On his way to an Ultimate Fighting Championship event, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stopped by the home of podcaster Gary Brecka. The two spent time in a hyperbaric oxygen chamber and tried some intravenous nutrition drips that Brecka, a self-avowed longevity and wellness maven, sells and promotes on his show, “The Ultimate Human.”

Then the podcast taping started, and Kennedy — who was also on the mic — took aim at Big Pharma’s influence on federal health policy.

“We have a sick-care system in our country, and the etiology ultimately of all that disease is corruption,” Kennedy said before the show cut away to an ad for vitamin chips. “And it’s the capture of these agencies by the industries they are supposed to regulate.”

While Kennedy lambastes federal agencies he says are overly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry, he and some other figures of the “Make America Healthy Again,” or MAHA, movement — such as siblings Calley and Casey Means, Robert Malone, and Peter McCullough — have their own financial ties to a vast and largely unregulated $6.3 trillion global wellness industry they also support and promote.

Kennedy and those four advisers — three of whom have been tapped for official government roles — earned at least $3.2 million in fees and salaries from their work opposing Big Pharma and promoting wellness in 2022 and 2023, according to a KFF Health News review of financial disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Health and Human Services; published media reports; and tax forms filed with the IRS.

The total doesn’t include revenue from speaking fees, the sale of wellness products, or other income sources for which data isn’t publicly available.

The Means siblings have launched wellness companies that have raised more than $99 million from investors, according to company news releases as well as information from Clay, a customer research data company, and Tracxn, an information technology firm that provides access to a database of companies, funding rounds, and investor information.

“Secretary Kennedy, and all HHS officials, fully comply with all ethics and financial disclosure laws,” agency spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an email. “Any attempt to suggest impropriety is reckless and politically motivated.”

Some public health leaders and ethicists say the financial ties raise red flags, with the potential for personal profits to shape decision-making at the highest levels of federal health agencies.

“It’s becoming completely corrupted,” said Arthur Caplan, founding head of the medical ethics division at New York University’s Grossman School of Medicine. “You shouldn’t have a vested interest in making recommendations on wellness or supplements or health. It opens the door to all kinds of shenanigans. Big Wellness is no different than Big Pharma. They’re a well-organized political force.”

Unlike any other previous administration, President Donald Trump’s administration has elevated anti-vaccine and wellness leaders to positions at HHS from which they can steer federal policy. Adherents to the MAHA movement say the change is long overdue, arguing that previous administrations haven’t devoted sufficient attention to the potential harms of traditional medical approaches.

Critics including health policy leaders and physicians say they worry the revamped HHS and its agencies are now harming public health. For example, they point to a recent Kennedy decision to remove and replace all the members of a vaccine advisory group, a move the American Medical Association criticized as lacking transparency and proper vetting. Two of Kennedy’s newly named panel members — Malone and Martin Kulldorff — previously earned money as paid experts in vaccine lawsuits against Merck, as first reported by Reuters and the life-sciences news outlet BioSpace.

Calley Means, who has criticized the recommended U.S. vaccine schedule for youths and has no medical training, is a special government employee and a top health adviser to Kennedy. He also co-founded the wellness company Truemed.

The company enables people to spend pretax dollars from Flexible Spending Accounts and Health Savings Accounts to pay for wellness products, health food, and SoulCycle classes.

Truemed’s website says it can provide customers with a “Letter of Medical Necessity” for the items.

The IRS has warned consumers about companies that misrepresent wellness items like food as FSA-eligible when they are not, in fact, permitted medical expenses.

The IRS did not respond to questions about the status of that policy under the Trump administration.

In 2024, when Kennedy was running for president as an independent, he promoted Means’ company on his own podcast. Means also promoted his close connection with Kennedy last year on podcasts and on Instagram while also using social media to advance Truemed. And while working for the public as a special government employee since March, Means has used social and new media to promote podcasters who make money selling wellness products, to criticize specific pharmaceutical drugs, and to tout the wellness book he co-wrote, “Good Energy,” according to a KFF Health News review of social media posts and podcasts.

Means has also used podcasts and social media to rail against new injectable weight loss drugs. The Trump administration in April decided not to finalize a rule that would have allowed Medicaid and Medicare to cover the injectable drugs, putting them out of reach for millions of potential users.

Hilliard, the HHS spokesperson, didn’t respond to questions about whether Means, as a Kennedy adviser, has recused himself from decisions that could affect his business. Neither HHS nor the White House responded to requests to speak with him.

His sister, Casey Means, is Trump’s pick for surgeon general and was also an adviser to Kennedy during his 2024 presidential run. She co-founded Levels, a company valued at $300 million in 2022 that promotes glucose monitoring for nondiabetic, healthy individuals. Consumers pay $199 for a one-month supply of continuous glucose monitors.

She has used social media to call for public policy that would encourage blood sugar monitoring for healthy individuals, saying “tips to stabilize glucose should be on every billboard in America.” Research has found little evidence that such monitoring provides health benefits for people without diabetes.

Her company stands to benefit under the Trump administration. Kennedy said in April that he was considering a regulatory framework for federal health programs’ coverage of injectable weight loss drugs that would first require patients to try glucose monitoring or other options.

“And if they don’t work, then you would be entitled to the drug,” he told CBS News.

Casey Means isn’t a practicing doctor and doesn’t hold an active medical license, according to records from the Oregon Medical Board. And, as an online influencer, she “failed to disclose that she could profit” from sales of products she recommends, according to The Associated Press.

HHS spokesperson Hilliard didn’t answer questions about whether Casey Means would recuse herself from working on anything that would directly benefit her company, or why she didn’t disclose that she could profit from sales of products she recommends. HHS didn’t respond to questions about Means’ ties to Kennedy or agency support for glucose monitoring, nor did the agency respond to a request to speak directly to the Trump surgeon general pick.

Outside Advisers

McCullough, a former cardiac doctor who has financial ties to the wellness industry, has been part of Kennedy’s circle of informal advisers, according to people close to the secretary. He also has enough sway with some GOP lawmakers that they’ve had him testify before Congress. In May, he told a Senate subcommittee that mRNA covid-19 vaccines can lead to deaths that have been underreported. But the FDA says the covid vaccines are safe, with fewer than 1 in 200,000 vaccinated individuals experiencing a severe allergic reaction or heart problems like myocarditis or pericarditis.

He profits from his anti-covid-vaccine message. McCullough devised a protocol he says helps people detox from covid mRNA shots, selling the products through The Wellness Co. McCullough is the company’s chief scientific officer, draws a partial salary, and holds an equity stake.

For $89.99, consumers can purchase Ultimate Spike Detox supplements containing nattokinase, an enzyme from fermented soybeans. A two-month supply of Spike Support supplements sells on Amazon for about $62. More than 900 bottles have sold in the past month.

McCullough didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. HHS also didn’t respond to questions about his relationship with Kennedy.

Some health policy leaders and doctors say the financial connections federal health officials and advisers have to the wellness industry raise concerns.

“It’s exactly the problem RFK has taken up with the FDA, saying it’s too beholden to pharma,” said Pieter Cohen, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard University.

“When you’re in bed with supplement manufacturers, you are creating the same kinds of conflicts of interest, whether or not you directly profit,” he said. “You should be independently advocating for public health, not cheerleading for any particular industry.”

The wellness sector includes personal care, weight loss, health, nutrition, and wellness tourism.

Its lobbying influence is markedly smaller than the lobbying reach of pharmaceutical companies, according to OpenSecrets, a research organization that tracks money in U.S. politics. The nutritional and dietary supplements industry spent about $3.7 million on lobbying in 2024, for example, compared with the $387 million the pharmaceutical industry spent the same year.

It’s also gotten far less scrutiny. The industry is a growing political force with its own lobbyists, celebrities, and industry-backed advocacy groups, and research shows that public interest in wellness has grown since the pandemic. Eighty-four percent of U.S. consumers say wellness is a “top” or “important” priority, according to a survey released this year by McKinsey & Co.

Unlike with Big Pharma, there’s scant regulation of the industry. Companies can sell supplements and other products without notifying the FDA, and there’s little oversight by the Federal Trade Commission of their product claims.

“The wellness industry profiteers by undermining and creating distrust in science and regulated products,” said Andrea Love, an immunologist and microbiologist who founded ImmunoLogic, a science and health education organization. “They are messaging that the government and Big Pharma are hiding information and treatments or cures to keep us weak and vulnerable.”

Ethics and Disclosures

People on both sides of the issue say the industry has found its captain in Kennedy, an anti-vaccine activist with deep ties to the MAHA and wellness movements.

He has profited by referring people to law firms that are suing over alleged vaccine injury. For example, he gets a fee for referring potential clients to a Los Angeles personal injury firm, according to a January ethics statement to HHS and his financial disclosures. One of his adult sons works at the personal injury law firm.

When his nomination to the HHS secretary post was under consideration, Kennedy indicated in his ethics disclosure that he intended to continue profiting from lawsuits over Gardasil, a Merck vaccine that protects against HPV. After Democrats raised concerns with the financial relationship, he told Congress he would divest his interest and sign over the financial stake to one of his adult sons.

Federal ethics rules bar government employees from participating in matters in which they, their spouse, or their minor child has a financial stake. It doesn’t include adult children such as Kennedy’s sons.

“There are a lot of loopholes, and that is one of them,” said Cynthia Brown, senior ethics counsel at the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog organization focused on U.S. government ethics and accountability. “It certainly is an appearance problem. Even if it’s not a technical violation, it is an ethical problem in terms of influence.”

Some lawmakers and ethics leaders weren’t mollified by Kennedy’s planned divestiture. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) called on Kennedy to agree to a four-year, post-employment ban on accepting any compensation from lawsuits involving any entity regulated by HHS.

“It would be insufficient for RFK Jr. to only divest his interest in the Gardasil case while leaving the window open to profit from other anti-vax lawsuits, including future cases he could bring after leaving office,” she said in a statement.

Kennedy also made money on the MAHA name by applying in September to register it as a trademark. He transferred trademark ownership to a limited liability company led by friend and MAHA ally Del Bigtree after making about $100,000 off the phrase, according to his financial disclosure.

HHS’ Hilliard didn’t answer questions about whether Kennedy had signed over his interest in fees from legal referrals to his son, the money he made by registering MAHA as a trademark, or whether he agreed with Warren’s request that upon leaving office he accept a four-year ban on accepting money from lawsuits involving entities regulated by HHS.

Bigtree is executive director of the Informed Consent Action Network, or ICAN, an anti-vaccination group. He was communications director for Kennedy’s failed presidential campaign, and as an informal adviser to the secretary he helped vet candidates for HHS jobs. Bigtree’s salary at the nonprofit was $234,000 for the 2023 fiscal year, according to documents filed with the IRS. ICAN paid $6 million in legal fees to Siri & Glimstad in 2023. The firm’s managing partner, Aaron Siri, focuses on vaccine injury. He has been Kennedy’s personal lawyer and adviser, and also helped vet candidates for the secretary.

Brown, an ethics counselor, said the transfer and ongoing advisory relationship could raise questions about who is influencing Kennedy. Bigtree, at a Politico event in February, called on Kennedy to recruit scientists to HHS who believe vaccines cause autism, for example. One of Kennedy’s early actions at HHS was the launch of a study on the causes of autism.

ICAN didn’t respond to an email seeking comment. HHS also didn’t respond to questions about Kennedy’s transfer of the MAHA trademark to Bigtree.

“This is the type of Washington wheeling and dealing that raises questions about integrity in government,” Brown said. “If it was trademarked before he became a public official, there may be no law broken. But by transferring it to someone he knows, it illustrates the constant trickle of influence among those in power.”

Past administrations have faced similar criticism over health regulators’ ties to Big Pharma. Alex Azar, who led HHS during the previous Trump administration, worked for drugmaker Eli Lilly before entering public office. Robert Califf, FDA commissioner during the Biden administration, was a consultant to drug companies.

Scott Gottlieb, who was FDA commissioner from 2017 to 2019 and an adviser to Trump’s presidential campaign, stepped down to join the board of the drugmaker Pfizer.

