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…

At the Department of Homeland Security, a man was led off the elevator in handcuffs.

But the area housing the regional office of the Department of Health and Human Services was eerily quiet.

In March, HHS announced it would close five of its 10 regional offices as part of a broad restructuring to consolidate the department’s work and reduce the number of staff by 20,000, to 62,000. The HHS Region 2 office in New York City, which has served New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, was among those getting the ax.

Public health experts and advocates say that HHS regional offices, like the one in New York City, form the connective tissue between the federal government and many locally based services. Whether ensuring local social service programs like Head Start get their federal grants, investigating Medicare claims complaints, or facilitating hospital and health system provider enrollment in Medicare and Medicaid programs, regional offices provide a key federal access point for people and organizations. Consolidating regional offices could have serious consequences for the nation’s public health system, they warn.

“All public health is local,” said Georges Benjamin, executive director of the American Public Health Association. “When you have relative proximity to the folks you’re liaising to, they have a sense of the needs of those communities, and they have a sense of the political issues that are going on in these communities.”

The other offices slated to close are in Boston, Chicago, San Francisco, and Seattle. Together, the five serve 22 states and a handful of U.S. territories. Services for the shuttered regional offices will be divvied up among the remaining regional offices in Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Kansas City, and Philadelphia.

The elimination of regional HHS offices has already had an outsize impact on Head Start, a long-standing federal program that provides free child care and supportive services to children from many of the nation’s poorest families. It is among the examples cited in the lawsuit against the federal government challenging the HHS restructuring brought by New York, 18 other states, and the District of Columbia, which notes that, as a result, “many programs are at imminent risk of being forced to pause or cease operations.”

The HHS site included a regional Head Start office that was closed and laid off staff last month. The Trump administration had sought to wipe out funding for Head Start, according to a draft budget document that outlines dramatic cuts at HHS, which Congress would need to approve. Recent news reports indicate the administration may be stepping back from this plan; however, other childhood and early-development programs could still be on the chopping block.

Bonnie Eggenburg, president of the New Jersey Head Start Association, said her organization has long relied on the HHS regional office to be “our boots on the ground for the federal government.” During challenging times, such as the covid-19 pandemic or Hurricanes Sandy and Maria, the regional office helped Head Start programs design services to meet the needs of children and families. “They work with us to make sure we have all the support we can get,” she said.

In recent weeks, payroll and other operational payments have been delayed, and employees have been asked to justify why they need the money as part of a new “Defend the Spend” initiative instituted by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, created by President Donald Trump through an executive order.

“Right now, most programs don’t have anyone to talk to and are unsure as to whether or not that notice of award is coming through as expected,” Eggenburg said.

HHS regional office employees who worked on Head Start helped providers fix technical issues, address budget questions, and discuss local issues, like the city’s growing population of migrant children, said Susan Stamler, executive director of United Neighborhood Houses. Based in New York City, the organization represents dozens of neighborhood settlement houses — community groups that provide services to local families such as language classes, housing assistance, and early-childhood support, including some Head Start programs.

“Today, the real problem is people weren’t given a human contact,” she said of the regional office closure. “They were given a website.”

To Stamler, closing the regional Head Start hub without a clear transition plan “demonstrates a lack of respect for the people who are running these programs and services,” while leaving families uncertain about their child care and other services.

“It’s astonishing to think that the federal government might be reexamining this investment that pays off so deeply with families and in their communities,” she said.

Without regional offices, HHS will be less informed about which health initiatives are needed locally, said Zach Hennessey, chief strategy officer of Public Health Solutions, a nonprofit provider of health services in New York City.

“Where it really matters is within HHS itself,” he said. “Those are the folks that are now blind — but their decisions will ultimately affect us.”

Dara Kass, an emergency physician who was the HHS Region 2 director under the Biden administration, described the job as being an ambassador.

“The office is really about ensuring that the community members and constituents had access to everything that was available to them from HHS,” Kass said.

At HHS Region 2, division offices for the Administration for Community Living, the FDA’s Office of Inspections and Investigations, and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration have already closed or are slated to close, along with several other division offices.

