, even if they win the presidency, are not likely to have Congress. It really takes me back to 2020, when we are just talking about ideas that Democrats would love to do if they had full power of Congress, while all of us in Washington kind of know that that is just not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yes, I love that one of the pay-fors for this is cutting Medicare fraud. It’s like, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. In every Medicare proposal for the last 45 years. 

Kenen: And it also involves closing some kind of international tax loopholes, and that also sounds easy on paper, and nothing with taxes is ever easy. The Democrats probably are not going to have the Senate. Nobody really knows about the House. It looks like the Democrats may have a narrow edge in that, but we’re going to have more years of gridlock unless something really changes politically, like something extraordinary changes politically. The Republicans are not going to give a President Harris, if she is in fact President Harris, her wish list on a golden platter. On the other hand there’s need for this. 

Rovner: But in fairness, this is what the campaign is for. 

Kenen: Right. There is a need for something on long-term care. 

Rovner: And everybody’s complaining: Well, what would she do? What would she do if she was elected? Well, here’s something she said she would do if she could, if she was elected. Well, meanwhile, former President [Donald] Trump has apparently abandoned a proposal that he made during his first term to require drugmakers to lower their prices for Medicare to no more than they charge in other developed countries where their prices are government-regulated. Is Trump going soft on the drug industry? Trump has been, what, the Republican, I think, who’s been most hostile towards the drug industry until now. 

Hellmann: I would say maybe. I think the “most favored nation” proposal is something that the pharmaceutical industry has feared even more than the Democrats’ Medicare negotiation program. And it’s something that Trump really pursued in his first term but wasn’t able to get done. In such a tight race, I think he’s really worried about angering pharmaceutical companies, especially after they were just kind of dealt this loss with Medicare price negotiation. And if he does win reelection, he’s going to be kind of limited in his ability to weaken that program. It’s going to be hard to repeal it. It’s extremely popular, and he may be able to weaken it. 

Rovner: “It” meaning price negotiation, not the “most favored nations” prices. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s going to be really hard to repeal that, and he may be able to weaken it through the negotiation process with drug companies. It’s definitely an interesting turn. 

Rovner: Joanne, you want to add something? 

Kenen: Trump rhetorically was very harsh on the drug companies right around the time of his inauguration. I think it was the week before, if I remember correctly. Said a lot of very tough stuff on drugs. Put out a list of something like dozens of potential steps. The drug companies have lots of allies in both parties, and more in one than the other, but they have allies on the Hill, and nothing revolutionary happened on drug pricing under Trump. 

Rovner: And his HHS secretary was a former drug company executive. 

Kenen: Yes, Eli Lilly. So we also pointed out here that former President Trump is not consistent in policy proposals. He says one thing, and then he says another thing, and it’s very hard to know where he’s going to come down. So Trump and drug pricing is an open question. 

Rovner: Yes, we will see. All right, well, moving on. Drug prices and Medicare aside, the biggest health issue of Campaign 2024 continues to be abortion and other reproductive health issues. And it’s not just Trump trying to back away from his anti-abortion record. We’ve had a spate of stories over the past week or so of Republicans running for the House, the Senate, and governorships who are trying to literally reinvent themselves as, if not actually supportive of abortion rights, at least anti abortion bans. And that includes Republicans who have not just voted for and advocated for bans but who have been outspokenly supportive of the anti-abortion effort, people like North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, along with former Michigan Republican representative and now Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Donald Trump has gotten away repeatedly, as Joanne just said, with changing his positions, even on hot-button issues like abortion. Are these candidates going to be able to get away with doing the same thing, Shefali? 

Luthra: I think it’s just so much tougher when your name is not Donald Trump. And that’s because we know from focus group after focus group, and survey after survey, that voters kind of give Trump more leeway on abortion. Especially independent voters will look at him and say, Well, I don’t think he actually opposes abortion, because I’m sure he’s paid for them. And they don’t have that same grace that they give to Republican lawmakers and Republican candidates, because the party has a bad brand on abortion at large, and Trump is seen as this kind of maverick figure. But voters know that Republicans have a history of opposing abortion, of supporting restrictions. 

When you look at surveys, when you talk to voters, what they say is, Well, I don’t trust Republicans to represent my interests on this issue, because they largely support access. And one thing that I do think is really interesting is, once again, what we’re seeing is kind of a repeat of the 2022 elections when we saw some very brazen efforts by Republican candidates for the House and Senate try and scrub references to abortion and to fetal personhood from their websites. And it didn’t work, because people have eyes and people have memories, and, also, campaigns have access to the internet archive and are able to show people that, even a few weeks ago, Republican candidates were saying something very different from what they are saying now. I don’t think Mark Robinson can really escape from his relatively recent and very public comments about abortion. 

Rovner: Well, on the other hand, there’s some things that don’t change. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance told RealClearPolitics last week that if Trump is elected again, their administration would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood because, he said, and I quote, “We don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.” Notwithstanding, of course, that even before the overturn of Roe, less than half of all Planned Parenthoods even performed abortions and almost none of those who did perform them later in pregnancy. Is it fair to say that Vance’s anti-abortion slip is showing? 

Luthra: I think it might be. And I will say, Julie, when I saw that he said that, I could hear you in my head just yelling about the Hyde Amendment, because we know that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But we also know that JD Vance has seen that he and his ticket are kind of in a tough corner talking about abortion. He has said many times, We need to rebrand — he’s very honest about that, at least — and trying to focus instead on this nonmedical term of “late term” abortions. 

It’s a gamble. It’s hoping that voters will be more sympathetic to that because they’ll think, Oh, well, that sounds very extreme. And they’re trying to shift back who is seen as credible and who is not, by focusing on something that historically was less popular. But again, it’s again tricky because when we look at the polling, voters’ understanding of abortion has shifted and they are now more likely to understand that when you have an abortion later in pregnancy, it is often for very medically complex reasons. And someone very high-profile who recently said that is Melania Trump in her new memoir, talking about how she supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy because often these are very heart-wrenching cases and not sort of the murder that Republicans have tried to characterize them as. 

Rovner: I think you’re right. I think this is the continuation of the 2022 campaign, except that we’ve had so many more women come forward. We’ve seen actual cases. It used to be anti-abortion forces would say, Oh, well, this never happened. I mean, these are wrenching, awful things that happened to a lot of these patients with pregnancy complications late in pregnancy. And it is, I know, because I’ve talked to them. It’s very hard to get them to talk publicly, because then they get trolled. Why should they step forward? 

