Enfrenta los desafíos de ser una estudiante de primer año de secundaria, aunque también está emocionada de reencontrarse con sus amigos y volver a bailar y a jugar voleibol. Incluso podría unirse al equipo de lucha libre para ganarse el respeto en la escuela.

Pero el pasado sigue presente.

En una reunión del 4 de julio, un amigo de la familia llevó auriculares que amortiguan el ruido, por si los fuegos artificiales eran demasiado para ella. A principios del verano, Gabriella tuvo dificultades para ver la colección de armas de un pariente, especialmente las pistolas. Y comenzó a hiperventilar cuando vio la herida en el dedo de un amigo de la familia que se había cortado accidentalmente: la vista de la sangre le recordó a Lisa Lopez-Galván, quien murió por una herida de bala afuera de Union Station, la única fatalidad ese día.

Su madre, Bridget Barton, dijo que Gabriella ha tenido una actitud más dura desde el desfile. “Ha perdido algo de suavidad, algo de dulzura”, observó.

Los niños son particularmente vulnerables al estrés de la violencia con armas de fuego, y 10 de las 24 que sufrieron heridas de bala en el desfile del 14 de febrero tenían menos de 18 años. Muchos más niños como Gabriella experimentaron el trauma de primera mano. Enfrentan miedo, ira, problemas de sueño e hipersensibilidad a las multitudes y los ruidos.

Una adolescente de 15 años que recibió disparos en la mandíbula y el hombro prácticamente dejó la escuela por un tiempo, y los ataques de pánico diarios también le impidieron asistir a la escuela de verano.

Un niño de 11 años que recibió un disparo describió sentirse enojado en la escuela por razones que no podía explicar. Una niña de 5 años que estaba sobre los hombros de su padre cuando le dispararon entra en pánico cada vez que su papá se siente enfermo, temiendo que le hayan disparado de nuevo.

“No es la misma niña. Quiero decir, definitivamente no lo es”, dijo Erika Nelson, madre de Mireya, de 15 años, quien tiene cicatrices en la mandíbula y la cara. “Nunca sabes cuándo va a estallar. Nunca sabes. Podrías decir algo o alguien podría mencionar algo que le recuerde ese día”.

En 2020, las armas superaron a los accidentes automovilísticos como la principal causa de muerte de niños, pero un número mucho mayor sufren heridas de balas y sobreviven. La investigación sugiere que los niños sufren lesiones por armas de fuego no fatales entre dos y cuatro veces más a menudo de lo que son asesinados con armas.

Científicos dicen que los efectos a largo plazo de la violencia armada en los niños se investigan poco y son mal comprendidos. Pero el daño es generalizado. Investigadores de Harvard y del Hospital General de Massachusetts encontraron que durante el primer año después de una lesión por arma de fuego, los sobrevivientes infantiles experimentaron un aumento del 117% en trastornos del dolor, del 68% en afecciones psiquiátricas y del 144% en adicciones. Los efectos en la salud mental se extienden a madres, padres y hermanos.

Para muchos afectados por el tiroteo en Kansas City, Missouri, los desencadenantes comenzaron de inmediato.

“Me enojo fácilmente”

A solo 10 días que Samuel Arellano fuera baleado en el desfile, fue a otro gran evento deportivo.

Samuel fue invitado a un partido de baloncesto masculino de la Universidad de Kansas en el Allen Fieldhouse en Lawrence. Durante un descanso del partido, con una cámara de video apuntando a Samuel y a sus padres, Jalen Wilson, ex estrella de KU, apareció en la pantalla y se dirigió a él directamente.

“Escuché tu historia”, dijo Wilson, que ahora juega en la NBA, desde la pantalla gigante. “Estoy muy agradecido de que estés aquí hoy, y es una bendición que podamos tenerte para brindarte el amor y apoyo que realmente mereces”.

Wilson pidió a los 16,000 fans presentes que se pusieran de pie y aplaudieran a Samuel. Mientras la multitud aplaudía y un locutor exclamaba que era un “joven valiente”, Samuel miró a sus padres, luego al suelo, sonriendo tímidamente.

Pero minutos después, cuando el partido se reanudó, Samuel comenzó a llorar y tuvo que salir del auditorio con su madre, Abigail.

“Cuando se puso bastante ruidoso, fue cuando comenzó a desmoronarse de nuevo”, dijo su padre, Antonio. “Así que ella tuvo que salir con él por un momento. Así que cualquier lugar ruidoso, si es demasiado fuerte, lo afecta”.

Samuel, que cumplió 11 años en marzo, fue baleado a la altura de las costillas en su lado derecho. Ahora, la cicatriz en su espalda es apenas perceptible, pero los efectos persistentes del tiroteo son evidentes. Está viendo a un terapeuta, al igual que su padre, aunque a Abigail le ha resultado difícil encontrar uno que hable español y aún no ha tenido una cita.

En las primeras semanas luego del tiroteo, Samuel tuvo problemas para dormir y a menudo se metía en la cama con su madre y su padre. Solía tener buenas notas, pero eso se volvió más difícil, dijo Abigail. Su personalidad ha cambiado, algo que a veces se ha manifestado en la escuela.

“Me enojo fácilmente”, dijo Samuel. “Nunca he sido así antes, pero si me dicen que me siente, me enojo. No sé por qué”.

Los niños traumatizados a menudo tienen dificultades para expresar emociones y pueden tener arrebatos de ira, según Michelle Johnson-Motoyama, profesora de trabajo social en la Universidad Estatal de Ohio.

“Estoy segura que para ese niño hay una sensación de tremenda injusticia por lo que sucedió”, dijo Johnson-Motoyama.

Especialmente justo después del tiroteo, Samuel tenía ataques de pánico y comenzaba a sudar, contó Antonio. Los terapeutas les dijeron que eso era normal. Pero los padres también lo mantuvieron alejado de su teléfono por un tiempo: había demasiado sobre el tiroteo en las noticias y en internet.

Abigail, que trabaja en un concesionaria de automóviles con Antonio, está ansiosa por ver a su hijo cambiar, por su sufrimiento y tristeza. También está preocupada por sus tres hijas, una de 16 años y gemelas de 13. Su padre, Victor Salas, que estaba con Samuel en el desfile, también estaba devastado después de los hechos.

“Estoy llorando y llorando y llorando por lo que pasó”, dijo Salas en español cuatro días después del desfile. “Porque fue un caos. Eso no significa que las familias no amen a su familia, pero todos huyeron para salvar sus propias vidas. Salvé la vida de mis nietos, pero ¿qué pasa con el resto de la gente? No estamos preparados”.

En el lado positivo, Samuel se sintió muy apoyado por la comunidad en Kansas City, Kansas. Muchas personas de su escuela se acercaron en los primeros días para visitarlo, amigos e incluso un ex conductor de autobús, que estaba llorando. Tiene una “habitación llena de dulces”, dijo Abigail, en su mayoría Skittles, su favorito.

En su cumpleaños, recibió una pelota de fútbol americano autografiada por Patrick Mahomes, mariscal de campo de los Kansas City Chiefs. Lo hizo llorar, algo que ocurre con bastante frecuencia, dijo su padre.

“Hay días buenos y malos, días más normales y fáciles, y luego hay días en los que la familia tiene que estar un poco más atenta y apoyarlo”, dijo Abigail en español. “Siempre ha sido extrovertido y hablador como su madre, pero eso ha cambiado desde el desfile”.

El 4 de julio, disparador de una semana

El 4 de julio fue particularmente angustiante para muchos de los jóvenes sobrevivientes y para sus familias. ¿Deberían comprar fuegos artificiales? ¿Querrían celebrar? ¿Por qué todos los petardos que explotan en el vecindario suenan como disparos?

Este año, Gabriella, de 14 años, necesitó la ayuda de su padrastro, Jason Barton, para encender sus fuegos artificiales, algo que normalmente hace con entusiasmo. En el desfile, como muchas personas, la familia Barton primero confundió el sonido de los disparos con fuegos artificiales.

Y Erika Nelson, madre soltera de Belton, Missouri, temía incluso mencionar la celebración a Mireya, quien siempre ha amado el Día de la Independencia. Eventualmente, Mireya dijo que no quería fuegos artificiales grandes este año y que solo quería que su madre los encendiera.

“Cualquier pequeño desencadenante, quiero decir, podría ser un ligero chasquido, y ella se tensaba”, dijo Erika Nelson.

Patty Davis, gerente de programas para el cuidado informado sobre el trauma en el hospital Children’s Mercy en Kansas City, dijo que incluso clientes suyos que estuvieron en el desfile pero no resultaron heridos todavía se estremecen ante los sonidos de sirenas u otros ruidos fuertes. Es una respuesta poderosa a la violencia armada en general, no solo al desfile.

“No es una respuesta exagerada”, dijo Davis. “De hecho, es muy natural para los jóvenes, y no tan jóvenes, que han experimentado algo similar o han presenciado violencia con armas de fuego”.

“No se trata de un trauma accidental, sino de un trauma perpetrado con fines violentos, que puede provocar un mayor nivel de ansiedad en las personas que lo viven, que se preguntan si volverá a suceder. ¿Y qué tan seguras están?”, agregó.

Reviviendo el instante

Los ruidos extraños, las luces brillantes y las multitudes pueden tomar desprevenidos a los niños y a sus padres.

En junio, Mireya Nelson estaba esperando a su hermana mayor después de un recital, con la esperanza de ver a un muchacho. Su madre quería ir, pero Mireya la hizo callar. “De repente, se escuchó un estruendo muy fuerte”, dijo Erika. “Se agachó y luego se levantó de un salto. Dijo: ‘¡Dios mío, me estaban disparando otra vez!’”. Mireya lo dijo tan fuerte que la gente se quedó mirando, así que fue el turno de Erika de hacerla callar y tratar de calmarla. “Le dije: ‘Mireya, está bien. Estás bien. Se les cayó una mesa. Solo están sacando cosas. Fue un accidente’”, explicó Erika.

Pasaron unos minutos hasta que el shock se disipó y más tarde Mireya se rió de la situación, pero Erika siempre está atenta.

La tristeza inicial de su hija (que veía películas durante horas y lloraba todo el tiempo) se ha transformado en descaro. Medio año después, Mireya bromea sobre el tiroteo, lo que destroza a su madre. Pero tal vez eso sea parte del proceso de sanación, dijo Erika.

Antes del 4 de julio, Mireya fue a Worlds of Fun, un gran parque de diversiones, y la pasó bien. Se sintió bien porque había guardias de seguridad por todas partes. También disfrutó de una visita a la oficina local del FBI con una amiga que estaba con ella el día del tiroteo.

Pero cuando alguien le sugirió ir al ballet, Mireya lo descartó rápidamente: está cerca de Union Station, el lugar del tiroteo. Ya no quiere ir al centro. Erika dijo que ha habido muchas citas médicas y dificultades económicas, y que su mayor frustración como madre es no poder arreglar las cosas para su hija.

“Tienen que seguir su propio camino, su propio proceso de curación. No puedo sacudirla, como diciéndole: ‘Vuelve a ser tú misma’”, dijo Erika. “Podría llevar meses, años. ¿Quién sabe? Podría ser el resto de su vida. Pero espero que pueda superarlo un poco”.

Piel de gallina en medio del calor sofocante

James Lemons notó un cambio en su hija de 5 años, Kensley, que estaba sobre sus hombros cuando le dispararon en el desfile.

Antes del tiroteo, Kensley era extrovertida y comprometida, dijo James, pero ahora está retraída, como si estuviera dentro de una burbuja y se hubiera desconectado de la gente.

A Kensley, las grandes multitudes y los policías le recuerdan al desfile. Ambos estuvieron presentes en una graduación de secundaria a la que asistió la familia este verano, y Kensley solo quería irse. James la llevó a un campo de fútbol vacío, donde, dijo, se le puso la piel de gallina y se quejó de tener frío a pesar del calor sofocante.

La hora de dormir es un problema particular para la familia Lemons. Kensley ha estado durmiendo con sus padres. Otro hijo, Jaxson, de 10 años, ha tenido pesadillas. Una noche, soñó que el tirador se acercaba a su padre y lo hacía tropezar, dijo Brandie Lemons, la madrastra de Jaxson.

Los niños más pequeños como Kensley expuestos a la violencia con armas de fuego tienen más probabilidades de desarrollar un trastorno de estrés postraumático que los niños mayores, según Johnson-Motoyama, de la Universidad Estatal de Ohio.

Davis, del Children’s Mercy en Kansas City, dijo que los niños cuyos cerebros no están completamente desarrollados pueden tener dificultades para dormir y comprender que están seguros en sus hogares por la noche.

James le compró a la familia un nuevo cachorro, un bulldog americano que ya pesa 32 libras, para ayudarlos a sentirse protegidos. “Busqué el pedigrí”, dijo, “Son muy protectores. Muy cariñosos”.

En busca de una salida

Para desahogarse después del tiroteo, Gabriella comenzó a boxear. Su madre, Bridget, dijo que le devolvió algo de la confianza y el control que había bajado después del desfile. “Me gusta golpear a la gente, no de una manera mala, lo juro”, dijo Gabriella en abril mientras moldeaba un protector bucal a sus dientes antes de irse a entrenar.

Sin embargo, desde entonces ha dejado de boxear, por lo que el dinero puede destinarse a un viaje a Puerto Rico con su clase de español. Están pagando $153 al mes durante 21 meses para cubrir el viaje. Las clases de boxeo costaban $60 al mes.

Bridget pensaba que el boxeo era una buena salida para la ira que le quedaba, pero a finales de julio Gabriella no estaba segura de si todavía tenía el impulso para contraatacar de esa manera. “El pasado es el pasado, pero todos vamos a pasar por cosas. ¿Tiene sentido?”, preguntó Gabriella.

“Estás bien en general, pero todavía tienes desencadenantes. ¿Es eso lo que quieres decir?”, preguntó su madre. “Sí”, respondió.

Después del tiroteo, Mireya Nelson probó las clases en línea, que no funcionaron bien. Los primeros días de la escuela de verano, Mireya tenía un ataque de pánico todos los días en el auto y su madre la llevaba de vuelta a casa.

Mireya quiere regresar a la escuela secundaria este otoño, y Erika es cautelosa. “Sabes, si vuelvo a la escuela, existe la posibilidad de que me disparen, porque en la mayoría de las escuelas hoy en día hay tiroteos”, recordó Erika que dijo su hija. “Y yo digo: ‘Bueno, no podemos pensar así. Nunca se sabe lo que va a pasar’”.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Six months after Gabriella Magers-Darger’s legs were burned by sparks from a ricocheted bullet at the Kansas City Chiefs Super Bowl parade in February, the 14-year-old is ready to leave the past behind.

She is dreading the pitfalls of being a high school freshman, even as she looks forward to being back with friends and at color guard, dance, and volleyball. She might even join the wrestling team to get some respect at school.

But the past remains ever present.

At a July Fourth gathering, a family friend brought noise-canceling headphones in case the fireworks became too much. Earlier in the summer Gabriella had a hard time viewing a relative’s gun collection, the handguns in particular. And she hyperventilated when she saw a family friend’s finger after it was sliced by accident — the sight of blood reminds her of seeing a fatally wounded Lisa Lopez-Galvan minutes after she was shot outside Union Station, the only person killed that day.

Her mom, Bridget Barton, said Gabriella has had a chip on her shoulder since the parade.

“She’s lost some softness to her, some gentleness to her,” Barton said.

Children are particularly vulnerable to the stresses of gun violence, and 10 of 24 people injured by bullets at the Feb. 14 parade were under 18 years old. Countless more children like Gabriella experienced the trauma firsthand. They’ve endured fear, anger, sleep problems, and hypersensitivity to crowds and noises.

A 15-year-old girl who was shot through the jaw and shoulder effectively dropped out of school for a time and daily panic attacks kept her from summer school, too. An 11-year-old boy shot in the side described feeling angry at school for reasons he couldn’t explain. A 5-year-old girl who was on her father’s shoulders when he was hit by gunfire panics each time her dad feels sick, fearing he has been shot again.

“She’s not the same kid. I mean, she’s definitely not,” said Erika Nelson, mother of the 15-year-old, Mireya, who has scars on her jaw and face. “You never know when she’s going to snap. You never know. You might say something or someone might bring up something that reminds her of that day.”

Guns overtook motor vehicle accidents as the leading cause of death for children in 2020, but a far higher number of kids are hit by gunfire and survive. Research suggests that kids sustain nonfatal firearm injuries anywhere from two to four times more often than they are killed by guns.

Scientists say the long-term effects of gun violence on kids are little researched and poorly understood. But the harm is pervasive. Harvard and Massachusetts General Hospital researchers found that during the first year after a firearm injury, child survivors experienced a 117% increase in pain disorders, a 68% increase in psychiatric disorders, and a 144% increase in substance use disorders. The mental health effects spill over — to mothers, fathers, siblings.

For many affected by the shooting in Kansas City, Missouri, the triggers began right away.

‘I Get Mad Easily’

Just 10 days after Samuel Arellano was shot at the parade, he attended another big sporting event.

Samuel was invited to attend a University of Kansas men’s basketball game at Allen Fieldhouse in Lawrence. During a break in the game, with a video camera pointed at Samuel and his parents, former KU star Jalen Wilson appeared on the scoreboard and addressed him directly.

“I heard about your story,” Wilson, who now plays in the NBA, said on the big screen. “I’m so very thankful that you are here today and it is a blessing that we can have you to give you the love and support you truly deserve.”

Wilson asked the 16,000 fans in attendance to stand and give Samuel a round of applause. As the crowd clapped and an announcer bellowed about him being a “brave young man,” Samuel looked at his parents, then down at his feet, smiling shyly.

But minutes later when the game resumed, Samuel started to cry and had to leave the auditorium with his mom, Abigail.

“When it got pretty loud, that’s when he started breaking up again,” his dad, Antonio, said. “So she had to step out with him for a minute. So any loud places, if it’s too loud, it’s affecting him.”

Samuel, who turned 11 in March, was shot in the ribs on his right side. The scar on his back is barely noticeable now, but lingering effects from the parade shooting are obvious. He is seeing a therapist — as is his father, though Abigail has had a tough time finding a Spanish-speaking one and still hasn’t had an appointment.

Samuel had trouble sleeping in the first weeks after the shooting and often crawled in bed with his mom and dad. He used to get good grades, but that became more difficult, Abigail said. His personality has changed, which sometimes has shown up at school.

“I get mad easily,” Samuel said. “I [have] never been like this before but like, if they tell me to sit down, I get mad. I don’t know why.”

Traumatized children often have difficulty expressing emotions and may be given to outbursts of anger, according to Michelle Johnson-Motoyama, a professor of social work at Ohio State University.

“I’m sure for that child there is a sense of tremendous injustice about what happened,” Johnson-Motoyama said.

Especially right after the shooting, Samuel had panic attacks, Antonio said, and he’d break out in a sweat. Therapists told them that was normal. But the parents also kept him off his phone for a while, as there was so much about the shooting on the news and online.

Abigail, who works at a car dealership with Antonio, is anxious about seeing her son change, his suffering and sadness. She is also concerned for her three daughters, a 16-year-old and 13-year-old twins. Her father, Victor Salas, who was with Samuel at the parade, was also reeling in its aftermath.

“I’m crying and crying and crying about what happened,” Salas said in Spanish four days after the parade. “Because it was chaos. It doesn’t mean that families don’t love their family, but everyone took off to save their own lives. I saved my grandchildren’s lives, but what happens to the rest of the people? We’re not prepared.”

On the good side, Samuel felt very supported by the community in Kansas City, Kansas. Many people from his school stopped by in the first few days to visit, including friends and even a former bus driver, who was in tears. He has a “room full of candy,” Abigail said, mostly Skittles, his favorite.

An autographed football from Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes arrived on his birthday. It made him cry, his father said, which happens pretty often.

“There are good and bad days, days that are more normal and easier, and then there are days where the family has to be a little bit more aware and supportive,” Abigail said in Spanish. “He’s always been outgoing and talkative like his mom, but that has changed since the parade.”

Fourth of July a Weeklong Trigger

The Fourth of July was particularly harrowing for many of the young survivors and their families. Should they buy fireworks? Will they want to celebrate? And why do all the firecrackers going off in the neighborhood sound like gunshots?

Fourteen-year-old Gabriella needed help from her stepfather, Jason Barton, to light her fireworks this year, something she is ordinarily enthusiastic about doing herself. At the parade, like many people, the Barton family initially mistook the sound of gunfire for fireworks.

And Erika Nelson, a single mom in Belton, Missouri, feared even bringing up the holiday with Mireya, who has always loved Independence Day. Eventually Mireya said she didn’t want any big fireworks this year and wanted only her mom to set theirs off.

“Just any little trigger — I mean, it could be a light crackle — and she just clenched,” Erika Nelson said.

Patty Davis, a program manager for trauma-informed care at Children’s Mercy hospital in Kansas City, said even her clients who were at the parade but were not injured still flinch at the sounds of sirens or other loud noises. It’s a powerful response to gun violence, she said.

“So not just an accidental trauma,” she said, “but a trauma that was perpetrated for violent purposes, which can cause an increased level of anxiety for persons around that to wonder if it’s going to happen again. And how safe are they?”

Reliving Getting Shot

Random sounds, bright lights, and crowds can catch the kids and their parents off guard. In June, Mireya Nelson was waiting for her older sister after a dance recital, hoping to see a boy she knew give a flower to a girl everyone said he had a crush on. Her mom wanted to go, but Mireya shushed her.

“Then all of a sudden, there was a loud boom,” Erika said. “She dropped low to the ground. And then she jumped back up. She goes, ‘Oh my God, I was getting shot again!’”

Mireya said it so loudly people were staring, so it was Erika’s turn to shush her and try to soothe her.

“I was like, ‘Mireya, it’s OK. You’re all right. They dropped a table. They’re just moving stuff out. It was an accident,’” Erika said.

It took a few minutes for the shock to wear off and Mireya later giggled about it, but Erika is always on watch.

Her daughter’s early sadness — she watched movies for hours, crying throughout — has since changed to a cheekiness. Half a year later, Mireya will joke about the shooting, which tears her mother up. But maybe that is part of the healing process, Erika says.

Before the Fourth of July, Mireya went to Worlds of Fun, a large amusement park, and had a good time. She felt OK because there were security guards everywhere. She also enjoyed a visit to the local FBI office with a friend who was with her the day of the shooting. But when someone suggested a trip to the ballet, Mireya squashed it quickly — it’s near Union Station, the site of the shooting. She doesn’t want to go downtown anymore.