“Big Pharma is well off. But, in general, financial conflicts don’t depend on how much the organizations are spending,” said Zeke Emanuel, a bioethicist who served on a covid advisory board under President Joe Biden. “The question is, is there a reasonable concern that financial or other concerns are affecting their judgment?”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Early Thursday afternoon, the House approved a budget reconciliation bill that not only would make permanent many of President Donald Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, but also impose deep cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and, indirectly, Medicare.

Meanwhile, those appointed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to a key vaccine advisory panel used their first official meeting to cast doubt on a preservative that has been used in flu vaccines for decades — with studies showing no evidence of its harm in low doses.

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

Panelists

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week the GOP steamrolled toward a major constriction of the nation’s social safety net, pushing through Trump’s tax and spending bill. The legislation contains significant changes to the way Medicaid is funded and delivered — in particular, through imposing the program’s first federal work requirement on many enrollees. Hospitals say the changes would be devastating, potentially resulting in the loss of services and facilities that could touch all patients, not only those on Medicaid.
• Some proposals in Trump’s bill were dropped during the Senate’s consideration, including a ban on Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care and federal funding cuts for states that use their own Medicaid funds to cover immigrants without legal status. And for all the talk of not touching Medicare, the legislation’s repercussions for the deficit are expected to trigger spending cuts to the program that covers those over 65 and some with disabilities — potentially as soon as the next fiscal year.
• The newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices met last week, and it looked pretty different from previous meetings: In addition to new members, there were fewer staffers on hand from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — and the notable presence of vaccine critics. The panel’s vote to reverse the recommendation of flu shots containing a mercury-based preservative — plus its plans to review the childhood vaccine schedule — hint at what’s to come.

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

Julie Rovner: The Lancet’s “Evaluating the Impact of Two Decades of USAID Interventions and Projecting the Effects of Defunding on Mortality up to 2030: A Retrospective Impact Evaluation and Forecasting Analysis,” by Daniella Medeiros Cavalcanti, et al.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “‘I Feel Like I’ve Been Lied To’: When a Measles Outbreak Hits Home,” by Eli Saslow.

Maya Goldman: Axios’ “New Docs Get Schooled in Old Diseases as Vax Rates Fall,” by Tina Reed.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “Snake Venom, Urine, and a Quest to Live Forever: Inside a Biohacking Conference Emboldened by MAHA,” by Will Bahr.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• NBC News’ “Crisis Pregnancy Centers Told To Avoid Ultrasounds for Suspected Ectopic Pregnancies,” by Abigail Brooks.
• ProPublica’s “A ‘Striking’ Trend: After Texas Banned Abortion, More Women Nearly Bled to Death During Miscarriage,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, and Andrea Suozzo.
• The Washington Post’s “DOGE Loses Control Over Government Grants Website, Freeing Up Billions,” by Dan Diamond and Hannah Natanson.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s Bill Reaches the Finish Line

[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, July 3, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith at the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Good to be here. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we will get right to it. So as we sit down to tape, the House is on the cusp of passing the biggest constriction of the federal social safety net ever, part of President [Donald] Trump’s, quote, “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which is technically no longer called that, because the name was ruled out of order when it went through the Senate. In an effort to get the bill to the president’s desk by the July Fourth holiday, aka tomorrow, the House had to swallow without changes the bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday morning after Vice President JD Vance broke a 50-50 tie. And the House has been in session continuously since Wednesday morning working to do just that, with lots of arm-twisting and threatening and cajoling to walk back the complaints from both conservative Republicans, who are objecting to the trillions of dollars the bill would add to the national debt, as well as moderates objecting to the Medicaid and food stamp cuts. 

There is a whole lot to unpack here, but let’s start with Medicaid, which would take the biggest hit of the health programs in this bill — ironically, just weeks before the program’s 60th anniversary. What does this bill do to Medicaid? 

Goldman: This bill makes some huge changes to the way that Medicaid is funded and delivered in the United States. One of the biggest changes is the first federal work requirement for Medicaid, which we’ve talked about at length. 

Rovner: Pretty much every week. 

Goldman: Pretty much every week. It’s going to be — it’s sort of death by paperwork for many people. They’re not necessarily forced to lose their coverage, but there are so many paperwork hurdles and barriers to making sure that you are reporting things correctly, that CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] expects millions of people are going to lose coverage. And we know from limited experiments with work requirements in Arkansas that it does not increase employment. So, that’s the biggie. 

Rovner: The House froze provider taxes, which is what most — all states but Alaska? — use to help pay their share of Medicaid. The Senate went even further, didn’t they? 

Goldman: Yeah. Hospitals are saying that it’s going to be absolutely devastating to them. When you cut funding, cut reimbursement in that way, cut the amount of money that’s available in that way, it trickles down to the patient, ultimately. 

Karlin-Smith: Especially things like the provider tax, but even just the loss to certain health systems of Medicaid patients end up having a spiral effect where it may impact people who are on other health insurance, because these facilities will no longer have that funding to operate the way they are. Particularly some facilities talked about how the Obamacare Medicaid expansion really allowed them to expand their services and beef up. And now if they lose that population, you actually end up with risks of facilities closing. The Senate tried to provide a little bit of money to alleviate that, but I think that’s generally seen as quite small compared to the long-term effects of this bill. 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a $50 billion rural hospital slush fund, if you will, but that’s not going to offset $930 billion in cuts to Medicaid. And it’s important — I know we keep saying this, but it’s important to say again: It’s not just the people who will lose Medicaid who will be impacted, because if these facilities close — we’re talking about hospitals and rural clinics and other facilities that depend on Medicaid — people with all kinds of insurance are going to lack access. I see lots of nods going around. 

Goldman: Yeah. One salient example that somebody told me earlier this week was, think about ER wait times. It already takes so long to get seen if you go into the ER. And when people don’t have health insurance, they’re seeking care at the ER because it’s an emergency and they waited until it was an emergency, or that’s just where they feel they can go. But this is going to increase ER wait times for everybody. 

Rovner: And also, if nursing homes or other facilities close, people get backed up in the ER because they can’t move into the hospital when they need hospital care, because the hospital can’t discharge the people who are already there. I had sort of forgotten how that the crowded ERs are often a result of things other than too many people in the ER. 

Goldman: Right. 

Rovner: They’re a result of other strains on sort of the supply chain for care. 

Goldman: There’s so many ripple effects and dominoes that are going to fall, if you will. 

Rovner: So, there were some things that were in the House bill that, as predicted, didn’t make it into the Senate bill, because the parliamentarian said they violated the budget rules for reconciliation. That included the proposed Medicaid ban on all transgender care for minors and adults, and most of the cuts to states that use their own funds to cover undocumented people. But the parliamentarian ended up kind of splitting the difference on cutting funding to Planned Parenthood, which she had ruled in 2017 Congress couldn’t do in reconciliation. Alice, what happened here? 

Ollstein: She decided that one year of cuts was OK, when they had originally sought 10. And the only reason they originally sought 10 is that’s how these bills work. It’s a 10-year budget window. That’s how you calculate things. They sort of meant it to function like a permanent defund. So, the anti-abortion movement was really divided on this outcome, where some were declaring it a big victory and some were saying: Oh, only one year. This is such a disappointment and not what we were promised blah, blah, blah. And it’ll be really interesting to see if even one year does function like a sort of permanent defund. 

On the one hand, the anti-abortion movement is worried that because it’s one year, that means they’ll have to vote on it again next year right before the midterms, when people might get more squirrelly because of the politics of it, which obviously still exist now but would be more potent then. But clinics can’t survive without funding for long. We’re already seeing Planned Parenthoods around the country close because of Title X cuts, because of other budget instability. And so once a clinic closes, even if the funding comes back later, it can’t flip a switch and turn it back on. When things close, they close, the staff moves away, etc. 

Rovner: And we should emphasize Medicaid has not been used to pay for federal abortion funding ever. 

Ollstein: Yes. Yes. 

Rovner: That’s part of the Hyde Amendment. So we’re talking about non-abortion services here. We’re talking about contraception, and STD testing and treatment, and cancer screenings, and other types of primary care that almost every Planned Parenthood provides. They don’t all provide abortion, but they all provide these other ancillary services that lots of Medicaid patients use. 

Ollstein: Right. And so this will shut down clinics in states where abortion is legal, and it’ll shut down clinics in states where abortion is illegal and these clinics only are providing those other reproductive health services, which are already in scant supply and hard to come by. There’s massive maternity care deserts, contraceptive deserts around the country, and this is set to make that worse. 

Rovner: So, while this bill was not painted as a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, unlike the 2017 version, it does do a lot to scale that law back. This has kind of flown under the radar. Maya, you wrote about this. What does this bill do to the ACA? 

Goldman: Yeah. Well, so, there were a lot of changes that Congress was seeking to codify from rule that the Trump administration has finalized that really create a lot of extra barriers to enrolling in the ACA. A lot of those did not make it into the final bill that is being voted on, but there’s still more paperwork — death by paperwork. I think there’s preenrollment verification of eligibility, things like that. And I think just in general, the ACA has created massive gains in the insurer population in the United States over the last decade and a half. And there’s estimates that show that this would wipe out three-fourths of that gain. And so that’s just staggering to see that. 

Rovner: Yeah. I think people have underestimated the impact that this could have on the ACA. Of course, we’ve talked about this also a million times. This bill does not extend the additional subsidies that were created under the Biden administration, which has basically doubled the number of people who’ve been able to afford coverage and bought it on the marketplaces. But I’ve seen estimates that more than half of the people could actually end up dropping out of ACA coverage. 

Goldman: Yeah. And I think it’s important to talk about the timelines here. A lot of the work requirements in Medicaid won’t take effect for a couple of years, but people are going to lose their enhanced subsidies in January. And so we are going to see pretty immediate effects of this. 

Rovner: And they’re shortening the enrollment time. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

Rovner: And people won’t be able to be auto-reenrolled, which is how a lot of people continue on their ACA coverage. There are a lot of little things that I think together add up to a whole lot for the ACA. 

Goldman: Right. And Trump administration ACA enrollment barriers that were finalized might not be codified in this law, but they’re still finalized. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Goldman: And so they will take effect for 2026 coverage. 

Rovner: And while President Trump has said repeatedly that he didn’t want to touch Medicare, this bill ironically is going to do exactly that, because the amount the tax cuts add to the deficit is likely to trigger a Medicare sequester under budget rules. That means there will be automatic cuts to Medicare, probably as soon as next year. 

All right, well, that is the moving bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill. One thing that has at least stopped moving for now is the Supreme Court, at least for the moment. The justices wrapped up their formal 2024-2025 term with some pretty significant health-related cases that impact two topics we’re talking about elsewhere in this episode, abortion and vaccines. 

First, abortion. The court ruled that Medicaid patients don’t have the right to sue to enforce the section of Medicaid law that ensures free choice of provider. In this case, it frees South Carolina to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program. Now, this isn’t about abortion. This is about, as we said, other services that Planned Parenthood provides. But, Alice, what are the ramifications of this ruling? 

Ollstein: They could be very big. A lot of states have already tried and are likely to try to cut Planned Parenthood out of their Medicaid programs. And given this federal defund, this is now going after some of their remaining supports, which is state Medicaid programs, which is a separate revenue stream. And so this will just lead to even more clinic closures. And already, this kind of sexual health care is very hard to come by in a lot of places in the country. And that is set to be even more true in the future. And this is sort of the culmination of something that the right has worked towards for a long time. And so they had just a bunch of different strategies and tactics to go after Planned Parenthood in so many ways in the courts, and there’s still more shoes to drop. There’s still court cases pending. 

There’s one in Texas that’s accusing Planned Parenthood of defrauding the state, and so that judgment could wipe them out even more. This federal legislative effort, there’s the Supreme Court case — and they’ve really been effective at just throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks. And enough is sticking now that the organization is really — they were able to beat back a lot of these attempts before. They were able to rally in Congress. They were able to rally at the state level to push back on a lot of this. And that wasn’t true this time. And so I don’t know what conclusion to take from that. There’s, obviously, people are very overwhelmed. There’s a lot going on. There are organizations getting hit left and right, and maybe this just got lost in the noise this time. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that may be. Well, the other big Supreme Court decision was one we’d talked about quite a bit, the so-called Braidwood case that was challenging the ability of the CDC’s [Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s] Preventive Services Task Force from recommending services that would then be covered by health insurance. This was arguably a win for the Biden administration. The court ruled that the task force members do not need to be confirmed by the Senate. But, Sarah, this also gives Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] more power to do what he will with other advisory committees, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. By affirming the way the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force was set up, in that the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary is ultimately the authority for appointing the task force, which then makes recommendations around what coverage requirements under the ACA. It also sort of affirms the authority of the HHS secretary here. And I think people think it has implications for other bodies like CDC’s advisory committee on vaccines as well, where the secretary has a lot of authority. 