Well, now we’ve seen a lot of these women stepping forward. So we now see a public that knows that this happens, because they’re hearing from the people that it’s happened to and they’re hearing from their doctors. I do know also from the polling that there are people who are going to vote in these 10 states where abortion is on the ballot. Many of them are going to vote for abortion access and then turn around and vote for Republicans who support restrictions, because they’re Republicans. It may or may not be their most important issue, but I still think it’s a big question mark where that happens and how it shakes out. Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: You’re seeing two competing things at the same time. You have a number of Republicans trying to moderate their stance or at least sound like they’re moderating their stance. At the same time, you also have the whole, where the Republican Party is on abortion has shifted to the right. They are talking about personhood at the moment of conception, the embryo — which is, scientifically put, a small ball of cells still at that point — that they actually have the same legal rights as any other post-birth person. 

So that’s become a fairly common view in the Republican Party, as opposed to something that just five or six years ago was seen as the fringe. And Trump is going around saying that Democrats allow babies to be executed after birth, which is not true. And they’re particularly saying this is true in Minnesota because of [Gov.] Tim Walz, and some voters must believe it, right? Because they keep saying it. So you have this trend that Shefali just described and that you’ve described, Julie, about this sort of attempting to win back trust, as Vance said. And it sounded more moderate, and at the same time as you’re hearing this rhetoric about personhood and execution. So I don’t think the Republicans have yet solved their own whiplash post-Roe. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, the abortion debate is getting mired in the free-speech debate. In Florida, Republican governor Ron DeSantis is threatening legal action against TV stations airing an ad in support of the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. That has in turn triggered a rebuke from the head of the Federal Communications Commission warning that political speech is still protected here in the United States. Shefali, this is really kind of out there, isn’t it? 

Luthra: It’s just so fascinating, and it’s really part of a bigger effort by Ron DeSantis to try and leverage anything that he can politically or, frankly, in his capacity as head of the state to try and weaken the campaign for the ballot measure. They have used the health department in other ways to try and send out material suggesting that the campaign’s talking points, which are largely focused on the futility of exceptions to the abortion ban, they’re trying to argue that that is misinformation, and that’s not true. And they’re using the state health department to make that argument, which is something we don’t really see very often, because usually health departments are supposed to be nonpartisan. And what I will say is, in this case, at least to your point, Julie, the FCC has weighed in and said: You can’t do this. You can’t stop a TV station from airing a political ad that was bought and paid for. And the ads haven’t stopped showing at this point. I just heard from family yesterday in Florida who are seeing the ads in question on their TV, and it’s still— 

Rovner: And I will post a link to the ad just so you can see it. It’s about a woman who’s pregnant and had cancer and needed cancer treatment and needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to get the cancer treatment. It said that the exception would not allow her to, which the state says isn’t true and which is clearly one of these things that is debatable. That’s why we’re having a political debate. 

Luthra: Exactly. And one thing that I think is worth adding in here is, I mean, this really intense effort from Governor DeSantis and his administration comes at a time when already this ballot measure faces probably the toughest fight of any abortion rights measure. And we have seen abortion rights win again and again at the ballot, but in Florida you need 60% to pass. And if you look across the country at every abortion rights measure that has been voted on since Roe v. Wade was overturned, only two have cleared 60, and they are in California and they are in Vermont. So these more conservative-leaning states, and Florida is one of them, it’s just, it’s really, really hard to see how you get to that number. And we even saw this week there’s polling that suggests that the campaign has a lot of work to do if they’re hoping to clear that threshold. 

Rovner: And, of course, now they have two hurricanes to deal with, which we will deal with in a few minutes. But first, the Supreme Court is back in session here in Washington, and even though there’s no big abortion case on its official docket as of now this term, the court quickly declined to hear two cases on its first day back, one involving whether the abortion ban in Texas can override the federal emergency treatment law that’s supposed to guarantee abortion access in medical emergencies threatening the pregnant woman’s life or health. The court also declined to overrule the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can be considered legally as unborn children. That’s what Joanne was just talking about. Where do these two decisions leave us? Neither one actually resolved either of these questions, right? 

Luthra: I mean, the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] question is still ongoing, not because of the Texas case but because of the Idaho case that is asking very similar questions that we’ve talked about previously on this podcast. And the end of last term, the court kicked that back down to the lower courts to continue making its way through. We anticipate it will eventually come back to the Supreme Court. So this is a question that we will, in fact, be hearing on at some point. 

Rovner: Although, the irony here is that in Idaho, the ban is on hold because there was a court stay. And in Texas, the ban is not on hold, even though we’re talking about exactly the same question: Does the federal law overrule the state’s ban? 

Luthra: And what that kind of highlights — right? — is just how much access to abortion, even under states with similar laws or legislatures, really does depend on so many factors, including what circuit court you fall into or the makeup of your state Supreme Court and how judges are appointed or whether they are elected. There is just so much at play that makes access so variable. And I think the other thing that one could speculate that maybe the court didn’t want headlines around reproductive health so soon into an election, but it’s not as if this is an issue that they’re going to be avoiding in the medium- or long-term future. These are questions that are just too pressing, and they will be coming back to the Supreme Court in some form. 

Rovner: Yes, I would say in the IVF [in vitro fertilization] case, they simply basically said, Go away for now. Right? 

Luthra: Yeah. And, I mean, right now in Alabama, people are largely able to get IVF because of the state law that was passed, even if it didn’t touch the substance of that state court’s ruling. This is something, for now, people can sort of think is maybe uninterrupted, even as we all know that the ideological and political groundwork is being laid for a much longer and more intense fight over this. 

Rovner: Well, remember back last week when we predicted that the judge’s decision overturning Georgia’s six-week ban was unlikely to be the last word? Well, sure enough, the Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned the immediate overturning of the ban, which officially went back into effect on Monday. Like these other cases, this one continues, right? 

Luthra: Yes, this continues. The Georgia case continued for a while, and it just sort of underscores again what we’ve been talking about, just how much access really changes back and forth. And I was talking to an abortion clinic provider who has clinics in North Carolina and Georgia. She literally found out about the decision both times and changed her plans for the next day because I texted her asking her for comment. And providers and patients are being tasked with keeping up with so much. And it’s just very, very difficult, because Georgia also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which means that every time the decision around access has changed — and we know it very well could change again as this case progresses — people will have to scramble very quickly. And in Georgia, they have also been trying to do that on top of navigating the fallout of a hurricane. 

Rovner: Yeah. And as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the court overturned the North Dakota ban, there are no abortion providers left in North Dakota. Now that there’s no ban, it’s only in theory that abortion is now once again allowed in North Dakota. Well, before we leave abortion for this week, we have two new studies showing how abortion bans are impacting the health care workforce. In one survey, more than half of oncologists, cancer doctors, who were completing their fellowships, so people ready to go into practice, said they would consider the impact of abortion restrictions in their decisions about where to set up their practice. And a third said abortion restrictions hindered their ability to provide care. 

Meanwhile, a survey of OBGYNs in Texas by the consulting group Manatt Health found “a significant majority of practicing OB/GYN physicians … believe that the Texas abortion laws have inhibited their ability to provide highest-quality and medically necessary care to their patients,” and that many have already made or are considering making changes to their practice that would “reduce the availability of OB/GYN care in the state.” What’s the anti-abortion reaction to this growing body of evidence that abortion bans are having deleterious effects on the availability of other kinds of health care, too? I mean, I was particularly taken by the oncologists, the idea that you might not be able to get cancer care because cancer doctors are worried about treating pregnant women with cancer. 