Erika said the doctor appointments and financial strains have been a lot to juggle and that her biggest frustration as a parent is that she’s not able to fix things for her daughter.

“They have to go their own way, their own process of healing. I can’t shake her, like, ‘Get back to yourself,’” Erika said. “It could take months, years. Who knows? It could be the rest of her life. But I hope that she can overcome a little bit of it.”

Goose Bumps in the Sweltering Heat

James Lemons noticed a change in his 5-year-old daughter, Kensley, who was on his shoulders when he was shot at the parade. Before the shooting Kensley was outgoing and engaged, James said, but now she is withdrawn, like she has closed off her bubble and disconnected from people.

Large crowds and police officers remind Kensley of the parade. Both were present at a high school graduation the family attended this summer, prompting Kensley to ask repeatedly to leave. James took her to an empty football field, where, he said, she broke out in goose bumps and complained of being cold despite the sweltering heat.

Bedtime is a particular problem for the Lemons family. Kensley has been sleeping with her parents. Another child, 10-year-old Jaxson, has had bad dreams. One night, he dreamt that the shooter was coming near his dad and he tripped him, said Brandie Lemons, Jaxson’s stepmom.

Younger children like Kensley exposed to gun violence are more likely to develop post-traumatic stress disorder than older children, according to Ohio State’s Johnson-Motoyama.

Davis, of Children’s Mercy in Kansas City, said children whose brains are not fully developed can have a hard time sleeping and understanding that they are safe in their homes at night.

James got the family a new puppy — an American bulldog that already weighs 32 pounds — to help them feel protected.

“I looked up the pedigree,” he said, “They’re real protective. They’re real loving.”

Searching for an Outlet to Let Off Steam

Gabriella took up boxing after the shooting. Her mother, Bridget, said it restored some of her confidence and control that dimmed after the parade.

“I like beating people up — not in a mean way, I swear,” Gabriella said in April as she molded a mouthguard to her teeth before leaving for training.

She has since stopped boxing, however, so the money can instead go toward a trip to Puerto Rico with her Spanish class. They’re paying $153 a month for 21 months to cover the trip. Boxing classes were $60 a month.

Bridget thought boxing was a good outlet for leftover anger, but by the end of July Gabriella wasn’t sure if she still had the drive to fight back that way.

“The past is the past but we’re still gonna all, like, go through stuff. Does that make sense?” Gabriella asked.

“You’re mostly OK but you still have triggers. Is that what you mean?” her mother asked.

“Yeah,” she replied.

After the shooting, Mireya Nelson tried online classes, which didn’t work well. The first few days of summer school, Mireya had a panic attack every day in the car and her mother took her home.

Mireya wants to return to high school this fall, and Erika is wary.

“You know, if I do go back to school, there’s a chance at school of being shot, because most schools nowadays get shot up,” Erika recalled her daughter saying. “And I’m like, ‘Well, we can’t think like that. You never know what’s gonna happen.’”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Letters to the Editor is a periodic feature. We welcome all comments and will publish a selection. We edit for length and clarity and require full names.

Debunking Abortion Myths

I want to send a big THANK YOU to Matt Volz for writing a fact-checking article on the nonsense rhetoric around “abortion up until and after birth” that has run wild and unchallenged in the media (“GOP’s Tim Sheehy Revives Discredited Abortion Claims in Pivotal Senate Race,” July 9). Thanks for putting abortion later in pregnancy in context and debunking false assumptions.

I am a near-third-trimester abortion patient (nonviable pregnancy, terminated at 26 weeks), and I am so sick of hearing politicians like Tim Sheehy talk about something they have never experienced or bothered to learn about. It is as though I am watching the entire nation maliciously gossip about me and other parents like me. Those of us in the termination for medical reasons (TFMR) community have walked through hell only to have our voices, at best, be ignored or, more commonly, be insulted and threatened.

And I imagine watching this political circus is just as hurtful for parents who lost an infant shortly after birth and had to provide palliative care. That is who they are talking about with “abortion after birth”; they are talking about comfort care for infants who will not survive.

Thank you again for bringing a dose of reality to a conversation that never should have become political. These are impossible decisions that only parents should make. It was really refreshing to read Volz’s article and know that some journalists are still willing to fact-check the absurd claims floating around. It was encouraging to know that someone does see us.

— Anne Angus, Bozeman, Montana

A physician and Yale professor of radiology and biomedical imaging took to the social platform X to share feedback:

.@SenatorTester is a great Senator. And his opponent is a great liar. Both the GOP presidential candidate and Tim Sheehy have perpetuated this lie. Please push back every time you hear it. https://t.co/1LBGPgOA2u

— (((Howard Forman))) (@thehowie) July 9, 2024

— Howard Forman, New Haven, Connecticut

I just read your article at PolitiFact on Republican Senate candidate Tim Sheehy’s statement about abortion, and I would like to point out (what I believe) are a couple of errors.

1. In paragraph 10, you quote KFF’s Alina Salganicoff saying that “in the good-faith medical judgment of the treating health care provider, continuation of the pregnancy would pose a risk to the pregnant patient’s life or health.” Now, you may know that almost at the same time that the Roe v. Wade decision was released, there was a decision called Doe v. Bolton that interpreted “health” to mean almost anything. That broad interpretation of health is found in your article in paragraph 24: “Women have abortions later in pregnancy either because they find out new information or because of economic or political barriers,” [Katrina] Kimport said.

When a woman can have an abortion after viability because she offers any reason that can be interpreted as “health,” then abortion would be legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy. I believe that you are wrong in your interpretation. Democrats do not want to name any restriction on abortion during all nine months, and every mention of “health” is a fig leaf that does not restrict abortion at all. Every abortion advocate knows that.

2. Whether late-term abortions are rare or not is logically irrelevant to whether late-term abortions should be restricted.

Why don’t you know these things?

— Darryl A. Linde, Tahlequah, Oklahoma

An Air Force veteran added his two cents on X:

Dems have the facts. Republicans spread fear and lies.https://t.co/6CWfKhqxJZ

— James Knight (@jamesUSAF_vet) July 12, 2024

— James Knight, Reno, Nevada

Making a Healthy Difference for the Homeless

Thank you for printing this story (“A California Medical Group Treats Only Homeless Patients — And Makes Money Doing It,” July 19). It really piqued my interest and portrayed a positive solution for getting care to the people.

Up here in the Bay Area, I believe there are a couple of groups who go out and find what needs doing instead of waiting for people to come to them — but nothing like this. Makes me curious about what we actually have going on here.

— Laurie Lippe, El Cerrito, California

A self-described “nurse turned health tech nerd” commended the effort on X:

"They distribute GPS devices so they can track their homeless patients. They keep company credit cards on hand in case a patient needs emergency food or water, or an Uber ride to the doctor"This is healthcare at its best 💕https://t.co/UhM1dgTPH7

— Rik Renard (@rikrenard) July 22, 2024

— Rik Renard, New York City

A senior policy director at the National Health Care for the Homeless Council shared the post on X — while stressing that her tweets reflected her own opinions and not those of her organization:

I’m with ⁦@DrJimWithers: “I do worry about the corporatization of street medicine and capitalism invading what we’ve been building, largely as a social justice mission outside of the traditional health care system.” https://t.co/IOjazvrvqP

— Barbara DiPietro (@BarbaraDiPietro) July 19, 2024

— Barbara DiPietro, Baltimore

On X, a physician who says she champions “physicians, patients, public health, and the patient-physician relationship” reacted to our coverage surrounding the Federal Trade Commission’s rule banning the use of noncompete agreements in employment contracts: 

FTC #noncompete crackdown may not protect doctors and nurses at ~64% of US community hospitals that are tax-exempt nonprofits or government-owned.But, ⁦@FTC⁩ said some nonprofits could be bound by the rule if they do not operate as true charities. https://t.co/9fDbfVflTH

— Marilyn Heine (@MarilynHeineMD) May 28, 2024

— Marilyn Heine, Langhorne, Pennsylvania

Without a Noncompete Ban on All Employers, Rural Access to Care Suffers

When news broke that the Federal Trade Commission would be banning noncompete agreements in employment contracts, many of us in the medical profession celebrated. However, until nonprofit hospitals and health care facilities benefit from the same ban, access to care — particularly in rural regions — will suffer.

As reported in “Health Worker for a Nonprofit? The New Ban on Noncompete Contracts May Not Help You” (June 5), about two-thirds of U.S. community hospitals are nonprofit or government-owned. This means that most hospitals nationwide may continue to enforce noncompete agreements among their employees, a practice that will have an outsize impact on rural medical professionals.

As a rheumatologist in a rural area, I’ve seen how detrimental limited access to care is for patients. Noncompete agreements serve only to further limit access to much-needed care. Due to the physician shortage being particularly acute in rural America, there are oftentimes only a few specialty physicians servicing a large region. Suppose one of these specialists is employed by a large health system and wants to transition to a private practice. It reduces the number of accessible specialists in the area when their noncompete agreement prohibits them from practicing near any of the health care facilities associated with the system. And increasing consolidation across health care means many rural regions may have only a single health system that operates across the entire state and surrounding areas. A geographically limiting noncompete agreement essentially stops a physician or medical professional from practicing entirely in the area, or they must uproot their life and move away from the major health system.

I hope the FTC takes further action to include nonprofit health care employers in its noncompete ban. I also urge nonprofit employers to consider their rural patients’ access to care when requiring providers to sign noncompete agreements. It’s in the best interest of our patient’s health to get rid of these agreements entirely.

— Chris Phillips, chair of the American College of Rheumatology’s Committee on Rheumatologic Care, Paducah, Kentucky

The president of the Texas Medical Board also posted on X with feedback:

Is it a coincidence that this affects everyone, except those who work for nonprofit hospitals and health care facilities, which employs the largest number of medical professionals?The FTC and it's selective enforcement and rules is blatantly obvious! https://t.co/RzXInqiJ8D

— Sherif Zaafran, MD (@szaafran) June 16, 2024

— Sherif Zaafran, Houston

Repurposing Newspaper Boxes for Public Health

I recently read your article by Mara Silvers regarding the state’s intended use of public health vending machines (PHVMs) to help fight the opioid overdose epidemic (“Montana’s Plan To Curb Opioid Overdoses Includes Vending Machines,” July 18). Working on the covid-19 response for almost four years now, and with our American Rescue Plan Act funding coming to an end, we recently used a byline in our equipment budget to purchase and place “resource kiosks” in the community.

In 2022, after researching the use of vending machines for test distribution, we discovered vending machines have high barrier-to-entry costs and high maintenance costs. And even if purchasing isn’t possible, rental contracts come with high fees. We decided it was better to use a lower-cost resource that could be purchased in greater quantity, easily placed with community partners, and required no maintenance: the refurbished newspaper kiosk.

We decided to purchase double-decker boxes, which have a secondary door, creating another shelf, for roughly $410 apiece and stocked them with covid tests, nasal naloxone, injectable naloxone, fentanyl test strips, xylazine test strips, various types of condoms, and lubrication packets. We are in the process of securing a supply of gun locks and adding links to our pilot landing page for individual free gun lock deliveries, as well as links for free sexually transmitted infection test kits. We have investigated providing dental supplies and other items, but long-term funding is a constant concern. Grant money for most programs (likely all ARPA dollars) is running out, so the viability of these types of pilot programs is tentative without a buy-in from state or federal agencies.

Mara’s article hinted at criteria for possible placements and, similarly, we didn’t use locational overdose data, which can be “othering” to communities, but instead placed these kiosks with community partners that have been accomplished supporters of their at-risk populations throughout the covid response. Each community partner helped protect the communities they served through increased access to resources and provided information as trusted messengers. Truly meeting people where they are.

While money quickly appeared to fight the covid pandemic, and states spirited away dollars for pet projects, that sea of funding has dried up, and there doesn’t seem to be a plan for any continued funding. Covid-related functions have all been folded back into communicable disease epidemiology programs, which were already underfunded; in our state, the money funding the naloxone bulk fund is also drying up. Covid deaths might be down, but there is always a new bug (H5N1), STI infections are up, and gun-related deaths grow year over year. Funding population-level health interventions is our next pandemic.

With enough funding, kiosk-sized PHVMs could be swiftly added to any public health agency’s or community program’s quiver of tools to help increase access to resources and information for the most vulnerable residents.

Thank you for publishing a great article about the emerging opportunities to respond to changing public health needs!

— Christopher Howk, Arapahoe County Public Health’s covid-19 testing and logistics coordinator, Greenwood Village, Colorado

A retiree with a PhD in quantum chemistry tweeted his surprise over the news:

Montana’s Plan To Curb Opioid Overdoses Includes Vending Machineshttps://t.co/kNxYjnIOEO(What???!! Vending machines for opioids?)

— John Lounsbury (@jlounsbury59) July 18, 2024

— John Lounsbury, Lake Frederick, Virginia

Misappropriation of Opioid Settlement Funds

OK, so I see how all these states got all these lump sums of money for people like us who became addicted and whose lives were devastated by Purdue Pharma, Vicodin, and all the pharmacies (“Lifesaving Drugs and Police Projects Mark First Use of Opioid Settlement Cash in California,” July 12). How come all these states got all the money but those of us who have suffered have to wait, hire lawyers, and wait years for the money that was just handed over to these states? We’re the ones whose lives were devastated. My son was hooked, I was hooked, and my wife, and yet we must sit here penniless after the addiction, while all these states take the money — and they don’t do what they’re supposed to with it, and everyone knows it.

— Michael Stewart, Des Moines, Iowa

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Not so long ago, Bonner General Health, the hospital in Sandpoint, Idaho, had four OB/GYNs on staff, who treated patients from multiple rural counties.

That was before Idaho’s near-total abortion ban went into effect almost two years ago, criminalizing most abortions. All four of Bonner’s OB/GYNs left by last summer, some citing fears that the state’s ban exposed them to legal peril for doing their jobs.

The exodus forced Bonner General to shutter its labor and delivery unit and sent patients scrambling to seek new providers more than 40 miles away in Coeur d’Alene or Post Falls, or across the state border to Spokane, Wash. It has made Sandpoint a “double desert,” meaning it lacks access to both maternity care and abortion services.

One patient, Jonell Anderson, was referred to an OB-GYN in Coeur d’Alene, roughly an hour’s drive from Sandpoint, after an ultrasound showed a mass growing in her uterus. Anderson made multiple trips to the out-of-town provider. Previously, she would have found that care close to home.

The experience isn’t limited to this small Idaho town.

A 2023 analysis by ABC News and Boston Children’s Hospital found that more than 1.7 million women of reproductive age in the United States live in a “double desert.” About 3.7 million women live in counties with no access to abortion and little to no maternity care.

Texas, Mississippi and Kentucky have the highest numbers of women of reproductive age living in double deserts, according to the analysis.

Amelia Huntsberger, one of the OB/GYNs who chose to leave Sandpoint — despite having practiced there for a decade — did so because she felt she couldn’t provide the care her patients needed under a law as strict as Idaho’s.

The growing provider shortages in rural states affect not only pregnant and postpartum women, but all women, said Usha Ranji, an associate director for Women’s Health Policy at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“Pregnancy is obviously a very intense period of focus, but people need access to this care before, during and after, and outside of pregnancy,” Ranji said.

The problem is expected to worsen.

In Idaho, the number of applicants to fill spots left by departing doctors has “absolutely plummeted,” said Susie Keller, CEO of the Idaho Medical Association.

“We are witnessing the dismantling of our health system,” she said.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Republican National Convention highlighted a number of policy issues this week, but health care was not among them. That was not much of a surprise, as it is not a top priority for former President Donald Trump or most GOP voters. The nomination of Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio adds an outspoken abortion opponent to the Republican ticket, though he brings no particular background or expertise in health care.

Meanwhile, abortion opponents are busy trying to block state ballot questions from reaching voters in November. Legal battles over potential proposals continue in several states, including Florida, Arkansas, and Arizona.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio has cast few votes on health policy since joining Congress last year. He has taken a doctrinaire approach to abortion restrictions, though, including expressing support for prohibiting abortion-related interstate travel and invoking the Comstock Act to block use of the mail for abortion medications. He also speaks openly about his mother’s struggles with addiction, framing it as a health rather than criminal issue in a way that resonates with many Americans.
• Although Republicans have largely abandoned calls to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, it would be easy for former President Donald Trump to undermine the program in a second term; expanded subsidies for coverage are due to expire next year, and there’s always the option to cut spending on marketing the program, as Trump did during his first term.
• Trump’s recent comments to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about childhood vaccinations echoed tropes linked to the anti-vaccination movement — particularly the false claim that while one vaccine may be safe, it is perhaps dangerous to receive several at once. The federal vaccination schedule has been rigorously evaluated and found to be safe and effective.
• Covid is surging once again, with President Joe Biden among those testing positive this week. The virus is proving a year-round concern and has peaked regularly in summertime; covid spreads best indoors, and lately millions of Americans have taken refuge inside from extremely high temperatures. Meanwhile, the virology community is concerned that the nation isn’t testing enough animals or humans to understand the risk posed by bird flu.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam, who wrote the June installment of KFF Health News-NPR’s “Bill of the Month,” about a patient who walked into what he thought was an urgent care center and walked out with an emergency room bill. If you have an exorbitant or baffling medical bill, you can send it to us here.

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

Julie Rovner: Time magazine’s “‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town,” by Andrew R Chow.

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “A Mom Struggles To Feed Her Kids After GOP States Reject Federal Funds,” by Annie Gowen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, but No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “Promised Cures, Tainted Cells: How Cord Blood Banks Mislead Patients,” by Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

The Wall Street Journal’s “Mail-Order Drugs Were Supposed To Keep Costs Down. It’s Doing the Opposite,” by Jared S. Hopkins.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: At GOP Convention, Health Policy Is Mostly MIA

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘At GOP Convention, Health Policy Is Mostly MIA’Episode Number: 356Published: July 18, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 18, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein, of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith at the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of public health and nursing, and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam, about the latest “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient went to a facility with urgent care in its name but then got charged emergency room prices. But first, this week’s news.

So as of this morning, we are most of the way through the Republican National Convention, which obviously has a somewhat different tone than was expected, following last weekend’s assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The big news of the week is Trump’s selection of Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance as his running mate. Vance has only been in the Senate since 2023, had not served previously in public office, and he doesn’t have much of a record on much of anything in health care. So, what do we know about what he thinks?

Ollstein: Well, I have been most focused on his abortion record, which is somewhat more extensive than his record on other health policy. Obviously, Congress has not done very much on abortion, but he’s been loud and proud about his anti-abortion views, including calling for national restrictions. He calls it a national minimum standard, but the idea is that he does not want people in conservative states where abortion is banned to be able to travel to progressive states where it is allowed. He has given interviews to that effect. He has signed letters to that effect. He has called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which, as we’ve talked about before, is this long dormant statute that prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs or medical instruments that could be used to terminate a pregnancy. And so this is a very interesting moment to pick Vance.

The Republican Party is attempting to reach out to more moderate voters and convince them that they are hoping to leave this issue to the states. Vance’s record somewhat says otherwise. He also opposed efforts in his own state of Ohio to hold a referendum that ended up striking down that state’s abortion ban. So, definitely a lot for Democrats to go after in his record and they are not wasting any time; they are already doing it.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m kind of surprised because Vance, very much like Trump, has been kind of everywhere, or at least he has said that he’s kind of everywhere on abortion. But as you mentioned, Alice, you don’t have to look very hard to see that he’s pretty doctrinaire on the issue. Do you think people are going to buy this newer, softer Republicanism on abortion?

Ollstein: Well, abortion rights groups that I’ve spoken to are worried that people are buying it. They’re worried as they campaign around the country that the Republican Party’s attempt to walk away from their past calls for national restrictions on abortion are breaking through to people. And so they are trying really hard to counter that message and to stress that Republicans can and would pursue national restrictions, if elected.

I think both Democratic candidates and abortion rights groups are working to say even the leave-it-to-states position is too extreme and is harming people. And so they’re lifting up the stories of people in Texas and other states with bans who have experienced severe medical harm as a result of being denied an abortion. And so they’re lifting up those stories to say, “Hey, even saying let’s leave it to the states, let’s not do a national ban — even that is unacceptable in the eyes of the left.”

Kenen: The other issue obviously with his life story is opioids. His mother was addicted. Originally it began with being prescribed a legal painkiller. It’s a familiar story: became addicted, he was raised by his grandmother. His mother, who he showed on TV last night and she was either in tears or really close to tears, she’s 10 years sober now. He had a tough life and opioids was part of the reason he had a tough life. And whatever you think of his politics, that particular element of his life story resonates with people because it may explain some of his political views. But that experience is not a partisan experience and he was a kid. So I think he clearly does see opioids as a medical problem, not just, oh, let’s throw them in jail. I mean, the country and the Republican Party, that has been a change. It’s not a change that’s completed, but that shift is across party lines as well. That’s part of him that — it’s something you listen to when he tells that story.

I mean also, he told a story about his grandmother late in life, the grandmother who raised him, having, when she died, they found 19 handguns in the house all over the place. And he told sort of a funny story that she was old and frail and she always wanted to have one within reach. And all I could think of is, all these unlocked handguns with kids in the house! I mean, which is not a regulatory issue, but there’s a gun safety issue there. I’m just thinking, oh my God, 19 guns in drawers all over the house. But he’s obviously a very, the Republican Party is … I mean, after the assassination attempt, you have not heard Donald Trump say, “Maybe I need to rethink my position on gun control.” I mean, that’s not part of the dialogue right now.

I think having someone with that experience, talking about it the way he does, is a positive thing, really. Saying, “Here’s what we went through. Here’s why. Here’s how awful it was. Here’s how difficult it was to get out of it. And this is what these families need.” I mean, that is …

Rovner: Although it’s a little bit ironic because he’s very anti-social programs, in general.

Karlin-Smith: And he’s had a bad track record of trying to address the opioid crisis. He had a charity he started that he ended I guess about when he was running for Senate that really was deemed nonsuccessful. It also had questionable ties to Purdue Pharma, that’s sort of responsible for the opioid crisis. And the other thing that you sometimes hear in both him and Trump’s rhetoric is the blaming of immigrants and the drug cartels and all of that stuff for the opioid crisis. So, there’s a little bit of use of the topic, I think, to drop anti-immigrant sentiment and not really think about how to address the actual health struggles.

