The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Emmarie Huetteman, senior editor, oversees a team of Washington reporters, as well as “Bill of the Month” and KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” She previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail. 

Recent comments from former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers preview potential health policy pursuits under a second Trump administration. Trump is yet again eyeing changes to the Affordable Care Act, while key lawmakers want to repeal Medicare drug price negotiations.

Also, this week brought news of the first publicly reported death attributed to delayed care under a state abortion ban. Vice President Kamala Harris said the death shows the consequences of Trump’s actions to block abortion access.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and the Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sen. JD Vance (R-Ohio), Trump’s running mate, says Trump is interested in loosening ACA rules to make cheaper policies available. While the campaign has said little about what Trump would do or how it would work, the changes could include eliminating protections against higher premiums for those with preexisting conditions. Republicans would also likely let enhanced subsidies for ACA premiums expire.
• Key Republican lawmakers said this week that they’re interested in repealing the Inflation Reduction Act’s provisions enabling Medicare drug pricing negotiations. Should Trump win, that stance could create intraparty tensions with the former president, who has vowed to “take on Big Pharma.”
• A state review board in Georgia ruled that the death in 2022 of a 28-year-old mother, after her doctors delayed performing a dilatation and curettage procedure, was preventable. Harris tied the death to Trump’s efforts to overturn Roe v. Wade, which included appointing three Supreme Court justices who voted to eliminate the constitutional right to an abortion.
• And in health tech news, the FDA has separately green-lighted two new Apple product functions: an Apple Watch feature that assesses the wearer’s risk of sleep apnea, and an AirPods feature that turns the earbuds into hearing aids.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: The Washington Post’s “What Warning Labels Could Look Like on Your Favorite Foods,” by Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein. 

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “At Catholic Hospitals, a Mission of Charity Runs Up Against High Care Costs for Patients,” by Rachana Pradhan. 

Tami Luhby: Politico Magazine’s “Doctors Are Leaving Conservative States To Learn To Perform Abortions. We Followed One,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein. 

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “This Chatbot Pulls People Away From Conspiracy Theories,” by Teddy Rosenbluth, and The Atlantic’s “When Fact-Checks Backfire,” by Jerusalem Demsas. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

ProPublica’s “Abortion Bans Have Delayed Emergency Medical Care. In Georgia, Experts Say This Mother’s Death Was Preventable,” by Kavitha Surana.

Click to Open the Transcript

Transcript: American Health Under Trump — Past, Present, and Future

[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.] 

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello, and welcome back to “What The Health?” I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a senior editor for KFF Health News and the regular editor on this podcast. I’m filling in for Julie this week, joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping on Thursday, September 19th, 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’re joined today, by videoconference, by Tami Luhby of CNN. 

Tami Luhby: Good morning. 

Huetteman: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Huetteman: And Joanne Kenan of Politico and Johns Hopkins University Schools of Nursing and Public Health. 

Joanne Kenan: Hi everybody. 

Huetteman: No interview this week, so let’s get right to the news, shall we? It’s big, it’s popular, and if Donald Trump reclaims the presidency, it could be on the chopping block again. Yes, I’m talking, of course, about the Affordable Care Act. Over the weekend, Senator JD Vance claimed that Trump had “protected Americans” insured under the ACA from “losing their health coverage.” Trump himself made a similar claim during the recent debate, where he also said he has the “concepts of a plan” for health reform. Vance, who is Trump’s running mate, suggested the GOP could loosen regulations to make cheaper policies available. But otherwise, the Trump campaign has not said much about what his administration might change. 

Meanwhile, Vice President Kamala Harris has backed off her own plan to change the ACA. You may remember that when she was running for president in 2019, Harris embraced a “Medicare for All” plan. Now, Harris says she plans to build on the existing health system rather than replace it. So let’s talk about what Trump might do as president. What sort of changes could Trump implement to make policies cheaper, as Vance has suggested? 

Luhby: Well, one of the things that Vance has talked about, when he talks about deregulating the market, giving people more choice of plans, it’s actually separating people, the healthier people and the sicker enrollees, into separate, different risk pools, which is what existed before the ACA. And that may be, actually, better for the healthy people. That might lower their premiums. But it would cause a lot of problems for sicker enrollees, those with chronic health conditions or serious illnesses, because they would see their premium skyrocket. And this is one of the reasons why health care was so unaffordable for many people prior to the ACA. So Vance says that he wants to protect people with preexisting conditions. That’s what everyone says. It’s a very popular and well-known provision of the ACA. But by separating people into different risk pools, it would actually hurt people with preexisting conditions, because it may make their health insurance unaffordable. 

Kenan: The difference between pre-ACA and post-ACA is it might actually even be as bad or possibly worse for people with preexisting conditions. Right now, everybody’s in one unified risk pool, right? Whether you’re sick or healthy, your costs, more or less, get averaged out, and that’s how premiums are calculated. Before ACA, people with preexisting conditions just couldn’t get covered necessarily, or if they got covered, it was sky-high, the premiums. By doing what Tami just described, the people, presumably, in the riskiest pool, the sickest people, the insurers would have to offer them coverage. They couldn’t say, “No, you’re sick, you can’t have it,” because there’s guaranteed coverage. But it would be sky-high. So it would be de facto no insurance for most of those people unless the government were to subsidize them to a really high extent, which I didn’t hear JD Vance mention the other day. 

Luthra: Right. 

Luhby: And one of the other things that they talked about, more choice. I mean, one of the issues that a lot of people complained about in the ACA, early on, was that they didn’t want substance abuse coverage. There’s 10 health-essential benefits which every insurer has to cover — pregnancy, maternal care, et cetera. And 60-year-old men or even 60-year-old women said: Why am I paying for this? This is making my plan more expensive. But again, as Joanne said, it’s evening out the costs among everyone so that it’s making health care more affordable for everyone. And if you allow people to start picking and choosing what benefits they want covered, it’s going to make the plans more expensive for those who need the higher-cost care. 

Luthra: Tami alluded to something that is really important, which is that these conditions we’re talking about are very common. A lot of people get pregnant, for example. A lot of people have chronic health conditions. We are not the healthiest country in the world. And so when you think about who would be affected by this, it’s quite a large number of Americans who would no longer be able to get affordable health coverage and a small group of people who probably would. Because, I mean, one thing that’s worth noting —right? — is even if you are healthy for a time, that’s a transient state. And you can be healthy when you are young and get older and suddenly have knee problems, and then things look very different. 

Huetteman: It seems like if they use the exact words, “preexisting-condition protections,” and said they were trying to roll them back in order to make policies cheaper, that might be just a bad political move all around. Preexisting-condition protections are pretty popular, right? 

Luhby: Yes, they certainly are. But that’s why they’re saying they’re going to continue it. But what’s also popular is choice. And that’s been one of the knocks against the Affordable Care Act, is that, while there are a lot of plans out there, they do have to conform to certain requirements, and therefore that gives people less choice. I mean, and remember, one of the things that we started by talking about, what a second Trump administration might look like for health care. One of the things the first Trump administration did is loosen the rules on short-term plans, which don’t have to conform to the ACA. And prior, they were available for a short time as a bridge between policies, but the Trump administration lengthened them to up to three years. And the goal of the Trump administration was that people would have more choice. They could pick skinnier plans that they felt would cover them. But they didn’t always realize that if they got into a car accident, if they were diagnosed with cancer, if something bad happened, they did not have all of the protections that ACA plans have. 

Huetteman: Joanne, you have something to add. 

Kenan: So the first thing is that they spent years and a lot of political capital trying and failing to repeal the ACA or to make major changes in the ACA. The reason it failed is because even then, when the ACA was sort of quasi-popular and there was a lot of controversy still, the preexisting-condition part was extremely popular. Since then, the ACA has become even more popular. What [former President Barack] Obama said when he was speaking to the Democratic National Committee convention the other night — remember that aside where he said, Hey, they don’t call it Obamacare anymore now that it’s popular. It is popular. You’ve even had Republican senators going on record saying it’s here to stay. 

So major overhaul of it is, politically, not going to be popular. Plus, the Republicans, even if they capture the Senate, which is what most of the prognosticators are saying right now, it would be a small majority. If the Republicans have 51, 52, none of us know exactly what’s going to happen, because we’re in a rather rapidly changing political environment. But say the Republicans capture the Senate and say Trump is in the White House. They’re not going to have 60 votes. They’re not going to have anywhere near 60 votes. I’m not even sure if there was a way to do this under reconciliation, which would require 51. I’m not sure they have 51 votes. So and then if they do it through some kind of regulatory approach — which I think is harder to do, something this massive, but people find a way — then it ends up in court. 

So I think it’s politically unfeasible, and I think it’s practically unfeasible. I think there are smaller things they could do to weaken it. I mean, they did last time, and coverage dropped under Trump, last time. I mean, they could not promote it. They could not market it. They could not have navigators helping people. There’s lots of things they could do to shrink it and damage it, but there’s a difference between denting something and having a frontal collision. And we’ve all seen Vance have to roll back other things that he’s predicted Trump would do, so this is very TBD. 

Huetteman: One of the bigger issues with the ACA going into next year is these enhanced subsidies that Joe Biden implemented under the pandemic, that helped a lot of people pay for their premiums, will expire at the end of 2025. And depending on which party has control after this election, that could decide the fate of the subsidies. Joanne, you had something to add on this. 

Kenan: That’s the big vulnerability. And it’s not so much, are they going to repeal it or define their concept of a plan? I mean, the subsidies are vulnerable because they expire without action, and they’re part of a larger debate that’s going to happen no matter who wins the presidency and no matter who wins Congress. It’s that a lot of the tax cuts expire in 2025. The subsidies are part of that tax, but many aspects of the tax bill are going to be a huge issue no matter who’s in charge. 

The subsidies are vulnerable, right? Republicans think that they went too high. Basically those subsidies let more middle-class people with a higher income get ACA subsidies, so insurance is more affordable. And quite a few million people — Tami might remember how many, because I don’t — are getting subsidized this way. It’s not free. They don’t get the biggest subsidies as somebody who’s lower-income, but they are getting enough subsidies that we saw ACA enrollment go up. That is where the big political battle over the ACA is inevitable. I mean, that is going to happen no matter what else happens around aspects of repealing or redesigning or anything else. This is inevitable. They expire unless there’s action. There will be a fight. 

Luhby: Yeah, these— 

Kenan: And I don’t know how it’ll turn out, right? 

Luhby: These subsidies were created as part of the American Rescue Plan in 2021 and were extended for two years as part of the Inflation Reduction Act, which the Republicans don’t like. And they have, as Joanne said, they’ve allowed more middle-class people to come in, and also, they’re more generous subsidies than in the past. Plus they’ve made policies free for a lot of lower-income people. Folks can get these policies without premiums. So enrollment has skyrocketed, in large part because of these subsidies. Now there are more than 20 million people enrolled. It’s a record. So the Biden administration would like to keep that intact, especially if Harris wins the presidency. But it will be a big fight in Congress next year, as part of the overall Tax Cuts and Jobs Act negotiations, and we’ll see what the Democrats might have to give up in order to retain the subsidies. The— 

Kenan: It’s going to be, yeah. 

Luhby: Enhanced subsidies. 

Kenan: There are deals to be had with tax cuts versus subsidies, because these are large, sprawling bills with many moving parts. But it’s way too early to know if Republicans are willing to deal on this and what a deal would look like. We’re nowhere near there. But yeah, if you talk about ACA battles in 2025, that’s number one. 

Huetteman: Well, speaking of health policies that are on the GOP agenda, some high-ranking Republican lawmakers are saying they want to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act if the party wins big in November, particularly the part that enables Medicare drug negotiations. You may recall their objections from when Congress passed the law two years ago. Republicans argue the negotiations harm innovation and amount to government price controls. But on the other hand, drug prices are an issue where Trump kind of sort of agrees with Democrats. He has promised to “take on Big Pharma.” Does this mean we could see a Republican Congress fighting with Trump over drug price negotiations? 

Luhby: Well, he did have a lot of executive orders and a lot of efforts that were very un-Republican-like. One was called Most Favored Nation. He didn’t say that we should do negotiations. We were just going to piggyback on the negotiations done in other countries and get their lower prices. He didn’t really get very far in a lot of those measures, so it didn’t come to a fight with the Republican Congress. But he may leave the negotiation process alone, the next set of drugs, that’ll be 15 drugs, that, we’ll find out next year, that will be negotiated. So he could leave that alone. If he tries to expand it, yeah, he may have some problems with the Republican Congress. But as we’ve also seen, a Republican Congress has acquiesced to his demands in the past. 

Huetteman: And Congress certainly has no shortage of battles teed up for 2025, of course. Speaking of, here we are again. Yesterday, in the House of Representatives, Democrats and Republicans joined together to defeat a stopgap spending bill that would’ve kept the government open. To be sure they didn’t have the same objections, Democrats opposed a Republican amendment that would impose new voter registration requirements about proving citizenship. And hard-right Republicans objected to the size of the temporary spending bill, $1.6 trillion. Trump weighed in on social media, calling on Republicans to oppose any government spending bill at all, unless it comes with a citizenship measure. 

Now, Senate Republican leaders, in particular, are not thrilled about this. Here are the words of [Senate minority Leader] Mitch McConnell, who said it better than I can: “It would be politically beyond stupid for us to do that right before the election, because certainly, we’d get the blame” for that government shutdown. What happens now? 

Kenan: Last-minute agreement, like, I feel. I used to cover the Hill full time. I no longer do, but it was, like, late nights standing in the hallway for a last-minute reprieve. At some point, they’re going to probably keep the government open, but with Trump’s demands and the citizenship proof of a life for voters and all that, it’s going to be really messy. Mike Johnson became speaker after a whole bunch of other speakers failed to keep the government open. 

Huetteman: That’s right. 

Kenan: Probation spell, we went through chaos, he has a small majority. He survived because the Democrats intervened on his behalf once, because of Ukraine. We have no idea the dynamics of — do the Democrats want to see complete chaos so the Republicans get blamed? Who knows? I don’t think it’s going to be a handshake tomorrow and Let’s do a deal. What they usually do is continue current spending levels and what they call a continuing resolution. So you keep status quo for one month, two months, three months, sometimes 10 months. The odds are, the government will stay open at some kind of a last-minute patchwork deal that nobody particularly likes, but that’s likely. I wouldn’t say that certain. Republicans have backed off shutting the government down for a while now, a couple of years. 

Huetteman: It’s worth noting, though, that even this bill that they just voted down would’ve only kicked the can down to March. So we are still talking about something that the new Congress would have to deal with pretty quickly, even if we can get something done short-term. But we’ve got a lot of news today. So moving on to reproductive health news. 

This week, Senate Republicans, again, blocked a bill that would’ve guaranteed access to in vitro fertilization nationwide. That federal bill would, of course, have overridden state laws that restrict access to the procedure. You may recall that Republicans also blocked that bill earlier this summer, describing it as a political show vote. And indeed, Democrats are trying to get Republicans on the record, opposing IVF, in order to draw contrast with the GOP before voters go to the polls. What do we think? Did Democrats succeed here in showing voters their lawmakers really think about IVF? 

Luthra: I mean, realistically, yes, I think this is a very effective strategy for Democrats. If they could talk about abortion and IVF every day, all day, they would. We can look at Taylor Swift’s endorsement of Kamala Harris and [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz. She specifically mentions reproductive rights, and she mentions IVF in particular, noting that she thinks that these are the candidates who will support access to that fertility regimen. IVF is very popular, and it is obviously going to be a major battle, because it is the next frontier for the anti-abortion movement, and the Republican Party is allied very closely to this movement. Even if there have been more fractures emerging lately, I just don’t see how Republicans can find a way to make this a political winner for them, unless they figure out a way to change their tune, at least temporarily, without alienating that ally they have. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. And meanwhile, speaking of the consequences of these actions on abortion lately, this week we learned of the first publicly reported death from delayed care under a state abortion ban. ProPublica reported the heart-wrenching story of a 28-year-old mother in Georgia who died in 2022 after her doctors held off on performing a D&C [dilation and curettage procedure]. Performing a D&C in Georgia is a felony, with a few exceptions. Sorry, this is difficult to talk about, especially if you or someone you know has needed a D&C, and that may be a lot of us, whether we know it or not. 

Her name was Amber Thurman. Amber needed the D&C because she was suffering from a rare complication after taking the abortion pill. She developed a serious infection, and she died on the operating table. Georgia’s Maternal Mortality Review Committee determined that Amber Thurman’s death was preventable. ProPublica says at least one other woman has died from being unable to access illegal abortions and timely medical care. And as the story said, “There are almost certainly others.” On Tuesday, Vice President Harris said Amber’s death shows the consequences of Trump’s actions to block abortion access. How does this affect the national conversation about abortion? Does it change anything? 

Luthra: I mean, it should, and I don’t think it’s that simple. And it’s tough, because, I mean, these stories are incredible pieces of journalism, and what they show us are that two women are dead because of abortion bans — and that there are almost certainly many more, because these deaths were in 2022, very soon after the Dobbs decision. And what has been really striking, at the same time, is that the anti-abortion movement has very clear talking points on these deaths. And they’re doing what we have seen them do, in so many cases, where women have almost lost their lives, and now, in these cases where they have, which is they blame the doctors. And they have been going out of their way to argue that, actually, the exceptions that exist in these laws are very clear, even though doctor after doctor will tell you they are not, and that it is the doctor’s fault for not providing care when there is very obviously an exception. 

They are also arguing that this is further proof that medication abortion, which is responsible for the vast majority of abortions in this country, is unsafe, even though, as you noted and as these stories noted, the complications these women experienced are very rare and could be addressed and treated for and do not have to be fatal if you have access to health care and doctors who are not handcuffed by your state’s abortion laws. And so what I think happens then is this is something that should matter and that should change our conversation. And there are people talking about this and making clear that this is because of the reproductive health world that we live in, but I don’t think it will necessarily change the course of where we are headed, despite the fact that what abortion opponents are saying is not true and despite the fact that these abortion bans remain very unpopular. 

Kenan: I think you can, and she said it really well, but I think in terms of, does it change minds? Think about the two bumper stickers, right? One is “Abortion bans kill,” and the other one is “The abortion pill kills.” And both of these women had medication abortions. Those side effects are very, very, very unusual, that dangerous side effects, are extremely unusual. There’s years of data, there’s like no drug on Earth that is a hundred percent, a thousand percent, a hundred thousand percent safe. So these were tragedies in which the women did develop severe life-threatening side effects, didn’t get the proper treatment. But think about your bumper stickers. I don’t think this changes a lot of minds. 

Huetteman: All right. Well, unfortunately we will keep watching for this and more news on this subject. But in state news, Nevada will become the 18th state to use its Medicaid funds to cover abortions after a recent court ruling. While federal funds are generally barred from paying for abortions, states do have more flexibility to use their own Medicaid funds to cover the procedure. And, North Dakota’s abortion ban has been overturned, after a judge ruled that the state’s constitution protects a woman’s right to an abortion until the fetus is viable. But there’s a bigger challenge: The state has no abortion clinics left. We’ve talked a lot on this podcast about how overturning Roe has effectively created new, largely geographical classes of haves and have-nots, people who can access abortion care and people who can’t. It seems like the lesson out of North Dakota right now is that evening that playing field isn’t as simple as changing the law, yes? 

Luthra: Absolutely. And this is something that we have seen even before Roe was overturned. I mean, an example that I think about a lot is Texas, which had had this very big abortion law passed in 2013, and it was litigated in the courts, was in and out of effect before it went to the Supreme Court and was largely struck down. But clinics closed in the meantime. And what that tells us is that when clinics close, they largely don’t reopen. It is very, very hard to open an abortion clinic. It is expensive. It can be dangerous because of harassment. You need to find providers. You need to build up a medical infrastructure that doesn’t exist. And we are seeing several states with ballot measures to try to undo abortion bans in their states — Florida, Missouri, Nebraska with their 12-week ban. We are seeing efforts across the country to try and restore access to these states. 

But the question is exactly what you pointed out, which is there is a right in name and there is a right in practice. And for all the difficulties of creating a right in name, creating a right in practice is even harder. And there is just so much more that we will need to be following as journalists, and also as people who consume health care, to fully see what it takes for people to be able to get reproductive health care, including abortion, after they have lost it. 

Huetteman: All right. And with fewer than 50 days left until Election Day and way fewer before early voting begins, a court in Nebraska has ruled that competing abortion rights measures can appear on the ballot there this fall. Two measures, one that would expand access and one that would restrict it, qualified for the ballot. Nebraska will be the first state to ask residents to vote on two opposing abortion ballot measures. Currently, the state bans abortion in most cases, starting at 12 weeks. There are at least nine other states with ballot measures to protect abortion rights this fall, but this one’s pretty unusual. What do we think? Will this be confusing to Nebraska voters? 

Luthra: I mean, I imagine if I were a voter, I would be confused. Most people don’t follow the ins and outs of what’s on their ballot until you get close to Election Day and you are bombarded with advertisements. And I think this is really striking, because it is just part of, I guess, maybe not long, because this only happened two years ago, but part of a repeated pattern of abortion opponents trying to find different ways to get around the fact that ballot measures restoring abortion rights or protecting abortion rights largely win. And so how do you find a way around that? You can try and create confusion. You can try and raise the threshold for approval like they tried and failed to do in Ohio. You can, maybe in Nebraska this is more effective, put multiple measures on the ballot. You can try, as they tried and failed to do in Missouri, try and stop something from appearing on the ballot. 

And I think this is just something that we need to watch and see. Is this the thing that finally sticks? Does this finally undercut efforts to use direct voting to restore abortion rights? Which we should also note is a strategy with an expiration date of sorts, because not every state allows for this direct democracy approach. And we’re actually hitting the end of the list of states very soon where this is a viable strategy. 

Huetteman: And as we know, every state where a ballot measure has addressed this issue since Roe was overturned has fallen on the side of abortion rights, ultimately. It’ll be curious to see what happens here, where voters have both choices right before them. 

Well, let’s wrap up with tech news this week. Are you wearing an Apple Watch right now? Or maybe you’re listening to us on AirPods? Well, that watch could soon tell you if you might have sleep apnea. Or, if you have trouble hearing, those earbuds could soon help you hear better. The FDA has given separate green lights to two new Apple product functions. One is an Apple Watch change that assesses the wearer’s risk of sleep apnea. And the FDA also authorized Apple AirPods as the first over-the-counter hearing-aid software, to assist those with mild to moderate hearing loss. Hearing aids can be pretty expensive, and some resist wearing them due to stigma or stubbornness. What does this mean for people with these conditions, and also about the possibilities for health tech? 

Kenan: I mean, none of us are covering the FDA’s tech division full time or even much at all. So basically there’s been a trend toward sort of overlap with consumer and health products. Many of us have something on our wrists or something in our phone that is monitoring something or other, and there’s been some controversy about how accurate some of them are. My understanding with the sleep apnea thing, that it doesn’t actually diagnose it. It tracks your sleep patterns, and if it sees some red flags, it says: You might have sleep apnea. You should go see a doctor. That’s what I think that does. 

Huetteman: That’s right. 

Kenan: You’re asleep when you’re having sleep apnea. You don’t necessarily know what’s happening. So it’s arguably a useful thing that you have kind of an alert system. The hearing aids, it’s not just these. The FDA, a few months ago, authorized more over-the-counter hearing aids of various types, which have made them much cheaper and much more accessible. This is an advance, another category, another type to have people wearing earbuds anyway. I know people who have the over-the-counter hearing aids, and they are small and cheap, so that industry has really been disrupted by tech. So we are seeing not necessarily some of the sky-in-the-pie promises of health and tech from a few years ago but some useful things for consumers to either make things more accessible or affordable, like the earbuds — although I would lose them — or just a useful tool or a potentially useful tool, I don’t know how great the data is, saying ask your doctor about this. Sleep apnea is dangerous. 

So my mom is about to turn 90, and we have a fall monitor on her watch that we actually pay for, an extra service, that they alert emergency. I was with her once when she fell. They called her and said, Are you okay? And she said, Yes, my daughter’s here and et cetera. Except, at 90, she still plays pingpong, doubles pingpong, not a lot of movement for 90 year olds, and it does get the fall monitor very confused. I think it’s been trained. So yeah, I mean, it’s not that expensive, and it’s great peace of mind. People would much rather have it on their watch, because young cool people wear smartwatches, than those buttons around their neck. I would’ve never gotten my mother to wear a button around her neck. So it’s part of a larger trend of tech becoming a health tool, and it’s not a panacea, but the affordability for over-the-counter hearing aids is a big deal. 

Huetteman: Right, right. This is expanded access. If you’ve got this consumer product already in your pocket, on your wrist, in your ears, why not have it help with your health? We’ve already kind of adjusted, in many ways, to health tech. We had Fitbits. We’ve had things that have tracked our heart rates and that sort of thing, or even our phones can do that at this point. But hearing aids, in many cases for people who have mild or moderate hearing loss, they don’t even go for a hearing aid, because they don’t want to be stigmatized as being maybe a little older and being unable to hear, even if they might just muddle through. But if you’ve already got those AirPods in, because you’re going to take a call later, I mean, that’s pretty below the radar. You don’t have to feel too self-conscious about that one, so … 

Kenan: Yeah, my mom would look cool, but she actually doesn’t need them, so that’s OK. 