Luthra: They’re blaming the doctors. And we saw this in Texas when the Zurawski case was argued and women patients and doctors in the state said that they had not been able to get essential, lifesaving medical care because of the state’s abortion ban and lack of clarity around what was actually permitted. And the state argued, and we have heard this talking point again and again, that actually the doctors are just not willing to do the hard work of practicing medicine and trying to interpret, Well, obviously this qualifies. That’s something we’ve seen in the Florida arguments. They say: Our exceptions are so clear, and if you aren’t able to navigate these exceptions, well, that’s your problem, because you are being risk-averse, and patients should really take this up with their doctors, who are just irresponsible. 

Rovner: Yes, this is obviously an issue that’s going to continue. Well, moving on. The cost of health care continues to grow, which is not really news, but this week we have more hard evidence, courtesy of my KFF colleagues via the annual 2024 Employer Health Benefit Survey, which finds the average family premium rose 7% this year to $25,572, with workers contributing an average of $6,296 towards that cost. And that’s with a distinct minority of firms covering two very popular but very expensive medical interventions, GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] drugs for obesity and IVF, which we’ve just been talking about. Anything else in this survey jump out at anybody? 

Hellmann: I mean, that’s just a massive amount of money. And the employer is really paying the majority of that, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact on people. That means it’s going to limit how much your wages go up. And something I thought of when I read this study is these lawsuits that we’re beginning to see, accusing employers of not doing enough to make sure that they’re limiting health care costs. They’re not playing enough of a role in what their benefits look like. They’re kind of outsourcing this to consultants. And so when you look at this data and you see $25,000 they’re spending per year per family on health care premiums, you wonder, what are they doing? 

Health care, yes, it’s obviously very expensive, but you just kind of question, what role are employers actually playing in trying to drive down health care costs? Are they just taking what they get from consultants? And another thing that kind of stood out to me from this is, I think it’s said in there, employers are having a hard time lately of passing these costs on to employees, which is really interesting. It’s because of the tight labor market. But obviously health care is still very expensive for employees — $6,000 a year in premiums for family coverage is not a small amount of money. So employers are just continuing to absorb that, and it does really impact everyone. 

Rovner: It’s funny. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was employers who were sort of driving the, You must do something about the cost of health care, because inflation was so fast. And then, of course, we saw health care inflation, at least, slow down for several years. Now it’s picking up again. Are we going to see employers sort of getting back into this jumping up and down and saying, “We’ve got to do something about health care costs”? 

Hellmann: I feel like we are seeing more of that. You’re beginning to hear more from employers about it. I don’t know. It’s just such a hard issue to solve, and I’ve seen more and more interest from Congress about this, but they really struggle to regulate the commercial market. So … 

Rovner: Yes, as we talk about at length every week. But it’s still important, and they will still go for it. Well, finally, this week in health misinformation. Let us talk about hurricanes — the public health misinformation that’s being spread both about Hurricane Helene that hit the Southeast two weeks ago, and Hurricane Milton that’s exiting Florida even as we are taping this morning. President [Joe] Biden addressed the press yesterday from the White House, calling out former President Trump by name along with Georgia Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading deliberate misinformation that’s not just undermining efforts at storm relief but actually putting people in more danger. Now, I remember Hurricane Katrina and all the criticism that was heaped, mostly deservedly, on George W. Bush and his administration, but I don’t remember deliberate misinformation like this. I mean, Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this? You lived in Florida for a while. 

Kenen: I went through Andrew, and there’s always a certain — there’s confusion and chaos after a big storm. But there’s a difference between stuff being wrong that can be corrected and stuff being intentionally said that then in this sort of divided, suspicious, two-realities world we’re now living in, that’s being repeated and perpetuated and amplified. It damages public health. It damages people economically trying to recover from this disastrous storm or in some cases storms. I don’t know how many people actually believe that Marjorie Taylor asserted that the Democrats are controlling the weather and sending storms to suppress Republican voters. She still has a following, right? But other things … 

Rovner: She still gets reelected. 

Kenen: … being told that if you go to FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] for help, your property will be confiscated and taken away from you. I mean, that’s all over the place, and it’s not true. Even a number of Republican lawmakers in the affected states have been on social media and making statements on local TV and whatever, saying: This is not true. Please, FEMA is there to help you. Let’s get through this. Stop the lies. A number of Republicans have actually been quite blunt about the misinformation coming from their colleagues and urging their constituents to seek and take the help that’s available. 

This is the public health crisis. We don’t know how many people have been killed. I don’t think we have an accurate total final count from Helene, and we sure don’t have from Milton. I mean, the people did seem to take this storm seriously and evacuated, but it also spawned something like three dozen tornadoes in places where people hadn’t been told, there’s normally no need to evacuate. There’s flooding. It’s a devastating storm. So when people are flooding, power outages, electricity, hard to get access to health care, you can’t refrigerate your insulin. All these— 

Rovner: Toxic floodwaters, I mean, the one thing … 

Kenen: Toxic, yeah. 

Rovner: … we know about hurricanes is that they’re more dangerous in the aftermath than during the actual storm in terms of public health. 

Kenen: Right. This is a life-threatening public health emergency to really millions of people. And misinformation, not just getting something wrong and then trying to correct it, but intentional disinformation, is something we haven’t seen before in a natural disaster. And we’re only going to have more natural disasters. And it was really — I mean, Julie, you already pointed this out — but it was really unusual how precise Biden was yesterday in calling out Trump by name, and I believe at two different times yesterday. So I heard one, but I think I read about what I think was the second one really saying, laying it at his feet that this is harming people. 

Rovner: Yeah, like I said, I remember Katrina vividly, and that was obviously a really devastating storm. I do also remember Democrats and Republicans, even while they were criticizing the federal government reaction to it, not spreading things that were obviously untrue. All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play a segment from our Newsmaker interview with Mark Cuban, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

On Tuesday, October 8th, Mark Cuban met with a group of reporters for a Newsmaker lunch at KFF’s offices in Washington, D.C. Cuban, a billionaire best known as a panelist on the ABC TV show “Shark Tank,” has taken an interest in health policy in the past several years. He’s been consulting with the campaign of Vice President Harris, although he says he’s definitely not interested in a government post if she wins. Cuban started out talking about how, as he sees it, the biggest problem with drug prices in the U.S. is that no one knows what anyone else is paying. 

Mark Cuban: I mean, when I talk to corporations and I’ve tried to explain to them how they’re getting ripped off, the biggest of the biggest said, Well, so-and-so PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] is passing through all of their rebates to us. 

And I’m like: Does that include the subsidiary in Scotland or Japan? Is that where the other one is? 