Kenen: When he talks about his family, he’s not saying China sent my mother fentanyl. I think it is good for people to hear stories from the perspective of a family who had this, as it is a health problem, reminding people that this is not thugs on the street shooting heroin. It’s a substance abuse disorder, it’s a disease. And so I think the country has come a long way, but it isn’t where it needs to be in terms of understanding that it’s a behavioral health problem. So I think in that sense he will probably be a reminder of that. But he doesn’t have a health record. I mean, he wasn’t there during the Obamacare wars. We don’t really know what he thinks about. I’m not aware of anything he’s really said about entitlements and Medicare. He does come from the state … I mean, Trump is saying he won’t touch it. But I mean if he said Medicare stuff, I missed it. I mean, if one of you knows, correct …

Karlin-Smith: Well, he has actually said that he supports Medicare drug price negotiation at times, which is interesting and unique for a Republican. And I mean Trump, as well, has been a bit different from the traditional Republican, I think, when it comes to the pharma industry and stuff, but I think that maybe is even a bridge too far in some ways.

Rovner: Yeah, he’s generally pretty anti-social program, so it’ll be interesting to see how he walks that line.

Well, this is all good segue into my next question, which is, health in general has been mostly MIA during this convention, including any update on Trump’s ear injury from the attempted assassination. Are we finally post-repeal-and-replace in the Republican Party? Or is this just one of those things that they don’t want to talk about but might yet take up if they get into office?

Kenen: We don’t know what the balance of power is in the Senate and the House, right? I mean, that’s probably going to be part of it. I mean, if they have huge … if they capture both chambers with huge majorities, it’s a new ballgame. Whether they actually try to repeal it, versus there’s all sorts of ways they can undermine it. Trump did not succeed in repealing it. Trump and the House Republicans did not, the Republicans in general did not succeed in repealing it, despite a lot of effort. But they did undermine it in all sorts of ways and coverage actually fell during the Trump administration. ACA [Affordable Care Act] coverage did drop; it didn’t vanish completely, but it dropped. And under Biden it continued to grow. Now, the Republicans get their health care through the ACA, so it’s become much more normalized, but we don’t know what they will do. Trump is not a predictable politician, right? I mean, he often made a big deal about trying to lower drug prices early in his term, and then nothing. And then he even released huge, long list of things …

I remember one of our reporters — Sarah and I were both … Sarah, Alice, and I were all at Politico — and I think it was David who counted the number of question marks in that report. And at the end of the day, nothing much happened. I don’t think the ACA is untouchable; it may or may not be unrepealable in its entirety, but it’s certainly not untouchable.

Rovner: Well, he also changes positions on a whim, as we’ve seen. Most politicians you can at least count on to, when they take a position, to keep it at least for a matter of days or weeks, and Trump sometimes in the same interview can sort of contradict himself, as we know. But I mean, obviously a quick way to undermine the ACA, as you say, would just be to let the extended subsidies expire because they would need to be re-upped if that’s going to continue and there are many millions of people that are now …

Kenen: And they expire next year.

Rovner: … Yes, that are …

Kenen: And there are also two other things. You cut the navigating budget. You cut advertising. You don’t try to sell it. I don’t mean literally sell it, but you don’t try to go out and urge … I mean, that was their playbook last time, and that’s why — it’s one reason enrollment dropped. And that was, the subsidies were under Biden, the extended subsidies. So that’s one year away.

Ollstein: But it’s no surprise that this hasn’t been a big topic of discussion at the RNC [Republican National Convention]. I mean, polling shows that voters trust Democrats more on health care; it’s one of their best issues. It’s not a good issue for Republicans. And so it was fully expected that they would stick to things that are more favorable to them: crime, inflation, whatnot. So, I do expect to hear a lot about health care at the DNC [Democratic National Convention] in a few weeks. But beyond that, we do not know what’s going to happen at the DNC.

Rovner: Yeah.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, the one health issue we haven’t really touched on, which the Republicans have been hammering on, is transgender health care and pushing limits on it, especially for people transitioning, children, and adolescents. And I think that’s clearly been a strategic move, particularly as they’ve gotten into more political trouble with abortion and women in the party. They clearly seem to think that the transgender issue, in general, appeals more to their base and it’s less risky for them.

Rovner: Their culture warrior base, as you will. Yeah, and we have in fact seen a fair bit of that. Well, before we leave the convention, one more item: It seems that Trump and RFK Jr. [independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] had a phone conversation, which of course leaked to the public, during which they talked about vaccine resistance. Now we know that RFK Jr. is a longtime anti-vaxxer. What, if anything, does the recounting of this conversation suggest about former President Trump’s vaccine views? And we’ve talked about this a little bit before, he’s been very antimandate for the covid vaccine, but it’s been a little bit of a blank on basic childhood vaccines.

Karlin-Smith: And I mean, his remarks are, they’re almost a little bit difficult to parse, they don’t quite make sense, but they seem to be essentially repeating anti-vax tropes around, well, maybe one vaccine on their own isn’t dangerous, but we give kids too many vaccines at a time or too close together. And all of that stuff has been debunked over the years as incorrect. The vaccine schedule has been rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy and so forth.

That said, Trump obviously was in office when we spearheaded the development of covid vaccines, which ended up being wildly successful, and he didn’t really undermine that process, I guess, for the most part when he was in office. So it’s hard to know. Again, there’s a lot of difficulty in predicting what Trump will actually do and it may depend a lot who he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to key positions in his health department and what their views are. Because he seems like he can be easily persuaded and right now he may just be in, again, campaign mode, very much trying to appeal to a certain population. And you could easily see him — because he doesn’t seem to care about switching positions — just pivoting and being slightly less anti-vax. But it’s certainly concerning to people who have been even more about the U.S. anti-vax sentiments since covid and decreases in vaccination rates.

Rovner: It did feel like he was trying to say what he thought RFK Jr. wanted to hear, so as to win his endorsement, which we know that Trump is very good at doing. He channels what he says depending on who he’s talking to, which is what a lot of politicians do. He just tends to do it more obviously than many others.

Kenen: Julie, we heard this at the tail end of the 2016 campaign. He made a few comments, exactly, very, very similar to this, the size of a horse vaccine and you see the changes — there’s too many, too many vaccines, too large doses. We heard this briefly in the late 2016, and we heard it at the very — I no longer remember whether it was during transition in 2016 or whether it was early in 2017 when he was in the White House — but we heard a little bit of this then, too. And he had a meeting with RFK then. And RFK said that Trump was talking about maybe setting up a commission and RFK at one point said that Trump had asked him to head the commission. We don’t think that was necessarily the case.

First of all, there was no commission. The White House never confirmed that they had asked RFK to lead it. Who knows who said what in a closed room, or who heard what or what they wanted to hear; we don’t know. But we heard this whole episode, including Trump and RFK, at approximately the beginning of 2017, and it did go away. Covid didn’t happen right away; covid was later. There was no anti-vax commission. There was no vax commission. There was no change in vaccination policy in those early years prepandemic. And as Sarah just pointed out, Trump was incredibly pro-vaccine during the pandemic. I mean, the Operation Warp Speed was hailed by even people who didn’t like anything else about Trump. When public health liked Operation Warp Speed, he got vaccines into arms fast, faster than many of us thought, right?

The difference — there were anti-vaxxers then; there have been since smallpox — but it is much more politicized and much more prominent, and in some ways it has almost replaced the ACA as your identifying health issue. If you talk to somebody about the ACA, you know what party they are, you even know where within the party they are, what wing. And that’s not 100% true of anti-vaxxers. There are anti-vaxxers on both sides, but the politicization has been on the Republican-medical-libertarian side, that you-can’t-tell-me-what-to-do-it’s-my-body side. It is much more part of his base and a more intense, visible, and vocal part of his base. So, it’s the same comments, or very similar comments, to the same person in a different political context.

Rovner: Well, I think it’s safe to say that abortion does remain the most potent political health issue of the year, and there was lots of state-based abortion election news this week. As we’ve been discussing all year, as many as a dozen states will have abortion questions on the ballot for voters this November, but not without a fight. Florida has just added an addendum to its ballot measures, suggesting that if passed, it could cost the state money. And in Arkansas and Montana, there are now legal fights over which signatures should or shouldn’t be counted in getting some of those questions to the ballot.

Alice, in every state that’s voted on abortion since Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], the abortion-right side has prevailed. Is the strategy here to try to prevent people from voting in the first place?

Ollstein: Oh, yes. I wrote a story about this in January. It’s been true for a while, and it’s been true in the states that already had their votes, too. There were efforts in Ohio to make a vote harder or to block it entirely. There were efforts in Michigan to do so. And even the same tactics are being repeated. And so the fight over the cost estimate in Florida, which is usually just a very boring, bureaucratic, routine thing, has become this political fight. And that also happened in Missouri. So, we’re seeing these trends and patterns and basically any aspect of this process that can be mobilized to become a fight between conservative state officials and these groups that are attempting to get these measures on the ballot, it has been. And so Arizona is also having a fight over the language that is going to go in the voter guide that goes out to everybody. So there’s a fight going on there that’s going to go to court next week about whether it says fetus or unborn child. So, all of these little aspects of it, there’s going to be more lawsuits over signature, validation, and so it’s going to be a knockdown, drag-out fight to the end.

It’s been really interesting to see that conservative efforts to mount these so-called decline-to-sign campaigns, where they go out and try to just convince people not to sign the petition — those have completely failed, even in states that haven’t gotten the kind of national support and funding that Florida and Nevada and some of these states have. Even those places have met their signature goals and so they’re now moving to this next phase of the fight, which is these legal and bureaucratic challenges.

Rovner: This is going to play out, I suspect, right, almost until the last minute, in terms of getting some of these on the ballot.

Meanwhile, here on Capitol Hill, there’s an effort underway by some abortion rights backers to repeal the 1873 Comstock Act, which some anti-abortion activists say could be used to establish a national abortion ban. On the one hand, repealing the law would take away that possibility. On the other hand, suggesting that it needs to be repealed undercuts the Biden administration’s contention that the law is currently unenforceable. This seemed to be a pretty risky proposition for abortion rights forces no matter which way they go, right?

Ollstein: Well, for a while, the theory on the abortion rights side was, oh, we shouldn’t draw attention to Comstock because we don’t want to give the right the idea of using it to make a backdoor abortion ban. But that doesn’t really hold water anymore because they clearly know about it and they clearly have the idea already and are open about their desire to use it in documents like Project 2025, in letters from lawmakers urging enforcement of the Comstock Act. And so the whole …

Rovner: In concurring opinions in Supreme Court cases.

Ollstein: … Exactly, exactly. In legal filings in Supreme Court cases from the plaintiffs. So clearly, the whole “don’t give the right the idea thing” is not really the strategy anymore; the right already has the idea. And so now I think it’s more like you said, about undercutting the legal argument that it is not enforceable anyway. But those who do advocate for its repeal say, “Why wouldn’t we take this tool out of contention?” But this is sort of a philosophical fight because they don’t have the votes to repeal it anyway.

Rovner: Yeah, though I think the idea is if you bring it up you put Republicans on the record, as …

Ollstein: Sure, but they’ve been doing that on so many things. I mean, they’ve been doing that on IVF [in vitro fertilization], they’ve been doing that on contraception, they’ve been doing that on abortion, they’ve been doing it on the right to travel for an abortion. They’ve been doing it over and over and over and I don’t see a lot of evidence that it’s making a big impact in the election. I could be wrong, but I think that’s the current state of things.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m with you on that one.

All right, well, while we are all busy living our lives and talking about politics, covid is making its now annual summer comeback. President Biden is currently quarantining at his beach house in Rehoboth after testing positive. HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Xavier Becerra was diagnosed earlier this week. And wastewater testing shows covid levels are “very high” in seven states, including big ones like Florida, Texas, and California. Sarah, do we just not care anymore? Is this just not news?

Karlin-Smith: Probably, it depends on who you ask, right? But I think obviously with Biden getting covid, it’s going to get more attention again. I think that a lot of health officials, including in the Biden administration, spent a lot of time trying to maybe optimistically hope that covid was going to become a seasonal struggle, much like flu, where we really sort of know a more defined risk period in the winter and that helps us manage it a bit. And always sort of seemed a little bit more optimistic than reality. And I think recently I’ve listened to some CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] meetings and stuff where — it’s not really, it’s a little bit subtle — but I think they’re finally kind of coming around to, oh wait, actually this is something where we probably are going to have these two peaks every year. They’re sort of year-round risk. But there hasn’t been a ton done to actually think through, OK, what does that mean for how we handle it?

In this country, every year they have been approving a second vaccine for the people most at risk, although uptake of that is incredibly low. So it does seem like it’s become a little bit of a neglected public health crisis. And certainly in the news sometimes when something kind of stays at this sort of constant level of problem, but nothing changes, it can sometimes, I think, be harder for news outlets to figure out how to draw attention to it.

Rovner: It does seem like, I mean, most of the prominent people who have been getting it have been getting mild cases. I imagine that that sort of has something to do … We’re not seeing … even Biden, who’s as we all know, 81, is quarantining at his beach house, so.

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, if you kind of stay up to date, as the terminology is, on your vaccinations, you don’t have a lot of high-risk conditions, if you are in certain at-risk groups you get Paxlovid. For the most part a lot of people are doing well. But that said, I think, I’m afraid to say the numbers, but if you look up the amount of deaths per week and so forth, it’s still quite high. We’re still losing — again, more people are still dying from covid every year, quite a few more than from the flu. I mean, one thing I think people have also pointed out is when new babies are born, you can’t get vaccinated until you’re 6 months. The under-6-month population has been impacted quite a bit again. So, it is that tension. And we saw it with the flu before covid, which is every year flu is actually a very big issue in the U.S. and the public health world for hospitals and stuff but the U.S. never quite put enough maybe attention or pressure to figure out how to actually change that dynamic and get better flu vaccine uptake and so forth.

Kenen: And the intense heat makes it, I mean — covid is much, much, much, much more transmissible inside than outside. And the intense heat — we’re not sitting around enjoying warm weather, we’re inside hiding from sweltering weather. We’re all in Washington or the Washington area, and it’s been hot with a capital H for weeks here, weeks. So people are inside. They can’t even be outside in the evening, it’s still hot. So we think of winter as being the indoors time in most of the country, and summer sort of the indoors time in only certain states. But right now we are in more transmissible environments for covid and …

Rovner: Meanwhile, while we’re all trying to ignore covid, we have bird flu that seems to be getting more and more serious, although people seem to just not want to think about it. We’re looking at obviously in many states bird flu spreading to dairy cows and therefore spreading to dairy workers. Sarah, we don’t really even know how big this problem is, right? Because we’re not really looking for it?

Karlin-Smith: That seems to be one of the biggest concerns of people in the public health-virology community who are criticizing the current response right now, is just we’re not testing enough, both in terms of animal populations that could be impacted and then the people that work or live closely by these animal populations, to figure out how this virus is spreading, how many people are actually impacted. Is the genetics of the virus changing? And the problem of course then is, if you don’t do this tracking, there’s a sense that we can get ourselves in a situation where it’s too late. By the time we realize something is wrong, it’s going to already be a very dangerous situation.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, before covid, the big concern about a pandemic was bird flu. And was bird flu jumping from birds to other animals to humans, which is exactly what we’re seeing even though we’re not seeing a ton of it yet.

Kenen: We’re not seeing a ton of it, and in its current form, to the best of our knowledge, it’s not that dangerous. The fear is the more species it’s in and the more people it’s in, the more opportunities it has to become more dangerous. So, just because people have not become seriously ill, which is great, but it doesn’t mean it stays great, we just don’t — Sarah knows more about this than I do, but the flu virus mutates very easily. It combines with other flu viruses. That’s why you hear about Type A and Type B and all that. I mean, it’s not a stable virus and that is not, I’m not sure if stable is the right …

Rovner: It’s why we need a different flu shot every year.

Kenen: Right, and the flu shots we have, bird flu is different.

Rovner: Well, we will continue to watch that.

Kenen: Sarah can correct anything I just got wrong. But I think the gist was right, right?

Rovner: Sarah is nodding.

All right, well finally, one follow up from last week in the wake of the report from the Federal Trade Commission on self-dealing by pharmacy benefits managers: We get a piece from The Wall Street Journal this week [“Mail-Order Drugs Were Supposed To Keep Costs Down. It’s Doing the Opposite.”] documenting how much more mail-order pharmacies, particularly mail-order pharmacies owned by said PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are charging. Quoting from the story, “Branded drugs filled by mail were marked up on average three to six times higher than the cost of medicines dispensed by chain and grocery-store pharmacies, and roughly 35 times higher than those filled by independent pharmacies.” That’s according to the study commissioned by the Washington State Pharmacy Association. It’s not been a great month for the PBM industry. Sarah, I’m going to ask you what I asked the panel last week: Is Congress finally ready to do something?

Karlin-Smith: It seemed like Congress has finally been ready to do something for a while. Certainly, both sides have passed legislation and committees and so forth, and it’s been pretty bipartisan. So we’ll see. I think some of it costs — I forget if some of it costs a little money — but some of it does save. And that’s always an issue. And we know that Congress is just not very good at passing stand-alone bills on particular topics, so I think the key times will be to look at when we get to any big end-of-year funding deals and that sort of thing, depending on all the dynamics with the election and the lame duck, but …

Rovner: I mean, this has been so bipartisan. I mean, there’s bipartisan irritation in both houses, in both parties.

Karlin-Smith: Right, and I think the antitrust sort of element of this with PBMs kind of appeals to the Republican side of the aisle quite a bit. And that’s why there’s always been a bit of bipartisan interest. And the question becomes: PBMs sort of fill the role that in other countries government price negotiators fill. And that’s not particularly popular in the U.S., particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. And so most of the legislation that is pending, I think, will maybe hopefully get us to some transparency solutions, tweak some things around the edges, but it’s not really going to solve the crisis. It’s going to be, I mean, a very [Washington,] D.C. health policy move, which is kind of, take some incremental steps that might eventually move us down to later reforms, but it’s going to be slow-moving, whatever happens. So, PBMs are going to be in the spotlight for probably a while longer.

Rovner: Yes, which popular issue moves slower: drug prices or gun control?

All right, well finally this week the health policy community has lost another giant. Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under the first President Bush, and the advisory group MedPAC for many years after that, died of cancer last week at age 81. Gail managed to be both polite and outspoken at the same time. A Republican economist who worked with and disagreed with both Democrats and Republicans, and who, I think it’s fair to say, was respected by just about everyone who ever dealt with her. She taught me, and lots of others, a large chunk of what I know about health policy. She will be very much missed. Joanne, I guess you worked with her probably as long as I did.

Kenen: Yeah, I’m the one who told you she had died, right?

Rovner: That’s true.

Kenen: I think that when I heard her speak in a professional setting in the last few years, she talked to her about herself not as a Republican health economist, but as a free market health economist. She was very well respected and very well liked, but she also ended up being a person without a party. But she was a fixture and she was a nice person.

Rovner: And she wasn’t afraid to say when she was the head of MedPAC she made a lot of people angry. She made a lot of Republicans angry in some of those sort of positions that she took. She basically called it as she saw it and let the chips fall.

Kenen: And Julie, she went to Michigan, right?

Rovner: Yes, and she went to Michigan. That’s true. A fellow Michigan Wolverine. All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with Renuka Rayasam, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Renuka Rayasam, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about what should have been a simple visit to an urgent care center but of course turned out to be anything but. Renu, thanks for joining us.

Renuka Rayasam: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what kind of medical problem he had.

Rayasam: Sure, let me tell you about the patient in this month’s “Bill of the Month.” His name is Tim Chong. He’s a Dallas man, and last December he felt severe stomach pain and he didn’t know what it was from. And he thought at first maybe he’d had some food poisoning. But the pain didn’t subside and he thought, OK, I don’t want to have to pay an ER bill, so let me go to an urgent care. And he opted to visit Parkland Health’s Urgent Care Emergency Center, where he learned he had a kidney stone and was told to go home and that it would pass on its own.

Rovner: Now, we’re told all the time exactly what he was told, that if we have a health problem that needs immediate attention but probably not a hospital-level emergency, we should go to an urgent care center rather than a hospital emergency room. And most insurers encourage you to do this; they give you a big incentive by charging a far smaller copay for urgent care. So, that’s what he tried to do, right?

Rayasam: That’s what he tried to do, at least that’s what he thought he was doing. Like I said, this is a facility, it’s called Urgent Care Emergency Center. He told me that he walked in, he thought he was at an urgent care, he got checked out, was told it was a kidney stone. He actually went back five days later because his stomach pain worsened and didn’t get better. And it wasn’t until he got the bills the following month that he realized he was actually at an emergency center and not an urgent care center. His bill was $500 for each visit, not $50 for each visit as he had anticipated.

Rovner: And no one told him when he went there?

Rayasam: He said no one told him. And we reached out to Parkland Health and they said, “Well, we have notices all over the place. We label it very clearly: This is an emergency care center, you may be charged emergency care fees,” but they also sent me a picture of some of those notices and those are notices that are buried among a lot of different notices on walls. Plus, this is a person who is suffering from severe stomach pain. He was really not in a position to read those disclosures. He went by what the front desk staff did or didn’t tell him and what the name of the facility was.

Rovner: I was going to say, there was a sign that said “Urgent Care,” right?

Rayasam: Right, absolutely. Urgent Care Emergency Center, right? And so when we reached out to Parkland, they said, “Hey, we are clearly labeled as an emergency center. We’re an extension of the main emergency room.” And that’s the other thing you have to remember about this case, which is that this is the person who knew Parkland’s facility. He knew they had a separate emergency room center and he said, “I didn’t go into that building. I didn’t go into the building that’s labeled emergency room. I run into this building labeled Urgent Care Emergency Center.” Parkland says, hey, this is an extension of their main emergency room. This is where they send lower-level emergency cases, but obviously it’s a really confusing name and a really confusing setup.

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. So, how did this all turn out? Medically, he was OK eventually, right?