HHS did not provide an on-the-record response to a request for comment but has maintained that shuttering regional offices will not hurt services.

Under the reorganization, many HHS agencies are either being eliminated or folded into other agencies, including the recently created Administration for a Healthy America, under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“We aren’t just reducing bureaucratic sprawl. We are realigning the organization with its core mission and our new priorities in reversing the chronic disease epidemic,” Kennedy said in a press release announcing the reorganization.

Regional office staffers were laid off at the beginning of April. Now there appears to be a skeleton crew shutting down the offices. On a recent day, an Administration for Children and Families worker who answered a visitor’s buzz at the entrance estimated that only about 15 people remained. When asked what’s next, the employee shrugged.

The Trump administration’s downsizing effort will also eliminate six of 10 regional outposts of the HHS Office of the General Counsel, a squad of lawyers supporting the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and other agencies in beneficiary coverage disputes and issues related to provider enrollment and participation in federal programs.

Unlike private health insurance companies, Medicare is a federal health program governed by statutes and regulations, said Andrew Tsui, a partner at Arnall Golden Gregory who has co-written about the regional office closings.

“When you have the largest federal health insurance program on the planet, to the extent there could be ambiguity or appeals or grievances,” Tsui said, “resolving them necessarily requires the expertise of federal lawyers, trained in federal law.”

Overall, the loss of the regional HHS offices is just one more blow to public health efforts at the state and local levels.

State health officials are confronting the “total disorganization of the federal transition” and cuts to key federal partners like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, CMS, and the FDA, said James McDonald, the New York state health commissioner.

“What I’m seeing is, right now, it’s not clear who our people ought to contact, what information we’re supposed to get,” he said. “We’re just not seeing the same partnership that we so relied on in the past.”

Healthbeat is a nonprofit newsroom covering public health published by Civic News Company and KFF Health News. Sign up for its newsletters here.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The report found that 96% of the Part D plans and 88% of the Medicare Advantage drug plans agreed to cover at least one of the 10 available copycat drugs on their 2025 formularies. And some did not cover the brand-name version. This was a big jump in coverage from 2024, when only 64% of the Part D plans and 52% of the Medicare Advantage drug plans covered at least one biosimilar version of Humira.

Overall, 99% of enrollees in Part D Plans and 90% in Medicare Advantage drug plans had access to at least one Humira biosimilar in 2025. However, some plans are still restricting access to the biosimilars this year, which precludes usage. Specifically, 10% of Medicare Advantage drug plans and 1% of Part D plans cover only the brand-name medication.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

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

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

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldman: Yeah. 

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

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

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

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: That’s where. 

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

Edney: Right. 

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

Edney: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

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

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

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

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

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

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

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

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

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

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

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

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

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

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

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

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

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

Sausser: Right. 

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

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

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

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

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

Sausser: Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Aproximadamente dos tercios de los padres con inclinaciones republicanas desconocen el aumento en los casos de sarampión este año, mientras que cerca de dos tercios de los demócratas sabían sobre el tema, según una encuesta de KFF publicada el miércoles 23 de abril.

Los republicanos son mucho más escépticos con respecto a las vacunas y tienen el doble de probabilidades (1 de cada 5) que los demócratas (1 de cada 10) de creer que la vacuna contra el sarampión es peor que la enfermedad, según la encuesta realizada a 1.380 adultos estadounidenses.

Alrededor del 35% de los republicanos que respondieron a la encuesta, realizada del 8 al 15 de abril por internet y por teléfono, aseguraron que la teoría desacreditada que vincula la vacuna contra el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola con el autismo era definitiva o probablemente cierta, en comparación con solo el 10% de los demócratas.

Las tendencias son prácticamente las mismas que las reportadas por KFF en una encuesta de junio de 2023.

Sin embargo, en la nueva encuesta, 3 de cada 10 padres creían erróneamente que la vitamina A puede prevenir las infecciones por el virus del sarampión, una teoría que Robert F. Kennedy Jr., el secretario de Salud y Servicios Humanos, ha diseminado desde que asumió el cargo, en medio del brote de sarampión.

