The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s 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.

Both Republicans and Democrats in Congress reacted with compassion to the news that Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) has checked himself into Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for treatment of clinical depression. The reaction is a far cry from what it would have been 20 or even 10 years ago, as more politicians from both parties are willing to admit they are humans with human frailties.

Meanwhile, former South Carolina governor and GOP presidential candidate Nikki Haley is pushing “competency” tests for politicians over age 75. She has not specified, however, who would determine what the test should include and who would decide if politicians pass or fail.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Acknowledging a mental health disorder could spell doom for a politician’s career in the past, but rather than raising questions about his fitness to serve, Sen. John Fetterman’s decision to make his depression diagnosis and treatment public raises the possibility that personal experiences with the health system could make lawmakers better representatives.
• In Medicare news, Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) dropped Medicare and Social Security from his proposal to require that every federal program be specifically renewed every five years. Scott’s plan has been hammered by Democrats after President Joe Biden criticized it this month in his State of the Union address.
• Medicare is not politically “untouchable,” though. Two Biden administration proposals seek to rein in the high cost of the popular Medicare Advantage program. Those are already proving controversial as well, particularly among Medicare beneficiaries who like the additional benefits that often come with the private-sector plans.
• New studies on the effectiveness of ivermectin and mask use are drawing attention to pandemic preparedness. The study of ivermectin revealed that the drug is not effective against the covid-19 virus even in higher doses, raising the question about how far researchers must go to convince skeptics fed misinformation about using the drug to treat covid. Also, a new analysis of studies on mask use leaned on pre-pandemic studies, potentially undermining mask recommendations for future health crises.
• On the abortion front, abortion rights supporters in Ohio are pushing for a ballot measure enshrining access to the procedure in its state constitution, while a lawyer in Florida is making an unusual “personhood” argument to advocate for a pregnant woman to be released from jail.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Current Treatments for Cramps Aren’t Cutting It. Why Aren’t There Better Options?” by Calli McMurray

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Eagles Are Falling, Bears Are Going Blind,” by Katherine J. Wu

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “Her Baby Has a Deadly Diagnosis. Her Florida Doctors Refused an Abortion,” by Frances Stead Sellers

Sarah Karlin-Smith: DCist’s “Locals Who Don’t Speak English Need Medical Translators, but Some Say They Don’t Always Get the Service,” by Amanda Michelle Gomez and Hector Alejandro Arzate

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Hill’s “Nikki Haley: Bernie Sanders Is ‘Exactly the Reason’ Mental Competency Tests Are Needed,” by Niall Stanage
• USA Today’s “Idaho Bill Would Criminalize Giving mRNA Vaccines — The Tech Used in Popular COVID Vaccines,” by Thao Nguyen
• The Washington Post’s “Twenty Governors Are Forming a New Coalition to Support Abortion Rights,” by Rachel Roubein with McKenzie Beard
• The Washington Post’s “Fla. Lawyer Argues Pregnant Inmate’s Fetus Is Being Illegally Detained,” by Kyle Melnick

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Senators Have Mental Health Crises, Too

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Senators Have Mental Crises, TooEpisode Number: 286Published: Feb. 23, 2023

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So, no interview this week, but lots of interesting news, even with Congress in recess and the president out of the country. So we will get right to it. We’re going to start this week with mental health. No, not the mental health of the population, although that remains a very large problem, but specifically the mental health of politicians. I am old enough to remember when a politician admitting to having been treated for any mental health problem basically disqualified them from holding higher office. You young people go Google Tom Eagleton. Now we have Sen. John Fetterman [D-Pa.], who made headlines while campaigning during his stroke recovery, checking himself into Walter Reed for major depression treatment. And the reaction from his colleagues on both sides of the aisle has been unusually compassionate for political Washington. Have we turned a corner here on admitting to having problems not meaning incapable of serving or working?

Karlin-Smith: It’s obviously getting better, but I think as we saw with Fetterman’s coverage during the campaign, it was far from perfect. And I think there was some dissatisfaction that his coverage was in many … sometimes unfair in how his stroke and his stroke recovery and his needs for accommodations were presented in the media. But I do think we are shifting at least somewhat from thinking about, Does this situation make a person fit to serve? to thinking about, OK, what does this person’s experience navigating the health care system perhaps provide that might actually make them a better representative, or understand their constituents’ needs in navigating the health care system, which is a big part of our political agenda?

Kenen: There are very few times when Congress makes nice. I think on rare occasions mental health has done it. I can think of the fight for mental parity. It was a bipartisan pair: Sen. Pete Domenici [R-N.M.] had a daughter with schizophrenia, and Sen. Paul Wellstone [D-Minn.] had … what, was it … a brother?

Rovner: I think it was a sibling, yeah.

Kenen: … with a severe mental illness. I no longer remember whether it was schizophrenia or another severe mental illness. And they teamed up to get mental health parity, which they didn’t get all the way. And there are still gaps, but they got the first, and it took years.

Rovner: And they were a very unlike pair, Domenici was …

Kenen: They were a very unlikely couple.

Rovner: a very conservative Republican. Wellstone was a very liberal Democrat.

Kenen: And their personalities were completely like, you know, one was a kind but grumpy person and one was the teddy bear. And they were a very odd couple in every possible way. And it didn’t make lawmakers talk about themselves at that point, but they did get more open about their family. About 10 or 15 years later, there was a senator’s son died by suicide and he was very open about it. It was really one of the most remarkable moments I’ve ever seen on the Hill, because other people started getting up and talking about loved ones who had died by suicide, including [Sen.] Don Nickles [R-Okla.], who was very conservative, who had never spoken about it before. And it was Sen. Gordon Smith [R-Ore.] whose son had died at the time. And he tried to put it to use and got mental health legislation for college. So these were like, you know, 10 or 15 years apart. But Congress, they don’t treat each other very well. It’s not just politics. They’re often quite nasty across party lines. So this was sort of like the third moment I’ve seen where a little bit of compassion and identification came out. Is it a kumbaya turnaround? No, but it’s good to see kindness, not “he should resign this moment.” I mean, the response was pretty human and humane.

Rovner: And we also had the unique moment with Patrick Kennedy, who was then in the House, son of Sen. Ted Kennedy, who was still in the Senate. And Patrick Kennedy, of course, had had substance abuse issues in addition to his mental health issues. And he actually championed through what turned into the final realization of the mental health parity that Domenici and Wellstone had started. So, I mean, to Sarah’s point, I think, sometimes if the person experiences it themselves, they may be even more able to navigate through to help other people, so …

Kenen: You’re not immune from mental illness if you’re a lawmaker and neither is your family. And there are a number of very sad stories and there are other lawmakers who have lost relatives to suicide. So there’s this additional connection between stroke and depression that I think got a little bit of attention here, because that’s also a thing.

Rovner: Well, all right, then again, it is not all sunshine and roses on the political mental health front. Former South Carolina Republican Gov. Nikki Haley, who’s now running for president, is proposing a mental competency test for politicians over the age of 75. That would, of course, include both Donald Trump and Joe Biden. But this week, Haley extended her proposed mental competency test to the Senate, where there are dozens of members over the age of 75. She specifically called out 81-year-old Bernie Sanders after he called her proposal ageism. Now, it’s pretty clear that Haley is using this to keep herself in the news, and it’s working. But could we actually see mental competency tests rolled out at some point? And who would decide what constitutes competency in someone who’s getting older?

Kenen: Or younger.

Rovner: Or younger, yeah.

Karlin-Smith: Wait, has Joanne solved the aging [mystery]? I think … what Julie said, in terms of who would decide, I think that’s where it gets really dicey. I think, first of all, if you’re going to deal with this, there seems no way you can make it based on age, right? Because competency is not necessarily tied with age. But I think, ethically, I’m not sure our society has any fair way to really determine … and it would just become such a political football that I don’t think anybody wants to deal with figuring out how to do that. Obviously, you don’t want somebody, probably, in office who is not capable of doing the job to a point where they really can’t be productive. But again, as we’ve seen with these other health issues, you also don’t want to exclude people because they are not perfectly in some sort of heightened state of being that, you know, all people are not perfect in capacity at every single moment and deal with struggles. So there’s this fine line, I think, that would be too difficult to sort of figure out how to do that.

Kenen: And you could be fine one day and not fine the next. If you have a disease [of] cognitive decline that’s gradual, you know, when do you pick it up? When do you define it? And then you can have something very sudden like a car crash, a stroke and any number of things that can cause cognitive damage immediately.

Rovner: Now, we didn’t know then, but we know now that Ronald Reagan had the first stages of dementia towards the end of his second term. Sorry, Rachel, you wanted to say something?

Roubein: We’ve seen careful reporting around — I think, about like the San Francisco Chronicle story last year — about [Sen.] Dianne Feinstein [D-Calif.], which essentially looked at this. There were some questions around [Sen.] Thad Cochran [R-Miss.], as well. And it’s something journalists have looked at pretty carefully by talking to other senators and those who know the lawmakers well to see how they are essentially.

Kenen: And Strom Thurmond, who was, to a layperson, like all the reporters covering the Hill, it was clear that … he served until he was, what, 98 or something? You know, it was very clear that half the time he was having struggles.

Rovner: And I remember so many times that there would be the very old senators on the floor who would basically be napping on the floor of the Senate.

Kenen: That might be a sign of mental health.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true. But napping because they couldn’t stay awake, not just curling up for a nap. But, I mean, it’s an interesting discussion. You know, as I say, I’m pretty sure that Nikki Haley is doing it to try and poke at both Biden and Trump and keep herself in the news. And, as I say, it’s working.

Kenen: But I think there’s a question of fitness that I think has come up over and over again. I mean, Paul Tsongas was running for president, what, the Nineties and said he was over his lymphoma or luekemia.

Rovner: I think he had lymphoma. Yeah.

Kenen: He said he was fine, and it turns out he wasn’t. And he actually died quite young, quite soon after not getting the nomination. So there are legitimate issues of fitness, mental and physical, for the presidency. I would think that there’s a different standard for senators just because you’re one out of 100 instead of one out of one. I think there is a tradition, which Trump didn’t really follow. There is a tradition of disclosure, but it’s not foolproof. And Trump certainly just had — remember, he had that letter from his doctor who also didn’t live much longer after that, saying he was the most fit president in history, Like, just don’t get me started, but basically said he was a greek god. So there are legitimate concerns about fitness, but it’s hard to figure out. I mean, it was really hard to figure out in Congress how to do that.

Rovner: Yeah, I think the “who decides” what will be the most difficult part of that, which is probably why they haven’t done it yet. All right. Well, turning to policy, two weeks ago, we talked about the coming Medicare wars with President Biden taking aim at Republicans in his State of the Union speech, and particularly, although he didn’t name him, with Florida Sen. Rick Scott, who last year as head of the Republican Senate Campaign Committee, released a plan that would have sunset every federal program, including Medicare and Social Security, every five years. And they would cease to be unless Congress re-approved them. We know how much trouble Congress has doing anything. This horrified a whole lot of Republicans, who not only have been on the wrong end politically of threatening Medicare — and paid a price for it at the ballot box — but who themselves have used it as a weapon on Democrats. See my column from last week, which I will put in the show notes. So now, kind of predictably, Sen. Scott has succumbed and proposed a new plan that would sunset every federal program except Medicare and Social Security. But I imagine that’s not going to end this particular political fight, right? The Democrats seem to have become a dog with a bone on this.

Roubein: Yeah. And it’s known as “Mediscare” for a reason, right? It’s something both political parties use and try and weaponize. I mean, I think one of the really big questions for me when I kept on hearing this, like what? Cuts to Medicare, what does that actually mean in practice? Some experts said that it might simply mean slowing the rate of growth in the program compared to what it would have been, which doesn’t necessarily impact people’s benefits. It can; it depends how it’s done. But I mean, we’ve seen this political fight before. It happened during the Affordable Care Act and afterwards, the effect of cutting Medicare Advantage plan payments, etc., didn’t really make plans less generous. They continued to be more generous. So it’s something that we’ll continue to see Biden talk about because the administration thinks that it plays well among seniors.

Rovner: But even as Bernie Sanders pointed out this week, we’re going to have to deal with Medicare and Social Security eventually. They can’t continue on their current path because they will both run out of money at some point unless something gets changed. But right now, it seems that both sides are much happier to use it as a cudgel than to actually sit down and figure out how to fix it.

Kenen: But one thing that’s interesting is that it wasn’t a big issue in the November elections. The Democrats late in the game tried to draw attention to the Rick Scott proposal. I almost wrote a piece how there was no discussion of Medicare for the first time in years. And just as I was starting to write it, they began talking about it a little bit. So I didn’t write it. But it never stuck. It wasn’t a major issue. And the one race where it really could have been would have been Wisconsin, because that was a tight Senate race — the Democrats really wanted to defeat Ron Johnson, who is to the right of Rick Scott on phasing out Medicare. He’s the only one who endorsed Scott and actually wanted to go further, and it didn’t even really stick there. So it’s sort of interesting that it’s now bubbling up. I mean, yes, we’re into 2024, but we’re not into 2024 the way we’re going to be into 2024. It’s sort of interesting to see that the Democrats are hitting this so far.

Rovner: No, I think that’s because of the debt ceiling.

Kenen: Right. But it’s supposedly off the table for the debt ceiling, which doesn’t mean, as Rachel just said, there are legitimate fiscal issues that Democrats and Republicans both acknowledge. They’re, crudely speaking, Democrats want to raise more money for them, and Republicans want to slow spending. That’s a that’s an oversimplification. But the rhetoric is always throwing Grandma off the cliff. Never Grandpa, always Grandma.

Rovner: Always Grandma.

Kenen: You know, actually, you can do things over a 20-year period. That’s what we did with Social Security. We did raise the age in a bipartisan fashion on Social Security 20 years … took like 20 years to phase it.

Rovner: And I would point out that the only person who really reacted to Rick Scott’s plan when it came out last February was, I think, a year ago this week, was Mitch McConnell.

Kenen: Yeah, he blew a gasket.

Rovner: But he immediately disavowed it. So Mitch McConnell knew what a problem it could turn into and kind of has now. So we have kind of the reverse sides in Medicare Advantage of the fight. That’s the private alternative to traditional Medicare. It’s the darling of Republicans, who touched off the current popularity of the program when they dramatically increased payments for it in 2003, which led to increased benefits and increased profits for insurance companies. They split those — that extra money between themselves and the beneficiaries. And, not surprisingly, increased popularity to the point where a majority of beneficiaries right now are in Medicare Advantage plans rather than traditional Medicare. On the other hand, these plans, which were originally supposed to cut overall Medicare costs, are instead proving more expensive than traditional Medicare. And Democrats would like to claw some of those profits back. But that looks about as likely as Republicans sunsetting Medicare, right? There’s just too many people who are too happy with their extra benefits.