Rayasam: Medically he was OK eventually. Eventually the stone did pass. And it wasn’t until he got these bills that he kind of knew what happened. When he first got the bills, he thought, well, obviously there’s some mistake. He talked to his insurer. His insurer, BlueCross and BlueShield of Texas, told him that Parkland had billed these visits using emergency room codes and he thought, wait a second, why are they using emergency room codes? I didn’t go into the emergency room. And that’s when Parkland told him, “Hey, you actually did go into an emergency room. Sorry for your confusion. You still owe us $1,000 total.” He paid part of the bills. He was trying to challenge the bills and he reached out to us at “Bill of the Month,” but eventually his bill got sent to collection and Parkland’s sort of standing by their decision to charge him $500 for each visit.

Rovner: So he basically still owes $1,000?

Rayasam: Yes, that’s right.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? This feels like the ultimate bait and switch. How do you possibly make sure that a facility that says urgent care on the door isn’t actually a hospital emergency room?

Rayasam: That’s a great question. When it comes to the American medical system, unfortunately patients still have to do a lot of self-triage. One expert I’ve talked to said it’s still up to the patients to walk through the right door. Regulators have done a little bit, in Texas in particular, of making sure these facilities, these freestanding emergency room centers, as they’re called — and this one is hospital-owned, so the name is confusin, but it’s technically a freestanding emergency center, so it did have the name emergency in the name of the facility, and I think that that’s required in Texas — but I’ve talked to others who’ve said, you should ban the term urgent care from a facility that’s not urgent care. Because this is a concept that’s very familiar to most Americans. Urgent care has been around for decades; you have an idea of what an urgent care is.

And when you look at this place on its website, it’s called Urgent Care Emergency Center, it’s sort of advertised as a separate clinic within Parkland structure. It’s closed on nights, it’s closed on Sundays. The list of things they say they treat very much resembles an urgent care. So, this patient’s confusion I think is very, very understandable and he’s certainly not the only one that’s had that confusion at this facility. Regulators could ban the term urgent care for facilities that bill like emergency rooms. But until that happens it’s up to the patients to call, to check, and to ask about billing when they show up, which isn’t always easy to do when you’re suffering from severe stomach pain.

Rovner: Another thing for patients to watch out for.

Rayasam: Yes, absolutely, and worry about.

Rovner: Yes, Renuka Rayasam, thank you so much for joining.

Rayasam: Thank you, Julie.

Rovner: OK, we are back. 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 kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure, I looked at a New York Times piece called “Promised Cures, Tainted Cells: How Cord Blood Banks Mislead Patients.” And it’s about the often very aggressive sort of tactics of these banks to convince women to save some of the cord blood after they give birth with the promise that it may be able to help treat your child’s illness down the road. And the investigation into this found that there’s a number of problems. One is that, for the most part, the science has progressed in a way that some of what people used to maybe use some of these cells for, they now use adult stem cells. The other is these banks are just not actually storing the products properly and much of it gets contaminated so it couldn’t even be used. Or sometimes you just don’t even collect enough, I guess, of the tissue to even be able to use it.

In one instance, they documented a family that — the bank knew that the cells were contaminated and were still charging them for quite a long time. And the other thing that I actually personally found fascinated by this — because my OB-GYN actually did kind of, I feel like, push one of these companies — was that they can pay the OB-GYNs quite a hefty fee for what seems like a very small amount of work. And it’s not subject to the same sort of kickback type of regulation that there may be for other pharmaceutical/medical device interactions between doctors and parts of the biotech industry. So I found that quite fascinating as well, what the economic incentives are to push this on people.

Rovner: Yeah. One more example of capitalism and health care being uncomfortable bedfellows, Chapter 1 Million. Joanne?

Kenen: There was a fantastic piece in The Washington Post by Annie Gowan: “A Mom Struggles To Feed Her Kids After GOP States Reject Federal Funds,” which was a long headline, but it was also a long story. But it was one of those wonderful narrative stories that really put a human face on a policy decision.

The federal government has created some extra funds for childhood nutrition, childhood food, and some of the Republican governors, including in this particular family’s case, the Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma, have turned down these funds. And families … So this is a single, full-time working mom. She is employed. She’s got three teenagers. They’re all athletic and active and hungry and she doesn’t have enough food for them. And particularly in the summer when they don’t get meals in school, the struggle to get enough food, she goes without meals. Her kids — one of the kids actually works in the food pantry where they get their food from. The amount of time and energy this mom spends just making sure her children get fed when there is a source of revenue that her state chose not to us: It’s a really, really good story. It’s long, but I read it all even before Julie sent it to me. I said, “I already read that one.” It’s really very good and it’s very human. And, why?

Rovner: Policy affects real people.

Kenen: This is hungry teenagers.

Rovner: It’s one of things that journalism is for.

Kenen: Right, right, and they’re also not eating real healthy food because they’re not living on grapefruits and vegetables. They’re living on starchy stuff.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a good piece from ProPublica called “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, but No One Knows if It Works.” And it is about just how little oversight there is of the budgets of taxpayer dollars that are going to these anti-abortion centers that in many cases use the majority of funding not for providing services. A lot of it goes to overhead. And so there’s a lot of fascinating details in there. These centers can bill the state a lot of money just for handing out pamphlets, for handing out supplies that were donated that they got for free. They get to charge the state for handing those out. And there’s just not a lot of evaluation of, is this serving people? Is this improving health outcomes? And I think it’s a good critical look at this as other states are moving towards adopting similar programs to what’s going on in Texas.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re seeing a lot of states put a lot of money towards some of these centers.

Well, my extra credit this week is from Time magazine. It’s called, “‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town,” by Andrew Chow. And in case we didn’t already have enough to worry about, it seems that the noise that comes from the giant server farms used to mine bitcoin can cause all manner of health problems for those in the surrounding areasm from headaches to nausea and vomiting to hypertension. At a local meeting, one resident reported that “her 8-year-old daughter was losing her hearing and fluids were leaking from her ears.”

The company that operates the bitcoin plant says it’s in the process of moving to a quieter cooling system. That’s what makes all the noise. But as cryptocurrency mining continues to grow and spread, it’s likely that other communities will be affected in the way the people of Granbury, Texas, have been.

All right. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m mostly on X @SarahKarlin or on some other platforms like Bluesky, at @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I’m on X @AliceOllstein and on Bluesky @alicemiranda.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: A little bit on X @JoanneKenen and a little bit on Threads @joannekenen1.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

When, in April, the federal government began requiring some cows to be tested for a strain of avian flu before their herds could be moved across state lines, it seemed like an obvious step to try to track and slow the virus that had started spreading among U.S. dairy cattle.

But Joe Armstrong, a veterinarian at the University of Minnesota extension school, feared the U.S. Department of Agriculture rule could lead to potential problems for his colleagues, who were in effect being deputized to implement it.

Read the rest…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

In what will certainly be remembered as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week overruled a 40-year-old legal precedent that required judges in most cases to yield to the expertise of federal agencies. It is unclear how the elimination of what’s known as the “Chevron deference” will affect the day-to-day business of the federal government, but the decision is already sending shockwaves through the policymaking community. Administrative experts say it will dramatically change the way key health agencies, such as the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, do business.

The Supreme Court also this week decided not to decide a case out of Idaho that centered on whether a federal health law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care overrides the state’s near-total ban on abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled broadly that courts should defer to the decision-making of federal agencies when an ambiguous law is challenged. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts, not federal agencies, should have the final say. The ruling will make it more difficult to implement federal laws — and draws attention to the fact that Congress, frequently and pointedly, leaves federal agencies much of the job of turning written laws into reality.
• That was hardly the only Supreme Court decision with major health implications this week: On Thursday, the court temporarily restored access to emergency abortions in Idaho. But as with its abortion-pill decision, it ruled on a technicality, with other, similar cases in the wings — like one challenging Texas’ abortion ban.
• In separate rulings, the court struck down a major opioid settlement agreement, and it effectively allowed the federal government to petition social media companies to remove falsehoods. Plus, the court agreed to hear a case next term on transgender health care for minors.
• The first general-election debate of the 2024 presidential cycle left abortion activists frustrated with their standard-bearers — on both sides of the aisle. Opponents didn’t like that former President Donald Trump doubled down on his stance that abortion should be left to the states. And abortion rights supporters felt President Joe Biden failed to forcefully rebut Trump’s outlandish falsehoods about abortion — and also failed to take a strong enough position on abortion rights himself.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs,” by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. 

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,” by Lisa Rein.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell,” by Ruth Reader.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “Inside the $100 Million Plan To Restore Abortion Rights in America,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision,” by Dima M. Qato, Rebecca Myerson, Andrew Shooshtari, et al.
• JAMA Health Forum’s “Changes in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision,” by Jacqueline E. Ellison, Brittany L. Brown-Podgorski, and Jake R. Morgan.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy,” by Alison Gemmill, Claire E. Margerison, Elizabeth A. Stuart, et al.

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies’Episode Number: 353Published: June 28, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer, and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast, “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday, we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, June 28, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s episode from Aspen Ideas: Health. This week we’re back in Washington with tons of breaking news, so let’s get right to it. We’re going to start at the Supreme Court, which is nearing, but not actually at, the end of its term, which we now know will stretch into next week. We have breaking news, literally breaking as in just the last few minutes: The court has indeed overruled the Chevron Doctrine. That’s a 1984 ruling that basically allowed experts at federal agencies to, you know, expert. Now it says that the court will get to decide what Congress meant when it wrote a law. We’re obviously going to hear a lot more about this ruling in the hours and days to come, but does somebody have a really quick impression of what this could mean?

Ollstein: So this could prevent or make it harder for health agencies, and all the federal agencies that touch on health care, to both create new policies based on laws that Congress pass and update old ones. Things need to be updated; new drugs are invented. There’s been all these updates to what Obamacare does and doesn’t have to cover. That could be a lot harder going forward based on this decision. It really takes away a lot of the leeway federal agencies had to interpret the laws that Congress passed and implement them.

I think kicking things back to courts and Congress could really slow things down a lot, and a lot of conservatives see that as a good thing. They think that federal agencies have been too untouchable and not have the same accountability mechanisms because they’re career civil servants who are not elected. But this has health policy experts … Honestly, we interviewed members of previous Republican administrations and Democratic administrations and they’re both worried about this.

Rovner: Yeah, going forward, if Donald Trump gets back into the presidency, this could also hinder the ability of his Department of Health and Human Services to make changes administratively.

Knight: These agencies are stacked with experts. This is what they work on. This is what they really are primed to do. And Congress does not have that same type of staffing. Congress is very different. It’s very young. There’s a lot of turnover. There are experienced staffers, but usually when they’re writing these laws, they leave so much up to interpretation of the agency because they are experts.

So I think pushing things back on Congress would really have to change how Congress works right now. When I talked to experts, we would need staffers who are way more experienced. We would need them to write laws that are way more specific. And Congress is already so slow doing anything. This would slow things down even more. So that’s a really important congressional aspect I think to note.

Rovner: I think when we look back at this term, this is probably going to be the biggest decision. Joanne, you want to add something before we move on?

Kenen: We’re recording. We don’t know if immunity just dropped, which is all still going to be, not a health care decision but an important decision of the country. I’ve got SCOTUSblog on my other screen. Here’s a quote from [Justice Elena] Kagan’s dissent. She says, because it’s very unfocused for what we do on this podcast, “Chevron has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds, to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest.” So two of the three of us. Financial markets affect the health industry as well.

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

Kenen: But I think that what the public doesn’t always understand is how much regulatory stuff there is in Washington. Congress can write a 1,000-page law like the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. I’ve never counted how many pages of regulation because I don’t think I can count that high. It’s probably tens of thousands.

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

Kenen: Right. And that every one of those, there’s a lobbying fight and often a legal fight. It’s like the coloring book when we were kids. Congress drew the outline and then we all tried to scribble within the lines. And when you go out of the lines, you have a legal case. So the amount of stuff, regulatory activity is something that the public doesn’t really see. None of us have read every reg pertaining to health care. You can’t possibly do it in a lifetime. Methuselah couldn’t have done it. And Congress cannot hire all the expert staff and all the federal agencies and put them in; they won’t fit in the Capitol. That’s not going to happen. So how do they come to grips with how specific are they going to have to be? What kind of legal language can they delegate some of this to agency experts. We’re in really uncharted territory.

Rovner: I think you can tell from the tones of all of our voices that this is a very big deal, with a whole lot of blanks to be filled in. But for the moment …

Kenen: Maybe they’ll just let AI do it.

Rovner: Yeah, for the moment, let’s move on because, until just now, the biggest story of the week for us was on Thursday. We finally got a decision in that case about whether Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion can override a federal law called EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires doctors in emergency rooms to protect a pregnant woman’s health, not just her life. And much like the decision earlier this month to send the abortion pill case back to the lower courts because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, the court once again didn’t reach the merits here. So Alice, what did they do?

Ollstein: So like you said, both on abortion pills and on EMTALA, the court punted on procedural issues. So it was standing on the one and it was ripeness on the other one. This one was a lot more surprising. I think based on the oral arguments in the mifepristone case, we could see the standing-based decision coming. That was a big focus of the arguments. This was more of a surprise. This was a majority of justices saying, “Whoops, we shouldn’t have taken this case in the first place. We shouldn’t have swooped in before the 9th Circuit even had a chance to hear it. And not only take the case, but allow Idaho to fully enforce its law even in ways that people feel violate EMTALA in the meantime.” And so what this does temporarily is restore emergency abortion access in Idaho. It restores a lower-court order that made that the case, but it’s not over.

Rovner: Right. It had stayed Idaho’s ban to the extent that it conflicted with EMTALA.

Ollstein: So this goes back to lower courts and it’s almost certain to come back to the Supreme Court as early as next year, if not at another time. Because this isn’t even the only major federal EMTALA case that’s in the works right now. There’s also a case on Texas’ abortion ban and its enforcement in emergency situations like this. And so I think the main reaction from the abortion rights movement was temporary relief, but a lot of fear for the future.

Rovner: And I saw a lot of people reminding everybody that this Texas ruling in Idaho, now the federal law is taking precedence, but there’s a stay of the federal law in the 5th Circuit. So in Texas, the Texas ban does overrule the federal law that requires abortions in emergency circumstances to protect a woman’s health. That’s what the dispute is basically about. And of course, you see a lot of legal experts saying, “This is a constitutional law 101 case that federal law overrides state law,” and yet we could tell by some of the add-on discussion in this case, as they’re sending it back to the lower court, that some of the conservatives are ready to say, “We don’t think so. Maybe the federal law will have to yield to some of these state bans.” So you can kind of see the writing on the wall here?

Ollstein: It’s really hard to say. I think that you have some justices who are clearly ready to say that states can fully enforce their abortion bans regardless of what the federal government’s federal protections are for patients. I think they put that out there. I think the case is almost certain to come back to them, and there was clearly not a majority ready to fully side with the Biden administration on this one.

Rovner: And clearly not a majority ready to fully side with Idaho on this one. I think everything that I saw suggested that they were split 3-3-3. And with no majority, the path of least resistance was to say, “Our bad. You take this back lower court. We’ll see when it comes back.”

Ollstein: It was a very unusual move, but some of the justification made sense to me in that they cited that Idaho state officials’ position on what their abortion ban did and didn’t do has wavered over time and changed. And what they initially said when they petitioned to the court is not necessarily exactly what they said in oral arguments, and it’s not exactly what they have said since. And so at the heart here is you have some people saying there’s a clear conflict between the patient protections under EMTALA — which says you have to stabilize anyone that comes to you at a hospital that takes Medicare — and these abortion bans, which only allow an abortion when there’s imminent life-threatening situation. And so you have people, including the attorney general of Idaho, saying, “There is no conflict. Our law does allow these emergency abortions and the doctors are just wrong and it’s just propaganda trying to smear us. And they just want to turn hospitals into free-for-all abortion facilities.” This is what they’re arguing. And then you have people say …

Rovner: [inaudible 00:11:12] … in the meanwhile, we know that women are being airlifted out of Idaho when they need emergency abortions because doctors are worried about actually performing abortions …

Ollstein: Correct.

Rovner: And possibly being charged with criminal charges for violating Idaho’s abortion ban.

Ollstein: Sure, but I’m saying even amongst conservatives, there are those who are saying, “There’s no conflict between these two policies. The doctors are just wrong either intentionally or unintentionally.” And then there’s those who say there is a conflict between EMTALA and state bans, and it should be fine for the state to violate EMTALA.

Rovner: No. Obviously this one will continue as the abortion pill case is likely to continue. Well, also in this end-of-term Supreme Court decision dump, an oddly split court with liberals and conservatives on both sides, struck down the bankruptcy deal reached with Purdue Pharma that would’ve paid states and families of opioid overdose victims around $6 billion, but would also have shielded the company’s owners, the Sackler family, from further legal liability. What are we to make of this? This was clearly a difficult issue. There were a lot of people even who were involved in this settlement who said the idea of letting the Sackler family, which has hidden billions of dollars from the bankruptcy settlement anyway, and clearly acted very badly, basically giving them immunity in exchange for actually getting money. This could not have been an easy… obviously was not an easy decision even for the Supreme Court.

Kenen: No, it wasn’t theoretical. The ones who opposed blowing up the agreement were very much, “This is going to add delay any kind of justice for the families and the plaintiffs.” It was not at all abstract. It was like there are a lot of people who aren’t going to get help. At least the help will be delayed if this money doesn’t start flowing. So I was struck by how practical, relating to the families who have lost people because of the actions of Purdue. But the other side was, also that was much more a clear-cut legal issue, that people didn’t give up their right to sue. It was cutting off the right to sue was imposed on potential plaintiffs by the settlement. So that was a much more legalistic argument versus, it was a little bit more real world, but they need the help now. And including some of the conservatives. This is an interesting thing to read. This was painstaking. This is a huge settlement. It took so long. It had many, many moving parts. And I don’t know how you go back and put it together again.

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

Kenen: I don’t know if they have to start entirely from scratch. You’d have to be nuts to get the Sacklers to say, “OK, we’ll be sued,” which they’re obviously you’re not going to. Is somebody going to come up with a “Split the difference, let’s get this moving and we won’t sue anymore?” I don’t know. But I don’t know that you have to start 100% from scratch, but you’re surely not anywhere near a finish line anymore.

Rovner: That’s big Supreme Court case No. 3 for this week. Now let’s get to big Supreme Court case No. 4. Earlier this week, the court turned back a challenge that the government had wrongly interfered with free speech by urging social media organizations to take down covid misinformation. But again, as with the abortion pill case, the court did not get to the merits. But instead, they ruled that the states and individuals who sued did not have standing. So we still don’t know what the court thinks of the role of government in trying to ensure that health information is correct. Right?

Knight: Right. And I thought it was interesting. Basically the White House was like, “Well, we talked to the tech companies, but it was their decision to do this. So we weren’t really mandating them do this.” I think they’re just being like, “OK, we’ve left it up to the tech companies. We haven’t really interfered. We’re just trying to say these things are harmful.” So I guess we’ll have to see. Like you said, they didn’t take it up on standing, but overall, conservatives that were saying, “This was infringing on free speech.” It was particularly some scientists, I think, that promoted the herd immunity theory, things like that.

So I think they’re obviously going to be upset in some way because their posts were depromoted on social media. But I think it just leaves things the way they are, the same way. But it would be interesting, I guess, if Trump does go to the White House, how that might play out differently?

Rovner: This court has been a lot of the court deciding not to decide cases, or not to decide issues. Sorry, Alice, go ahead.

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think it is pretty similar to the abortion pill case in one key way, which is that it’s the court saying, “Look, the connection between the harm you think you suffered and the entity you are accusing of causing that suffering, that connection is way too tenuous. You can’t prove that the Biden administration voicing concerns to these social media companies directly led to you getting shadow-banned or actual banned,” or whatever it is. And the same in the abortion pill case, the connection between the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approving the drug and regulating the drug and these individual doctors’ experiences is way too tenuous. And so that’s something to keep in mind for future cases that, we’re seeing a pattern here.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m not suggesting that the court is directly trying to duck these issues. These are legitimate standing cases and important legal precedents for who can sue in what circumstance. That is the requirement of constitutional review that first you have to make sure that there’s both standing in a live controversy and there’s all kinds of things that the court has to go through before they get to the merits. So more often than not, they don’t get there.

Well, meanwhile, we have our first hot-button, Supreme Court case slotted in for next term. On Monday, the court granted “certiorari” [writ by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court] to a case out of Tennessee where the Biden administration is challenging the state’s ban on transgender care for minors. It was inevitable that one of these cases was going to get to the high court sooner or later, right?

Kenen: Yeah, I think it’s not a surprise, the politics of it and the techniques or tools used by the forces that are against the treatment for minors. It’s very similar to the politics and patterns of the abortion case, of turning something into an argument that it’s to protect somebody. A lot of the abortion requirements and fights were about to protect the woman. Ostensibly, that was the political argument. And now we’re seeing we have to protect the children so that it’s the courts, as opposed to families and doctors, who are, “protecting the children.”

There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what these treatments do and who gets them and at what age;  that they’re often described as mutilation and irreversible. For the younger kids, for preteen, middle school age-ish, early teens, nothing is irreversible. It’s drugs that if you stop them, the impact goes away. But it has become this enormous lightning rod for the intersection of health and politics. And I think we all have a pretty good guess as to where the Supreme Court’s going to end up on this. But you’re sometimes surprised. And also, there could be some …

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

Kenen: There could be some kind of moderation, too. It could be a certain … they don’t have to say all … it depends on how clinical they want to get. Maybe they’ll rule on certain treatments that are more less-reversible than a puberty blocker, which is very reversible, and some kind of safeguards. We don’t know the details. We’re not surprised that it ended up … and we know going in, you could have a gut feeling of where it’s likely to turn out without knowing the full parameters and caveats and details. They haven’t even argued it yet.

Rovner: This is a decision that we’ll be waiting for next June.

Kenen: Right. Well, could not. Maybe it’s so clear-cut, it’ll be May. Who knows, right?

Rovner: Yeah, exactly. All right, well, moving on. There was a presidential debate last night. I think it was fair to say that it didn’t go very well for either candidate, nor for anybody interested in what President Biden or former President Trump thinks about health issues. What did we learn, if anything?

Ollstein: Well, I was mainly listening for a discussion of abortion and, boy was it all over the place. What I thought was interesting was that both candidates pissed off their activist supporters with what they said. I was texting with a lot of folks on both sides and conservatives were upset that Trump doubled down on his position that this should be entirely left to states, and they disagree. They want him to push for federal restrictions if elected.