Huetteman: If she’s playing pingpong at her age, she already looks cool. 

Kenan: She plays pingpong very slowly. I hope I’m doing the equivalent when I’m 90. I hope I’m 90, you know? 

Huetteman: Hear, hear. 

Kenan: You know. 

Huetteman: OK, that’s this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links in the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes, on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, why don’t you go first this week? 

Luthra: All right. My story is from KFF Health News by the great Rachana Pradhan. The headline is, “At Catholic Hospitals, a Mission of Charity Runs Up Against High Care Costs for Patients.” The story is one of my favorite genres of stories, which is stories about how everyone loves their hospital and their hospital is a business. And Rachana does a great job looking at the history of Catholic hospitals and the extent to which they were founded as these beacons of charitable care meant to improve the community. But actually, when you look at where Catholic hospitals are now — and Catholic hospitals have really proliferated in the past several years — they look a lot like businesses and a lot less like charities. There’s some fascinating patient stories and also analyses in here, showing that Catholic hospitals are less likely than other nonprofit hospitals to treat Medicaid patients. They are great at going after patients for unpaid medical bills, including suing them, garnishing wages, reporting them to credit bureaus. It’s really great. It’s the exact kind of journalism that I think we need more of, and I love this story, and I hope others do, too. 

Huetteman: Excellent. It is a great piece of journalism. We hope everyone will take some time to read it. Tami, why don’t you go? 

Luhby: OK. My extra credit is an in-depth piece by one of our very own, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and it’s titled, “Doctors Are Leaving Conservative States to Perform Abortions. We Followed One.” So Alice followed a doctor who spent a month in Delaware learning how to perform abortions, because she couldn’t obtain that training in her home state, across the country. Alice notes that Politico granted the doctor anonymity due to her fear of professional repercussions and the threat of physical violence for seeking abortion training, which is concerning to hear. While many stories have written about states’ abortion bans, Alice’s piece provides a different perspective. She writes about the lengths the doctors must go to obtain training in the procedure and the negative effects that the overturning of Roe has had on medical education. 

The doctor she profiled spent nearly two years searching for a position where she could obtain this training, before landing at Delaware’s Planned Parenthood. It cost nearly $8,000. The doctor had to pull together grants and scholarships in order to cover the costs. Alice walked readers through the doctor’s training in both surgical and medical abortions and through her ethical and medical thoughts after seeing — and this is one thing that stuck with me in the story — what’s called the “products of conception” on a little tray. So the story is very moving, and it’s well worth your time. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. And the more detail we can get about what these sorts of procedures and this training looks like for doctors, the better we understand what we’re actually talking about when we’re talking about these abortion bans and other restrictions on reproductive health. Joanne, why don’t you talk to us about your extra credit this week? 

Luthra: OK. There’s a piece in the New York Times by Teddy Rosenbluth called “This Chatbot Pulls People Away from Conspiracy Theories.” And there’s also a related podcast at the Atlantic called, by Jerusalem Demsas, “When Fact-Checks Backfire.” They’re both about the same piece of research that appeared in Science. Basically, debunking, or fact-checking, has not really worked very well in pulling people away from misinformation and conspiracy theories. There had been some research suggesting that if you try to debunk something, it was the backfire effect, that you actually made it stick more. That doesn’t always happen. There’s sort of some people that it does and some people it doesn’t — that’s beginning to be understood more. 

And what this study, the Times reported on and the Atlantic podcast discussed, is using AI, because we all think that AI is going to be generating more disinformation, but AI is also going to be fighting disinformation. And this is an example of it, where the people in this study had a dialogue, a written, typed-in dialogue, where the chatbot that gave a bespoke response to conspiracy beliefs, including vaccines and other public health things. And that these individually tailored, back-and-forth dialogue, with an AI bot, actually made about 20% of the people, which is, in this field, a lot, drop their or modify their beliefs or drop their conspiracy beliefs. And that it stuck. It wasn’t just because some of these fact-checks work for like a week or two. These, they checked in with people two months later and the changes in their thinking had stuck. So it’s not a solution to disinformation and conspiracy belief, but it is a fairly significant arrow to new techniques and more research to how to debunk it better without a backfire effect. 

Huetteman: That’s great. Thanks for sharing those. All right. My extra credit this week comes from two of our podcast pals at The Washington Post, Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein. The headline is, “What Warning Labels Could Look Like on Your Favorite Foods.” They report that the FDA is considering labeling food to identify when they have a high saturated fat content, sodium, sugar, those sorts of things that we should all be paying attention to on nutrition labels. But their proposal falls short, critics say. It’s not quite as good, they say, at identifying the health risk factors of certain amounts of sodium and sugar in our food, especially compared to other countries. 

They do an extensive study on Chile’s food labeling, in fact. And if you’re like me and you buy a lot of your groceries for your household and you try to look at the nutrition labels, you might be surprised by some of the items the article identifies as being particularly high in sodium, like Cheerios. Bad news for my family this morning. 

All right, that’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our amazing engineer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you could try tweeting me. I’m lurking on X, @emmarieDC. Shefali. 

Luthra: I’m @shefalil. 

Huetteman: Joanne. 

Kenan: @JoanneKenen on Twitter, @joanneKenen1 on Threads. 

Huetteman: And Tami. 

Luhby: Best place to find me is cnn.com. 

Huetteman: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

As expected, the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris offered few new details of their positions on abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and other critical health issues. But it did underscore for voters dramatic differences between the two candidates.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration issued rules attempting to better enforce mental health parity — the federal government’s requirement that services for mental health care and substance use disorders be covered by insurance to the same extent as other medical services.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Trump declined to say during the debate whether he’d veto legislation implementing a nationwide abortion ban. But he could effectively ban the procedure without Congress passing anything because of the 150-year-old Comstock Act. And Project 2025, a policy blueprint by the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls for doing just that.
• There is a good chance that enhanced federal subsidies for ACA coverage that were introduced during the pandemic could expire next year, depending on which party controls Congress. The subsidies have helped more people secure zero-premium health coverage through the ACA exchanges, though Republicans say the subsidies cost too much to keep. Residents in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid coverage — including Florida and Texas — would be most affected.
• The Census Bureau reports that the uninsured rate didn’t change much last year after hitting a record low in the first quarter. But the report’s methodology prevented it from capturing the experiences of many people disenrolled and left uninsured after what’s known as the Medicaid “unwinding” began. Meanwhile, a Treasury Department report sheds light on just how many Americans have benefited from the ACA, as polls show the health law has also grown more popular.
• And Congress has yet to pass key government spending bills, meaning the nation (again) faces a possible federal government shutdown starting Oct. 1. It remains to be seen what could pass during a lame-duck session after the November elections. In 2020, the end-of-the-year spending package featured many health care priorities — and that could happen again.

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

Julie Rovner: The Wall Street Journal’s “A Nurse Practitioner’s $25,000 in Student-Debt Relief Turned Into a $217,500 Bill From the Government,” by Rebecca Ballhaus.  

Lauren Weber: Stat’s “Youth Vaping Continues Its Tumble From a Juul-Fueled High,” by Lizzy Lawrence.  

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “Lilly Bulks Up Irish Operations in Obesity Drug Production Push,” by Madison Muller.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: ProPublica’s “‘I Don’t Want To Die’: Needing Mental Health Care, He Got Trapped in His Insurer’s Ghost Network,” by Max Blau.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “US Uninsured Rate Was Stable in 2023, Even as States’ Medicaid Purge Began,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Louisiana Illuminator’s “Doctors Grapple With How To Save Women’s Lives Amid ‘Confusion and Angst’ Over New Louisiana Law,” by Lorena O’Neil.
• ProPublica’s “Why I Left the Network,” by Annie Waldman, Maya Miller, Duaa Eldeib, and Max Blau.
• The New York Times’ “How a Leading Chain of Psychiatric Hospitals Traps Patients,” by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Katie Thomas.
• Stat’s “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names,” by Tara Bannow.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump-Harris Debate Showcases Health Policy Differences

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

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

Today we are joined via teleconference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Hey, hey.

Rovner: And Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s special episode on health equity from the Texas Tribune Festival. Now we have a lot of news to catch up on, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with politics and with the much-anticipated presidential debate Tuesday night, obviously the big health issue was abortion. And as I said afterwards on the radio, the most consistent thing about former President Trump’s abortion position is how inconsistent it has been. Did we learn anything new from everything he tried to say about abortion?

Cohrs Zhang: I think he didn’t provide a lot of clarity on the issue of whether he would veto a nationwide abortion ban, and I think that has been the question that is kind of hard to nail down. And his response is that, Well, that’s not going to pass Congress, so I won’t have to worry about it.

Rovner: Which is kind of true. I mean, it’s not going to pass Congress. That was Nikki Haley’s point.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, so I think we have seen, though, some talk floating around about ending the filibuster for abortion from [Sen.] Chuck Schumer’s side of things, at least. So I think it’s not completely out of the question to think that things could be different in the future. We don’t entirely know. But that’s his argument that I don’t really have to answer that question, because it’s not actually going to happen. So I think that’s not really an answer to the question.

Rovner: Riley?

Griffin: It does beg the question what he has to gain from answering that question. If he says he supports vetoing a national abortion ban, it’s certain to anger some of his base, and the opposite is true, too. He’s been threading a really tenuous needle here in trying to appease very different crowds within the Republican Party. And I think that is perhaps, at this point, more interesting to think about his positioning around abortion than the Democratic Party’s.

Rovner: So this is where I get to jump up and down and say for the millionth time: He doesn’t have to sign a nationwide ban to ban abortion nationwide. This is where the Comstock Act comes in that we have talked about so many times and that Project 2025 talks about starting to enforce it, which it has not been in decades and decades, but it is still on the books. And a lot of people say, oh, they could ban the abortion pill by enforcing the Comstock Act, which bans the mailing of things that can be used for abortion. But as others point out, it could be not just the abortion pill. Anything that is used to perform any sort of abortion travels in the mail or FedEx or UPS, all of which are covered by the Comstock Act. So in fact, he could support a nationwide abortion ban and still say that he would veto legislation calling for a nationwide abortion ban.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. And it seems like when he’s been questioned about this in the past, he hasn’t quite understood or seems like he understands the nuances of that. And I think our frequent panelist Alice Ollstein had some good reporting indicating that the pro-life groups wanted more commitments from him on the Comstock Act and aren’t getting them. So I think there are certainly some questions out there. But as a reporter in D.C., we have the privilege of covering health care almost exclusively, and sometimes you can tell when a lawmaker or a public official doesn’t understand the question, and I think that’s a little bit of what’s happening here. But obviously it’s his campaign’s job to prep him and make clear what his position is so voters can make an informed decision.

Rovner: And, of course, with Trump, you’re never sure whether he really doesn’t understand it or whether he’s purposely pretending that he doesn’t understand it.

Cohrs Zhang: Right, right.

Rovner: Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: On a lot of issues, Trump doesn’t necessarily always give a straight answer and often walks them back. So it’s somewhat representative of also playing, as Riley pointed out, to political points as we get so very close to the election and to pick up some of the folks that are undecided. So as you said, we didn’t learn much.

Rovner: So what about Vice President [Kamala] Harris? Those of us sitting here and those of us who listen to the podcast know that she’s been on the trail talking about reproductive health since before the fall of Roe. It’s an issue that she is super comfortable with. I was, I think, surprised at how surprised people watching were when she was able to articulate a really thorough answer. Did that surprise any of you?

Weber: That did not surprise me at all. But I think what was so shocking about it was everyone remembers where they were when Joe Biden got the abortion question at the debate, not so long ago, and truly butchered that answer. That was one of the worst moments of the debate for him. He really could not get through it. The man has notoriously not felt comfortable talking about abortion — older man, Catholic, et cetera. But the contrast, I think, is what was so surprising, because Democrats consider this very much an essential issue for winning the election. Abortion issues are polling incredibly well, obviously with women. You have abortion rights on the ballot in several states, including swing states. This is kind of a make-or-break issue to win the presidential for Democrats. And for Kamala Harris to be able to give not just a coherent answer but one that actually had some resonance, I think, was just so markedly different that people ended up as surprised as you pointed out.

Griffin: Just want to add here that this is a space that she is so incredibly comfortable talking about on the campaign trail. Even before she assumed the top of the ticket, this had been her marquee subject. And I’ve been moonlighting as a Kamala Harris campaign reporter for the last few months. Every rally you go to, this is where she gets the biggest applause. This is the note that strikes, that resonates with the crowd. She had been doing what she called a “Reproductive Freedom” tour through swing states four months prior to assuming the top of the ticket. So it’s no surprise that she is quick not just to talk about the stakes of the overturning of Roe v. Wade but also fact-check the former president. There was a really fitting moment during the debate where she said: “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening.” So that she could not only come and deliver the lines but also listen to Donald Trump respond to some of the factual errors in real time was again a marked difference from President Joe Biden.

Rovner: Yes, it was a very different debate, I will say. There was actually, a bit surprising to me also, some discussion of the Affordable Care Act. Apparently Donald Trump is now saying that he’s the one who saved it, which is not exactly how I remember things going down. Is that an acknowledgment that the ACA is now here to stay? Or should we still assume that if Republicans take control of the White House and Congress they will, at the very least, let those expanded ACA subsidies expire?

Cohrs Zhang: I think there’s a very good chance that those subsidies do expire. It just obviously depends on control of Congress and how much leverage Democrats have and what they’re willing to give up to get them. And again, it’s kind of difficult because a lot of the states that benefit the most from these subsidies are Republican states that have not expanded Medicaid. So I think there are some difficult political considerations for the Republican Caucus on that issue. But I think Trump was implying that maybe he could have done more to sabotage the ACA without actually revealing it.

Rovner: That’s kind of true.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, so I think that was an interesting point. And of course he returned to the refrain that he’s going to have a plan. We haven’t seen a plan for nine years.

Rovner: He has the …

Rovner and Weber (together): … “concepts” of a plan.

Cohrs Zhang: We’ll see it soon.

Weber: I think it’s important to also fact-check Trump on saying he improved the ACA. I want to read a list of things from a great Stat article: “While in office, Trump’s administration shortened open enrollment periods, cut funding for navigators who help people enroll … expanded short-term insurance plans, lowered standards for health benefits provided by small employers that banded [together] into larger groups and enabled employers with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage to opt out of requirements to provide no-cost coverage.” So I think some of his as assertations about improving the ACA are up for debate, depending on how you feel about that list of things I just read.

Griffin: And you can also see the impact in enrollment. We had some really interesting data released just before the debate, conveniently, by the Treasury Department showing that the Biden administration had ushered in this all-time-high enrollment in the ACA insurance marketplaces. But what was also tucked into that data was that under the Trump administration, there was also pretty significant lows compared to the other parts of the last 10 years. So that’s notable, too.

Rovner: Yes. And actually you’re anticipating my very next question, which is, while we are on the subject of the ACA, the Census Bureau was also out this week with its annual estimate of people without insurance, and, surprise, even with the Medicaid unwinding and people being dumped off of the Medicaid rolls, the 2023 uninsured rate of about 8% remained near the all-time low that it achieved under the Biden administration. Now, this is not the complete picture of the uninsured. Those who lost coverage at any point during 2023, which is when everybody on the unwinding lost coverage, wouldn’t be counted as uninsured for the purposes of this particular survey, which counts people who were uninsured for the entire year. But the Biden administration, the day before, released an analysis finding that over the 10 years that the Affordable Care Act marketplaces have been operational, 1 in 7 Americans has been enrolled in one of the plans. Is this a first election where the ACA could turn out to be a boon for its backers rather than an albatross around their necks?

Weber: I think KFF polling, recent numbers say some 60% of Americans support the ACA. So that would be a majority of Americans that would be very unhappy if it was repealed. So I mean to your point, Julie, I think the popular opinion has shifted on the ACA and we’re in new ground here.

Cohrs Zhang: Even in 2020, I think after all of that happened, I think there was this realization that maybe this isn’t a viable option, so we should stop promising it to people. And I think Democrats had gotten so much momentum on all of the claims that Republicans did want to take apart the ACA, and we saw that conversation in the Supreme Court as well. And I think that reality has just become so much more real with Dobbs and seeing that when the makeup of a court changes, court decisions can change, and that elections matter in that calculus. So I think we started to see the movement in 2020, but obviously there was so much pandemic going on that I think some of these other health care lines got lost in that election, that we’re seeing come out a little more clearly this time around.

Rovner: And, of course, despite Donald Trump now becoming a latter-day champion of the ACA — sort of — if Republicans win back control of Congress and the White House, we’ve got both these expanded subsidies — that, as we pointed out, have enabled this big enrollment — expiring, and the Trump tax cuts expiring. It’s hard to imagine both of those getting extended. One would think that the Republicans’ priority would be the tax cuts and not the subsidies, right?

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Again, depends on whether Democrats are able to hold a chamber of Congress and what kind of leverage they have.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s obviously a 2025 issue. Well, turning to elected officials who are already in office, today is Sept. 12, and that means Congress has basically eight more working days to avoid a government shutdown by either passing all of the 12 regular spending bills or some sort of continuing resolution to keep agencies funded after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. This is where I get to say for the millionth time that when Congress settled the funding for fiscal 2024 last — checks notes — March, House Republicans vowed again to have this year’s funding bills finished on time. Rachel, that did not happen. So where are we?

Cohrs Zhang: It does not happen. Yeah, I think it’s business as usual around here. I think, honestly, the posturing has started earlier than I expected with the House speaker, Mike Johnson, putting out this proposal for a CR [continuing resolution] that he couldn’t even get through the House. He kind of pulled that before it came to a vote on the floor. So I guess that’s, at least, an opening salvo earlier than we see, usually, early in September.

Rovner: Well, this was the big fight about: Do we want a CR that goes to after Thanksgiving, which would be the typical CR, and then we’ll come back after the election and fight about next year’s funding? Or, in this case, they wanted a CR that went until next March, I guess betting that maybe the Republicans will be in charge then and they’ll have more of a say over this year’s spending than they do now?

Cohrs Zhang: Right. I think that’s certainly an open question, and I think it seems like Senate appropriators are not necessarily on board with that March timeline at this point. They really would like to wrap things up in December. And again, I think, looking back in 2020, we did see a really significant appropriations package with a lot of health care policy pass at the end, kind of in the December time frame of 2020, in lame-duck. So I think it’s a really big question.

And then the other question is: Do all these expiring health care programs that are currently slated to end in December get extended with that appropriations package? I think there’s just a lot of moving parts here, and we don’t exactly know what the deadlines are going to be yet. But at least they’re arguing about it in the public sphere, so that’s a start.

Rovner: They’re legislating. That’s what they do. Lauren?

Weber: I just wanted to say, Julie, I think you should have a segment that’s a tally of how many times you ask on this podcast if the funding bill has passed. Because I know myself, I’ve been on many, and I really think it’d be kind of funny. So I’m just saying it’s quite fascinating over the years, the many, many times these bills do not seem to make it.

Rovner: Well, this is just me as the lifelong Capitol Hill reporter who — we’re always talking about what’s going to happen next year and the year after. It’s like: You have a job to do this year. Let’s see how you’re doing in the job that you have to do this year. Does anybody think there’s actually going to be a shutdown? I mean, that’s still a possibility if they don’t get a deal, although that would be — I’m trying to remember if we’ve ever seen a government shutdown in a presidential election year. That seems risky politically? Riley, I see you sort of raising your eyebrows.

Griffin: Yeah, it’s definitely risky and clearly something right now you can see that the Biden administration wants to avoid. I was sitting in the White House press briefing room on Monday and Karine [Jean-Pierre], the press secretary, was like: This is Congress’ one job. This is their main job. It’s to keep the government open. So there’s a level of frustration that, I think, this is coming into the discourse yet again, but to be expected.

Rovner: Yeah. And I should point out, it’s not just Republicans that are unable to get funding bills done on time. The Democrats are unable to get their funding bills done on time, either. I believe that the last time all of the funding bills were actually passed before Oct. 1 was the year 2000.

Weber: This is why this should be a Julie segment. I’m telling you, you should run a tally.

Rovner: Yes. Well, it is kind of a Julie segment.

Weber: Yes.

Rovner: And I will keep at it, because this is my job, too. All right, turning back to abortion, in the debate Tuesday night, Vice President Harris talked at some length about some of the unintended consequences of abortion bans, as we discussed — women unable to get miscarriage care, girls being forced to carry pregnancies resulting from incest all the way to term. Now we have another new potential health risk in Louisiana. The new law that makes the abortion medications mifepristone and misoprostol controlled substances is resulting in a major disruption to hemorrhage care. It seems that misoprostol, which is used for a variety of purposes other than abortion — it was originally an ulcer drug — is a key emergency drug used in a wide variety of reproductive health emergencies. And it’s not clear what will take its place on emergency carts, since you can’t have controlled substances just hanging around in the hallways. Is this yet another example of lawmakers basically practicing medicine without a license?

Weber: I think that’s right, Julie. I spoke to a Louisiana ER doctor last week who put it pretty bluntly. He’s like, Look, I have a woman who’s bleeding out in front of me, and I need to call down to the pharmacy and put in an order? That could take not just seconds, not just minutes, but many minutes, even longer in possibly rural pharmacieswhere the access may not be as readily available. He’s like, This is truly a life-or-death issue. Women, when you are bleeding out from post-birth complications, which by the way is not as uncommon as people would like to think it is, this is really quite something. And so folks in Louisiana are obviously very up in arms.

And I think it speaks, as you pointed out, to the larger environment that Kamala Harris has pointed to — and many reporters that have been on your show and that we have discussed many times on the show — is that there are many unintended consequences for laws that limit abortion and for women seeking access to care where hospitals afraid that they’re not going to interpret the law correctly are leaving women to seek care elsewhere. And what are the health ramifications of that? But this is a pretty frightening unintended consequence.

Rovner: Yeah, this was something that I was not aware of, that I had not seen. Of course, Louisiana is the first state to basically declare these controlled substances. So it seems that every time we get a new restriction, there’s a new twist to it that I think most people did not expect.

There’s also been lots of court actions, obviously, on abortion in the past few weeks. In Missouri, last week a judge tried to strike the state’s abortion rights referendum from the ballot, although this week a higher court ordered it back on the ballot. I believe that’s the final word on Missouri. They will vote on it in November. In Alaska, a judge struck down a state law that limited who could perform abortions to just doctors rather than doctors and other medical professionals. And in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against a new federal rule that shields the medical records of women who cross state lines to obtain an abortion in a state where it’s legal, which it’s not in Texas. It would seem the implication here is that Texas wants to prosecute women who leave the state for a legal medical procedure. Or am I misinterpreting that somehow?

Griffin: That’s my understanding as well. And it’s a development that, I believe the rule was announced in April when Biden had said that no one should have their medical records used against them, and lo and behold we’re a few months later, but this Texas lawsuit does suggest that this could be a part of criminal prosecution.

Rovner: I know. I mean this seems to be sort of this underlying issue of what happens to women who live in banned states who go to other states to obtain abortions. And there’s been a lot of back-and-forth and a lot of people, even on the anti-abortion side, trying to say that this is not our intent. But this certainly seems to be the intent of some people. Seeing nods all around. We will continue to follow this string.

Finally this week, I want to talk about mental health. Over the objections of some insurers and large employer groups, the Biden administration finalized the latest set of rules attempting to guarantee parity between coverage for mental health and substance abuse and every other type of medical care. This is literally a 30-year fight that’s been going on to regularize, if you will, coverage of mental health. This action comes just as ProPublica is unveiling a pretty remarkable series on the inability of patients, even patients with insurance — in fact, mostly patients with insurance — to obtain needed health care, often with catastrophic consequences. Rachel, one of those stories is your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it?

Cohrs Zhang: It is, yes. So my extra credit is “‘I Don’t Want To Die’: Needing Mental Health Care, He Got Trapped in His Insurer’s Ghost Network,” by Max Blau and ProPublica. And I think this story kind of really makes clear the consequences for certain patients, especially mental health patients in crisis, of when the list that you get from your insurer of in-network providers is inaccurate.

And I think ghost networks, it’s kind of a weird, jargon-y term, I think. There have been some hearings on the issue on the Hill. But when we think about somebody who desperately needs some crisis counseling and they’re doing everything they can, they’re exhausted, they’re already dealing with so much to already have to call provider after provider who doesn’t take their insurance anymore, doesn’t know what they’re talking about, it’s just such a frustrating process that I think many of us have experienced. I personally have experienced it getting an MRI in Los Angeles, and the list is out of date. And I think there’s definitely room for regulation here. And I think that mental health care, through this series, was just highlighted as such an important part of that conversation.