Roubein: I guess we’ve seen two proposals from the administration this year which would change Medicare benefits. Then Republicans are trying to paint this as a cut but are saying it wouldn’t change benefits. But to change Medicare Advantage, one way …

Rovner: To change payments for Medicare Advantage.

Roubein: Yes, exactly. One which essentially would increase the government’s ability to audit plans and recover past overpayments and one which is the annual rate proposal. And there’s some aspects in there that Medicare Advantage plans are on a full-court lobbying press to say these are cuts which the administration is pushing back on really, really hard. So this is another microcosm of this Medicare scare tactics.

Rovner: And they’re all over TV already, commercials that probably don’t mean much to anybody if you’re not completely up on this fight of, like, “Congress is thinking about cutting Medicare Advantage.” No, really? I do laugh every time I see that ad.

Kenen: But, you know, Julie, you’re right that this began as a Republican cause, I mean, they had a similar program in the late ’90s that flopped and they revived it as Medicare Advantage. But it didn’t stay a Republican pet project for long. I mean, Democrats, starting with those in states with a lot of retirees — I’m thinking in Florida, who had Democratic senators at the time. I mean, they jumped on board, too, because people like … there are people who want to stay in traditional Medicare and there are people who jumped on to Medicare Advantage, which has certain advantages. It is less partisan than it began. It has always been more expensive than it was touted to be. And it’s now, we’re heading into 20 years since the legislation was passed, and nothing has really been done to change that trajectory, nothing significant. And I don’t think you’re going to see a major overhaul of it. There may be things that you can do [on] a bipartisan basis that nip. But if you’re nipping at that many billions of dollars, a nip as can be a lot of money.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s the thing about Medicare. Although I would point out also that the reason it flopped in the late 1990s is because Congress whacked the payments for it as part of the Balanced Budget Act. And as they gave the money back, it got more popular again because, lo and behold, extra money means extra benefits and people liked it. So its popularity has been definitely tied to how much the payments are that Congress has been willing to provide for it.

Kenen: And how they market and who they market to.

Rovner: Absolutely, which is a whole ’nother issue. But I want to do a covid check-in this week because it’s been a while. First, we have a study from Duke University published in this week’s Journal of the American Medical Association showing that using the deworming drug ivermectin, even at a higher dose and for a longer time, still doesn’t work against covid. This was a decent-sized, double-blind, randomized, controlled trial over nine months. Why is this such a persistent desire of so many people and even doctors to use this drug that clearly doesn’t work?

Karlin-Smith: You know, there’s been a lot of misinformation out there, particularly spread by the right and people that have not just, in general, trusted the government during covid and felt like this drug worked. And for whatever reason, they were being convinced that there was a government effort to kind of repress that. What’s interesting to point out, you know, you mentioned the trial being run at Duke. This was actually a part of a big NIH [National Institutes of Health] study to study various drugs for covid. So even NIH has been willing to actually do the research and to prove whether the drug does or doesn’t work. One of the issues this raises is this was one of many studies at this point that has shown the drug doesn’t work. In this one they even were willing to test, OK, a lower dose didn’t work. Let’s test a higher dose. Again, it fails. And the question becomes is, is there any amount of data or trials that can convince people who have, again, gone through this process where they’ve been convinced by this misinformation to believe it works and that the government is lying to them? Is there any way to convince them, with this type of evidence, it doesn’t work? And then what are the ethics of doing this research on people? Because you’re wasting government resources. You’re wasting resources in general. You’re wasting time, money. You’re giving people a drug in the trial when they could be getting another drug and that might actually work. So it’s really complicated because, again, I’m not sure you can convince the true ivermectin fans. I’m not sure there’s any amount of this type of scientific evidence that’s going to convince them that it doesn’t work for covid.

Rovner: But while we are talking about scientific studies about covid, a controversial meta-analysis from the esteemed Cochrane Review found basically no evidence that masks have done anything to prevent the spread of covid. But this is another study that seems to have been wildly misinterpreted. It didn’t find … what it looked like was not necessarily what we think. A lot of it turned out to be studies that were seeing whether flu, whether masks prevented against flu, rather than against covid. I mean, have we ended the whole idea of mask wearing and maybe not correctly?

Kenen: This was a meta-analysis for Cochrane, which is really basically … I mean, I think Sarah probably knows more about Cochrane than the rest of us, but their reviews are meaningful and taken seriously and they’re usually well done. The studies that they use in this meta-analysis didn’t ask the question that the headlines said it asked. And also, I mean, I don’t totally understand why they did it, because a) as Julie just pointed out, there was something like 78 studies, 76 of which were done before covid. So, you know, a) that’s a problem. And b), it didn’t actually measure who was wearing a mask. It was like, OK, you’re told to wear a mask or maybe you’re required to wear a mask if you’re working in a hospital while you’re in the hospital. But then you go out to a bar that night and you’re not wearing … I mean, it didn’t really look at the totality of whether people were actually wearing masks properly, consistently. And therefore, why use this flu data to answer questions about masking? And secondly, I also think it always is worth reminding people that, you know, no one ever said masks were the be-all and end-all. It was a component — you know, masking, handwashing, vaccination, distancing, testing, all the things that we didn’t do right. Ventilation … I mean, all that. There’s a long list of things we didn’t do right; masking was one of many. This is not going to help if we ever need masks for any disease again in the future. It did not advance this public health strategy — they call it, like, they like to talk about Swiss cheese, that any one step has holes in it. So you use a whole lot of steps and you don’t have any more holes in your Swiss cheese. It’s going to make it harder if we ever need them.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, notwithstanding scientific evidence now, we have two Republican state lawmakers in Idaho who have introduced a bill that would make any mRNA vaccines illegal to administer in the state, not just to people, but to, quote, “any mammal” with violators subject to jail time. And if I may read the subhead of the story about this … at the science website Ars Technica, quote, “It’s not clear if the two lawmakers know what messenger RNA is exactly.” In a normal world, I would say this is just silly and it couldn’t pass. But we’re not in a normal world anymore, right? I mean, we could actually see Idaho ban mRNA technology, which is used, going to be used for a lot more than covid.

Karlin-Smith: So I think the thing that really interests me about reading about this, and I’d be interested to hear what legal scholars think about this, but I was wondering if there’s a parallel here between this and what’s going on with the abortion pill in Republican states and what the courts may do with that, because it seems to me like there’s probably should be some kind of federal preemption that would kick in here, which is that vaccines are regulated, approved by this technology, by the federal government. Yes, there’s some practice of medicine where states have control from the federal government. But this seems like a case where, and in the past, when states have tried to get into banning FDA-approved products in this way, courts … have pushed back and said, you can’t do this. And I would say, I don’t think this Idaho law would hold up if it gets passed. But now we have this issue going on with the abortion pill, and it seems like there could be this major challenge by the courts to FDA’s authority. So you do sort of wonder, is this another example of what could happen if this authority gets challenged by the states? And, like you said, we are in this different world where maybe three years ago I would say, well, you know, even if Idaho can pass this, of course, this isn’t going to come to practice. But I do wonder, as we’re watching some of these other legal challenges to FDA-approved technologies, what it could mean down the line.

Kenen: I mean, remember, it also … with ivermectin, there are state legislatures that have actually protected patients’ rights to get ivermectin.

Rovner: And doctors’ rights to provide it.

Kenen: Right. And I know more than half the states had legislation. I don’t know how many actually passed it. I don’t remember. But I mean, it was a significant number of states. So these are … all these things that we’re talking about are related — you know, who gets to decide based on what evidence or lack thereof.

Rovner: So if there’s a reason that I brought these three things up, because after all this, a federal judge in California has temporarily blocked enforcement of a new state law that would allow the state medical board to sanction doctors who spread false or misleading information about covid vaccines and treatments. One of the plaintiffs told The New York Times that the law is too vague, quote “Today’s quote-unquote, ‘misinformation’ is tomorrow’s standard of care, he said.” Which is absolutely true. So how should we go about combating medical misinformation? I mean, you know, sometimes people who sound wacky end up having the answer. You know, you don’t want to stop them, but you also don’t want people peddling stuff that clearly doesn’t work.

Kenen: In addition to state boards, there are large medical societies that are — I don’t know how far they’ve gone, but they have said that they will take action. I’m sure that any action they take either will or has already ended up in court. So there are multiple ways of getting at misinformation. But, you know, like Sarah said it really well, there are people who’ve made up their mind and nothing you do is going to stop them from believing that. And some of them have died because they believe the wrong people. So I don’t think we’re going to solve the misinformation problem on this podcast. Or even off — I don’t think the four of us …

Rovner: If only we could.

Kenen: Even if we were off the podcast! But it’s very complicated. I — a lot of my work right now is centered on that. The idea that courts and states are coming down on the wrong side, in terms of where the science stands right now, understanding that science can change and does change. I mean, whether another version of that law could get through the California courts, I mean, there are apparently some broad drafting problems with that law.

Rovner: It hasn’t been struck down yet. It’s just been temporarily blocked while the court process continues. We’ll see. All right. Well, let’s move on to abortion since we’ve been kind of nibbling around the edges. Rachel, you wrote about a group of abortion rights-supporting Democratic governors organizing to coordinate state responses to anti-abortion efforts. What could that do?

Roubein: Yeah, so it’s news this week. It’s called the Reproductive Freedom Alliance. And essentially the idea is so governors can have a forum to more rapidly collaborate, compare notes on things like executive orders that are aimed at expanding and protecting abortion bills, moving through the legislature, budgetary techniques. And as we’re talking about lawsuits, I mean, talk to some governors and you know that the Texas lawsuit from conservative groups seeking to revoke the FDA’s approval of a key abortion pill is top of mind in this new alliance. Kind of the idea is to be able to rapidly come together and have some sort of response if the outcome of that case doesn’t go their way or other major looming decisions. I think it’s interesting. They are billing themselves as nonpartisan. But, you know, only Democratic governors have signed up here.

Rovner: Well, we could have had Larry Hogan and the few moderate Republicans that are left.

Roubein: Yes, Charlie Baker.

Rovner: If they were still … Charlie Baker.

Roubein: Sununu.

Rovner: If they were still there, which they’re not.

Roubein: I mean, I think the other interesting thing about this is if … you looked at 2024, and if a Republican’s in the White House in 2025, they might try and roll back actions Biden has done. So I could foresee a Democratic governors alliance trying to attempt to counteract that in a way that states can.

Rovner: Well, also, on the abortion rights front, supporters in Ohio are trying to get a measure on the ballot that would write abortion rights into the state constitution. This has worked in other red and purple states like Kansas and Michigan. But Ohio? A state that’s been trending redder and redder. It was the home of the first introduced six-week abortion ban five or six years ago. How big a message would that send if Ohio actually voted to protect abortion rights in its constitution? And does anybody think there’s any chance that they would?

Roubein: I think it’s interesting when you look at Kentucky and Kansas, which their ballot measures were different. It was for the state constitution to say that there was no right to an abortion, but abortion rights …

Rovner: There was a negative they defeated saying there was no right.

Roubein: Yeah. I mean, abortion groups really think the public is on their side here. And anti-abortion leaders do think that ballot measures aren’t … like, fighting ballot measures isn’t their best position either. So I think it’ll be interesting to see. Something that caught my eye with this is that the groups are trying to get it on the 2023 general election ballot. And right now what some Republican lawmakers are trying to do to counteract not just abortion ballot measures, but more progressive ballot measures, which is to try and increase the threshold of passage for a ballot measure. And there’s a bill in the Ohio legislature that would increase passage for enshrining anything into the state constitution to 60% support. But that would have to go to the people, too. So essentially, the timing here could counteract to that. So.

Rovner: Yeah, and as we saw in Kansas, if you have this question at a normally … off time for a big turnout, you can turn out your own people. So I assume they’re doing that very much on purpose. They don’t want it to be on the 2024 ballot with the president and Senate race in Ohio and everything else. All right. Well, one more on the abortion issue. Moving to the other side. A Florida lawyer is petitioning to have a pregnant woman who’s been accused, although not convicted, of second-degree murder released from jail because her fetus is being held illegally. Now, it’s not entirely clear if the lawyer is actually in favor of so-called personhood or it’s just trying to get his client, the pregnant woman, out of jail. But these kinds of cases can eventually have pretty significant ramifications, right? If a judge were to say, I’m going to release this woman because the fetus hasn’t done anything wrong.

Kenen: Well, there’s going to be an amendment to the personhood amendment saying, except when we don’t like the mother, right? I mean, she’s already almost at her due date. So it probably is going to be moot. There’s an underlying question in this case about whether she’s been getting good prenatal care, and that’s a separate issue than personhood. I mean, if the allegations are correct and she has not gotten the necessary prenatal care, then she certainly should be getting the necessary prenatal care. I don’t think this is going to be ruled on in time — I think she’s already in her final month of pregnancy. So I don’t think we’re going to see a ruling that’s going to create personhood for fetal inmates.

Rovner: She’ll have the baby before she gets let out of jail.

Kenen: I think other lawyers might try this. I mean, I think it’s legal chutzpah, I guess. If one lawyer came up with it, I don’t see why other lawyers won’t try it for other incarcerated pregnant women.

Rovner: Yeah. And you could see it feeding into the whole personhood issue of, you know, [does] the fetus have its own set of individual rights, you know, apart from the pregnant woman who’s carrying it? And it’s obviously something that’s that we’re going to continue to grapple with, I think, as this debate continues. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in the DCist. It’s called “Locals Who Don’t Speak English Need Medical Translators, but Some Say They Don’t Always Get the Service.” It was by Amanda Michelle Gomez and Hector Alejandro Arzate, and it basically takes a look at a lack of medical translators who can help patients who don’t speak English in the D.C. area and the harm that can be caused when patients don’t have that support, whether they’re in the hospital or at medical appointment, focusing on a woman who basically said she wasn’t getting food for three days and actually left the hospital to provide her food and she was undergoing … cancer treatment and in there for an emergency situation. It also highlights a federally funded facility in D.C. that is trying to support patients in the area with translators, but some of the health policy challenges they face, such as, you know, there’s reimbursement for basically accompanying a patient to an appointment, but there’s out-of-appointment care that patients need. Like if you’re sent home with instructions in English and there’s difficulty funding that care. And I mean, I just think the issue is important and fascinating because people who cover health policy, I think, tend to realize sometimes, even if you have an M.D. and a Ph.D. in various aspects of this system, it can be very hard to navigate your care in the U.S., even if you are best positioned. So to add in not speaking a language and, in this case, having had experience trying to help somebody who spoke a language much less more commonly spoken in the U.S. You know, I was thinking, well, she spoke Spanish, you know, how bad could it be? A lot of people in the U.S. often are bilingual and Spanish is a common language that you might expect lots of people in a medical facility to know. So I think, you know, again, it just shows the complexities here of even when you’re best positioned to succeed, you often have trouble succeeding as a patient. And when you add in other factors, we really set people up for pretty difficult situations.