And on the left, there was a lot of consternation about Biden’s weird, meandering answer about Roe v. Wade. He was asked about abortions later in pregnancy. One, neither he nor the moderators pushed back on what Trump’s very inflammatory claims about babies being murdered and stuff. There was no fact-checking of that whatsoever. But then Biden gave a confusing answer, basically saying he supports going to the Roe standard but not further, which is what I took out of it. And that upset a lot of progressives who say Roe was never good enough. For a lot of people, when Roe v. Wade was still in place, abortion was a right in name only. It was not actually accessible. States could impose lots of restrictions that kept it out of reach for a lot of people. And in this moment, why should we go back to a standard that was never good enough? We should go further. So just a lot of anxiety on both sides of this.

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Trump seemed to say that he would leave the abortion pill alone, which jumped out at me.

Kenen: But that was a completely … CNN made a decision not to push back. They were going to have online fact-checking. Everybody else had online fact. … And they didn’t challenge. And I guess they assumed that the candidates would challenge each other, and Biden had a different kind of challenging night. Trump actually said that the previous Supreme Court had upheld the use of the abortion drug and that it’s over, it’s done. That was not a true statement. The Supreme Court rejected that case, as Alice just explained, on standing. It’s going to be back. It may be back in multiple forms, multiple times. It is not decided. It is not over, which is what Trump said, “Oh, don’t worry about the abortion drug. The Supreme Court OK’d it.” That’s not what the Supreme Court did, and Biden didn’t counter that in any way.

And then Biden, in addition to the political aspect that Alice just talked about, he also didn’t describe Roe, the framework of Roe, particularly accurately. And, as Alice just pointed out, the things that Trump said were over-the-top even for Trump, and that they went unchallenged by either the moderators or President Biden.

Rovner: I was a little bit surprised that there wasn’t anything else on health care or there wasn’t much else.

Knight: Biden tried to hit his health care talking points and did a very terrible job. Alice had a really good tweet getting the right. … He initially said wrong numbers for the insulin cap, for the cap on out-of-pocket for Medicare beneficiaries, how much they can spend on prescription drugs. He got both of those wrong. I think he got insulin right later in the night. And then the very notably, “We will beat Medicare.” That was just unclear what he even meant by that. Maybe it was about drug price negotiations, I’m sure. So he was trying, but just could not get the facts right and I don’t think it came across effective in any way. And health care does do really well for Democrats. Abortion does really well for Democrats. So he was not effective in putting those messages.

I also noticed the moderators asked a question about opioids, addressing the opioid epidemic. Trump did not answer at all, pivoted to I think border or something like that. I don’t think Biden really answered either, honestly. So that was an opportunity for them to also talk about addressing that, which I think is something they could both probably talk about in a winning way for both. But I thought it was mentioned more than I expected a little bit. I thought they may want to talk about it at all. So it was still not much substantive policy discussion on health care.

Kenen: Biden tried to get across some of the Democratic policies on drug prices and polls have shown that the public doesn’t really understand that is actually the law in going forward. So if any attempt to message that in front of a very large audience was completely muddled. Nobody listening to that debate would’ve come out — unless they knew going in — they would’ve not have come out knowing what was in the law about Medicare price negotiations. They would’ve gotten four different answers of what happened with insulin, although they probably figured something good, helpful happened. And a big opportunity to push a Democratic achievement that has some bipartisan popularity was completely evaporated.

Rovner: I think Biden did the classic over-prepare and stuff too many talking points into his head and then couldn’t sort them all out in the moment. That seemed pretty clear. He was trying to retrieve the talking point and they got a little bit jumbled in his attempt to bring them out. Well, back to abortion: Alice, you got a cool scoop this week about abortion rights groups banding together with a $100 million campaign to overturn the overturn of Roe. Tell us about that?

Ollstein: Yeah, so it’s notable because there’s been so much focus on the state level battles and fighting this out state by state, and the ballot initiatives that have passed at the state level and restored or protected access have been this glimmer of hope for the abortion rights movement. But I think there was a real crystallization of the understanding that that strategy alone would leave tens of millions of people out in the cold because a lot of states don’t have the ability to do a ballot initiative. And also, if there were to be some sort of federal restrictions imposed under a Trump presidency or whatever, those state level protections wouldn’t necessarily hold. So I think this effort of groups coming together to really spend big and say that they want to restore federal protections is really notable.

I also think it’s notable that they are not committing to a specific bill or plan or law they want to see. They are keeping on the, “This is our vision, this is our broad goal.” But they’re not saying, “We want to restore Roe specifically, we want to go further,” et cetera. And that’s creating some consternation within the movement. I’ve also, since publishing the story, heard a lot of anxiety about the level of spending going to this when people feel that that should be going to direct support for people who are suffering on the ground and struggling to access abortion. Right now you have abortion funds screaming that they’re being stretched to the breaking point and cannot help everyone who needs to travel out of state right now. So, of course, infighting on the left is a perennial, but I think it’s particularly interesting in this case.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, we have a trio this week of examples of what I think it’s safe to call unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe. First, a study in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics this week, found that in the first year abortion was dramatically restricted in Texas — remember, that was before the overturn of Roe — infant deaths rose fairly dramatically. In particular, deaths from congenital problems rose, suggesting that women carrying doomed fetuses gave birth instead of having abortions. What’s the takeaway from seeing this big spike in infant mortality?

Ollstein: So I’ve seen a lot of anti-abortion groups trying to spin this and push back really hard on it. Specifically picking up on what you just said, which is that a lot of these are fatal fetal anomalies. And so they were saying, “Were abortion still legal, those pregnancies could have been terminated before birth.” And so they’re saying, “There’s no difference really, because we consider that an infant death already. So now it’s an infant death after birth. Nothing to see here.”

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

Ollstein: Yeah, that is the response I’m seeing on the right. On the left, I am seeing arguments that anyone who labels themselves pro-life should think twice about the impact of these policies that are playing out. And like you said, we’re only just beginning to get glimmers of this data. In part because Texas was out in front of everybody else, and so I think there’s a lot more to come.

The other pushback I’ve seen from anti-abortion groups is that infant mortality also rose in states where abortion remains legal. So I think that’s worth exploring, too. Obviously, correlation is not always causation, but I think it’s hard when you’re getting the data in little dribs and drabs instead of a full complete picture that we can really analyze.

Rovner: Well, in another JAMA study, this one in JAMA Network Open, they found that the use of Plan B, the morning-after birth control pill, fell by 60% in states that implemented abortion bans after the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision. Now, for the millionth time, Plan B is not the same as the abortion pill. It’s a high-dose contraceptive. But apparently, a combination of the closure of family planning clinics in states that impose bans, which are an important source of pills for people with low incomes who can’t afford over-the-counter versions, and misinformation about the continuing legality of the morning-after pill, which continues to be legal, contributed to the decline. At least that’s what the authors theorize. This is one of many ironies in the wake of Dobbs; that states with abortion bans may well be ending up with more unintended pregnancies rather than fewer.

Ollstein: Well, one trends that could be feeding this is that some of the clinics where people used to go to to access contraception, also provided abortion and have not been able to keep their doors open in a post-Roe environment. We’ve seen clinics shutting down across the South. I went to Alabama last year to cover this, and there are clinics there that used to get most of their revenue from abortion, and they’re trying to hang on and provide nonabortion gynecological services, including contraception, and the math just ain’t mathing, and they’re really struggling to survive.

And so this goes back to the finger-pointing within the movement about where money should be going right now. And I know that red state clinics that are trying to survive feel very left behind and feel that this erosion of access is a result of that.

Kenen: Julie, and also to put in, even before Dobbs, it was not easy in many parts of the country for low-income women to get free contraception. There are states in which clinics were few and far between. Federal spending on Title X has not risen in many years.

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

Kenen: Right. Alice knows this, and maybe I’ve said on the podcast, I once just pretty randomly with me and my cursor plunked my cursor down on a map of Texas and said, “OK, if I live here, how far is the nearest clinic?” And I looked at the map of the clinics and it was far, it was something like 95 miles, the nearest one. So we had abortion deserts. We’ve also had family planning deserts, and that has only gotten worse, but it wasn’t good in the first place.

Rovner: Well, finally, and for those who really want to make sure they don’t have unintended pregnancies, according to a study in a third AMA journal, JAMA Health Forum, the number of young women aged 18 to 30 who were getting sterilized doubled in the 15 months after Roe was overturned. Men are part of this trend, too. Vasectomies tripled over that same period. Are we looking at a generation that’s so scared, they’re going to end up just not having kids at all?

Kenen: Well, there are a lot of kids in this generation who are saying they don’t want to have kids for a variety of reasons: economic, climate, all sorts of things. I think that I was a little surprised to see that study because there are safe long-acting contraceptives. You can get an IUD that lasts seven to nine years, I think it is. I was a little surprised that people were choosing something irreversible because.. I do know young people who… You’re young, you go through lots of changes in life, and there is an alternative that’s multiyear. So I was a little surprised by that. But that’s apparently what’s happening. And it’s for… This generation is not as… What are they, Gen[eration] Z? They’re not as baby-oriented as their older brothers and sisters even.

Knight: Well, that age range is millennial and Gen Z. But I don’t know. I’m a millennial. I think a lot of my friends were not baby-oriented. So I think that’s probably a fair statement to say. But it is interesting that they wouldn’t choose an IUD or something like that instead. But I do think people are scared. We’ve seen the stories of people moving out of states that have really strict abortion bans because they are so concerned on what kind of medical care they could have, even if they think they want to get pregnant. And sometimes you don’t have a healthy pregnancy and then need to get an abortion. So I’m sure it has something to do with that but…

Rovner: Yeah, it’s one of those trends to keep an eye out for. Well, moving on, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has been busy these past couple of weeks. First, he published an op-ed in The New York Times calling for a warning label for social media that’s similar to the one that’s already on tobacco products, warning that social media has not been proven safe for children and teenagers. Of course, he doesn’t have his own authority to do that. Congress would have to pass a law. Any chance of that? I know Congress is definitely into the “What are we going to do about social media” realm.

Kenen: But talking about it and doing something or thinking, it’s a long way. Is this as, compared to his other topic of the week, which was gun safety? He’s got a lot more bipartisan …

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

Kenen: … He’s got a lot more bipartisan support for the concern about health of young people and what social media is. What is social media? Social media is mixed. There are good things and bad things, and what is that balance? There is a bipartisan concern. I don’t know that that means you get to the labeling point. But the labeling point is one thing. That the larger concept of concern about it, and recognition about it, and what do we do about it, is bipartisan up to a point. How do you even label? What do you label? Your phone? Your computer? I’m not sure where the label goes. Your eyelids? [inaudible 00:33:07]

Knight: Right. Well, tech bills in Congress in general are like… Even though TikTok was surprisingly able to get done in the House. But TikTok lobby was big. But there would be a big social media lobby, I’m sure, against that. I guess there is bipartisan support. I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve asked members about, but I think that would be pretty far off from a reality actually happening.

Rovner: Well, also this week, as Joanne mentioned, the surgeon general issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory, declaring gun violence a public health crisis, calling for more research funding on gun injuries and deaths, universal background checks for gun buyers, and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. I feel like the NRA [National Rifle Association] has lost some of its legendary clout on Capitol Hill over the past few years, thanks to a series of scandals, but maybe not enough for some of these things. I feel like I’ve heard these suggestions before, like over the last 25 or 30 years.

Kenen: I think one of the interesting things about Vivek Murthy is he came to public prominence on gun safety and guns in public health before people were really talking about guns in public health. I forgot what year it was — 2016, 2017, whenever Obama first nominated him. Because remember, this is his second run as surgeon general. It was an issue that he had spoken about and had made a signature issue, and as he became a more public figure before the nomination. And then he went silent on it. He had trouble getting confirmed. He didn’t do anything about it. We never really heard … as far as I can recollect, we never even heard him talk about it once. Maybe there was a phrase or two here or there. He certainly didn’t push it or make it a signature issue.

Right now, he’s at the end of the last year with the Biden administration. Some kind of arc is being completed. He’s a young man, there’ll be other arcs. But this arc is winding down and the president cares about gun violence. Congress actually did, not the full agenda, but they did something on it, which was unusual. And I think that this is his chance to use his bully pulpit while he still has it in this particular perch to remind people that we do have tools. We don’t have all the solutions to gun violence. We do not understand everything about it. We do not understand why some people go and shoot a movie theater or a school or a supermarket or whatever, and there are multiple reasons. There are different kinds of mass killers. But we do know that there are some public health tools that do work. That red flag laws do seem to help. That safe gun storage … There are things that are less controversial than a spectrum of things one can do.

Some of them have broader support, and I think he is using this time — not that he expects any of these things to become law in the final year of the Biden administration — but I think he’s using it. This is bully pulpit. This is saying, “Moving forward, let’s think about what we can come to agreement on and do what we can on certain evidence-based things.” Because there’s been a lot of work in the last decade or so on the public health, not just the criminal… Obviously, it’s a legal and criminal justice issue. It’s also a public health issue, and what are the public health tools? What can we do? How do we treat this as basically an epidemic? And how can we stop it?

Rovner: Finally this week, since we didn’t really do news last week, there have been a couple of notable stories we really ought to mention. One is a court case, Braidwood v. Becerra. This is the case where a group of Christian businesses are claiming that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provisions that require them to provide no cost-sharing access to products, including HIV preventive medication, violates their freedom of religion because it makes them complicit in homosexual behavior. Judge Reed O’Connor, district court judge — if that name is familiar, it’s because he’s the Texas judge who tried to strike down the entire ACA back in 2018. Judge O’Connor not only found for the plaintiffs, he tried to slap a nationwide injunction on all of the ACA’s preventive services, which even the very conservative 5th Circuit appeals court struck down. But meanwhile, the appeals court has come up with its ruling. Where does that leave us on the ACA preventive services?

Ollstein: It leaves us right where we were when the 5th Circuit took the case because they said that, “We’re going to allow the lower court ruling to be enforced just for the plaintiffs in the meantime, but we’re not going to allow the entire country’s preventive care coverage to be disrupted while this case moves forward.” And so that basically continues to be the case. Some of the arguments are getting sent back down to the lower court for further consideration. And we still don’t know whether either side will appeal the 5th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

Rovner: But notably, the appeals court said that U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, is basically illegally constituted because it should be nominated by the president, approved by the Senate, which it is not. That could in the long run be kind of a big deal. This is a group of experts that supposedly shielded from politics.

Kenen: Yeah, I don’t think this story is over either. It is for now. Right now we’re at the status quo, except for this handful of people who brought recommendations on all sorts of health measures, including vaccination and cancer screenings and everything else. They stand. They’re not being contested at this moment. How that will evolve under the next administration and this court remains to be seen.

Rovner: Finally, finally, finally, to end on a bit of a frustrating note, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has found that two decades after it first called out some of the most egregious inequities in U.S. health care, not that much has changed. Joanne, this has been a very high-profile issue. What went wrong?

Kenen: Well, I think this report got very little attention probably because it’s like, oh, reports aren’t necessarily news stories. And it was like nothing changed, so why do we report it? But I think when I read the report — and I did not get through all 375 pages yet, but I did read a significant amount of it and I listened to a webinar on it — I think what really struck me is how we’re not any better than we really were 20 years ago. And what really was jarring is the report said, “And we actually know how to fix this and we’re not doing it. And we have the scientific and public health and sociological knowledge. We know if we wanted to fix it, we could, and we haven’t. Some of that is needing money and some of it is needing will.” So I thought the bottom line of it was really quite grim. If we didn’t know how bad it was, if the general public didn’t know how bad it was, the pandemic really should have taught them that because of the enormous disparities, and we’re back on this glide path toward nothing.

Rovner: I do think at very least, it is more talked about. It’s a little higher profile than it was, but obviously you’re right.

Kenen: They didn’t say no gains in any… I mean, the ACA helped. There are people who have coverage, including minorities, who didn’t have it before. That was one of the bright spots. But there’s still 10 states where it hasn’t been fully implemented. It was a pretty discouraging report.

Rovner: All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now it is 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 kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: Sure. So I was reading a story in The New York Times about PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers]. It was called “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs.” It’s by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. And so it kind of is basically an investigation into PBM practices. It was interesting for me because I cover health care in Congress, and so it’s always the different industries are fighting each other. And right now, one of the biggest fights is about PBMs. And for those that don’t know, PBMs negotiate with drug companies, they’re supposed to pay pharmacies, they help patients get their medications. And so they’re this middleman in between everyone. And so people don’t really know they exist, but they’re a big monopoly. There’s only three of them, really big ones in the U.S. that make up 80% of the market. And so they have a lot of control over things.

Pharma blames them for high drug prices and the PBMs blame pharma. So that’s always a fun thing to watch. There actually is quite a bit of traction in Congress right now for cracking down on PBM practices. Basically, The Times reporters interviewed a bunch of people and they came away with saying that PBMs …

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

Knight: Yeah, and they came away with a conclusion that PBMs are causing higher drug prices and they’re pushing patients towards higher drugs. They’re charging employers of government more money than they should be. But it was interesting for me to watch this play out on Twitter because the PBM lobby was, of course, very upset by the story. They were slamming it and they put out a whole press release saying that it’s anecdotal and they don’t have actual data. So it was interesting, but I think it’s another piece in the policy puzzle of how do we reduce drug prices? And Congress thinks at least cracking on PBMs is one way to do it, and it has bipartisan support.

Rovner: And apparently this story is the first in a series, so there’s more to come.

Knight: Yes, I saw that. Yeah, more to come, so it’ll be fun. I also just noticed as I was just pulling it up on my phone and they had closed the comment section. It was causing some robust debate.

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

Kenen: I should just say that after I read that story in The Times that same day, I think I got a phone call from a relative, a copay that had been something like $60 for 30 days is now $1,000. And this relative walked away without getting the drug because that’s not OK. So anyway, my extra credit [“Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,”] is from The Washington Post. Lisa Rein posted an investigation a couple of years ago, and this was the coda of the Social Security Administration finally followed through on what that investigation revealed. And Lisa wrote about the move, how it’s being addressed. That to get disability benefits, you have to be unemployable basically. And the Social Security Administration had a list of … it’s called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It had not been updated in 47 years. So disabled people were being denied Social Security disability benefits because they were being told, well, they could do jobs like being a nut sorter or a pneumatic tube operator or a microfilm something or other. And these jobs stopped existing decades ago.

So the Social Security Administration got rid of these obsolete jobs. You’re no longer being told, literally, to go store nuts. If you are, in fact, legitimately disabled, you’ll now be able to get the Social Security disability benefits that you are, in fact, qualified for. So thousands of people will be affected.

Rovner: No one can see this, but I’m wearing my America Needs Journalists T-shirt today. Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a piece [“Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell”] by my colleague Ruth Reader, about a county in Ohio that, with some federal funds, implemented all of these policies to reduce opioid overdoses and deaths, and they had a lot of success. Overdoses went down 20% there, even as they went up by a lot in most of the country. But bureaucracy and expiring funding means that those programs may not continue, even though they’re really successful. The federal funding has run out. It is not getting renewed, and the state may not pick up the slack.

So it’s just a really good example. We see this so often in public health where we invest in something, it works, it makes a difference, it helps people, and then we say, “Well, all right, we did it. We’re done.” And then the problems come roaring back. So hopefully that does not happen here.

Rovner: Alas. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post. It’s called “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States.” It’s by Fenit Nirappil. I hope I’m pronouncing that right. In some ways, it’s a response to criminals who have obviously long used masks, and also to protesters, particularly those protesting the war in Gaza. But it’s also a mark of just how intolerant we’ve become as a society that people who are immunocompromised or just worried about their own health can’t go out masked in public without getting harassed. The irony, of course, is that this is all coming just as covid is having what appears to be now its annual summer surge, and the big fight of the moment is in North Carolina where the Democratic governor has vetoed a mask ban bill, that’s likely to be overridden by the Republican legislature. Even after covid is no longer front and center in our everyday lives, apparently a lot of the nastiness remains.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comment or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at Twitter, which the Supreme Court has now decided it’s going to call Twitter. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: I’m at Twitter, @JoanneKenen. And I’m on Threads @joannekenen1, and I occasionally decided I just have better things to do.

Rovner: It’s all good. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Charlotte, Carolina del Norte. — Cuatro meses después de buscar asilo en Estados Unidos, Fernando Hermida comenzó a toser y a sentirse cansado. Primero pensó que estaba resfriado. Luego aparecieron llagas en su ingle y empezó a empapar su cama de sudor. Se hizo una prueba.

El día de Año Nuevo de 2022, a los 31 años, supo que tenía VIH.

“Pensé que me iba a morir”, dijo, recordando el escalofrío que le recorrió el cuerpo cuando revisaba sus resultados. Luchó por navegar un nuevo y complicado sistema de atención médica. A través de una organización de VIH que encontró en internet, recibió una lista de proveedores médicos en Washington, DC, donde estaba en ese momento. Pero no le devolvieron las llamadas durante semanas.

Hermida, que solo habla español, no sabía a dónde ir.

Para cuando Hermida recibió su diagnóstico, el Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos de Estados Unidos (HHS) llevaba adelante desde hacía unos tres años una iniciativa federal para acabar con la epidemia de VIH en la nación, invirtiendo cada año cientos de millones de dólares en ciertos estados, condados y territorios con las tasas de infección más altas.  

El objetivo era llegar a las aproximadamente 1.2 millones de personas que viven con VIH, incluidas algunas que ni siquiera lo saben.

En general, las tasas estimadas de nuevas infecciones por VIH han disminuido un 23% desde 2012 hasta 2022. Pero un análisis de KFF Health News y Associated Press comprobó que la tasa no ha bajado para los latinos (que pueden ser de cualquier raza) tanto como para otros grupos raciales y étnicos.

Si bien en general los afroamericanos continúan teniendo las tasas más altas de VIH en el país, los latinos representaron la mayor parte de los nuevos diagnósticos e infecciones de VIH entre hombres gays y bisexuales en 2022, según los datos disponibles más recientes, en comparación con otros grupos raciales y étnicos.

Los latinos, que constituyen aproximadamente el 19% de la población de Estados Unidos, representaron alrededor del 33% de las nuevas infecciones por VIH, según los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC). El análisis halló que los latinos están experimentando un número desproporcionado de nuevas infecciones y diagnósticos en todo el país, con las tasas de diagnóstico más altas en el sureste.