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve all had this, and we’ve all written the stories about people who have lists of in-network providers and can’t find one or can’t find one who’s taking new patients, or the provider there does not do what the directory suggests that they do. They may say they may only treat children, or they may not treat children. But I think in mental health, these are people in mental health crises trying to get care that they are guaranteed by law and guaranteed under their insurance and being unable to do it — and as I say, often, sometimes, not un-often with catastrophic consequences. Needing mental health care is not just somebody who says, “Oh, I don’t feel well today.” These often are people who are in actual crisis situations.

So speaking of people who are in actual mental health crisis situations, The New York Times has a piece this week on a chain of mental hospitals that’s basically holding patients in their facilities against their will to get as much as they can collect from insurance. In some cases, patients’ relatives have had to get court orders to get their patients released. How did we let our mental health system get so far off the tracks? Either you can’t get care or you get care that you can’t get out of.

Weber: Well, this piece by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Katie Thomas, which is truly phenomenal — everyone who’s listening to this should read it — makes a very astute point, which is that the government and nonprofits have really gotten out of the psychiatric hospital business, and for-profit companies have swept in. And they interview several former employees who make it very clear that these were run with profit incentives in mind, of holding patients to maximize the insurance money they could get, to catastrophic effects. The details in this are wild. They talk about people having to go to court to get folks out, very clear violations. And again, they speak to not just one, not just two, but multiple former employees who allege that this company was acting in such a way that was not for its patients’ best interest.

Cohrs Zhang: And I do have to do a plug for my colleague Tara Bannow, who also reported on Acadia and how they’re kind of operating mental health institutions under the brand names of Catholic hospitals. So people might even think that they’re going to a well-respected community hospital under the name, but these for-profit institutions have even made their way into not-for-profit spaces, and these services are just being contracted out, because they’re simply unprofitable.

Rovner: And we talked about Tara’s story when it came out.

Cohrs Zhang: We did, yeah.

Rovner: A month or two ago.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, this next story is a great — kind of building on, building just a fuller story around the implications of for-profit.

Rovner: It does sort of, both this and, I think, the ProPublica series highlight in the ’60s and ’70s, the problem was people who were in state-run facilities. And they were warehoused, and they were underfunded, and people just didn’t get the care that they needed. And that was one of the things that led to deinstitutionalization, which of course is one of the things that ended up leading us to the homeless, because when they deinstitutionalized these patients, they were promised outpatient care which never materialized. So now we’ve kind of profitized this, if you will, and we have a different set of problems. It’s every bit as bad. It’s kind of a microcosm of the entire health care system. It’s like, well, we don’t really trust the nonprofit sector to run it right, because they don’t have enough money. And now we don’t trust the for-profit sector to run it right, because they have too much of a profit motive. Is there any middle ground here?

Griffin: I think we could spend weeks, you could have a whole podcast just dedicated to this question, and it’s a harrowing one. And there’s a parallel discussion to be had also about the centers that navigate patients who are seeking treatment for substance use, right? Often those are one and the same, but I think the same dynamics are playing out here. And to the mental health parity regulation that was finalized, that included substance use benefits, too. It wasn’t just mental health. So yeah, I don’t know. I say with a heavy heart that we could talk about this a long time, but I don’t have any answers for where the best care is going to be.

Rovner: Yeah, none of us, I think, does. And that’s why we were all going to have jobs from now until eternity as we at least keep working on this.

All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week, we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include links to all these stories in our show notes, on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, you’ve already done yours. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: So I picked a story from Stat titled “Youth Vaping Continues Its Tumble From a Juul-Fueled High,” written by Lizzy Lawrence. And I was really struck, I’m sure public health officials are really struck, by how far vaping rates have gone. I mean, they’re down to 6% of middle and high school students using vapes in 2024. That’s down from 8% last year and 20% in 2019. I mean, that is a marked change. And I expected to read this article and see, Oh, but don’t worry, they’re all using Zyn, which is another nicotine product. But, actually, that had only gone up to about 1.8%. It was not nearly the same bit. And I think if you’re a public health official, you’ve got to be pretty pleased with yourself, because this would seem to show that the public health action that they very aggressively took at both the federal, national, and in some places locality level to limit flavored vapes and have other actions for kids has resulted in a pretty steep decline, much faster than you saw cigarette use decline. So I was really impressed to see these numbers. It’s quite a change.

Rovner: Yeah. Yay public health. Riley?

Griffin: Yeah, I want to tout a story from my colleague Madison Muller. It’s titled “Lilly Bulks Up Irish Operations in Obesity Drug Production Push.” And she’s actually in Ireland right now. She was reporting out this story. Ultimately, we all know there’s been this immense demand for obesity drugs — Eli Lilly and Co. has two, Mounjaro and Zepbound — and they just can’t seem to build out production quickly enough. My colleague did some data analysis here and actually found that since 2020, believe it or not, Lilly has poured 17.3 billion [dollars] into weight-loss drug manufacturing. I mean, what an insane number. And the latest push is in Ireland, which is notable because here in Washington there’s been a lot of work to scrutinize and even prevent U.S. drugmakers from collaborating with Chinese manufacturers of biologics. So sometimes they talk about “near-shoring” or “friend-shoring” in D.C., which is really a kitschy term to refer to seeing more friendly countries to the United States bolstering up manufacturing, and here you see Lilly doing just that. So it’s a fun story, and kudos to Madison, who went out to Ireland to tell it.

Rovner: I’d love to be sent to Ireland.

Weber: Yeah, I need to get more stories in Ireland. I mean, what? That’s amazing.

Rovner: Just saying. It is a good story. All right. Well, my story this week is from The Wall Street Journal, by Rebecca Ballhaus, and it’s called “A Nurse Practitioner’s $25,000 in Student-Debt Relief Turned Into a $217,500 Bill From the Government.” And it’s a really infuriating story about a really excellent government program called the National Health Service Corps that helps medical professionals pay off their loans if they agree to practice in underserved areas. The problem is that there are penalties if you fail to complete your term of service, which obviously there should be.

But in this case, one of the nurse practitioners’ supervising physicians died, and the other one retired, and there were no other eligible placements within two hours of her Alabama home, where she cared for her three young children as well as her elderly parents. Obviously there should be consequences for breaching a contract, but this is far from the only case where people who are obviously deserving of exceptions are being denied them. The National Student Legal Defense Network has filed suit on the nurse practitioner’s behalf, and I’ll be watching to see how this all turns out.

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

Griffin: I’m on X, though infrequently, @rileyraygriffin.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still only on X, @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Still on X, @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is Vice President Kamala Harris’ choice of running mate. Walz — also a former U.S. congressman, high school teacher, and member of the National Guard — has a folksy, Midwestern affect and a liberal record. He has signed bills expanding abortion rights and medical care for transgender people as governor and represented a swing district in the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. since the overturn of Roe v. Wade continued to rise into early this year, according to a new study. That is frustrating abortion opponents, who are seeking more ways to bring the numbers down, even if it means barring pregnant women from traveling to other states.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Walz has been active on health issues, including capping insulin prices, codifying access to abortion and gender-affirming care, and supporting veterans’ health, as well as challenging hospital consolidation efforts. In fact, the similarities between him and Harris highlight unity among Democrats on key health issues.
• Meanwhile, the GOP vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, said in an interview that reforming the Affordable Care Act would still be on the table if Trump were reelected, though he did not elaborate. The lack of specificity in the GOP’s plans leaves a lot unknown about what a second Trump administration would do with health policy.
• A recent report shows the number of abortions continued to rise amid restrictions. How? Telehealth is a major reason for the trend. And a separate report shows hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been funneled to crisis pregnancy centers since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, reflecting an effort in conservative state legislatures to steer funding to centers that discourage abortion.
• And Congress has departed for its August recess without funding the federal government, again. Those eyeing other must-pass legislation, such as extended telehealth flexibilities and pharmacy benefit manager reform, are banking on the lame-duck session after the election.

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

Julie Rovner: JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons,” by Emily Lupton Lupez; Steffie Woolhandler; David U. Himmelstein; et al.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion,” by Stephanie Armour.

Sandhya Raman: The War Horse’s “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them,” by Hope Hodge Seck.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, But No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.
• Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.
• Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Turned a Questionable Artery-Screening Program Into a Gold Mine,” by Casey Ross, Lizzy Lawrence, Bob Herman, and Tara Bannow.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “The One-Hour Nurse Visits That Let Insurers Collect $15 Billion From Medicare,” by Anna Wilde Mathews, Christopher Weaver, Tom McGinty, and Mark Maremont.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Walz Record

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘The Walz Record’Episode Number: 359Published: Aug. 8, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 8, 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 videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news for a hot summer week so we will get right to it. So for the second time in three weeks, we have a new vice-presidential nominee to talk about. Newly minted Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen former congressman and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate. What do we know about Walz’s record on health care?

Raman: We know a lot. I think it’s easier to draw from his record compared to JD Vance, who was only elected for the first time in 2022. Tim Walz has had six terms in the House. He’s on his second term as governor. And from that you can see what his priorities are, how he’s drawn from his personal experience and the things that he’s been doing that are very in line with what either Biden and Harris or just Harris have done. When we had Biden, we hear a lot of talk about capping insulin costs, and that’s something that Walz signed a Minnesota bill for a few years ago. And he’s also been very active in reproductive health issues. He signed a couple abortion-related laws last year. That’s been a key focus of the Harris and Biden-Harris campaigns. He’s been active in talking about IVF and how his family has used that, also pretty in line with that.

Rovner: I love that he had a daughter using IVF, whose name is Hope.

Raman: Yeah, yeah.

Rovner: Very Midwestern.

Raman: Yes, and I think he’s also been pretty active on some of the veterans’ issues as a former member of the Army National Guard for several years. And just some of the education and health issues as a former teacher. And he signed legislation related to gender-affirming care as governor. So I think we have a pretty good idea of the types of things that he’d be interested in if they were elected.

Luthra: And I think what’s striking as well is how in line he seems to be on so many policy fronts to what we know the vice president and, frankly, what we know about the other people who were in contention for the vice-presidential nomination. And what I think that tells us is how unified a lot of the party is right now on health care and health policy issues in general. I was pretty struck by how quickly we got reactions from both pro-abortion rights groups and anti-abortion rights groups. As soon as the news came, SBA [Susan B. Anthony] Pro-Life America, one of the biggest anti-abortion groups, is quick to say this is the most pro-abortion ticket in history. They might be right.

Rovner: I was going to say it’s probably true.

Luthra: Yeah. And they could have said that about any Harris, et cetera, ticket, whether that was Walz, whether that was [Pennsylvania Gov. Josh] Shapiro, whether that was someone else from her reported list of finalists. And at the same time, what we saw from abortion rights advocates is they’re equally thrilled about this because they look at Walz as an ally. They look at the work that was done in Minnesota around getting rid of abortion bans; codifying abortion rights in the state constitution; limiting requirements like the 24-hour waiting period: That is gone in the state. And passing a shield law.

All of that underscores that he’s very in line with the vice president. I think what’s worth asking ourselves is how much does that matter when we have someone like Kamala Harris who is very interested in these issues. And in a way, we know far less about JD Vance. But whatever we could find out about him probably matters a lot more because Donald Trump has never shown much interest in health care or health policy. So if we did get a Trump-Vance ticket, it feels like there is a real possibility we’d have a lot more Vance influence in this area as opposed to Walz in a Harris-Walz administration.

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second. Just something that jumped out at me when I was researching this is that there’d been much made about the fact that Harris is the first presidential candidate who’s actually visited an abortion clinic. Well, so has Walz. So we’ve now got a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate who have visited an abortion clinic. And I’m thinking even 15, 20 years ago on a Democratic ticket, how much the world has changed since the fall of Roe [v. Wade], that that never would’ve been something that anybody would’ve wanted to advertise. I think it speaks volumes as to really how big reproductive health is going to be going forward in this campaign.

Raman: They went together when they visited a clinic together in St. Paul [Minnesota] earlier. So I think that speaks to it, too, that it is a very important issue for both of them and that it is definitely going to be something the other side is going to really seize on and a point of distinction.

Rovner: Meanwhile, as Shefali alluded to, the Republicans continue to bob and weave on health care issues. Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance told the news site Notice earlier this week that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is indeed on the agenda for a second Trump administration, although he didn’t say exactly how. “I think we’re definitely going to have to fix the health care problem in this country,” was his exact quote. Any hints to what that might entail?

Raman: Honestly, no. I think that everything that we’ve heard so far has really just put multiple things up on the table without giving any specifics. Is the ACA repeal-and-replace still on the table? It depends on do we have a majority, do we have a minority, in Congress? And what would that even entail given that we had the whole thing in 2017 where it didn’t work out for them? And Trump has hinted back and forth and not been very clear, so we’re still not sure without more clarity from them.

Rovner: The rest of what JD Vance said was “Obamacare is still too expensive and a lot of people can’t afford it, and if they can’t afford it, they don’t get high-quality care, and we’re going to give them high-quality care.” And my thought was, that would be great. How on earth do you plan to make Obamacare less expensive and care higher quality? That seems like a rather tall order, but a great goal.

Luthra: And realistically, right? We don’t have, as Sandhya pointed out, a real record for JD Vance to look at. We do have a record for Donald Trump, but we don’t have statements of principle or value that we can really attribute to him. We don’t know what he really would do because we don’t know what he believes in. And that, I think, is why we put so much attention in the press. And why we’ve seen Democrats put so much attention on what Republican think tanks are talking about. And what the people who would staff those administrations would say. That is why something like Project 2025 merits so much scrutiny because those are the people who will be in power in institutions of government and potentially interpreting these kinds of vague sentences into actual policy that touches our lives.

Rovner: We don’t know very much of what Donald Trump really thinks about health care because he wants it that way. He wants to keep all of his options open. But one of the things that we do know is that he’s repeatedly promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare, the so-called third rails of American politics. He has specifically declined, however, to include Medicaid on that list of things that he won’t touch. And now we’re reading various proposals — as you mentioned, from Project 2025 to the Paragon Institute, which is run by a former Trump official — that are proposing various ways to scale back Medicaid, particularly federal Medicaid spending, possibly dramatically. Did they not learn from the 2017 repeal-and-replace fight that Medicaid, now that it covers like 90 million people, is kind of pretty popular?

Raman: I think that even after that, we’ve had so many times that we’ve seen in that administration trying to modify the ways that they can with Medicaid. We had the try to push for block grant proposals multiple times. We’ve had the work requirements try to come to fruition in multiple states before being struck down by the courts. And those things are still pretty popular if you look at the documents put out by a lot of these think tanks as something that could be brought up again. Including pulling back on expansion as a way that they see as really reducing federal spending, especially as they’re trying to reduce the national debt and just bring down costs in general.

Rovner: Pulling back on the federal match for expansion, more to the point.

Raman: Because Medicaid expansion is largely funded by the federal government. And so I think those are things that we could see given the history and the people that are working in those places and their connections to the former administration.

Luthra: And I do think it’s worth noting that Trump has said right now that he would not want to touch Social Security or Medicare. I think we can also put a few grains of salt, maybe some more salt, in there, because that is also what he said when he ran for president in 2016. And again, that isn’t really what he was as committed to as president. It was: What does [House Speaker] Paul Ryan want to do? What will I be willing to negotiate on? And with Trump in particular, there is such a distinction between knowing what is politically pragmatic to say in a campaign versus what is on the table as an administration, that I just think that it is incumbent on all of us to not take that with too much credibility, just in this very specific case.

Rovner: And also Social Security and Medicare sometimes need touching, saying that you’re not going to touch, leaving them on autopilot, is not a very responsible public policy. You actually do have to get under the hood occasionally and do things to these programs. But before we get to that, I want to talk a little bit more about abortion. This week, the Society of Family Planning, which is tracking the number of abortions around the U.S. in the wake of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling, reported that the volume of abortions continues to increase despite complete bans in 14 states and near-bans in several others. Shefali, how is this happening? Why is the number of abortions going up? One would think it would be going down.

Luthra: I think these numbers are really striking. They show a continuation of a trend, which is largely this increase in telehealth. More people getting abortion through, in some cases, shield law provision, living in states like Texas and getting pills mailed to them from doctors in New York. Or the fact that it is simply easier to get an abortion if you live in a state with abortion protections because telehealth is much more available right now. The numbers also do show more in-clinic care because people are traveling and overcoming great distances to get abortion.

One thing that I think is really important and that the authors had noted when this came out was these go through March. And on May 1, Florida’s abortion ban took effect, and that is one of the biggest abortion bans that we have seen since the Dobbs decision. And I think it will be really interesting to see whether the trend that we have been observing for quite some time — this steady increase and, in particular, growth of telehealth and continued travel — if that remains possible and viable when you lose a state with as many clinics and as many people as Florida had had.

Rovner: I saw Stephen Miller, the Trump adviser, on TV last night talking about “There will be no national abortion ban under Donald Trump,” which is a whole other discussion. But these numbers, and continuing to go up, must be making the anti-abortion movement crazy.

Luthra: They are losing their minds. They are deeply frustrated on two levels. They’re very concerned that people are finding ways to travel. That is not something they hoped for. And they are very concerned about telehealth in particular. And what they keep saying is they want to find some kind of legal strategy to challenge the shield law provision, but they haven’t quite figured out how. There is real talk in Texas among some of the anti-abortion activists. They’re trying to see is there a way we could pass legislation in a future session to perhaps ban internet providers from showing the websites that allow you to order medication abortion.

Something like that. All of this would be fought through the courts. All of this would be heavily litigated. But it is their No. 1 priority because it is an existential threat to abortion bans. Obviously, they are waiting to see what happens in the presidential election because if you do have an administration that is willing to restrict the ability to mail mifepristone through rehabilitating the Comstock Act — not passing a national abortion ban, but using older laws on the books — then that does some of the job for them and could very significantly put a dent in or even halt this trend.

Rovner: Well, speaking of the abortion pill, we’re seeing pressure campaigns from both sides now aimed at some of the big corporations, including Costco and Walmart, that could start selling the abortion pill in their brick-and-mortar pharmacies. This is something that the Food and Drug Administration, at least, started to make easier earlier in the Biden administration. Now we have institutional investors from blue states pushing companies to carry the drug to make it more available, or else they will divest their very large stock holdings. While we have institutional investors that represent anti-abortion groups, like the American Family Association, who are threatening to divest if the companies do start selling the abortion pills, I would not like to be on the board of any one of these big corporations right now. This seems like a rather uncomfortable place for them to be.

Luthra: Yeah, and none of this is surprising. Alice Ollstein, regular contributor to this podcast, broke a really great story, gosh, a year and a half ago now, when we saw that even CVS and Walgreens, for a time, didn’t want to distribute mifepristone in states where abortion was legal, but there were threats of litigation from attorneys general. And that has changed. The story points out that we have CVS and Walgreens carrying these pills and distributing them. But a lot of people do get medication from Costco. A lot of people do get medication from Walmart. What we’ll see is that this is just another way in which the fight over abortion, which has real meaning for so many people, just continues to play out in the corporate sector. It is something that has been true since Dobbs happened. It is just another sign of how much people care about this and the money behind it and the chaotic nature of banning a procedure in some states and heavily stigmatizing it even in others.

Rovner: The ripple effect of the Dobbs decision. I really do think the Supreme Court had no great appreciation for just how far into other facets of American life this was going to spread, which it definitely is. Well, even as abortions are going up, states with abortion bans are spending increasing amounts of taxpayer money on anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that try to talk pregnant people out of terminating their pregnancies. This is flying under the radar, I feel like. We’ve seen these crisis pregnancy centers have been around for a very long time, but what we haven’t seen is the amount of money that states are now saying, “Well see, we care about pregnant women, even though we’re banning abortion, because we’re giving all this money to these crisis pregnancy centers.”

Luthra: And I was pretty struck by just how much money we have seen states put into these centers since the Dobbs decision. The report that you highlight, Julie, found that it was almost $500 million across all these states has gone in since 2022. That’s almost half a billion dollars going into these centers. And you’re right that they do fly, in some ways, under the radar. And part of that is because it is very hard to know how they spend that money. They have very, very little accountability built in place. They are not regulated the way that health care systems are. That also means if you’re a patient and you go there for seeking health care, you are not protected by HIPAA necessarily. And you often will get “care” that can be inaccurate or misleading because, fundamentally, these institutions exist to try and deter people from getting abortions, from … staying pregnant and having children.

I do think that we will see more and more of this happen, and in some ways Republicans have been very overt about that. This was the focus of the March for Life. We saw a bunch of bills in Congress that Republicans put forth talking very specifically about federal funding for anti-abortion centers. This was the biggest trend we saw in statehouses this year when it came to abortion, was passing bills that would add more funding to anti-abortion centers. It’s one area where they feel like the political consequences are far less than bans because bans are unpopular and people don’t fully understand and know what these are. And so they’re not going to get as upset with you when they hear, “Oh, you put more money into these places that are supposed to help pregnant people.” Even though the reality is we don’t actually have any metrics or data that show that they do, and we do have a lot of journalism that shows that they mislead people.

Rovner: Yeah. I will put the link back to the good investigation that ProPublica did that we talked about a couple of weeks ago about how all the money in Texas is impossible to track, basically. All right, well, the Senate last week followed the House’s lead and recessed until early September, which leaves them just a few legislative days when they get back to either finish up all 12 of the regular spending bills — spoiler, that is not going to happen — or else pass some sort-of continuing resolution to keep the government open after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. Sandhya, they went into this — we’ve said this before — with so much optimism from the Republicans: “We’re going to get these all done before Oct. 1.” Where are we?

Raman: So, at this point, we’ve gotten some work done, but it’s very unlikely we would have things done before the end of September. So the House was on track initially to vote on the House floor on their Labor HHS [Health and Human Services] spending bill, but it got derailed after there were some issues with another bill, the energy-water bill, and after they’d fallen short on their legislative branch spending bill, they recessed early.

Rovner: We should point out that while “Labor-H” is always hard to pass, those other ones tend not to be … those are ones that usually go through.

Raman: Yeah, Labor H generally is done near the end of the whole slate just because it is notoriously one of the trickier ones to get all the agreement on. And it is the biggest nondefense spending bill. So it takes longer, and so less far along on the progress with that, and we’re in August recess, both chambers are out. We won’t see any progress until September. Before the Senate left, they did advance their spending bill on the committee level. That went a lot differently than the House’s markup. So we had three people opposed, but everyone else was pretty much in agreement. A lot less eventful. It wasn’t focused on amendment debate and it was bipartisan, which is a big thing.

So we will see it when they come back, if they gravitate a little bit more towards this, if they’re shifting a little bit in between the two bills. But I think another thing to keep in mind is they have so little time this year to get so much done. They have so much recess this year for the election that it really puts a crunch on their timeline. And then there are certain people advocating that if this person wins, if that person wins, should we do a shorter-term plan spending bill so that we can get our priorities in if this party’s in control, this party has more control. So it’s a difficult situation.

Rovner: Yeah. Here we are basically heading into the home stretch for the spending bills with a gigantic question mark. As usual. Every year they say, “This won’t happen next year.” Every year this happens next year. Well, meanwhile, this is our midyear reminder that Congress also has to pass a bunch of other bills to do things like preventing some pretty big cuts to Medicare physician pay, to keep community health centers and safety-net hospitals up and running, and they have to do all this by the end of the year. I assume we’re still looking at a postelection, lame-duck session to try to wrap everything together.

Raman: I think that’s what we’re looking at. The big priority is going to be to get the government funded. And I think. as with previous years, will we get some of these other things tacked onto there? Will we get extension of telehealth flexibilities or some of the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform or some of the other things that we’ve been discussing at the committee level and hoping to get across the finish line? But it’s really difficult, I think, to get some of those things done until we have this broader package. And I think it’s important that some of the times when we get the broader package, it can help pay for other of the programs that we’ve been considering at the committee level.

Rovner: That was just what I was going to say. The PBM reform, in particular, saves money. Gee, you can prevent the physician pay cut and fund community health centers.

Raman: Yeah. So I think a lot of it will depend on how quickly they’re able to get to an agreement. And if you look at the differences between the House and the Senate bills, it’s billions of dollars. I think just on health spending, it was like almost a $16 billion difference in the top line number between the bills. So getting to some sort of middle ground is going to take some time to get there.

Rovner: Well, before we leave the Hill for the rest of the summer, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where Democrats and Republicans have not always seen eye to eye under Chairman Bernie Sanders, actually came together last month to open an investigation into, and issue a subpoena to, the CEO of Steward Health Care. You may remember we talked about Steward back in May. It’s a Dallas-based, physician-owned hospital group that was sold to a private equity firm, which promptly sold the real estate the hospitals were sitting on, forcing them to then pay rent. Then the private equity group basically cashed out. And now the hospitals are floundering financially, which is threatening patient care in several states. This is the first time the committee has issued a subpoena since 1981. I did not know that before this week. And it’s kind of a big deal. This is the first, I think, I feel like, big investigation, at least among this committee, about the consequences of private equity in health care.

Raman: Yeah, I would say that, and especially because this is bipartisan. And I think there have been so many bipartisan issues over the past couple of years that it has been difficult to get the chairman and the ranking member to see eye to eye on or to prioritize in the same order. And so I really do think it is a big deal to be able to issue that subpoena and have the CEO come in in September.

