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).

Oropouche virus (OROV) is a single-stranded RNA virus that belongs to the Peribunyaviridae family.1 It is considered a public health threat in tropical and subtropical areas of the Americas, as it primarily circulates in Central and South America and the Caribbean.1-3  Oropouche virus causes a dengue-like illness called Oropouche fever. Outbreaks have been reported in […]

The post What is Oropouche virus? appeared first on Medical News Bulletin.

GAINESVILLE, Fla. — En un granero al aire libre en el borde de la Universidad de Florida, el veterinario Juan Campos Krauer examina las pezuñas y las orejas de un armadillo muerto en busca de signos de infección.

Sus garras están apretadas y cubiertas de sangre. Campos Krauer cree que lo golpearon en la cabeza mientras cruzaba una carretera cercana.

Luego, corta con un bisturí la parte inferior del animal y extrae todos los órganos importantes: corazón, hígado, riñones. Coloca las muestras embotelladas en un congelador ultra frío, en su laboratorio de la universidad.

Campos Krauer planea examinar el armadillo para detectar lepra, un antiguo mal también conocido como enfermedad de Hansen que puede provocar daño a los nervios y desfiguración en humanos. Junto con otros científicos están tratando de resolver un misterio médico: por qué Florida central se ha convertido en una zona crítica para las antiguas bacterias que la causan.

La lepra sigue siendo rara en Estados Unidos. Pero Florida, que a menudo informa el mayor número de casos de cualquier estado, ha visto un aumento en pacientes. El epicentro está al este de Orlando. El condado de Brevard informó un asombroso 13% de los 159 casos de lepra del país en 2020, según un análisis del Tampa Bay Times de datos estatales y federales.

Muchas preguntas sobre el fenómeno siguen sin respuesta. Pero expertos en lepra creen que los armadillos juegan un papel en la propagación de la enfermedad a las personas. Para comprender mejor quién está en riesgo y prevenir infecciones, unos 10 científicos se unieron el año pasado para investigar.

El grupo incluye investigadores de la Universidad de Florida, la Universidad Estatal de Colorado y la Universidad de Emory, en Atlanta.

“Realmente no sabemos cómo está ocurriendo esta transmisión”, dijo Ramanuj Lahiri, jefe de la rama de investigación de laboratorio del Programa Nacional de Enfermedad de Hansen, que estudia las bacterias involucradas y cuida a los pacientes con lepra en todo el país.

“Nada encajaba”

Se cree que la lepra es la infección humana más antigua de la historia. Probablemente ha estado enfermando a las personas durante al menos 100,000 años. Es fuertemente estigmatizada: en la Biblia, se describía como un castigo por pecar. En tiempos más modernos, los pacientes eran aislados en “colonias” alrededor del mundo, incluyendo en Hawaii y Louisiana.

En casos leves, las bacterias de crecimiento lento causan algunas lesiones. Si no se trata, pueden paralizar las manos y los pies.

Pero en realidad es difícil enfermarse de lepra, ya que la infección no es muy contagiosa. Los antibióticos pueden curar la enfermedad en uno o dos años. Están disponibles de forma gratuita a través del gobierno federal y de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS), que lanzó una campaña en la década de 1990 para eliminar la lepra como problema de salud pública.

En 2000, los casos reportados en EE.UU. cayeron a su nivel más bajo en décadas, con 77 infecciones. Pero luego aumentaron, promediando alrededor de 180 por año desde 2011 hasta 2020, según datos del Programa Nacional de Enfermedad de Hansen.

Durante ese tiempo, surgió una tendencia curiosa en Florida.

En la primera década del siglo XXI, el estado registró 67 casos. El condado de Miami-Dade tuvo 20 infecciones, la mayoría de cualquier condado de Florida. La gran mayoría de esos casos fueron adquiridos fuera del país, según un análisis del Times de datos del Departamento de Salud de Florida.

Pero durante los siguientes 10 años, los casos registrados en el estado fueron más del doble, 176, y el condado de Brevard tomó el protagonismo.

El condado, cuya población es aproximadamente una quinta parte del tamaño de Miami-Dade, registró 85 infecciones durante ese tiempo, con mucho, la mayoría de cualquier condado en el estado y casi la mitad de todos los casos de Florida. En la década anterior, Brevard solo registró cinco casos.

De manera notable, al menos una cuarta parte de las infecciones de Brevard fueron adquiridas dentro del estado, no mientras los individuos estaban en el extranjero.

India, Brasil e Indonesia diagnostican más casos de lepra que en cualquier otro lugar, reportando más de 135,000 infecciones combinadas solo en 2022.

Las personas se estaban enfermando a pesar de no haber viajado a esas áreas ni haber estado en contacto cercano con pacientes con lepra, dijo Barry Inman, ex epidemiólogo del departamento de salud de Brevard que investigó los casos y se retiró en 2021.

“Nada encajaba”, dijo Inman. Algunos pacientes recordaron haber tocado armadillos, que se sabe que portan las bacterias. Pero la mayoría no, dijo. Muchos pasaron mucho tiempo al aire libre, incluidos trabajadores de jardines y ávidos jardineros. Los casos eran generalmente leves.

Era difícil determinar dónde contrajeron la enfermedad, agregó. Debido a que las bacterias crecen tan lentamente, pueden pasar entre nueve meses y 20 años para que comiencen los síntomas.

¿Amoeba o insectos culpables?

Concientizar sobre la lepra podría desempeñar un papel en el aumento de casos en Brevard. Los médicos deben reportar la lepra al Departamento de Salud. Sin embargo, Inman dijo que muchos en el condado no lo sabían, por lo que trató de educarlos después de notar los casos a fines de la década de 2000.

Pero ese no es el único factor en juego, dijo Inman. “No creo que haya ninguna duda en mi mente de que está ocurriendo algo nuevo”, dijo.

Otras partes en el centro de Florida también han registrado más infecciones. De 2011 a 2020, el condado de Polk registró 12 casos, triplicando su número en comparación con los 10 años anteriores. El condado de Volusia registró 10 casos. No reportó ninguno en la década anterior.

Los científicos se están enfocando en los armadillos. Sospechan que estos animales que son cavadores pueden causar indirectamente infecciones a través de la contaminación del suelo.

Los armadillos, que están protegidos por caparazones duros, sirven como buenos huéspedes para las bacterias, a las que no les gusta el calor y pueden prosperar en los animales cuyos rangos de temperatura corporal son de 86 a 95 grados Fahrenheit.

Los colonos probablemente trajeron la enfermedad al Nuevo Mundo hace cientos de años, y de alguna manera los armadillos se infectaron, dijo Lahiri, el científico del Programa Nacional de Enfermedad de Hansen.

Estos mamíferos nocturnos pueden desarrollar lesiones por la enfermedad igual que los humanos. Hay más de un millón de armadillos en Florida, estimó Campos Krauer, profesor asistente en el Departamento de Ciencias Clínicas de Animales Grandes de la Universidad de Florida.

Cuántos portan lepra no está claro. Un estudio publicado en 2015 con más de 600 armadillos en Alabama, Florida, Georgia y Mississippi encontró que aproximadamente el 16% mostraban evidencia de infección. Expertos en salud pública creen que la lepra anteriormente estaba confinada a los armadillos al oeste del río Mississippi y luego se extendió hacia el este.

Manipular los animales es un peligro conocido. La investigación de laboratorio muestra que las amebas unicelulares, que viven en el suelo, también pueden portar las bacterias.

Los armadillos aman desenterrar y comer lombrices, lo que frustra a los propietarios de viviendas cuyos jardines dañan. Los animales pueden eliminar las bacterias mientras buscan comida, pasándolas a las amebas, que podrían infectar a las personas más tarde.