Oficiales de salud pública en el condado de Mecklenburg, en Carolina del Norte, y el condado de Shelby, en Tennessee, donde los datos muestran que las tasas de diagnóstico han aumentado entre los latinos, dijeron a KFF Health News y AP que no tienen planes específicos para abordar el problema del VIH en esta población, o que éstos aún no se han finalizado.

Incluso en lugares con buena cantidad de recursos como San Francisco, en California, las tasas de diagnóstico de VIH aumentaron entre los latinos en los últimos años mientras disminuían entre otros grupos raciales y étnicos, a pesar de los objetivos del condado de reducir las infecciones entre los latinos.

“Las disparidades de VIH no son inevitables”, dijo en un comunicado Robyn Neblett Fanfair, directora de la División de Prevención del VIH de los CDC. Señaló las inequidades sistémicas, culturales y económicas, como el racismo, las diferencias de idioma y la desconfianza en los médicos.

Y aunque los CDC proporcionan algunos fondos para grupos minoritarios, defensores de las políticas de salud para los latinos quieren que el HHS declare una emergencia de salud pública con la esperanza de dirigir más dinero a las comunidades latinas, argumentando que los esfuerzos actuales no son suficientes.

“Nuestra invisibilidad ya no es tolerable”, dijo Vincent Guilamo-Ramos, co-presidente del Consejo Asesor Presidencial sobre VIH/SIDA.

Perdido sin un intérprete

Hermida sospecha que contrajo el virus mientras estaba en una relación abierta con un compañero masculino antes de llegar a Estados Unidos. A fines de enero de 2022, meses después que comenzaran sus síntomas, fue a una clínica en la ciudad de Nueva York que un amigo lo ayudó a encontrar para finalmente recibir tratamiento para el VIH.

Demasiado enfermo para cuidarse solo, Hermida finalmente se mudó a Charlotte, Carolina del Norte, para estar más cerca de su familia y con la esperanza de recibir atención médica más constante. Se inscribió en una clínica de Amity Medical Group que recibe fondos del Programa Ryan White de VIH/SIDA, un plan de la red de seguridad federal que atiende a más de la mitad de los diagnosticados con VIH en la nación, independientemente de su estatus migratorio.

Después que se conectó con gestores de casos, su VIH se volvió indetectable. Pero dijo que, con el tiempo, la comunicación con la clínica se volvió menos frecuente y no recibía ayuda regular de un intérprete durante las visitas con su médico, que hablaba inglés.

Un representante de Amity confirmó que Hermida fue cliente, pero no respondió preguntas sobre su experiencia en la clínica.

Hermida dijo que tuvo dificultades para completar el papeleo para mantenerse inscrito en el programa Ryan White, y cuando su elegibilidad expiró, en septiembre de 2023, no pudo obtener su medicación.

Dejó la clínica y se inscribió en un plan de salud a través del mercado de seguros de la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA). Pero Hermida no se dio cuenta que la aseguradora le exigía pagar una parte de su tratamiento para el VIH.

En enero, el conductor de Lyft recibió una factura de $1,275 por su antirretroviral, el equivalente a 120 viajes, dijo. Pagó la factura con un cupón que encontró en línea. En abril, recibió una segunda cuenta que no pudo pagar. Durante dos semanas, dejó de tomar la medicación que mantiene al virus indetectable, y por ende no transmisible.

“Estoy que colapso”, dijo. “Tengo que vivir para pagar la medicación”. Una forma de prevenir el VIH es la profilaxis previa a la exposición, o PrEP, que se toma regularmente para reducir el riesgo de contraer el VIH a través del sexo o el uso de drogas intravenosas. Fue aprobada por el gobierno federal en 2012, pero la adopción no ha sido uniforme entre los diferentes grupos raciales y étnicos: los datos de los CDC muestran tasas de cobertura de PrEP mucho más bajas entre los latinos que entre los estadounidenses blancos no hispanos.

Los epidemiólogos dicen que el buen uso de PrEP y el acceso constante al tratamiento son necesarios para construir resistencia a nivel comunitario.

Carlos Saldana, especialista en enfermedades infecciosas y ex asesor médico del Departamento de Salud de Georgia, ayudó a identificar cinco grupos de transmisión rápida de VIH que involucró a unos 40 latinos gay y hombres que tienen sexo con hombres desde febrero de 2021 hasta junio de 2022. Muchas personas en el grupo dijeron a los investigadores que no habían tomado PrEP y que les resultaba difícil entender el sistema de salud.

Saldana dijo que también experimentaron otras barreras, incluida la falta de transporte y el miedo a la deportación si buscaban tratamiento.

Defensores de políticas de salud para los latinos quieren que el gobierno federal redistribuya los fondos para la prevención del VIH, incluyendo pruebas y acceso a PrEP. De los casi $30 mil millones en dinero federal que se destinaron a servicios de atención médica para el VIH, tratamiento y prevención en 2022, solo el 4% se dirigió a la prevención, según un análisis de KFF.

Los defensores sugieren que más dinero podría ayudar a llegar a las comunidades latinas a través de esfuerzos como la divulgación basada en la fe en iglesias, pruebas en clubes durante fiestas latinas, y en capacitar a personal bilingüe para que realice las pruebas.

Aumentan las tasas latinas

El Congreso ha asignado $2.3 mil millones a lo largo de cinco años para la iniciativa Ending the HIV Epidemic, y las jurisdicciones que reciben el dinero deben invertir el 25% en organizaciones comunitarias.

Pero esta iniciativa no requiere dirigirse a determinados grupos, incluidos los latinos: delega en las ciudades, condados y estados la tarea de idear estrategias específicas.

En 34 de las 57 áreas que reciben dinero, los casos van en la dirección equivocada: las tasas de diagnóstico entre los latinos aumentaron de 2019 a 2022 mientras que disminuían en otros grupos raciales y étnicos, halló el análisis de KFF Health News-AP.

A partir del 1 de agosto, los departamentos de salud estatales y locales deberán presentar informes anuales de gastos sobre el financiamiento en lugares que representan el 30% o más de los diagnósticos de VIH, dijeron los CDC. Antes, solo se requería esto en un pequeño número de estados.

En algunos estados y condados, el financiamiento de la iniciativa no ha sido suficiente para cubrir las necesidades de los latinos. Carolina del Sur, que vio las tasas entre latinos casi duplicarse de 2012 a 2022, no ha expandido las pruebas móviles de VIH en áreas rurales, donde la necesidad es alta entre los latinos, dijo Tony Price, gerente del programa de VIH en el departamento de salud del estado.

Carolina del Sur solo puede pagar a cuatro trabajadores comunitarios de salud enfocados en la divulgación sobre el VIH, y no todos son bilingües.

En el condado de Shelby, Tennessee, hogar de Memphis, la tasa de diagnóstico de VIH entre los latinos aumentó un 86% de 2012 a 2022. El Departamento de Salud dijo que recibió $2 millones en financiamiento de la iniciativa en 2023 y, aunque el plan del condado reconoce que los latinos son un grupo objeto, la directora del departamento, Michelle Taylor, dijo: “No hay campañas específicas solo entre los latinos”.

Hasta ahora, el condado de Mecklenburg, en Carolina del Norte, no incluyó objetivos específicos para abordar el VIH en la población latina, donde las tasas de nuevos diagnósticos se han más que duplicado en una década, pero disminuyeron ligeramente entre otros grupos raciales y étnicos.

El departamento de salud ha utilizado fondos para campañas de marketing bilingües y concientización sobre la PrEP.

Mudarse por la medicina

Cuando llegó el momento para Hermida de empacar y mudarse a la tercera ciudad en dos años, su prometido, que está tomando PrEP, sugirió buscar atención en Orlando, Florida.

La pareja, que eran amigos en la escuela secundaria en Venezuela, tenía algunos familiares y amigos en Florida, y habían escuchado sobre Pineapple Healthcare, una clínica de atención primaria sin fines de lucro dedicada a apoyar a los latinos que viven con VIH.

La clínica está en un consultorio al sur del centro de Orlando. El personal, mayoritariamente latino, viste camisetas turquesa con estampado de piñas, y se escucha con más frecuencia español que inglés en los cuartos de atención y en los pasillos.

“En su esencia, si la organización no es dirigida por y para personas de color, entonces solo somos una idea de último momento”, dijo Andres Acosta Ardila, director de divulgación comunitaria en Pineapple Healthcare, quien fue diagnosticado con VIH en 2013.

“¿Te mudaste reciente [mente], ya por fin?”, preguntó la enfermera Eliza Otero, quien comenzó a tratar a Hermida cuando todavía vivía en Charlotte. “Hace un mes desde la última vez que nos vimos”.

Todavía necesitan trabajar en bajar su colesterol y presión arterial, le dijo. Aunque su carga viral sigue siendo alta, Otero dijo que debería mejorar con atención regular y constante.

Pineapple Healthcare, que no recibe dinero de la iniciativa federal, ofrece atención primaria completa principalmente a hombres latinos. Allí, Hermida obtiene su medicación para el VIH sin costo porque la clínica es parte de un programa federal de descuento de medicamentos.

En muchos sentidos, la clínica es un oasis. La tasa de nuevos diagnósticos para los latinos en el condado de Orange, Florida, que incluye Orlando, aumentó alrededor de un tercio desde 2012 hasta 2022, mientras que disminuyó un tercio para otros. Florida tiene la tercera población latina más grande de Estados Unidos y tuvo la séptima tasa más alta de nuevos diagnósticos de VIH entre latinos en la nación en 2022.

Hermida, que tiene pendiente su caso de asilo, nunca imaginó que obtener medicación sería tan difícil, dijo durante el viaje de 500 millas de Carolina del Norte a Florida. Después de habitaciones de hotel, trabajos perdidos y despedidas familiares, espera que su búsqueda de tratamiento consistente para el VIH, que ha definido su vida en los últimos dos años, finalmente pueda llegar a su fin.

“Soy un nómade a la fuerza, pero bueno, como dicen mi prometido y mis familiares, yo tengo que estar donde me den buenos servicios médicos”, dijo.

Esa es la prioridad ahora, agregó.

KFF Health News y The Associated Press analizaron datos de los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades de Estado Unidos sobre el número de nuevos diagnósticos e infecciones de VIH entre estadounidenses de 13 años y más a nivel local, estatal y nacional.

Esta historia utiliza principalmente datos de tasas de incidencia —estimaciones de nuevas infecciones— a nivel nacional y datos de tasas de diagnóstico a nivel estatal y de condados.

Bose produjo esta historia desde Orlando, Florida. Reese, desde Sacramento, California. La periodista de video Laura Bargfeld colaboró con este informe.

The Associated Press Health and Science Department recibe apoyo de la Fundación Robert Wood Johnson. AP es responsable de todo el contenido.

Esta historia fue producida por KFF Health News, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation. 

Un proyecto de KFF Health News y The Associated PressCo-publicado por Univisión Noticias

CRÉDITOS

Reporteros:Vanessa G. SánchezDevna BosePhillip ReeseCinematografía:Laura BargfeldFotografía:Laura BargfeldPhelan M. EbenhackEdición de video:Federica NarancioKathy YoungEsther PovedaVideo adicional:Federica NarancioEsther PovedaProducción de video:Eric HarkleroadLydia Zuraw

Editores:Judy LinErica HunzingerEditor de datos:Holly HackerRedes sociales:Patricia VélezFederica NarancioEsther PovedaCarolina AstuyaNatalia BravoJuan Pablo VargasKyle ViterboSophia EppolitoHannah NormanChaseedaw GilesTarena LoftonTraducción:Paula Andalo Corrección:Gabe Brison-Trezise

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The presidential election is less than five months away, and while abortion is the only health policy issue expected to play a leading role, others are likely to be raised in the presidential and down-ballot races. This election could be critical in determining the future of key health care programs, such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” taped at the Aspen Ideas: Health festival in Aspen, Colorado, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call join Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, to discuss what the election season portends for top health issues.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Policies surrounding abortion — and reproductive health issues, in general — likely will dominate in many races, as Democrats try to exploit an issue that is motivating their voters and dividing Republican voters. The topics of contraception and in vitro fertilization are playing a more prominent role in 2024 than they have in past elections.
• High prescription drug prices — which, for frustrated Americans, are a longtime symbol, and symptom, of the nation’s dysfunctional health care system — have been a priority for the Biden administration and, previously, the Trump administration. But the issue is so confusing and progress so incremental that it is hard to say whether either party has an advantage.
• The fate of many major health programs will be determined by who wins the presidency and who controls Congress after this fall’s elections. For example, the temporary subsidies that have made Affordable Care Act health plans more affordable will expire at the end of 2025. If the subsidies are not renewed, millions of Americans will likely be priced out of coverage again.
• Previously hot-button issues like gun violence, opioid addiction, and mental health are not playing a high-profile role in the 2024 races. But that could change case by case.
• Finally, huge health issues that could use public airing and debate — like what to do about the nation’s crumbling long-term care system and the growing shortage of vital health professionals — are not likely to become campaign issues.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections’Episode Number: 352Published: June 21, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. I am joined tonight by a couple of our regular panelists: Margot Sanger-Katz, The New York Times.

Sanger-Katz: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good evening everyone.

Rovner: For those of you who aren’t regular listeners, we have a rotating panel of more than a dozen health policy reporters, all of whom just happen to be women, and every week we recap and analyze the week’s top health news. But tonight we’ve been given a slightly different assignment to talk about how health policy is likely to shape the 2024 elections and, vice versa, how the elections are likely to shape health policy.

So, this is actually my 10th presidential election season as a health reporter, which is terrifying, and I can say with some experience that health is one of those issues that’s always part of the political debate but is relatively rarely mentioned when pollsters ask voters what their top issue is. Of those of you who went to the pollsters session this afternoon might’ve seen that or said we’re not going to… it’s not going to be a health election this year.

This year, though, I think will be slightly different. As you’ll hear, I’ve divided these issues into three different buckets: Those that are likely to be pivotal or very important to how people vote; those that are likely to come up over the next few months in the presidential and/or congressional and Senate races; and finally, a couple of issues that aren’t as likely to come up but probably should. It would be good to have a debate about them.

So we will start with the political elephant in the room: reproductive health. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago next week, abortion has been front and center in just about every political contest, usually, though not always, with the abortion-right side prevailing. How do you two see abortion playing out both at the presidential and congressional level these next couple of months?

Raman: I see it playing out in kind of two different ways. We see already at the presidential level that President Joe Biden has been really going in, all in, that this is his No. 1 issue, and I think this will continue to play out, especially next week with the anniversary of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision.

And a lot of the Democrats in the Senate have kind of been taking lead from that and also really amping up the issue. They’ve been doing kind of messaging votes on things within the reproductive health spectrum and it seems like they’re going to continue that in July. So we’re going to see it really focused on there. On the Republican side, they’ve been not focused on this issue as much.

Rovner: They’ve been ducking this issue.

Raman: Yes, they’ve been ducking this issue, so I think it’ll just be continued to be downplayed. They’ve really been going in on immigration more than any other of the issues that they’ve got this year.

Sanger-Katz: If you look at the public polling, abortion is one of really the only issues where the Democrats and Joe Biden seem to have a real advantage over the Republicans and Donald Trump. And so I think that that tells you that they’re going to have to be hitting it a lot. This is an issue where the voters are with the Democrats. They trust Biden more. They agree more with the policies the Democrats are promoting around reproductive health care. So it’s just impossible for me to imagine a scenario in which we don’t see Democrats kind of up and down the ticket really taking advantage of this issue, running ads on it, talking about it, and trying to really foreground it.

I think for Biden, in particular, it’s a hard issue. I think he has always had some personal ambivalence about abortion. He’s a Catholic. He, early in his career, had opposed certain abortion rights measures that other Democrats had endorsed, and you can kind of see him slowly getting comfortable with this issue. I think he said the word abortion for the first time just in the last six months. I think I would anticipate a real ramping up of discussion of this issue among Democrats. The other dynamic that I think is pretty important is that there are a number of states that have ballot initiatives to try to kind of permanently enshrine abortion rights into state constitutions.

And some of those are in states that are not pivotal to the election, and they will be important in those states, and for those state senate races and governor races and other things, because they may pull in more of these voters who care a lot about reproductive rights. But there are some of these ballot measures that are in pivotal states for the presidential race, the kind of battleground states that we’re all watching. And so there’s a big emphasis on those as well. And I think there’s some interesting tensions with those measures because abortion rights actually are valued by people across the political spectrum.

So I think we tend to think of this as a Democrat-Republican issue where Republicans want to restrict abortion rights, and Democrats want to promote them. But we’re seeing in the public polling now that’s not really true. There are a lot of Republicans that are uncomfortable with the kind of abortion bans that we’re seeing in certain parts of the country now. So it’s this question: Are they going to come out and vote and split their ticket where they’ll vote for constitutional measure to protect abortion rights and still vote for President Trump? Or will the abortion issue mobilize them so much that they will vote across the board as Democrats?

And I think that’s a big question, and I think it’s a big challenge. In fact, for many of the people that are running these campaigns to get these ballot measures passed, how much they want to kind of lean into the Democratic messaging and try to help prop up Democratic candidates in their state. And how much they want to just take a step back and try to get Republicans to support their particular measure, even if it doesn’t help Democratic candidates on the ticket.

Rovner: Well, of course, it’s not just abortion that’s on the ballot, literally and figuratively. There’s a not-insignificant portion of the anti-abortion movement that not only wants to ban abortion nationwide but wants to establish in law something called personhood. The concept that a person with full legal rights is created at fertilization.

That would result in outlawing many forms of contraception, as well as if we have seen rather vividly this spring, IVF. Unlike abortion, contraception and IVF are very widely supported, not nearly as divisive as abortion itself is. Are we potentially looking at a divorce between the Republican Party and its longtime absolutist, anti-abortion backers?

Raman: I think that Republicans have been toeing the line on this issue so far. We’ve seen them not support some of the Democrats’ bills on the state level, the federal level, that are related to IVF, but at the same time, kind of introducing their counterparts or issuing broad statements in support of IVF, in support of contraception. Even just like a couple of weeks ago, we had Sen. Rick Scott of Florida release an IVF-themed full ad.

And so we have a lot of messaging on this, but I think at the same time a lot of these are tiptoeing the line in that they might not add any new protections. They might not codify protections for any of these procedures. They might just issue support or not address some of the other issues there that people have been going back and forth with the personhood issue.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is a big challenge for the Republican Party, not just over the course of this particular election cycle, but I think thinking further into the future. The pro-life movement has been such a pivotal group of activists that have helped elect Republicans and have been so strongly allied with various other Republican interest groups across the last few decades. And you can see that those activists helped overturn Roe after nearly 50 years of having a constitutional right to abortion.

Many of them don’t want to give up there. They really want to abolish abortion. They think it’s a morally abhorrent and something that shouldn’t happen in this country. And they’re concerned that certain types of contraception are similar to abortion in certain ways and that IVF is also morally abhorrent. And we saw recently with the [Southern] Baptist Convention that there was a vote basically to say that they did not support in vitro fertilization and assisted reproductive technologies.

Yet, at the same time, you can see in public polling and in the way that the public responds to these kinds of messages that the activists are way out further than the typical voter and certainly way out further than the typical Republican voter. And there’s this interesting case study that happened a few months ago where the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling — the implications of which suggested that IVF might be imperiled in that state — and it was kind of uncertain what the result that would be.

And what happened, in fact, is that Republicans and the Alabama State Legislature and the Republican governor of Alabama, many of whom had sort of longtime pro-life connections and promises, immediately passed a bill to protect in vitro fertilization because they saw that it was something that their voters really cared about and that’s something that could really hurt them politically if they were being seen as being allied with a movement that wanted to ban it.

But the activists in this movement are really important part of the Republican coalition, and they’re very close to leadership. And I think this is going to be a real tension going forward about how does the party accommodate itself to this? Do they win hearts and minds? They figure out a way to get the public on their side? Or do they kind of throw over these people who have helped them for so long, and these ideological commitments that I do think that many Republican politicians really deeply do hold?

Rovner: How much wild card is Donald Trump can be in this? He’s been literally everywhere on this issue, on reproductive rights in general. He is not shy about saying he thinks that abortion is a loser of an issue for Republicans. He wants to just continue to say, “Let the states do whatever they want.”

But then, of course, when the states do things like perhaps ban IVF — that I would think would even make Donald Trump uncomfortable — he seems to get away with being anywhere he wants with these very strong evangelical and pro-life groups who have supported him because, after all, he appointed the two Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe. But I’m wondering if, down-ballot, how all these other candidates are going to cope with the forever sort of changing position of the head of their ticket.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s pretty interesting. I was talking with a colleague about this recently. It seems like Trump’s strategy is to just have every position. If you look at his statements, he said just about every possible thing that you could possibly say about abortion and where he stands on it. And I think it’s actually quite confusing to voters in a way that may help him because I think if you’re only looking for the thing that you want to hear, you can find it.

If you’re someone who’s really a pro-life activist who cares a lot about restricting abortion, he brags about having been responsible for overturning Roe. And if you’re someone who really cares about protecting IVF, he’s said that he wants that. If you’re someone who want… lives in a state that has… continues to have legal abortion, he said, “We’re going to leave that up to the states.”

If you’re in a state that has banned abortion, that has very extreme bans, he said something that pleases you. And so, I don’t know. I did a story a few weeks ago where I interviewed voters who had been part of a New York Times/Siena poll, and these were voters who, they were asked a question: Who do you find responsible for the Dobbs decision for the overturning of Roe v. Wade? And these were voters who supported abortion rights but thought that Joe Biden was responsible. And there’re like… it’s not a lot of people, but it’s …

Rovner: But it’s like 20%, isn’t it?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it’s like 10[%], 15% of voters in battleground states, people whose votes are really going to matter and who support abortion rights. They don’t know who was responsible. They don’t really understand the dynamics of where the candidates are on this issue. And I think for those of us who are very politically engaged and who are following it closely, it’s kind of hard to imagine. But they’re just a lot of people who are not paying close attention.

And so I think that makes Trump being everywhere on the issue, it makes it easier for those people to not really engage with abortion. And I think that’s again why I think we’re going to see the Biden campaign and other Democrats kind of hitting it over and over and over again. “This is Trump’s fault. We are going to protect abortion rights.” Because I think that there are a lot of voters who don’t really know what to make of the candidates and don’t know what to make of Trump on this particular issue.

Rovner: Well, Sandhya, they keep trying to bring it up in Congress, but I don’t think that’s really breaking through as a big news story.