I don’t know. 

And it doesn’t. By definition, you’re passing through all the rebates with the company you contracted with, but they’re not passing through all the rebates that they get or that they’re keeping in their subsidiary. And so, yeah, I truly, truly believe from there everybody can argue about the best way. Where do you use artificial intelligence? Where do you do this? What’s the EHR [electronic health record? What’s this? We can all argue about best practices there. But without a foundation of information that’s available to everybody, the market’s not efficient and there’s no place to go. 

Rovner: He says his online generic drug marketplace, costplusdrugs.com, is already addressing that problem. 

Cuban: The crazy thing about costplusdrugs.com, the greatest impact we had wasn’t the markup we chose or the way we approach it. It’s publishing our price list. That changed the game more than anything. So when you saw the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] go after the PBMs, they used a lot of our pricing for all the non-insulin stuff. When you saw these articles written by the Times and others, or even better yet, there was research from Vanderbilt, I think it was, that says nine oncology drugs, if they were purchased by Medicare through Cost Plus, would save $3.6 billion. These 15, whatever drugs would save six-point-whatever billion. All because we published our price list, people are starting to realize that things are really out of whack. And so that’s why I put the emphasis on transparency, because whether it’s inside of government or inside companies that self-insure, in particular, they’re going to be able to see. The number one rule of health care contracts, particularly PBM contracts, is you can’t talk about PBM contracts. 

Rovner: Cuban also says that more transparency can address problems in the rest of the health care system, not just for drug prices. Here’s how he responded to a question I asked describing his next big plan for health care. 

We’ve had, obviously, issues with the system being run by the government not very efficiently and being run by the private sector not very efficiently. 

Cuban: Very efficiently, yeah. 

Rovner: And right now we seem to have this sort of working at cross-purposes. If you could design a system from the ground up, which would you let do it? The government or— 

Cuban: I don’t think that’s really the issue. I think the issue is a lack of transparency. And you see that in any organization. The more communication and the more the culture is open and transparent, the more people hold each other responsible. And I think you get fiefdoms in private industry and you get fiefdoms in government, as well, because they know that if no one can see the results of their work, it doesn’t matter. I can say my deal was the best and I did the best and our outcomes are the best, but there’s no way to question it. And so talking to the Harris campaign, it’s like if you introduce transparency, even to the point of requiring PBMs and insurers to publish their contracts publicly, then you start to introduce an efficient market. And once you have an efficient market, then people are better able to make decisions and then you can hold them more accountable. 

And I think that’s going to spill over beyond pharm. We’re working on — it’s not a company — but we’re working on something called Cost Plus Wellness, where we’re eating our own dog food. And it’s not a company that’s going to be a for-profit or even a nonprofit, for that matter, just for the lives that I cover for my companies, that we self-insure. We’re doing direct contracting with providers, and we’re going to publish those contracts. And part and parcel to that is going through the — and I apologize if I’m stumbling here. I haven’t slept in two days, so bear with me. But going through the hierarchy of care and following the money, if you think about when we talk to CFOs and CEOs of providers, one of the things that was stunning to me that I never imagined is the relationship between deductibles for self-insured companies and payers, and the risk associated with collecting those deductibles to providers. 

And I think people don’t really realize the connection there. So whoever does Ann’s care [KFF Chief Communications Officer Ann DeFabio, who was present] — well, Kaiser’s a little bit different, but let’s just say you’re employed at The Washington Post or whoever and you have a $2,500 deductible. And something happens. Your kid breaks their leg and goes to the hospital, and you’re out of market, and it’s out of network. Well, whatever hospital you go to there, you might give your insurance card, but you’re responsible for that first $2,500. And that provider, depending on where it’s located, might have collection — bad debt, rather — of 50% or more. 

So what does that mean in terms of how they have to set their pricing? Obviously, that pricing goes up. So there’s literally a relationship between, particularly on pharmacy, if my company takes a bigger rebate, which in turn means I have a higher deductible because there’s less responsibility for the PBM-slash-insurance company. My higher deductible also means that my sickest employees are the ones paying that deductible, because they’re the ones that have to use it. And my older employees who have ongoing health issues and have chronic illnesses and need medication, they’re paying higher copays. But when they have to go to the hospital with that same deductible, because I took more of a rebate, the hospital is taking more of a credit risk for me. That’s insane. That makes absolutely no sense. 

And so what I’ve said is as part of our wellness program and what we’re doing to — Project Alpo is what we call it, eating our own dog food. What I’ve said is, we’ve gone to the providers and said: Look, we know you’re taking this deductible risk. We’ll pay you cash to eliminate that. But wait, there’s more. We also know that when you go through a typical insurer, even if it’s a self-insured employer using that insurer and you’re just using the insurance company not for insurance services but as a TPA [third-party administrator], the TPA still plays games with the provider, and they underpay them all the time. 

And so what happens as a result of the underpayment is that provider has to have offices and offices full of administrative assistants and lawyers, and they have to not only pay for those people, but they have the associated overhead and burden and the time. And then talking to them, to a big hospital system, they said that’s about 2% of their revenue. So because of that, that’s 2%. Then, wait, there’s more. You have the pre-ops, and you have the TPAs who fight you on the pre-ops. But the downstream economic impacts are enormous because, first, the doctor has to ask for the pre-op. That’s eating doctor’s time, and so they see fewer patients. And then not only does the doctor have to deal with them, they go to HR at the company who self-insures and says, Wait, my employee can’t come to work, because their child is sick, and you won’t approve this process or, whatever, this procedure, because it has to go through this pre-op. 

Or if it’s on medications, it’s you want to go through the step-up process or you want to go through a different utilization because you get more rebates. All these pieces are intertwined, and we don’t look at it holistically. And so what we’re saying with Cost Plus Wellness is, we’re going to do this all in a cash basis. We’re going to trust doctors so that we’re not going to go through a pre-op. Now we’ll trust but verify. So as we go through our population and we look at all of our claims, because we’ll own all of our claims, we’re going to look to see if there are repetitive issues with somebody who’s just trying to —there’s lots of back surgeries or there’s lots of this or there’s lots of that — to see if somebody’s abusing us. And because there’s no deductible, we pay it, and we pay it right when the procedure happens or right when the medication is prescribed. Because of all that, we want Medicare pricing. Nobody’s saying no. And in some cases I’m getting lower than Medicare pricing for primary care stuff. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. Now it’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include the links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week. 

Kenen: There was a fascinating story in The New York Times by Kate Morgan. The headline was “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It.” So I knew nothing about this, and it was so interesting. Placentas have amazing healing properties for wound care, burns, infections, pain control, regenerating skin tissue, just many, many things. And it’s been well known for years, and it’s not widely used. This is a story specifically about a really severe burn victim in a gas explosion and how her face was totally restored. We don’t use this, partly because placenta — every childbirth, there’s a placenta. There are lots of them around. There’s I think three and a half million births a year, or that’s the estimate I read in the Times. One of the reasons they weren’t being used is, during the AIDS crisis, there was some development toward using them, and then the AIDS crisis, there was a fear of contamination and spreading the virus, and it stopped decades later. 