Los expertos en lepra también se preguntan si los insectos ayudan a propagar la enfermedad. Las garrapatas que chupan sangre también podrían ser culpables, según muestra la investigación de laboratorio.

“Algunas personas que están infectadas tienen poca o ninguna exposición al armadillo”, dijo Norman Beatty, profesor asistente de medicina en la Universidad de Florida. “Probablemente hay otra fuente de transmisión en el medio ambiente”.

Campos Krauer, que ha estado buscando armadillos muertos en las calles de Gainesville, quiere reunir animales infectados y dejarlos descomponer en un área cercada, permitiendo que los restos se empapen en una bandeja con tierra mientras las moscas ponen huevos. Espera examinar la tierra y las larvas para ver si recogen las bacterias.

Agregando intriga hay una cepa de lepra encontrada solo en Florida, según los científicos. En el estudio de 2015, los investigadores descubrieron que siete armadillos del Refugio Nacional de Vida Silvestre de Merritt Island, que está mayormente en Brevard pero cruza a Volusia, portaban una versión del patógeno no vista anteriormente.

Diez pacientes en la región también se vieron afectados por esta cepa. A nivel genético, es similar a otro tipo encontrado en armadillos en el país, dijo Charlotte Avanzi, investigadora de la Universidad Estatal de Colorado que se especializa en lepra. No se sabe si la cepa causa una enfermedad más grave, dijo Lahiri.

Reduciendo el riesgo

El público no debe entrar en pánico por la lepra, ni las personas deben apresurarse a sacrificar armadillos, advierten los investigadores.

Los científicos estiman que más del 95% de la población humana mundial tiene una capacidad natural para resistir la enfermedad. Creen que se necesitan meses de exposición a gotitas respiratorias para que ocurra la transmisión de persona a persona.

Pero cuando ocurren infecciones, pueden ser devastadoras. “Si lo entendemos mejor”, dijo Campos Krauer, “podremos aprender a vivir con él y reducir el riesgo”.

La nueva investigación también puede proporcionar información para otros estados del sur. Los armadillos, que no hibernan, se han estado moviendo hacia el norte, dijo Campos Krauer, alcanzando áreas como Indiana y Virginia.

Podrían ir más lejos debido al cambio climático.

Las personas preocupadas por la lepra pueden tomar precauciones simples, dicen los expertos médicos. Aquellos que trabajan en tierra deben usar guantes y lavarse las manos después. Elevar las camas de jardín o rodearlas con una cerca puede limitar las posibilidades de contaminación del suelo.

Si se desentierra una madriguera de armadillo, es mejor usar una mascarilla, dijo Campos Krauer. No jugar con los animales ni comerlos, agregó John Spencer, científico de la Universidad Estatal de Colorado que estudia la transmisión de la lepra en Brasil. Es legal cazarlos todo el año en Florida sin una licencia.

Hasta ahora, el equipo de Campos Krauer ha examinado 16 armadillos muertos encontrados en carreteras del área de Gainesville, a más de 100 millas del epicentro de la lepra del estado, tratando de obtener una idea preliminar de cuántos portan las bacterias.

Todavía ninguno ha dado positivo.

Este artículo fue producido por una asociación entre KFF Health News y el Tampa Bay Times.

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).

Es el último capítulo de una larga saga que involucra a Magellan Diagnostics, con sede en Massachusetts, que pagará $42 millones en multas, según el Departamento de Justicia (DOJ).

Aunque muchos de los dispositivos propensos a fallas se utilizaron desde 2013 hasta 2017, algunos fueron retirados del mercado recién en 2021. El DOJ dijo que este mal funcionamiento produjo resultados inexactos para “potencialmente decenas de miles” de niños y otros pacientes.

Los médicos no consideran seguro ningún nivel de plomo en sangre, especialmente en niños.

Varias ciudades de Estados Unidos, incluyendo Washington, DC, y Flint, en Michigan, han luchado con una contaminación generalizada de plomo en sus suministros de agua en las últimas dos décadas, lo que hace que las pruebas precisas sean críticas para la salud pública.

Es posible que se hayan utilizado kits defectuosos de Magellan para analizar la exposición al plomo en niños hasta principios de la década de 2020, basándose en el retiro del mercado en 2021.

Esto es lo que los padres deben saber.

¿Cuáles pruebas eran defectuosas?

Los resultados inexactos provinieron de tres dispositivos de Magellan: LeadCare Ultra, LeadCare II y LeadCare Plus. Uno de ellos, el LeadCare II, utiliza principalmente muestras de punción en el dedo y representó más de la mitad de todas las pruebas de plomo en sangre realizadas en el país desde 2013 hasta 2017, según el DOJ.

A menudo se usaba en consultorios médicos para verificar los niveles de plomo en los niños.

Los otros dos también podían usarse extrayendo sangre de una vena y pueden haber sido más comunes en laboratorios que en consultorios médicos. La empresa “se enteró por primera vez de que un mal funcionamiento en su dispositivo LeadCare Ultra podría causar resultados inexactos de pruebas de plomo, específicamente, resultados de pruebas de plomo que eran falsamente bajos” en junio de 2013 mientras buscaba la aprobación regulatoria para vender el producto, dijo el DOJ.

Pero, según el acuerdo, no divulgó esa información y siguió comercializando las pruebas.

La agencia dijo que las pruebas de 2013 indicaron que el mismo defecto afectaba al dispositivo LeadCare II. Un retiro del mercado en 2021 incluyó la mayoría de los tres tipos de kits para pruebas distribuidos desde el 27 de octubre de 2020.

En un comunicado de prensa para anunciar la resolución, la empresa dijo que “los problemas subyacentes que afectaron los resultados de algunos de los productos de Magellan de 2013 a 2018 han sido completa y eficazmente solucionados” y que las pruebas que actualmente venden son seguras.

¿Qué significa un resultado “falsamente bajo”?

A menudo se realiza la prueba a los niños durante las visitas al pediatra al año y nuevamente a los 2 años. Los niveles elevados de plomo pueden poner a los niños en riesgo de retraso en el desarrollo, menor coeficiente intelectual y otros problemas. Y los síntomas, como dolor de estómago, falta de apetito o irritabilidad, pueden no aparecer hasta que se alcancen niveles altos.

Los resultados de pruebas falsamente bajos podrían significar que los padres y los médicos no eran conscientes del problema.

Eso es preocupante porque el tratamiento para la intoxicación por plomo es, al principio, principalmente preventivo. Los resultados que muestran niveles elevados deberían llevar a los padres y a los funcionarios de salud a determinar las fuentes de plomo y tomar medidas para prevenir una ingesta continua de este metal, dijo Janine Kerr, educadora de salud del Programa de Prevención de la Intoxicación por Plomo en la Infancia del Departamento de Salud de Virginia.

Los niños pueden estar expuestos al plomo de diversas maneras, incluyendo el consumo de agua contaminada con plomo de tuberías viejas, como en Flint y Washington; la ingestión de escamas de pintura a base de plomo que a menudo se encuentran en casas antiguas; o, como se informó recientemente, comiendo algunas marcas de puré de manzana con sabor a canela.

¿Qué deben hacer los padres ahora?

“Los padres pueden contactar al pediatra para determinar si su hijo tuvo una prueba de plomo en sangre con un dispositivo LeadCare” y discutir si es necesario repetirla, dijo Maida Galvez, pediatra y profesora en la Escuela de Medicina Icahn en Mount Sinai en Nueva York.

Durante un retiro anterior de algunos dispositivos de Magellan, en 2017, los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC) recomendaron que se les hiciera otra prueba a los pacientes si estaban embarazadas, amamantando o eran niños menores de 6 años y tenían un nivel de plomo en sangre de menos de 10 microgramos por decilitro según lo determinado por un dispositivo Magellan de una extracción de sangre venosa.