Raman: No, and I think that for Congress, we’ve seen the same thing this year, but we’ve also seen it in previous years where they coalesce around a certain week or a certain time and bring up different bills depending on who’s in control of that chamber to message on an issue. But it hasn’t really moved the needle either way that we get similar tallies, whether it was this year or three years ago or 10 years ago.

One thing that I think activists are really looking at on the pro-life side is just really Trump’s record on these issues. Regardless of what he’s saying this week or last week or in some of these different interviews that’s a little all over the place. They’ve pointed to a lot of things that he’s done, like different things that he’s expanded more than previous Republican presidents. And for them, that might be enough.

That’s if it’s just the dichotomy of Biden versus Trump, that to get to their end goal of more pro-life policies, then Trump is the easy choice. And in the past years, the amount of money that they have poured into these elections to just really support issues… candidates that are really active on these issues, has grown astronomically. So I don’t know that necessarily if he does make some of these statements it’s going to make a huge difference in their support.

Sanger-Katz: And I think it also comes back to Julie’s opening point, which is I think abortion is an issue on which the Democrats have a huge edge, and I do think it is an issue that is very mobilizing for certain types of voters. But I also think that this is an election in which a lot of voters, whatever their commitments are on abortion, may be deciding who to vote for based on another set of issues. Those people that I talked to who were kind of confused about abortion, they really cared a lot about the economy.

They were really concerned about the cost of groceries. And so I think for those people, they may have a preference on abortion. If they could sort of pick each individual issue, they might pick something different. But I think the fact that they supported abortion rights did not necessarily mean that even if they really understood where the candidates were that they were necessarily going to vote for Joe Biden. I think a lot of them were going to vote for Donald Trump anyway because they thought he was better on the issues that were affecting their daily lives more.

Rovner: Well, Margot, to your point about voters not knowing who’s responsible for what, I think another big issue in this campaign is going to be prescription drug prices. As we know, drug prices are kind of the stand-in for everything that’s currently wrong with the nation’s health care system. The system is byzantine. It can threaten people’s health and even their lives if they can’t afford it.

And just about every other country does it better than we do. Interestingly, both President Biden and former President Trump made drug prices a top health priority, and both have receipts to show what they have done, but it’s so confusing that it’s not clear who’s going to get credit for these things that have gotten done.

Trump said that Biden was lying when Biden said that he had done the insulin cap for Medicare, which in fact was done by the Democrats, although Trump had done sort of a precursor to it. So, who wins this point, or do you think it’s going to end up being a draw? Because people are not going to be able to figure out who was responsible for which parts of this. And by the way, we haven’t really fixed it anyway.

Raman: I would say it was a draw for two reasons. I think, one, when we deal with something like drug prices, it takes a while for you to see the effects. When we have the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that made it so that we can negotiate the price of some drugs under Medicare, the effects of that are over a long tailwind. And so it’s not as easy to kind of bring that up in political ads and that kind of thing when people aren’t seeing that when they go to the pharmacy counter.

And I think another thing is that for at least on the congressional level, there’s been a little bit of a gap in them being able to pass anything that kind of moves the point along. They made some efforts over the past year but weren’t able to get it over the finish line. I think it’s a lot more difficult to say, “Hey, we tried but didn’t get this done” without a … as a clear campaign message and to get votes on that.

Sanger-Katz: I also think it’s this issue that’s really quite hard because — setting aside $35 insulin, which we should talk about — most people have insurance, and so the price of the drug doesn’t always affect them in a direct way. A lot of times, when people are complaining about the high cost of drugs, they’re really complaining about the way that their insurance covers the drug. And so the price of the drug might, in fact, be astronomical, but it’s the $100 copayment that people are responding to.

And so it could be that the government is taking all these actions, or the companies by themselves, and the price has gone down, but if you’re still paying that $100 copayment, you’re not really experiencing the benefits of that change. So I do think that the Democrats and Joe Biden have done two things that are helpful in that regard. So, one, is this $35 cap on copayments for insulin. So that’s just for people in Medicare, so it’s not everyone. But I do think that is… it’s a great talking point. You can put that on an ad. It’s a real thing.

People are going to go to the pharmacy counter, and they’re not going to pay more than that. It’s easy to understand. The other thing that they did, and I think this is actually harder to understand, is they redesigned the drug benefit for people who have Medicare. So it used to be in Medicare that if you had a really expensive set of drugs that you took, like, say, you had cancer and you were taking one of these newer cancer drugs that cost tens of thousands dollars a year, you could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars a year out of your own pocket, on top of what your insurance covered.

If you took less-expensive drugs, your insurance kind of worked the way it works for people in the commercial market where you have some copayments, not that you don’t pay anything, but it wasn’t sort of unlimited. But for really high-cost drugs in Medicare, people in Medicare were on the hook for quite a lot of money, and the Inflation Reduction Act changed that. They changed the Medicare drug benefit, and now these people who have these really expensive health conditions have a limit. They only have to pay a couple of thousand dollars a year.

Rovner: But it doesn’t start until next year.

Sanger-Katz: But it doesn’t start until next year. So I just think a lot of this stuff around drug prices is, people feel this sense of outrage that the drugs are so expensive. And so I think that’s why there’s this huge appetite for, for example, having Medicare negotiate the price of drugs. Which is another thing that the Inflation Reduction Act enabled, but it’s not going to happen in time for the election.

But I don’t think that really hits people at the pharmacy counter. That is more the benefits of that policy are going to affect taxpayers and the government. They’re not going to affect individual people so much. And I think that’s part of why it’s such a hard issue. And I think that President Trump bumped up against this as well.

His administration was trying all of these little techniques deep in the works of the drug pricing and distribution system to try to find ways to lever down the prices of drugs. And some of them worked, and some of them didn’t. And some of them got finalized, and some of them didn’t. But I think very few of them had this obvious consumer impact. And so it was hard for them to go to the voters and say, “We did this thing. It affected your life.”

Rovner: I see some of these ads, “We’ve got to do something about the PBMs [Pharmacy Benefit Managers].” And I’m like, “Who’s this ad even aimed at? I cover this for a living, and I don’t really understand what you’re talking about.” I wonder, though, if some… if candidates really on both sides, I mean, this is a unique election in that we’ve got two candidates, both of whom have records behind them.

I mean, normally, you would have at least one who’s saying, “This is what I will do.” And, of course, when it comes to drug prices, the whipping boy has always been the drug companies. And I’m wondering if we’re not going to see candidates from both parties at all levels just going up against the drug companies because that’s worked in the past.

Raman: I think it’s kind of a difficult thing to do when I think so many candidates, congressional level especially, have good relationships with pharmaceutical companies as some of the top donors for their campaigns. And so there’s always that hesitation to go too hard on them when that is helping keep them in office.

So it’s a little bit more difficult there to see teeth-out going into an ad for something like that. I think when we go back to something like PBMs where it seems like everyone in Congress just has made that kind of the bully of this past couple years, then that might be something that’d be easier to throw into ads saying, “I will go after PBMs.”

Sanger-Katz: I think we’re likely to see, especially in congressional races, a lot of candidates just promising to lower your drug prices without a whole lot of detail under that.

I don’t know that it’s necessarily going to be like the evil pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t think it’s going to be detailed policy proposals for all the reasons I just said: because it’s complicated; doesn’t always affect people directly; it’s hard to understand. But I think it will be a staple promise that we’ll particularly see from Democrats and that I expect we will hear from President Trump as well because it’s something that has been part of his kind of staple of talking points.

Rovner: So let’s move on to some of the issues that are sort of the second-tier issues that I expect will come up, just won’t be as big as immigration and abortion. And I want to start with the Affordable Care Act. I think this is the first time in a presidential election year that it seems that the continuing existence of the ACA is no longer in question. If you disagree, do let me know, but that’s not to suggest …

Sanger-Katz: Maybe last time.

Rovner: Little bit. That’s not to suggest, though, that the fate of the Affordable Care Act is not also on the line in this election. The additional subsidies that the Democrats added in the Inflation Reduction Act, which will sunset at the end of next year unless they are renewed, are responsible in large part for the largest percentage of Americans with health insurance ever measured.

And conversely, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enrollment would fall by an immediate 20% if the subsidies are allowed to expire. It’s hard to see how this becomes a campaign issue, but it’s obviously going to be really important to what… I mean who is elected is going to be really important to what happens on this issue, and it’s a lot of people.

Raman: Using the subsidies as a campaign point is a difficult thing to do. It’s a complicated issue to put in a digestible kind of ad thing. It’s the same thing with a lot of the prescription drug pricing policies where, to get it down to the average voter, is hard to do.

And I think had we not gotten those subsidies extended, we would’ve seen people more going into that in ads. But when it’s keeping the status quo, people aren’t noticing that anything has changed. So it’s an even more difficult thing to kind of get across.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is one of, in health care, one of the highest-stakes things. That I feel like there’s just a very obvious difference in policy depending on who is elected president. Whereas a lot of the things that we’ve talked about so far, drug prices, abortion, a little harder to predict. But just to get out of the weeds for a second, Congress increased the amount of money that poor and middle-class people can get when they buy their own health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. And they also made it possible for way more people to get health insurance for free.

So there are a lot of Americans who were uninsured before who now have insurance that they don’t pay a single dollar for. And there are also a lot of Americans that are higher, the kind of people that were disadvantaged in the early years of Obamacare, sort of self-employed people, small business owners who bought their own insurance and used to just have sort of uncapped crazy premiums. People who earn more than $100,000 a year now have financial assistance for the first time ever. And that policy has been in place for several years, and we’ve seen record enrollment.

There’s lots more people with insurance now, and their insurance is more affordable than it’s ever been. And those things are, of course, related. I think it’s almost definitely going to go away if Trump is elected to the presidency and if Republicans take at least one house of Congress because basically it’s on a glide path to expiration. So if nothing is done, that money will go away. What needs to happen is for Congress to pass a new law that spends new money to extend those subsidies and for a president to sign it.

And I just think that the basic ACA, the stuff that passed in 2010, I think is relatively safe, as Julie says. But lots of people are going to face much more expensive insurance and maybe unaffordable insurance. And again, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] projects that a lot of people will end up giving up their insurance as a result of those changes if these policies are allowed to expire. And so I don’t know. I think we don’t see candidates talking about it very much. But I don’t actually think it’s that hard to message on. You could just say, “If you vote for this guy, your insurance premiums are going to go up by 50% or whatever.”

That doesn’t seem like a terrible message. So I do wonder if we’ll see more of that, particularly as we get closer to the election. Because it does feel like a real pocketbook issue for people. The cost of health care, the cost of health insurance, like the cost of drugs, I think, is something that really weighs on people. And we’ve seen in these last few years that making insurance cheaper has just made it much more appealing, much more accessible for people. There’s lots more Americans who have health insurance now, and that’s at risk of going away.

Rovner: Well, also on the list of things that are likely to come up, probably not in the presidential race, but certainly lower down on the ballot, is gender-affirming care. Republicans are right now are all about parental control over what books their children read and what they’re taught in school, but not apparently about medical care for their children.

They want that to be determined by lawmakers. This is very much a wedge issue, but I’m wondering for which side. I mean, traditionally, it would’ve been the conservatives and the evangelicals sort of pushing on this. But as abortion has sort of flip-flopped in importance among voters, I’m wondering where this kind of falls into that.

Raman: I think that the messaging that I’ve seen so far has still prominently been from Republicans on this issue. Whether or not it’s bills that they’ve been introducing and kind of messaging on in Congress or just even in the ads, there’s still been a lot of parental safeguards and the language related to that with relation to gender-affirming care. I have not actually seen as many Democratic ads going super into this. I think they have been way more focused on abortion.

I’m thinking back to, I saw a statistic that 1 in 4 Democratic ads go into abortion, which is really high compared to previous years. And so I don’t know that it will be as big of an issue. I even see some people kind of playing it down because the more attention it gets, sometimes it rallies people up, and they don’t… It’s kind of the flip of Republicans not wanting to bring attention to the abortion issue. And I think a lot of Democrats are trying to shy away so that some of these things aren’t elevated, that we aren’t talking about some of the talking points and the messaging that Republicans are bringing up on the same thing.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it feels to me almost like a mirror image of the abortion issue in the sense that the Democrats have this challenge where their activists are out in front of their voters. There clearly are parts of the Democratic coalition that are really concerned about transgender rights and wanting to protect them and are very opposed to some of the action that we’re seeing at the state and local level, both in terms of what’s happening in schools, but also regulation of medical care. But I think voters I think are less comfortable with transgender rights.

Even Democratic voters, you see sort of there’s more of a generational split on this issue than on some of these other issues where I think older voters are just a little bit less comfortable. And so I do think that it is an issue where — particularly certain parts of it like transgender athletes — that seems to be an area where you see the Republican message really getting more traction among certain subsets of Democratic voters. And I think it’s a hard issue for Democrats except in the places where there’s really broad acceptance.

Rovner: So I want to move on to the things that are less likely to come up, but probably should. We’re going to start with Medicaid. During the pandemic, it grew to cover over 90 million Americans. That’s like a third more than Medicare, which most people still think of as the largest government health program.

But as states pare back their roles after the expiration of the public health emergency, it seems that lots of people — particularly children, who are still eligible — are getting dropped nonetheless. During the fight over repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017, it was the fate of Medicaid in large part that saved the program.

Suddenly, people realized that their grandmother was getting Medicaid and that one out of every three births, maybe one of every two births, is paid for by Medicaid. But now it seems not so much. Has Medicaid gotten invisible again in national politics?

Raman: I think, in a way, it has. I mean, it doesn’t mean that it’s any less important, but I haven’t seen as big of a push on it, as many people talking about it. And I think it is more of a tricky thing to message on at this point, given that if you look at where the states that have been disenrolling a lot of people, a lot of the ones that are near the top, are blue states.

California is a bigger population, but it’s also the one where they’ve disenrolled the most people. And so messaging on this is going to be difficult. It’s a harder thing to kind of attack your opponent on if this is something that is also being … been difficult in your state. It’s something that states have been grappling with even before we even got to this point.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is another issue where, I think, the stakes of the election are actually quite high. I do think it’s relatively invisible as an issue. I think part of the reason is that we don’t really see the Republicans talking about it, and I think the Democrats don’t really know how to message on it. I think they were really good at, “We’re going to protect you. We’re going to prevent the Republicans from taking this away from you.” But I think they don’t have a good affirmative message about, “How we love this program and we want to support and extend it.”

I don’t think voters are really responding to that. But if you look at what President Trump did in his first administration, he had budgets every single year that proposed savage cuts to Medicaid, big changes to the structure and funding of the program. Those did not get enacted into law. But even after Obamacare repeal was abandoned, you did not see the Trump budgets and the Trump administration, economic officials and health officials, abandoning those plans to make significant cuts to Medicaid.

And I think there are quite a lot of people in the Republican health policy world who think that Medicaid is sort of a bloated and wasteful program that needs to be rethought in a kind of fundamental way, needs to be handed back to the states to give them more fiscal responsibility and also more autonomy to run the program in their own way. I think we will see that again. I also think it’s very hard to know, of course, I feel like anytime… whoever’s in power is always less concerned about the deficit than they are when they are running for election.

But something we haven’t talked about because it’s not a health care issue, is that the expiration of the Trump tax reform bill is going to come up next year, and all of our budget projections that we rely on now assume that those tax cuts are going to expire. I think we all know that most of them probably are not going to expire regardless of who is elected. But I think if Trump and the Republicans take power again, they’re going to want to do certainly a full renewal and maybe additional tax cuts.

And so I think that does put pressure, fiscal pressure on programs like Medicaid because that’s one of the places where there’s a lot of dollars that you could cut if you want to counterbalance some of the revenues that you’re not taking in when you cut taxes. I think Medicaid looks like a pretty ripe target, especially because Trump has been so clear that he does not want to make major cuts to Medicare or to Social Security, which are kind of the other big programs where there’s a lot of money that you could find to offset major tax cuts if you wanted to.

Rovner: Yet, the only big program left that he hasn’t promised not to cut, basically. I guess this is where we have to mention Project 2025, which is this 900-page blueprint for what could happen in a second Trump term that the Trump campaign likes to say, whenever something that’s gets publicized that seems unpopular, saying, “It doesn’t speak for us. That’s not necessarily our position.”

But there’s every suggestion that it would indeed be the position of the Trump administration because one of the pieces of this is that they’re also vetting people who would be put into the government to carry out a lot of these policies. This is another one that’s really hard to communicate to voters but could have an enormous impact, up and down, what happens to health.

Sanger-Katz: And I think this is true across the issue spectrum that I think presidential candidates, certainly congressional candidates and voters, tend to focus on what’s going to happen in Congress. What’s the legislation that you’re going to pass? Are you going to pass a national abortion ban, or are you going to pass a national protect-abortion law? But actually, most of the action in government happens in regulatory agencies. There’s just a ton of power that the executive branch has to tweak this program this way or that.

And so on abortion, I think there’s a whole host of things that are identified in that Project 2025 report that if Trump is elected and if the people who wrote that report get their way, you could see lots of effects on abortion access nationwide that just happened because the federal agencies change the rules about who can get certain drugs or how things are transported across state lines. What happens to members of the military? What kind of funding goes to organizations that provide contraception coverage and other related services?

So, in all of these programs, there’s lots of things that could happen even without legislation. And I think that always tends to get sort of undercovered or underappreciated in elections because sort of hard to explain, and it also feels kind of technical. I think, speaking as a journalist, one thing that’s very hard is that this Project 2025 effort is kind of unprecedented in the sense that we don’t usually have this detailed of a blueprint for what a president would do in all of these very detailed ways. They have, I mean, it’s 100…

Rovner: Nine-hundred …

Sanger-Katz: … 900-page document. It’s like every little thing that they could do they’ve sort of thought about in advance and written down. But it’s very hard to know whether this document actually speaks for Trump and for the people that will be in leadership positions if he’s reelected and to what degree this is sort of the wish casting of the people who wrote this report.

Rovner: We will definitely find out. Well, kind of like Medicaid, the opioid crisis is something that is by no means over, but the public debate appears to have just moved on. Do we have short attention spans, or are people just tired of an issue that they feel like they don’t know how to fix? Or the fact that Congress threw a lot of money at it? Do they feel like it’s been addressed to the extent that it can be?

Raman: I think this is a really difficult one to get at because it’s — at the same time where the problem has been so universal across the country — it has also become a little fragmented in terms of certain places, with different drugs becoming more popular. I think that, in the past, it was just so much that it was the prescription opioids, and then we had heroin and just different things. And now we have issues in certain places with meth and other drugs. And I think that some of that attention span has kind of deviated for folks. Even though we are still seeing over 100,000 drug-related deaths per year; it hasn’t dipped.

And the pandemic, it started going up again after we’d made some progress. And I’m not sure what exactly has shifted the attention, if it’s that people have moved on to one of these other issues or what. But even in Congress, where there have been a lot of people that were very active on changing some of the preventative measures and the treatment and all of that, I think some of those folks have also left. And then when there’s less of the people focused on that issue, it also just slowly trickles as like a less-hyped-up issue in Congress.

Sanger-Katz: I think it continues to be an issue in state and local politics. In certain parts of the country I think this is a very front-of-mind issue, and there’s a lot of state policy happening. There’s a lot also happening at the urban level where you’re seeing prosecutors, mayors, and others really being held accountable for this really terrible problem. And also with the ancillary problems of crime and homelessness associated with people who are addicted to drugs. So, at the federal level, I agree, it’s gotten a little bit sleepy, but I think in certain parts of the country, this is still a very hot issue.

And I do think this is a huge, huge, huge public health crisis that we have so many people who are dying of drug overdoses and some parts of the country where it is just continuing to get worse. I will say that the latest data, which is provisional, it’s not final from the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], but it does look like it’s getting a little bit better this year. So it’s getting better from the worst ever by far. But it’s the first time in a long time that overdoses seem to be going down even a little. So I do think there’s a glimmer of hope there.

Raman: Yeah. But then the last time that we had that, it immediately changed again. I feel like everyone is just so hesitant to celebrate too much just because it has deviated so much.

Sanger-Katz: It’s definitely, it’s a difficult issue. And even the small improvements that we’ve seen, it’s a small improvement from a very, very large problem, so.

Rovner: Well, speaking of public health, we should speak of public health. We’re still debating whether or not covid came from a wet market or from a lab leak, and whether Dr. [Anthony] Fauci is a hero or a villain. But there seems to be a growing distrust in public health in general. We’ve seen from President Trump sort of threatened to take federal funds away from schools with vaccine mandates.

The context of what he’s been saying suggests he’s talking about covid vaccines, but we don’t know that. This feels like one of these issues that, if it comes up at all, is going to be from the point of view of do you trust or do you not trust expertise? I mean, it is bigger than public health, right?

Raman: Yeah. I think that… I mean, the things that I’ve seen so far have been largely on the distrust of whether vaccines are just government mandates and just ads that very much are aligning with Trump that I’ve seen so far that have gone into that. But it does, broader than expertise.

I mean, even when you go back to some of the gender-affirming care issues, when we have all of the leading medical organizations that are experts on this issue speaking one way. And then we having to all of the talking points that are very on the opposite spectrum of that. It’s another issue where even if there is expertise saying that this is a helpful thing for a lot of folks that it’s hard to message on that.

Sanger-Katz: And we also have a third-party candidate for the presidency who is, I think, polling around 10% of the electorate — and polling both from Democratic and Republican constituencies — whose kind of main message is an anti-vaccine message, an antipublic health message.

And so I think that reflects deep antipublic health sentiments in this country that I think, in some ways, were made much more prominent and widespread by the covid pandemic. But it’s a tough issue for that reason.

I think there is a lot of distrust of the public health infrastructure, and you just don’t see politicians really rushing into defend public health officials in this moment where there’s not a crisis and there’s not a lot of political upside.

Rovner: Finally, I have a category that I call big-picture stuff. I feel like it would be really refreshing to see broad debates over things like long-term care. How we’re going to take care of the 10,000 people who are becoming seniors every day. The future solvency of Medicare. President Trump has said he won’t cut Medicare, but that’s not going to help fix the financial issues that still ail at end, frankly, the structure of our dysfunctional health care system.

Everything that we’ve talked about in terms of drug prices and some of these other things is just… are all just symptoms of a system that is simply not working very well. Is there a way to raise these issues, or are they just sort of too big? I mean, they’re exactly the kinds of things that candidates should be debating.