We have a lot more ways of detecting, controlling, figuring out whether something’s contaminated by AIDS or whether a patient has been exposed. It is being used again on a limited basis after C-sections, but it seems to have pretty astonishing — think about all the wound care for just diabetes. I’m not a scientist, but I just looked at the story and said, it seems like a lot of people could be healed quicker and more safely and earlier if this was developed. They’re thrown away now. They’re sent to hospital waste incinerators and biohazard waste. They’re garbage, and they’re actually medicine. 

Rovner: Definitely a scientist’s cool story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from my brilliant colleague Mel Leonor Barclay. The headline is “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” and as part of this really tremendous series that she has running this week, looking at how Latinas as a much more influential and growingly influential voter group could shape gun violence, abortion rights, and housing. And in this story, which I really love, she went to Arizona and spent time talking to folks on all sides of the issue to better understand how Latinas are affected by abortion rights and also how they’ll be voting on this. 

And she really challenges the narrative that has existed for so long, which is that Latinas are largely Catholic, largely more conservative on abortion. And she finds something much more complex, which is that actually polls really show that a large share of Latina voters in Arizona and similar states support abortion rights and will be voting in favor of measures like the Arizona constitutional amendment. But at the same time, there are real divides within the community, and people talk about their faith in a different way and how it connects their stance on abortion. They talk about their relationships with family in different ways, and I think it just underscores how rarely Latina voters are treated with real nuance and care and thoughtfulness when talking about something as complex as abortion and abortion politics. And I really love the way that she approaches this piece. 

Rovner: It was a super-interesting story. Jesse. 

Hellmann: My story is from The Assembly. It’s an outlet in North Carolina. It’s called “Helene Left Some North Carolina Elder-Care Homes Without Power.” Some assisted living facilities have been without power and water since the hurricane hit. Several facilities had to evacuate residents, and the story just kind of gets into how North Carolina has more lax rules around emergency preparedness. While they do require nursing homes be prepared to provide backup power, the same requirements don’t apply to assisted living facilities. And it’s because there’s been industry pushback against that because of the cost. But as we see some more of these extreme weather events, it seems like something has to be done. We cannot just allow vulnerable people living in these facilities to go hours and hours without power and water. And I saw that there was a facility where they evacuated dozens of people who had dementia, and that’s just something that’s really upsetting and traumatizing for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, once again, now we are seeing these extreme weather events in places that, unlike Florida and Texas, are not set up and used to extreme weather events. And it is something I think that a lot of people are starting to think about. Well, my story this week is from our KFF Health News public health project called Health Beat, and it’s called “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly. And it’s one of those stories you never really think about until it’s pointed out that in areas, particularly those that had been redlined, in particular, the lack of safety infrastructure that most of us take for granted — crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic lights are not really there. And that’s a public health crisis of its own, and it’s one that rarely gets addressed, and it’s a really infuriating but a really good story. 

All right, that is our show. Next week, for my birthday, we’re doing a live election preview show here at KFF in D.C., because I have a slightly warped idea of fun. And you’re all invited to join us. I will put a link to the RSVP in the show notes. I am promised there will be cake. 

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 technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me for the moment at X. I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where are you? 

Kenen: @JoanneKenen sometimes on Twitter and @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on Twitter.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil on Twitter.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

In the series finale of the podcast, a confident, outspoken Sikeston teenager shares her feelings in an uncommonly frank conversation with Chief James McMillen, head of Sikeston’s Department of Public Safety, which includes Sikeston police. 

Host Cara Anthony asks what kind of systemic change is possible to reduce the burden of racism on the health of Black Americans. Health equity expert Gail Christopher says it starts with institutional leaders who recognize the problem, measure it, and take concrete steps to change things. 

“It is a process, and it’s not enough to march and get a victory,” Christopher said. “We have to transform the systems of inequity in this country.” 

Host

Cara Anthony
Midwest correspondent, KFF Health News

@CaraRAnthony

Read Cara's stories

Cara is an Edward R. Murrow and National Association of Black Journalists award-winning reporter from East St. Louis, Illinois. Her work has appeared in The New York Times, Time magazine, NPR, and other outlets nationwide. Her reporting trip to the Missouri Bootheel in August 2020 launched the “Silence in Sikeston” project. She is a producer on the documentary and the podcast’s host.

In Conversation With …

Gail Christopher
Public health leader and health equity expert 

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Is There a Cure for Racism?

Editor’s note: If you are able, we encourage you to listen to the audio of “Silence in Sikeston,” which includes emotion and emphasis not found in the transcript. This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity. Please use the transcript as a tool but check the corresponding audio before quoting the podcast. 

[Ambient sounds from Sikeston, Missouri’s 2021 Juneteenth celebration — a DJ making an announcement over funky music, people chatting — begin playing.] 

Cara Anthony: It’s 2021. It’s hot and humid. We’re at a park in the heart of Sunset — Sikeston, Missouri’s historically Black neighborhood. 

Emory: Today is Juneteenth, baby. 

Cara Anthony: The basketball courts are jumping. And old-school funk is blaring from the speakers. Kids are playing. 

Cara Anthony: [Laughter] Are you enjoying the water?  

Cara Anthony: People are lining up for barbecue. 

I’ve been here reporting on the toll racism and violence can take on a community’s health. But today, I’m hoping to capture a little bit of Sikeston’s joy.  

Taneshia Pulley: When I look out to the crowd of my people, I see strength. I see power. I just see all magic. 

Cara Anthony: I drift over to a tent where people are getting their blood pressure, weight, and height checked … health screenings for free. 

Cara Anthony: I’m a journalist. 

Community Health Worker: Ooooh! Hi! Hi! 

Cara Anthony: The ladies working the booth are excited I’m there to report on the event. 

Cara Anthony: OK, and I’m a health journalist. 

Community health worker: Baby, that’s what I told them. Yeah, she healthy. [Laughter] 

[Dramatic instrumental music plays.] 

Cara Anthony: This Juneteenth gathering is happening a little over a year after Sikeston police officers shot and killed 23-year-old Denzel Taylor. 

We made a documentary about Denzel’s death and the death of another young Black man — also killed in Sikeston. 

Denzel was shot by police. Nearly 80 years earlier, Cleo Wright was lynched by a white mob. 

Both were killed before they got their day in court. 

In these years of reporting, what I’ve found is that many Black families worry that their kids don’t have an equal chance of growing up healthy and safe in Sikeston. 

[Dramatic instrumental ends.] 

Rosemary Owens: Being Black in the Bootheel can get you killed at any age. 

Cara Anthony: That’s Rosemary Owens. She raised her children here in Southeast Missouri. 