Rovner: Yeah, it was kind of eye-opening. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit is titled “Her Baby Has a Deadly Diagnosis. Her Florida Doctors Refused an Abortion,” and it’s by Frances Stead Sellers from The Washington Post. I chose the story because it gives this rare window into how an abortion ban can play on the ground when a fetus is diagnosed with a fatal abnormality. So Frances basically chronicles how one woman in Florida, Deborah Dorbert, and her husband, Lee, were told by a specialist when she was roughly 24 weeks pregnant that the fetus had a condition incompatible with life, and the couple decided to terminate the pregnancy. But they say they were ultimately told by doctors that they couldn’t due to a law passed last year in Florida that banned most abortions after 15 weeks. And so that new law does have exceptions, including allowing later termination if two physicians certify in writing that the fetus has a fatal fetal abnormality. So it’s not clear exactly how or why the Dorberts’ doctors said that they couldn’t or how they applied the law in this situation.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like this is maybe the 10th one of these that I’ve read of women who have wanted pregnancies and wanted babies and something goes wrong with the pregnancy, and an abortion ban has prevented them from actually getting the care that they need. And I just wonder if the anti-abortion forces have really thought this through, because if they want to encourage women to get pregnant, I know a lot of women who want babies, who want to get pregnant, want to have a baby, but they’re worried that if something goes wrong, that they won’t be able to get care. You know, this question of how close to death does the pregnant woman have to be for the abortion to, quote-unquote, “save her life”? We keep seeing it now in different states and in different iterations. Sorry, it’s my little two cents. Joanne.

Kenen: My extra credit is from The Atlantic’s Katherine J. Wu. And the headline is “Eagles Are Falling, Bears Are Going Blind.” It’s about bird flu or avian flu. It does not say it couldn’t jump to humans. It does say it’s not likely to jump to humans, but that we have to be better prepared, and we have to watch it. But it really made the interesting point that it is much more pervasive among not just birds, but other animals than prior, what we and laypeople call “bird flu.” And it’s going to have — 60, something like 60 million U.S. birds have died. It is affecting Peruvian sea lions, grizzly bears, bald eagles, all sorts of other species, mostly birds, but some mammals. And it’s going to have a huge impact on wildlife for many years to come. And, you know, the ecological environment, our wildlife enviornments. And it’s a really interesting piece. I hadn’t seen that aspect of it described. And if you think — and eggs are going to stay expensive.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say this morning, I actually saw that in Cambodia reported one of the first deaths in this recent wave, of a person with this bird flu. So the question, I guess, is in the past, it hasn’t easily spread from person to person. And so that would be like the big concern where you’d worry about really large outbreaks.

Rovner: Yeah, because we don’t have enough to worry about right now.

Kenen: We should be watching this one. I mean, this is a different manifestation of it. But we do know there have been isolated cases like the one Sarah just described where, you know, people have gotten it and a few people have died, but it has not easily adapted. And of course, if it does adapt, that’s a different story. And then … in what form does it adapt? Is it more like the flu we know, or, I mean, there are all sorts of unanswered questions. Yes, we need to watch it. But this story was actually just so interesting because it was about what it’s doing to animals.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. The ecosystem is more than just us. Well, my story is from Stat News by Calli McMurray, and it’s highly relevant for our podcast. It’s called “Current Treatments for Cramps Aren’t Cutting It. Why Aren’t There Better Options?” And yes, it’s about menstrual cramps, which affect as many as 91% of all women of reproductive age. Nearly a third of them severely. Yet there’s very little research on the actual cause of cramps and current treatments, mostly nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or birth control pills, don’t work for a lot of people. As someone who spent at least a day a month of her 20s and 30s in bed with a heating pad, I can’t tell you how angry it makes me that this is still a thing with all the other things that we have managed to cure in medicine.

OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

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 KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Estados Unidos se estancó en las regulaciones químicas después de la década de 1970, según Bhavna Shamasunder, profesora asociada de política urbana y ambiental en el Occidental College. Y eso ha dejado un vacío regulatorio, ya que la blanda supervisión federal permite que productos potencialmente tóxicos que estarían prohibidos en Europa se vendan en las tiendas estadounidenses.

“Muchos productos en el mercado no son seguros”, dijo Shamasunder. “Es por eso que los estados están ayudando a generar una solución”.

La posible exposición a sustancias tóxicas en los cosméticos es especialmente preocupante para las mujeres de color, porque estudios muestran que las mujeres negras usan más productos para el cabello que otros grupos raciales, y que las hispanas y asiáticas han informado que usan más cosméticos en general que las mujeres negras y blancas no hispanas.

La legislación del estado de Washington es un segundo intento de aprobar la Ley de Cosméticos Libres de Tóxicos, luego que, en 2022, los legisladores aprobaran un proyecto de ley que eliminó la prohibición de ingredientes tóxicos en los cosméticos.

Este año, los legisladores tienen un contexto adicional después que un informe encargado por la Legislatura, y publicado en enero por el Departamento de Ecología del estado, encontró múltiples productos con niveles preocupantes de químicos peligrosos, incluyendo plomo y arsénico en la base CoverGirl Clean Fresh Pressed Powder de tinte oscuro.

El lápiz labial de color continuo CoverGirl y la base de maquillaje Black Radiance Pressed Powder de Markwins Beauty Brands se encuentran entre otros productos de varias marcas que contienen plomo, según el informe.

Los equipos de investigación preguntaron a mujeres hispanas, negras no hispanas y multirraciales qué productos de belleza usaban. Luego, probaron 50 cosméticos comprados en Walmart, Target y Dollar Tree, entre otras tiendas.

“Las empresas están agregando conservantes como el formaldehído a los productos cosméticos”, dijo Iris Deng, investigadora de tóxicos del Departamento de Ecología estatal. “El plomo y el arsénico son historias diferentes. Se detectan como contaminantes”.

Markwins Beauty Brands no respondió a las solicitudes de comentarios.

“Las trazas nominales de ciertos elementos a veces pueden estar presentes en las formulaciones de productos como consecuencia del origen mineral natural, según lo permitido por la ley que aplica”, dijo Miriam Mahlow, vocera de la empresa matriz de CoverGirl, Coty Inc., en un correo electrónico.

Los autores del informe de Washington dijeron que los países de la Unión Europea prohíben productos como la base CoverGirl de tinte oscuro. Esto se debe a que el arsénico y el plomo se han relacionado con el cáncer, y daño cerebral y del sistema nervioso. “No se conoce un nivel seguro de exposición al plomo”, dijo Marissa Smith, toxicóloga reguladora sénior del estado de Washington. Y el formaldehído también es carcinógeno.

“Cuando encontramos estos químicos en productos aplicados directamente a nuestros cuerpos, sabemos que las personas están expuestas”, agregó Smith. “Por lo tanto, podemos suponer que estas exposiciones están contribuyendo a los impactos en la salud”.

Aunque la mayoría del contenido de plomo de los productos era bajo, dijo Smith, las personas a menudo están expuestas durante años, lo que aumenta considerablemente el peligro.

Los hallazgos del departamento de ecología de Washington no fueron sorprendentes: otros organismos han detectado conservantes como formaldehído o, más a menudo, agentes liberadores de formaldehído como quaternium-15, DMDM hidantoína, imidazolidinil urea y diazolidinil urea en productos para alisar el cabello comercializados especialmente para las mujeres negras.

El formaldehído es uno de los productos químicos utilizados para embalsamar los cadáveres antes de los funerales.

Además de Washington, al menos 12 estados —Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, Nueva Jersey, Nueva York, Carolina del Norte, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas y Vermont— están considerando leyes para restringir o exigir la divulgación de sustancias químicas tóxicas en cosméticos y otros productos de cuidado personal.

Los estados están actuando porque el gobierno federal tiene una autoridad limitada, dijo Melanie Benesh, vicepresidenta de asuntos gubernamentales del Environmental Working Group, una organización sin fines de lucro que investiga qué hay en los productos para el hogar y para el consumidor.

“La FDA ha tenido recursos limitados para intentar la prohibición de ingredientes”, agregó Benesh.

El Congreso no ha otorgado a la Agencia de Protección Ambiental (EPA) una amplia autoridad para regular estos productos, a pesar de que los contaminantes y conservantes de los cosméticos terminan en el suministro de agua.

En 2021, un hombre de California solicitó a la EPA que prohibiera los químicos tóxicos en los cosméticos bajo la Ley de Control de Sustancias Tóxicas, pero la petición fue denegada, porque los cosméticos están fuera del alcance de la jurisdicción de la ley, dijo Lynn Bergeson, abogada en Washington, D.C.

Bergeson dijo que la regulación de los productos químicos está sujeta a la Ley Federal de Alimentos, Medicamentos y Cosméticos, pero la Administración de Medicamentos y Alimentos (FDA) regula solo los aditivos de color y los productos químicos en los protectores solares porque sostienen que disminuyen el riesgo de cáncer de piel.

Minnesota, por ejemplo, llena los vacíos regulatorios al realizar pruebas de mercurio, hidroquinona y esteroides en productos para aclarar la piel. También aprobó una ley en 2013 que prohíbe el formaldehído en productos para niños, como lociones y baños de burbujas.

California ha aprobado varias leyes que regulan los ingredientes y el etiquetado de los cosméticos, incluida la Ley de Cosméticos Seguros de California, en 2005. Una ley adoptada en 2022 prohíbe las sustancias de perfluoroalquilo y polifluoroalquilo agregadas intencionalmente, conocidas como PFAS, en cosméticos y prendas de vestir a partir de 2025.

El año pasado, Colorado también aprobó una prohibición de PFAS en maquillaje y otros productos.

Pero expertos en seguridad del consumidor dijeron que los estados no deberían tener que llenar el vacío dejado por las regulaciones federales, y que un enfoque más inteligente implicaría que el gobierno federal sometiera los ingredientes de los cosméticos a un proceso de aprobación.

Mientras tanto, los estados están librando una batalla cuesta arriba, porque miles de productos químicos están disponibles para los fabricantes. Como resultado, existe una brecha entre lo que los consumidores necesitan como protección y la capacidad de acción de los reguladores, dijo Laurie Valeriano, directora ejecutiva de Toxic-Free Future, una organización sin fines de lucro que investiga y defiende la salud ambiental.

“Los sistemas federales son inadecuados porque no requieren el uso de productos químicos más seguros”, dijo Valeriano. “En cambio, permiten productos químicos peligrosos en productos para el cuidado personal, como PFAS, ftalatos o incluso formaldehído”.

Además, el sistema de evaluación de riesgos del gobierno federal tiene fallas, dijo, “porque intenta determinar cuánto riesgo de exposiciones tóxicas es aceptable”. Por el contrario, el enfoque que el estado de Washington espera legislar evaluaría los peligros y preguntaría si los productos químicos son necesarios o si existen alternativas más seguras, es decir, evitar los ingredientes tóxicos en los cosméticos en primer lugar.

Es muy parecido al enfoque adoptado por la Unión Europea (UE).

“Ponemos límites y restricciones a estos productos químicos”, dijo Mike Rasenberg, director de evaluación de peligros de la Agencia Europea de Productos Químicos en Helsinki, Finlandia.

Rasenberg dijo que debido a que la investigación muestra que el formaldehído causa cáncer nasal, la UE lo ha prohibido en productos de belleza, además del plomo y el arsénico. Los 27 países de la UE también trabajan juntos para probar la seguridad de los productos.

En Alemania se examinan anualmente más de 10,000 productos cosméticos, dijo Florian Kuhlmey, vocero de la Oficina Federal de Protección al Consumidor y Seguridad Alimentaria de ese país. Y no termina ahí. Este año, Alemania examinará alrededor de 200 muestras de dentífrico para niños en busca de metales pesados y otros elementos prohibidos en la UE para cosméticos, agregó Kuhlmey.

La legislación en Washington se acercaría a la estrategia europea para la regulación de productos químicos. Si se aprueba, daría a los minoristas que venden productos con ingredientes prohibidos hasta 2026 para vender los productos existentes.

Mientras tanto, los clientes pueden protegerse buscando productos de belleza naturales, dijo la dermatóloga del área de Atlanta, Chynna Steele Johnson.

“Muchos productos tienen agentes liberadores de formaldehído”, dijo Steele Johnson. “Pero no es algo que los clientes puedan encontrar en una etiqueta. Mi sugerencia, y esto también se aplica a los alimentos, sería, cuanto menos ingredientes, mejor”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Las aflicciones del barrio se remontan a principios de los años 70, cuando la industria desapareció y el tráfico de drogas se afianzó. Con cada nueva oleada de drogas, la situación se agrava. Ahora está peor que nunca. Ahora, con la llegada de la xilacina, un tranquilizante de uso veterinario, nuevas complicaciones están sobrecargando un sistema ya desbordado.

“Hay que poner manos a la obra”, dijo Dave Malloy, un veterano trabajador social de Philadelphia que trabaja en Kensington y otros lugares de la ciudad.

Los traficantes utilizan xilacina, un sedante barato no autorizado, para cortar el fentanilo, un opioide sintético 50 veces más potente que la heroína. El nombre callejero de la xilacina es “tranq”, y el fentanilo cortado con xilacina se llama “tranq dope”.

La xilacina lleva una década diseminándose por el país, según la Agencia Antidroga (DEA). Su aparición ha seguido la ruta del fentanilo: empezando en los mercados de heroína en polvo blanco del noreste y desplazándose después hacia el sur y el oeste.

Además, ha demostrado ser fácil de fabricar, vender y transportar en grandes cantidades para los narcotraficantes extranjeros, que acaban introduciéndola en Estados Unidos, donde circula a menudo en paquetes de correo exprés.