Rovner: Yeah, this will be interesting. [Sen.] Bernie Sanders made a big point of dragging up some of the drug company CEOs who said pretty much what we expected them to say. But this is a little bit of a different situation and there’s a bunch of senators from both parties who have hospitals in their states that are now being threatened by the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care, so we’ll see how that goes. Speaking of profiteering in health care, we have two really excellent stories this week on pretty much the same subject: Stat News as part of its continuing investigation into the way UnitedHealthcare is squeezing extra money out of the Medicare program, particularly the Medicare Advantage program, has a piece on the use of a questionable test that’s used to diagnose peripheral artery disease, which can dramatically increase the Medicare Advantage payment for a patient who has it, just kind of coincidentally.

Along similar lines, The Wall Street Journal has a story looking at how not just United, but other major Medicare Advantage insurers, including Humana and Aetna, are using the same test, often provided during a “free home visit” by a nurse practitioner, and scoring those very same extra Medicare Advantage payments. Now, I’m old enough to remember when the biggest knock on Medicare Advantage was that, because it had fixed payments, it gave insurers an incentive to skimp on care. So we had lots of patients who couldn’t get care that they needed. Now that the payments are risk-adjusted, there’s an incentive for insurers to give too much care, or at least to suggest that patients need more care than they do; like that maybe they have peripheral artery disease when they don’t, really. Are there any suggestions floating around how to fix this? Shefali, you were alluding to this, that Medicare Advantage, in particular, can be a little bit of a sinkhole for federal funds.

Luthra: I think this is something that we have struggled with for a long time, right. And I think I was always thrilled to see a Bob Herman byline and we get another one on this Stat story. And one thing that he has written about so compellingly is that the sheer power that health care providers have. And I think we just can’t really ignore the role that they play then in being able to get all of this federal money into their system for things that we don’t necessarily need. And that’s not an easy thing to address politically because people like their hospitals. And even when you hear from lawmakers who want to talk about better regulation of hospitals, they really only talk about for-profit hospitals. Even though if you were to go to a for-profit or not-for-profit, you might see some similarities in how they approach what they bill for. And this is something that we haven’t figured out a good solution to because of how our politics work. But I’m really grateful that we get more reporting like this that helps remind us just how skewed the incentives are in our system.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to blame them. These are for-profit companies that have shareholders, and their job is to figure out how to make money for their shareholders. And they do it extremely well. But the money that they’re making is coming from U.S. taxpayers, and there are patients who are caught in the middle. It’s been a thorny issue. This has been what we’ve been fighting about with Medicare for Medicare’s entire 59 years of its existence. So that will continue while we try to figure out everything else, like making this year’s budget work. Finally this week, we reported in July how Michael Bloomberg gave his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, another billion dollars that will, among other things, eliminate medical school tuition for most of its student body. We pointed out at the time that the schools that have gone tuition-free have not actually succeeded either in getting more students to go into primary care.

There’s the concern that if you have a lot of debt, you’re going to want to go into a specialty to pay it off. Nor has it enabled more students of color to become doctors. So now Bloomberg is making his philanthropy a little bit more direct. He’s giving a combined $600 million to the four historically Black colleges and universities that have their own medical schools, including Howard [University] here in D.C., in hopes of more directly addressing equity issues that go along with patients not being able to get culturally sensitive care. HBCUs educate the vast majority of the nation’s Black doctors, so is this finally a step in the right direction with the medical education and health equity?

Raman: I would argue it is. Like you said, if you look at the data, the American Association of Medical Colleges [Association of American Medical Colleges] said half of Black doctors graduate from one of these schools. And that could really increase some of the uptake of preventative care and trust in medicine in the Black community who, I think they’ve done some polling, that are more comfortable a lot of times with other Black doctors. And I think that another point was the money is also starting another medical school to increase that pipeline as well. And that is another big thing where it’s broadening the pipeline, but also just really feeding into these goals, should be big over time.

Rovner: A continuing effort, I think there. All right, well, that is the news for this week. 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. Sandhya, you got yours picked first this week. Why don’t you tell us about your extra credit?

Raman: So I chose, “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them.” And it’s by Hope Hodge Seck at The War Horse. And it is just a really excellent piece looking at some of the concerns that amputee vets have been having and what the shortcomings are in the care from the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], not having bills paid for some of the prosthetics or just delays in receiving them. And one interesting issue that was brought up there is that VA care for post-9/11 amputee veterans doesn’t take into account some of the needs for that population. They’re very different from maybe the needs of senior veterans. And it goes into more about how Capitol Hill is hearing some of these concerns. But read the story and learn more.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: This is from KFF Health News. It is by Stephanie Armour. It is on a topic we discussed earlier on this podcast. The headline is “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion.” And what I love about this piece is it does a great job going into detail about the reproductive health ideas and agenda that is outlined in Project 2025. But I also really love that it ties that to the people who are involved in Trump World. Right? And it talks about who are the people who wrote this. Roger Severino, obviously a huge name, very anti-abortion, was involved in Trump’s HHS when he was president last time, and …

Rovner: Did the Office for Civil Rights.

Luthra: Exactly, which has huge implications for abortion policy and reproductive health policy. And I think that Stephanie does a really great job of getting into the political back and forth that has emerged over Project 2025, in which Trump himself has tried to distance himself from the document, from what it outlines and what it says. But that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when we look at the authors because it is largely people who have worked for Trump, have advised him, and are likely to have influential roles coming forward. There’s also some ties between JD Vance and the folks at [The] Heritage [Foundation] and Project 2025 that really solidifies the notion that this is something that could be very influential in dictating what our country would look like under a Trump-Vance presidency. And I appreciate Stephanie’s work in clarifying what it says.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my extra credit this week is a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. It’s from the Cambridge [Health] Alliance at Harvard and is called “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons.” And it looks at something that I didn’t even know existed: copays required in prisons for prison inmates in order to obtain medical care. The study found, not surprisingly, that copays can be equal to more than a week’s wage for some inmates, who often make just pennies an hour for the work that they do behind bars. And that many inmates end up going without needed care because they can’t afford said copays.

It’s pretty eye-opening and I hope it gets some attention. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions; we’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: @shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The head of Health Access California, one of the state’s most influential consumer groups, changed course only after he and his allies extracted a deal to increase subsidies for people in need.

The plan was ultimately blocked by Democrats who wanted the state to adopt a single-payer health care system instead. Yet the moment encapsulates classic Anthony Wright: independent-minded and willing to compromise if it could help Californians live healthier lives without going broke.

This summer, Wright will assume the helm of the health consumer group Families USA, taking his campaign for more affordable and accessible health care to the national level and a deeply divided Congress. In his 23 years in Sacramento, Wright has successfully lobbied to outlaw surprise medical billing, require companies to report drug price increases, and cap hospital bills for uninsured patients — policies that have spread nationwide.

“He pushed the envelope and gave people aspirational leadership,” said Jennifer Kent, who served as Schwarzenegger’s head of the Department of Health Care Services, which administers the state Medicaid program. The two were often on opposing sides on health policy issues. “There was always, like, one more thing, one more goal, one more thing to achieve.”

Recently, Wright co-led a coalition of labor and immigrant rights activists to provide comprehensive Medicaid benefits to all eligible California residents regardless of immigration status. The state funds this coverage because the federal government doesn’t allow it.

His wins have come mostly under Democratic governors and legislatures and when Republican support hasn’t been needed. That will not be the case in Washington, D.C., where Republicans currently control the House and the Senate Democratic Caucus has a razor-thin majority, which has made it extremely difficult to pass substantive legislation. November’s elections are not expected to ease the partisan impasse.

Though both Health Access and Families USA are technically nonpartisan, they tend to align with Democrats and lobby for Democratic policies, including abortion rights. But “Anthony doesn’t just talk to his own people,” said David Panush, a veteran Sacramento health policy consultant. “He has an ability to connect with people who don’t agree with you on everything.”

Wright, who interned for Vice President Al Gore and worked as a consumer advocate at the Federal Communications Commission in his 20s, acknowledges his job will be tougher in the nation’s capital, and said he is “wide-eyed about the dysfunction” there. He said he also plans to work directly with state lawmakers, including encouraging those in the 10, mostly Republican states that have not yet expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to do so.

In an interview with California Healthline senior correspondent Samantha Young, Wright, 53, discussed his accomplishments in Sacramento and the challenges he will face leading a national consumer advocacy group. His remarks have been edited for length and clarity.

Q: Is there something California has done that you’d like to see other states or the federal government adopt?

Just saying “We did this in California” is not going to get me very far in 49 other states. But stuff that has already gone national, like the additional assistance to buy health care coverage with state subsidies, that became something that was a model for what the federal government did in the American Rescue Plan [Act] and the Inflation Reduction Act. Those additional tax credits have had a huge impact. About 5 million Americans have coverage because of them. Yet, those additional tax credits expire in 2025. If those tax credits expire, the average premium will spike $400 a month.

Q: You said you will find yourself playing defense if former President Donald Trump is elected in November. What do you mean?

Our health is on the ballot. I worry about the Affordable Care Act and the protections for preexisting conditions, the help for people to afford coverage, and all the other consumer patient protections. I think reproductive health is obviously front and center, but that’s not the only thing that could be taken away. It could also be something like Medicare’s authority to negotiate prices on prescription drugs.

Q: But Trump has said he doesn’t want to repeal the ACA this time, rather “make it better.”

We just need to look at the record of what was proposed during his first term, which would have left millions more people uninsured, which would have spiked premiums, which would have gotten rid of key patient protections.

Q: What’s on your agenda if President Joe Biden wins reelection?

It partially depends on the makeup of Congress and other elected officials. Do you extend this guarantee that nobody has to spend more than 8.5% of their income on coverage? Are there benefits that we can actually improve in Medicare and Medicaid with regard to vision and dental? What are the cost drivers in our health system?

There is a lot we can do at both the state and the federal level to get people both access to health care and also financial security, so that their health emergency doesn’t become a financial emergency as well.

Q: Will it be harder to get things done in a polarized Washington?

The dysfunction of D.C. is a real thing. I don’t have delusions that I have any special powers, but we will try to do our best to make progress. There are still very stark differences, whether it’s about the Affordable Care Act or, more broadly, about the social safety net. But there’s always opportunities for advancing an agenda.

There could be a lot of common ground on areas like health care costs and having greater oversight and accountability for quality in cost and quality in value, for fixing market failures in our health system.

Q: What would happen in California if the ACA were repealed?

When there was the big threat to the ACA, a lot of people thought, “Can’t California just do its own thing?” Without the tens of billions of dollars that the Affordable Care Act provides, it would have been very hard to sustain. If you get rid of those subsidies, and 5 million Californians lose their coverage, it becomes a smaller and sicker risk pool. Then premiums spike up for everybody, and, basically, the market becomes a death spiral that will cover nobody, healthy or sick.

Q: California expanded Medicaid to qualified immigrants living in the state without authorization. Do you think that could happen at the federal level?

Not at the moment. I would probably be more focused on the states that are not providing Medicaid to American citizens [who] just happen to be low-income. They are turning away precious dollars that are available for them.

Q: What do you take away from your time at Health Access that will help you in Washington?

It’s very rare that anything of consequence is done in a year. In many cases, we’ve had to run a bill or pursue a policy for multiple years or sessions. So, the power of persistence is that if you never give up, you’re never defeated, only delayed. Prescription drug price transparency took three years, surprise medical bills took three years, the hospital fair-pricing act took five years.

Having a coalition of consumer voices is important. Patients and the public are not just another stakeholder. Patients and the public are the point of the health care system.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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.

Republicans released a draft party platform in advance of the GOP national convention next week, and while it is being described as softening the party’s stance opposing abortion, support from major groups that oppose abortion suggests that claim may be something of a mirage.

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission is taking on the pharmacy benefits management industry as it prepares to file suit charging that the largest PBMs engage in anticompetitive behavior that raises patients’ drug costs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th News, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• For the first time in decades, the GOP presidential platform will not include a call for a national abortion ban. But Republicans are hardly soft-pedaling the issue: The new platform effectively asserts that abortion violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens — including, under their reading, human embryos. Under that argument, abortion opponents may already have the constitutional justification they need to defend in court further restrictions on the procedure.
• Lawmakers in Washington are making early progress on government spending bills, including for the Department of Health and Human Services. Some political issues, like access to gender-affirming care for service members and minors, are creating wrinkles. Congress will likely need to pass a stopgap spending measure to avoid a government shutdown this fall.
• And a new report from the Federal Trade Commission illuminates the sweeping control of a handful of pharmacy benefits managers over most of the nation’s prescription drugs. As the government eyes lawsuits against some of the major PBMs alleging anticompetitive behavior, the findings bolster the case that PBMs are inflating drug prices.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council, about the Biden administration’s policies to ensure access to reproductive health care.

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

Julie Rovner: STAT News’ “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names,” by Tara Bannow.

Jessie Hellmann: North Carolina Health News’ “N.C. House Wants to Spend Opioid Money on Multiple Abstinence-Based Recovery Centers, While Experts Stress Access to Medication,” by Grace Vitaglione.

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “These GOP Women Begged the Party to Abandon Abortion. Then Came Backlash,” by Caroline Kitchener.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “For at Least One Abortion Clinic, Dobbs Eased Stressors,” by Sandhya Raman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: GOP Platform Muddies Abortion Waters

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘GOP Platform Muddies Abortion Waters’Episode Number: 355Published: July 11, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 11, 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 by a video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann, also of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with White House Gender Policy Council Director Jennifer Klein about how the administration is dealing with the recent Supreme Court decisions about abortion access. But first, this week’s news. So, the Republican National Convention is next week. I have no idea how that happened already.

And in preparation, the party’s platform committee, behind closed doors, overwhelmingly approved a document that, depending on who you believe, either weakens the party’s longtime anti-abortion stance or cleverly disguises it. Shefali, what exactly did they do and how is this a change from the last Republican platform, which was actually written in 2016?

Luthra: So this is pretty interesting because there was a lot of attention paid to the fact that this is the first Republican platform in decades to not include a national abortion ban at 20 weeks. And so that got a lot of headlines. People saying, “This is really backpedaling, this is softening the GOP’s abortion stance.” But if you look at the text, that’s not really true. Because while they don’t talk about a national abortion ban, they do cite one of the anti-abortion movement’s favorite legal theories, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

And they argue that states when banning abortion can use the 14th Amendment, and they recognize that as protecting essentially the rights of fetuses and embryos. It’s kind of having it both ways because while they argue this is a state decision in the language, they’re using the federal Constitution. And every anti-abortion group that I’ve spoken with sees this as a victory, at least the major ones do. Because if you’re citing the Constitution, you’re opening a door to a national abortion ban through our founding documents.

And that is something that they have been working for for a long time. And so I think it’s really important for us to understand just how drastic in some ways this really is. It is not really soft peddling in terms of what they’re ultimately hoping to achieve.

Rovner: Yeah, I think people have not pointed out that this is the first Republican platform post-Roe v. Wade. So they don’t need to call for federal legislation because they have a court that will basically, as they put in the platform, guarantee what they are asserting, which is that basically the 14th Amendment already effectively bans abortion. So the heck with Congress,

Luthra: And one thing that I do think is worth noting is, in some ways, why, and many have made this point, why would they care about a national 20-week abortion ban? Most abortion opponents don’t see that as a victory because most abortions occur well before that. They would much rather have national restrictions, or at the very least, six or 15.

Rovner: Yeah, and somebody, now I can’t remember who it was, wrote about this. There’s a reference in the platform language to, I think I can’t remember, whether it’s late term or later abortions, but that can be defined many, many, many, many ways, not just… I mean, 20 weeks is, like, that is so three years ago.

Raman: Oh, I was going to say I would agree in part. I do think that, yes, it lets you cater to an array of people, because you can either have someone follow the 14th Amendment language or the only other sentence that anything in this realm says, advocating for prenatal care and access to birth control and IVF. And then with certain forms of birth control, with IVF, we still have some of the same people that are citing personhood concerns as their opposition for that. So it’s playing both ways.

And yes, I would say that most of the anti-abortion groups have been saying that they’re OK with this. But then at the same time, we have someone like former Vice President Mike Pence, who came out pretty strongly against this and is really disappointed, and he’s been a huge player in the anti-abortion advocacy. But I think one thing that was interesting was we focused a lot on just the limit not being in this version.

But the older version also had just more language on preventing fetal tissue research from abortions or federal funding from abortions or sex-specific or disability-specific abortions. It’s just a smaller social issue, I think, in the overall platform, whereas I think they’ve really been playing up some of the other things like gender-affirming care and pushing back against that as you can see throughout ads and stuff.

Rovner: But of course, all of those things are in Project 2025, right?

Raman: Yeah.

Luthra: And part of that also is that this is a fairly short platform as Republican platforms go. It’s clearly written in the Trump voice. Detail is not its desired narrative.

Rovner: It’s not the 900-page Project 2025 …

Luthra: Absolutely not.

Rovner: … that Trump now insists he knows nothing about. Which seems was written, in fact, I think almost exclusively by people who worked for him and who I believe plan to work for him in his second term.

Luthra: And if you see photos from the RNC, it’s very clear that Heritage [Foundation], the organization behind Project 2025, has a strong presence there.

Rovner: Yes, we’ll all be watching the convention carefully next week. I assume that they’re going to do the job that they’ve done so far, which is to keep everybody singing from the same songbook. That’s clearly the goal of every party convention, and so far they seem to have managed to play this both ways enough. As you mentioned, they have the anti-abortion groups on board, but they’ve gotten the mainstream media, if you will, to say, “Oh, look, they’re softening their abortion stance.” We’ll see if that lasts through the week.

So in my conversation with Jen Klein, which we will hear a little bit later, we talked about how the two abortion cases at the Supreme Court this term challenging the abortion pill and the federal emergency abortion requirements under EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] are likely to come back at some point since the court didn’t reach the merits of either case.

But those are far from the only cases that could come back to the justices in the next year or so, regardless of who gets elected president. There are also going to be cases about whether women who live in states with abortion bans can travel to other states where abortion is legal. And whether states can really shield doctors who prescribe abortion pills to patients who are residents of states where abortion is banned. The court by itself could effectively ban abortion no matter who’s elected president or controls Congress, right?

Luthra: There’s definitely a lot of unanswered legal questions that we will see coming to the court. The shield law question is one that I think is incredibly interesting with significant tremendous ramifications for how people get abortion. I don’t know that we’ve seen incredible test cases yet that could become the one that the court weighs in on. But it really is only a matter of time until abortion opponents in particular find a way to develop a legal challenge and then advance it.

Rovner: I’m watching the travel cases, because I mean, even [Supreme Court Justice] Brett Kavanaugh wrote in one of these abortion decisions that you cannot ban travel from one state to another. There certainly seem to be ways of trying. I know that there’s been a bill that’s been kicking around in Congress for three decades to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines without the minor’s parents’ permission.

It was based off a case where the guy’s mom took the kid from Pennsylvania to New York. That was the origin of this case in 1997. But certainly that was the first bit of, maybe we should do something about people trying to travel from state to state since we now have cases where abortion is legal in some and not legal in others.

Raman: We’ve definitely seen that historically that certain types of things that if it starts with minors and things like that, that it can grow. I mean, that’s a thing that they’ve been messaging a lot on with the gender-affirming care. If it’s starting with youth, that slowly the age range creeps up. So that even if this is something that starts just in a few states like with what Idaho has been doing with minors, it could change.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the number of states with complete bans or major restrictions continues to grow. The Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled as recently as 2018 that abortion was “a fundamental right under the state constitution,” has now reversed itself and has allowed a six-week ban to take effect. Shefali, that’s going to have ramifications way beyond Iowa, right?

Luthra: It always does. We are now up to 14 states with near-total abortion bans and four more with six-week bans. That means Iowa. That is South Carolina. That is Georgia. That is Florida. And what we know is people try and travel from one state to another to access care. And there weren’t a large number of abortions being done in Iowa. I checked the data after this ban took effect, and it’s a small state.

But we’ll see what we always see, which is people trying to travel somewhere else where they can get care, creating longer wait times at clinics that are under-resourced already, overtaxed, making it harder for everyone to access not only abortion, but any other health service they might provide, whether that is STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing, whether that is family planning services, whether that’s cancer screenings.

Rovner: And we’re also seeing doctors leaving some of these states with bans, which means that there’s simply less care available in those states.

Luthra: Absolutely. We’re seeing people have to go from their home states to neighboring states just for basic pregnancy care for when they deliver, because they don’t have maternal fetal medicine specialists. They don’t have OB-GYNs. And eventually they’re going to have fewer family physicians and doctors of all kinds practicing in these states for the reasons, as you’ve reported so often, Julie, that in part they don’t want to practice somewhere where their profession isn’t fully legal. And also they would like full access to health care themselves.

Rovner: Yes, for themselves or their partners. Well, back here in Washington, it’s a million degrees this week and Congress is back, not that those two things are connected, just mentioning. Anyway, unlike last year when the House basically abandoned the appropriations process, culminating in the spending bills for the current fiscal year not being finalized until this past spring, like more than halfway through the year, House Republicans are in fact moving the 12 regular appropriations for next year. Although not in a way that’s likely to become law.

Sandhya, you’re following the gigantic Labor, Health and Human Services, Education spending bill that got marked up in a full committee yesterday. What’s it look like at the moment?

Raman: So yesterday we had our monster markup. Six hours that it took just to get through that bill to approve the Labor-HHS-Education bill. We had 15 different amendments come up, which takes up the bulk of the conversation. What we had approved on a party-line vote was $107 billion in discretionary money for HHS. So if that were to become law, that’s a drop of about $8.5 billion from what we currently have.

And so this is just the first step because the Senate will put out their version in the coming weeks. We can help and they’ll come together on a deal. And even during the markup, it was acknowledged by leadership that this is the first step. This was on party lines. This is not what we’re going to get when we come to law. Democrats had a lot of issues that they voiced throughout the process about the big cuts.

Rovner: Oh, there’s some pretty dramatic cuts in this bill.

Raman: Yeah. The bill, as it stands, would cut a lot of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] prevention programs. It would cut all the funding for Title X family planning funding. It would cut a lot of HIV prevention funding, and has smaller numbers for a variety of programs throughout. And that has just been a nonstarter.

Ranking member [Rep.] Rosa DeLauro has said that she wants at least a 1% increase over what was there last year, and she cited the budget deal that Congress and the White House had agreed to last year, whereas Republicans had said that the numbers in the bill that was approved reflects what they see as following that model. So we’ll see as the Senate moves and then this should eventually get to the House floor if they stick to it.

I mean, last year we had a subcommittee markup and it never went to full committee because of various issues there, but they did take it to the floor. It’s been a different process.

Rovner: It was basically too extreme to pass last year.

Raman: Yeah. Well, last year they also revised it to make it more conservative. And so that also brought up some issues there to get everyone on board. But this is just the first step and we will see what happens in the coming weeks with what the Senate puts out.

Rovner: One of the things that interested me in the bill is that it looks like these are the appropriators. They’re not supposed to be making policy. They’re just supposed to be setting spending, but they seem to want to completely overhaul the National Institutes of Health: cut the number of institutes in half or more; eliminate the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Where did this come from? Does anybody know?

Raman: So this has been like a pet project of [Rep. Robert] Aderholt, the subcommittee chairman of Labor-H, as well as [Rep.] Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the [House] chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and they …

Rovner: Which is the authorizing committee.

Raman: … Yeah. So they came together and did an op-ed a little while ago about how this was something that they wanted to do and they’ve put it in this bill. But a thing that has come up at both of the markups on this has been that we have not had hearings on this. This should come up through an authorizing committee, like Energy and Commerce, if you want to make changes.

And I think there are people like Rep. Steny Hoyer who were like, “We’re not against reforming different parts of NIH, but it needs to come through that process rather than this,” especially when this is a partisan bill if we’re going to do something as big as that. Because NIH is one of the biggest agencies in any department. And so changes of that grand of scale need to be done through that process rather than in appropriations.

Rovner: And it has been bipartisanly popular over the years. It was the Republicans who first proposed doubling funding for NIH. So it’s interesting that that popped up. Well, meanwhile, we’ll see how this bill fares when it comes to the House floor and how it changes in the Senate.

Congress is also moving on separate must-pass bills, including the annual defense authorization. There’s a defense appropriation, too, but the authorization is where the policy is supposed to be made, as we just said. And as in years past, the defense authorization is picking up riders that don’t have a lot to do with defense, right?

Raman: Yeah. I think that this is increasingly where we’re seeing some of the varied riders related to gender-affirming care. The Senate and the House’s versions both had provisions related to that. I mean, you could see that, again, as the broad issue for Republicans. Even within the labor age bill, we had different things related to that within the education portion. And so I think that has been the big thing that people are watching there on the health front.

Rovner: And abortion too, right? This continuing concern about allowing service women and dependents to travel for abortion if they’re in states with bans.

Raman: Yeah, and we had that whole issue just last year when we had the Defense nominees held up over a hold from Sen. [Tommy] Tuberville over that policy. So the pushback against those kind of policies in the Defense Department, the VA [Veterans Administration], are not ending here.