Cara Anthony: About 10 Sikeston police officers showed up to Juneteenth — for security and to connect with the community. Some are in uniform; some are in plain clothes. 

Rosemary has her doubts about why they came today. 

Cara Anthony: You see the police chief talking to people. What’s going through your mind as you see them milling about? 

Rosemary Owens: I hope they are real and wanting to close the gap between the African Americans and the white people. 

Anybody can come out and shake hands. But at the end of the day, did you mean what you said? Because things are still going on here in Sikeston, Missouri. 

Cara Anthony: For Rosemary, this brings to mind an encounter with the police from years ago. 

[Slow, minor, instrumental music plays softly.] 

When her son was maybe 16 years old, she says, she and her sister gave their boys the keys to their new cars — told them they could hang out in them. 

Rosemary had gotten her new car for Mother’s Day. 

Rosemary Owens: A brand-new red Dodge Caravan. We, we knew the boys were just going from the van to the car. You know, just showing out — they were boys. They weren’t driving. 

Cara Anthony: Someone nearby saw the boys …  

Rosemary Owens: … called and told the police that two Black men were robbing cars. 

 When the boys saw the police come up, there was three police cars. So they were like, something’s going on. So their intention, they were like, they were trying to run to us. And my brother said, stop. When they looked back, when the police got out of the car, they already had their guns drawn on my son and my nephew.  Cara Anthony: That’s what Rosemary thinks about when she sees Sikeston police at Juneteenth. 

[Slow, minor, instrumental music ends.] 

[“Silence in Sikeston” theme song plays.]  Cara Anthony: In this podcast series, we’ve talked about some of the ways racism makes Black people sick. But Juneteenth has me thinking about how we get free — how we STOP racism from making us sick. 

The public health experts say it’s going to take systemwide, institutional change. 

In this episode, we’re going to examine what that community-level change looks like — or at least what it looks like to make a start. 

From WORLD Channel and KFF Health News, distributed by PRX, this is “Silence in Sikeston.” 

Episode 4 is our final episode: “Is There a Cure for Racism?” 

[“Silence in Sikeston” theme song ends.] 

James McMillen: How you doing? 

Juneteenth celebration attendee: Good. Good.  

James McMillen: Good to see you, man.  

Juneteenth celebration attendee: What’s up? How are you?   

Cara Anthony: When I spot Sikeston’s director of public safety in his cowboy hat, sipping soda from a can, I head over to talk.  James McMillen: Well, you know, I just, I, I’m glad to be … on the inside of this. 

Cara Anthony: James McMillen leads the police department. He says he made it a point to come to Juneteenth. And he encouraged his officers to come, too. 

James McMillen: I remember as being a young officer coming to work here, not knowing anybody, driving by a park and seeing several Black people out there. And I remember feeling, you know, somewhat intimidated by that. And I don’t really know why. 

I hadn’t always been, um, that active in the community. And, um, I, I have been the last several years and I’m just wanting to teach officers to do the same thing. 

Cara Anthony: The chief told me showing up was part of his department’s efforts to repair relations with Sikeston’s Black residents. 

James McMillen: What’s important about this is, being out here and actually knowing people, I think it builds that trust that we need to have to prevent and solve crimes. 

Cara Anthony: A few minutes into our conversation, I notice a teenager and her friend nearby, listening. 

Cara Anthony: Yeah, we have two people who are watching us pretty closely. Come over here. Come over here. Tell us your names. 

Lauren: My name is Lauren. 

Michaiahes: My name is Michaiahes. 

Cara Anthony: Yeah. And what are you all … ? 

James McMillen: I saw you over there. 

Cara Anthony: So, what do you think about all of this?  

Michaiahes: Personally, I don’t even know who this is because I don’t mess with police because, because of what’s happened in the past with the police. But, um … 

Cara Anthony: As she starts to trail off, I encourage her to keep going. 

Cara Anthony: He’s right here. He’s in charge of all of those people. 

Michaiahes: Well, in my opinion, y’all should start caring about the community more. 

Cara Anthony: What are you hearing? She’s speaking from the heart here, Chief. What are you hearing? 

James McMillen: Well, you know what? I agree with everything she said there. 

Cara Anthony: She’s confident now, looking the chief in the eye. 

Michaiahes: And let’s just be honest: Some of these police officers don’t even want to be here today. They’re just here to think they’re doing something for the community. 

James McMillen: Let’s be honest. Some of these are assumptions that y’all are making about police that y’all don’t really know. 

[Subtle propulsive music begins playing.] 

Michaiahes: If we seen you protecting community, if we seen you doing what you supposed to do, then we wouldn’t have these assumptions about you. 

James McMillen: I just want to say that people are individuals. We have supervisors that try to keep them to hold a standard. And you shouldn’t judge the whole department, but, but just don’t judge the whole department off of a few. No more than I should judge the whole community off of a few. 

Cara Anthony: But here’s the thing … in our conversations over the years, Chief McMillen has been candid with me about how, as a rookie cop, he had judged Sikeston’s Black residents based on interactions with just a few. 

James McMillen: Some of, um, my first calls in the Black community were dealing with, obviously, criminals, you know? So if first impressions mean anything, that one set a bad one. I had, um, really unfairly judging the whole community based on the few interactions that I had, again, with majority of criminals. 

Cara Anthony: The chief says he’s moved past that way of thinking and he’s trying to help his officers move past their assumptions. 

And he told me about other things he wants to do …  

Hire more Black officers. Invest in racial-bias awareness education for the department. And open up more lines of communication with the community. 

James McMillen: I know that we are not going to see progress or we’re not going to see success without a little bit of pain and discomfort on our part. 

Cara Anthony: I don’t think I’ve ever heard the chief use the term institutional change, but the promises and the plans he’s making sound like steps in that direction. 

Except … here’s something else the chief says he wants …  

[Subtle propulsive music ends with a flourish.] 

James McMillen: As a police officer, I would like to hear more people talk about, um, just complying with the officer. 

Cara Anthony: That phrase is chilling to me. 

[Quiet, dark music starts playing.] 

When I hear “just comply” … a litany of names cross my mind. 

Philando Castile. 

Sonya Massey. 

Tyre Nichols. 

Cara Anthony: After Denzel Taylor was killed, people felt unsafe. I talked to a lot of residents on the record about them feeling like they didn’t know if they could be next. 

One thing that you told me was, like, well, one thing that people can do is comply with the officers, you know, if they find themselves having an interaction with law enforcement. 

James McMillen: Well, I mean, I think that’s, that’s a good idea to do. 

And if the person is not complying, that officer has got to be thinking, is this person trying to hurt me? So, asking people to comply with the officer’s command — that’s a reasonable statement. 

Cara Anthony: But, it’s well documented: Black Americans are more likely than our white peers to be perceived as dangerous by police. 

That perception increases the chances we’ll be the victim of deadly force. Whether we comply — or not. 