El retiro de dispositivos Magellan en 2021 recomendó repetir la prueba a los niños cuyos resultados fueran inferiores al nivel de referencia actual de los CDC de 3.5 microgramos por decilitro. Muchas de esas pruebas eran del tipo de punción en el dedo.

Kerr, del Departamento de Salud de Virginia, dijo que su agencia no ha recibido muchas llamadas sobre ese retiro.

Las pruebas de punción en el dedo “no se utilizan tan ampliamente en Virginia”, explicó Kerr, agregando que “recibimos muchas preguntas sobre el retiro del puré de manzana”.

En cualquier caso, dijo, el “mejor curso de acción para los padres es hablar con un proveedor de atención médica”.

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).

Los casos de sarampión están aumentando en Estados Unidos. En el primer trimestre de este año, se registró un número de casos 17 veces mayor con respecto al promedio registrado durante el mismo período en los cuatro años anteriores, según los Centros para el Control y Prevención de Enfermedades (CDC). La mitad de las personas infectadas, principalmente niños, han sido hospitalizadas.

Y se espera que las cifras sigan empeorando, en gran medida porque cada vez más padres deciden no vacunar a sus hijos contra el sarampión y otras enfermedades como la polio y la tos ferina.

Este año, el 80% de los casos ha sido en personas no vacunadas o con un estatus de vacunación desconocido. Muchos padres han sido influenciados por una avalancha de desinformación difundida por políticos y personalidades en redes sociales, podcasts, y en la TV, que repiten falsas creencias, erosionando la confianza en la ciencia que respalda las vacunas infantiles de rutina.

A continuación, examinamos algunos mitos frecuentes de la retórica antivacunas y explicamos por qué está equivocada:

“No es para tanto”

Una idea errónea común es que las vacunas no son necesarias porque las enfermedades que previenen no son peligrosas u ocurren con muy poca frecuencia como para ser motivo de preocupación. Aunque se hayan reportado casos de sarampión en 19 estados, los escépticos acusan a funcionarios de salud pública y a los medios de comunicación de sembrar temor sobre la enfermedad sin fundamento.

Por ejemplo, una nota publicada en el sitio web del National Vaccine Information Center, una fuente habitual de desinformación sobre las vacunas, sostuvo que la preocupación creciente por el sarampión “es una exageración al estilo de ‘el cielo se cae'”. El artículo decía que contraer el sarampión, las paperas, la varicela y la gripe (también llamada influenza) era “políticamente incorrecto”.

Según los CDC, el sarampión resulta fatal en aproximadamente 2 de cada 1,000 niños infectados. Si este nivel de riesgo suena aceptable, vale la pena señalar que un número mucho mayor de niños con sarampión requieren hospitalización por neumonía y otras complicaciones serias.

Por cada 10 casos de sarampión, un niño con la enfermedad desarrolla una infección de oído que puede causar la pérdida auditiva permanente. Otro efecto extraño del virus es que puede destruir la inmunidad de una persona, y así afectar su capacidad para recuperarse de la gripe y otras afecciones comunes.

Las vacunas contra el sarampión han evitado la muerte de alrededor de 94 millones de personas, principalmente niños, en los últimos 50 años, según un análisis de abril de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). Junto con las vacunas contra la polio y otras enfermedades, se estima que las vacunas han salvado 154 millones de vidas en todo el mundo.

Algunos escépticos de las vacunas sostienen que las enfermedades que previenen ya no son una amenaza porque se han vuelto relativamente poco frecuentes en el país. (Lo cual es cierto, gracias a la vacunación). Es el razonamiento que invocó el cirujano general de Florida, Joseph Ladapo, durante un brote de sarampión en febrero, cuando dijo a los padres que sus hijos no vacunados podían seguir yendo a la escuela. “Hay mucha inmunidad”, dijo Ladapo.

A medida que esta actitud relajada hacia las vacunas convence a los padres de no dárselas a sus hijos, la inmunidad colectiva disminuye y los brotes serán cada vez más grandes y se propagarán más rápido.

En 2019, un brote de rápido crecimiento afectó a una comunidad con tasas de vacunación insuficientes en Samoa y mató a 83 personas en cuatro meses. Las tasas persistentemente bajas de vacunación contra el sarampión en la República Democrática del Congo mataron a más de 5,600 personas a causa de la enfermedad en brotes masivos el año pasado.

“Nunca se sabe”

Desde los orígenes de las vacunas, siempre ha existido un grupo que ha desconfiado porque no son naturales, en comparación con las infecciones y plagas que abundan en la naturaleza. Los miedos y dudas sobre las vacunas han ido cambiando a lo largo de las décadas. En el 1800, por ejemplo, los escépticos pensaban que las vacunas contra la viruela hacían que a las personas les salieran cuernos y que se comportaran como bestias.

En tiempos más recientes, los escépticos han vinculado las vacunas con una variedad de afecciones, desde el trastorno por déficit de atención e hiperactividad hasta el autismo y las enfermedades del sistema inmunológico. Los estudios científicos no respaldan estas afirmaciones.

La realidad es que las vacunas están entre las intervenciones médicas más estudiadas. En el siglo pasado, las vacunas han pasado por estudios científicos y ensayos clínicos masivos tanto en las fases de desarrollo como después, durante su uso generalizado.

Más de 12,000 personas participaron en los ensayos clínicos de la última vacuna aprobada para prevenir el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola. Al probar la vacuna en un gran número de personas, los investigadores pueden detectar riesgos poco comunes, lo cual es importante porque se administran a millones de personas sanas.

Para evaluar los riesgos a largo plazo, los científicos analizan grandes cantidades de datos para identificar señales de daño. Por ejemplo, un grupo danés analizó una base de datos de más de 657,000 niños y encontró que aquellos que fueron vacunados contra el sarampión cuando eran bebés no tenían más probabilidades de ser diagnosticados con autismo que aquellos que no fueron vacunados.

En otro estudio, los investigadores analizaron registros de 805,000 niños nacidos entre 1990 y 2001 y no encontraron ninguna prueba de que las vacunaciones múltiples pudieran afectar el sistema inmune de los niños.

Pero las personas que promueven la desinformación sobre las vacunas, como el candidato a la presidencia Robert F. Kennedy Jr., descartan los estudios masivos respaldados por la ciencia.

Por ejemplo, Kennedy sostiene que los ensayos clínicos para las nuevas vacunas no son confiables porque no se compara a los niños vacunados con un grupo que recibe un placebo, como solución salina u otra sustancia sin efecto. En vez de utilizar un placebo, muchos ensayos modernos comparan las vacunas actualizadas con otras más antiguas. Esto se debe a que se considera no ético poner en peligro a los niños al darles una vacuna falsa cuando se conoce el efecto protector de la inmunización.

En un ensayo clínico de vacunas contra la polio realizado en la década de 1950, 16 niños que recibieron un placebo murieron de polio y 34 quedaron paralizados, dijo Paul Offit, director del Centro de Educación Sobre Vacunas del Hospital de Niños de Philadelphia y autor de un libro sobre la primera vacuna contra la polio.

“Demasiadas y demasiado pronto”

Varios de los libros sobre vacunas más vendidos en Amazon promueven la peligrosa idea de que los padres deberían omitir o retrasar la vacunación de sus hijos. “Puede ser que no todas las vacunas en el calendario de los CDC sean adecuadas para todos los niños en todo momento”, escribe Paul Thomas en su libro más vendido “The Vaccine-Friendly Plan”. Para respaldar su argumento, dice que los niños que han seguido “mi protocolo están entre los más sanos del mundo”.