So, I think people who really support the coverage advantages that have come through the USPSTF and Obamacare have always pushed for this outcome in this case. But given our current HHS secretary, there are some worries that it might lead to rollbacks or changes in areas of the health care paradigm that he does not support. 

Rovner: Well, let us segue to that right now. That is, of course, as you mentioned, the other major CDC advisory committee, the one on immunization practices. When we left off, Secretary Kennedy had broken his promise to Senate health committee chairman Bill Cassidy and fired all 17 members of the committee, replacing them with vaccine skeptics and a couple of outright vaccine deniers. So last week, the newly reconstituted panel held its first meeting. How’d that go? 

Karlin-Smith: It was definitely an interesting meeting, different, I think, for people who have watched ACIP [the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] in the past. Besides just getting rid of the members of the advisory panel, Kennedy also removed a lot of the CDC staff who work on that topic as well. So the CDC staffers who were there and doing their typical presentations were much smaller in number. And for the most part, I think they did a really good job of sticking to the tried-and-true science around these products and really having to grapple with extremely, I think, unusual questions from many of the panelists. But the agenda got shrunk quite a bit, and one of the topics was quite controversial. Basically, they decided to review the ingredient thimerosal, which was largely taken out of vaccines in the late ’90s, early 2000s, but remains in certain larger vials of flu vaccines. 

Rovner: It’s a preservative, right? You need something in a multi-dose vaccine vial to keep it from getting contaminated. 

Karlin-Smith: And they had a presentation from Lyn Redwood, who was a former leader of the Children’s Health Defense, which is a very anti-vax organization started by Robert Kennedy. The presentation was generally seen as not based in science and evidence, and there was no other presentations, and the committee voted to not really allow flu vaccines with that ingredient. 

And the impact in the U.S. here is going to be pretty small because, I think, it’s about 4% of people get vaccines through those large-quantity vials, like if you’re in a nursing home or something like that. But what people are saying, and Scott Gottlieb [Food and Drug Administration commissioner in the first Trump administration] was talking a lot about this last week, was that this is really a hint of what is to come and the types of things they are going to take aim at. And he’s particularly concerned about another, what’s called an adjuvant, which is an ingredient added to vaccines to help make them work better, that’s in a lot of childhood vaccines, that Kennedy hinted at he wanted on the agenda for this meeting. It came off the agenda, but he presumes they will circle back to it. And if companies can’t use that ingredient in their vaccines, he’s not really clear they have anything else that is as good and as safe, and could force them out of the market. 

So there were a bunch of hints of things concerning fights to come. The other big one was that they were saying they want to review the totality of the childhood vaccine schedule and the amount of vaccines kids get, which was really a red flag for people who followed the anti-vaccine movement, because anti-vaxxers have a lot of long-debunked claims that kids get too many vaccines, they get them too closer together. And scientists, again, have thoroughly debunked that, but they still push that. 

Rovner: And that was something else that Kennedy promised Cassidy he wouldn’t mess with, if I recall correctly, right? 

Karlin-Smith: You know, the nature of the agreement between Cassidy and Kennedy keeps getting more confusing to me. And I actually talked to both HHS’ secretary’s office and Cassidy’s office last week about that. And they both don’t actually agree on quite exactly what the terms were. But anyway, I looked at it in terms of the terms, like whether it’s to preserve the recommendations ACIP has made over time in the childhood schedule, whether it’s to preserve the committee members. I think it’s pretty clear that Kennedy has violated the sort of heart of the matter, which is he has gone after safe, effective vaccines and people’s access to vaccines in this country in ways that are likely to be problematic. And there are hints of more to come. He’s also cut off funding for vaccines globally. So, I don’t know. I almost just laugh thinking about what they actually agreed to, but there’s really no way Cassidy can say that Kennedy followed through on his promises. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, even while ACIP was meeting last week, the HHS secretary was informing the members of Gavi, that’s the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunizations, that he was canceling the U.S.’ scheduled billion-dollar contribution because, he said, the public-private partnership that has vaccinated more than a billion children over the past two and a half decades doesn’t take vaccine safety seriously enough. Really? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. Kennedy has these claims, again, that I think are, very clearly have been, debunked by experts, that Gavi is not thinking clearly about vaccine safety and offering vaccines they shouldn’t be, and the result is going to be huge gaps in what children can get around the globe to vaccines. And it comes on top of all the other cuts the U.S. has made recently to global health in terms of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development]. So I think these are going to be big impacts. And they may eventually trickle down to impact the U.S. in ways people don’t expect. 

If you think about a virus like covid, which continues to evolve, one of the fears that people have always had is we get a variant that is, as it evolves, that is more dangerous to people and we’re less able to protect with the vaccines we have. If you allow the virus to kind of spread through unvaccinated communities because, say you weren’t providing these vaccines abroad, that increases the risk that we get a bad variant going on. So obviously, we should be concerned, I think, just about the millions of deaths people are saying this could cause globally, but there’s also impacts to our country as well and our health. 

Rovner: I know there’s all this talk about soft-power humanitarian assistance and helping other countries, but as long as people can get on airplanes, it’s in our interest that people in other countries don’t get things that can be spread here, too, right? 

Goldman: Yeah. One very small comment that was made during the ACIP meeting this week from CDC staff was an update on the measles outbreak, which I just thought was interesting. They said that the outbreak in the South from earlier this year is mostly under control, but people are still bringing in measles from foreign countries. And so that’s very much a real, real threat. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Ollstein: It’s the lesson that we just keep not learning again and again, which is if you allow diseases to spread anywhere, it’ll inevitably impact us here. We don’t live on an island. We have a very interconnected world. You can’t have a Well we’re going to only protect our people and nobody else mentality, because that’s just not how it works. And we’re reducing resources to vaccinate people here as well. 

Rovner: That’s right. Turning back to abortion, there was other news on that front this week. In Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court formally overturned that state’s 1849 abortion ban. That was the big issue in the Supreme Court election earlier this year. But a couple of other stories caught my eye. One is from NBC News about how crisis pregnancy centers, those anti-abortion facilities that draw women in by offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds, are actually advising clinics against offering ultrasounds in some cases after a clinic settled a lawsuit for misdiagnosing a woman’s ectopic pregnancy, thus endangering her life. Alice, if this is a big part of the centers’ draw with these ultrasounds, what’s going on here? 

Ollstein: I think it’s a good example. I want to stress that there’s a big variety of quality of medical care at these centers. Some have actual doctors and nurses on staff. Some don’t at all. Some offer good evidence-based care. Some do not. And I have heard from a lot of doctors that patients will come to them with ultrasounds that were incorrectly done or interpreted by crisis pregnancy centers. They were given wrong information about the gestation of their pregnancy, about the viability of their pregnancy. And so this doesn’t surprise me at all, based on what I’ve heard anecdotally. 

People should also remember that these centers are not regulated as much as health clinics are. And that goes for things like HIPAA [the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act] as well. They don’t have the same privacy protections for the information people share there. And so I think we should also keep in mind that women might be depending more and more on these going forward as Planned Parenthoods close, as other clinics close because of all the cuts we just talked about. These clinics are really proliferating and are trying to fill that vacuum. And so things like this should keep people questioning the quality of care they provide. 

Rovner: Yeah. And of course, layer on top of that the Medicaid cuts. There’s going to be an increased inability to get care, particularly in far-flung areas. You can sort of see how this can sort of all pile onto itself. 

Well, the other story that grabbed me this week comes from the Pulitzer Prize-winning team at ProPublica. It’s an analysis of hospital data from Texas that suggests that the state’s total abortion ban is making it more likely that women experiencing early miscarriages may not be getting timely care, and thus are more likely to need blood transfusions or experience other complications. Anti-abortion groups continue to maintain that these bans don’t impact women with pregnancy complications, which are super common, for those who don’t know, particularly early in pregnancy. But experience continues to suggest that that is not the case. 

Ollstein: Yeah. This is a follow-up to a lot of really good reporting ProPublica has done. They also showed that sepsis rates in Texas have gone way up in the wake of the abortion ban. And so anti-abortion groups like to point to the state’s report showing how many abortions are still happening in the state because of the medical emergency exceptions, and saying: See? It’s working. People are using the exceptions. And it is true that some people are, but I think that this kind of data shows that a lot of people are not. And again, if it’s with what I hear anecdotally, there’s just a lot of variety on the ground from hospital to hospital, even in the same city, interpreting the law differently. Their legal teams interpret what they can and can’t provide. It could depend on what resources they have. It could depend on whether they’re a public or private hospital, and whether they’re afraid of the state coming after them and their funding. 

And so I think this shows that one doctor could say, Yes, I do feel comfortable doing this procedure to save this woman’s life, and another doctor could say, I’m going to wait and see. And then you get the sepsis, the hemorrhage. These are very sensitive situations when even a short delay could really be life-and-death, or be long-term health consequences. People have lost the ability to have more children. We’ve seen stories about that. We’ve seen stories about people having to suffer a lot of health consequences while their doctors figure out what kind of care they can provide. 

Rovner: In the case of early miscarriage, the standard of care is to empty the uterus basically to make sure that the bleeding stops, which is either a D&C [dilation and curettage], which of course can also be an early abortion, or using the abortion pill mifepristone and misoprostol, which now apparently doctors are loath to use even in cases of miscarriage. I think that’s sort of the take-home of this story, which is a little bit scary because early miscarriage is really, really, really common. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. And this is about the hospital context, which is obviously very important, but I’m also hearing that this is an issue even for outpatient care. So if somebody is having a miscarriage, it’s not severe enough that they have to be hospitalized, but they do need this medication to help it along. And when they go to the pharmacy, their prescription says, “missed abortion” or “spontaneous abortion,” which are the technical terms for miscarriage. But a pharmacist who isn’t aware of that, isn’t used to it, it’s not something they see all the time, they see that and they freak out and they say, Oh, I don’t want to get sued, so they don’t dispense the medication. Or there are delays. They need to call and double-check. And that has been causing a lot of turmoil as well. 

Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, Elon Musk is fighting with President Trump again over the budget reconciliation bill, but the long shadow of DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency] still lives on in federal agencies. On the one hand, The Washington Post scooped this week that DOGE no longer has control over the Grants.gov website, which controls access to more than half a trillion dollars in federal grant funding. On the other hand, I’m still hearing that money is barely getting out and still has to get multiple approvals from political appointees before it can basically get to where it’s supposed to be going. NPR has a story this week with the ominous headline “‘Where’s Our Money?’ CDC Grant Funding Is Moving So Slowly Layoffs Are Happening.” 

I know there’s so much other news happening right now, it’s easy to overlook, but I feel like the public health and health research infrastructure are getting starved to death while the rest of us are looking at shinier objects. 

Goldman: Yeah. This the whole flood-the-zone strategy, right? There’s so many things going on that we can’t possibly keep up with all of them, but this is extremely important. I think if you talk to any research scientist that gets federal funding, they would tell you that things have not gotten back to normal. And there’s so much litigation moving through the courts that it’s going to take a really long time before this is settled, period. 

Rovner: Yeah. We did see yet another court decision this week warning that the layoffs at HHS were illegal. But a lot of these layoffs happened so long ago that these people have found other jobs or put their houses up for sale. You can’t quite put this toothpaste back in the tube. 

Goldman: Right. And also, with this particular ruling, this came from a Rhode Island federal judge, a Biden appointee, so it wasn’t very surprising. But it said that the reorganization plan of HHS was illegal. Or, not illegal, it was a temporary injunction on the reorganization plan and said HHS cannot place anyone else on administrative leave. But it doesn’t require them to rehire the employees that have been laid off, which is also interesting. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we will continue to monitor that. All right, that is as much as this week’s news as we have time for. 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. Sarah, you were first to choose this week. Why don’t you go first? 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a Wired piece from Will Bahr, “Snake Venom, Urine, and a Quest To Live Forever: Inside a Biohacking Conference Emboldened by MAHA.” And it is about a conference in Texas kind of designed to sell you products that they claim might help you live to 180 or more. A lot of what appears to be people essentially preying on people’s fears of mortality, aging, death to sell things that do not appear to be scientifically tested or validated by agencies like FDA. The founder even talks about using his own purified urine to treat his allergies. They’re microdosing snake venom. And it does seem like RFK is sort of emboldening this kind of way of thinking and behavior. 