La xilacina se detectó por primera vez en Philadelphia en 2006. En 2021 se encontró en el 90% de las muestras de opioides callejeros. En ese año, el 44% de todas las muertes por sobredosis no intencionales relacionadas con el fentanilo incluyeron xilacina, según estadísticas de la ciudad. Dado que los procedimientos de análisis durante las autopsias varían mucho de un estado a otro, no hay datos exhaustivos sobre las muertes por sobredosis con xilacina a nivel nacional, según la DEA.

Aquí en Kensington, los resultados están a la vista. Usuarios demacrados caminan por las calles con heridas necróticas en piernas, brazos y manos, que a veces llegan al hueso.

La vasoconstricción que provoca la xilacina y las condiciones antihigiénicas dificultan la cicatrización de cualquier herida, y mucho más de las úlceras graves provocadas por la xilacina, explicó Silvana Mazzella, directora ejecutiva de Prevention Point Philadelphia, un grupo que ofrece servicios conocidos como “reducción del daño”.  

Stephanie Klipp, enfermera que se dedica al cuidado de heridas y a la reducción de daños en Kensington, dijo que ha visto a personas “viviendo literalmente con lo que les queda de sus extremidades, con lo que obviamente debería ser amputado”.

El papel que desempeña la xilacina en las sobredosis mortales pone de relieve uno de sus atributos más complicados. Al ser un depresor del sistema nervioso central, la naloxona no funciona cuando se trata de un sedante.

Aunque la naloxona puede revertir el opioide de una sobredosis de “tranq dope”, alguien debe iniciar la respiración artificial hasta que lleguen los servicios de emergencia o la persona consiga llegar a un hospital, cosa que a menudo no ocurre. “Tenemos que mantener a las personas con vida el tiempo suficiente para tratarlas, y eso aquí es diferente cada día”, explicó Klipp.

Si un paciente llega al hospital, el siguiente paso es tratar el síndrome de abstinencia agudo de “tranq dope”, que es algo delicado. Apenas existen estudios sobre cómo actúa la xilacina en humanos.

Melanie Beddis vivió con su adicción dentro y fuera de las calles de Kensington durante unos cinco años. Recuerda el ciclo de desintoxicación de la heroína. Fue horrible, pero después de unos tres días de dolores, escalofríos y vómitos, podía “retener la comida y posiblemente dormir”. Con la “tranq dope” fue peor. Cuando intentó dejar esa mezcla en la cárcel, no pudo comer ni dormir durante unas tres semanas.

Las personas que se desintoxican de la “tranq dope” necesitan más medicamentos, explicó Beddis, ahora en recuperación, quien ahora es directora de programas de Savage Sisters Recovery, que ofrece alojamiento, asistencia y reducción de daños en Kensington.

“Necesitamos una receta que sea eficaz”, señaló Jeanmarie Perrone, médica y directora fundadora del Centro de Medicina de Adicciones de Penn Medicine.

Perrone dijo que primero trata la abstinencia de opioides, y luego, si un paciente sigue experimentando malestar, a menudo utiliza clonidina, un medicamento para la presión arterial que también funciona para la ansiedad. Otros médicos han probado distintos fármacos, como la gabapentina, un medicamento anticonvulsivo, o la metadona.

“Es necesario que haya más diálogo sobre lo que funciona y lo que no, y que se ajuste en tiempo real”, afirmó Malloy.

Philadelphia ha anunciado recientemente que va a poner en marcha un servicio móvil de atención de heridas como parte de su plan de gastos de los fondos del acuerdo sobre opioides, con la esperanza de que esto ayude al problema de la xilacina.

Lo mejor que pueden hacer los especialistas en las calles es limpiar y vendar las úlceras, proporcionar suministros, aconsejar a la gente que no se inyecte en las heridas y recomendar tratamiento en centros médicos, explicó Klipp, que no cree que un hospital pueda ofrecer a sus pacientes un tratamiento adecuado contra el dolor. Muchas personas no pueden quebrar el ciclo de la adicción y no hacen seguimiento.

Mientras que la heroína solía dar un margen de 6-8 horas antes de necesitar otra dosis, la “tranq dope” solo da 3-4 horas, estimó Malloy. “Es la principal causa de que la gente no reciba la atención médica adecuada”, añadió. “No pueden estar el tiempo suficiente en urgencias”.

Además, aunque las úlceras resultantes suelen ser muy dolorosas, los médicos son reacios a dar a los usuarios analgésicos fuertes. “Muchos médicos ven eso como que buscan medicación en lugar de lo que está pasando la gente”, dijo Beddis.

Por su parte, Jerry Daley, director ejecutivo de la sección local de un programa de subvenciones gestionado por la Oficina de Política Nacional de Control de Drogas (ONDCP), dijo que los funcionarios de salud y las fuerzas del orden deben comenzar a tomar medidas enérgicas contra la cadena de suministro de xilacina y transmitir el mensaje de que las empresas deshonestas que la fabrican están “literalmente beneficiándose de la vida y las extremidades de las personas”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The neighborhood’s afflictions date to the early 1970s, when industry left and the drug trade took hold. With each new wave of drugs, the situation grows grimmer. Now, with the arrival of xylazine, a veterinary tranquilizer, new complications are burdening an already overtaxed system.

“It’s all hands on deck,” said Dave Malloy, a longtime Philadelphia social worker who does mobile outreach in Kensington and around the city.

Dealers are using xylazine, which is uncontrolled by the federal government and cheap, to cut fentanyl, a synthetic opioid up to 50 times stronger than heroin. The street name for xylazine is “tranq,” and fentanyl cut with xylazine is “tranq dope.” Mixed with the narcotic, xylazine amplifies and extends the high of fentanyl or heroin.

But it also has dire health effects: It leaves users with unhealing necrotic ulcers, because xylazine restricts blood flow through skin tissue. Also, since xylazine is a sedative rather than a narcotic, overdoses of tranq dope do not respond as well to the usual antidote — naloxone — which reverses the effects of only the latter.

Xylazine has been spreading across the country for at least a decade, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration, starting in the Northeast and then moving south and west. Plus, it has proven to be easy for offshore bad actors to manufacture, sell, and ship in large quantities, eventually getting it into the U.S., where it often circulates by express delivery.

First detected in Philadelphia in 2006, xylazine was found in 90% of street opioid samples in the city by 2021. That year, 44% of all unintentional fentanyl-related overdose deaths involved xylazine, city statistics show. Since testing procedures during postmortems vary widely from state to state, no comprehensive data for xylazine-positive overdose deaths nationally exists, according to the DEA.

Here in Kensington, the results are on display. Emaciated users walk the streets with necrotic wounds on their legs, arms, and hands, sometimes reaching the bone.

Efforts to treat these ulcers are complicated by the narrowing of blood vessels that xylazine causes as well as dehydration and the unhygienic living conditions that many users experience while living homeless, said Silvana Mazzella, associate executive officer of the public health nonprofit Prevention Point Philadelphia, a group that provides services known as harm reduction.

Stephanie Klipp, a nurse who does wound care and is active in harm reduction efforts in Kensington, said she has seen people “literally living with what’s left of their limbs — with what obviously should be amputated.”

Fatal overdoses are rising because of xylazine’s resistance to naloxone. When breathing is suppressed by a sedative, the treatment is CPR and transfer to a hospital to be put on a ventilator. “We have to keep people alive long enough to treat them, and that looks different every day here,” Klipp said.

If a patient reaches the hospital, the focus becomes managing acute withdrawal from tranq dope, which is dicey. Little to no research exists on how xylazine acts in humans.

Melanie Beddis lived with her addiction on and off the streets in Kensington for about five years. She remembers the cycle of detoxing from heroin cold turkey. It was awful, but usually, after about three days of aches, chills, and vomiting, she could “hold down food and possibly sleep.” Tranq dope upped that ante, said Beddis, now director of programs for Savage Sisters Recovery, which offers housing, outreach, and harm reduction in Kensington.

She recalled that when she tried to kick this mix in jail, she couldn’t eat or sleep for about three weeks.

There is no clear formula for what works to aid detoxing from opiates mixed with xylazine.

“We do need a recipe that’s effective,” said Dr. Jeanmarie Perrone, founding director of the Penn Medicine Center for Addiction Medicine and Policy.

Perrone said she treats opioid withdrawal first, and then, if a patient is still uncomfortable, she often uses clonidine, a blood pressure medication that also lessens anxiety. Other doctors have tried gabapentin, an anticonvulsant medication sometimes used for anxiety.

Methadone, a medication for opioid use disorder, which blunts the effects of opioids and can be used for pain management, seems to help people in tranq dope withdrawal, too.

In the hospital, after stabilizing a patient, caring for xylazine wounds may take priority. This can range from cleaning, or debridement, to antibiotic treatment — sometimes intravenously for periods as long as weeks — to amputation.

Philadelphia recently announced it is launching mobile wound care as part of its spending plan for opioid settlement funds, hopeful that this will help the xylazine problem.

The best wound care that specialists on the street can do is clean and bandage ulcers, provide supplies, advise people not to inject into wounds, and recommend treatment in medical settings, said Klipp. But many people are lost in the cycle of addiction and don’t follow through.

While heroin has a six- to eight-hour window before the user needs another hit, tranq dope wanes in just three or four, Malloy estimated. “It’s the main driver why people don’t get the proper medical care,” he said. “They can’t sit long enough in the ER.”

Also, while the resulting ulcers are typically severely painful, doctors are reluctant to give users strong pain meds. “A lot of docs see that as med-seeking rather than what people are going through,” Beddis said.

In the meantime, Jerry Daley, executive director of the local chapter of a grant program run by the Office of National Drug Control Policy, said health officials and law enforcement need to start cracking down on the xylazine supply chain and driving home the message that rogue companies that make xylazine are “literally profiting off of people’s life and limb.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

A team at Rice University has developed an automated feeding platform for mosquitoes that allows researchers to test different types of repellent and investigate mosquito-borne disease transmission. Traditionally, such mosquito research would require human volunteers or animal subjects for the mosquitos to feed on, but this is obviously inconvenient and a little distasteful. This new system dispenses with the need for human volunteers and associated laborious data collection and analysis. The technology consists of 3D printed synthetic skin with real blood that flows through small vessels. Mosquitos can feed through the skin and are kept in place in a surrounding box, which also contains mounted cameras that record the whole process. Machine learning algorithms then interpret the resulting video footage, providing a variety of data including bite number and duration.

Dengue, yellow fever, and malaria: what do they all have in common? The pesky mosquito. However, while this flying culprit is well known, studying the process of disease transmission in detail and developing new ways to deter mosquitos from biting in the first place can be difficult. At present, many researchers are forced to use animal subjects or human volunteers who are willing to sit for long periods while mosquitoes feast on their blood. This is clearly not ideal, and requires long periods of observation and data analysis.   

To address these limitations, these researchers have created a synthetic and automated alternative. This consists of 3D printed hydrogel constructs that act as synthetic skin. These structures contain artificial blood vessels through which the researchers can circulate real human blood. A transparent box around the hydrogel patches keeps live mosquitos in place above, allowing them to land and feed. Cameras mounted in the box record the activity, and then the researchers use machine learning algorithms to analyze the footage.

“It provides a consistent and controlled method of observation,” said Omid Veiseh, a researcher involved in the study. “The hope is researchers will be able to use that to identify ways to prevent the spread of disease in the future.”

So far, the researchers have used the device to test various mosquito repellents, but the technology could also let researchers to investigate mosquito-mediated disease transmission in more detail. “We are using the system to examine virus transmission during blood feeding,” said Dawn Wesson, another researcher involved in the study. “We are interested both in how viruses get taken up by uninfected mosquitoes and how viruses get deposited, along with saliva, by infected mosquitoes. If we had a better understanding of the fine mechanics and proteins and other molecules that are involved, we might be able to develop some means of interfering in those processes.”

See a video about the device below:

Study in journal Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology: Development of an automated biomaterial platform to study mosquito feeding behavior

Via: Rice University

Los murciélagos en todo el mundo son vectores primarios para la transmisión de virus de animales a humanos. Generalmente esos virus son inofensivos para los murciélagos, pero pueden ser mortales para los humanos.

Por ejemplo, en China, los murciélagos de herradura se citan como una causa probable del brote de covid-19. Y los investigadores creen que la presión ejercida sobre los murciélagos por el cambio climático y la invasión del desarrollo humano han aumentado la frecuencia con la que los virus saltan de estos animales a las personas, causando lo que se conoce como enfermedades zoonóticas.

“Estos eventos indirectos son el resultado de una cascada de factores estresantes: el hábitat de los murciélagos cambia, el clima se vuelve más extremo, los murciélagos se trasladan a áreas humanas para encontrar comida”, dijo Raina Plowright, ecologista de enfermedades y coautora de un artículo reciente en la revista Nature y otro en Ecology Letters sobre el papel de los cambios ecológicos en las enfermedades.

Es por eso que Agnieszka Rynda-Apple, inmunóloga de la Universidad Estatal de Montana (MSU), planea traer murciélagos frugívoros (o de la fruta) de Jamaica a Bozeman este invierno para iniciar una colonia de reproducción y acelerar el trabajo de su laboratorio como parte de un equipo de 70 investigadores en siete países.

El grupo, llamado BatOneHealth, fundado por Plowright, espera encontrar formas de predecir dónde el póximo virus mortal podría dar el salto de los murciélagos a las personas. “Estamos colaborando para responder a la pregunta de por qué los murciélagos son un vector tan fantástico”, dijo Rynda-Apple.

“Estamos tratando de entender qué es lo que hace que sus sistemas inmunológicos retengan el virus y cuál es la situación en la que lo eliminan”, agregó.

Para estudiar el papel del estrés nutricional, explicó que los investigadores crean diferentes dietas para estos mamíferos, “los infectan con el virus de la influenza y luego estudian cuánto virus están eliminando, la duración de la eliminación viral y su respuesta antiviral”.

Si bien Rynda Apple y sus colegas ya han estado haciendo este tipo de experimentos, la cría de murciélagos les permitirá ampliar la investigación. Es un esfuerzo arduo comprender a fondo cómo el cambio ambiental contribuye al estrés nutricional, y predecir mejor el efecto indirecto.

“Si realmente podemos entender todas las piezas del rompecabezas, eso nos dará herramientas para volver atrás y pensar en medidas contra-ecológicas que podemos poner en práctica para romper el ciclo de los efectos indirectos”, dijo Andrew Hoegh, profesor asistente de estadísticas en MSU que está creando modelos para posibles escenarios indirectos.