[Quiet, dark music ends.] 

That’s all to say … even with the promise of more Black officers in Sikeston and all the chief’s other plans, I’m not sure institutional change in policing is coming soon to Sikeston. 

[Sparse electronic music starts playing.] 

Cara Anthony: I took that worry to Gail Christopher. She has spent her long career trying to address the causes of institutional racism. 

Cara Anthony: We’ve been calling most of our guests by their first name, but what’s your preference? I don’t want to get in trouble with my mom on this, you know? [Cara laughs.] 

Gail Christopher: If you don’t mind, Dr. Christopher is good. 

Cara Anthony: OK. All right. That sounds good. I’m glad I asked. 

Cara Anthony: Dr. Christopher thinks a lot about the connections between race and health. And she’s executive director of the National Collaborative for Health Equity. Her nonprofit designs strategies for social change. 

She says the way to think about starting to fix structural racism … is to think about the future. 

Gail Christopher: What do you want for your daughter? What do I want for my children? I want them not to have interactions with the police, No. 1, right? 

Uh, so I want them to have safe places to be, to play, to be educated … equal access to the opportunity to be healthy. 

Cara Anthony: But I wonder if that future is even possible. 

[Sparse electronic music ends.] 

Cara Anthony: Is there a cure for racism? And I know it’s not that simple, but is there a cure? 

Gail Christopher: I love the question, right? And my answer to you would be yes. It is a process, and it’s not enough to march and get a victory. We have to transform the systems of inequity in this country. 

Cara Anthony: And Dr. Christopher says it is possible. Because racism is a belief system. 

[Hopeful instrumental music plays.] 

Gail Christopher: There is a methodology that’s grounded in psychological research and social science for altering our beliefs and subsequently altering our behaviors that are driven by those beliefs. 

Cara Anthony: To get there, she says, institutions need a rigorous commitment to look closely at what they are doing — and the outcomes they’re creating. 

Gail Christopher: Data tracking and monitoring and being accountable for what’s going on. 

We can’t solve a problem if we don’t admit that it exists. 

Cara Anthony: One of her favorite examples of what it looks like to make a start toward systemic change comes from the health care world. 

I know we’ve been talking about policing so far, but — bear with me here — we’re going to pivot to another way institutional bias kills people. 

A few years ago, a team of researchers at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston reviewed admission records for patients with heart failure. They found that Black and Latinx people were less likely than white patients to be admitted to specialized cardiology units. 

Gail Christopher: Without calling people racist, they saw the absolute data that showed that, wait a minute, we’re sending the white people to get the specialty care and we’re not sending the people of color. 

Cara Anthony: So, Brigham and Women’s launched a pilot program. 

When a doctor requests a bed for a Black or Latinx patient with heart failure, the computer system notifies them that, historically, Black and Latinx patients haven’t had equal access to specialty care. 

The computer system then recommends the patient be admitted to the cardiology unit. It’s still up to the doctor to actually do that. 

The hard data’s not published yet, but we checked in with the hospital, and they say the program seems to be making a difference. 

Gail Christopher: It starts with leadership. Someone in that system has the authority and makes the decision to hold themselves accountable for new results. 

[Hopeful instrumental music ends.] 

Cara Anthony: OK, so it could be working at a hospital. Let’s shift back to policing now. 

Gail Christopher: There should be an accountability board in that community, a citizens’ accountability board, where they are setting measurable and achievable goals and they are holding that police department accountable for achieving those goals. 

Cara Anthony: But, like, do Black people have to participate in this? Because we’re tired. 

Gail Christopher: Listen, do I know that we’re tired! Am I tired? After 50 years? Uh, I think that there is work that all people have to do. This business of learning to see ourselves in one another, to be fully human — it’s all of our work. 

[Warm, optimistic instrumental music plays.] 

Now, does that preclude checking out at times and taking care of yourself? I can’t tell you how many people my age who are no longer alive today, who were my colleagues and friends in the movement. But they died prematurely because of this lack of permission to take care of ourselves. 

Cara Anthony: Rest when you need to, she says, but keep going. 

Gail Christopher: We have to do that because it is our injury. It is our pain. And I think we have the stamina and the desire to see it change. 

Cara Anthony: Yep. Heard. It’s all of our work. 

Dr. Christopher has me thinking about all the Black people in Sikeston who aren’t sitting around waiting for someone else to change the institutions that are hurting them. 

People protested when Denzel Taylor was killed even with all the pressure to stay quiet about it. 

Protesters: Justice for Denzel on 3. 1, 2, 3 … Justice for Denzel! Again! 1, 2, 3 …  Justice for Denzel! 

Cara Anthony: And I’m thinking about the people who were living in the Sunset neighborhood of Sikeston in 1942 when Cleo Wright was lynched. 

Harry Howard: They picked up rocks and bricks and crowbars and just anything to protect our community. 

Cara Anthony: And Sunset did not burn. 

[Warm, optimistic instrumental music begins fading out.] 

[Piano starts warming up.] 

Cara Anthony: After nearly 80 years of mostly staying quiet about Cleo’s lynching, Sikeston residents organized a service to mark what happened to him — and their community. 

Reverend: We are so honored and humbled to be the host church this evening for the remembrance and reconciliation service of Mr. Cleo Wright. 

[Piano plays along with Pershard singing.] 

Pershard Owens: [Singing] It’s been a long, long time coming, but I know a change gonna come, oh yes it will. It’s been too hard a-livin but I’m afraid to die and I don’t know what’s up next, beyond the sky … 

[Pershard singing and piano accompaniment fade out.] 

Cara Anthony: I want to introduce you to that guy who was just singing then. His name is Pershard Owens. 

Remember Rosemary Owens? The woman who told us about someone calling the police on her son and nephew when they were playing with their parents’ new cars? Pershard is Rosemary’s younger son. 

Pershard Owens: Yeah, I definitely remember that. 

Cara Anthony: Even after all this time, other people didn’t want to talk to us about it. We couldn’t find news coverage of the incident. But Pershard remembers. He was in his weekly karate practice when it happened. He was 10 or 11 years old. 

Pershard Owens: My brother and cousin were, like, they were teens. So what do you think people are going to feel about the police when they do that, no questions asked, just guns drawn? 

Cara Anthony: Pershard’s dad works as a police officer on a different police force in the Bootheel. Pershard knows police. But that didn’t make it any less scary for him. 

Pershard Owens: You know, my parents still had to sit us down and talk and be like, “Hey, this is, that’s not OK, but you can’t, you can’t be a victim. You can’t be upset.” That’s how I was taught. So we acknowledge the past. But we don’t, we don’t stay down. 

Cara Anthony: So years later, when Chief James McMillen started a program as a more formal way for people in Sikeston and the police to build better relationships, Pershard signed up. They started meeting in 2020. 

The group is called Police and Community Together, or PACT for short. 

  [Sparse, tentative music begins playing.] 