Desde la publicación del libro, la licencia médica de Thomas fue suspendida temporalmente en Oregon y Washington.

La Junta Médica de Oregon documentó cómo Thomas convenció a los padres a omitir vacunas recomendadas por los CDC e “hizo llorar” a una madre que no estaba de acuerdo. Varios niños bajo su cuidado contrajeron tos ferina y rotavirus, ambas enfermedades que se previenen fácilmente con vacunas, escribió la junta.

Thomas le recetó suplementos de aceite de pescado y homeopatía a un niño que tenía una laceración profunda en el cuero cabelludo en lugar de darle una vacuna de emergencia contra el tétanos. El niño desarrolló un cuadro de tétanos grave y estuvo en el hospital por casi dos meses, donde tuvo que someterse a una intubación, una traqueotomía y una sonda de alimentación para sobrevivir.

El calendario de vacunación recomendado por los CDC se diseñó para proteger a los niños en los momentos más vulnerables de su vida y minimizar los efectos secundarios. Por ejemplo, la vacuna combinada contra el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola no se administra durante el primer año de vida del bebé porque los anticuerpos que transmite temporalmente la madre pueden interferir con la respuesta inmunitaria. Y como algunos bebés no generan una respuesta inmunitaria fuerte con esa primera dosis, los CDC recomiendan una segunda dosis alrededor del momento en que los niños comiencen el jardín de infantes, ya que el sarampión y otros virus se propagan rápidamente en contextos grupales.

No se recomienda retrasar mucho más las dosis de esta vacuna ya que los datos sugieren que los niños vacunados a los 10 años o más tienen más probabilidades de desarrollar reacciones adversas, como convulsiones o fatiga.

Alrededor de una docena de otras vacunas siguen su propio esquema cronológico, con superposiciones para obtener la mejor respuesta. Los estudios han demostrado que la vacuna contra el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola se puede administrar de forma segura y eficaz combinada con otras vacunas.

“Ellos no quieren que lo sepas”

En la introducción del nuevo libro de Ladapo sobre cómo superar el miedo en la salud pública, Kennedy compara al cirujano general de Florida con Galileo. Así como la Inquisición católica condenó al famoso astrónomo por promover teorías sobre el universo, sugiere Kennedy, las instituciones científicas reprimen a los disidentes de las vacunas por razones nefastas.

“La persecución de científicos y médicos que se atreven a cuestionar las doctrinas contemporáneas no es nada nuevo”, escribe Kennedy. Su compañera de fórmula, la abogada Nicole Shanahan, ha hecho campaña con la idea de que las conversaciones sobre los peligros de las vacunas se están censurando y que las corporaciones influyen sobre los CDC y otras agencias federales para ocultar datos.

En el podcast más escuchado en Estados Unidos, “The Joe Rogan Experience”, a menudo figuran invitados que desconfían del consenso científico. El año pasado, en el programa, Kennedy repitió el mito muchas veces desmentido de que las vacunas causan autismo.

Lejos de ignorar ese miedo, los epidemiólogos lo han tomado en serio. Han realizado más de una docena de estudios en busca de un vínculo entre las vacunas y el autismo, y no han encontrado ninguno. “Hemos refutado de manera concluyente la teoría de que las vacunas están relacionadas con el autismo”, afirmó Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, epidemiólogo de la Universidad de Wollongong en Australia. “Es por esto que el sistema de salud pública tiende a cerrar esas conversaciones rápidamente”.

Las agencias federales son transparentes con respecto a las reacciones que pueden causar las vacunas, incluyendo convulsiones y dolor en el brazo. Y el gobierno tiene un programa para compensar a las personas si se determina científicamente que sus lesiones son el resultado de las vacunas. Alrededor de 1 a 3.5 de cada millón de dosis de la vacuna contra el sarampión, las paperas y la rubéola pueden provocar una reacción alérgica potencialmente mortal. Se estima que el riesgo de muerte a causa de un rayo durante toda la vida de una persona es hasta cuatro veces mayor.

“Lo más convincente que puedo decir es que mi hija tiene todas sus vacunas y que todos los pediatras y profesionales de salud pública que conozco han vacunado a sus hijos”, dijo Meyerowitz-Katz. “Nadie haría eso si pensara que existen riesgos graves”.

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.

With abortion shaping up as a key issue for the November elections, the movement that united to overturn Roe v. Wade is divided over going further, faster — including by punishing those who have abortions and banning contraception or IVF. Politicians who oppose abortion are already experiencing backlash in some states.

Meanwhile, bad actors are bilking the health system in various new ways, from switching people’s insurance plans without their consent to pocket additional commissions, to hacking the records of major health systems and demanding millions of dollars in ransom.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, 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.

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It appears that abortion opponents are learning it’s a lot easier to agree on what you’re against than for. Now that the constitutional right to an abortion has been overturned, political leaders are contending with vocal groups that want to push further — such as by banning access to IVF or contraception.
• A Louisiana bill designating abortion pills as controlled substances targets people in the state, where abortion is banned, who are finding ways to get the drug. And abortion providers in Kansas are suing over a new law that requires patients to report their reasons for having an abortion. Such state laws have a cumulative chilling effect on abortion access.
• Some Republican lawmakers seem to be trying to dodge voter dissatisfaction with abortion restrictions in this election year. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama introduced legislation to protect IVF by pulling Medicaid funding from states that ban the fertility procedure — but it has holes. And Gov. Larry Hogan of Maryland declared he is pro-choice, even though he mostly dodged the issue during his eight years as governor.
• Former President Donald Trump is in the news again for comments that seemed to leave the door open to restrictions on contraception — which may be the case, though he is known to make such vague policy suggestions. Trump’s policies as president did restrict access to contraception, and his allies have proposed going further.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Shefali Luthra of The 19th about her new book on abortion in post-Roe America, “Undue Burden.”

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

Julie Rovner: The 19th’s “What Happens to Clinics After a State Bans Abortion? They Fight To Survive,” by Shefali Luthra and Chabeli Carrazana. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “How Doctors Are Pressuring Sickle Cell Patients Into Unwanted Sterilizations,” by Eric Boodman.  

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “What Science Tells Us About Biden, Trump and Evaluating an Aging Brain,” by Joel Achenbach and Mark Johnson.  

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe,” by Sharon Lerner; and The Guardian’s “Microplastics Found in Every Human Testicle in Study,” by Damian Carrington. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• NPR’s “Republicans Try To Soften Stance on Abortion as ‘Abolitionists’ Go Farther,” by Sarah McCammon.
• KFF Health News’ “Biden Leans Into Health Care, Asking Voters To Trust Him Over Trump,” by Phil Galewitz.
• KFF Health News’ “Exclusive: Senator Urges Biden Administration To Thwart Fraudulent Obamacare Enrollments,” by Julie Appleby.
• KFF Health News’ “KHN’s ‘What the Health?’: Un-Trumping the ACA,” featuring an interview with journalist Marshall Allen.

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Anti-Abortion Hard-Liners Speak Up

[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 Thursday, May 23, 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 a video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, thanks for having me.

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 podcast panelist Shefali Luthra of The 19th. Shefali’s new book about abortion in the post-Roe [v. Wade] world, called “Undue Burden,” is out this week. But first, this week’s news. We’re going to start with abortion this week with a topic I’m calling “Abolitionists in Ascendance,” and a shoutout here to NPR’s Sarah McCammon with a great piece on this that we will link to in the show notes. It seems that while Republican politicians, at least at the federal level, are kind of going to ground on this issue, and we’ll talk more about that in a bit, those who would take the ban to the furthest by prosecuting women, and/or banning IVF and contraception, are raising their voices. How much of a split does this portend for what, until the overturn of Roe, had been a pretty unified movement? I mean they were all unified in “Let’s overturn Roe,” and now that Roe has gone, boy are they dividing.