Se han reportado alrededor de 900 casos en 27 estados, la mayoría en un brote centrado en el oeste de Texas.

“Lo más alarmante de la encuesta es que estamos observando un aumento en la proporción de personas que han escuchado estas afirmaciones”, afirmó la coautora Ashley Kirzinger, directora asociada del Programa de Investigación de Encuestas y Opinión Pública de KFF. (KFF es una organización sin fines de lucro dedicada a la información sobre salud que incluye a KFF Health News).

“No es que más gente crea en la teoría del autismo, sino que cada vez más gente escucha sobre ella”, afirmó Kirzinger. Debido a que las dudas sobre la seguridad de las vacunas es factor directo de la decision de los padres reducer la vacunación de sus hijos, “esto demuestra la importancia de que la información veraz forme parte del panorama mediático”, añadió.

“Esto es lo que cabría esperar cuando la gente está confundida por mensajes contradictorios provenientes de personas en posiciones de autoridad”, afirmó Kelly Moore, presidenta y directora ejecutiva de Immunize.org, un grupo de defensa de la vacunación.

Numerosos estudios científicos no han establecido ningún vínculo entre cualquier vacuna y el autismo. Sin embargo, Kennedy ha ordenado al Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS) que realice una investigación sobre los posibles factores ambientales que contribuyen al autismo, prometiendo tener “algunas de las respuestas” sobre el aumento en la incidencia de la afección para septiembre.

La profundización del escepticismo republicano hacia las vacunas dificulta la difusión de información precisa en muchas partes del país, afirmó Rekha Lakshmanan, directora de estrategia de The Immunization Partnership, en Houston.

El 23 de abril, Lakshmanan iba a presentar un documento sobre cómo contrarrestar el activismo antivacunas ante el Congreso Mundial de Vacunas en Washington. El documento se basaba en una encuesta que reveló que, en las asambleas estatales de Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas y Oklahoma, los legisladores con profesiones médicas se encontraban entre los menos propensos a apoyar las medidas de salud pública.

“Hay un componente político que influye en estos legisladores”, afirmó. Por ejemplo, cuando los legisladores invitan a quienes se oponen a las vacunas a testificar en las audiencias legislativas, se alimenta una avalancha de desinformación difícil de refutar, agregó.

Eric Ball, pediatra de Ladera Ranch, California, área afectada por un brote de sarampión en 2014-2015 que comenzó en Disneyland, afirmó que el miedo al sarampión y las restricciones más estrictas del estado de California sobre las exenciones de vacunas evitaron nuevas infecciones en su comunidad del condado de Orange.

“La mayor desventaja de las vacunas contra el sarampión es que funcionan muy bien. Todos se vacunan, nadie contrae sarampión, todos se olvidan del sarampión”, concluyó. “Pero cuando regresa la enfermedad, se dan cuenta de que hay niños que se están enfermando de gravedad, y potencialmente muriendo en la propia comunidad, y todos dicen: ‘¡Caramba! ¡Mejor que vacunemos!’”.

En 2015, Ball trató a tres niños muy enfermos de sarampión. Después, su consultorio dejó de atender a pacientes no vacunados. “Tuvimos bebés expuestos en nuestra sala de espera”, dijo. “Tuvimos una propagación de la enfermedad en nuestra oficina, lo cual fue muy desagradable”.

Aunque dos niñas que eran sanas murieron de sarampión durante el brote de Texas, “la gente todavía no le teme a la enfermedad”, dijo Paul Offit, director del Centro de Educación sobre Vacunas del Hospital Infantil de Philadelphia, que ha atendido algunos casos.

Pero las muertes “han generado más angustia, según la cantidad de llamadas que recibo de padres que intentan vacunar a sus bebés de 4 y 6 meses”, contó Offit. Los niños generalmente reciben su primera vacuna contra el sarampión al año de edad, porque tiende a no producir inmunidad completa si se administra antes.

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).