One of the things I felt was really interesting about the story is the author can’t quite pin down what unites all of these people in their interests in this space. In many cases, they claim there are sort of — there’s not a political element to it. But since I cover the pharma industry very closely, they all seem disappointed with mainstream medical systems and the pharma industry with the U.S., and they are seeking other avenues. But it’s quite an interesting look at the types of things they are willing to try to extend their lives. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is quite the story. Maya, why don’t you go next? 

Goldman: My extra credit this week is from my Axios colleague Tina Reed. It’s called “New Docs Get Schooled in Old Diseases as Vaxx Rates Fall.” And it’s all about how medical schools are adjusting their curriculum to teach students to spend more time on measles and things that we have considered to be wiped out in the United States. And I think it just — it really goes to show that this is something that is real and that’s actually happening. People are coming to emergency rooms and hospitals with these illnesses, and young doctors need to learn about them. We already have so many things to learn in medical school that there’s certainly a trade-off there. 

Rovner: There is, indeed. And Alice, you have a related story. 

Ollstein: Yes, I do. So, this is from The New York Times. It’s called “‘I Feel I’ve Been Lied To’: When a Measles Outbreak Hits Home,” by Eli Saslow. And it’s about the measles outbreak that originated in Texas. But what I think it does a really good job at is, we’ve talked a lot about how people have played up the dangers of vaccines and exaggerated them and, in some cases, outright lied about them, and how that’s influencing people, fear of autism, etc., fear of these adverse reactions. But I think this piece really shows that the other side of that coin is how much some of those same voices have downplayed measles and covid. 

And so we have this situation where people are too afraid of the wrong things — vaccines — and not afraid enough of the right things — measles and these diseases. And so in the story people who are just, including people with some medical training, being shocked at how bad it is, at how healthy kids are really suffering and needing hospitalization and needing to be put on oxygen. And that really clashes with the message from this administration, which has really downplayed that and said it’s mainly hitting people who were already unhealthy or already had preexisting conditions, which is not true. It can hit other people. And so, yeah, I think it’s a very nuanced look at that. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really extraordinary story. My extra credit this week is from the medical journal The Lancet. And I won’t read the entire title or its multiple authors, because that would take the rest of the podcast. But I will summarize it by noting that it finds that funding provided by the U.S. Agency for International Development, which officially closed up shop this week after being basically illegally dissolved by the Trump administration, has saved more than 90 million lives over the past two decades. And if the cuts made this year are not restored, an additional 14 million people will die who might not have otherwise. Far from the Trump administration’s claims that USAID has little to show for its work, this study suggests that the agency has had an enormous impact in reducing deaths from HIV and AIDS, from malaria and other tropical diseases, as well as those other diseases afflicting less developed nations. We’ll have to see how much if any of those services will be maintained or restored. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I’m a little bit on X, mostly on Bluesky, at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice? 

Ollstein: Mostly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda. Still a little bit on X, @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Maya. 

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_, and also on LinkedIn. You can just find me under my name. 

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).

As summer ushers in peak mosquito season, health and vector control officials are bracing for the possibility of another year of historic rates of dengue. And with climate change, the lack of an effective vaccine, and federal research cuts, they worry the disease will become endemic to a larger swath of North America.

About 3,700 new dengue infections were reported last year in the contiguous United States, up from about 2,050 in 2023, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. All of last year’s cases were acquired abroad, except for 105 cases contracted in California, Florida, or Texas. The CDC issued a health alert in March warning of the ongoing risk of dengue infection.

“I think dengue is here with us to stay,” said infectious disease specialist Michael Ben-Aderet, associate medical director of hospital epidemiology at Cedars-Sinai in Los Angeles, about dengue becoming a new normal in the U.S. “These mosquitoes aren't going anywhere.”

Dengue is endemic — a label health officials assign when diseases appear consistently in a region — in many warmer parts of the world, including Latin America, India, and Southeast Asia. Dengue cases increased markedly last year in many of those places, especially in Central and South America.

The disease, which can spread when people are bitten by infected Aedes mosquitoes, was not common in the contiguous United States for much of the last century. Today, most locally acquired (meaning unrelated to travel) dengue cases in the U.S. happen in Puerto Rico, which saw a sharp increase in 2024, triggering a local public health emergency.

Most people who contract dengue don’t get sick. But in some people symptoms are severe: bleeding from the nose or mouth, intense stomach pain, vomiting, and swelling. Occasionally, dengue causes death.

California offers a case study in how dengue is spreading in the U.S. The Aedes aegypti and Aedes albopictus mosquitoes that transmit dengue weren’t known to be in the state 25 years ago. They are now found in 25 counties and more than 400 cities and unincorporated communities, mostly in Southern California and the Central Valley.

The spread of the mosquitoes is concerning because their presence increases the likelihood of disease transmission, said Steve Abshier, president of the Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California.

From 2016 through 2022, there were an average of 136 new dengue cases a year in California, each case most likely brought to the state by someone who had traveled and been infected elsewhere. In 2023, there were about 250 new cases, including two acquired locally.

In 2024, California saw 725 new dengue cases, including 18 acquired locally, state data shows.

Climate change could contribute to growth in the Aedes mosquitoes’ population, Ben-Aderet said. These mosquitoes survive best in warm urban areas, often biting during the daytime. Locally acquired infections often occur when someone catches dengue during travel, then comes home and is bitten by an Aedes mosquito that bites and infects another person.

“They've just been spreading like wildfire throughout California,” Ben-Aderet said.

Dengue presents a challenge to the many primary care doctors who have never seen it. Ben-Aderet said doctors who suspect dengue should obtain a detailed travel history from their patients, but confirming the diagnosis is not always quick.

“There's no easy test for it,” he said. “The only test that we have for dengue is antibody tests.” He added that “most labs probably aren't doing it commercially, so it's usually like a send-out test from most labs. So you really have to suspect someone has dengue.”

Best practices for avoiding dengue include eliminating any standing pools of water on a property — even small pools — and using mosquito repellent, Abshier said. Limiting activity at dusk and dawn, when mosquitoes bite most often, can also help.

Efforts to combat dengue in California became even more complicated this year after wildfires ripped through Los Angeles. The fires occurred in a hot spot for mosquito-borne illnesses. San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District officials have worked for months to treat more than 1,400 unmaintained swimming pools left in the wake of fire, removing potential breeding grounds for mosquitoes.

San Gabriel vector control officials have used local and state resources to treat the pools, said district spokesperson Anais Medina Diaz. They have applied for reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, which has not historically paid for vector control efforts following wildfires.

In California, vector control agencies are often primarily funded by local taxes and fees on property owners.

Some officials are pursuing the novel method of releasing sterilized Aedes mosquitoes to reduce the problem. That may prove effective, but deploying the method in a large number of areas would be costly and would require a massive effort at the state level, Abshier said. Meanwhile, the federal government is pulling back on interventions: Several outlets have reported that the National Institutes of Health will stop funding new climate change-related research, which could include work on dengue.

This year, reported rates of dengue in much of the Americas have declined significantly from 2024. But the trend in the United States likely won’t be clear until later in the year, after the summer mosquito season ends.

Health and vector control researchers aren't sure how bad it will get in California. Some say there may be limited outbreaks, while others predict dengue could get much worse. Sujan Shresta, a professor and infectious disease researcher at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology, said other places, like Nepal, experienced relatively few cases of dengue in the recent past but now regularly see large outbreaks.

There is a vaccine for children, but it faces discontinuation from a lack of global demand. Two other dengue vaccines are unavailable in the United States. Shresta’s lab is hard at work on an effective, safe vaccine for dengue. She hopes to release results from animal testing in a year or so; if the results are positive, human trials could be possible in about two years.

“If there's no good vaccine, no good antivirals, this will be a dengue-endemic country,” she said.

Phillip Reese is a data reporting specialist and an associate professor of journalism at California State University-Sacramento.

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Con el verano marcando el comienzo de la temporada alta de mosquitos, autoridades sanitarias y de control de vectores se preparan para la posibilidad de otro año con tasas históricas de dengue. Y con el cambio climático, la falta de una vacuna eficaz y los recortes federales en la investigación, les preocupa que la enfermedad se vuelva endémica en una franja más amplia de Norteamérica.

El año pasado se reportaron alrededor de 3.700 nuevas infecciones por dengue en Estados Unidos, frente a las 2.050 de 2023, según los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC). Todos los casos de 2024 se adquirieron en el extranjero, excepto 105 contraídos en California, Florida o Texas. Los CDC emitieron una alerta sanitaria en marzo advirtiendo sobre el riesgo continuo de infección por dengue.

"Creo que el dengue ha llegado para quedarse", declaró Michael Ben-Aderet, especialista en enfermedades infecciosas y director médico asociado de epidemiología hospitalaria del Cedars-Sinai de Los Ángeles, sobre la posibilidad de que el dengue se convierta en la nueva normalidad en el país. "Estos mosquitos no se irán a ninguna parte".

El dengue es endémico —una etiqueta que las autoridades de salud pública asignan cuando las enfermedades aparecen de forma constante en una región— en muchas zonas más cálidas del mundo, como Latinoamérica, India y el sudeste asiático. Los casos de dengue aumentaron notablemente el año pasado en muchos de esos lugares, especialmente en Centro y Sur América.

La enfermedad, que puede propagarse por la picadura de mosquitos Aedes que portan el virus, no fue común en Estados Unidos continental durante gran parte del siglo pasado. Actualmente, la mayoría de los casos de dengue adquiridos localmente (es decir, no relacionados con viajes) en el país se registran en Puerto Rico, donde se registró un fuerte aumento en 2024, lo que desencadenó una emergencia de salud pública local.

La mayoría de las personas que desarrollan dengue no se enferman. Sin embargo, en algunas, los síntomas son graves: sangrado por la nariz o la boca, dolor de estómago intenso, vómitos e hinchazón. En ocasiones, el dengue causa la muerte.

California ofrece un caso centinela sobre la propagación del dengue en el país. Hace 25 años, no se conocía la presencia de los mosquitos Aedes aegypti y Aedes albopictus, que transmiten el dengue, en el estado. Actualmente, se encuentran en 25 condados y más de 400 ciudades y comunidades no incorporadas, principalmente en el sur de California y en el Valle Central.

La propagación de los mosquitos es preocupante porque su presencia aumenta la probabilidad de transmisión de enfermedades, afirmó Steve Abshier, presidente de la Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California.

Entre 2016 y 2022, se registró un promedio de 136 nuevos casos de dengue al año en California, cada uno de los cuales probablemente traído al estado por alguien que viajó y se infectó en otro lugar. En 2023, se registraron alrededor de 250 casos nuevos, incluyendo dos adquiridos localmente.

En 2024, California registró 725 nuevos casos de dengue, incluyendo 18 adquiridos localmente, según datos estatales.

El cambio climático podría contribuir al aumento de la población de mosquitos Aedes, afirmó Ben-Aderet. Estos mosquitos sobreviven mejor en zonas urbanas cálidas, y suelen picar durante el día. Las infecciones de transmisión local suelen ocurrir cuando alguien contrae dengue durante un viaje, regresa a casa y lo pica un mosquito Aedes que, a su vez, pica e infecta a otra persona.

"Se han propagado rápidamente por toda California", explicó Ben-Aderet.

El dengue representa un desafío para muchos médicos de atención primaria que nunca lo han visto. Ben-Aderet dijo que los médicos que sospechan dengue deben obtener un historial de viaje detallado de sus pacientes, pero confirmar el diagnóstico no siempre es rápido.

"No existe una prueba sencilla para detectarlo", afirmó. "La única prueba que tenemos para el dengue son las pruebas de anticuerpos". Agregó que "la mayoría de los laboratorios probablemente no lo estén comercializando, por lo que suele ser una prueba que se debe analizar en otra instalación. Por lo tanto, es fundamental sospechar que alguien tiene dengue".