El pequeño equipo de investigadores de la MSU trabaja con un investigador del Rocky Mountain Laboratories de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud en Hamilton, Montana.

Los artículos recientes publicados en Nature y Ecology Letters se centran en el virus Hendra en Australia, que es donde nació Plowright.

Hendra es un virus respiratorio que causa síntomas similares a los de la gripe y se propaga de los murciélagos a los caballos, y luego puede transmitirse a las personas que tratan a los caballos. Es mortal, con una tasa de mortalidad del 75% en caballos. De las siete personas que hasta el momento se sabe que contrajeron esta infección, cuatro murieron.

La pregunta que impulsó el trabajo de Plowright es por qué Hendra comenzó a aparecer en caballos y personas en la década de 1990, a pesar de que los murciélagos probablemente han albergado al virus por millones de años.

La investigación demuestra que la razón es el cambio ambiental. Plowright comenzó su investigación sobre murciélagos en 2006. En muestras tomadas de murciélagos australianos llamados zorros voladores, ella y sus colegas rara vez detectaron el virus.

Después de que el ciclón tropical Larry frente a la costa del Territorio del Norte australiano acabara con la fuente de alimento de los murciélagos en 2005-06, cientos de miles de animales simplemente desaparecieron. Sin embargo, encontraron una pequeña población de murciélagos débiles y hambrientos cargados con el virus Hendra.

Eso llevó a Plowright a centrarse en el estrés nutricional como un factor clave en el efecto indirecto. El equipo analizó 25 años de datos sobre la pérdida de hábitat, el derrame y el clima, y descubrieron un vínculo entre la pérdida de fuentes de alimento causada por el cambio ambiental y las altas cargas virales en murciélagos estresados por la comida.

En el año posterior a un patrón climático de El Niño, con sus altas temperaturas, que ocurren cada pocos años, muchos árboles de eucalipto no producen las flores con el néctar que necesitan los murciélagos. Y la invasión humana de otros hábitats, desde las granjas hasta el desarrollo urbano, ha eliminado las fuentes alternativas de alimentos. Entonces, los murciélagos tienden a mudarse a áreas urbanas con higueras, mangos y otros árboles deficientes y, estresados, propagan los virus.

Cuando los murciélagos excretan orina y heces, los caballos las inhalan mientras huelen el suelo. Los investigadores esperan que su trabajo con murciélagos infectados con Hendra ilustre un principio universal: cómo la destrucción y la alteración de la naturaleza pueden aumentar la probabilidad de que los patógenos mortales pasen de los animales salvajes a los humanos.

Las tres fuentes más probables de contagio son los murciélagos, los mamíferos y los artrópodos, especialmente las garrapatas. Alrededor del 60% de las enfermedades infecciosas emergentes que infectan a los humanos provienen de animales, y alrededor de dos tercios de ellas provienen de animales salvajes.

La idea de que la deforestación y la invasión humana de las tierras salvajes alimentan las pandemias no es nueva. Por ejemplo, expertos creen que el VIH, que causa el SIDA, infectó a los humanos por primera vez cuando la gente comía chimpancés en África central. Un brote en Malasia a fines de 1998 y principios de 1999 del virus Nipah transmitido por murciélagos se propagó de murciélagos a cerdos. Los cerdos lo amplificaron y se propagó a los humanos, con un brote que infectó a 276 personas, y mató a 106.

Ahora está emergiendo la conexión con el estrés provocado por los cambios ambientales.

Una pieza crítica de este complejo rompecabezas es el sistema inmunológico de los murciélagos. Los murciélagos frugívoros de Jamaica que vivirán en la MSU ayudarán a los investigadores a obtener más información sobre los efectos del estrés nutricional en su carga viral.

Vincent Munster, jefe de la unidad de ecología de virus de Rocky Mountain Laboratories y miembro de BatOneHealth, también está analizando diferentes especies de murciélagos para comprender mejor la ecología del contagio. “Hay 1,400 especies diferentes de murciélagos y hay diferencias muy significativas entre los que albergan coronavirus y los murciélagos que albergan el virus del Ébola”, dijo Munster. “Y murciélagos que viven cientos de miles juntos versus murciélagos que son relativamente solitarios”.

Mientras tanto, Gary Tabor, esposo de Plowright, es presidente del Center for Large Landscape Conservation, una organización sin fines de lucro que aplica la ecología de la investigación de enfermedades para proteger el hábitat de la vida silvestre, en parte, para garantizar que la vida silvestre esté adecuadamente alimentada y protegerse contra la propagación de virus.

“La fragmentación del hábitat es un problema de salud planetaria que no se está abordando lo suficiente, dado que el mundo continúa experimentando niveles sin precedentes de deforestación”, dijo Tabor.

A medida que mejore la capacidad de predecir brotes, otras estrategias se vuelven posibles. Los modelos que pueden predecir dónde podría extenderse el virus Hendra podrían conducir a la vacunación de los caballos en esas áreas. Otra posible solución es el conjunto de “contramedidas ecológicas” a las que se refirió Hoegh, como la plantación a gran escala de eucaliptos en flor para que los murciélagos zorros voladores no se vean obligados a buscar néctar en áreas desarrolladas.

“En este momento, el mundo está enfocado en cómo podemos detener la próxima pandemia”, dijo Plowright. “Desafortunadamente, preservar o restaurar la naturaleza rara vez es parte de la discusión”.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Bats worldwide are primary vectors for virus transmission from animals to humans. Those viruses often are harmless to bats but can be deadly to humans. Horseshoe bats in China, for example, are cited as a likely cause of the covid-19 outbreak. And researchers believe pressure put on bats by climate change and encroachment from human development have increased the frequency of viruses jumping from bats to people, causing what are known as zoonotic diseases.

“Spillover events are the result of a cascade of stressors — bat habitat is cleared, climate becomes more extreme, bats move into human areas to find food,” said Raina Plowright, a disease ecologist and co-author of a recent paper in the journal Nature and another in Ecology Letters on the role of ecological changes in disease.

That’s why Montana State University immunologist Agnieszka Rynda-Apple plans to bring the Jamaican fruit bats to Bozeman this winter to start a breeding colony and accelerate her lab’s work as part of a team of 70 researchers in seven countries. The group, called BatOneHealth — founded by Plowright — hopes to find ways to predict where the next deadly virus might make the leap from bats to people.

“We’re collaborating on the question of why bats are such a fantastic vector,” said Rynda-Apple. “We’re trying to understand what is it about their immune systems that makes them retain the virus, and what is the situation in which they shed the virus.”

To study the role of nutritional stress, researchers create different diets for them, she said, “and infect them with the influenza virus and then study how much virus they are shedding, the length of the viral shedding, and their antiviral response.”

While she and her colleagues have already been doing these kinds of experiments, breeding bats will allow them to expand the research.

It’s a painstaking effort to thoroughly understand how environmental change contributes to nutritional stress and to better predict spillover. “If we can really understand all the pieces of the puzzle, that gives us tools to go back in and think about eco-counter measures that we can put in place that will break the cycle of spillovers,” said Andrew Hoegh, an assistant professor of statistics at MSU who is creating models for possible spillover scenarios.

The small team of researchers at MSU works with a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana.

The recent papers published in Nature and Ecology Letters focus on the Hendra virus in Australia, which is where Plowright was born. Hendra is a respiratory virus that causes flu-like symptoms and spreads from bats to horses, and then can be passed on to people who treat the horses. It is deadly, with a mortality rate of 75% in horses. Of the seven people known to have been infected, four died.

The question that propelled Plowright’s work is why Hendra began to show up in horses and people in the 1990s, even though bats have likely hosted the virus for eons. The research demonstrates that the reason is environmental change.

Plowright began her bat research in 2006. In samples taken from Australian bats called flying foxes, she and her colleagues rarely detected the virus. After Tropical Cyclone Larry off the coast of the Northern Territory wiped out the bats’ food source in 2005-06, hundreds of thousands of the animals simply disappeared. However, they found one small population of weak and starving bats loaded with the Hendra virus. That led Plowright to focus on nutritional stress as a key player in spillover.

She and her collaborators scoured 25 years of data on habitat loss, spillover, and climate and discovered a link between the loss of food sources caused by environmental change and high viral loads in food-stressed bats.

In the year after an El Niño climate pattern, with its high temperatures — occurring every few years — many eucalyptus trees don’t produce the flowers with nectar the bats need. And human encroachment on other habitats, from farms to urban development, has eliminated alternative food sources. And so the bats tend to move into urban areas with substandard fig, mango, and other trees, and, stressed, shed virus. When the bats excrete urine and feces, horses inhale it while sniffing the ground.

The researchers hope their work with Hendra-infected bats will illustrate a universal principle: how the destruction and alteration of nature can increase the likelihood that deadly pathogens will spill over from wild animals to humans.

The three most likely sources of spillover are bats, mammals, and arthropods, especially ticks. Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that infect humans come from animals, and about two-thirds of those come from wild animals.

The idea that deforestation and human encroachment into wild land fuels pandemics is not new. For example, experts believe that HIV, which causes AIDS, first infected humans when people ate chimpanzees in central Africa. A Malaysian outbreak in late 1998 and early 1999 of the bat-borne Nipah virus spread from bats to pigs. The pigs amplified it, and it spread to humans, infecting 276 people and killing 106 in that outbreak. Now emerging is the connection to stress brought on by environmental changes.

One critical piece of this complex puzzle is bat immune systems. The Jamaican fruit bats kept at MSU will help researchers learn more about the effects of nutritional stress on their viral load.

Vincent Munster, chief of the virus ecology unit of Rocky Mountain Laboratories and a member of BatOneHealth, is also looking at different species of bats to better understand the ecology of spillover. “There are 1,400 different bat species and there are very significant differences between bats who harbor coronaviruses and bats who harbor Ebola virus,” said Munster. “And bats who live with hundreds of thousands together versus bats who are relatively solitary.”

Meanwhile, Plowright’s husband, Gary Tabor, is president of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation, a nonprofit that applies ecology of disease research to protect wildlife habitat — in part, to assure that wildlife is adequately nourished and to guard against virus spillover.

“Habitat fragmentation is a planetary health issue that is not being sufficiently addressed, given the world continues to experience unprecedented levels of land clearing,” said Tabor.

As the ability to predict outbreaks improves, other strategies become possible. Models that can predict where the Hendra virus could spill over could lead to vaccination for horses in those areas.

Another possible solution is the set of “eco-counter measures” Hoegh referred to — such as large-scale planting of flowering eucalyptus trees so flying foxes won’t be forced to seek nectar in developed areas.

“Right now, the world is focused on how we can stop the next pandemic,” said Plowright. “Unfortunately, preserving or restoring nature is rarely part of the discussion.”

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The public health emergency in effect since the start of the covid-19 pandemic will end on May 11, the Biden administration announced this week. The end of the so-called PHE will bring about a raft of policy changes affecting patients, health care providers, and states. But Republicans in Congress, along with some Democrats, have been agitating for an end to the “emergency” designation for months.

Meanwhile, despite Republicans’ less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections and broad public support for preserving abortion access, anti-abortion groups are pushing for even stronger restrictions on the procedure, arguing that Republicans did poorly because they were not strident enough on abortion issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Victoria Knight of Axios, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week the Biden administration announced the covid public health emergency will end in May, terminating many flexibilities the government afforded health care providers during the pandemic to ease the challenges of caring for patients.
• Some of the biggest covid-era changes, like the expansion of telehealth and Medicare coverage for the antiviral medication Paxlovid, have already been extended by Congress. Lawmakers have also set a separate timetable for the end of the Medicaid coverage requirement. Meanwhile, the White House is pushing back on reports that the end of the public health emergency will also mean the end of free vaccines, testing, and treatments.
• A new KFF poll shows widespread public confusion over medication abortion, with many respondents saying they are unsure whether the abortion pill is legal in their state and how to access it. Advocates say medication abortion, which accounts for about half of abortions nationwide, is the procedure’s future, and state laws regarding its use are changing often.
• On abortion politics, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution urging candidates to “go on the offense” in 2024 and push stricter abortion laws. Abortion opponents were unhappy that Republican congressional leaders did not push through a federal gestational limit on abortion last year, and the party is signaling a desire to appeal to its conservative base in the presidential election year.
• This week, the federal government announced it will audit Medicare Advantage plans for overbilling. But according to a KHN scoop, the government will limit its clawbacks to recent years, allowing many plans to keep the money it overpaid them. Medicare Advantage is poised to enroll the majority of seniors this year.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness about how the rollout of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline is going.

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

Julie Rovner: Axios’ “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” by Caitlin Owens and Victoria Knight

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New York Times’ “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted,” by Amy Schoenfeld Walker

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee,” by Benjamin Ryan

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Early 2023 Update on Public Awareness on Abortion and Emergency Contraception,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Marley Presiado, Ashley Kirzinger, and Mollyann Brodie
• USA Today’s “Biden Seeks to Bolster the Affordable Care Act’s No-Cost Contraception Rule,” by Ken Alltucker
• The National Review’s “To Reduce Abortions, Should Giving Birth Be Free?” by Wesley J. Smith
• The New York Times’ “New Medicare Rule Aims to Take Back $4.7 Billion From Insurers,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz
• KHN’s “Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money,” by Fred Schulte

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Au Revoir, Public Health Emergency

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Au Revoir, Public Health EmergencyEpisode Number: 283Published: Feb. 2, 2023

Tamar Haspel: A lot of us want to eat better for the planet, but we’re not always sure how to do it. I’m Tamar Haspel.

Michael Grunwald: And I’m Michael Grunwald. And this is “Climavores,” a show about eating on a changing planet.

Haspel: We’re here to answer all kinds of questions. Questions like: Is fake meat really a good alternative to beef? Does local food actually matter?

Grunwald: You can follow us or subscribe on Stitcher, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen.

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 2, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, good morning.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi! Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. She’s going to update us on the rollout of 988, the new national suicide prevention hotline. And because it’s February, we’re asking for your best health policy valentines. You can write a poem or haiku and tweet it, tagging @KHNews, and use the hashtag #healthpolicyvalentines, all one word. We’ll choose some of our favorites for that week’s podcast and the winner will be featured on Valentine’s Day on khn.org with its own illustration. But first, this week’s news. So we’re going to start with covid, which we actually haven’t talked about very much for a couple of weeks. But this week there’s some real actual news, which is that President [Joe] Biden has announced he will be ending the public health emergency, as well as the national covid emergency, which is a different thing, on May 11. Depending on who you believe, the president’s hand was forced by the Republican House this week voting on a bunch of bills that would immediately end the emergencies — or that May had always been the administration’s plan. I’m guessing it’s probably a bit of both. But let’s start with what’s going to happen in May, because it’s a bit confusing. We’ve talked at some length over the months about the Medicaid “unwinding.” So let’s start with that. How is that going to roll out, as we will?