Rovner: Yeah.

Luthra: What I find so striking, Julie, if I can add something on, in particular, the exclusion of gender-affirming care, is that trans service members have seen what the laws and their protections are really zigzag back and forth over the past several administrations. And there’s something that I think we haven’t fully grappled with or articulated about the implications for that, right?

Because if you start accessing health care that you want to stay with for the rest of your life, in theory, and you keep seeing your benefits change on and off, that’s not adequate health care, that’s not appropriate. Because your ability to access your medications — for instance, is really subject to the whims of Congress in a way that wouldn’t be the case for other forms of medication — wouldn’t really be tolerated. And I think we haven’t fully understood exactly what this means for service members’ long-term lives and health outcomes.

Rovner: And as we say, and their family members. And when you sign up for the military, I mean, it’s not like you can just get another job with different health benefits. You make a commitment. And you’re right, the commitment that’s made back to you keeps changing. That’s probably not great for military morale.

All right, well, turning to health industry news, the Federal Trade Commission is taking square aim at pharmaceutical benefit managers. On Tuesday, it released the results of a two-year investigation that found the three largest PBMs now control 80% of the nation’s prescriptions while the six largest control 90%. The study also demonstrates what we’ve known for a long time: PBMs tend to steer patients to their own pharmacies even when that tends to cost patients more. And the PBMs pay themselves more than they pay independent pharmacies for the same drugs.

After letting that all settle in for about 24 hours, the agency then leaked the news that it plans to sue those three largest PBMs — the ones owned by UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, and CVS — for a variety of their practices, including steering patients towards more expensive insulin products that the PBMs get larger rebates for. In other words, the patients have to pay more so the PBMs can get more money.

Jessie, PBMs have been targets for several years now. Is this finally something that could take them down a peg? I know Congress has been wringing its hands over this for the last four or five years.

Hellmann: So the announcement hasn’t been officially made, but the FTC has been talking about this for several years. I guess they just wanted to wait until they had this big report out to bolster their case against PBMs. But it seems like this lawsuit specifically might be looking at the rebate situation. According to the report, they just have a lot of concerns about how the rebate structure can favor more expensive drugs, more expensive branded drugs over generics. And they think that that’s anticompetitive.

I know they have said in the past that they think these structures could potentially violate antitrust laws. And so if there is a lawsuit filed targeting these kinds of structures, that could chip out away at a major revenue source for PBMs. The rebates that they get on some of these expensive drugs are really large. In many cases, the patients don’t see those benefits when they’re paying for a drug at the pharmacy counter.

So if you’re a patient and your formulary says, “If you want to access this type of drug, you have to go for this branded amount,” that could increase your out-of-pocket costs. So any kind of lawsuit could take years. But Congress has also been really interested in the rebate issue. There has been many bills that, I think there’s some consensus on that would tie these rebates, basically making them a flat fee versus tying them to the list price. So it’ll be interesting to see where that goes.

There’s been questions about whether that should extend to the private market, and I think that’s what’s been holding up some of the action on this front. But …

Rovner: Rather than just Medicare and Medicaid?

Hellmann: Yeah, exactly. Because Congress prefers to just tweak Medicare and Medicaid and hope that that will change how private insurers behave. But maybe this report, it does have some new details. The FTC was able to access some contracts. It shined more of a light on it. So maybe this report will change that conversation in Congress. We’ll see.

Rovner: I must have gotten a hundred emails from Congress after this report came out and it’s like, yes, you guys have had legislation on this since 2015, and it’s bipartisan. It just never seems to make it over the finish line.

Hellmann: Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens over the next six months because some of these PBM bills could save money. And Congress wants to pay for a lot of things at the end of the year, like telehealth expansion and things like that. So I think if they can figure it out in the next few months, that could definitely happen this year.

Rovner: What they’re doing on their summer vacation. Also, this week, updating something that we’ve talked about a lot on this podcast; the future of the medical workforce. A billion-dollar gift from Johns Hopkins alum Michael Bloomberg will enable the Johns Hopkins Medical School to go tuition-free for students whose families earn less than $300,000 per year, and will pay tuition and living expenses for those families who earn under $175,000 a year.

Johns Hopkins thus joins NYU, UCLA, and a couple of other medical schools, in helping prevent medical students from graduating with crippling debt that all but forces them into the highest-paying specialties rather than primary care, which is where, of course, they’re most needed. Except that it seems that a lot of these subsidized doctors still aren’t going into primary care. So maybe it’s going to take more than just money to get people to do the hardest job in medicine.

Hellmann: Yeah, I feel like even if someone’s tuition is fully paid for, I don’t know if that’s enough to make them want to go into these lower-paid specialties like primary care. It’s a trend that we’ve seen for a long time that people just want to make more money. And primary care, there’s been a lot of conversation lately about how it’s just the most unappreciated specialty that you can go into. Especially there’s been a lot of frustration around dealing with insurance companies. So I don’t know if this is it.

Rovner: And PBMs.

Luthra: Building on Jessie’s point, we have programs that make it easier to become teachers. That does not mean we have a glut of teachers because of the longer-term underappreciation we have for professions that are quite valuable in our society. And having those benefits early on doesn’t make up for yearslong lower pay and general career frustrations that have only grown in recent decades.

Whether that is because of physician practice consolidation. Whether that is because of electronic health records that doctors find to be so frustrating. Whether that’s just having to navigate patients’ different insurance. And now on top of that, more and more restrictions on health care that you provide. It’s already a really tough industry to go into.

And if you’re going to go into it, there are arguments that you might benefit from a higher-paid specialty and one where you don’t have to navigate as many of these really frustrating challenges that doctors still have to deal with.

Rovner: Yeah, a lot of it is lifestyle. I mean, it’s not just that you get paid less. Even if you got paid more, you’re on call a lot. We’ve seen graduating medical students gravitating towards things like dermatology, and emergency medicine, even, because there’s a shift; you’re either on or you’re off, or you don’t get called in the middle of the night.

Being a primary care doctor is hugely stressful and hugely time-consuming and not the greatest lifestyle. And yes, having $200,000 of debt is a good reason to not go into it. But apparently not having $200,000 of debt is still not enough of a reason not to go into it. Sandhya, you wanted to add something?

Raman: No, I was just going to say that part of this is just that we have to broaden the pipeline in general, and these are careers that take years and years of study and training to get to. So I think a lot of this we’ll have to wait and see that if someone is excited by something like this now, getting up to making this a possibility for them and then going through the training is going to take a while to dig through and see how that data is really affecting people.

Rovner: Yeah, we will. Another space we shall continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with the White House’s Jen Klein, and then we will come back with our extra credit.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council. Jen oversees administration policy on a wide range of subjects, domestic and international, affecting women’s health, economic security, and gender-based violence. Jen, welcome to “What The Health?”

Jennifer Klein: Thank you so much for having me.

Rovner: So I want to start with the Supreme Court. In the last few weeks of the term, the court punted on two big abortion cases, one challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, and the other challenging the Biden administration’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA. What’s the status of both of those and has anything changed as a result of these cases?

Klein: Well, as you noted, the Supreme Court didn’t really reach the merits on either of those cases, and in fact, both will be ongoing. And so I won’t get into the back and forth on the litigation, which the Department of Justice is tracking that closely. But I will say, first of all, on the first case, the case about access to mifepristone, we are going to continue to fight to make mifepristone medication abortion available. As you know, this is a drug that has proven to be safe and effective.

Twenty years ago, the FDA approved it. And in 2023, the FDA took independent evidence-based action to give women more options about how and where to pick up their prescription for medication abortion, just as they would for any other medication, including through telehealth and through a retail pharmacy. And earlier this year, two major retail pharmacy chains became newly certified to dispense medication abortion under a new pathway created by the FDA in 2023.

And so we’re continuing to encourage all pharmacies that want to pursue this option to seek certification so that this medication can be widely available. Because back to point one about the Supreme Court, it still is. While they didn’t reach the merits of the case and they sent the case back on standing grounds, they didn’t actually resolve the underlying legal issues.

So we will continue to defend our legal point of view and also make sure that people, first of all, know that this drug should remain available and people should be able to access it, and then do everything we can to make sure that that is easy for people who actually need access to the medication.

Rovner: And then on EMTALA?

Klein: On EMTALA, same issue. As you noted, the Supreme Court didn’t actually reach the merits of the case. So it’s first very important to point out that currently in Idaho, which was the state where the Department of Justice brought this suit to ensure that women in Idaho could have access to emergency medical services when they’re in the middle of an obstetrical emergency. And so they are in Idaho still able to access care.

And we are going to continue to make clear both our legal point of view, but also our policy point of view, that all patients, including women experiencing pregnancy loss and other pregnancy complications in the middle of an emergency, should be legally able to access emergency care under federal law. The federal law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

And what that says is that if somebody is in the middle of a medical emergency and they need care and that care includes abortion, that care is legally available to them. And so what we’ve done, and we are going to continue to do, is make sure that patients know what their rights are and that, importantly, that providers know what their responsibilities are under EMTALA.

So HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, has issued a number of comprehensive plans to make sure that people know their rights and responsibilities. They have created new patient-facing resources, offer training to doctors and health care providers. They actually created a dedicated team of experts at HHS to educate patients and hospitals about their rights and obligations under EMTALA.

And most recently, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] launched a new option on CMS.gov, which is the ability in both, by the way, English and Spanish, to allow individuals to more easily file a complaint themselves if they have been denied emergency care. The reason that’s important is because previously that had to be done through a state agency, which in some states you might imagine is less possible, less easy to do, than in others.

Rovner: So obviously, as we mentioned, both of these cases are likely to come back to the Supreme Court in the next couple of years. Is there anything that you can do to shore up either of these policies to try to legally brace against what’s likely to be another assault? And we already know, I guess in both cases, the next assault is already ongoing.

Klein: Yeah. I mean, as I said, the Department of Justice is going to be defending our legal point of view, and I can’t really get into that. But what I can say is that we strongly believe that both the medication abortion should be legally available, and is now legally available, and emergency medical services should be legally available, and are legally available under EMTALA. And we are going to continue to do whatever we can through executive action.

This was the subject of … Actually the president has issued three executive orders and a presidential memorandum. The presidential memorandum was focused specifically on medication abortion. The other three were broader, covered all sorts of reproductive health services, including contraception, as well as abortion. And we’re continuing to implement those, every day.

And I will add that today, actually, there’s a new regulation, a notice of proposed rulemaking, I shouldn’t say a regulation, that has come out today from the Department of Health and Human Services, which builds on work we’ve done to improve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality. And what that does is proposes the first-ever baseline health and safety requirements for obstetric services in hospitals.

So separate and apart from EMTALA, which speaks more generally to the services that you get when you walk into an emergency room, what this proposed rule would do is make sure that there are protocols and standards in place for obstetrical emergencies, and also procedures for transfers when somebody is in the middle of an obstetrical emergency or pregnancy complication and that hospital where they are can’t provide the care that they need.

Rovner: So we’ll see how that one goes. After last month’s debate, a lot of abortion rights supporters were dismayed that President Biden didn’t very effectively defend abortion access and didn’t really rebut falsehoods repeated by former President Trump. We know that reproductive health isn’t the issue that the president feels most comfortable talking about anyway. What do you say to those who are worried that the president won’t go far enough or isn’t the right messenger for this extremely critical moment?

Klein: I would say a couple of things: I would say look at what this administration has done under his leadership. I was with him in the Oval Office the day the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision came down and he was angry. And why was he angry? The same reason we were all angry, because never before had the Supreme Court taken away a fundamental constitutional right. And he has been fighting and asked me to help lead the fight for the last two-plus years to do whatever we can.

And he also was quite clear on that day that the only way to replace a constitutional right that was lost is to restore the protections that existed under Roe v. Wade for nearly 50 years. And that’s what we intend to do, what he intends to do. And he has said many, many times, while the other side would actually ban abortion nationwide, what he is attempting to do and what he will sign the minute a bill reaches his desk is to restore the protections of Roe in federal law so that every woman in every state has the right to access abortion care and other reproductive health services.

By the way, as you well know, many other reproductive health services like contraception, like in vitro fertilization, and other fertility services, are on the chopping block as well. And Republican elected officials, whether that’s in Congress or in states, have been not only unwilling but dramatically invested in reducing access to care and restricting access to care. And so what this president is doing is fighting to make sure that people do have access to abortion and the full range of reproductive health services.

And I think the second point I would make is the contrast could not be clearer. And so as people think about who is protecting their rights and their access to health care, I think that the choice is obvious. And then the third thing I would say is we also have a vice president who has really led and traveled, I think, to 20 states around the country, met with 250 state legislators, state attorneys general, presidents, met with governors. We are here to support the states, which are really the front lines. And she has really led the charge for reproductive freedom.

Rovner: And obviously it is an issue that she does feel comfortable talking about, and does a lot. Speaking of restoring Roe v. Wade, there are a lot of people in the abortion rights community who say that that’s actually not far enough. That even under Roe, there were many, many restrictions on abortion that were still allowed, most notably, the Hyde Amendment that bans virtually all federal funding of abortion. Would the administration support efforts to expand abortion rights beyond Roe?

Klein: Well, the president has been on record, obviously also the vice president, against the Hyde Amendment, would remove the Hyde Amendment to address exactly the issue that you just raised. And yes, what we want to do is ensure that people have access to health care. In the moment we are in, we are fighting that in states across the country, and also want to have a national law that protects access to abortion and all of the other reproductive health services that were lost.

Rovner: So we’ve seen a lot of predictable outcomes of abortion bans around the country, but also some that were more maybe unexpected, including a spike in infant mortality in Texas and graduating medical students avoiding doing their residencies in states with abortion bans. Are you working on policies to address those issues? I guess you mentioned infant mortality already.

Klein: Yes. We’re very focused, as we have been, by the way, the administration released a maternal health blueprint two years ago, actually before the Dobbs decision came down. And we are continuing to work on that. So in addition to what I mentioned earlier, another great example of the work we’ve done is to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from two to 12 months. That now exists in 46 states, plus the District of Columbia.

The other thing I would say is you raised a very important point, which is, first of all, clinics are closing because of extreme abortion bans across the country. Secondly, training. People are not able to get the training to provide the services that their patients will need in many states. And so we are very focused on addressing issues of training, issues of access to clinics, and other reproductive health services across the country. That’s why we’ve increased Title X funding for family planning clinics.

So the short answer is, yes, we have a very broad agenda. And by the way, this week in Congress there have been several bills introduced on issues like training, to ensure that people have access to care. So the three that were introduced were, first, the freedom to travel for health care, which is obviously another very important issue. Which, by the way, there are states and state attorneys general who are attempting to block people from traveling to seek legal reproductive health care in other states.

There’s another unanimous consent resolution this week to protect health care providers from being held liable for providing services to patients from other states. And third, a unanimous consent resolution to protect reproductive health care training. So those are what our colleagues on the Hill are working on and we firmly support efforts to do that.

Rovner: And obviously two of them got tried yesterday and blocked. And so we know that Congress has stuck on this issue. Even if President Biden is reelected and Democrats keep the Senate and take the majority in the House, it’s unlikely that Congress will be able to pass broad legislation to protect abortion rights.

There has actually never been a pro-choice majority in Congress while a Democrat was in the White House. So how will the administration be able to advance reproductive rights, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Chevron doctrine that’s going to make it easier for outsiders to challenge administration actions in court?

Klein: Yeah, this is not easy. We have seen a very concerted effort on the other side. First of all, to pass extreme abortion bans at the state level. We now have 20-plus states with extreme abortion bans in place. One in three women of reproductive age live in a state with an abortion ban right now. And yes, we see that the courts are also challenging. On the other hand, you raised the question earlier about being frustrated with only restoring Roe.

I think our view, my view, is that we need to start somewhere. And while, yes, it has been very difficult at the national level to pass any legislation to support reproductive freedom, I remain optimistic. The president, as we all know, is an eternal optimist. I remain optimistic that we can do that and that we can get bipartisan support.

Because what you’ve seen across the country in states that might not have been obvious, but when people have had the opportunity to speak out about this, state ballot initiatives, we’ve had states like Kansas and Montana. And most recently there’s a few states that have just put abortion ballot initiatives on the ballot for November, like Florida, like Colorado, like Nevada.

There is a broad range of states where when people are given the opportunity to speak to these issues, they speak really loudly and clearly for reproductive freedom. So that’s why I actually remain very optimistic, despite the odds that you rightfully point out, that actually Congress could pass federal legislation which the president would sign.

Rovner: Last question, there’s been a lot of talk about the Comstock Act, it’s 1873 anti-vice law, and whether a future Republican administration could use it to basically ban abortion nationwide. Congress, as I mentioned, seems unlikely to have the votes to repeal it. Is there anything the administration can do to try and forestall that for a future administration?

Klein: Not for a future administration, which is why our interpretation of what the Comstock Act does and doesn’t do is really important. So this Department of Justice under the Biden-Harris administration has made it clear that the Comstock Act does not apply to lawful abortion. And by the way, four appellate courts, Congress for more than 50 years, agreed with that interpretation.

So we stick by our interpretation, which means that there’s no restriction on the transport, shipping of medication abortion or, by the way, any other supply that’s used in abortion for lawful purposes. And there is a lawful purpose, by the way, in every state for medication abortion because it is also used for miscarriage management, for example. And there are states which have exceptions for rape or incest, where obviously medication abortion could be used in those cases.

So our interpretation I think is not only legally viable, but just makes a lot of sense. And I do think that people should really understand that a future administration could come in with a very different view, and actually have completely signaled that they would do that. If you look at some of the policy papers and documents, it makes really clear that the other side doesn’t think they need to pass a national abortion ban. They think they have one on the books, and they think that’s the Comstock Act.

Rovner: Jen Klein, thank you so much for joining us. I hope we can do this again.

Klein: Thank you so much. It was great to be with you.

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s where 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. Shefali, you were the first one to choose this week. Why don’t you go first?

Luthra: I’m very excited about this story. It’s by Caroline Kitchener at The Washington Post, who everyone should be reading all the time. The headline: “These GOP Women Begged the Party to Abandon Abortion. Then Came Backlash.” And the story fits into a pattern of reporting that we’ve started to see about what it means to be a Republican woman in state politics at a time when the party’s views on abortion are out of step with the national norm.

We saw these effects happen in South Carolina where the Republican women who opposed their state’s abortion ban have all lost their seats. And Caroline’s story does a really good job of getting into the tensions that have come up at the state GOP convention and how these women have said, “Hey, maybe abortion is not a winning issue. We already have an abortion ban. Maybe we shouldn’t make this the thing that is our No. 1 concern. Maybe we should focus on other things.”

And at the same time, you have very influential anti-abortion organizations in the state that are not satisfied with the status quo and want a place like Texas to go much further, and to find ways to ban medication abortion from being mailed into states or find ways to restrict travel. And what happened to these women in Caroline’s story is they fought at the convention to have abortion not be an issue, and then afterward they were ostracized.

And that I think is going to be very indicative of what we will see in the Republican Party moving forward. And it’s something that has come up over and over again; is that lawmakers on a state level are really nervous about the politics of pursuing further abortion restrictions. But also there is a very influential group of people who do not want them to stop. And this is only going to be a tension that keeps coming to a head and very often on lines of gender.

Rovner: I’m old enough to remember when abortion was not a completely partisan issue, when there were lots and lots and lots of Republicans who supported abortion rights and lots and lots and lots of Democrats who didn’t. I think in both cases they’re being… Each is being shoved into the other party. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: So I picked “For at Least One Abortion Clinic, Dobbs Eased Stressors,” and that’s by me this week on Roll Call. So following the Dobbs decision, North Dakota’s only abortion clinic of the past 20 years moved to Minnesota. And so I spent a week there in June in Moorhead, Minnesota, where they moved, which is on the border with Fargo, North Dakota, and just looked at the mental well-being of people associated with the clinic and the community and was surprised by what I found.

Rovner: Well, I’m looking forward to reading it because I haven’t actually read it yet. Jessie?

Hellmann: My story is from North Carolina Health News [“N.C. House Wants to Spend Opioid Money on Multiple Abstinence-Based Recovery Centers, While Experts Stress Access to Medication,”] and it’s looking at this debate I think a lot of states are going to be facing pretty soon, about how to spend the massive amount of money that’s coming in from these opioid settlements. And in North Carolina specifically, there is a little bit of a push to award funds to clinics that may not be using evidence-based approaches to the opioid epidemic. Some of these centers, they don’t offer medication at all, which is the gold standard for treating opioid use disorder.

Some of these centers go even further and say, “If you are on these medications, you cannot stay in our facilities,” which is very antithetical to how you should treat someone with opioid use disorder. And then some of these centers are not licensed. So I think this is definitely something that we’re going to be seeing coming up in the next few years about who is qualified to treat people for opioid use disorder and how are they doing it.

Rovner: Yeah, lots of important stories for local reporters to pursue. Well, my extra credit this week is an investigation from Stat News by Tara Bannow called “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names.” And it’s about how nonprofit hospital systems, who are in many cases desperate for places to put psychiatric patients who are crowding their emergency departments, are creating these joint ventures with the two major national for-profit psychiatric hospital chains, UHS and Acadia, both of which have been cited repeatedly by state and local regulators for lack of staffing, lack of training, and lack of security that’s resulted in patient injuries and deaths.

Under these deals, the psychiatric hospitals operate under the banner of the nonprofits, which are usually well-known in their communities, and then the revenues get split. But some of the stories here are pretty hair-raising, and you really should read the whole story because it is quite an investigation.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. 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. Sandhya, where are you hanging these days?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil on the same platform.

Rovner: Jessie?

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

It’s not surprising that the nursing home industry is filing lawsuits to block new Biden administration rules requiring minimum staffing at facilities that accept federal dollars. What is slightly surprising is the pushback against the rules from members of Congress. Lawmakers don’t appear to have the votes to disapprove the rule, but they might be able to force a floor vote, which could be embarrassing for the administration.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats aim to force Republicans who proclaim support for contraceptive access to vote for a bill guaranteeing it, which all but a handful have refused to do.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In suing to block the Biden administration’s staffing rules, the nursing home industry is arguing that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services lacks the authority to implement the requirements and that the rules, if enforced, could force many facilities to downsize or close.
• Anthony Fauci, the retired director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the man who advised both Presidents Donald Trump and Joe Biden on the covid-19 pandemic, testified this week before the congressional committee charged with reviewing the government’s pandemic response. Fauci, the subject of many conspiracy theories, pushed back hard, particularly on the charge that he covered up evidence that the pandemic began because dangerous microbes escaped from a lab in China partly funded by the National Institutes of Health.
• A giant inflatable intrauterine device was positioned near Union Station in Washington, D.C., marking what seemed to be “Contraceptive Week” on Capitol Hill. Republican senators blocked an effort by Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to force a vote on consideration of legislation to codify the federal right to contraception. Immediately after, Schumer announced a vote for next week on codifying access to in vitro fertilization services.
• Hospitals in London appear to be the latest, high-profile cyberattack victims, raising the question of whether it might be time for some sort of international cybercrime-fighting agency. In the United States, health systems and government officials are still in the very early stages of tackling the problem, and it is not clear whether Congress or the administration will take the lead.
• An FDA advisory panel this week recommended against the formal approval of MDMA, a psychedelic also known as ecstasy, to treat post-traumatic stress disorder. Members of the panel said there was not enough evidence to recommend its use. But the discussion did provide more guidance about what companies need to present in terms of trials and evidence to make their argument for approval more feasible.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about a free cruise that turned out to be anything but. If you have an outrageous or baffling bill you’d like to send us, you can do that here.

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

• Julie Rovner: Abortion, Every Day’s “EXCLUSIVE: Health Data Breach at America’s Largest Crisis Pregnancy Org,” by Jessica Valenti.
• Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Washington Post’s “Conservative Attacks on Birth Control Could Threaten Access,” by Lauren Weber.
• Rachel Cohrs Zhang: ProPublica’s “This Mississippi Hospital Transfers Some Patients to Jail to Await Mental Health Treatment,” by Isabelle Taft, Mississippi Today.
• Sandhya Raman: Air Mail’s “Roanoke’s Requiem,” by Clara Molot.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Nursing Home Staffing Rules Prompt Pushback

[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, June 6, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote this month’s KFF Health News/NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a free cruise that turned out to be anything but. But first, this week’s news. We’re going to start this week with those controversial nursing home staffing rules.

In case you’ve forgotten, back in May, the Biden administration finalized rules that would require nursing homes that receive federal funding, which is basically all of them, to have nurses on duty 24/7/365, as well as impose other minimum staffing requirements.

The nursing home industry, which has been fighting this effort literally for decades, is doing what most big powerful health industry players do when an administration does something it doesn’t like: filing lawsuits. So what is their problem with the requirement to have sufficient staff to care for patients who, by definition, can’t care for themselves or they wouldn’t be in nursing homes?