Las mejores prácticas para evitar el dengue incluyen eliminar cualquier agua estancada en una propiedad, aunque sea poca, y usar repelente de mosquitos, dijo Abshier. Limitar la actividad al atardecer y al amanecer, cuando los mosquitos pican con mayor frecuencia, también puede ayudar.

Los esfuerzos para combatir el dengue en California se complicaron aún más este año después de que los incendios forestales arrasaran Los Ángeles.

Los incendios ocurrieron en una zona de alta incidencia de enfermedades transmitidas por mosquitos. Funcionarios del San Gabriel Valley Mosquito and Vector Control District han trabajado durante meses para tratar más de 1.400 piscinas sin mantenimiento que quedaron tras el incendio, eliminando así posibles criaderos de mosquitos.

Estos oficiales han utilizado recursos locales y estatales para tratar las piscinas, dijo Anais Medina Díaz, vocera del distrito. Han solicitado un reembolso a la Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias (FEMA), que históricamente no ha financiado las iniciativas de control de vectores luego de incendios forestales.

En California, las agencias de control de vectores suelen financiarse principalmente con impuestos y tasas locales que pagan los propietarios.

Algunos funcionarios están implementando el novedoso método de liberar mosquitos Aedes esterilizados para reducir el problema. Eso puede resultar eficaz, pero implementar el método en un gran número de áreas sería costoso y requeriría un esfuerzo masivo a nivel estatal, dijo Abshier.

Mientras tanto, el gobierno federal está reduciendo sus intervenciones: varios medios han informado que los Institutos Nacionales de Salud dejarán de financiar nuevas investigaciones relacionadas con el cambio climático, que podrían incluir trabajos sobre el dengue.

Este año, las tasas de dengue reportadas en gran parte del continente americano han disminuido significativamente desde 2024. Sin embargo, es probable que la tendencia en Estados Unidos no se esclarezca hasta finales de año, después que termine la temporada de mosquitos de verano.

Los investigadores de salud y control de vectores no están seguros de la gravedad de la situación en California.

Algunos afirman que podría haber brotes limitados, mientras que otros predicen que el dengue podría empeorar mucho. Sujan Shresta, profesor e investigador de enfermedades infecciosas en el Instituto de Inmunología de La Jolla, señaló que otros lugares, como Nepal, experimentaron relativamente pocos casos de dengue en el pasado reciente, pero ahora se registran brotes grandes con regularidad.

Existe una vacuna para niños, pero está siendo discontinuada debido a la falta de demanda mundial. Otras dos vacunas no están disponibles en Estados Unidos. El laboratorio de Shresta trabaja arduamente en una vacuna eficaz y segura contra el dengue. Espera publicar los resultados de las pruebas en animales en aproximadamente un año; si son positivos, los ensayos en humanos podrían ser posibles en unos dos años.

"Si no hay una buena vacuna ni buenos antivirales, este será un país endémico para dengue", afirmó.

Phillip Reese es especialista en reportaje de datos y profesor asociado de Periodismo en la Universidad Estatal de California-Sacramento.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After explicitly promising senators during his confirmation hearing that he would not interfere in scientific policy over which Americans should receive which vaccines, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. this week fired every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, the group of experts who help the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention make those evidence-based judgments. Kennedy then appointed new members, including vaccine skeptics, prompting alarm from the broader medical community.

Meanwhile, over at the National Institutes of Health, some 300 employees — many using their full names — sent a letter of dissent to the agency’s director, Jay Bhattacharya, saying the administration’s policies “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.”

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• After removing all 17 members of the vaccine advisory committee, Kennedy on Wednesday announced eight picks to replace them — several of whom lack the expertise to vet vaccine research and at least a couple who have spoken out against vaccines. Meanwhile, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, the Republican head of the chamber’s health committee, has said little, despite the fact that Kennedy’s actions violate a promise he made to Cassidy during his confirmation hearing not to touch the vaccine panel.
• In other vaccine news, the Department of Health and Human Services has canceled private-sector contracts exploring the use of mRNA technology in developing vaccines for bird flu and HIV. The move raises concerns about the nation’s readiness against developing and potentially devastating health threats.
• Hundreds of NIH employees took the striking step of signing a letter known as the “Bethesda Declaration,” protesting Trump administration policies that they say undermine the agency’s resources and mission. It is rare for federal workers to use their own names to voice public objections to an administration, let alone President Donald Trump’s, signaling the seriousness of their concerns.
• Lawmakers have been considering adding Medicare changes to the tax-and-spend budget reconciliation legislation now before the Senate — specifically, targeting the use of what’s known as “upcoding.” Curtailing the practice, through which medical providers effectively inflate diagnoses and procedures to charge more, has bipartisan support and could increase the savings by reducing the amount the government pays for care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum and former director of the Congressional Budget Office, to discuss how the CBO works and why it’s so controversial.

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 “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne.  

Anna Edney: KFF Health News’ “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe,” by Arthur Allen.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Wired’s “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True,” by David Gilbert.  

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool To ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contracts,” by Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Hill’s “Cassidy in a Bind as RFK Jr. Blows Up Vaccine Policy,” by Nathaniel Weixel.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Firearm Laws and Pediatric Mortality in the US,” by Jeremy Samuel Faust, Ji Chen, and Shriya Bhat.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: RFK Jr. Upends Vaccine Policy, After Promising He Wouldn’t

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Douglas Holtz-Eakin, head of the American Action Forum and former head of the Congressional Budget Office. Doug will talk about what it is that CBO actually does and why it’s the subject of so many slings and arrows. But first, this week’s news. 

The biggest health news this week is out of the Department of Health and Human Services, where Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Monday summarily fired all 17 members of the CDC’s [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] vaccine advisory committee, something he expressly promised Republican Sen. Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do, in exchange for Cassidy’s vote to confirm him last winter. Sarah, remind us what this committee does and why it matters who’s on it? 

Karlin-Smith: So, they’re a committee that advises CDC on who should use various vaccines approved in the U.S., and their recommendations translate, assuming they’re accepted by the CDC, to whether vaccines are covered by most insurance plans and also reimbursed. There’s various laws that we have that set out, that require coverage of vaccines recommended by the ACIP [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] and so forth. So without ACIP recommendations, you may — vaccines could be available in the U.S. but extremely unaffordable for many people. 

Rovner: Right, because they’ll be uncovered. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. Your insurance company may choose not to reimburse them. 

Rovner: And just to be clear, this is separate from the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] actual approval of the vaccines and the acknowledgment it’s safe and effective. Right, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, there are two different roles here. So the FDA looks at all the safety and effectiveness data and decides whether it’s safe to come to market. And with ACIP, they are deciding whether these are things that children or adults or pregnant women, different categories of people, should be getting on a regular basis. 

Rovner: So Wednesday afternoon, Secretary Kennedy named eight replacements to the committee, including several with known anti-vaccine views. I suppose that’s what we all expected, kind of? 

Kenen: He also shrunk it, so there are fewer voices. The old panel, I believe, had 17. And the law says it has to have at least eight, and he appointed eight. As far as we know, that’s all he’s appointing. But who knows? A couple of more could straggle in. But as of now, it means there’s less viewpoints, less voices, which may or might not turn out to be a good thing. But it is a different committee in every respect. 

Edney: And I think it is a bit of what we expected in the sense that these are people who either are outright vaccine critics or, in a case or two, have actually said vaccines do horrible things to people. One of them had said before that the covid vaccine caused an AIDS-like virus in people. And there is a nurse that is part of the committee now that said her son was harmed by vaccines. And not saying that is or isn’t true — her concerns could be valid — but that she very much has worked to question vaccines. 

So I think it is the committee that we maybe would’ve expected from a sense of, I think he’s trying to bring in people who are a little bit mainstream, in the sense if you looked at where they worked or things like that, you might not say, like: Oh, Georgetown University. I get it. But they are people who have taken kind of the more of a fringe approach within maybe kind of a mainstream world. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say there’s also many people on the list that it’s just not even clear to me why you would look at their expertise and think, Oh, this is a committee they should serve on. One of the people is an MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology], essentially, like, business school professor who tangentially I think has worked on health policy to some extent. But, right, this is not somebody who has extreme expertise in vaccinology, immunology, and so forth. You have a psychiatrist whose expertise seems to be on nutrition and brain health. 

And one thing I think people don’t always appreciate about this committee at CDC is, you see them in these public meetings that happen a few times a year, but they do a lot of work behind the scenes to actually go through data and make these recommendations. And so having less people and having people that don’t actually have the expertise to do this work seems like it could cause a big problem just from that point of view. 

Edney: And that can be the issue that comes up when Kennedy has said, I don’t want anyone with any conflicts of interest. Well, we’ve talked about this. Certainly you don’t want a legit conflict of interest, but a lot of people who are going to have the expertise you need may have a perceived conflict that he doesn’t want on there. So you end up maybe with somebody who works in operations instead of on vaccines. 

Rovner: You mean maybe we’ll have people who actually have researched vaccines. 

Edney: Right. Exactly. Yeah. 

Kenen: The MIT guy is an expert in supply chains. None of us know who the best supply chain business school professor is in the world. Maybe it’s him, but it’s a very odd placement. 

Rovner: Well, so far Sen. Cassidy hasn’t said very much other than to kind of communicate that he’s not happy right now. Has anybody heard anything further? The secretary has been sort of walking up to the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do, but this clearly is over the line of things he told the senator he wouldn’t do. And now it’s done. 

Kenen: It’s like over the line and he set fire to it. And Cassidy has been pretty quiet. And in fact, when Kennedy testified before Cassidy — Cassidy is the chairman of the health committee — a couple of weeks ago, he gave him a really warm greeting and thanked him for coming and didn’t say: You’re a month late. I wanted you here last month. The questions were very soft. And things have only gotten more heated since then, with the dissolution of the ACIP committee and this reconstitution of it. And he’s been very quiet for somebody who publicly justified, who publicly wrestled with this, the confirmation, was the deciding vote, and then has been really soft since then — in public. 

Rovner: I sent around a story this morning to the panelists, from The Hill, which I will link to in the show notes, that quotes a political science professor in Louisiana pointing out that perhaps it would be better for Cassidy politically not to say anything, that perhaps public opinion among Republicans who will vote in a primary is more on the side of Secretary Kennedy than Sen. Cassidy, which raises some interesting questions. 

Edney: Yeah. And I think that, at least for me, I’m at the point of wondering if Cassidy didn’t know that all along, that there’s a point he was willing to go up to but a line that he is never going to have been willing to cross, and that is actually coming out against Kennedy and, therefore, [President Donald] Trump. He doesn’t want to lose his reelection. I am starting to wonder if he just hoped it wouldn’t come to this and so was able to say those things that got him to vote for Kennedy and then hope that it wouldn’t happen. 

And I think that was a lot of people. They weren’t on the line like Cassidy was, but I think a lot of people thought, Oh, nothing’s ever going to happen on this. And I think another thing I’m learning as I cover this administration and the Kennedy HHS is when they say, Don’t worry about it, look away, we’re not doing anything that big of a deal, that’s when you have to worry about it. And when they make a big deal about some policy they’re bringing up, it actually means they’re not really doing a lot on it. So I think we’re seeing that with vaccines for sure. 

Rovner: Yes, classic watch what they do not what they say. 

Kenen: But if you’re Cassidy and you already voted to impeach President Trump, which means you already have a target from the right — he’s a conservative, but it’s from the more conservative, though, the more MAGA [Make America Great Again] — if you do something mavericky, sometimes the best political line is to continue doing it. But they’ve also changed the voting rules, my understanding is, in Louisiana so that independents are — they used to be able to cross party lines in the primaries, and I believe you can’t do that anymore. So that also changed, and that’s recent, so that might have been what he thought might save him. 

Rovner: Well, it’s not just ACIP where Secretary Kennedy is insinuating himself directly into vaccine policy. HHS has also canceled a huge contract with vaccine maker Moderna, which was working on an mRNA-based bird flu vaccine, which we might well need in the near future, and they’ve also canceled trials of potential HIV vaccines. What do we know about what this HHS is doing in terms of vaccine policy? 