Sanger-Katz: So that is actually not going to be affected at all by this change. When Congress passed the CARES Act, it tied a lot of these pandemic programs to the public health emergency. And I think what Congress has been doing in recent months is trying to untie some of those policies from the public health emergency, because I think it has identified that some of them are worth keeping and some of them are worth eliminating, and that it ought to make up its own mind about the right timeline and process for that — instead of just leaving it in the hands of the president to end the public health emergency when he sees fit. So what happened in the omnibus legislation, the big spending bill that passed at the end of the year, is that Congress said, OK, there has been this provision in the CARES Act that said that states need to keep everyone who is enrolled in Medicaid continuously enrolled in Medicaid until the end of the public health emergency, or they risk losing this extra Medicaid funding that they have been getting — and that, I think, has been beneficial to state budgets. And what Congress did is they said, OK, we’re going to create a date certain, starting in April, [that] this policy is going to go away, but we’re going to do it sort of incrementally. So the money’s not going to go away all at once. It’s going to go away in a couple of stages to make it a little easier on states. And they also created a lot of procedures and what they call guardrails to prevent states from just dumping everyone out of Medicaid all at once. So they’re requiring them to do various things to make sure they have the right address and that they’ve contacted people in Medicaid. They will punish them. There’s new penalties that the secretary can use to punish them if it seems like they’re doing things too arbitrarily, and there are other provisions. So as a result, the public health emergency doesn’t have any effect on this. But this policy and Medicaid is going to start unwinding right around the same time. In April and May we’re going to start seeing states probably phasing down their enrollment of some Medicaid beneficiaries as this extra funding that is tied to that goes away.

Rovner: And just a reminder, I mean, there’s now more than close to 90 million people on Medicaid, many of whom are probably no longer still eligible. So the concern is that states are going to have to basically reevaluate the eligibility of all of those people to see who’s still eligible and who’s not and who may be eligible for other government programs. And it’s just going to be a very long process. And I know health advocates are really worried about people falling through the cracks and losing their health insurance entirely.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s still a huge risk and there still are a lot of people who are likely to lose their insurance as a result of this transition. But it was a weird situation that we were in, where you kind of went from all or nothing, just by the president deciding that the public health emergency was over. And I do understand why Congress decided, OK, look, why don’t we take some leadership over how this policy is going to phase down instead of just leaving it as this looming cliff that we don’t know exactly when it will come and where we don’t have control over the procedure for it.

Rovner: And Margot, you also mentioned things that Congress thought they might want to keep. And I guess a big one of those is telehealth, right? Because that was also in the end-of-year omnibus bill.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, that’s proved to be really popular, because of the pandemic, because it was dangerous for people to get into doctors’ offices and hospitals early in the pandemic. Medicare loosened some rules and then Congress kind of cemented that. That allowed people to get doctors’ visits using video conferencing, telephone, other kinds of remote technologies, and Medicare paid for that. And that’s been super popular. It has a lot of bipartisan support. And now Congress has extended that benefit for longer. So I think we’re going to see telehealth become a more permanent part of how Medicare benefits are delivered.

Rovner: But not permanent yet. I think there’s still some concern that if it …

Sanger-Katz: Just for two years right now.

Rovner: Well, if it gets too popular, it could get really expensive. I think there’s a worry about …

Sanger-Katz: I do think that the two years will create some infrastructure — I think even just the temporary provision. A lot of doctors and hospitals … I was talking to folks that worked in medicine, they just weren’t set up for it at all. And they had to figure out, how are we going to do it? How are we going to build for it? What systems are we going to use? How are we going to make it secure? So some of that has already happened. But I also think two years is a long-enough runway that you start to imagine that there will be more start-ups, more health care providers that are really orienting their practice around this method of delivering care because they have some sense of permanence now.

Rovner: And I can’t imagine that this won’t become one of those, quote-unquote, “extenders” that Congress renews whenever it expires, which they do now. Rachel, you wanted to say something?

Roubein: Oh, yeah. To your point, I just think once there’s infrastructure built, it’s really hard to take things away. But I guess while we’re on the train of things that aren’t impacting, Congress also in their big government spending bill made a change to Paxlovid, allowing Medicare to continue to cover it under emergency use authorization. So that also won’t be impacted by an end to the public health emergency.

Rovner: So what are the things that will be impacted by the end of the public health emergency?

Knight: Really the biggest thing — and my colleague Maya [Goldman] has been pioneering at writing about this — is that it’s really CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave providers a lot of flexibilities that were tied to the PHE [public health emergency]. So it’s a bunch of different small things. It’s, like, reporting requirements, physical environment standards, even things like where radiologists can read X-rays. It’s small stuff like that that a lot of providers have kind of gotten used to and relied on during covid. And so those may go away. It’s possible also that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] could allow some of those to remain in place. When I talked to congressman Brett Guthrie, who is the one who introduced the bill to end the PHE, he said he wants to talk to HHS and figure out what are some things that he knows providers enjoy on these flexibilities. There was something about nurses’ training that he wants to keep in place. So they’re making it sound like it’s the end of the world end to this. I’m not sure that that’s actually true.

Rovner: Yeah, and I know the administration’s been pushing back on some of the stories that said that this will be an end to free vaccines and the actual covid testing. But that’s not even really true, right?

Roubein: I think one of my colleagues had talked a little bit about this to Jen Kates from the Kaiser Family Foundation, and that was a concern of hers. So I think some of it is dependent on what policies … and see what the next few months …

Rovner: My impression is that federal government has purchased all of these things. So it’s not … so much the end of the public health emergency. It’s when they run out of supply that they have now. So it’s not so much linked to a date. It’s linked to the supply, because I guess at the end of the public health emergency, they won’t be buying anymore. If nobody wants to answer this question, please don’t. But I’m confused about how this all affects the controversial Title 42, which is a public health requirement that was put in by the Trump administration that limited how many people could come across the border because of covid. I’m still confused about who’s for ending it and who’s not for ending it, and whether ending the emergency ends it or whether it’s in court. And if nobody knows, that’s fine because it’s not totally a health issue. But if anybody does, I’m dying to know.

Sanger-Katz: So my understanding on this one — which I also want to say I’m not like 1,000% sure, but this is what I’ve been told — is that it is related to public health authority and assessment that there is a health emergency, but that it is not part of that CARES framework where … when the public health emergency ends, it ends. It is a separate declaration by the CDC [and Health and Human Services] secretary. And so what I have been told is that it is not directly linked to this, but obviously it is the policy of the Biden administration that we are no longer experiencing a public health emergency. Then I do think the continued use of that policy starts to come under question because the justification for it is quite similar, even if the mechanism is different.

Knight: And I have to tell you, Julie, some of my immigration reporter friends on the Hill were also confused. I think everyone was a little confused because the Biden administration was saying this will lift Title 42 immediately, and Republicans were saying, no, it doesn’t. Brett Guthrie literally came to me and was like, “It is not ending yet.” So I think …

Rovner: I’m not the only one confused?

Knight: Yeah, you’re not the only one confused. And people were calling lawyers, being like, what does this mean when that was going on this week? So, yeah.

Roubein: I think it’s going to be a continuation of this big political fight that we’ve seen over Title 42. An administration official argued to my White House colleague Tyler Pager that essentially because Title 42 is a public health order, the CDC is determining that [there] would no longer be a need for the measure once the coronavirus no longer presents a public health emergency. So we’ll see wrangling over this.

Rovner: Yes, this will go on.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, it’s the same administration, you would think that they would be making a similar judgment about these different things. But the politics around this immigration policy are quite fraught. And it’s possible that they will be de-linked in some way. We’ll see.

Rovner: We will see.

Roubein: And the fight over this held up millions of dollars of covid aid last year. So it’s just been really political.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, moving along and speaking of the Republican-led House, they have, shall we say, refocused the special committee on covid that was set up in the last Congress. Rather than looking at how the nation flubbed preparedness in the early response to the pandemic. The Republican panel is now expected to concentrate on complaining about mask and vaccine mandates, trying to figure out the virus’s origins, and, at least so they’ve said, roasting scientists and public health leaders like the now-retired Anthony Fauci. Among the new Republican members appointed to the panel are the outspoken Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Trump White House doctor, now congressman, Ronny Jackson of Texas. I imagine, if nothing else, these hearings will be very lively to watch, right?

Knight: They definitely are going to be lively to watch. We did just find out yesterday that congressman Raul Ruiz is going to be the Democratic ranking member [of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic]. He’s also a doctor. Congressman Brad Wenstrup [R-Ohio] is the chairman of the committee. He’s also a doctor. So it is not only some members who have pushed forward misinformation about covid; there are also members that agree with vaccines and things like that. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how they play this out. I’ve been talking to a lot of them on what they’re going to focus on the committee, what the goal is. So it may not be as wild as we’re anticipating. There may be some members that want it to be, but I think that they want to look at covid origins for sure and the Biden administration’s rollout of vaccines and mandates and things like that. But there’s also Democrats on the committee. So we’ll see how it goes.

Rovner: I will point out, though, when you point out how many doctors are there that Andy Harris of Maryland, who’s also a doctor, a Johns Hopkins anesthesiologist, came under fire for prescribing ivermectin. So we’ve got doctors and we’ve got doctors in the House.

Knight: But I listened to the covid origins hearing yesterday — they did the first one, the Energy and Commerce [ Committee], and I covered it — and I was expecting it to be, like, very intense. And it actually was pretty measured and nothing too wild happened, so …

Rovner: But we shall see. All right. Well, let’s move on to abortion. This is where I get to say that if you didn’t listen to last week’s two-parter on the state of the abortion debate and you’re at all interested in this subject, you should definitely go back and do that. But, obviously, I wish more people would listen to it because a new poll this week from my colleagues over the firewall at KFF finds that a large portion of the public is still confused over whether medication abortion is legal in their state, about whether it requires a prescription (it does), and about how it works compared to emergency contraception. The first one can terminate an early pregnancy. The second one can only prevent pregnancy. Given how fast things are changing in various states, I suppose this confusion is predictable. But is there any way to make this even a little bit clearer? I mean, we have a public that honestly is getting ready to throw its hands up because they can’t figure out what’s what.

Sanger-Katz: I think there’s a good role for journalism here. The abortion pill is a very mature technology. It’s been around for a very long time. It’s become the means for more than half of abortions in America. But I still think, you know, a lot of people don’t know about it. I think when they think about abortion, a lot of Americans are thinking about a surgical procedure that happens in a clinic. Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate are very clear that medication abortion is likely the future of abortion for a lot of Americans because it is easily transportable, because it is able to be prescribed through telemedicine, because it is less expensive than clinic abortion. But I do think just a lot of Americans just don’t have a lot of familiarity with this. And so I think we just have to keep telling them about it, explaining how it works, what the safety profile of it is, how you can get it, what the laws are around it. And, you know, this is a bit of a shifting ground beneath our feet because states are actively regulating and restricting this technology. And I have a team of colleagues at The New York Times in the graphics department who are amazing, who are just like every day updating a page on our website about what is the state of laws surrounding abortion in this country? And it’s really remarkable how often the laws, particularly about abortion pills, are changing. You know, several times a week they are updating that page. So I think all of us just have to keep educating the public about this.

Rovner: And my required reminder that the “morning-after pill” is not the same as the abortion pill. The morning-after pill is now available over the counter. And we now know — thank you, FDA, for changing the label — that it cannot actually interrupt an existing pregnancy. It can only prevent pregnancy. So that’s my little PSA. Meanwhile, we have talked a lot about how anti-abortion forces are pushing harder than ever for a national abortion ban. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution last week, pushed by some of the more strident anti-abortion groups, calling for Republicans to, quote, “go on the offense” in 2024 to work for the most restrictive abortion laws possible. Given that polling still shows a majority of Americans and even a majority of swing voters still think abortion should be legal, are the Republicans driving themselves politically off a cliff here, or do they really think that revving up their base will help them win elections?

Roubein: I think that this is notable from the RNC because, as you mentioned, anti-abortion advocates were really, really mad at people like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, other Republicans who were saying that it was a state issue and had been pushing for them to paint Democrats as extreme, pushing a very different message. So this is ahead of 2024. Obviously, anti-abortion advocates are, when they’re looking at who they’re going to endorse in the presidential race, are going to be looking for candidates that support some kind of federal gestational limit on abortion.

Knight: I know Alice [Miranda Ollstein], who has been on here a lot, she was reporting that these anti-abortion groups are also pushing Republicans to put bills on the House floor to vote on restricting abortion. So there’s a six-week bill that’s already been introduced, maybe some other weeks. And so I think depending on if they actually do floor votes on this, that’s going to be something Democrats will use to attack them, I’m sure, in the upcoming election and maybe also something Republicans want to promote. So I think that it’s definitely notable, and we’re going to have to see if it’s the same as it was in the midterms when it didn’t seem to be a winning message for Republicans. But the anti-abortion groups are saying double down more. So we’ll see.

Rovner: Well, speaking of anti-abortion groups, they’ve been quietly pushing something new: a campaign to, as they call it, quote, “make birth free.” The idea is that a pregnant woman shouldn’t be swayed to have an abortion because she thinks she can’t afford to give birth. It’s been quite a few years since the anti-abortion side tried to advocate for benefits for pregnant women. I remember in the mid-1980s, congressman Henry Hyde — yes, he of the Hyde Amendment — joined with one of the most liberal members of the House, former California Democrat Henry Waxman, to sponsor a bill to reduce infant mortality. It turned out to be the beginning of Medicaid’s benefit for pregnant women, for prenatal delivery and postnatal care, something that’s now extremely popular. Do we expect to see more for this, more of this, or for this to catch on? … I’ve seen the group asking for this. I haven’t really seen any lawmakers suggesting this. It would be pretty expensive to basically pay for every birth in the country. We have a lot of shaking heads.

Knight: I had not heard any lawmakers talking about that. I don’t know if others have. I know there has been some push from some Republicans to put more safeguards in place for women who give birth, like just more supportive programs, but like, I haven’t heard like making birth completely free. And I know also that’s not maybe a widely held view within — I know there are some Republicans pushing for it. There’s a really good Washington Post article about this recently, about paid leave also. But they seem to be in the minority. And so there’s not enough movement to, like, make the party actually do anything on that.