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s a lot easier to agree on what you’re against than on what you’re for. We wrote about the split on IVF specifically a bit ago, and it is really interesting. A lot of anti-abortion advocates are disappointed in the Republican response and the Republican rush to say, “No, let’s leave IVF totally alone” because these groups think, some think it some should be banned, some think that there should be a lot of restrictions on the way it’s currently practiced. So not a total ban, but things like you can only produce a certain number of embryos, you can only implant a certain number of embryos, you can only create the ones you intend to implant, and so that would completely upend the way IVF is currently practiced in the U.S.

So, we know the anti-abortion movement is good at playing the long game, and so some of them have told me that they see this kind of like the campaign to overturn Roe v. Wade. They understand that Republicans are reacting for political reasons right now, and they are confident in winning them over for restrictions in the long term.

Rovner: I’ve been fascinated by, I would say, by things like Kristan Hawkins of Students for Life [of America] who’s been sort of the far-right fringe of the anti-abortion movement looking like she’s the moderate now with some of these people, and their discussions of “We should charge women with murder and have the death penalty if necessary.” Sorry, Rachel, you want to say something?

Roubein: This is something that Republicans, they don’t want to be asked about this on the campaign. The more hard-line abolitionist movement is something more mainstream groups have been taking a lot of pains to distance themselves and say that we don’t prosecute women, and essentially nobody wants to talk about this ahead of 2024. GOP doesn’t want to be seen as that party that’s going after that.

Kenen: And the divisions existed when Roe was still the law of the land, and we would all write about the divisions and what they were pushing for, and it was partly strategic. How far do you push? Do you push for legislation? Do you push for the courts? Do you push for 20 weeks for fetal pain? But it was like rape exceptions and under what terms and things like that. So it was sort of much later in pregnancy, and with more restrictions, and the fight was about exactly where do you draw that line. This abolition of all abortion under all circumstances, or personhood, only a couple of years ago, were the fringe. Personhood was sort of like, “Oh, they’re out there, no one will go for that.” And now I don’t think it’s the dominant voice. I don’t think we yet know what their dominant voice is, but it’s a player in this conversation.

At the same time, on the other side, the pro-abortion rights people, there’s polls showing us this many Americans support abortion, but it’s subtler too. Even if people support abortion rights, it doesn’t mean that they’re not, some subset are in favor of some restrictions, or where that’s going to settle. Right now, a 15-week ban, which would’ve seemed draconian a year or two ago, now seems like the moderate position. It has not shaken out, and …

Rovner: Well, let’s talk …

Kenen: It’s not going to shake out for some time.

Rovner: Let’s talk about a few specifics. The Louisiana State Legislature on Tuesday approved a bill that would put the drugs used in medication abortion, mifepristone and misoprostol, on the state’s list of controlled substances. This has gotten a lot of publicity. I’m wondering what the actual effect might be here though since abortion is already banned in Louisiana. Obviously, these drugs are used for other things, but they wouldn’t be unavailable. They would just be put in this category of dangerous drugs.

Ollstein: So, officials know that people in banned states, including Louisiana, are obtaining abortion pills from out of state, whether through telehealth from states with shield laws or through these gray-area groups overseas that are mailing pills to anyone no matter what state they live in or what restrictions are in place. So I think because it would be very difficult to actually enforce this law, short of going through people’s homes and their mail, this is just one more layer of a chilling effect and making people afraid to seek out those mail order services.

Rovner: So it’s more, again, for the appearance of it than the actuality of it.

Ollstein: It also sets up another state versus federal law clash, potentially. We’ve seen this playing out in courts in West Virginia and in North Carolina, basically. Can states restrict or even completely ban a medication that the FDA says is safe and effective? And that question is percolating in a few different courts right now.

Rovner: Including sort of the Supreme Court. We’re still waiting for their abortion pill decision that we expect now next month. Meanwhile, in Kansas, where voters approved a big abortion rights referendum in 2022 — remember, it was the first one of those — abortion providers are suing to stop a new state law enacted over the governor’s veto that would require them to report to the state women’s reasons for having an abortion. Now it’s not that hard to see how that information could be misused by people with other kinds of intents, right?

Ollstein: Well, it also brings up right to free speech issues, compelled speech. I think I’ve seen this pop up in abortion lawsuits even before Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], this very issue because there have been instances where either doctors are required to give information that they say that they believe is medically inaccurate. That’s an issue in several states right now. And then this demanding information from patients. A lot of clinics that I’ve spoken to are so afraid of subpoenas from officials in-state, from out of state, that they intentionally don’t ask patients for certain kinds of data even though it would really help medically or organizationally for them to have that data. But they’re so afraid of it being seized, they figure well, they can’t seize it if they’re … doesn’t exist in the first place. And so I think this kind of law is in direct conflict with that.

Roubein: It also gets at the question of medical privacy that we’ve been seeing in the Biden administration’s efforts over HIPAA and protecting patients’ records and making it harder for state officials to attempt to seize.

Rovner: Yeah, this is clearly going to be a struggle in a lot of states where voters versus Republican legislatures, and we will sort of see how that all plays out. So even while this is going on in a bunch of the states, a lot of Republicans, including some who have been and remain strongly anti-abortion, are doing what I’m calling ducking-and-covering on a lot of these issues. Case in point, Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz and Alabama Republican Sen. Katie Britt this week introduced a bill they say would protect IVF, which is kind of ironic given that both of them voted against a bill to protect IVF back in, checking notes, February. What’s the difference here? What are these guys trying to do?

Kenen: Theirs is narrower. They say that the original bill, which was a Democratic bill, was larded with abortion rights kinds of things. I have not read the entire bill, I just read the summary of it. And in this one, if a state restricts someone who had — someone feel free to correct me if I am missing something here because I don’t have deep knowledge of this bill — but if a state does not protect IVF, they would lose their Medicaid payment. And I was not clear whether that meant every penny of Medicaid, including nursing homes, or if it’s a subsection of Medicaid, because it seems like a big can of worms.

Ollstein: Yeah, so the key difference in these bills is the word ban. The Republican bill says that if states ban IVF, then these penalties kick in for Medicaid, but they say that there can be “health and safety regulations,” and so that is very open to interpretation. That can include the things we talked about before about you can only produce a certain number of embryos, you can only implant a certain number of embryos, and you can’t discard them. And so even what Alabama did was not an outright ban. So even something like that that cut off services for lots of people wouldn’t be considered a ban under this Republican bill. So I think there’s sort of a semantic game going on here where restrictions would still be allowed if they were short of a blanket ban, whereas the democratic bill would also prevent restrictions.

Rovner: Well, and along those exact same lines, in Maryland, former two-term Republican governor Larry Hogan, who’s managed to dodge the abortion issue in his primary run to become the Senate nominee, now that he is the Republican candidate for the open Senate seat, has declared himself, his words, “pro-choice,” and says he would vote to restore Roe in the Senate if given the opportunity. But as I recall, and I live in Maryland, he vetoed a couple of bills to expand abortion rights in very blue Maryland. Is he going to be able to have this both ways? He seems to be doing the [Sen.] Susan Collins script where he gets to say he’s pro-choice, but he doesn’t necessarily have to vote for abortion rights bills.