Karlin-Smith: The bird flu contract I think is very concerning because it seems to go along the lines of many people in this administration and Kennedy’s orbit who sometimes might seem a little bit OK with vaccines, more OK than Kennedy’s record, is they are very anti the newer mRNA technology, which we know proved very effective in saving tens of millions of lives. I was looking at some data just even the first year they rolled out after covid. So we know they work. Obviously, like all medical interventions, there are some side effects. But again, the benefits outweigh the risks. And this is the only, really, technology that we have that could really get us vaccines really quickly in a pandemic and bird flu. 

Really, the fear there is that if it were to jump to humans and really spread from human-to-human transmission — we have had some cases recently — it could be much more devastating than a pandemic like covid. And so not having the government have these relationships with companies who could produce products at a particular speed would be probably incredibly devastating, given the other technologies we have to invest in. 

Edney: I think Kennedy has also showed us that he, and spoken about this, is that he is much more interested in a cure for anything. He has talked about measles and Why can’t we just treat it better? And we’re seeing that with the HIV vaccine that won’t be going forward in the same way, is that the administration has basically said: We have the tools to deal with it if somebody gets it. We’re just not going to worry about vaccinating as much. And so I think that this is a little bit in that vein as well. 

Rovner: So the heck with prevention, basically. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, in related news, some 300 employees of the National Institutes of Health, including several institute directors, this week sent an open letter of dissent to NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya that they are calling the “Bethesda Declaration.” That’s a reference to the “Great Barrington Declaration” that the NIH director helped spearhead back in 2020 that protested covid lockdowns and NIH’s handling of the science. 

The Bethesda Declaration protests policies that the signatories say, quote, “undermine the NIH mission, waste our public resources, and harm the health of Americans and people across the globe.” Here’s how one of the signers, Jenna Norton of the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, put it in a YouTube video. 

Jenna Norton: And the NIH that I’m working in now is unrecognizable to me. Every day I go into the office and I wonder what ethical boundary I’m going to be asked to violate, what probably illegal action am I going to be asked to take. And it’s just soul-crushing. And that’s one of the reasons that I’m signing this letter. One of my co-signers said this, but I’m going to quote them because I thought it was so powerful: “You get another job, but you cannot get another soul.” 

Rovner: I’ve been covering NIH for a lot of years. I can’t remember pushback like this against an administration by its own scientists, even during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s. How serious is this? And is it likely to have any impact on policy going forward? 

Edney: I think if you’re seeing a good amount of these signers who sign their actual names and if you’re seeing that in the government, something is very serious and there are huge concerns, I think, because, as a journalist, I try to reach people who work in the government all the time. And if they’re not in the press office, if they speak to me, which is rare, even they do not want me to use their name. They do not want to be identified in any way, because there are repercussions for that. 

And especially with this administration, I’m sure that there is some fear for people’s jobs and in some instances maybe even beyond. But I think that whether there will be any policy changes, that is a little less clear, how this administration might take that to heart or listen to what they’re saying. 

Rovner: Bhattacharya was in front of a Senate Appropriations subcommittee this week and was asked about it, but only sort of tangentially. I was a little bit surprised that — obviously, Republicans, we just talked about Sen. Cassidy, they are afraid to go up against the Trump administration’s choices for some of these jobs — but I was surprised that even some of the Democrats seemed a little bit hands-off. 

Edney: Yeah, no one ever asks the questions I want asked at hearings, I have to say. I’m always screaming. Yeah, exactly. I’m always like: No. What are you doing? 

Rovner: That’s exactly how I was, like: No, ask him this. 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: Don’t ask him that. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, moving on to the Big Budget Bill, which is my new name for it. Everybody else seems to have a different one. It’s still not clear when the Senate will actually take up its parts, particularly those related to health, but it is clear that it’s not just Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act on the table but now Medicare, too. Ironically, it feels like lawmakers could more easily squeeze savings out of Medicare without hurting beneficiaries than either Medicaid or the ACA, or is that just me being too simplistic about this whole thing? 

Kenen: The Medicare bill is targeted at upcoding, which means insurers or providers sort of describing a symptom or an illness in the most severe terms possible and they get paid more. And everybody in government is actually against that. Everybody ends up paying more. I don’t know what else the small —this has just bubbled up — but I don’t know if there’s other small print. 

This alone, if it wasn’t tied to all the politics of everything else in this bill, this is the kind of thing, if you really do a bill that attacks inflated medical bills, you could probably get bipartisan support for. But because — and, again, I don’t know what else is in, and I know that’s the top line. There may be something that I’m not aware of that is more of a poison pill. But that issue you could get bipartisan consensus on. 

But it’s folded into this horrendously contentious thing. And it’s easy to say, Oh, they’re trying to cut Medicare, which in this case maybe they’re trying to cut it in a way that is smart, but it just makes it more complicated. If they do go for it, if they do decide that this goes in there, it could create a little more wiggle room to not cut some other things quite as deeply. 

But again, they’re calling everything waste, fraud, and abuse. None of us would say there is no waste, fraud, and abuse in government or in health care. We all know there is waste, fraud, and abuse, but that doesn’t mean that what they’re cutting here is waste, fraud, and abuse in other aspects of that bill. 

Rovner: Although, as you say, I think there’s bipartisan consensus, including from Mehmet Oz, who runs Medicare, that upcoding is waste and fraud. 

Kenen: Right. But other things in the bill are being called waste, fraud, and abuse that are not, right? That there’s things in Medicaid that are not waste, fraud, and abuse. They’re just changing the rules. But I agree with you, Julie. I think that in a bill that is not so fraught, it would’ve been easier to get consensus on this particular item, assuming it’s a clean upcoding bill, if you did it in a different way. 

Rovner: And also, there’s already a bipartisan bill on pharmacy benefit managers kicking around. There are a lot of things that Congress could do on a bipartisan basis to reduce the cost of Medicare and make the program better and shore it up, and that doesn’t seem to be what’s happening, for the most part. 

Well, we continue to learn things about the House-passed bill that we didn’t know before, and one thing we learned this week that I think bears discussing comes from a new poll from our KFF polling unit that found that nearly half those who purchased Affordable Care Act coverage from the marketplaces are Republicans, including a significant percentage who identify themselves as MAGA Republicans. 

So it’s not just Republicans in the Medicaid expansion population who’d be impacted. Millions of Trump supporters could end up losing or being priced out of their ACA insurance, too, particularly in non-Medicaid-expansion states like Florida and Texas. A separate poll from Quinnipiac this week finds that only 27% of respondents think Congress should pass the big budget reconciliation bill. Could either of these things change some Republican perceptions of things in this bill, or is it just too far down the train tracks at this point? 

Karlin-Smith: We saw a few weeks ago [Sen.] Joni Ernst seemed to be really highly critical of her own supporters who were pushing back on her support for the bill. Even when Republicans failed to get rid of the ACA and [Sen.] John McCain gave it the thumbs-down, he was the one. It wasn’t like everyone else was coming to help him with that. 

And again, I think there was the same dynamic where a lot of people who, if you had asked them did they support Obamacare while it was being written in law, in early days before they saw any benefit of it, would have said no and politically align themselves with the Republican Party, and their views have come to realize, once you get a benefit, that it may actually be more desirable, perhaps, than you initially thought. 

I think it could become a problem for them, but I don’t think it’s going to be a mass group of Republicans are going to change their minds over this. 

Rovner: Or are they going to figure out that that’s why they’re losing their coverage? 

Kenen: Right. Many things in this bill, if it goes into effect, are actually after the 2026 elections. The ACA stuff is earlier. And someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure it expires in time for the next enrollment season. 

Rovner: Yeah, and we’ve talked about this before. The expanded credits, which are not sort of quote-unquote— 

Kenen: No, they’re separate. 

Rovner: —“in this bill,” but it’s the expiration of those that’s going to cause— 

Kenen: In September. And so those— 

Rovner: Right. 

Kenen: —people would— 

Rovner: In December. No, at the end of the year they expire. 

Kenen: Right. So that in 2026, people getting the expanded benefit. And there’s also somewhat of a misunderstanding that that legislation opened Obamacare subsidies to people further up the eligibility roof, so more people who had more money but still couldn’t afford insurance do get subsidies. That goes away, but it cascades down. It affects lower-income people. It affects other people. It’s not just that income bracket. 

There are sort of ripple effects through the entire subsidized population. So people will lose their coverage. There’s really no dispute about that. The reason it was sunsetted is because it costs money. Congress does that a lot. If we do it for five years, we can get it on the score that we need out of the CBO. But if we do it for 10 years, we can’t. So that is not an unusual practice in Congress for Republicans and Democrats, but that happens before the election. 

It’s just whether people connect the dots and whether there are enough of them to make a difference in an election, right? Millions of people across the country. But does it change how people vote in a specific race in a state that’s already red? If it’s a very red state, it may not make people get mad, but it may not affect who gets elected to House or the Senate in 2026. 

Rovner: We will see. So Sarah, I was glad you mentioned Sen. Ernst, because last week we talked about her comment that we’re all going to die, in response to complaints at a town hall meeting about the Medicaid cuts. Well, Medicare and Medicaid chief Mehmet Oz says to Sen. Ernst, Hold my beer. Speaking on Fox Business, Oz said people should only get Medicaid if they, quote, “prove that they matter.” 

Now, this was in the context of saying that if you want Medicaid, you should work or go to school. Of course, most people on Medicaid do work or care-give for someone who can’t work or do go to school — they just have jobs that don’t come with private health insurance. I can’t help but think this is kind of a big hole in the Republican talking points that we keep seeing. These members keep suggesting that all working people or people going to school get health insurance, and that’s just not the case. 

Kenen: But it sounds good. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, there are small employers that don’t have to provide coverage under the ACA. There are people that have sort of churned because they work part time or can’t quite get enough hours to qualify, and these are often lower-income people. And I think the other thing I’ve seen people, especially in the disability committee and so forth, raises — there’s an underlying rhetoric here that to get health care, you have to be deserving and to be working. 

That, I think, is starting to raise concerns, because even though they kind of say they’re not attacking that population that gets Medicaid, I think there is some concern about the language that they’re using is placing a value on people’s lives that just sort of undermines those that legitimately cannot work, for no fault of their own. 

Kenen: It’s how the Republicans have begun talking about Medicaid again. Public opinion, and KFF has had some really interesting polls on this over the last few years, really interesting changes in public attitudes toward Medicaid, much more popular. And it’s thought of even by many Republicans as a health care program, not a welfare program. What you have seen — and that’s a change. 

What you’ve seen in the last couple of months is Republican leaders, notably Speaker [Mike] Johnson, really talking about this as welfare. And it’s very reminiscent of the Reagan years, the concept of the deserving poor that goes back decades. But we haven’t heard it as much that these are the people who deserve our help and these are the lazy bums or the cheats. 

Speaker Johnson didn’t call them lazy bums and cheats, but there’s this concept of some people deserve our help and the rest of them, tough luck. They don’t deserve it. And so that’s a change in the rhetoric. And talking about waste and talking about fraud and talking about abuse is creating the impression that it’s rampant, that there’s this huge abuse, and that’s not the case. People are vetted for Medicaid and they do qualify for Medicaid. 

States have their own money and their own enrollment systems. They have every incentive to not cover people who don’t deserve to be covered. Again, none of us are saying there’s zero waste. We would never say that. None of us are saying there’s zero abuse. But it’s not like that’s the defining characteristic of Medicaid is that it’s all fraud and abuse, and that you can cut hundreds of millions of dollars out of it without anybody feeling any pain. 

Rovner: And there were a lot of Republican states that expanded Medicaid, even when they didn’t have to, that are going to feel this. That’s a whole other issue that I think we will talk about probably in the weeks to come. I want to move to DOGE [the Department of Government Efficiency]. Elon Musk is back in California, having had a very ugly breakup with President Trump and possibly a partial reconciliation. But the impact of DOGE continues across the federal government, as well as at HHS. 

The latest news is apparently hundreds of CDC employees who were told that they were being laid off who are now being told: Never mind. Come back to work. Of course, this news comes weeks after they were told they were being fired, and it’s unclear how many of them have upended their work and family lives in the interim. 