Roubein: I think it’s sort of the beginning. Like Americans United for Life, a big anti-abortion group that’s written a lot, a lot of model laws that states have adopted. They had released a white paper about this. I think that’s sort of the beginning of the push and that’s what we tend to see with the anti-abortion movement is, you know, sometimes we see these policies come out from different groups and then they advocate and then potentially it goes to legislation and they try and find different lawmakers’ ears. So I think it’s a little bit TBD at this point.

Sanger-Katz: I also think it highlights how there’s a growing movement in the Republican Party — and I would say this is not a majority of Republicans yet — but we do see a significant minority that really are pursuing these pro-family policies, policies that we often think about as being pursued by Democrats. Family leave is an example of that, interest in day care, the child tax credit. There are a number of Republicans that were really champions of that policy in the last few years. And I think this feels like it’s a piece with that, that a lot of Republicans, they want to encourage people to have families, to have children, to be able to care for their children. And they understand that it’s hard and it’s expensive. But I do think that those ideas tend to bump up against the more libertarian elements in the Republican Party that are opposed to a lot of government spending, a lot of government intervention in people’s family lives and just concerned about the deficit and debt as well. And so this continues to be an interesting development. My colleague Claire Cain Miller at The Upshot has written a lot about this debate within the Republican Party as it relates to some of these other policies. And I wonder if this idea of making birth free could start to become part of that package of policies that you see some Republicans really interested in, even though you might think of the issue as being something that is more classically a Democratic issue.

Rovner: Although I’m wondering if the Democrats are going to pick up on this and try to hold the Republicans’ feet to the fire on it. It’s like, see, your base would like to make this free. Don’t you want to join them? I could see that happening although hard to know. All right. Well, finally this week on the reproductive health agenda, the Biden administration undid another Trump regulation, this one to eliminate employers with, quote-unquote, “moral objections to birth control” from having to offer it under the Affordable Care Act. Those with religious objections would still have a workaround to ensure that their employees get the coverage, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Actually, only a handful of employers have used the moral exception. Actually, I think the more important part of this regulation would create a new pathway for employees of religiously objecting employers, like religious schools and colleges, to get coverage without involving the employer at all, nor making the employer pay for it. This has been a big sticking point and created a giant backlash early on in the Affordable Care Act’s rollout — and two separate Supreme Court cases — because the employers didn’t want to be seen to be facilitating people getting birth control that they didn’t believe in. Now that they’re going to totally separate this from the employer, might this put that little fight to rest? Not a little — a big fight to rest? [pause] We have no predictions?

Sanger-Katz: This feels like one of those policies that is just going to flip-flop back and forth when we have different presidents. The Trump administration, you know, went really far. This idea of a moral objection, I think doesn’t have a particularly strong basis in law or at least didn’t historically. But the Supreme Court said that they had the authority to do it. And so I think that then creates a precedent that future administrations can do it. I do think that there is a concern from the religious community that this requirement imposes too much of a moral stricture on them. And so they are always pushing for more and wider exceptions to this contraceptive coverage policy. To me, the big surprise in this is just that it took so long. The Trump administration rolled out this particular policy almost immediately upon taking office. And now we’re more than two years into the Biden administration and they have finally rolled it back.

Rovner: Yes. And I am keeping track. And I will update my little infographic about how long it’s taking the Biden administration to change some of these policies. Well, finally, this week, Medicare Advantage, as we’ve mentioned before, private Medicare plans have become very popular, particularly because they often offer extra benefits, mostly because they’re being paid extra by the federal government. But it seems some of these companies have also figured out how to game the system. Surprise. So this week, the federal government announced a crackdown by way of new audits that’s predicted to recoup nearly $5 billion. Medicare’s always … things with lots of zeros. Margot, you wrote about this this week. What are they going to do?

Sanger-Katz: So just a little bit of background. Medicare pays Medicare Advantage plans a set amount per person to take care of them. And the idea is the insurance company can try to do a better job and provide less medical care and keep people healthier and save the remainder as profits. And when Medicare Advantage started, there was this problem where the plans had this huge incentive to just pick all the healthy seniors, because if you pick all the healthy people, they don’t need a lot of medical care and then you get to keep a lot of that payment as profits. And so Congress came up with a new system where if you take care of someone who is sick, who has diabetes, who has substance abuse problems, who has COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], you get a little bonus payment so that the insurer has an incentive to cover that person. They have a little bit of extra money to take care of their health needs. And what we’ve seen over the years that the Medicare Advantage program has become mature, is that the plans have gotten extremely good at finding every single possible thing that is wrong with every single possible person that they enroll. And in some cases, they just kind of make things up that don’t seem to be justified by that person’s medical records. And so the amount that the Medicare system is paying to these plans has just gone up and up and up. And there are all kinds of estimates of how much they’ve been overpaid that are kind of eye-popping. And there are quite a lot of serious fraud lawsuits that are making their way through the federal courts. There have been some settlements, but basically every major insurer in this program is facing some kind of legal scrutiny for the way that they are diagnosing their patients to get these payments. And you know, what’s interesting to me about it is there’s been quite a lot of good journalism about this problem. Julie, your colleague Fred Schulte, I think, has been a real leader on this and had actually a big, big scoop recently. And the GAO has written about it. The HHS inspector general has done audits and written about it. There have been these lawsuits. This is not really a secret, but there has been very little action by CMS over the last decade on this problem. And I think there are a few reasons for that. One, I think it’s hard to fix. I will give them some credit. The policy levers are complicated, but I also think there is just a big political disincentive to do anything about this. Medicare Advantage has become more and more popular over the years. It is poised to enroll a majority of seniors, of Medicare beneficiaries, this year, and those people are very diffuse across the country. It’s not the case that there’s just Medicare Advantage in one or two markets where you have a couple members of Congress who care about it. They’re kind of everywhere. And they’re not just in Republican districts. Even though Republicans created this program, there are a lot of them in Democratic districts, too. And people like these plans. They have some downsides, which we could talk about another time. But they tend to have lower premiums for seniors. They tend to cover benefits like hearing, vision, and dental benefits that the traditional Medicare program does not cover. And so people really like these plans. And the more the plans are paid, the more they can afford to give all these goodies to their beneficiaries. And so I think there has been a lot of political pressure on CMS to not aggressively regulate the plans. And that’s part of why what they did this week is actually pretty striking. They did something pretty aggressive. They have been conducting these audits where they take 200 patients — which is a very, very small fraction of the total number of patients in any one plan — and they look at the diagnoses and they compare them to the medical records for those patients and they say, hey, wait a minute, I don’t think that this patient really has lung cancer. I think this patient doesn’t have that. So you shouldn’t have gotten that payment. And so that has been the system for some time where they look at a couple of records and they go back to the plans and they say, hey, pay us back this lung cancer payment. You can’t justify this based on the medical record.

Rovner: And they extrapolate from that, right? And it’s not …

Sanger-Katz: No. So what this new rule says is it says, you know, if in your 200 people that we look at, we find that you have an error rate of whatever, 5%, we are now going to ask you to pay back the money across your whole book of business, that you can’t just pay us back for the five people that we found, you have to pay back for everyone because we assume that whatever kinds of mistakes or sketchy things that you’ve done to create these errors in this small sample, probably you’ve done them to other patients, too. So that’s like the big thing that the rule does. It says “Pay back more money.” And then the other thing that it says is it says we’re going to reach back in time and you’re got to pay back all the extra money you got in 2018, in 2019, in 2020, and in 2021. So it’s not just forward-looking, but it’s also backward-looking, trying to recover some of what CMS believes are excessive payments that the plans received.

Rovner: Although, as my colleague Fred Schulte points out, they don’t go back in time as far as they could. So they’re basically leaving a fair bit of money on the table for … I guess that’s part of the balancing that they’re trying to do with being aggressive in recouping some of this money and noting that this is a very popular program that has a lot of bipartisan support.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it’s been interesting. The market reaction was very muted. So this suggests to me that the plans, even though it is aggressive relative to what we have seen in the past, that it was not as aggressive as what the plans and their shareholders were worried about.

Rovner: Exactly. All right. Well, that is as much time as we have for the news this week. Now, we will play my interview with Hannah Wesolowski of NAMI. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. You may remember we spoke to Hannah last February in anticipation of the launch of the new three-digit national suicide hotline, 988. Hannah, welcome back.

Hannah Wesolowski: Thanks, Julie. It’s great to be here.

Rovner: So the 988 hotline officially launched last July. It’s been up and running now for just about seven months. How’s it going?

Wesolowski: Largely, it’s going great. We’re really excited to see that not only are more people reaching out for help — overall, there’s about a 30% to 40% increase, year over year, when we look at every month of the helpline — but they’re talking to people quickly. They’re getting that help. They’re getting connected to crisis counselors in their state. And that really displays the tremendous work that’s happened across the country to build up capacity in anticipation of the lifeline.

Rovner: Is there anything that surprised you about the rollout, something that was unexpected — or that you expected that didn’t happen?

Wesolowski: I had a few sleepless nights there, worried about: Would people be able to get through? What would demand look like? And would call centers have that capacity? This was a quick turnaround. Congress passed this in late 2020, and it went live in mid-2022. That’s not a lot of time in the real world to actually stand up call centers that have a 24/7 capacity to answer calls, texts, and chats. And yet, when we look at the numbers, they’re amazing. The number of texts alone has grown exponentially, when we look at people who were texting the lifeline previously and are now texting 988. They’re getting through. They’re talking to people quickly, and there’s tens of thousands of them that are doing it every month.

Rovner: And I imagine, particularly, younger people might well prefer to text than to actually talk to someone on the phone.

Wesolowski: Exactly. This is about making sure this resource is accessible to anyone and makes it as easy for them to get the help they need in the way that they prefer to get it. It is hard to get a young person to pick up the phone. So texting is absolutely critical to reach a population that is in crisis. There’s a youth mental health crisis in this country. And so making sure that we are responsive to the needs of youth and young adults is absolutely critical.

Rovner: So I see that mental health, in general, and the 988 program, in particular, got big funding boosts in the most recent omnibus spending bill. Republicans in the House, however, say they want to roll back funding for all of these domestic discretionary programs to fiscal 2022 levels. What would that mean for this program and for mental health in general?

Wesolowski: You’re right. 988 got [an] exponential increase in funding in the omnibus. It grew from $101.6 million in fiscal year 2022 to $501.6 million in fiscal year 2023. So nearly five times the funding. And it’s still not everything we estimated that is needed out there. Just to fund the local call centers alone, it would probably be more than $560 million. That doesn’t include the cost of operating the national network, the data integrity, the technical platforms, the backup networks, you know, all the resources that are needed to do this, plus public awareness. There still hasn’t been a widespread public awareness campaign of 988. So while $501.6 million is amazing, it’s still only a fraction of what we ultimately need. So thinking about future cuts to this … this is something that saves lives. There’s very clear data that lifelines save lives, and we’re telling people that this resource is there; to cut funding would mean that people [who need] help wouldn’t be able to connect to somebody when they need it most.

Rovner: So I know there’s been some resistance to using 988. Some folks, particularly on social media, warn that callers could be subject to police involvement or involuntary treatment or confinement. Tell us how it really works when someone calls. And are some of those concerns well placed or not?

Wesolowski: Every concern that is made about this system comes from a real place of people who have been in crisis and gotten a horrific and traumatic response. With 988, the thing that is important for people to understand is there is no way to know your location. There is no tracking of your information. This is 100% anonymous. In fact, right now we have the challenge of calls being routed based on area code and not somebody’s general geographic location. So, for example, I have a New Hampshire area code, love the great state of New Hampshire, but live in Virginia and have for many years — I would get routed to New Hampshire. I’m still talking to a crisis counselor. That’s wonderful. But we want to be connected locally. So there is no way that police can be dispatched or somebody can be taken to a hospital. Now, there are situations where the crisis counselor determines a person may be at imminent risk. They may be having thoughts of suicide, and the counselors are trained to look for that, in which case they’ll initiate emergency protocol to try to get the individual to share their location. And it’s less than 2% of contacts that an individual is at imminent risk. And many of those voluntarily share their location. So it’s a lengthy process when they don’t. And that means many minutes where we could lose a life. So it’s a challenging situation, but we know that that location is not available when somebody calls 988. And the intention is very much for this to be an anonymous resource that provides the least invasive intervention.

Rovner: So I’ve also seen concerns about just the lack of resources to back up the call centers, particularly in rural areas. What’s being done to build up the capacity?

Wesolowski: That’s one of the biggest challenges with this. 988 should be the entry point to a crisis continuum of care. When you call 911, you are connected to existing services: law enforcement, fire, EMS. 988 — we’re trying to build that system at the same time this resource is available. Many states already have robust mobile crisis response, which is a behavioral health-based response, rather than relying on law enforcement, which is unfortunately often the response that people see in their communities.

Rovner: And often doesn’t end well.

Wesolowski: Right. Often very tragic and traumatic circumstances — and it doesn’t get people the mental health care that they need. Unfortunately, [in] many communities, that’s still the main option. But more and more communities are getting mobile crisis response online, social workers, peer support specialists, nurses, EMTs, psychologists who staff those and provide a mental health-based response. But it’s much harder in rural areas. It takes longer to get to people. You’re covering a much bigger geographic area. And so that still is a challenge. You know, communities are looking at innovative ways that they can leverage existing emergency response to connect to behavioral health providers, like having law enforcement with iPads so they can leverage telehealth if somebody is in a crisis. But certainly, it’s a challenge and a solution that has to be very localized to the needs of that community.

Rovner: So what still is most needed? I know the law that created 988 also allows states to assess a fee on cellphones to help pay to boost mental health services. Are any states doing that yet?

Wesolowski: We have five states that have passed laws since 2020 to assess a monthly fee on all phone bills. That’s similar to how we fund 911. Everyone across the country already pays a 911 fee. Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, and Washington state all currently have legislation that has implemented a small fee on phone bills. It ranges from $0.12 to $0.40 per phone line per month. And that really is helping build out not just the 988 call centers, but that range of crisis services that can respond when somebody needs more help; it can be provided over the phone.

Rovner: Well, it sounds like it’s off to a good start. Hannah Wesolowski, thank you for coming back to update us, and I’m sure we’ll have you back again.

Wesolowski: Thank you so much, Julie. Always a pleasure.