Kenen: Hogan is a very popular moderate Republican governor in a Democratic state. He is a strong Senate candidate. His opponent, a Democrat, Angela Alsobrooks, has a stronger abortion rights record. I don’t think that’s going to be the decisive issue in Maryland. I think it may help him a little bit, but I think in Maryland, if the Senate was 55-45, a lot of Democrats like Hogan and might want another moderate Republican in the Senate. But given that this is going to be about control of the Senate, abortion will be a factor, I don’t think abortion is going to be the dominant factor in this particular race.

If she were to win and there’s two black women, I mean that would be the first time that two black women ever served in the Senate at once, and I think they would only be number three and number four in history. So race and Affirmative Action will be factors, but I think that Democrats who might otherwise lean toward him, because he was considered a good governor. He was well-liked. This is a 50-50ish Senate, and that’s the deciding thing for anyone who pays attention, which of course is a whole other can of worms because nobody really pays attention. They just do things.

Roubein: I think it’s also worth noting this tact to the left comes as Maryland voters will be voting on an abortion rights ballot measure in 2024. So that all sort of in context, we’ve seen what’s happened with the other abortion measures, abortion rights have won, so.

Rovner: And Maryland is a really blue state, so one would expect it …

Kenen: There’s no question that the Maryland …

Rovner: Yeah.

Kenen: I mean, and all of us would fall flat on our faces if the abortion measure fails in Maryland. But I believe this is the first one on the ballot alongside a presidential election, and some of them have been in special elections. It’s unclear the correlation between, you can vote for a Republican candidate and still vote for a pro-abortion rights initiative. We will learn a lot more about how that split happens in November. I mean, is Kansas going to go for Biden? Unlikely. But Kansas went really strong for abortion rights. If you’re not a single-issue voter, you can, in fact, have it both ways.

Rovner: Yes, and we are already seeing that in the polls. Well, of course then there is the king of trying to have it both ways: former President Trump. He is either considering restrictions on contraception, as he told an interviewer earlier this week, promising a proposal soon, or he will, all caps, as he put on Truth Social, never advocate imposing restrictions on birth control. So which is it?

Ollstein: So this came out of Trump’s verbal tick of saying “We’ll have a plan in a few weeks,” which he says about everything. But in this context it made it sound like he was leaving the door open to restrictions on contraception, which very well might be the case. So what my colleague and I wrote about is he says he would never restrict contraception. A lot of things he did in his first administration did restrict access to contraception. It was not a ban. Again, we’re getting back into the semantics of ban. It was not a ban, but his Title X rule led to a drop in hundreds of thousands of people accessing contraception. He allowed more kinds of employers to refuse to cover their employees’ contraception on their health plans, and the plans his allies are creating in this Project 2025 blueprint would reimpose those restrictions and go even further in different ways that would have the effect of restricting access to contraception. And so I think this is a good instance of look at what people do, not what they say.

Rovner: So now that we’re on the subject of campaign 2024, President Biden’s campaign launched a $14 million ad buy this week that includes the warning that if Trump becomes president again he’ll try to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Maybe health care will be an issue in this election after all? I don’t have a rooting interest one way or the other. I’m just curious to see how much of an issue health will be beyond reproductive rights.

Kenen: Well, as Alice just pointed out, Trump’s promised plans often do not materialize, and we are still waiting to see his replacement plan eight years later. I think he’s being told to sort of go slow on this. I mean, not that you can control what Trump says, but he didn’t run on health care until the end, in 2016. It was a close race, and he ran against Hillary Clinton, and it was the last 10 or so days that he really came down hard because it was right when ACA enrollment was about to begin and premiums came in and they were high. He pivoted. So is this going to be a health care election from day one? And I’m putting abortion aside for one second in terms of my definition of health care for this particular segment. Is it going to be a health care election in terms of ACA, Medicare, Medicaid? At this point, probably not. But is it going to emerge at various times by one or the other side in politically opportune ways? I would be surprised if Biden’s not raising it. The ACA is thriving under Biden.

Rovner: Well, he is. That’s the whole point. He just took out a $14 million ad buy.

Kenen: Right. But again, we don’t know. Is it a health care election or is it a couple ads? We don’t know. So yes, it’s going to be a health care election because all elections are health care elections. How much it’s defined by health care compared to immigration? No, at this point, that’s not what we’re expecting. Compared to the economy? No, at this point. But is it an issue for some voters? Yes. Is it going to be an issue more prominently depending on how other things play out? It’ll have its peaks. We just don’t know how consistent it’ll be.

Roubein: Biden would love to run on the Inflation Reduction Act and politically popular policies like allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices. One of the problems of that is polls, including from KFF, has shown that the majority of voters don’t know about that. And some of these policies, the big ones, have not even gone into effect. CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is going through the negotiation process, but that’s not going to hit people’s pocketbooks until after the election.

Kenen: The cliff for the ACA subsidies, which is in 2025, I mean I would imagine Democrats will be campaigning on, “We will extend the subsidies,” and again, in some places more than others, but that’s a time-sensitive big thing happening next year.

Rovner: But talk about an issue that people have no idea that’s coming. Well, meanwhile, for Trump, reproductive health isn’t the only issue where he’s doing a not-so-delicate dance. Apparently worried about Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stealing anti-vax [vaccine] votes from him, Trump is now calling RFK Jr. a fake anti-vaxxer. Except I’m old enough to remember when Trump bragged repeatedly about how fast his administration developed and brought the covid vaccine to market. That used to be one of his big selling points. Now he’s trying to be anti-vax, too?

Kenen: Not only did he brag about bringing it to the market. The way he used to talk about it, it was like he was there in his lab coat inventing it. Operation Warp Speed was a success. It got vaccines out in record time, way beyond what many people expected. Democrats gave him credit for that one policy in health care. He got a vaccine out and available in less than a year, and he got vaccinated and boasted about being vaccinated. He was open about it. Now we don’t know if he’s been boosted. He really backed off. As soon as somebody booed him, and it wasn’t a lot of boos, at one rally when he talked about vaccination and he got pushed back, that was the end.

Rovner: So, yeah, so I expect that to sort of continue on this election season, too.

Kenen: But we don’t expect RFK to flip.

Rovner: No, we do not. Right. Well, moving on to this weekend’s “Cyber Hacks,” a new feature, the fallout continues from the hack of Ascension [health care company]. That’s the Catholic hospital system with facilities in 19 states. In Michigan, patients have been unable to use hospital pharmacies and their doctors have been unable to send electronic prescriptions, so they’re having to write them out by hand. And in Indiana orders for tests and test results are being delayed by as much as a day for hospital patients. Not a great thing.

And just in time, or maybe a little late, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, through the newly created ARPA-H [Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health] that we have talked about, this week announced the launch of a new program to help hospitals make security patches and updates to their systems without taking them offline, which is obviously a major reason so many of these systems are so vulnerable to cyberhacking.

Of course, this announcement from HHS is just to solicit ideas for grants to help make that happen. So it’s going to be a while before we get any of these security changes. I’m wondering, how many systems are going to try to build a lot more redundancy into them? In the meantime, are we hearing anything about what they can do in the short term? It feels like the entire health care system is kind of a sitting duck for this group of cyberhackers who think they can get in easily and get ransom.

Kenen: There’s a reason they think that.

Rovner: They can.

Roubein: Thinking about hospitals and doctors using this manually, paper-based system and how that’s delaying getting your results and just there’s been these stories about patients. Like the anxiety that that’s understandably causing patients, and we’ll see sort of whether Congress can grapple with this, and there’s not really much legislation that’s going to move, so …

Kenen: But I was surprised that they were calling on ARPA-H. I mean, that’s supposed to be a biotech- curing-diseases thing, and none of the four of us are cybersecurity experts, and none of us really specialize in covering the electronic side of the digital side of health, but it just seems to me, I just thought that was an odd thing. First of all, some of these are just systems that haven’t been upgraded or individual clinicians who don’t upgrade or don’t do their double authorization. Some of it’s sort of cyberhygiene, and some of it’s obviously like the change thing. They’re really sophisticated criminals, but it’s not something that one would think you can’t get ahead of, right? They’re smart, good-guy technology people. It’s not like the bad guys are the only ones who understand technology. So why are the smart good guys not doing their job? And also, probably, health care systems have to have some kind of security checks on their own members to make sure they are following all the safety rules and some kind of consequences if you’re not, other than being embarrassed.