Cohrs Zhang: Well, I think the groups are arguing that CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service] doesn’t have authority to implement these rules, and that if Congress had wanted these minimum staffing requirements, Congress should have done that and they didn’t. So they’re arguing that they’re overstepping their boundaries, and we are seeing this lawsuit again in Texas, which is a popular venue for the health care industry to try to challenge rules or legislation that they don’t like.

So, I think it isn’t a surprise that we would see these groups sue, given the financial issues at stake, given the fearmongering about facilities having to close, and just the hiring that could have to happen for a lot of these facilities. So it’s not necessarily a surprise, but it will certainly be interesting and impactful for facilities and for seniors across the nation as this plays out.

Rovner: I mean, basically one of their arguments is that there just aren’t enough people to hire, that they can’t get the number of people that they would need, and that seems to be actually pretty persuasive argument at some point, right?

Cohrs Zhang: I mean, there is controversy about why staffing shortages happen. Certainly there could be issues with the pipeline or with nursing schools, education. But I think there are also arguments that unions or workers’ rights groups would make that maybe if facilities paid better, then they would get more people to work for them. Or that people might exit the industry because of working conditions, because of understaffing, and just that makes it harder on the workers who are actually there if their workloads are too much. Or they’re expected to do more work — longer hours or overtime — or their vacation is limited, that kind of thing.

So I think it is a surprisingly controversial issue that doesn’t have an easy answer, but that’s the perspectives that we’re seeing here.

Rovner: I mean, layering onto this, it’s not just the industry versus the administration. Now Congress is getting into the act, which you rarely see. They’re talking about using the Congressional Review Act, which is something that Congress can do. But of course, when you’re in the middle of an administration that’s done it, it would get vetoed by the president. So they can’t probably do anything. Sandhya, I see you nodding your head. These members of Congress just want to make a statement here?

Raman: Yeah. So Sen. James Lankford insured the resolution earlier this week to block the rule’s implementation, and it’s mostly Republicans that have signed on, but we also have [Sen.] Joe Manchin and [Sen.] Jon Tester. But the way it stands, it doesn’t have enough folks on board yet, and it would also need to be taken up. It faces an uphill climb like many of these things.

Rovner: Somebody actually asked me yesterday though, can they do this? And the answer is yes, there is the Congressional Review Act. Yes, Congress with just a majority vote and no filibuster in the Senate can overturn an administration rule. But like I said, it usually happens when an administration changes its hands because it does have to be signed by the president and the president can veto it.

If the president vetoes it, then they would need a veto override majority, which they clearly don’t seem to have in this case. But obviously there is enough concern about this issue. I think there’s been a Congressional Review Act resolution introduced in the House too, right?

Ollstein: It’s really tough because, like Rachel said, these jobs are low-paid. They’re emotionally and physically grueling. It’s really hard to find people willing to do this work. And at the same time, the current situation seems really untenable for patients. There’s been so many reports of really horrible patient safety and hygiene issues and all kinds of stuff in part, not entirely the fault of understaffing, but not helped by understaffing certainly.

I think, like, we see on so many fronts in health care, there are attempts to do something about this situation that has become untenable, but any attempt also will piss off someone and be challenged.

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. And we should point out that nursing homes are staffed primarily not by nurses, but by nurses aides of various training levels. So this is not entirely about a nursing shortage, it is about a shortage of workers who want to do this, as you say, very grueling and usually underpaid work.

Well, speaking of controversial things, Dr. Tony Fauci, the now-retired head of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, and currently the man most conspiracy theorists hold responsible for the entire covid-19 pandemic, testified before the House Select Committee on the pandemic Monday. And not surprisingly, sparks flew. What, if anything, did we learn from this hearing?

Cohrs Zhang: The interesting part of this hearing was watching how Dr. Fauci positioned himself in response to a lot of these criticisms that have been circulating. The committee has been going through different witnesses, and specifically it criticized one of his deputies, essentially, who had some unflattering emails released showing that he appeared to be trying to delete emails or use personal accounts to avoid public records requests from journalists or other organizations …

Rovner: I’m shocked, shocked that officials would want to keep their information away from prying reporters’ eyes.

Cohrs Zhang: It’s not surprising, but it is surprising to see it in writing. But this is, again, everyone is working from home and channels of communication were changing. But I think we did see Dr. Fauci pretty aggressively distancing himself, downplaying the relationship he had with this individual and saying that they worked on research together, but he wasn’t necessarily advising agency policy.

So that’s at least how he was framing the relationship. So he definitely downplayed that. And I think an interesting comment he made — I’m curious to see what you think about this, Julie — was that he didn’t say that the lab leak theory itself was a conspiracy, but his involvement and a cover-up was a conspiracy. And so it did seem that some of the rhetoric has at least changed. He seemed more open-minded, I guess, to a lab leak theory than I expected.

Rovner: I thought he was pretty careful about that. I think it was the last thing he said, which is that we’re never really going to know. I mean, it could have been a lab leak. It could have happened. It could have been an animal from the wet market. The Chinese have not been very forthcoming with information. I personally keep wondering why we keep pounding at this.

I mean, it seems unlikely that it was a lab leak and then a conspiracy to cover it up. It clearly was one or the other, and there’s a lot of differences of opinions. And that was the last thing he said is that it could have been either. We don’t know. That’s always struck me as the, “OK, let’s talk about something else.” Anyway, let’s talk about something else.

Raman: I was just going to add, we did see a personal side to him, which I think we didn’t see as much when he was in his official role when he was talking. It was about the death threats that he and his family have been receiving when responding to a lot of the misinformation going around about that. And I thought that was striking compared to, just juxtaposed, with a lot of the other [indecipherable] with [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene saying, “Oh, you’re not a real doctor.” There’s a lot of colorful protesters. And I just thought that stood out, too.

Rovner: Yeah, he did obviously, I think, relish the chance to defend himself from a lot of the charges that have been leveled at him. And I think … his wife is a prominent scientist in her own right — obviously can take care of herself — but I think he was particularly angry that there had been death threats leveled toward his grown daughters, which probably a bit out of line. Alice, you wanted to add something.

Ollstein: Yeah, I think it’s also been interesting to see the shift among Democrats on the committee over time. I think they’ve gone from an attitude of Republicans are on a total witch hunt, this is completely political, this is muddying the waters and fueling conspiracy theories and will lead to worse public health outcomes. And I think based on some of the revelations, like Rachel said about emails and such, they have come to a position of, oh, there might be some things that need investigating and need accountability in here.

But I think their frustration seems to be what it’s always been in that how will this lead to making the country better prepared in the future for the next pandemic — which may or may not already be circulating, but certainly is inevitable at some point. Either way, it’s all well and good to hold officials accountable for things they may have done, but how does that lead to making the country more prepared, improving pandemic response in the future? That’s what they feel is the missing piece here.

Rovner: Yeah. I think there was not a lot of that at this hearing, although I feel like they had to go through this maybe to get over to the other side and start thinking about what we can do in the future to avoid similar kinds of problems. And obviously you get a disease that you have no idea what to do about, and people try to muddle through the best they can. All right, now we are going to move on and we’ll talk about abortion where there is always lots of news.

Here in Washington, there is a giant inflatable IUD flying over Union Station Wednesday to highlight what seems to be Contraception Week on Capitol Hill. Not coincidentally, it’s also the anniversary this week of the Supreme Court’s 1965 ruling Griswold v. Connecticut that created the right to birth control. Alice, what are Democrats, particularly in the Senate where they’re in charge, doing to try to highlight these potential threats to contraceptive access?

Ollstein: So this vote that happened that was blocked because only two Republicans crossed the aisle to support this Right to Contraception bill — it’s the two you expect, it’s [Sen.] Lisa Murkowski and [Sen.] Susan Collins — and you’re already seeing Democrats really make hay of this. Both Democrats and their campaign arms and outside allied groups are planning to just absolutely blitz this in ads. They’re holding events in swing states related to it, and they’re going hard against individual Republicans for their votes.

I think the Republicans I talked to who voted no, they had a funny mixed message about why they were voting no on it. They were both saying that the bill was this sinister Trojan horse for forcing religious groups to promote contraception and even abortion and also gender-affirming care somehow. But also, the bill was a pointless stunt that wouldn’t really do anything because there is no threat to contraception. But also Republicans have their own rival bill to promote access to contraception.

So access to contraception isn’t a problem, but please support my bill to improve access to contraception. It’s a tough message. Whereas Democrats’ message is a lot simpler. You can argue with it on the merits, but it’s a lot simpler. They point to the fact that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has expressed interest and actually called on the court to revisit precedents that protect the right to contraception.

Lots of states have thwarted attempts to enact protections for contraception. And a lot of anti-abortion groups have really made a big push to muddy the waters on medical understanding of what is contraception versus what is abortion, which we can get into later.

Rovner: Yes, which we will. Sandhya, did you want to add something?

Raman: Yeah, and I think that something that I would add to what Alice was saying is just how this is kind of at the same time a little bit different for the Democrats. Something that I wrote about this week was just that after the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, we had the then-Democratic House vote on several different bills, but the Democrats have not really been holding this chamber-wide vote on bills related to abortion, contraception for the most part. And so this was the first time that they are stepping into that.

They’ve done the unanimous consent requests on a lot of these bills. And even just a couple months ago when talks are really heating up on IVF, there’s other things that we have to get to, appropriations and things like that, and this would just get bogged down. And they were shying away from taking floor time to do this. So I think that was an interesting move that they’re doing this now and that they’re going to vote on an IVF next week and whatever else next down the line.

Rovner: Yeah, I noticed that as soon as this bill went down, Sen. [Chuck] Schumer teed up the Right to IVF bill for a vote next week. But Alice, as you were alluding to, I mean, where this gets really uncomfortable for Republicans is that fine line between contraception and abortion. Our colleague Lauren Weber has a story about this this week [“Conservative Attacks on Birth Control Could Threaten Access,”], which is your extra credit, so why don’t you tell us about it?

Ollstein: Yeah. So she did a really great job highlighting how, especially at the state level where a lot of these battles are playing out, anti-abortion groups that are very influential are making arguments that certain forms of birth control are abortifacients. This is completely disputed by medical experts and the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] that regulates these products. They say, just to be clear about what we’re talking about, we’re talking about some forms of emergency contraception, which is taken after sex to prevent pregnancy. It is not an abortifacient. It won’t work if you’re already pregnant. It prevents pregnancy. It does not terminate a pregnancy. They are also saying this about some IUDs, intrauterine devices, and even about some hormonal birth control pills.

So there’s been pushback that Lauren detailed in her story, including from some Republicans who are trying to correct the record. But this misinformation is getting really entrenched, and I think it’s something we should all be paying attention to when it crops up, especially in the mouths of people in power.

Rovner: I mean, when I first started writing about it it was not entirely clear. There was thought that one of the ways the morning-after pill worked was by preventing implantation of a fertilized egg, which some people consider, if you consider that fertilization and not implantation, is the beginning of life. According to doctors, implantation is the beginning of pregnancy, among other things, because that’s when you can test for it.

But those who believe that fertilization is the beginning of life — and therefore something that prevents implantation is an abortion — were concerned that IUDs, and mostly progesterone-based birth control that prevented implantation, were abortifacients. Except that in the years since, it’s been shown that that’s not the case.

Ollstein: Right.

Rovner: That in fact, both IUDs and the morning-after pill work by preventing ovulation. There is no fertilized egg because there’s no egg. So they are not abortifacients. On the other hand, the FDA changed the labeling on the morning-after pill because of this. And yet the Hobby Lobby case [Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc.] that the decision was written by Justice [Samuel] Alito, basically took that premise, that they were allowed to not offer these forms of contraception because they believed that they were acted as abortifacients, even though science suggests that they didn’t. It’s not something new, and it’s not something I don’t think is going to go away anytime in the near future.

Raman: I would add that it also came up in this week’s Senate Health [Committee] hearing, that line of questioning about whether or not different parts of birth control were abortifacients. Sen. [Patty] Murray did that line of questioning with Dr. Christina Francis, who’s the head of the anti-abortion obstetrician-gynecology group and went through on Plan B, IUDs and different things. And there was a back and forth of evading questions, but she did call IUDs as abortifacients, which goes back to the same thing that we’re saying.

Rovner: Right, which they have done all along.

Ollstein: Yeah. I mean, I think this really spotlights a challenge here, which is that Republicans’ response to votes like this week and things that are playing out in the state level, they’re scoffing and saying, “It’s absolutely ridiculous to suggest that Republicans are trying to ban birth control. This is completely a political concoction by Democrats to scare people into voting for them in November.”

What we’re talking about here are not bans on birth control, but there are policies that have been introduced at both the state and federal level that would make birth control, especially certain forms like we were just talking about, way harder to access. So there are proposals to carve them out of Obamacare’s contraception mandate, so they’re not covered by insurance.

That’s not a ban. You can still go pay out-of-pocket, but I remember all the people who were paying out-of-pocket for IUDs before Obamacare: hundreds and hundreds of dollars for something that is now completely free. And so what we’re seeing right now are not bans, but I think it’s important to think about the ways it would still restrict access for a lot of people.

Rovner: Before we leave the nation’s capital it seems that the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision on the abortion pill may not be the last word on the case. While it seemed likely from the oral arguments that the justices will agree that the Texas doctors who brought the case don’t have standing, there were three state attorneys general who sought to become part of the case when it was first considered back in Texas. So it would go back to Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk, our original judge who said that the entire abortion pill approval should be overturned. It feels like this is not the end of fighting about the abortion pill’s approval at the federal level. I mean, I assume that that’s something that the drug industry, among others, won’t be happy about.

Ollstein: Courts could find that the states don’t have standing either, that this policy does not harm them in any real way. In fact, Democratic attorneys general have argued the exact opposite, that the availability of mifepristone helps states: saves a lot of money; it prevents pregnancy; it treats people’s medical needs. So obviously, Kacsmaryk has a very long anti-abortion record and has sided with these challenges in a lot of cases. But that doesn’t mean that this would necessarily go anywhere.

But your bigger point that the Supreme Court’s upcoming ruling on mifepristone is not the end, it certainly is not. There’s going to be a lot more court challenges, some already in motion. There’s going to be state-level policy fights. There’s going to be federal-level policy fights. If Trump is elected, groups want him to do a lot of things through executive order to restrict mifepristone or remove it from the market entirely through the FDA. So yes, this is not going to be over for the foreseeable future.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in a case that might be over for the foreseeable future, the Texas Supreme Court last week officially rejected the case brought by 20 women who nearly died when they were unable to get timely care for pregnancy complications. The justices said in their ruling that while the women definitely did suffer, the fault lay with the doctors who declined to treat them rather than the vagueness of the state’s abortion ban. So where does that leave the debate about medical exceptions?

Ollstein: So anti-abortion groups’ response to a lot of the challenges to these abortion bans and stories about women in medical emergencies who are getting denied care and suffering real harm as a result, their response has been that there’s nothing wrong with the law. The law is perfectly clear, and that doctors are either accidentally or intentionally misinterpreting the law for political reasons. Meanwhile, doctors say it’s not clear at all. It’s not clear how honestly close to dead someone has to be in order to receive an abortion.

Rovner: And it’s not just in Texas. This is true in a bunch of states, right? The doctors don’t know …

Ollstein: In many states.

Rovner: … right? …

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: … when they can intervene.

Ollstein: Right. And so I think the upcoming Supreme Court ruling on EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Law], which we’ve talked about, could give some indication either way of what doctors are and are not able to do, but that won’t really resolve it either. There is still so much gray area. And so patients and doctors are going to state courts to plead for clarity. They’re going to their legislatures to plead for clarity. And they’re going to state medical boards, including in Texas, to plead for clarity. And so far, they have not gotten any.

Most legislatures have been unwilling to revisit their bans and clarify or expand the exceptions even as these stories play out on the ground of doctors who say, “I know that providing an abortion for this patient is the right thing medically and ethically to do, but I’m so afraid of being hit with criminal charges that I put the patient on a plane out of state instead.” Yeah, it’s just really tough.

And so what we wrote about it is we keep talking about doctors being torn between conflicting state and federal law, and that’s absolutely true, but what we dug into is that the state law just looms so much larger than the federal laws. So when you’re weighing, should I maybe violate EMTALA or should I maybe violate my state’s ban, they’re not going to want to violate their state’s ban because that means jail time, that means losing their license, that means having their freedom and their livelihood taken away.

Whereas an EMTALA violation may or may not mean a fine somewhere down the road. The enforcement has not been as aggressive at the federal level from the Biden administration as a lot of doctors would like it to be. And so, in that environment, they’re really deferring to the state law, and that means some people are not getting care that they maybe need.

Rovner: I say in the meantime, we had yet another jury just last week about a woman who had a miscarriage and could not get a D&C [dilation and curettage procedure] basically. When she went in there was no fetal heartbeat, but she ended up miscarrying at home and almost dying. She was sent away, I believe, from three different facilities. This continues to happen because doctors are concerned about when it is appropriate for them to intervene. And they seem, you’re right, to be leaning towards the “let’s not get in trouble with the state” law, so let’s wait to provide care as long as we think we can.

Well, moving on, we have two stories this week about efforts to treat post-traumatic stress disorder, particularly in military veterans. On Tuesday, an FDA advisory committee recommended against approval of the psychedelic MDMA, better known as ecstasy, for the treatment of PTSD. My understanding is that the panel didn’t reject the idea outright that this could be helpful, only that there isn’t enough evidence yet to approve it. Was I reading that right? Rachel, you guys covered this pretty closely.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. Yeah, my colleagues did cover this. Certainly I think what’s a discouraging sign, I don’t think there’s any way around it, for some of these companies that are looking at psychedelics and trying to figure out some sort of approval pathway for conditions like PTSD.

One of my colleagues, Meghana Keshavan, she chatted with a dozen companies yesterday and they were trying to put a positive spin on it, that having some opinion or some discussion of a treatment like this by the advisory committee could lay out more clear standards for what companies would have to present in order to get something approved. So I think obviously they have a vested interest in spinning this positively.

But it is a very innovative space and certainly was a short-term setback. But it certainly isn’t a long-term issue if some of these companies are able to present stronger evidence or better trial design. I think there were some questions about whether trial participants actually could figure out whether they were placebo or not, which if you’re taking psychedelic drugs, yeah, that’s kind of a challenge in terms of trial design.

So I think there are some interesting questions, and I am confident that this’ll be something the FDA and industry is going to have to figure out in a space that’s new like this.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s been interesting to follow. Well, in something that does seem to help, one of the first controlled studies of service dogs to treat PTSD has found that man’s best friend can be a therapist as well. Those veterans who got specially trained dogs showed much more improvement in their symptoms than those who were on the doggy wait list as determined by professionals who didn’t know who had the dogs and who didn’t. So pet therapy for the win here?

Raman: I mean, this is the biggest study of this kind that we’ve had so far, and it seems promising. I think one thing will be interesting is if there’s more research, if this would change policy down the line for the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] or other agencies to be able to get these kinds of service dogs in the hands of more vets.

Rovner: Yeah, I know there’s a huge demand for these kinds of service dogs. I know a lot of people who basically have started training service dogs for veterans. Obviously they were able to do this study because there was a long wait list. They were able to look at people who were waiting but hadn’t gotten a dog yet. So at least in the short term, possibly some help for some people.

Finally this week, in a segment I’m calling “Misery Loves Company,” it’s not just the U.S. where big health systems are getting cyberhacked. Across the pond, quoting here from the BBC, major hospitals in London have declared a critical incident after a cyberattack led to operations being canceled and emergency patients being diverted elsewhere. This sounds painfully familiar.

Maybe we need an international cybercrime fighting agency. Is there one? Is there at least, do we know, is there a task force working on this? Obviously the bigger, more centralized your health care system, the bigger problem this becomes, as we saw with Change Healthcare belonging to United[Healthcare], and this is now … I guess it’s a contractor that works for the NHS [National Health Service]. You can see the potential for really bad stuff here.

Cohrs Zhang: That’s a good question about some international standards, Julie, but I think what we have seen is Sen. Ron Wyden, who leads the Senate Finance Committee, did write to HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] this week and asked HHS to add to multiple-factor authentication as a condition of participation for some of these facilities to try to institute standards that way.

And again, I think there are questions about how much HHS can actually do, but I think it’s a signal that Congress might not want to do anything or think they can do anything if they’re asking the administration to do something here. But we’re still in the very early stages of systems viewing this as worthy of investment and just education about some of the best practices here.

Yeah, certainly it’s going to be a business opportunity for some consulting firms to help these hospitals increase their cybersecurity measures and certainly will be a global market if we see these attacks continue in other places, too.

Rovner: Maybe our health records will be as protected as our Spotify accounts. It would apparently be a step forward. All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Bram Sable-Smith, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Bram Sable-Smith, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about a free cruise that turned out to be anything but. Welcome back to the podcast, Bram.

Bram Sable-Smith: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what happened to him. This is one of the wilder Bills of the Month, I think.

Sable-Smith: Right. So his name is Vincent Wasney. He lives in Saginaw, Michigan. Never been on an airplane before, neither had his [fiancée], Sarah. But when they bought their first house in 2019, their Realtor, as a gift, gifted them tickets for a cruise. My Realtor gave me a tote bag. So, what a Realtor, first of all! What an incredible gift.

Rovner: My Realtor gave me a wine opener, which I do still use.

Sable-Smith: If it sailed to the Caribbean, it’d be equivalent. So their cruise got delayed because of the pandemic, but they set sail in December 2022. And they were having a great time. One of the highlights of their trip was they went to this private island called CocoCay for Royal Caribbean guests, and it included an excursion to go swimming with pigs.

Rovner: Wild pigs, right?

Sable-Smith: Wild pigs, a big fancy water park, all kinds of food. They were having a great time. But it’s also on that island that Vincent started feeling off. And so in the past, Vincent has had seizures. About 10 years earlier, he had had a few seizures. They decided he was probably epileptic, and he was on medicine for a while. He went off the medicine because they were worried about liver damage, and he’d been relatively seizure-free for a long time. It’d been a long time since he’d had a seizure.

But when he was on that island having a great time, it’s when he started to feel off. And when they got back on the cruise ship for the last full day of the cruise, he had a seizure in his room. And he was taken down to the medical center on the cruise ship and he was observed. He was given fluids for a while, and then sent back to his room, where he had a second seizure. Once again, went down to the medical center on the ship, where he had a third seizure. It was time to get him off the boat. He needed to get onto land and go to a hospital. And so they were close enough to land that they were able to do the evacuation by boat instead of having to do something like a helicopter to do a medevac that way. And so a rescue boat came to the ship. He was lowered off the ship. He was in a stretcher and it was lowered down to the rescue boat by a rope.

His fiancée, Sarah, climbed down a rope ladder to get into the boat as well to go with them to land. And then he was taken to land in an ambulance ride to the hospital, et cetera. But, before they were allowed to disembark, they were given their bill and told “It’s time to pay this. You have to pay this bill.”

Rovner: And how much was it?

Sable-Smith: So the bill for the medical services was $2,500. This was a free cruise. They had budgeted to pay for internet, $150 for internet. They had budgeted to pay for their alcoholic drinks. They had budgeted to pay for their tips. So they had saved up a few hundred dollars, which is what they thought would be their bill at the end of this cruise. Now, that completely exploded into this $2,500 bill just for medical expenses alone.

And as they’re waiting to evacuate the ship, they’re like, “We can’t pay this. We don’t have this money.” So that led to some negotiations. They ended up basically taking all the money out of their bank accounts, including their mortgage payment. They maxed out Vincent’s credit card, but they were still $1,000 short. And they later learned once they were on land that Vincent’s credit card had been overdrafted by $1,000 to cover that additional expense.

Rovner: So it turns out that he was uninsured at the time, and we’ll talk about that in a minute. But even if he had had insurance, the cruise ship wasn’t going to let him off the boat until he paid in full, even though it was an emergency? Did I read that right?

Sable-Smith: That’s certainly the feeling that they had at the time. When Vincent was short the $1,000, eventually they were let off the ship, but they did end up, as we said, getting that credit card overdrafted. But I think what’s important to note here is that even though he was uninsured at the time, even if he had had insurance, and even if he had had travel insurance, which he also did not have at the time, which we can talk about, he still would’ve been required to pay upfront and then submit the receipts later to try to get reimbursed for the payments.

And that’s because on the cruise’s website, they explain that they do not accept “land-based health insurance plans” when they’re on the vessel.

Rovner: In fact, as you mentioned, a lot of health insurance doesn’t cover care on a cruise ship or, in fact, anywhere outside the United States. So lots of people buy travel insurance in case they have a medical emergency. Why didn’t they?

Sable-Smith: So travel insurance is often purchased when you purchase the tickets. You’ll buy a ticket to the cruise and then it will prompt you, say, “Hey, do you want some travel insurance to protect you while you’re on this ship?” And that’s the way that most people are buying travel insurance. Well, remember, this cruise was a gift from their realtors, so they never bought the ticket. So they never got that prompting to say, “Hey, time to buy some travel insurance to protect yourself on the trip.”