A KFF Health News analysis underscores that the terminations are sparing no part of the country, politically or geographically. About 40% of organizations whose grants the NIH cut in its first month of slashing, which started Feb. 28, are in states Trump won in November.

The Trump administration has singled out Ivy League universities including Columbia and Harvard for broad federal funding cuts. But the spending reductions at the NIH, the nation’s foremost source of funding for biomedical research, go much further: Of about 220 organizations that had grants terminated, at least 94 were public universities, including flagship state schools in places such as Florida, Georgia, Ohio, Nebraska, and Texas.

The Trump administration has canceled hundreds of grants supporting research on topics such as vaccination; diversity, equity, and inclusion; and the health of LGBTQ+ populations. Some of the terminations are a result of Trump’s executive orders to abandon federal work on diversity and equity issues. Others followed the Senate confirmation of anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the NIH. Many mirror the ambitions laid out in Project 2025’s “Mandate for Leadership,” the conservative playbook for Trump’s second term.

Affected researchers say Trump administration officials are taking a cudgel to efforts to improve the lives of people who often experience worse health outcomes — ignoring a scientific reality that diseases and other conditions do not affect all Americans equally.

KFF Health News found that the NIH terminated about 780 grants or parts of grants between Feb. 28 and March 28, based on documents published by the Department of Health and Human Services and a list maintained by academic researchers. Some grants were canceled in full, while in other cases, only supplements — extra funding related to the main grant, usually for a shorter-term, related project — were terminated.

Among U.S. recipients, 96 of the institutions that lost grants in the first month are in politically conservative states including Florida, Ohio, and Indiana, where Republicans control the state government or voters reliably support the GOP in presidential campaigns, or in purple states such as North Carolina, Michigan, and Pennsylvania that were presidential battleground states. An additional 124 institutions are in blue states.

Sybil Hosek, a research professor at the University of Illinois-Chicago, helps run a network that focuses on improving care for people 13 to 24 years old who are living with or at risk for HIV. The NIH awarded Florida State University $73 million to lead the HIV project.

“We never thought they would destroy an entire network dedicated to young Americans,” said Hosek, one of the principal investigators of the Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV/AIDS Interventions. The termination “doesn’t make sense to us.”

NIH official Michelle Bulls is director of the Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration, which oversees grants policy and compliance across NIH institutes. In terminating the grant March 21, Bulls wrote that research “based primarily on artificial and nonscientific categories, including amorphous equity objectives, are antithetical to the scientific inquiry, do nothing to expand our knowledge of living systems, provide low returns on investment, and ultimately do not enhance health, lengthen life, or reduce illness.”

Adolescents and young adults ages 13 to 24 accounted for 1 in 5 new HIV infections in the U.S. in 2022, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“It’s science in its highest form,” said Lisa Hightow-Weidman, a professor at Florida State University who co-leads the network. “I don’t think we can make America healthy again if we leave youth behind.”

HHS spokesperson Emily Hilliard said in an emailed statement that “NIH is taking action to terminate research funding that is not aligned with NIH and HHS priorities.” The NIH and the White House didn’t respond to requests for comment.

“As we begin to Make America Healthy Again, it's important to prioritize research that directly affects the health of Americans. We will leave no stone unturned in identifying the root causes of the chronic disease epidemic as part of our mission to Make America Healthy Again,” Hilliard said.

Harm to HIV, Vaccine Studies

The NIH, with its nearly $48 billion annual budget, is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, awarding nearly 59,000 grants in the 2023 fiscal year. The Trump administration has upended funding for projects that were already underway, stymied money for new applications, and sought to reduce how much recipients can spend on overhead expenses.

Those changes — plus the firing of 1,200 agency employees as part of mass layoffs across the government — are alarming scientists and NIH workers, who warn that they will undermine progress in combating diseases and other threats to the nation’s public health. On April 2, the American Public Health Association, Ibis Reproductive Health, and affected researchers, among others, filed a lawsuit in federal court against the NIH and HHS to halt the grant cancellations.