Raman: That is something that I have been wondering that when we do see the debate next week, if we already have such a rich background on both of these candidates in terms of they’ve both been president before, they have been matched up before, that if we could explore some of the other issues that we haven’t had yet. I mean, we know the answers to so many questions. But there are certain things like these where it would be more refreshing to hear some of that, but it’s unclear if we would get any new questions there.

Rovner: All right. Well, I have one more topic for the panel, and then I’m going to turn it over to the audience. There are folks with microphones, so if you have questions, be thinking of them and wait until a microphone gets to you.

One thing that we haven’t really talked about very much, but I think it’s becoming increasingly important, is data privacy in health care. We’ve seen all of these big hacks of enormous storages of people’s very personal information. I get the distinct impression that lawmakers don’t even know what to do. I mean, it’s not really an election issue, but boy, it almost should be.

Sanger-Katz: I did some reporting on this issue because there was this very large hack that affected this company called Change Healthcare. And so many things were not working because this one company got hacked. And the impression I got was just that this is just an absolute mess. That, first of all, there are a ton of vulnerabilities both at the level of hospitals and at the level of these big vendors that kind of cut across health care where many of them just don’t have good cybersecurity practices.

And at the level of regulation where I think there just aren’t good standards, there isn’t good oversight. There are a lot of conflicting and non-aligned jurisdictions where this agency takes care of this part, and this agency takes care of that part. And I think that is why it has been hard for the government to respond, that there’s not sort of one person where the buck stops there. And I think the legislative solutions actually will be quite technical and difficult. I do think that both lawmakers and some key administration officials are aware of the magnitude of this problem and are thinking about how to solve it.

It doesn’t mean that they will reach an answer quickly or that something will necessarily pass Congress. But I think this is a big problem, and the sense I got from talking to experts is this is going to be a growing problem. And it’s one that sounds technical but actually has pretty big potential health impacts because when the hospital computer system doesn’t work, hospitals can’t actually do the thing that they do. Everything is computerized now. And so when there’s a ransomware attack on a main computer electronic health record system, that is just a really big problem. That there’s documentation has led to deaths in certain cases because people couldn’t get the care that they need.

Rovner: They couldn’t … I mean, couldn’t get test results, couldn’t do surgeries. I mean, there was just an enormous implications of all this. Although I did see that there was a hack of the national health system in Britain, too. So, at least, that’s one of the things that we’re not alone in.

Sanger-Katz: And it’s not just health care. I mean, it’s like everything is hackable. All it takes is one foolish employee who gives away their password, and you think, often, the hackers can get in.

Raman: Well, that’s one of the tricky parts is that we don’t have nationally, a federal data privacy law like they do in the E.U. and stuff. And so it’s difficult to go and hone in on just health care when we don’t have a baseline for just, broadly … We have different things happening in different states. And that’s kind of made it more difficult to get done when you have different baselines that not everyone wants to come and follow the model that we have in California or some of the other states.

Rovner: But apparently Change Healthcare didn’t even have two-factor authentication, which I have on my social media accounts, that I’m still sort of processing that. All right, so let’s turn it over to you guys. Who has a question for my esteemed panel?

[Audience member]: Private equity and their impact on health care.

Rovner: Funny, one of those things that I had written down but didn’t ask.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is a really interesting issue because we have seen a big growth in the investment of private equity into health care, where we’re seeing private equity investors purchasing more hospitals, in particular, purchasing more doctors’ practices, nursing homes. You kind of see this investment across the health care sector, and we’re just starting to get evidence about what it means. There’s not a lot of transparency currently. It’s actually pretty hard to figure out what private equity has bought and who owns what.

And then we really don’t know. I would say there’s just starting to be a little bit of evidence about quality declines in hospitals that are owned by private equity. But it’s complicated, is what I would say. And I think in the case of medical practices, again, we just don’t have strong evidence about it. So I think policymakers, there are some who are just kind of ideologically opposed to the idea of these big investors getting involved in health care. But I think there are many who are… feel a little hands-off, where they don’t really want to just go after this particular industry until we have stronger evidence that they are in fact bad.

Rovner: Oh, there’ve been some pretty horrendous cases of private equity buying up hospital groups, selling off the underlying real estate. So now that the… now the hospital is paying rent, and then the hospitals are going under. I mean, we’ve now seen this.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, there’s… No, there’s… There have clearly been some examples of private equity investments in hospitals and in nursing homes that have led to really catastrophic results for those institutions and for patients at those places. But I think the broader question of whether private equity as a structure that owns health care entities is necessarily bad or good, I think that’s what we don’t know about.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, there’s an argument that you can have the efficiencies of scale, and that there may be, and that they can bring some business acumen to this. There are certainly reasons that it made sense when it started. The question is what the private equity is in it for.

Is it there to try to support the organization? Or is it there to do what a lot of private equity has done, which is just sort of take the parts, pull as much value as you can out of them, and discard the rest, which doesn’t work very well in the health care system.

Sanger-Katz: I also think one thing that’s very hard in this issue — and I think in others that relate to changes in the business structure of health care — is that it’s, like, by the time we really know, it’s almost too late. There’s all of this incredible scholarship looking at the effects of hospital consolidation, that it’s pretty bad that when you have too much hospital concentration; particularly in individual markets, that prices go up, that quality goes down. It’s really clear. But by the time that research was done so many markets were already highly consolidated that there wasn’t a way to go back.

And so I think there’s a risk for private equity investment of something similar happening that when and if we find out that it’s bad, they will have already rolled up so much of medical practice and changed the way that those practices are run that there’s not going to be a rewind button. On the other hand, maybe it will turn out to be OK, or maybe it will turn out to be OK in certain parts of the health care system and not in others. And so there is, I think, a risk of over-regulating in the absence of evidence that it’s a problem.

Raman: Yeah. And I would just echo one thing that you said earlier is that about the exploratory stages. Everything that I can rack my brain and think of that Congress has done on this has been very much like, “Let’s have a discussion. Let’s bring in experts,” rather than like really proposing a lot of new things to change it. I mean, we’ve had some discussion in the past of just changing laws about physician-owned practices and things like that, but it hasn’t really gone anywhere. And some of the proponents of that are also leaving Congress after this election.

Rovner: And, of course, a lot of this is regulated at the state level anyway, which is part of the difficulty.

Sanger-Katz: And there is more action at the state level. There are a bunch of states that have passed laws that are requiring more transparency and oversight of private equity acquisitions in health care. That seems to be happening faster at the state level than at the federal level.

Raman: And so many times, it trickles from the state level to the federal level anyway, too.

Rovner: Maybe the states can figure out what to do.

Sanger-Katz: Yes.

Rovner: More questions.

[Audience member]: Oh, yeah. I have a question about access to health care. It seems that for the past few years, maybe since covid, almost everybody you talked to says, “I can’t get an appointment with a doctor.” They call, and it’s like six months or three months. And I’m curious as to what you think is going on because … in this regard.

Raman: I would say part of it is definitely a workforce issue. We definitely have more and more people that have been leaving due to age or burnout from the pandemic or from other issues. We’ve had more antagonism against different types of providers that there’ve been a slew of reasons that people have been leaving while there’s been a greater need for different types of providers. And so I think that is just part of it.

Rovner: I feel like some of this is the frog in the pot of water. This has been coming for a long time. There have been markets where people have… people unable to get in to see specialists. You break your leg, and they say, “We can see you in November.” And I’m not kidding. I mean, that’s literally what happens. And now we’re seeing it more with primary care.

I mean that the shortages that used to be in what we called underserved areas, that more and more of the country is becoming underserved. And I think because we don’t have a system. Because we’re all sort of looking at these distinct pieces, I think the health care workforce issue is going kind of under the radar when it very much shouldn’t be.

Sanger-Katz: There’s also, I think, quite a lot of regional variation in this problem. So I think there are some places where there’s really no problem at all and certain specialties where there’s no problem at all. And then there are other places where there really are not enough providers to go around. And rural areas have long had a problem attracting and retaining a strong health care workforce across the specialties.

And I think in certain urban areas, in certain neighborhoods, you see these problems, too. But I would say it’s probably not universal. You may be talking to a lot of people in one area or in a couple of areas who are having this problem. But, as Julie said, I think it is a problem. It’s a problem that we need to pay attention to. But I think it’s not a problem absolutely everywhere in the country right now.

Rovner: It is something that Congress… Part of this problem is because Congress, in 1997, when they did the Balanced Budget Act, wanted to do something about Medicare and graduate medical education. Meaning why is Medicare paying for all of the graduate medical education in the United States, which it basically was at that point? And so they put in a placeholder. They capped the number of residences, and they said, “We’re going to come back, and we’re going to put together an all-payer system next year.”

That’s literally what they said in 1997. It’s now 27 years later, and they never did it, and they never raised the cap on residencies. So now we’ve got all these new medical schools, which we definitely need, and we have all of these bright, young graduating M.D.s, and they don’t have residencies to go to because there are more graduating medical school seniors than there are residency slots. So that’s something we’re… that just has not come up really in the past 10 years or so. But that’s something that can only be fixed by Congress.

Raman: And I think even with addressing anything in that bubble we’ve had more difficulty of late when we were… as they were looking at the pediatric residency slots, that whole discussion got derailed over a back-and-forth between members of Congress over gender-affirming care.

And so we’re back again to some of these issues that things that have been easier to do in the past are suddenly much more difficult. And then some of these things are felt down the line, even if we are able to get so many more slots this year. I mean, it’s going to… it takes a while to broaden that pipeline, especially with these various specialized careers.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re on a trajectory for this to get worse before it gets better. There’s a question over here.

[Audience member]: Hi. Thanks so much. I feel like everybody’s talking about mental health in some way or another. And I’m curious, it doesn’t seem to be coming at the forefront in any of the election spaces. I’m curious for your thoughts.

Raman: I think it has come up some, but not as much as maybe in the past. It has been something that Biden has messaged on a lot. Whenever he does his State of the Union, mental health and substance use are always part of his bipartisan plan that he wants to get done with both sides. I think that there has been less of it more recently that I’ve seen that them campaigning on. I mean, we’ve done a little bit when it’s combined with something like gun violence or things like that where it’s tangentially mentioned.

But front and center, it hasn’t come up as much as it has in the past, at least from the top. I think it’s still definitely a huge issue from people from the administration. I mean, we hear from the surgeon general like time and time again, really focusing on youth mental health and social media and some of the things that he’s worried about there. But on the top-line level, I don’t know that it has come up as much there. It is definitely talked about a lot in Congress. But again, it’s one of those things where they bring things up, and it doesn’t always get all the way done, or it’s done piecemeal, and so …

Rovner: Or it gets hung up on a wedge issue.

Raman: Yep.

Sanger-Katz: Although I do think this is an issue where actually there is a fair amount of bipartisan agreement. And for that reason, there actually has been a fair amount of legislation that has passed in the last few cycles. I think it just doesn’t get the same amount of attention because there isn’t this hot fight over it. So you don’t see candidates running on it, or you don’t see people that…

There’s this political science theory called the Invisible Congress, which is that sometimes, actually, you want to have issues that people are not paying attention to because if they’re not as controversial, if they’re not as prominent in the political discourse, you can actually get more done. And infrastructure, I think, is a kind of classic example of that, of something like it’s not that controversial. Everybody wants something in their district. And so we see bipartisan cooperation; we got an infrastructure bill.

And mental health is kind of like that. We got some mental health investments that were part of the pandemic relief packages. There was some mental health investment that was part of the IRA, I believe, and there was a pretty big chunk of mental health legislation and funding that passed as part of the gun bill.

So I do think there’s, of course, more to do it as a huge problem. And I think there are probably more creative solutions even than the things that Congress has done. But I think just because you’re not seeing it in the election space doesn’t mean that there’s not policymaking that’s happening. I think there has been a fair amount.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny. This Congress has been sort of remarkably productive considering how dysfunctional it has been in public. But underneath, there actually has been a lot of lawmaking that’s gone on, bipartisan lawmaking. I mean, by definition, because the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. And I think mental health is one of those issues that there is a lot of bipartisan cooperation on.

But I think there’s also a limit to what the federal government can do. I mean, there’s things that Congress could fix, like residency slots, but mental health is one of those things where they have to just sort of feed money into programs that happen. I think at the state and local level, there’s no federal… Well, there is a federal mental health program, but they’re overseeing grants and whatnot. I think we have time for maybe one more question.

[Audience member]: Hi. To your point of a lot of change happens at the regulatory level. In Medicaid one of the big avenues for that is 1115 waivers. And let’s take aside block granting or anything else for a minute. There’s been big bipartisan progress on, including social care and whole-person care models. This is not just a blue state issue. What might we expect from a Trump administration in terms of the direction of 1115s, which will have a huge effect on the kind of opportunity space in states for Medicaid? And maybe that we don’t know yet, but I’m curious. Maybe that 900-page document says something.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think that’s an example of we don’t know yet because I think the personnel will really matter. From everything that I know about President Trump, I do not think that the details of Medicaid 1115 waiver policy are something that he gets up in the morning and thinks about or really cares that much about. And so I think …

Rovner: I’m not sure it’s even in Project 2025, is it?

Sanger-Katz: I think work requirements are, so that was something that they tried to do the last time. I think it’s possible that we would see those come back. But I think a lot really depends on who is in charge of CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and Medicaid in the next Trump administration and what are their interests and commitments and what they’re going to say yes and no to from the states. And I don’t know who’s on the shortlist for those jobs, frankly. So I would just put that in a giant question-mark bin — with the possible exception of work requirements, which I think maybe we could see a second go at those.

Raman: I would also just point to his last few months in office when there were a lot of things that could have been changed had he been reelected; where they wanted to change Medicaid drug pricing. And then we had some things with block grants and various things that had we had a second Trump presidency we could have seen some of those waivers come to a fruition. So I could definitely see a push for more flexibility in asking states to come up with something new that could fall for under one of those umbrellas.

Rovner: Well, I know you guys have more questions, but we are out of time. If you enjoyed the podcast tonight, I hope you will subscribe. Listen to “What the Health?” every week. You can get it wherever you get your podcast. So good night and enjoy the rest of the festival. Thanks.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“We’re flying blind,” said Jennifer Nuzzo, director of the Pandemic Center at the Brown University School of Public Health. With so few tests run, she said, it’s impossible to know how many farmworkers have been infected, or how serious the disease is. A lack of testing means the country might not notice if the virus begins to spread between people — the gateway to another pandemic.

“We’d like to be doing more testing. There’s no doubt about that,” said Nirav Shah, principal deputy director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The CDC’s bird flu test is the only one the Food and Drug Administration has authorized for use right now. Shah said the agency has distributed these tests to about 100 public health labs in states. “We’ve got roughly a million available now,” he said, “and expect 1.2 million more in the next two months.”

But Nuzzo and other researchers are concerned because the CDC and public health labs aren’t generally where doctors order tests from. That job tends to be done by major clinical laboratories run by companies and universities, which lack authorization for bird flu testing.

As the outbreak grows — with at least 114 herds infected in 12 states as of June 18 — researchers said the CDC and FDA are not moving fast enough to remove barriers that block clinical labs from testing. In one case, the diagnostics company Neelyx Labs was on hold with a query for more than a month.

“Clinical labs are part of the nation’s public health system,” said Alex Greninger, assistant director of the University of Washington Medicine Clinical Virology Laboratory. “Pull us into the game. We’re stuck on the bench.”

The CDC recognized the need for clinical labs in a June 10 memo. It calls on industry to develop tests for the H5 strain of bird flu virus, the one circulating among dairy cattle. “The limited availability and accessibility of diagnostic tests for Influenza A(H5) poses several pain points,” the CDC wrote. The points include a shortage of tests if demand spikes.

Researchers, including former CDC director Tom Frieden and Anthony Fauci, who led the nation’s response to covid, cite testing failures as a key reason the U.S. fared so poorly with covid. Had covid tests been widely available in early 2020, they say, the U.S. could have detected many cases before they turned into outbreaks that prompted business shutdowns and cost lives.

In an article published this month, Nuzzo and a group of colleagues noted that the problem wasn’t testing capability but a failure to deploy that capability swiftly. The U.S. reported excess mortality eight times as high as other countries with advanced labs and other technological advantages.

A covid test vetted by the WHO was available by mid-January 2020. Rather than use it, the United States stuck to its own multistage process, which took several months. Namely, the CDC develops its own test then sends it to local public health labs. Eventually, the FDA authorizes tests from clinical diagnostic labs that serve hospital systems, which must then scale up their operations. That took time, and people died amid outbreaks at nursing homes and prisons, waiting on test results.

In contrast, South Korea immediately rolled out testing through private sector laboratories, allowing it to keep schools and businesses open. “They said, ‘Gear up, guys; we’re going to need a ton of tests,’” said Frieden, now president of the public health organization Resolve to Save Lives. “You need to get commercials in the game.”

Nuzzo and her colleagues describe a step-by-step strategy for rolling out testing in health emergencies, in response to mistakes made obvious by covid. But in this bird flu outbreak, the U.S. is weeks behind that playbook.

Ample testing is critical for two reasons. First, people need to know if they’re infected so that they can be quickly treated, Nuzzo said. Over the past two decades, roughly half of about 900 people around the globe known to have gotten the bird flu died from it.

Although the three farmworkers diagnosed with the disease this year in the United States had only mild symptoms, like a runny nose and inflamed eyes, others may not be so lucky. The flu treatment Tamiflu works only when given soon after symptoms start.

The CDC and local health departments have tried to boost bird flu testing among farmworkers, asking them to be tested if they feel sick. Farmworker advocates list several reasons why their outreach efforts are failing. The outreach might not be in the languages the farmworkers speak, for example, or address such concerns as a loss of employment.

If people who live and work around farms simply see a doctor when they or their children fall ill, those cases could be missed if the doctors send samples to their usual clinical laboratories. The CDC has asked doctors to send samples from people with flu symptoms who have exposure to livestock or poultry to public health labs. “If you work on a farm with an outbreak and you’re worried about your welfare, you can get tested,” Shah said. But sending samples to public health departments requires knowledge, time, and effort.

“I really worry about a testing scheme in which busy clinicians need to figure this out,” Nuzzo said.

The other reason to involve clinical laboratories is so the nation can ramp up testing if the bird flu is suddenly detected among people who didn’t catch it from cattle. There’s no evidence the virus has started to spread among people, but that could change in coming months as it evolves.

The fastest way to get clinical labs involved, Greninger said, is to allow them to use a test the FDA has already authorized: the CDC’s bird flu test. On April 16 the CDC opened up that possibility by offering royalty-free licenses for components of its bird flu tests to accredited labs.

Several commercial labs asked for licenses. “We want to get prepared before things get crazy,” said Shyam Saladi, chief executive officer of the diagnostics company Neelyx Labs, which offered covid and mpox tests during shortages in those outbreaks. His experience over the past two months reveals the types of barriers that prevent labs from moving swiftly.

In email exchanges with the CDC, shared with KFF Health News, Saladi specifies the labs’ desire for licenses relevant to the CDC’s test, as well as a “right to reference” the CDC’s data in its application for FDA authorization.

That “right to reference” makes it easier for one company to use a test developed by another. It allows the new group to skip certain analyses conducted by the original maker, by telling the FDA to look at data in the original FDA application. This was commonplace with covid tests at the peak of the pandemic.

At first, the CDC appeared eager to cooperate. “A right of reference to the data should be available,” Jonathan Motley, a patent specialist at the CDC, wrote in an email to Saladi on April 24. Over the next few weeks, the CDC sent him information about transferring its licenses to the company, and about the test, which prompted Neelyx’s researchers to buy testing components and try out the CDC’s process on their equipment.

But Saladi grew increasingly anxious about the ability to reference the CDC’s data in the company’s FDA application. “Do you have an update with respect to the right of reference?” he asked the CDC on May 13. “If there are any potential sticking points with respect to this, would you mind letting us know please?”

He asked several more times in the following weeks, as the number of herds infected with the bird flu ticked upward and more cases among farmworkers were announced. “Given that it is May 24 and the outbreak has only expanded, can CDC provide a date by which it plans to respond?” Saladi wrote.

The CDC eventually signed a licensing agreement with Neelyx but informed Saladi that it would not, in fact, provide the reference. Without that, Saladi said, he could not move forward with the CDC’s test — at least not without more material from the agency. “It’s really frustrating,” he said. “We thought they really intended to support the development of these tests in case they are needed.”

Shah, from the CDC, said test manufacturers should generate their own data to prove that they’re using the CDC’s test correctly. “We don’t have a shortage such that we need to cut corners,” he said. “Quality reigns supreme.”

The CDC has given seven companies, including Neelyx, licenses for its tests — although none have been cleared to use them by the FDA. Only one of those companies asked for the right of reference, Shah said. The labs may be assisted by additional material that the agency is developing now, to allow them to complete the analyses — even without the reference.

“This should have happened sooner,” Saladi told KFF Health News when he was told about the CDC’s pending additional material. “There’s been no communication about this.”

Greninger said the delays and confusion are reminiscent of the early months of covid, when federal agencies prioritized caution over speed. Test accuracy is important, he said, but excessive vetting can cause harm in a fast-moving outbreak like this one. “The CDC should be trying to open this up to labs with national reach and a good reputation,” he said. “I fall on the side of allowing labs to get ready — that’s a no-brainer.”

Clinical laboratories have also begun to develop their own tests from scratch. But researchers said they’re moving cautiously because of a recent FDA rule that gives the agency more oversight of lab-developed tests, lengthening the pathway to approval. In an email to KFF Health News, FDA press officer Janell Goodwin said the rule’s enforcement will occur gradually.

However, Susan Van Meter, president of the American Clinical Laboratory Association, a trade group whose members include the nation’s largest commercial diagnostic labs, said companies need more clarity: “It’s slowing things down because it’s adding to the confusion about what is allowable.”

Creating tests for the bird flu is already a risky bet, because demand is uncertain. It’s not clear whether this outbreak in cattle will trigger an epidemic or fizzle out. In addition to issues with the CDC and FDA, clinical laboratories are trying to figure out whether health insurers or the government will pay for bird flu tests.

These wrinkles will be smoothed eventually. Until then, the vanishingly slim numbers of people tested, along with the lack of testing in cattle, may draw criticism from other parts of the world.

“Think about our judgment of China’s transparency at the start of covid,” Nuzzo said. “The current situation undermines America’s standing in the world.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).