And again, these were inexperienced travelers. They’d never been on an airplane before. The furthest either one of them had been from Michigan was Vincent went to Washington, D.C., one time on a school trip. And so they didn’t really know what travel insurance was. They knew it existed. But as Vincent explained, he said, “I thought this was for lost luggage and trip cancellations. I didn’t realize that this was something for medical expenses you might incur when you’re out at sea.”

Rovner: And it’s really both. I mean, it is for lost luggage and cancellation, right?

Sable-Smith: And it is for lost luggage and cancellation. Yeah, that’s right.

Rovner: So what eventually happened to Vincent and what eventually happened to the bill?

Sable-Smith: Well, once he got taken to the hospital, he got an additional bill, or actually several additional bills, one from the hospital, two from a couple doctors who saw him at the hospital who billed separately, and also one from the ambulance services. As we know, he had already drained his bank account and maxed out his credit card and had it overdrafted to cover the expenses on the ship. So he was working on paying those off. And then for the additional bills he incurred on land, he had set up payment plans, really small ones, $25, $50 a month, but going to four separate entities.

He actually missed a couple payments on his bill to the hospital, and that ended up getting sent to collections. Again, none of these are charging interest, but these are still quite some burdens. And so he was paying them off bit by bit by bit. He set up a GoFundMe campaign, which is something that a lot of people end up doing who never expect to have to cover these kinds of emergency expenses, or reach out publicly for help like that. And they got quite a bit of help from family and friends. Including, Vincent picked up Frisbee golf during the pandemic, and he’s made quite a lot of good friends that way. And that community really came through for them as well. So with those GoFundMe payments, they were able to make their house payment. It was helpful with some of these bills that they had lingering leftover from the cruise.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here, other than that nothing that seems free is ever really free?

Sable-Smith: Yeah, right. Well, the takeaway is to be informed before you leave about a plan for how are you going to cover medical expenses when you’re going traveling. I think this is something that a lot of people are going to be doing this summer, going on vacations. I’ve got vacations planned. What’s your plan for covering medical expenses? And if you’re leaving the country, if you’re going on a cruise, someplace where your land-based American health insurance might not cover you, you should consider travel insurance.

And when you’re considering travel insurance, they come in all sorts of varieties. So you want to make sure that they’re going to cover your particular cases. So some plans, for example, won’t cover pre-existing conditions. Some plans won’t cover care for risky activities like rock climbing. So you want to know what you’re going to be doing during your trip, and you want to make sure when you’re purchasing travel insurance to find a plan that’s going to cover your particular needs.

Rovner: Very well explained. Bram Sable-Smith, thank you very much.

Sable-Smith: Always a pleasure.

Rovner: And now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.  Alice, you’ve gone already. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: So my extra credit is “Roanoke’s Requiem,” and it’s an Air Mail from Clara Molot. And this is a really interesting piece. So at least 16 alumni from the classes of 2011 to 2019 of Roanoke have been diagnosed with cancer since 2010, which is a much higher rate when compared to the rate for 20-somethings in the U.S. and 15-times-higher mortality rate. And so the piece does some looking at some of the work that’s being done to uncover why this is happening.

Rovner: It’s quite a scary story. Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So the story I chose, it was co-published by ProPublica in Mississippi Today. The headline is “This Mississippi Hospital Transfers Some Patients to Jail to Await Mental Health Treatment,” by Isabelle Taft. And I mean, truly such a harrowing story of … obviously we know that there’s capacity issues with mental health treatment, but the idea that patients would be involuntarily committed, go to a hospital, and then be transferred to a jail having committed no crime, having no recourse.

I mean, some of these detentions happened. It was like two months long where these patients who are already suffering are then thrown out of their comfortable environments into jail as they awaited county facilities to open up spots for them. And I think the story also did a good job of pointing out that other jurisdictions had found other solutions to this other than placing suffering people in jail. So yeah, it just felt like it was a really great classic example of investigative journalism that’ll have an impact.

Rovner: Local investigative journalism — not just investigative journalism — which is really rare, yet it was a really good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from Jessica Valenti, who writes a super-helpful newsletter called Abortion, Every Day. Usually it’s an aggregation of stories from around the country, but this week she also has her own exclusive [“EXCLUSIVE: Health Data Breach at America’s Largest Crisis Pregnancy Org,”] about how Heartbeat International, which runs the nation’s largest network of crisis pregnancy centers, is collecting and sharing private health data, including due dates, dates of last menstrual periods, addresses, and even family living arrangements.

Isn’t this a violation of HIPAA, you may ask? Well, probably not, because HIPAA only applies to health care providers and insurers and the vast majority of crisis pregnancy centers don’t deliver medical care. You don’t need a medical license to give a pregnancy test or even do an ultrasound. Among other things, personal health data has been used for training sales staff, and until recently was readily available to anyone on the web without password protection. It’s a pretty eye-opening story.

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

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

Public health officials are watching with concern since a strain of bird flu spread to dairy cows in at least nine states, and to at least one dairy worker. But in the wake of covid-19, many farmers are loath to let in health authorities for testing.

Meanwhile, another large health company — the Catholic hospital chain Ascension — has been targeted by a cyberattack, leading to serious problems at some facilities.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Stumbles in the early response to bird flu bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the early days of covid, including the troubles protecting workers who could be exposed to the disease. Notably, the Department of Agriculture benefited from millions in covid relief funds designed to strengthen disease surveillance.
• Congress is working to extend coverage of telehealth care; the question is, how to pay for it? Lawmakers appear to have settled on a two-year agreement, though more on the extension — including how much it will cost — remains unknown.
• Speaking of telehealth, a new report shows about 20% of medication abortions are supervised via telehealth care. State-level restrictions are forcing those in need of abortion care to turn to options farther from home.
• And new reporting on Medicaid illuminates the number of people falling through the cracks of the government health system for low-income and disabled Americans — including how insurance companies benefit from individuals’ confusion over whether they have Medicaid coverage at all.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Atul Grover of the Association of American Medical Colleges about its recent analysis showing that graduating medical students are avoiding training in states with abortion bans and major restrictions.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Why Writing by Hand Beats Typing for Thinking and Learning,” by Jonathan Lambert.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Time’s “‘I Don’t Have Faith in Doctors Anymore.’ Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control,” by Alana Semuels.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “After Decades Fighting Big Tobacco, Cliff Douglas Now Leads a Foundation Funded by His Former Adversaries,” by Nicholas Florko.  

Sandhya Raman: The Baltimore Banner’s “People With Severe Mental Illness Are Stuck in Jail. Montgomery County Is the Epicenter of the Problem,” by Ben Conarck.  

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “My Rendezvous With the Raw Milk Black Market: Quick, Easy, and Unchecked by the FDA,” by Nicholas Florko.
• The Stamford Advocate’s “Dan Haar: Hackers Stole a Disabled CT Couple’s SNAP Food Aid. Now They’re Out $1,373,” by Dan Haar.
• WKRN’s “‘Chaos’: Nurses, Visitors Describe Conditions Inside Ascension Hospitals After Cyberattack,” by Stephanie Langston.
• KFF Health News’ “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Decried as Biased Against Disabled People,” by Daniel Chang.
• KFF Health News’ “Why Medicaid’s ‘Undercount’ Problem Counts,” by Phil Galewitz.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bird Flu Lands as the Next Public Health Challenge

[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 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast following her sabbatical, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Atul Grover of the Association of American Medical Colleges. He’s the co-author of the analysis we talked about on last week’s episode about how graduating medical students are avoiding applying for residencies in states with abortion bans or severe restrictions. But first this week’s news.

Well, I have been trying to avoid it, but I guess we finally have to talk about bird flu, which I think we really need to start calling “cow flu.” I just hope we don’t have to call it the next pandemic. Seriously, scientists say they’ve never seen the H5N1 virus spread quite like this before, including to at least one farmworker, who luckily had a very mild case. And public health officials are, if not actively freaking out, at least expressing very serious concern.

On the one hand, the federal government is providing livestock farmers tens of thousands of dollars each to beef up their protective measures — yes, I did that on purpose — and test for the avian flu virus in their cows, which seems to be spreading rapidly. On the other hand, many farmers are resisting efforts to allow health officials to test their herds, and this is exactly the kind of thing at the federal level that touches off those intra-agency rivalries between FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and USDA [United States Department of Agriculture] and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention].

Is this going to be the first test of how weak our public health sector has become in the wake of covid? And how worried should we be both about the bird flu and about the ability of government to do anything about it? Rachel, you wrote about this this week.

Cohrs Zhang: I did, yes. It is kind of wild to see a lot of these patterns play out yet again, as if we’ve learned nothing. We still have a lot of challenges between coordinating with state and local health officials and federal agencies like CDC. We’re still seeing authorities that are exactly the same between USDA and FDA. USDA actually got $300 million from covid relief bills to try to increase their surveillance for these kind of diseases that spread among animals, but people are worried it could all potentially jump to humans.

So I think there was a lot of hope that maybe we would learn some lessons and learn to respond better, but I think we have seen some hiccups and just these jurisdictional issues that have just continued to happen because Congress didn’t really address some of these larger authorities in any meaningful way.

Rovner: I think the thing that worries me the most is looking at the dairy farmers who don’t want to let inspectors onto their farms. That strikes me as something that could seriously hamper efforts to know how widely and how fast this is spreading.

Cohrs Zhang: It could. And USDA does have more authority than they have had in other foodborne disease outbreaks like E. coli or salmonella to get on these farms, according to the experts that I’ve talked to. But we do see sometimes federal agencies don’t always want to use their full statutory authority because then it creates conflict. And obviously USDA has this dual mission of both ensuring food safety and promoting agriculture. And I think that comes into conflict sometimes and USDA just hasn’t been willing to enforce anything mandatory on farms yet. They’ve been kind of trying to use the carrot instead of the stick approach so far. So we’ll see how that goes and how much information they’re able to obtain with the measures they’ve used so far.

Rovner: Alice, you want to add something.

Ollstein: Yeah, I mean, like Rachel said, it’s sort of Groundhog Day for some of the bigger missteps of covid: inadequate testing, inadequate PPE [personal protective equipment]. But it’s also like a scary repeat of some of the specifics of covid, which really hit agricultural workers really hard. And a lot of that wasn’t known at the time, but we know it now. And a lot of workers in these agricultural, meatpacking, and other sectors, were just really devastated and forced to keep working during the outbreak.

This sector in particular has been resistant to public health enforcement and we’re just seeing that repeat once again with a potentially more deadly virus should it make the jump to humans.

Rovner: Basically, from what they can tell, this virus is in a lot of milk. It seems that pasteurization can kill it, but is this maybe what will get people to stop drinking raw milk, which isn’t that safe anyway? And if you need to know why you shouldn’t drink raw milk, I will link to a highly informative and entertaining story by Rachel’s colleague Nick Florko about how easy it is to buy raw milk and how dangerous it can be. This is one of those things where the public looks at the public health and goes, “Yeah, nah.”

Ollstein: Right, yeah. I think, at least anecdotally, the raw milk seller that Nick bought from indicated that business is good for him, business is booming. A lot of the people that maybe weren’t so concerned about covid aren’t so concerned about bird flu, and I think that will continue to drink that. Again, we haven’t seen a lot of data about how exactly that works with bird flu fragments or virus fragments: whether it’s showing up in raw milk?; what happens when people drink it? There’s so many questions we have right now because I think the FDA has been focused on pasteurized milk because that’s what most people drink. But certainly in terms of concern with transitions into humans, I think that’s an area to watch.

Raman: One of the things that struck me was that one of the benefits from what the USDA and HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] were doing was the benefit for workers to get a swab test and do an interview so they can study more and gauge the situation.

If $75 is enough to incentivize people to take off work, to maybe have to do transportation, to do those other things. And if they’ll be able to get some of the data, just as Rachel was saying, to just kind of continue gauging the situation. So I think that’ll be interesting to see.

Because even with when we had covid, there were so many incentives that we did just for vaccines that we hoped would be successful for different populations and money and prizes and all sorts of things that didn’t necessarily move the needle.

Rovner: Although some did. And nice pun there.

All right, well, moving on to less potentially-end-of-the-world health news, Congress is grappling with whether and how to extend coverage of telehealth and, if so, how to pay for it. Telehealth, of course, was practically the only way to get nonemergency health care throughout most of the pandemic, and both patients and providers got used to it and even, dare I say, came to like it. But as a Politico story succinctly put it this week, telehealth “has the potential to reduce expenses but also lead to more visits, driving up costs.”

Rachel, you’ve been watching this also this week. Where are we on these competing telehealth bills?

Cohrs Zhang: Well, we have some news this morning. The [House Committee on] Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee is planning to mark up their telehealth bill. And the underlying bill will be a permanent extension of some of these Medicare telehealth flexibilities that matter a lot to seniors. But they’re planning to amend it today, so that they’re proposing a two-year extension, which does fall more in line with what the Ways and Means Committee, which is kind of the counterpart that makes policy on health care, marked up …

Rovner: Yes, they shared jurisdiction over Medicare.

Cohrs Zhang: … unanimously passed. They shared, yes, but it is surprising and remarkable for them to come to an agreement this quickly on a two-year extension. Again, I think industry would’ve loved to see a little bit more certainty on this for what these authorities are going to look like, but I think it is just expensive. Again, when these bills pass out of committee, then we’ll actually get formal cost estimates for them, which will be helpful in informing what our end-of-the-year December package is going to look like on health care. But we are seeing some alignment now in the House on a two-year telehealth extension for some of these very impactful measures for Medicare patients.

Rovner: Congress potentially getting things done months before they actually have to! Dare we hope?

Meanwhile, bridging this week’s topics between telehealth and abortion, which we will get to next, a new report from the family planning group WeCount! finds that not only are medication abortions more than half of all abortions being performed these days, but telehealth medication abortions now make up 20% of all medication abortions.

Some of this increase obviously is the pandemic relaxation of in-person medication abortion rules by the FDA, as well as shield laws that attempt to protect providers in states where abortion is still legal, who prescribe the pills for patients in states where abortion is banned.

Still, I imagine this is making anti-abortion activists really, really frustrated because it is certainly compromising their ability to really stop abortions in these states with bans, right?

Ollstein: Well, I think for a while we’ve seen anti-abortion activists really targeting the two main routes for people who live in states with bans to still have an abortion. One is ordering pills and the other is traveling out of state. And so they are exploring different policies to cut off both. Obviously both are very hard to police, both logistically and legally. There’s been a lot of debate about how this would be enforced. You see Louisiana moving to make abortion pills a controlled substance and police it that way. These pills are used for more than just abortions, so there’s some health care implications to going down that route. They’re used in miscarriage management, they’re used for other things as well in health care. And then of course, the enforcement question. Short of going through everyone’s mail, which has obvious constitutional problems, how would you ever know? These pills are sent to people’s homes in discreet packaging.

What we’ve seen so far with anti-abortion laws and their enforcement is that just the chilling effect alone and the fear is often enough to deter people from using different methods. And so that could be the goal. But actually cutting off people from telehealth abortions that, like you said, like the report said, have become very, very widely used, seems challenging.

Raman: And I would say that that really underscores the importance of the case we’d heard this year from the Supreme Court, and that we will get a decision coming up about the regulation of medication abortions. And how the court lands on that could have a huge impact on the next steps for all of these. So it’s in flux regardless of what’s happening here.

Cohrs Zhang: I want to emphasize, too, that mail-order abortion pills have been sort of held up as this silver bullet for getting around bans. And for a lot of people, that seems to be the case. But I really hear from providers and from patients that this is not a solution for everyone. A lot of people don’t have internet access or don’t know how to navigate different websites to find a reliable source for the pills. Or they’re too scared to do so, scared by the threat of law enforcement or scared that they could purchase some sort of counterfeit that isn’t effective or harms them.

Some people, even when they’re eligible for a medication abortion, prefer surgical or procedural because with a medication you take it and then you have to wait a few weeks to find out if it worked. And so some people would rather go into the clinic, make sure it’s done, have that peace of mind and security.

Also, these pills are delivered to people’s homes. Some people, because of a domestic violence situation or because they’re a minor who’s still at home with their parents, they can’t have anything sent to their homes. There’s a lot of reasons why this isn’t a solution for everyone, that I’ve been hearing about, but it is a solution, it seems, for a lot of people.

Rovner: In other abortion news this week, Democrats in the Missouri state Senate this week broke the record for the longest filibuster in history in an effort to block anti-abortion forces from making it harder for voters to amend the state constitution.

Alice, this feels pretty familiar, like it’s just about what happened in Ohio, right? And I guess the filibuster is over, but so far they’ve managed to be successful. What’s happening in Missouri?

Ollstein: So Missouri Democrats, with their filibuster that lasted for days, managed to stop a vote for now on a measure that would’ve made ballot measures harder to pass, including the abortion rights ballot measure that’s expected this fall. It’s not over yet. They sort of kicked it back to committee, but there’s only basically a day left in the legislature session, and so stay tuned over the next day to see what happens.

But what Democrats are trying to do is prevent what happened in Ohio, which is setting up a summer special election on a provision that would make all ballot measures harder to pass in the future. In Ohio, they did hold that summer vote, and voters defeated it and then went on to pass an abortion rights measure. And so even if Republicans push this through, it can still be scuttled later. But there, Democrats are trying to nip it in the bud to make sure that doesn’t happen in the first place.

Rovner: I thought that was very well explained. Thank you very much.

And speaking of misleading ballot measures, next door in Nebraska — and I did have to look at a map to make sure that Nebraska and Missouri do have a border, they do — anti-abortion forces are pushing a ballot measure they’re advertising as enshrining abortion rights in the state constitution, but which would actually enshrine the state’s current 12-week ban.

We’re seeing more and more of this: anti-abortion forces trying to sort of confuse voters about what it is that they’re voting on.

Raman: I mean, I think that that has been something that we have been seeing a little bit more of this. They’ve been trying different tactics to see — the same metaphor of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what sticks. So with Nebraska right now, the proposal is to ban abortions after the first trimester, except in the trio of cases: medical emergencies, rape, incest.

And so that’s definitely different than a lot of the other ballot measures that we’ve seen in the last few years in that it’s being kind of pitched as a little bit of a middle ground and it has the backing of the different anti-abortion groups. But at the same time, it would allow state legislature to put additional bans on top of that. This is just kind of like the mark in the constitution and it would already keep in place the bans that you have in place.

So it’s a little bit more difficult to comprehend, especially if you’re just kind of walking in and checking a box, since there’s more nuance to it than some of the other measures. And I think that a lot of that is definitely more happening in states like that and others.

Rovner: I feel like we’re learning a lot more about ballot measures and how they work. And while we’re in the Great Plains, there’s a wild story out of South Dakota this week about an actual scam related to signatures on petitions for abortion ballot measures. Somebody tease this one apart.

Ollstein: So in South Dakota, they’ve already submitted signatures to put an abortion rights measure on the November ballot. The state is, as happens in most states, going through those signatures to verify it. What’s different than most states is that the state released the names of some of the people who signed the petition, and that enabled these anti-abortion groups to look up all those people and start calling them, and to try to convince them to withdraw their signatures to deny this from going forward.

What happened is that, in doing so, these groups are accused of misrepresenting themselves and impersonating government officials in the way they said, “Hey, we’re the ballot integrity committee of the something, something, something.” And they said it in a way that made it sound like they were with the secretary of state’s office. So the secretary of state put out a press release condemning this and referring it to law enforcement.

The group has admitted to doing this and said it’s done nothing wrong, that technically it didn’t say anything untrue. Of course there’s lying versus misleading versus this versus that. It’s a bit complicated here.

So regardless, I am skeptical that enough people will bother to go through the process of withdrawing their signature to make a difference. It’s a lot more work to withdraw your signature than to sign in the first place. You have to go in person or mail something in. And so I am curious to see if, one, whether this is illegal, and two, whether it makes a difference on the ground.

Rovner: Well, at some point, I think by the end of the summer we’ll be able to make a comprehensive list of where there are going to be ballot measures and what they’re going to be. In the meantime, we shall keep watching.

Let’s move on to another continuing story: health system cyberhacks. This week’s victim is Ascension, a large Catholic system with hospitals in 19 states. And the hack, to quote the AP, “forced some of its 140 hospitals to divert ambulances, caused patients to postpone medical tests, and blocked online access to patient records.”

You would think in the wake of the Change Healthcare hack, big systems like Ascension would’ve taken steps to lock things down more, or is that just me?

Cohrs Zhang: We’re still using fax machines, Julie. What are your expectations here? So cyberattacks have been a theoretical concern of health systems for a long time. I mean, back in 2019, 2020, Congress was kind of sliding provisions into spending bills to help support health systems in upgrading their systems. But again, we’re just seeing the scale. And I think these stories that came out this week really illustrate the human impact of these cyberattacks. And people are waiting longer in an ambulance to get to the hospital.

I mean, that’s a really serious issue. And I’m hoping that health systems will start taking this seriously. But I think it’s just exposing yet another risk that the failure to upgrade these systems isn’t just an inconvenience for people actually using the system. It isn’t just a disservice to all kind of the power of health care data and patients’ information that they could be leveraging better. But it’s also a real medical concern with these attacks. So I am optimistic. We’ll see. Sometimes it takes these sort of events to force change.

Rovner: Well, just before we started to tape this morning, I saw a story out of Tennessee about one of the hospitals that’s being affected. And apparently it is. I believe the word “chaos” was used in the headline and the lead. I mean, these are really serious things. It’s not just what’s going on in the back room, it’s what’s going on with patient care.

In maybe the most depressing hacking story ever, in Connecticut criminals are hacking and stealing the value of people’s electronic food stamp debit card. The Stamford Advocate wrote about one older couple whose card has been now hacked five times and who are out nearly $1,400 they can’t get back because the state can only reimburse people for two hacks. I remember when electronic funds transfers were going to make our lives so much easier. They do seem to be making lives so much easier for criminals.

Finally this week, more on the mess that is the Medicaid unwinding, from two of my colleagues. One story by Daniel Chang is about how people with disabilities, who shouldn’t really have been impacted by the unwinding anyway, are losing critical home care services in all of the administrative confusion. This seems a lot like the cases of eligible children losing coverage because their parents were deemed to have too-high income, even though children have different eligibility criteria.

I know the Biden administration has been trying to soft-pedal its pushes to some of these states. Rachel, you were talking about the USDA trying not to push too hard, but it does seem like in Medicaid a lot of eligible people are falling between the cracks.

Raman: Yeah, I mean states, as we’ve seen, have been really trying to see how fast that they can go to kind of reverify this huge batch of folks because it will be a cost saver for them to have fewer folks on the rolls. But as you’re saying, that a lot of people are falling through the cracks, especially when it’s unintentionally getting pulled from the program like your colleague’s story. And people with a lot of chronic disabilities already qualify for Medicaid, don’t need to be reverified each time because they’re continually qualified for it. And so there are some cases that have been filed already by the National Health Law Program in Colorado, and [Washington,] D.C., and Texas. And so we’ll kind of see as time goes on, how those go and if there’s any changes made to stop that.

Rovner: Also on the Medicaid beat, my colleague Phil Galewitz has a story that’s kind of the opposite. According to a study in the policy journal Health Affairs, a third of those enrolled in Medicaid in 2022, didn’t even know it. That’s 26 million people. And 3 million people actually thought they were uninsured when they in fact had Medicaid. That not only meant lots of people who didn’t get needed health services because they thought they couldn’t afford them because they thought they didn’t have insurance, but also managed-care companies who got paid for these enrollees who never got any care, and conveniently never bothered to inform them that they were covered. Rachel, you had a comment about this?

Cohrs Zhang: I did, yes. One part I really liked about this story is how Phil highlighted that it’s in insurance companies’ best interests for these people not to know that they can get health care services. Because a lot of Medicaid, they’re getting a payment for each member, capitated payments. And so if people aren’t using it, then the insurance companies are making more money. And so I think there has been some more, I think, political conversation about the incentives that capitated payments create especially in the Medicaid population. And so I think that was certainly just a disservice. I mean, these people have been done a disservice by someone. And I think that it’s a really interesting question of who should have been reaching them. And we’ll just, I guess, never know how much care they could have gotten and how their lives could be different had they known.

Rovner: It’s funny, we’ve known for a long time when they do the uninsured statistics that people don’t always know what kind of insurance they have. And they’ll say when they started asking a follow-up question, the Census Bureau started asking a follow-up question about insurance, suddenly the number of uninsured went down. This is the first time I’ve seen a study like this though, where people actually had insurance but didn’t know it. And it’s really interesting. And you’re right, it has real policy ramifications.

All right, well that’s the news for this week. Before we get to our interview, Sandhya, you’ve been gone for the last couple of months on sabbatical. Tell us what you saw in Europe.

Raman: Yeah, so it’s good to be back. I was gone for six weeks mostly to France, improving my French to see how I could get better at that and hopefully use it in my reporting at some point. It was interesting because I was trying to tune out of the news a little bit and stay away from health care. And of course when you try to do that, it comes right back to you. So I would be in my French class and we’d do a practice, let’s read an article or learn a historical thing, and lo and behold, one of the examples was about abortion politics in France over the years.