Two National Cancer Institute employees, who were granted anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the press and feared retaliation, said its staff receives batches of grants to terminate almost daily. On Feb. 27, the cancer institute had more than 10,800 active projects, the highest share of the NIH’s roughly two dozen institutes and centers, according to the NIH’s website. At least 47 grants that NCI awarded were terminated in the first month.

Kennedy has said the NIH should take a years-long pause from funding infectious disease research. In November 2023, he told an anti-vaccine group, “I’m gonna say to NIH scientists, ‘God bless you all. Thank you for public service. We’re going to give infectious disease a break for about eight years,’” according to NBC News.

For years, Kennedy has peddled falsehoods about vaccines — including that “no vaccine” is “safe and effective,” and that “there are other studies out there” showing a connection between vaccines and autism, a link that has repeatedly been debunked — and claimed falsely that HIV is not the only cause of AIDS.

KFF Health News found that grants in blue states were disproportionately affected, making up roughly two-thirds of terminated grants, many of them at Columbia University. The university had more grants terminated than all organizations in politically red states combined. On April 4, Democratic attorneys general in 16 states sued HHS and the NIH to block the agency from canceling funds.

Researchers whose funding was stripped said they stopped clinical trials and other work on improving care for people with HIV, reducing vaping and smoking rates among LGBTQ+ teens and young adults, and increasing vaccination rates for young children. NIH grants routinely span several years.

For example, Hosek said that when the youth HIV/AIDS network’s funding was terminated, she and her colleagues were preparing to launch a clinical trial examining whether a particular antibiotic that is effective for men to prevent sexually transmitted infections would also work for women.

“This is a critically important health initiative focused on young women in the United States,” she said. “Without that study, women don’t have access to something that men have.”

Other scientists said they were testing how to improve health outcomes among newborns in rural areas with genetic abnormalities, or researching how to improve flu vaccination rates among Black children, who are more likely to be hospitalized and die from the virus than non-Hispanic white children.

“It's important for people to know that — if, you know, they are wondering if this is just a waste of time and money. No, no. It was a beautiful and rare thing that we did,” said Joshua Williams, a pediatric primary care doctor at Denver Health in Colorado who was researching whether sharing stories about harm experienced due to vaccine-preventable diseases — from missed birthdays to hospitalizations and job loss — might inspire caregivers to get their children vaccinated against the flu.

He and his colleagues had recruited 200 families, assembled a community advisory board to understand which vaccinations were top priorities, created short videos with people who had experienced vaccine-preventable illness, and texted those videos to half of the caregivers participating in the study.

They were just about to crack open the medical records and see if it had worked: Were the group who received the videos more likely to follow through on vaccinations for their children? That’s when he got the notice from the NIH.

“It is the policy of NIH not to prioritize research activities that focuses gaining scientific knowledge on why individuals are hesitant to be vaccinated and/or explore ways to improve vaccine interest and commitment,” the notice read.

Williams said the work was already having an impact as other institutions were using the idea to start projects related to cancer and dialysis.

A Hit to Rural Health

Congress previously tried to ensure that NIH grants also went to states that historically have had less success obtaining biomedical research funding from the government. Now those places aren’t immune to the NIH’s terminations.

Sophia Newcomer, an associate professor of public health at the University of Montana, said she had 18 months of work left on a study examining undervaccination among infants, which means they were late in receiving recommended childhood vaccines or didn’t receive the vaccines at all. Newcomer had been analyzing 10 years of CDC data about children’s vaccinations and had already found that most U.S. infants from 0 to 19 months old were not adequately vaccinated.

Her grant was terminated March 10, with the NIH letter stating the project “no longer effectuates agency priorities,” a phrase replicated in other termination letters KFF Health News has reviewed.

“States like Montana don’t get a lot of funding for health research, and health researchers in rural areas of the country are working on solutions to improve rural health care,” Newcomer said. “And so cuts like this really have an impact on the work we’re able to do.”

Montana is one of 23 states, along with Puerto Rico, that are eligible for the NIH’s Institutional Development Award program, meant to bolster NIH funding in states that historically have received less investment. Congress established the program in 1993.