Rovner: I’ve just been sort of bemused by all of this, how both patients and providers complain loudly and frequently about the frustrations of some of these electronic record systems. And of course, in the places that they’re going down and they’ve had to go back to paper, people are like, “Please give us our electronic systems back.” So it doesn’t take long to get used to some of these things and be sorry when they’re gone, even if it’s only temporarily. It’s obviously been …

Kenen: But like what Rachel said, if you’re in the hospital, you’re sick, and do your clinicians need your lab results? Yes. I mean some of them are more important than others, and I would hope that hospitals are figuring out how to prioritize. But yeah, this is a crisis. If you’re in the hospital and they don’t know what’s wrong with you and they’re trying to figure out do you have X, Y, or Z, waiting until next week is not really a great idea.

Rovner: But it wasn’t that many years ago that their existence …

Kenen: Right, no, no, no.

Rovner: … did not involve …

Kenen: [inaudible 00:21:28].

Rovner: … electronic medical record.

Kenen: Right. Right.

Rovner: They knew how to get test results back and forth even if it was sending an intern to go fetch them. Finally, this week, we have some updates on some stories that we’ve talked about in earlier episodes. First, thanks in part to the excellent reporting of my colleague and sometime-pod-panelist Julie Appleby, the Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden is demanding that HHS [U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] officials do more to rein in rogue insurance brokers who are reaping extra commissions by switching patients’ Affordable Care Act plans without their knowledge, often subjecting them to higher out-of-pocket costs and separating them from the providers that they’ve chosen. Sen. Wyden said he would introduce legislation to make such schemes a crime, but in the meantime he wants Biden officials to do more, given that they have received more than 90,000 complaints in the first quarter of 2024 alone about unauthorized switches and enrollments. Criminals go where the money is, right? You can either cyberhack or you can become a broker and switch people to ACA plans so you can get more commissions.

Kenen: I would think there could be a bipartisan, I mean it’s hard to get anything done in Congress. There’s no must-pass bills in the immediate future that are relevant. And the idea that a broker is secretly doing something that you don’t want them to do and that’s costing you money and making them money. I could see, those 90,000 people are from red and blue states and they vote, it’s going to affect constituents nationwide. Maybe they’ll do something. Maybe the industry can also… There is the National Association … I forgot the acronym, but there’s a broker’s organization, that there are probably things that they can also do to sanction. States can also do some things to brokers, but whether there’s a national solution or piecemeal, I don’t know, but it’s so outrageous that it’s not a right-left issue.

Rovner: Yes, one would think that there’ll be at least some kind of congressional action built into something …

Kenen: Something or other, right.

Rovner: … Congress that manages to do before the end of the year. Well, and in one of those seemingly rare cases where legislation actually does what it was intended to do, the White House this week announced that it has approved more than a million claims under the 2022 PACT Act, which made veterans injured as a result of exposure to burn pits and other toxic substances eligible for VA [Veterans Affairs] disability benefits. On the other hand, the VA is still working its way through another 3 million claims that have been submitted. I feel like even if it’s not very often, sometimes it’s worth noting that there are bipartisan things from Washington, D.C., that actually get passed and actually help the people that they’re supposed to help. It’s kind of sad that this is notable as an exception of something that happened and is working.

Roubein: In sort of the, I guess, Department of Unintended Side Effects here, my colleague Lisa Rein had a really interesting story out this morning that talked about the PACT Act, but basically that despite a federal law that prohibits charging veterans for help in applying for disability benefits, for-profit companies are making millions. She did a review of up to like a hundred unaccredited for-profit companies who have been charging veterans anywhere from like $5,000 to $20,000 for helping file disability claims because …

Rovner: That’s the theme of this week. Anyplace that there’s a lot of money in health care, there were people who will want to come in and take what’s not theirs. That’s where we will leave the news this week. Now we will play my interview with Shefali Luthra, then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my former colleague and current “What The Health?” panelist Shefali Luthra. You haven’t heard from her in a while because she’s been working on her first book, called “Undue Burden,” that’s out this week. Shefali, great to see you.

Luthra: Thank you so much for having me Julie.

Rovner: So as the title suggests, “Undue Burden” is about the difficulties for both patients and providers in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade. We talk so much about the politics of this issue, and so little about the real people who are affected. Why did you want to take this particular angle?

Luthra: To me, this is what makes this topic so important. Health care and abortion are really critical political issues. They sway elections. They are likely to be very consequential in this coming presidential election. But this matters to us as reporters and to us as people because of the life-or-death stakes and even beyond the life-or-death stakes, the stakes of how you choose to live your life and what it means to be pregnant and to be a parent. These are really difficult stories to tell because of the resources involved. And I wanted to write a book that just got at all of the different reasons why people pursue abortion and why they provide abortion and how that’s changed in the past two years. Because it felt to me like one of the few ways we could really understand just how seismic the implications of overturning Roe has been.

Rovner: And unlike those of us who talk to politicians all the time, you were really on the ground talking to patients and doctors, right?

Luthra: That was really, really important to the book. I spent a lot of time traveling the country, in clinics talking to people who were able to get abortions, who were unable to get abortions, and it was just really compelling for me to see how much access to care had the capacity to change their lives.

Rovner: So what kind of barriers then are we talking about that cropped up? And I guess it wasn’t even just the wake of the overturn of Roe. In Texas we had sort of a yearlong dry run.

Luthra: Exactly, and the book starts before Roe is overturned in Texas when the state enacted SB 8, the six-week abortion ban that effectively cut off access. And the first main character readers meet is this young girl named Tiffany, and she’s a teenager when she becomes pregnant, and she would love to get an abortion. But she is a minor. She lives very far from any abortion provider. She does not know how to self-manage an abortion. She does not know where to find pills. She has no connections into the health care system. She has no independent income. And she absolutely cannot travel anywhere for care. As a result, she has a child before she turns 18. And what this story highlights is that there are just so many barriers to getting an abortion. Many already existed: The incredible cost for procedure not covered by health insurance, the geographic distance, people already had to travel, the extra restrictions on minors.

But the overturning of Roe has amplified these, it is so expensive to get an abortion. It can be difficult to know you’re pregnant, especially if you are not trying to become pregnant. You have a very short time window. You may need to find childcare. You may need to find a car, get time off work, and bring all of these different forces together so that you are able to make a journey that can be days and pay for a trip that can cost thousands of dollars.

Rovner: One of the things that I think surprised me was that states that proclaimed themselves abortion “havens” actually did so little to help their clinics that predictably got swamped by out-of-state patients. Why do you think that was the case, and is it any better now?

Luthra: I think things have certainly changed. We have seen much more action in states, such as Illinois, where we see more people traveling there for care than anywhere else in the country. But it is worth going back to the summer that Roe was overturned. The governor promised to call a special session and put all these resources into making sure that Illinois could be a sanctuary. He never called that special session. And clinics felt like they were hanging out to dry, just waiting to get some support, and in the meanwhile, doing the absolute best they could.