But at the same time, much of the money that’s supposed to be flowing, appropriations for the current fiscal year that were passed by Congress and signed by President Trump — apparently still being held up. What are you guys hearing about how things at HHS are or aren’t going in the wake of the DOGE cutbacks? Go ahead, Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: It still seems like people at the federal government that I talked to are incredibly unhappy. At other agencies, as well, there have been groups of people called back to work, including at FDA. But still, I think the general sense is there’s a lot of chaos. People aren’t comfortable that their job will be there long-term. Many people even who were called back are saying they’re still looking for work other places. 

There’s just so many changes in both, I think, in their day-to-day lives and how they do their job, but then also philosophically in terms of policy and what they are allowed to do, that I think a lot of people are becoming kind of demoralized and trying to figure out: Can they do what they signed up to do in their job, or is it better just to move on? And I think there’s going to be long-term consequences for a lot of these government agencies. 

Rovner: You mean being fired and unfired and refired doesn’t make for a happy workplace? 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say a lot of them were called back to offices that they didn’t always have to come to. They’ve lost people who have been working and never lost their jobs, have lost close colleagues, support staff they rely on to do their jobs. So it’s really complicated even if you’re in the best-case scenario, I think, at a lot of these agencies. 

Kenen: And a loss of institutional memory, too, because nobody knows everything in your office. And in an office that functions, it’s collaborative. I know this, you know that. We work together, and we come out with a better product. So that’s been eviscerated. And then — we’re all in a part of an industry that’s seen a lot of downsizing and chaos, in journalism, and the outcome is worse. When things get beaten up and battered and kicked out, things are harmed. And it’s true of any industry, since we haven’t been AI-replaced yet. 

Rovner: Yet. So it’s been a while since we had a, quote, “This Week in Private Equity in Health Care,” but this week the governor of Oregon signed into law a pretty serious ban on private equity ownership of physician practices. Apparently, this was prompted by the purchase by Optum — that’s the arm of UnitedHealth that is now the largest owner of physician practices in the U.S. — of a multi-specialty group in Eugene, Oregon, that caused significant dislocation for patients and was charged by the state with impermissibly raising prices. Hospitals are not included in Oregon’s ban, but I wonder if this is the start of a trend. Or is this a one-off in a pretty blue state, which Oregon is? 

Edney: I think that it could be. I don’t know, certainly, but I think to watch how it plays out might be quite interesting. The problem with private equity ownership of these doctors’ offices is then the doctors don’t feel that they can actually give good care. They’ve got to move people through. It’s all about how much money can they make or save so that private equity can get its reward. And so I think that people certainly are frustrated by it, as in people who get the care, also people who are doing legislating and things like that. So I wouldn’t be surprised to see some other attempts at this pop up now that we’ve seen one. 

Kenen: But Oregon is uniquely placed to get something like this through. They are a very blue state. They’ve got a history of some health reform stuff that’s progressive. I don’t think you’ll see this domino-ing through every state legislature in the short term. 

Rovner: But I will also say that even in Oregon, it took a while to get this through. There was a lot of pushback because there is concern that without private equity, maybe some of these practices are going to go belly up. This is the continuing fight about the future of the health care workforce and who’s going to underwrite it. 

Well, finally this week, I want to give a shoutout to the biggest cause of childhood death and injury that is not being currently addressed by HHS, which is gun violence. According to a new study in JAMA Pediatrics, firearms deaths among children and teens grew significantly in states that loosened gun laws following a major Supreme Court decision in 2010. And it wasn’t just accidents. The increase in deaths included homicides and suicides, too. Yet gun violence seems to have kind of disappeared from the national agenda for both parties. 

Edney: Yeah, you don’t hear as much about it. I don’t know why. I don’t know if it’s because we’re inundated every day with a million things. And currently at the moment, that just hasn’t come up again, as far as a tragedy. That often tends to bring it back to people’s front of mind. And I think that there is, on the Republican side at least, we’re seeing tax cuts for gun silencers and things like that. So I think they’re emboldened on the side of NRA [the National Rifle Association]. I don’t know if Democrats are seeing that and thinking it’s a losing battle. What else can I focus my attention on? 

Kenen: Well, it’s in the news when there’s a mass killing. Society has just sort of become inured or shut its eyes to the day to day to day to day to day. The accidents, the murders. Don’t forget, a lot of our suicide problem is guns, including older white men in rural states who are very pro-gun. Those who kill themselves, it is how they kill themselves. It’s just something we have let happen. 

Rovner: Plus, we’re now back to arguing about whether or not vaccines are worthwhile. So, a lot of the oxygen is being taken up with other issues at the moment. 

Kenen: There’s a very overcrowded bandwidth these days. Yes. 

Rovner: There is. I think that’s fair. All right, well, that is this week’s news, or as much as we could squeeze in. Now we will play my interview with Doug Holtz-Eakin, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Douglas Holtz-Eakin, president of the American Action Forum, a center-right think tank, and former head of the Congressional Budget Office during the George W. Bush administration, when Republicans also controlled both Houses of Congress. Doug, thank you so much for being here. 

Douglas Holtz-Eakin: My pleasure. Thank you. 

Rovner: I mostly asked you here to talk about CBO and what it does and why it’s so controversial. But first, tell us about the American Action Forum and what it is you do now. 

Holtz-Eakin: So the American Action Forum is, on paper, a center-right think tank, a 501(c)(3) entity that does public education on policy issues, but it’s modeled on my experiences at working at the White House twice, running the Congressional Budget Office, and I was also director of domestic and economic policy on the John McCain campaign. And in those jobs, you worked on policy issues. You did policy education, issues, options, advice, but you worked on whatever was happening that day. 

You didn’t have the luxury of saying: Yeah, that’s not what I do. Get back to me when something interests you. And you had to convey your results in English to nonspecialists. So there was a sort of a premium on the communications function, and you also had to understand the politics. On a campaign you had to make good policy good politics, and at the White House you worried about the president’s program. 

No matter who was in Congress, that was all they thought about. And in Congress, the CBO is nonpartisan by law, and so obviously you have to care about that. And I just decided I like that work, and that’s what AAF does. We do domestic and economic policy on the issues that are going on in Congress or the agencies, with an emphasis on providing material that is readable to nonspecialists so they can understand what’s going on. 

Rovner: You’re a professional policy nerd, in other words. 

Holtz-Eakin: Pretty much, yeah. 

Rovner: As am I. So I don’t mean that in any way to be derogatory. I plead guilty myself. 

Holtz-Eakin: These bills, who knew? 

Rovner: Exactly. Well, let’s talk about the CBO, which, people may or may not know, was created along with the rest of the congressional budget process overhaul in 1974. What is CBO’s actual job? What is it that CBO is tasked to do? 

Holtz-Eakin: It has two jobs. Job number one, the one we’re hearing so much about now, is to estimate the budgetary impact of pieces of legislation being considered on the floor of the House or the Senate. So they call this scoring, and it is: How much will the bill change the flow of revenues into the Treasury and the flow of spending out of the Treasury year by year over what is currently 10 years? 

And you compare that to what would happen if you didn’t pass law, which is to say, leave the laws of land on autopilot and check out what happened to the budget then. So that’s what it’s doing now, and you get a lot of disagreement on the nature of that analysis. It also spends a lot of time doing studies for members of Congress on policies that Congress may have to be looking at in the future. 

And so anticipating the needs of Congress, studying things like Social Security reforms, which are coming, or different ways to do Medicaid reform if we decide to go down that route, and things that will prepare the Congress for future debates. 

Rovner: Obviously these scores are best guesses of people who spend a lot of time studying economic models. How accurate are CBO’s estimates? 

Holtz-Eakin: They’re wrong all the time, but that’s because predicting the future is really hard, and because when CBO does its estimates, it’s not permitted by law to anticipate future actions of Congress, and Congress is always doing something. That often changes the outcome down the road. Sometimes there are just unexpected events in the world. The pandemic was not something that was in the CBO baseline in 2019. And so, obviously, the numbers changed dramatically because of that. 

And also, because CBO is not really just trying to forecast. If that was all it was being asked to do, it might get closer sometimes, but what it’s really being asked to do is to be able to compare pieces of legislation. What’s the House bill look like compared to the Senate bill? And to do that, you have to keep the point of comparison, the so-called baseline, the same for as long as you’re doing this legislation. 

In some cases, that’s quite a long time. It was over two years for the Affordable Care Act. And by the time you’re at the end, the forecast is way out of date. But for consistency, you have to hold on to it. And then people say, Oh, you got the forecast wrong. But it’s the nature of what they’re being asked to do, which is to provide consistent scores that rank things appropriately, that can interfere with the just pure forecasting aspect. 

Rovner: And basically they’re the referee. It’s hard to imagine being able to do this process without having someone who acts as a referee, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: Well, yes. And in fact, sometimes you see them rush through and ignore CBO. And generally, that’s a sign that it’s not going well, because they really should take the time to understand the consequences of what they’re up to. 

Rovner: And how does that work? CBO, people get frustrated because this stuff doesn’t happen, like, overnight. They write a bill and there should be a CBO score the next day. But it’s not just fed into an AI algorithm, right? 

Holtz-Eakin: No. That’s a great misconception about CBO. People think there’s a model. You just put it in the model. You drop the legislation and out comes the numbers. And there are some things for which we have a very good feel because they’ve been done a lot. So change the matching rate in Medicaid and see what happens to spending — been done a lot. We understand that pretty well. 

Pass a Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, where the federal government provides a backstop to the private property and casualty insurance companies in the event there’s a terrorist attack at an unknown time in the future using an unknown weapon in an unknown location — there’s no model for that. You just have to read about extreme events, look at their financial consequences, imagine how much money the insurance companies would have, when they would round up money, and how much the federal government would be on the hook for. It’s not modeling. You’re asking CBO’s professionals to make informed budgetary judgments, and we pay them for their judgment. And I think that’s poorly understood. 

Rovner: So I’ve been at this since the late 1980s. I’ve seen a lot of CBO directors, Republican and Democrats, and my impression is that, to a person, they have tried very hard to play things as much down the middle as possible. Do you guys have strategy sessions to come up with ways to be as nonpartisan as you can? 

Holtz-Eakin: The truth is you just listen to the staff. I say this and I’m not sure people will fully appreciate it: Nonpartisanship is in the DNA of CBO, and I attribute this to the very first director, Alice Rivlin, and some of her immediate successors. They were interested in establishing the budget office, which had been invented in 1974, really got up and running a couple of years later, and they wanted to establish this credibility. 

And regardless of their own political leanings, they worked hard to put in place procedures and training of the staff that emphasized: There’s a research literature out there, go look at it. What’s the consensus in that research literature? Regardless of what you might think, what is it telling you about the impact of this program or this tax or whatever it might be? Bring that back. That’s what we’re going to do. 

Now we’ve done an estimate. Let’s go out at the end of the year and look at all our baseline estimates and look at what actually happened, compare the before and after. Oh my God. We’re really off. Why? What can we learn from that? And it’s a constant repetition of that. It’s been going on for a long time now and with just outstanding results, I think. CBO is a very professional place that has a very specialized job and does it real well. 

Rovner: So obviously, lawmakers have always complained about the CBO, because you always complain about the referee, particularly if they say something you don’t like or you disagree with. I feel like the criticism has gotten more heated in the last couple of years and that there’s been more of an effort to really undermine what it is that CBO does. 

Holtz-Eakin: I don’t know if I agree with that. That comes up a lot. It is certainly more pointed. I lay a lot of this at the feet of the president, who, when he first ran, introduced a very personal style campaigning. Everything is personal. He doesn’t have abstract policy arguments. He makes it about him versus someone else and usually gives that person a nickname, like “Rocket Boy” for the leader of North Korea, and sort of diminishes the virtues and skills of his opponent, in this case. 

So he says, like, that CBO is horrible. It’s a terrible place. That is more personal. That isn’t the nature of the attacks I receive, for example. But other than that, it’s the same, right? When CBO delivers good news, Congress says, God, we did a good job. When CBO delivers bad news, they say, God, CBO is terrible. And that’s been true for a long time. 

Rovner: And I imagine it will in the future. Doug Holtz-Eakin, thank you so much for being here and explaining all this. 

Holtz-Eakin: Thank you. 