Pershard Owens: It was a little tense that first couple of meetings because nobody knew what it was going to be. 

Cara Anthony: This was only five months after Sikeston police killed Denzel Taylor. 

PACT is not a citizens’ accountability board. The police don’t have to answer to it. 

The committee met every month. For a while. But they haven’t met in over a year now. 

Pershard Owens: We would have steps forward and then we would have three steps back. 

Cara Anthony: People have different accounts for why that is. Busy schedules. Mutual suspicion. Other things police officers have done that shook the trust of Black residents in Sikeston. 

Pershard Owens: And people were like, bro, like, how can you work with these people? 

The community is like, I can’t fully get behind it because I know what you did to my little cousin and them. Like, I know what the department did back in, you know, 15 years ago, and it’s hard to get past that. 

So, I mean, I’m getting both sides, like, constantly, and listen, that is, that is tough. 

[Sparse, tentative music ends.] 

Cara Anthony: But Pershard says something important changed because he started working with PACT. 

Pershard Owens: Chief did not like me at first [Pershard laughs]. He did not. 

Chief didn’t … me and Chief did not see eye to eye. Because he had heard things about me and he — people had told him that I was, I was anti-police and hated police officers, and he came in with a defense up. 

So, it took a minute for me and him to, like, start seeing each other in a different way. But it all happened when we sat down and had a conversation. 

[Slow instrumental music begins playing.] 

Cara Anthony: Just have a conversation. It sounds so simple; you’re probably rolling your eyes right now hearing it. 

But Pershard says … it could be meaningful. 

Pershard Owens: I truly want and believe that we can be together and we can work together and we can have a positive relationship where you see police and y’all dap each other up and y’all legit mean it. I think that can happen, but a lot of people have to change their mindsets. 

Cara Anthony: That’s a challenge Pershard is offering to police AND community members: Have a conversation with someone different from you. See if that changes the way you think about the person you’re talking to. See if it changes your beliefs. 

The more people do that, the more systems can change. 

Pershard Owens: We got to look in the mirror and say, “Am I doing what I can to try and change the dynamic of Sikeston, even if it does hurt?” 

Cara Anthony: Pershard says he’s going to keep putting himself out there. He ran for City Council in 2021. And even though he lost, he says he doesn’t regret it. 

Pershard Owens: When you’re dealing with a place like Sikeston, it’s not going to change overnight. 

Cara Anthony: And he’s glad he worked with PACT. Even if the community dialogue has fizzled for now, he’s pleased with the new relationship he built with Chief McMillen. And all of this has broadened his view of what kind of change is possible. 

[Slow instrumental music ends.] 

Pershard Owens: If you want something that has never been done, you have to go places that you’ve never been. 

[“Silence in Sikeston” theme music plays.] 

Cara Anthony: Places that you’ve never been … stories that you’ve never told out loud … maybe all of that helps build a Sikeston where Black residents can feel safer. Where Black people can live healthier lives. 

A world you might not be able to imagine yet, but one that could exist for the next generation. 

[“Silence in Sikeston” theme music ends.] 

[Upbeat instrumental music plays.] 

Cara Anthony: Thanks for listening to “Silence in Sikeston.” 

Next, go watch the documentary — it’s a joint production from Retro Report and KFF Health News, presented in partnership with WORLD. 

Subscribe to WORLD Channel on YouTube. That’s where you can find the film “Silence in Sikeston,” a Local, USA special. 

If you made it this far, thank you. Let me know how you’re feeling. 

I’d love to hear more about the conversations this podcast has sparked in your life. Leave us a voicemail at (202) 654-1366. 

And thanks to everyone in Sikeston for sharing your stories with us. 

This podcast is a co-production of WORLD Channel and KFF Health News and distributed by PRX. 

It was produced with support from PRX and made possible in part by a grant from the John S. and James L. Knight Foundation. 

This audio series was reported and hosted by me, Cara Anthony. 

Audio production by me, Zach Dyer. And me, Taylor Cook. 

Editing by me, Simone Popperl. 

And me, managing editor Taunya English. 

Sound design, mixing, and original music by me, Lonnie Ro. 

Podcast art design by Colin Mahoney and Tania Castro-Daunais. 

Tarena Lofton and Hannah Norman are engagement and social media producers for the show. 

Oona Zenda and Lydia Zuraw are the landing page designers. 

Lynne Shallcross is the photo editor, with photography from Michael B. Thomas. 

Thank you to vocal coach Viki Merrick. 

And thank you to my parents for all their support over the four years of this project. 

Music in this episode is from Epidemic Sound and Blue Dot Sessions. 

Some of the audio you heard across the podcast is also in the film. 

For that, special thanks to Adam Zletz, Matt Gettemeier, Roger Herr, and Philip Geyelin. 

Kyra Darnton is executive producer at Retro Report. 

I was a producer on the film. 

Jill Rosenbaum directed the documentary. 

Kytja Weir is national editor at KFF Health News. 

WORLD Channel’s editor-in-chief and executive producer is Chris Hastings. 

Help us get the word out about “Silence in Sikeston.” Write a review or give us a quick rating wherever you listen to this podcast. 

Thank you! It makes a difference. 

Oh yeah! And tell your friends in real life too!  

[Upbeat instrumental music ends.] 

Credits

Taunya English
Managing editor

@TaunyaEnglish

Taunya is deputy managing editor for broadcast at KFF Health News, where she leads enterprise audio projects.

Simone Popperl
Line editor

@simoneppprl

Simone is broadcast editor at KFF Health News, where she shapes stories that air on Marketplace, NPR, and CBS News Radio, and she co-manages a national reporting collaborative.

Zach Dyer
Senior producer

@zkdyer

Zach is senior producer for audio with KFF Health News, where he supervises all levels of podcast production.

Taylor Cook
Associate producer

@taylormcook7

Taylor is an independent producer who does research, books guests, contributes writing, and fact-checks episodes for several KFF Health News podcasts.

Lonnie Ro
Sound designer

@lonnielibrary

Lonnie Ro is an audio engineer and a composer who brings audio stories to life through original music and expert sound design for platforms like Spotify, Audible, and KFF Health News.

Additional Newsroom Support

Lynne Shallcross, photo editorOona Zenda, illustrator and web producerLydia Zuraw, web producerTarena Lofton, audience engagement producer Hannah Norman, video producer and visual reporter Chaseedaw Giles, audience engagement editor and digital strategistKytja Weir, national editor Mary Agnes Carey, managing editor Alex Wayne, executive editorDavid Rousseau, publisher Terry Byrne, copy chief Gabe Brison-Trezise, deputy copy chief Tammie Smith, communications officer 

The “Silence in Sikeston” podcast is a production of KFF Health News and WORLD. Distributed by PRX. Subscribe and listen on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music, iHeart, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Watch the accompanying documentary from WORLD, Retro Report, and KFF here.

To hear other KFF Health News podcasts, click here.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).