The NIH’s grant terminations hit institutions in 15 of those states, more than half that qualify, plus Puerto Rico.

Researchers Can’t ‘Just Do It Again Later’

The NIH’s research funds are deeply entrenched in the U.S. health care system and academia. Rarely does an awarded grant stay within the four walls of a university that received it. One grant’s money is divvied up among other universities, hospitals, community nonprofits, and other government agencies, researchers said.

Erin Kahle, an infectious disease epidemiologist at the University of Michigan, said she was working with Emory University in Georgia and the CDC as part of her study. She was researching the impact of intimate partner violence on HIV treatment among men living with the virus. “They are relying on our funds, too,” she said.

Kahle said her top priority was to ethically and safely wind down her nationwide study, which included 418 people, half of whom were still participating when her grant was terminated in late March. Kahle said that includes providing resources to participants for whom sharing experiences of intimate partner violence may cause trauma or mental health distress.

Rachel Hess, the co-director of the Clinical & Translational Science Institute at the University of Utah, said the University of Nevada-Reno and Intermountain Health, one of the largest hospital systems in the West, had received funds from a $38 million grant that was awarded to the University of Utah and was terminated March 12.

The institute, which aims to make scientific research more efficient to speed up the availability of treatments for patients, supported over 5,000 projects last year, including 550 clinical trials with 7,000 participants. Hess said that, for example, the institute was helping design a multisite study involving people who have had heart attacks to figure out the ideal mix of medications “to keep them alive” before they get to the hospital, a challenge that’s more acute in rural communities.

After pushback from the university — the institute’s projects included work to reduce health care disparities between rural and urban areas — the NIH restored its grant March 29.

Among the people the Utah center thanked in its announcement about the reversal were the state’s congressional delegation, which consists entirely of Republican lawmakers. “We are grateful to University of Utah leadership, the University of Utah Board of Trustees, our legislative delegation, and the Utah community for their support,” it said.

Hilliard, of HHS, said that “some grants have been reinstated following the appeals process, and the agency will continue to carry out the remaining appeals as planned to determine their alignment.” She declined to say how many had been reinstated, or why the University of Utah grant was among them.

Other researchers haven’t had the same luck. Kahle, in Michigan, said projects like hers can take a dozen years from start to finish — applying for and receiving NIH funds, conducting the research, and completing follow-up work.

“Even if there are changes in the next administration, we’re looking at at least a decade of setting back the research,” Kahle said. “It’s not as easy as like, ‘OK, we’ll just do it again later.’ It doesn’t really work that way.”

Methodology

KFF Health News analyzed National Institutes of Health grant data to determine the states and organizations most affected by the Trump administration’s cuts.

We tallied the number of terminated NIH grants using two sources: a Department of Health and Human Services list of terminated grants published April 4; and a crowdsourced list maintained by Noam Ross of rOpenSci and Scott Delaney of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, as of April 8. We focused on the first month of terminations: from Feb. 28 to March 28. We found that 780 awards were terminated in total, with 770 of them going to recipients based in U.S. states and two to recipients in Puerto Rico.

The analysis does not account for potential grant reinstatements, which we know happened in at least one instance.

Additional information on the recipients, such as location and business type, came from the USAspending.gov Award Data Archive.

There were 222 U.S. recipients in total. At least 94 of them were public higher education institutions. Forty-one percent of organizations that had NIH grants cut in the first month were in states that President Donald Trump won in the 2024 election.

Some recipients, including the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center and Vanderbilt University Medical Center, are medical facilities associated with higher education institutions. We classified these as hospitals/medical centers.

We also wanted to see whether the grant cuts affected states across the political spectrum. We generally classified states as blue if Democrats control the state government or Democratic candidates won them in the last three presidential elections, and red if they followed this pattern but for Republicans. Purple states are generally presidential battleground states or those where voters regularly split their support between the two parties: Arizona, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin. The result was 25 red states, 17 blue states, and eight purple states. The District of Columbia was also blue.

We found that, of affected U.S. institutions, 96 were in red or purple states and 124 were in blue states.

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).