One thing that I think this book really gets at is we are starting to see more efforts from these bluer states, the Illinois, the Californias, the New Yorks, and they talk a lot about wanting to be abortion havens, in part because it’s great politics if you’re a Democrat, but there’s only so much you can do. California has seen also quite a large increase in out-of-state patients. But I’ve spoken to so many people who just cannot conceivably go to California. They can barely go to Illinois. Making that journey when you are young, if you don’t have a lot of money, if you live in South Texas, if you live in Louisiana, it’s just not really feasible. And the places that are set up as these access points just can’t really fill in the gaps that they say they will.

Rovner: As you point out in the book, a lot of this was completely predictable. Was there something in your reporting that actually did surprise you?

Luthra: That’s a great question, and what did surprise me was in part something that we’ve begun to see borne out in the reporting, is there are very effective telemedicine strategies. We have begun to see physicians living in blue states, the New Yorks, Massachusetts, Californias, prescribing and mailing abortion pills to people in states with bans. This is pretty powerful. It has expanded access to a lot of people. What was really striking to me, though, even as I reported about the experiences of patients seeking care, is that while that has done so much to expand access in the face of abortion bans, it isn’t a solution that everyone can use. There were lots of people I met who did not want a medication abortion, who did not feel safe having pills mailed into their homes, or whose pregnancy complications and questions were just too complex to be solved by a virtual consult and then pills being mailed to them to take in the comfort of their house.

Rovner: Aren’t these difficulties exactly what the anti-abortion movement wanted? Didn’t they want clinics so swamped they couldn’t serve everybody who wanted to come, and abortion to be so difficult to get that women would end up carrying their pregnancies to term instead?

Luthra: Yes and no, I would argue. I think you are absolutely right that one of the primary goals of the anti-abortion movement was to make abortion unavailable, to make it harder to acquire, to have more people not get abortions and instead have children. But when I speak to folks in the anti-abortion movement, they are very troubled by how many people are traveling out of state to get care. They see those really long wait times in Kansas, in, until recently, Florida, in Illinois, in New Mexico, as a symptom of something that they need to address, which is that so many people are still finding a way to fight incredible odds to access abortion.

Rovner: Is there one thing that you hope people take away after they’re finished reading this?

Luthra: There are two things that I have spent a lot of time thinking about as I’ve reported this book. The first is just who gets abortions and under what circumstances. And so often in the national press, in national politics, we talk about these really extreme life-or-death cases. We talk about people who became septic and needed an abortion because their water broke early, or we talk about children who have been sexually assaulted and become pregnant. But we don’t talk about most people who get abortions; who are usually mothers, who are usually people of color, who are in their 20s and just know that they can’t be pregnant. I think those are really important stories to tell because they’re the true face of who is most affected by this, and it was important to me that this book include that.

The other thing that I have thought about so often in reporting this and writing this is abortion demands have an unequal impact. That is true if you are poor, if you are a person of color, if you live in a rural area, et cetera. You will in all likelihood see a greater effect. That said, the overturning of Roe v. Wade is so tremendous that it has affected people in every state. It affects you if you can get pregnant. It affects you if you want birth control. It affects you if you require reproductive health care in some form. This is just such a seismic change to our health care system that I really hope people who read this book understand that this is not a niche issue. This is something worthy of our collective attention and concern as journalists and as people.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra, thank you so much for this, and we will see you soon on the panel, right?

Luthra: Absolutely. Thank you, Julie. I’m so glad we got to do this.

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. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week?

Kenen: This was a pair of articles, a long one and a shorter, related one. There’s an amazingly wonderful piece in ProPublica by Sharon Lerner, and it’s called “Toxic Gaslighting: How 3M Executives Convinced a Scientist the Forever Chemicals She Found in Human Blood Were Safe.” I’m going to come back and talk about it briefly in a second, but the related story was in The Guardian by Damian Carrington: “Microplastics Found in Every Human Testicle in Study.” Now, that was a small study, but there may be a link to the declining sperm count because of these forever chemicals.

The ProPublica story, it was a young woman scientist. She worked for 3M. They kept telling her her results was wrong, her machinery was dirty, over and over and over again until she questioned herself and her findings. She was supposed to be looking at the blood of 3M workers who were, it turned out, the company knew all this already and they were hiding it, and she compared the blood of the 3M workers to non-3M workers, and she found these plastic chemicals in everybody’s blood everywhere, and she was basically gaslit out of her job. She continued to work for 3M, but in a different capacity.

The article’s really scary about the impact for human health. It also has wonderfully interesting little nuggets throughout about how various 3M products were developed, some by accident. Something spilled on somebody’s sneaker and it didn’t stain it, and that’s how we got those sprays for our upholstery. Or somebody needed something to find the pages in their church hymnal, and that’s how we got Post-it notes. It’s a devastating but very readable, and it makes you angry.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like there’s a lot more we’re going to have to say about forever chemicals going forward. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a pretty depressing story from Stats. It’s called “How Doctors Are Pressuring Sickle Cell Patients Into Unwanted Sterilizations,” by Eric Boodman. And it is about people with sickle cell, and that is overwhelmingly black women, and they felt pressured to agree to be permanently sterilized when they were going to give birth because of the higher risks. And the doctors said, because we’re already doing a C-section and we’re already doing surgery on you, to not have to do an additional surgery with additional risks, they felt pressured to just sign that they could be sterilized right then and there and came to regret it later and really wanted more children. And so, this is an instance of people feeling coerced, and when people think about pro-choice or the choice debate about reproduction they mostly think about the right to an abortion. But I think that the right to have more children, if you want to, is the other side of that coin.

Rovner: It is. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, it’s called “What Science Tells Us About Biden, Trump and Evaluating an Aging Brain,” by Joel Achenbach and Mark Johnson from The Washington Post. And basically, they kind of took a very science-based look at the 2024 election. They basically called it a crash course in gerontology because former President Donald Trump will be 78 years old. President Biden will be a couple weeks away from turning 82. And obviously that is getting a lot of attention on the campaign trail. They talked to medical and scientific experts who were essentially warning that news reports, political punditry about the candidates’ mental fitness, has essentially been marred by misinformation here about the aging process. One of the things they dived into was these gaffes or what the public sees as senior moments and what experts had told them is, that’s not necessarily a sign of dementia or predictive of cognitive decline. There need to be kind of further clinical evaluation for that. But there have been some calls for just how to kind of standardize and require a certain level of transparency for candidates in terms of disclosing their health information.

Rovner: Yes, which we’ve been talking about for a while, and will continue to. My extra credit this week is from our guest, Shefali Luthra, and her colleague at The 19th Chabeli Carrazana, and it’s called “What Happens to Clinics After a State Bans Abortion? They Fight To Survive.” And for all the talk about doctors and other staffers either moving out of or not moving into states with abortion bans, I think less has been written about entire enterprises that often provide far more than just abortion services having to shut down as well. We saw this in Texas in the mid-2010s, when a law that shut down many of the clinics there was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2016. But many of those clinics were unable to reopen. They just could not reassemble, basically, their leases and equipment and staff. The same could well happen in states that this November vote to reverse some of those bans. And it’s not just abortion, as we’ve discussed. When these clinics close, it often means less family planning, less STI [sexually transmitted infection] screening and other preventive services as well, so it’s definitely something to continue to watch.

Before we go this week, I want to note the passing of a health policy journalism giant with the death of Marshall Allen. Marshall, who worked tirelessly, first in Las Vegas and more recently at ProPublica, to expose some of the most unfair and infuriating parts of the U.S. health care system, was on the podcast in 2021 to talk about his book, “Never Pay the First Bill, and Other Ways to Fight the Health Care System and Win.” I will post a link to the interview in this week’s show notes. Condolences to Marshall’s friends and family.

OK, 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 comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner. Joanne, where are you?

Kenen: We’re at Threads @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: Still on X @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: On X, @rachel_roubein.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to 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).