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

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in Wired by David Gilbert, “The Bleach Community Is Ready for RFK Jr. To Make Their Dreams Come True.” It’s a story about Kennedy’s past references to the use of chlorine dioxide and groups of people who were pushing for this use as kind of a cure-all for almost any condition you can think of. And one thing the author of this piece picked up on is that some of the FDA warnings not to do this, because it’s incredibly dangerous and can kill you — it is not going to cure any of the ailments described — have been taken off of the agency’s website recently, which seems a bit concerning. 

Now, FDA seems to suggest they did it because it’s just a few years old and they tend to archive posts after that. But if you read what happens to people who try and use bleach — or really it’s like even more concentrated product, essentially — it would be hard for me to understand why you would want to try this. But it is incredibly concerning to see these just really dangerous, unscientifically supported cures come back and get sort of more of a platform. 

Rovner: Yes. I guess we can’t talk about gun violence because we’re talking about drinking bleach. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from KFF Health News, by Arthur Allen. It’s “Two Patients Faced Chemo. The One Who Survived Demanded a Test To See if It Was Safe.” And I found this starts off with a woman who needed chemo, and she got it and she started getting sores in her mouth and swelling around her eyes. And eventually she died a really painful, awful death, not from the cancer but from not being able to swallow or talk. And it was from the chemo. It was a reaction to the chemo, which I didn’t realize until I read this can, is a rare side effect that can happen. 

And there is a test for it. You can tell who might respond this way to chemo. And it doesn’t necessarily mean you wouldn’t get any chemo. You would instead maybe get lower doses, maybe different days of the week, things like that to try to help you not end up like this woman. And he also was able to talk to someone who knew about this and insisted on the test. And those were some of the calibrations that they made for her treatment. So I think it’s a great piece of public service journalism. It helps a lot of people be aware. 

Rovner: Super interesting. I had no idea until I read it, either. Joanne. 

Kenen: ProPublica, Brandon Roberts, Vernal Coleman, and Eric Umansky did a story called “DOGE Developed Error-Prone AI Tool to ‘Munch’ Veterans Affairs Contract.” And they had a related story that Julie can post that actually shows the code and the AI prompts, and you do not have to be very technically sophisticated to understand that there were some problems with those prompts. Basically, they had somebody who had no government experience and no health care experience writing really bad code and bad prompts. 

And we don’t know how many of the contracts were actually canceled, as opposed to flagged for canceling. There were things that they said were worth $34 million that weren’t needed. They were actually $35,000 and essential things that really pertain to patient care, including programs to improve nursing care were targeted. They were “munched,” which is not a word I had come across. So yes, it was everything you suspected and ProPublica documented it. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a very vivid story. Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Lawmakers Lobby Doctors To Keep Quiet — or Speak Up — on Medicaid Cuts in Trump’s Tax Bill,” by Daniel Payne. And it’s about something called reverse lobbying, lawmakers lobbying the lobbyists — in this case, in hopes of getting them to speak out or not about the budget reconciliation bill and its possible impact. Both sides know the public trusts health groups more than they trust lawmakers at this point. 

And so Democrats are hoping doctor and hospital groups will speak out in opposition to the cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans hope they will at least keep quiet. And Republicans, because it’s their bill, have added some sweeteners — a long-desired pay increase for doctors in Medicare. So we will have to wait to see how this all shakes out. 

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

Edney: X or Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Joanne 

Kenen: Bluesky or LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: All of the above, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: 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).

Pesticides are a known contributor to asthma and are commonly used where Bejarano lives in California’s Imperial Valley, a landlocked region that straddles two counties on the U.S.-Mexico border and is one of the main producers of the nation’s winter crops. It also has some of the worst air pollution in the nation and one of the highest rates of childhood asthma emergency room visits in the state, according to data collected by the California Department of Public Health.

Bejarano has since learned to manage her now-19-year-old son’s asthma and works at Comite Civico del Valle, a local rights organization focused on environmental justice in the Imperial Valley. The organization trains health care workers to educate patients on proper asthma management, enabling them to avoid hospitalization and eliminate triggers at home. The course is so popular that there’s a waiting list, Bejarano said.

But the group’s Asthma Management Academy program and similar initiatives nationwide face extinction with the Trump administration’s mass layoffs, grant cancellations, and proposed budget cuts at the Department of Health and Human Services and the Environmental Protection Agency. Asthma experts fear the cumulative impact of the reductions could result in more ER visits and deaths, particularly for children and people in low-income communities — populations disproportionately vulnerable to the disease.

“Asthma is a preventive condition,” Bejarano said. “No one should die of asthma.”

Asthma can block airways, making it hard to breathe, and in severe cases can cause death if not treated quickly. Nearly 28 million people in the U.S. have asthma, and about 10 people still die every day from the disease, according to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America.

In May, the White House released a budget proposal that would permanently shutter the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Asthma Control Program, which was already gutted by federal health department layoffs in April. It’s unclear whether Congress will approve the closure.

Last year, the program allotted $33.5 million to state-administered initiatives in 27 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., to help communities with asthma education. The funding is distributed in four-year grant cycles, during which the programs receive up to $725,000 each annually.

Comite Civico del Valle’s academy in Southern California, a clinician workshop in Houston, and asthma medical management training in Allentown, Pennsylvania — ranked the most challenging U.S. city to live in with asthma — are among the programs largely surviving on these grants. The first year of the current grant cycle ends Aug. 31, and it’s unknown whether funding will continue beyond then.

Data suggests that the CDC’s National Asthma Control Program has had a significant impact. The agency’s own research has shown that the program saves $71 in health care costs for every $1 invested. And the asthma death rate decreased 44% between the 1999 launch of the program and 2021, according to the American Lung Association.

“Losing support from the CDC will have devastating impacts on asthma programs in states and communities across the country, programs that we know are improving the lives of millions of people with asthma,” said Anne Kelsey Lamb, director of the Public Health Institute’s Regional Asthma Management and Prevention program. “And the thing is that we know a lot about what works to help people keep their asthma well controlled, and that’s why it’s so devastating.”

The Trump administration cited cost savings and efficiency in its April announcement of the cuts to HHS. Requests for comment from the White House and CDC about cuts to federal asthma and related programs were not answered.

The Information Wars

Fresno, in the heart of California’s Central Valley, is one of the country’s top 20 “asthma capitals,” with high rates of asthma and related emergencies and deaths. It’s home to programs that receive funding through the National Asthma Control Program. Health care professionals there also rely on another aspect of the program that is under threat if it’s shuttered: countrywide data.

The federal asthma program collects information on asthma rates and offers a tool to study prevalence and rates of death from the disease, see what populations are most affected, and assess state and local trends. Asthma educators and health care providers worry that the loss of these numbers could be the biggest impact of the cuts, because it would mean a dearth of information crucial to forming educated recommendations and treatment plans.

“How do we justify the services we provide if the data isn’t there?” said Graciela Anaya, director of community health at the Central California Asthma Collaborative in Fresno.

Mitchell Grayson, chair of the Asthma and Allergy Foundation’s Medical Scientific Council, is similarly concerned.

“My fear is we’re going to live in a world that is frozen in Jan. 19, 2025, as far as data, because that was the last time you know that this information was safely collected,” he said.

Grayson, an allergist who practices in Columbus, Ohio, said he also worries government websites will delete important recommendations that asthma sufferers avoid heavy air pollution, get annual flu shots, and get covid-19 vaccines.

Disproportionate Risk

Asthma disproportionately affects communities of color because of “historic structural issues,” said Lynda Mitchell, CEO of the Asthma and Allergy Network, citing a higher likelihood of living in public housing or near highways and other pollution sources.

She and other experts in the field said cuts to diversity initiatives across federal agencies, combined with the rollback of environmental protections, will have an outsize impact on these at-risk populations.

In December, the Biden administration awarded nearly $1.6 billion through the EPA’s Community Change Grants program to help disadvantaged communities address pollution and climate threats. The Trump administration moved to cut this funding in March. The grant freezes, which have been temporarily blocked by the courts, are part of a broader effort by the Trump EPA to eliminate aid to environmental justice programs across the agency.

In 2023 and 2024, the National Institutes of Health’s Climate Change and Health Initiative received $40 million for research, including on the link between asthma and climate change. The Trump administration has moved to cut that money. And a March memo essentially halted all NIH grants focused on diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI — funds many of the asthma programs serving low-income communities rely on to operate.

On top of those cuts, environmental advocates like Isabel González Whitaker of Memphis, Tennessee, worry that the proposed reversals of environmental regulations will further harm the health of communities like hers that are already reeling from the effects of climate change. Shelby County, home to Memphis, recently received an “F” on the American Lung Association’s annual report card for having so many high ozone days. González Whitaker is director of EcoMadres, a program within the national organization Moms for Clean Air that advocates for better environmental conditions for Latino communities.

“Urgent asthma needs in communities are getting defunded at a time when I just see things getting worse in terms of deregulation,” said González Whitaker, who took her 12-year-old son to the hospital because of breathing issues for the first time this year. “We’re being assaulted by this data and science, which is clearly stating that we need to be doing better around preserving the regulations.”

Back in California’s Imperial Valley — where the majority-Hispanic, working-class population surrounds California’s largest lake, the Salton Sea — is an area called Bombay Beach. Bejarano calls it the “forgotten community.” Homes there lack clean running water, because of naturally occurring arsenic in the groundwater, and residents frequently experience a smell like rotten eggs blowing off the drying lakebed, exposing decades of pesticide-tinged dirt.

In 2022, a 12-year-old girl died in Bombay Beach after an asthma attack. Bejarano said she later learned that the girl’s school had recommended that she take part in Comite Civico del Valle’s at-home asthma education program. She said the girl was on the waiting list when she died.

“It hit home. Her death showed the personal need we have here in Imperial County,” Bejarano said. “Deaths are preventable. Asthma is reversible. If you have asthma, you should be able to live a healthy life.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

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

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And we’re all going to die. 

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Or by executive order. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout. 

Weber: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

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

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

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

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

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency. 

Zionts: Yes. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Zionts: Yes. 

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

Zionts: Thank you. 

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

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

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

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Lauren. 

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

Rovner: Alice. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Rachel Nuzum
The Commonwealth Fund

Berenice Núñez Constant
AltaMed Health Services

Anish Mahajan
Los Angeles County Department of Public Health

Click to open the transcript

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. We have a special episode today, direct from the annual meeting of the Association of Health Care Journalists in Los Angeles, where I moderated a panel called “Shock and Awe in Federal Health Policy,” featuring some pretty impressive guests. This was taped on Friday, May 30, at 1 p.m. Pacific time. As always, things might have happened by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Núñez Constant: Unsatisfactory immigration status. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: NIH funding never used to be political. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unidentified speaker: That’s very kind. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: Right, right. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: Right. 

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Multiple nights. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Correct. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again. 

Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ziegler: Yeah, exactly. 

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

Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Sarah. 

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

Rovner: Alice. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

He powered up his X-ray fluorescence analyzer — like a cross between a laser gun and a power tool — which emitted a beam that dislodges electrons, coaxing out chemical fingerprints, and pointed it at surface after surface. Doors, door jambs, walls, couches, windowsills, blinds, toys, siding strips, 150 or 200 shots in all.

There was a bit of lead paint, but hardly enough to explain blood lead levels of over 10 micrograms per deciliter. There was a lead-containing figurine, brought back as a souvenir from abroad, but it was high on a shelf, beyond the 1- and 3-year-old’s reach. When he got his other samples back from the lab — water from the tap, sand from the play pit, a dust wipe from the father’s shoes — those were negative, too. “In the meantime,” said Alan Honeycutt, a regional environmental health specialist at the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services, “both children’s blood lead had gone higher.”

To him, that pointed toward something in their diets  — and it was his colleague at the local level who suggested the parents keep a food log. Within 72 hours, the mother called to say there was something she’d forgotten to mention: the applesauce packets her kids ate every day.

So began an investigation that would reveal 566 lead-poisoned children across 44 states, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C., and would eventually get the adulterated applesauce off shelves. But in late April, when the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published a paper on how that nationwide sleuthing went down, its fine print left a key detail out. At least six of the authors who’d worked at the CDC had been laid off earlier that month, when their entire division was slashed by the Trump administration’s cuts. In a way, the paper was a record of what had been lost, of what might not happen if a food product were poisoning kids right now. 

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…