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

Knight: My extra credit is “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee.” That’s the name of the article by Benjamin Ryan in The New York Times. So it basically was documenting how doctors practices are starting to charge for sending an email correspondence with a patient. I think we’ve all probably done that, especially during covid. It can be really helpful sometimes when you’re not feeling well and you don’t want to go into the office. But these doctors practices are starting to sometimes charge up to $30, $50 for this, and it’s going to become a new revenue stream for some clinics. And the example they gave in the story was the Cleveland Clinic that was doing this for some people.

Rovner: And the Cleveland Clinic, for people who don’t know, has a lot of patients. It’s a very large organization.

Knight: Yes. Yes, absolutely. So clinics are saying their doctors are spending time on this and so they need to be reimbursed for it. But the critics of this are saying it could discourage people from getting care when they need it. It also could contribute to health inequities, and also can contribute to doctor burnout, because they’re having to now really do these emails to contribute to the revenue stream. So anyway, super interesting, hasn’t happened to me yet, but I hope it doesn’t.

Rovner: The continued tension over doctors getting paid and patients having to pay and insurers having to pay. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, it’s by my colleague, she’s a health and science reporter, Carolyn Y. Johnson, and it’s titled “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One.” And in her story, she describes her effort of essentially getting lost in the health care system and having to deal with a really complex system to get a pricey medication for her 3-year-old son. So her 3-year-old son was diagnosed with a rare type of childhood arthritis, which can cause young kids to suffer from daily spiking fevers, a fleeting rash, and arthritis. And doctors had recommended a really pricey drug, which required approval from her insurer. Aetna denied the request. In September, doctors wrote another test, which the insurer wanted. The denial was upheld again. She was able to get the medication through a free program offered by the drugmaker, but she was really worried because she was close to using up the last dose. She was calling it the insurer, etc., just really, really often. And, ultimately, the resolution was she was able to get a different high-cost drug that worked in a similar way approved because the request was subject to different rules. And the big-picture point that she makes is that this isn’t a unique story. It’s something that a lot of Americans deal with, a really frustrating, routine process known as prior authorization and step therapy, etc., trying to get coverage of medication that doctors think are needed.

Rovner: And boy, if it takes a professional health reporter that much time and effort to get this, just imagine what people who know less about the system have to go through. It was a really hard piece to read, but very good. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from my colleague Amy Schoenfeld Walker called “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted.” And I know that this connects with the abortion discussion that you guys had in the last episode, but I thought what she did was really remarkable. You know, we talk a lot in the political debate about abortion, about exceptions to protect the health of the mother, exceptions for fetuses that cannot survive outside the womb. And, of course, these very politically heated discussions about exceptions for rape and incest. And her article actually looked at the numbers of abortions that are being granted due to these exceptions and states that have them on the books and found that, you know, it’s so minimal that it’s almost not happening at all. If you are a woman who has been raped, if you are a woman who has a really serious health complication in a state where abortion has been banned, you almost always have to travel out of state, despite the existence of these exceptions. And I think this is not a huge surprise. It makes sense that medical providers are scared of getting in trouble when the sanction for being wrong is so high. And also that there aren’t a lot of abortion providers available in states that have banned abortion because there’s no place for them to practice. But I thought she did a really nice job of really putting numbers to this intuition that we all had about what was going to happen and showing how limited access is, and how meaningless in some ways these talking points are that, you know, legislators say that they are providing exceptions, but they’re not actually providing any infrastructure to provide care for the people who qualify.

Rovner: And yet we’re seeing these huge political fights in a lot of states about these exceptions, which, as we now know, don’t actually result in that much in actual practice. Well, my story this week is from Axios by former podcast panelist Caitlin Owens and Victoria here. It’s called “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” and it’s about the growing discord between the American Medical Association, long the bastion of male white Republican M.D.s, and Republicans in Congress, particularly Republican M.D.s themselves. The AMA has been moving, I won’t say left, but at least towards the center in recent years, reflecting in large part the changing demographics of the medical profession itself. And if you go back to our podcast of July 21 of last year, you can hear the “not that AMA-like” list of priorities from Jack Resnick, who’s the AMA’s current president. Well, the very conservative Republicans in Congress aren’t too thrilled and are describing the AMA as, quote, “woke” and prioritizing things that lawmakers don’t support, like the right to practice reproductive health according to their medical expertise and to treat teens with gender issues. I never thought I would say it, but it seems the Republicans in the AMA might actually be heading for a divorce. It’s a really great story. You really should read it.

OK. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review — that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Margot?

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: @victoriaregisk

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

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 KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Brill, whose family hails from Puerto Rico, knows that just discussing the term in some Spanish-speaking cultures is so frowned upon that many callers are too scared to even admit that they’re calling for themselves.

Read the rest…

“Honestamente, no quería pasar 10 días solo en una habitación, lo llaman el agujero”, dijo Ramírez-Cecena, quien espera que decidan si es deportado a México o puede permanecer en los Estados Unidos, en donde ha vivido por más de dos décadas.

Poco antes de que Ramírez-Cecena se enfermara, los funcionarios del Servicio de Inmigración y Control de Aduanas (ICE) de la instalación le negaron su solicitud de alta médica. Es VIH positivo, que según la lista de los Centros para el Control y la Prevención de Enfermedades es una afección que puede aumentar el riesgo de enfermar gravemente por covid.

Ahora, frente al tercer invierno pandémico, reza para no contraer covid mientras está detenido. “Todavía da miedo”, dijo.

En todo el país, la posibilidad de desarrollar una enfermedad grave o morir por covid ha bajado, por las vacunas de refuerzo actualizadas, las pruebas en el hogar y las terapias. La mayoría de las personas pueden sopesar los riesgos de asistir a reuniones o viajar.

Pero para las aproximadamente 30,000 personas que viven en espacios cerrados en la red de instalaciones de inmigración del país, covid sigue siendo una amenaza constante.

El ICE actualizó su guía de pandemia en noviembre. Pero las instalaciones han ignorado las recomendaciones anteriores de usar máscaras y equipo de protección, tener pruebas y vacunas disponibles, y evitar el uso del confinamiento solitario como cuarentena, según detenidos, grupos de defensa e informes internos del gobierno federal.

Según los protocolos de ICE, el aislamiento por covid, utilizado para evitar que otros detenidos se enfermen, debe estar separado de la segregación disciplinaria.

La agencia no abordó este punto, pero dijo en un comunicado a KHN que a los detenidos se los coloca en una “sala de alojamiento médico individual” o en un “una habitación de aislamiento médico de infecciones transmitidas por el aire”, cuando esté disponible.

La atención médica en los centros de detención de inmigrantes ya era deficiente antes de la pandemia. Y en septiembre, las personas médicamente vulnerables en los centros de detención de ICE perdieron una protección, con la expiración de una orden judicial que requería que los funcionarios federales de inmigración consideraran la liberación de los detenidos con riesgo de covid.

La agencia “ha renunciado por completo a proteger a las personas detenidas de covid”, dijo Zoe Bowman, abogada supervisora ​​de Las Américas Immigrant Advocacy Center en El Paso, Texas.

El uso de la detención de inmigrantes en el país se disparó a fines de la década de 1990 y creció después de la creación de ICE en 2003. Los centros de detención —unos 200 complejos privados, instalaciones administradas por ICE, cárceles locales y prisiones repartidas por todo el país— retienen a adultos que no son ciudadanos estadounidenses mientras disputan o esperan la deportación.

La duración promedio de la estadía en el año fiscal federal 2022 fue de aproximadamente 22 días, según la agencia. Los defensores de los inmigrantes han argumentado durante mucho tiempo que las personas no deberían ser detenidas y, en cambio, se les debería permitir vivir en comunidades.

El Centro de Detención de Stewart, un vasto complejo rodeado de cercas con alambre de púas en los bosques de Lumpkin, tiene una de las poblaciones de detenidos más grande del país. Cuatro personas bajo la custodia del centro han muerto por covid desde el comienzo de la pandemia, el mayor número de muertes por covid registradas en estos centros.

Cuando funcionarios de inmigración transfirieron a Cipriano Álvarez-Chávez al centro de Stewart en agosto de 2020, todavía confiaba en la máscara que tenía después de ser liberado de la prisión federal en julio, según su hija, Martha Chavez.

Diez días después, el sobreviviente de linfoma de 63 años fue llevado a un hospital en Columbus, a 40 millas de distancia donde dio positivo para covid, según su informe de defunción. Murió después de pasar más de un mes conectado a un ventilador.

“Fue pura negligencia”, dijo su hija.

Dos años después de la muerte de Álvarez-Chávez, grupos de defensa y detenidos dijeron que el ICE no ha hecho lo suficiente para proteger de covid a los detenidos, una situación consistente con el historial de atención médica deficiente y falta de higiene de las instalaciones.

“Es desalentador ver que no importa cuánto empeoran las cosas, nada cambia”, dijo la doctora Amy Zeidan, profesora asistente en la Facultad de Medicina de la Universidad de Emory, quien revisa los registros de salud de los detenidos y realiza evaluaciones médicas para las personas que buscan asilo.

Una investigación bipartidista del Senado reveló en noviembre que las mujeres en el Centro de Detención del Condado de Irwin en Georgia “parecen haber sido sometidas a procedimientos ginecológicos excesivos, invasivos y, a menudo, innecesarios”.

En el Centro de Procesamiento de Folkston, también en Georgia, el ICE no respondió a las solicitudes médicas de manera oportuna, tuvo una atención de salud mental inadecuada y no cumplió con los estándares básicos de higiene, incluidos baños funcionales, según un informe de junio de la Oficina del Inspector General de Seguridad del Departamento de Asuntos Internos. Y una denuncia presentada en julio por un grupo de organizaciones de defensa alegó que una enfermera del centro Stewart agredió sexualmente a cuatro mujeres.

El ICE defendió su atención médica en un comunicado enviado por correo electrónico, diciendo que gasta más de $315 millones anualmente en atención médica, y que garantiza la prestación de los servicios médicos necesarios e integrales.

Aún así, muchas instalaciones carecen de personal y están mal equipadas para manejar las necesidades médicas a largo plazo de la gran población de detenidos, dijo Zeidan. La atención tardía es común, la atención especializada es casi inexistente y el acceso a la terapia es limitado, dijo. El cuidado de covid no es diferente.

En sus protocolos para covid, el ICE recomienda el uso de anticuerpos monoclonales, que ayudan al sistema inmunológico a responder de manera más efectiva a covid, para el tratamiento. Pero no reconoce ninguno de los otros tratamientos recomendados por los CDC, incluidos los antivirales como Paxlovid, que pueden reducir las hospitalizaciones y las muertes entre los pacientes con covid.

“Durante décadas, el ICE ha demostrado ser incapaz y no estar dispuesto a garantizar la salud y la seguridad de las personas bajo su custodia”, dijo Sofia Casini, directora de monitoreo y defensa comunitaria de Freedom for Immigrants, un grupo de defensa. “Covid-19 solo ha empeorado esta horrible realidad”.

Once personas han muerto por covid bajo custodia de ICE. Pero ese número puede ser una subestimación; defensores de los detenidos han acusado a la agencia de liberar a las personas o deportarlas cuando están gravemente enfermas como una forma de evadir las estadísticas de muertes.

Antes de la pandemia, Johana Medina León fue liberada de la custodia de ICE cuatro días antes de su muerte, según un artículo de mayo en Los Angeles Times. Vio a un médico unas seis semanas después de su primera solicitud, decía el artículo, pero ICE aceleró su liberación solo unas horas después de que su condición empeorara.

Este otoño, los detenidos recluidos en instalaciones de todo el país llamaron a la línea directa de detención de Freedom for Immigrants para quejarse de las condiciones de covid, que varían de una instalación a otra, dijo Casini. “Incluso en la misma instalación, puede cambiar de semana a semana”, dijo.

Según Casini, muchas personas que habían dado positivo para covid estaban recluidas en las mismas celdas que las personas que habían dado negativo, incluidas las personas médicamente vulnerables. Este verano, el grupo encuestó a 89 personas a través de su línea directa y descubrió que alrededor del 30% de los encuestados tuvieron problemas para acceder a las vacunas mientras estuvieron detenidos.

Ramírez-Cecena dijo que le dijeron que es elegible para una segunda vacuna de refuerzo de covid, pero que, a diciembre, aún no la había recibido. Un detenido en el Centro de Procesamiento de Moshannon Valley en Pennsylvania dijo que a un guardia se le permitió interactuar con los detenidos mientras estaba visiblemente enfermo, dijo Brittney Bringuez, coordinadora del programa de asilo de Physicians for Human Rights, quien visitó las instalaciones este otoño.

La orden judicial que requería que ICE considerara la liberación de personas con alto riesgo de covid ha ayudado a los detenidos con afecciones médicas graves, dijeron los defensores. Según la orden, ICE liberó a unos 60,000 detenidos médicamente vulnerables en dos años, dijo Susan Meyers, abogada sénior del Southern Poverty Law Center, uno de los grupos de defensa que ayudó a presentar la demanda que resultó en la orden judicial.

El ICE dijo en un comunicado que aún considerará los factores de riesgo de covid como una razón para la liberación. Pero los abogados dijeron que las instalaciones de ICE a menudo no cumplían con la orden judicial cuando estaba vigente.

El año pasado, el ICE negó la solicitud de liberación de Ricardo Chambers del Centro de Detención de Stewart. Chambers, de 40 años, tiene enfermedades psiquiátricas graves, consideradas un factor de riesgo según la orden judicial. También tiene problemas para respirar y se ahoga mientras duerme, como resultado de una lesión nasal que sufrió en un ataque antes de ser detenido. A dos años de estar detenido, todavía no recibió atención para esa lesión.

Ha presentado quejas sobre los protocolos para covid de Stewart, incluidas las condiciones de hacinamiento y la falta de uso de máscaras u otro equipo de protección por parte del personal.

Al negar su liberación, el ICE dijo que Chambers era una amenaza para la seguridad pública debido a sus antecedentes penales, según su abogada Erin Argueta, abogada principal de la oficina de la Iniciativa de Libertad de Inmigrantes del Sureste del Southern Poverty Law Center en Lumpkin. Chambers ya cumplió sus condenas, dijo, y hay una familia en Nueva York que lo acogería.

A principios de este año, fue enviado a confinamiento solitario durante unos 10 días después de dar positivo para covid, dijo. Pero Chambers, quien está luchando contra una orden de deportación a Jamaica, dijo que su experiencia con covid no fue diferente de las otras veces que estuvo en aislamiento.

“Serás tratado como un animal, enjaulado y sin tener culpa de nada”, dijo Chambers.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).