It was interesting to have to explain to my classmates, “Yes, I’m very familiar with this topic, and how much do you want me to talk about how this is in my country? But let me make sure I know all of those words.” So it pops up even when you think you’re going to sneak away from it.

Rovner: Yes, and we’re very obviously U.S.-centric here, but when you go to another country you realize none of their health systems work that well either. So the frustration continues everywhere.

All right, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with Atul Grover, then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Atul Grover, executive director of the Association of American [Medical] Colleges’ Research and Action Institute. I bet you have a very long business card.

And I want to offer him a public apology for not having him on sooner. Atul is the co-author of the report we talked about on last week’s episode on how graduating medical students are less likely to apply for residency in states with abortion bans and restrictions. Welcome at last to “What the Health?”

Grover: Better late than never.

Rovner: So there seems to be some confusion, at least in social media land, about some of the numbers here. Tell us what your analysis found.

Grover: First, Julie, is there ever not confusion in social media land? The numbers basically bear out the same thing that we saw last year — making it a very short but real trend — which is that when we look at where new U.S. medical school graduates are applying for residencies, and they apply to any number of programs, what they’re doing, it appears, is selectively avoiding those states in which abortion is either completely banned or severely restricted. And that’s not just in reproductive health-heavy specialties like OB-GYN, but it seems to be across the board.

Rovner: Now, can you explain why all of the numbers seem to be going down? It’s not that the number of applicants are falling, it’s the number of applications.

Grover: There’s about 20,000 people that graduate from U.S. MD [medical degree] schools every year. There are another 15[,000] to 20,000 applicants for residency positions that are DO [doctor of osteopathic medicine] graduates domestically or international graduates. Could be U.S. citizens or foreign citizens.

But what we’ve tried to do for a number of years is encourage applicants to apply to a fewer number of residency programs because we found that they were out-applying, they were over-applying. Where we did some data analyses a couple of years back on diminishing returns where we said, “Look, once you apply to 15, 20, 30 programs, your likelihood of matching, I know you’re nervous, but the likelihood of matching is not going to go up. You’re going to do fine. You don’t need to apply to 60, 70, 80 programs.”

So the good news is we’re actually seeing those numbers come down by about, for U.S. medical grads, about 7% this year, which is really the first time that I can remember in the last 10 years that this has happened. So that is good news.

Rovner: And that was an explicit goal.

Grover: That was an explicit goal. We want to make this cheaper, easier, and more rational for applicants and for programs, as they have to screen people and figure out who really wants to come to their program.

So overall, we were really pleased to see that the average applicant, as they applied to programs, applied to a few less programs, which meant that in many cases they were maybe not applying to one or two states that the average applicant might’ve applied to last year. So on average, each state saw about a 10% decrease in the number of unique applicants. But that decrease was much higher when we looked at those states that had banned abortion or severely limited it.

Rovner: Eventually, all these residency positions fill though, right, because there are more applicants as you point out, more graduating medical students and incoming graduates from other countries than there are slots. So why should we care, if all of these programs are filling?

Grover: So, I think you should always care about the number of residency spots, and I know you have a long history here, as do I, in that that is the bottleneck where we have to deal with why we have physician shortages, or one of the reasons why across the board we just don’t train enough physicians.

We have increased the number of medical school spots. We have people that are graduating from DO schools, as I said, international graduates. More are applying every year than we have space for. Which means that, yes, right now every spot will fill, because if the alternative for somebody applying is, look, I either won’t get in and actually be able to train in my specialty of choice. Or, I may have to go to my third choice or 10th choice or 50th choice or 100th choice. I’d rather go to someplace than no place at all.

So yes, everything is filling, but our look at the U.S. MD seniors was in part because we believe that they are the most competitive applicants, and in some ways the most desirable applicants. They have a 95% success in the match year after year. And so we thought they would be the most sensitive to look at in terms of, hey, I’ve got a little more choice here. Maybe I won’t apply to that state where I don’t feel like I can practice medicine freely for my patients.

And I think that’s a potential problem for a lot of these states and a lot of these programs is, if the people who might’ve been applying if the laws were different, who happened to be a better match for your program, for your specialty and your community, aren’t choosing to apply there, yes, you can fill it, but maybe not with the ideal candidate. And I think that’s going to affect patients and populations and local communities in the years to come.

Rovner: When we saw the beginning of this trend last year most of the talk was about a potential shortage of OB-GYNs going forward, since physicians often stay in practice where it is that they do their residency. But now, as you mentioned, we’re seeing a decrease in applications and specialties across the board. Why would that be?

Grover: So this is an informed opinion as to why people across specialties are choosing not to apply to residencies in these states. We didn’t ask the specific people who are matching this past year, “Why did you choose to apply or not to apply to this state?”

So what we know, though, from asking questions in other surveys is that about 70% of all health professions and health profession students believe that abortion should be legal at some point during a pregnancy. If you look at some specialties like adolescent medicine, that number goes up to 96%. So No. 1, I think it’s a potential violation of what people believe should be some freedom between doctors and patients as to allowing them to have the full range of reproductive health care.

No. 2, I think the potential penalties and the laws are often viewed as being incredibly punitive and somewhat unclear. And as much as doctors hate getting sued, we really don’t want to be indicted. I know some people are fine getting indicted. We really don’t want to be indicted. And that has implications because if we’re indicted, if we’re convicted of any kind of criminal offense, we could lose our license and not be able to care for patients. And we have a long investment in trying to do so.

The third thing that I think is relevant is certainly some of the specialties we’re looking at are heavily populated by women physicians, so OB-GYN, pediatrics. But again, across the board, it’s 50% women. So I think for the women themselves that happen to be applying, there is this issue of, think about their ages, 26, 27, 28 to the mid-30s, for the most part, and there are outliers on either end. But for the most part, they are of reproductive age, and I think they want to have control over their own lives and their own health care, and make sure that all services are available to them and their families if they need it. And I think even if it’s not relevant to you as an individual, it probably is relevant to your spouse or partner or somebody else in your family. And I think that makes a huge difference when people make these choices.

Rovner: So in the end, assuming these trends continue, I mean there really is concern for what the health professional community will look like in some of these states, right?

Grover: Yeah, and I think one of the things that I tried to look at last year in an editorial for JAMA was trying to overlay the states that have already significant challenges in recruiting and retaining physicians. They tend to be a lot of the heavily rural states, Southern states, parts of the Midwest. You overlay that on a map of the 14 states now that have basically banned abortion, and there’s a pretty close match.

So I think it’s critically important for state, local officials, legislatures, governors to think about their own potential impact of passing these laws on something that they may think is critically important, which is recruiting and retaining health professionals. And as you said, about half of people who train in a state will end up staying there to practice.

And for these pipeline programs, I know places like Mississippi and Alabama will really try and recruit individuals from underserved communities, get them through high school, get them into college, get them to stay in the state for med school, stay in the state for residency. They’re 80% likely to stay in those states. You lose them at any point along the way and they’re a lot less likely to come back.

So without even telling these states, I can’t tell you what’s good for you, but you should at least figure out how to collect the data at a local level to understand the implications of your policies on the health of everybody in a state, not just women of reproductive age.

Rovner: And I assume that we’ll be hearing more about this.

Grover: I would think so, yes.

Rovner: And asking more students about it.

Grover: Yes, we will. And we get to administer something called the Graduation Questionnaire every year for all these MD students. One of the questions we just added, and hopefully we’ll have some data, my colleagues will have that by probably August or so, is asking them specifically: What role did laws around some of these social issues have in your choice of where to do your residency? And again, there is some overlap here of states that have restricted reproductive rights, transgender care, and some other issues that are probably all kind of mixed in.

Rovner: Great. We’ll have you back to talk about it then.

Grover: Great. And I’m happy to come back and talk about market consolidation, about life expectancy, the quality of U.S. health, or anything else you want.

Rovner: Atul Grover, thank you so much.

Grover: Thanks for having me.

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.

Sandhya, why don’t you go ahead and go first this week?

Raman: Great. So my story is from Ben Conarck at The Baltimore Banner, and it’s called “People With Severe Mental Illness Are Stuck in Jail. Montgomery County Is the Epicenter of the Problem.”

This is a really sad and impactful story about Montgomery County, Maryland, which is just outside of  D.C., and how they are leading to this problem in this state. And many people are on the wait list for beds and psychiatric facilities, but they’re serving pretty short sentences of 90 days or less, and just a lot of the issues there. And just the problems for criminal defendants waiting in facilities for months on end for treatment.

Rovner: And I would add, because I live there, Montgomery County, Maryland, is one of the wealthiest counties in the country, and it’s kind of embarrassing that there are people who are not where they should be because they don’t have enough beds. Alice.

Ollstein: I have a piece from Time magazine called “‘I Don’t Have Faith in Doctors Anymore.’ Women Say They Were Pressured Into Long-Term Birth Control.” And it’s about something that I’ve been hearing about from providers for a bit now, which is that IUDs are this very effective form of birth control. It’s a device implanted in the uterus, and it was supposed to be this amazing way to help people avoid unwanted pregnancies. But as with many things, it is being used coercively, according to this report.

Because a physician has to implant it and remove it, people say that, one, they were pressured into having one often right after giving birth when they were sort of not in a place to make that kind of big decision. And then people who were given one struggled to have someone remove it when they wanted that done in the future.

And so I think it’s a good reminder that these tools are not inherently good or inherently bad. They can be used unethically or ethically by providers.

Rovner: And all reproductive health care is fraught. Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. So Nick has been on quite the tear this week. My colleague Nick Florko at Stat and I wanted to highlight a profile that he wrote. The headline is, “After Decades Fighting Big Tobacco, Cliff Douglas Now Leads a Foundation Funded by His Former Adversaries.”

And I think it just has so much nuance into just a figure who fought Big Tobacco to bring to light what they were doing over decades. And now he’s chosen to take over this organization that had, in the past, been entirely funded by a tobacco company. And so I think it’s this really interesting … what we see all the time in Washington, how people contort themselves to make that transition into the private sector, or what they choose to do with their careers after public service. This is a nontraditional public service, obviously, being an advocate in this way. But I think it will be a really interesting dynamic to watch to see how much he chooses to change the direction of the organization, how long that arrangement lasts, if he chooses to do that.

I learned a lot reading this profile, and I think it’s even more rare to see people sit down for lengthy interviews for an old-fashioned profile. So I really enjoyed the piece.

Rovner: Full disclosure, I’ve known Cliff Douglas since the 1980s when he was just a young advocate starting out on his antismoking career. It really is good piece. I also thought Nick did a really good job.

Well, my story this week is from the NPR Shots blog. It’s by Jonathan Lambert and it’s called “Why Writing by Hand Beats Typing for Thinking and Learning.” And it made me feel much better for often being the only person in a room taking notes by hand in a notebook when everyone else is on their laptop. In fact, I can type as fast as anyone, and I can definitely type faster than I can write in longhand, but I actually find I take better notes if I have to boil down what I’m listening to. And it turns out there’s science that bears that out. Now, if only we could get the schools to go back to teaching cursive, but that’s a whole different issue.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. And happy birthday today to half of my weekly live audience: Aspen the corgi turns 4 today.

As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X or Twitter, whatever you want to call it, @jrovner. Sandhya, where are you?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

President Joe Biden is working to lay out his health agenda for a second term, even as Congress races to finish its overdue spending bills for the fiscal year that began last October.

Meanwhile, Alabama lawmakers try to reopen the state’s fertility clinics over the protests of abortion opponents, and pharmacy giants CVS and Walgreens announce they are ready to begin federally regulated sales of the abortion pill mifepristone.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers in Washington are completing work on the first batch of spending bills to avert a government shutdown. The package includes a bare-bones health bill, leaving out certain bipartisan proposals that have been in the works on drug prices and pandemic preparedness. Doctors do get some relief in the bill from Medicare cuts that took effect in January, but the pay cuts are not canceled.
• The White House is floating proposals on drug prices that include expanding Medicare negotiations to more drugs; applying negotiated prices earlier in the market life of drugs; and capping out-of-pocket maximum drug payments at $2,000 for all patients, not just seniors. At least some of the ideas have been proposed before and couldn’t clear even a Democratic-controlled Congress. But they also keep up pressure on the pharmaceutical industry as it challenges the government in court — and as Election Day nears.
• Many in public health are expressing frustration after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention softened its covid-19 isolation guidance. The change points to the need for a national dialogue about societal support for best practices in public health — especially by expanding access to paid leave and child care.
• Meanwhile, CVS and Walgreens announced their pharmacies will distribute the abortion pill mifepristone, and enthusiasm is waning for the first over-the-counter birth control pill amid questions about how patients will pay its higher-than-anticipated list price of $20 per month.
• Alabama’s governor signed a law protecting access to in vitro fertilization, granting providers immunity from the state Supreme Court’s recent “embryonic personhood” decision. But with opposition from conservative groups, is the new law also bound for the Alabama Supreme Court?

Also this week, Rovner interviews White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden about Biden’s health agenda.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “How States Giving Rights to Fetuses Could Set Up a National Case on Abortion,” by Regan McCarthy.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Stat’s  “The War on Recovery,” by Lev Facher.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: KFF Health News’ “Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America,” by Christine Spolar.

Sandhya Raman: The Journal’s “‘My Son Is Not There Anymore’: How Young People With Psychosis Are Falling Through the Cracks,” by Órla Ryan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• NBC News’ “CDC Updates Covid Isolation Guidelines for People Who Test Positive,” by Erika Edwards.
• New York Magazine’s “Did Trump Really Vow to Defund Schools With Vaccine Mandates?” by Margaret Hartmann.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The State of the Union Is … Busy

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The State of the Union Is … BusyEpisode Number: 337Published: March 7, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 7, at 9 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein, of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman, of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden about the Biden administration’s health accomplishment so far and their priorities for 2024. But first, this week’s news. It is a big week here in the nation’s capital. In addition to sitting through President Biden’s State of the Union address, lawmakers appear on the way to finishing at least some of the spending bills for the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1. Good thing, too, because the president will deliver to Congress a proposed budget for the next fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, 2024, next Monday. Sandhya, which spending bills are getting done this week, and which ones are left?

Sandhya Raman: We’re about half-and-half as of last night. The House is done with their six-bill deal that they released. Congress came to a bipartisan agreement on Sunday and released then, so the FDA is in that part, in the agriculture bill. We also have a number of health extenders that we can …

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second.

Raman: Now it’s on to the Senate and then to Biden’s desk, and then we still have the Labor HHS [Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services] bill with all of the health funding that we’re still waiting on sometime this month.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s fair to say that the half that they’re getting done now are the easy ones, right? It’s the big ones that are left.

Ollstein: Although, if they were so easy, why didn’t they get them done a long time ago? There have been a lot of fights over policy riders that have been holding things up, in addition to disagreements about spending levels, which are perennial of course. But I was very interested to see that in this first tranche of bills, Republicans dropped their insistence on a provision banning mail delivery of abortion pills through the FDA, which they had been fighting for for months and months and months, and that led to votes on that particular bill being canceled multiple times. It’s interesting that they did give up on that.

Rovner: Yes. I shouldn’t say these were the easy ones, I should say these were the easier ones. Not that there’s a reason that it’s March and they’re only just now getting them done, but they have until the 22nd to get the rest of them done. How is that looking?

Raman: We still have not seen text on those yet. If they’re able to get there, we would see that in the next week or so, before then. And it remains to be seen, that traditionally the health in Labor HHS is one of the trickiest ones to get across the finish line in a normal year, and this year has been especially difficult given, like Alice said, all of the different policy riders and different back-and-forth there. It remains to be seen how that’ll play out.

Rovner: They have a couple of weeks and we will see. All right, well as you mentioned, as part of this first spending minibus, as they like to call it, is a small package of health bills. We talked about some of these last week, but tell us what made the final cut into this current six-bill package.

Raman: It’s whittled down a lot from what I think a lot of lawmakers were hoping. It’s pretty bare-bones in terms of what we have now. It’s a lot of programs that have traditionally been added to funding bills in the past, extending the special diabetes program, community health center funding, the National Health Service Corps, some sexual risk-avoidance programs. All of these would be pegged to the end of 2024. It kind of left out a lot of the things that Congress has been working on, on health care.

Rovner: Even bipartisan things that Congress has been working for on health care.

Raman: Yeah. They didn’t come to agreement on some of the pandemic and emergency preparedness stuff. There were some provisions for the SUPPORT Act — the 2018 really big opioid law — but a lot of them were not there. The PBM [pharmacy benefit managers] reform, all of that, was not, not this round.

Rovner: But at least judging from the press releases I got, there is some relief for doctor fees in Medicare. They didn’t restore the entire 3.3% cut, I believe it is, but I think they restored all but three-quarters of a percent of the cut. It’s made doctors, I won’t say happy, but at least they got acknowledged in this package and we’ll see what happens with the rest of them. Well, by the time you hear this, the president’s State of the Union speech will have come and gone, but the White House is pitching hard some of the changes that the president will be proposing on drug prices. Sarah, how significant are these proposals? They seem to be bigger iterations of what we’re already doing.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Biden is proposing expanding the Medicare Drug [Price] Negotiation program that Congress passed through the Inflation Reduction Act. He wants to go from Medicare being able to negotiate eventually up to 20 drugs a year to up to 50. He seems to be suggesting letting drugs have a negotiated price earlier in their life, letting them have less time on the market before negotiation. Also, thinking about applying some of the provisions of the IRA right now that only apply to Medicare to people in commercial plans, so this $2,000 maximum out-of-pocket spending for patients. Then also there are penalties that drugmakers get if they raise prices above inflation that would also apply to commercial plans. He’s actually proposed a lot of this before in previous budgets and actually Democrats, if you go back in time, tried to actually get some of these things in the initial IRA and even with a Democratic-controlled capital, could not actually get Democratic agreement to go broader on some of the provisions.

Rovner: Thank you, Sen. [Joe] Manchin.

Karlin-Smith: That said, I think it is significant that Biden is still pressing on this, even if they would really need big Democratic majorities and more progressive Democratic majorities to get this passed, because it’s keeping the pressure on the pharmaceutical industry. There were times before the IRA was passed where people were saying, “Pharma just needs to take this hit, it’s not going to be as bad as they think it is. Then they’ll get a breather for a while.” They’re clearly not getting that. The public is still very concerned about drug pricing, and they’re both fighting the current IRA in court. Actually, today there’s a number of big oral arguments happening. At the same time, they’re trying to get this version of the IRA improved somehow through legislation. All at the same time Democrats are saying, “Actually, this is just the start, we’re going to keep going.” It’s a big challenge and maybe not the respite they thought they might’ve gotten after this initial IRA was passed.

Rovner: But as you point out, still a very big voting issue. All right, well I want to talk about covid, which we haven’t said in a while. Last Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially changed its guidance about what people should do if they get covid. There’s been a lot of chatter about this. Sarah, what exactly got changed and why are people so upset?

Karlin-Smith: The CDC’s old guidance, if you will, basically said if you had covid, you should isolate for five days. If you go back in time, you’ll remember we probably talked about how that was controversial on its own when that first happened, because we know a lot of people are infectious and still test positive for covid much longer than five days. Now they’re basically saying, if you have covid, you can return to the public once you’re fever-free for 24 hours and your symptoms are improving. I think the implication here is, that for a lot of people, this would be before five days. They do emphasize to some degree that you should take precautions, masking, think about ventilation, maybe avoid vulnerable people if you can.

But I think there’s some in the public health world that are really frustrated by this. They feel like it’s not science- and evidence-based. We know people are going to be infectious and contagious in many cases for longer than periods of time where the CDC is saying, “Sure, go out in public, go back to work.” On the flip side, CDC is arguing, people weren’t really following their old guidance. In part because we don’t have a society set up to structurally allow them to easily do this. Most people don’t have paid sick time. They maybe don’t have people to watch their children if they’re trying to isolate from them. I think the tension is that, we’ve learned a lot from covid and it’s highlighted a lot of the flaws already in our public health system, the things we don’t do well with other respiratory diseases like flu, like RSV. And CDC is saying, “Well, we’re going to bring covid in line with those,” instead of thinking about, “OK, how can we actually improve as a society managing respiratory viruses moving forward, come up with solutions that work.”

I think there probably are ways for CDC to acknowledge some of the realities. CDC does not have the power to give every American paid sick time. But if CDC doesn’t push to say the public needs this for public health, how are we ever going to get there? I think that’s really a lot of the frustration in a lot of the public health community in particular, that they’re just capitulating to a society that doesn’t care about public health instead of really trying to push the agenda forward.

Rovner: Or a society that’s actively opposed to public health, as it sometimes seems. I know speaking for my NF1, I was sick for most of January, and I used up all my covid tests proving that I didn’t have covid. I stayed home for a few days because I felt really crappy, and when I started to feel better, I wore a mask for two weeks because, hello, that seemed to be a practical thing to do, even though I think what I had was a cold. But if I get sick again, I don’t have any more covid tests and I’m not going to take one every day because now they cost $20 a pop. Which I suspect was behind a lot of this. It’s like, “OK, if you’re sick with a respiratory ailment, stay home until you start to feel better and then be careful.” That’s essentially what the advice is, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Although one other criticism I heard was specifically basing the new guidance on being fever-free, a lot of people don’t get a fever, they have other symptoms or they don’t have symptoms at all, and that’s even more insidious for allowing spread. I heard that criticism as well, but I completely agree with Sarah, that this seems like allowing public behavior to shape the guidance rather than trying to shape the public behavior with the guidance.

Rovner: Although some of that is how public health works, they don’t want to recommend things that they know people aren’t going to do or that they know the vast majority of people aren’t going to do. This is the difficulty of public health, which we will talk about more. While meanwhile, speaking in Virginia earlier this week, former President Donald Trump vowed to pull all federal funding for schools with vaccine mandates. Now, from the context of what he was saying, it seemed pretty clear that he was talking only about covid vaccine mandates, but that’s not what he actually said. What would it mean to lift all school vaccine mandates? That sounds a little bit scary.

Raman: That would basically affect almost every public school district nationwide. But even if it’s just covid shots, I think that’s still a little bit of a shift. You see Trump not taking as much public credit anymore for the fact that the covid vaccines were developed under his administration, Operation Warp Speed, that started under the Trump administration. It’s a little bit of a shift compared to then.

Rovner: I’m old enough to remember two cycles ago, when there were Republicans who were anti-vaccine or at least anti-vaccine curious, and the rest of the Republican Party was like, “No, no, no, no, no.” That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Now it seems to be much more mainstream to be anti-vax in general. Cough, cough. We see the measles outbreak in Florida, so we will clearly watch that space, too.

All right, moving on to abortion. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case that could severely restrict distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. But in the meantime, pharmacy giants, CVS and Walgreens have announced they will begin distributing the abortion pill at their pharmacies. Alice, why now and what does this mean?

Ollstein: It’s interesting that this came more than a year after the big pharmacies were given permission to do this. They say it took this long because they had to get all of these systems up in place to make sure that only certified pharmacists were filling prescriptions from certified prescribing doctors. All of this is required because when the Biden administration, when the FDA, moved to allow this form of distribution of the abortion pill, they still left some restrictions known as REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategies] in place. That made it take a little more time, more bureaucracy, more box checking, to get to this point. It is interesting that given the uncertainty with the Supreme Court, they are moving forward with this. It’s this interesting state-versus-federal issue, because we reported a year ago that Walgreens and CVS would not distribute the pills in states where Republican state attorneys general have threatened them with lawsuits.

So, they’ve noted the uncertainty at the state level, but even with this uncertainty at the federal level with the Supreme Court, which could come in and say this form of distribution is not allowed, they’re still moving forward. It is limited. It’s not going to be, even in blue states where abortion is protected by law, they’re not going to be at every single CVS. They’re going to do a slower, phased rollout, see how it goes. I’m interested in seeing if any problems arise. I’m also interested in seeing, anti-abortion groups have vowed to protest these big pharmacy chains for making this medication available. They’ve disrupted corporate meetings, they’ve protested outside brick-and-mortar pharmacies, and so we’ll see if any of that continues and has an effect as well.

Rovner: It’s hard to see how the anti-abortion groups though could have enough people to protest every CVS and Walgreens selling the abortion pill. That will be an interesting numbers situation. Well, in a case of not-so-great timing, if only for the confusion potential, also this week we learned that the first approved over-the-counter birth control pill, called Opill, is finally being shipped. Now, this is not the abortion pill. It won’t require a prescription, that’s the whole point of it being over-the-counter. But I’ve seen a lot of advocacy groups that worked on this for years now complaining that the $20 per month that the pill is going to cost, it’s still going to be too much for many who need it. Since it’s over-the-counter, it’s not going to be covered by most insurance. This is a separate issue of its own that’s a little bit controversial.

Karlin-Smith: You can with over-the-counter drugs, if you have a flexible spending account or an HSA or something else, you may be able to use money that’s somehow connected to your health insurance benefit or you’re getting some tax breaks on it. However, I think this over-the-counter pill is probably envisioned most for people that somehow don’t have insurance, because we know the Affordable Care Act provides birth control methods with no out-of-pocket costs for people. So if you have insurance, most likely you would be getting a better deal getting a prescription and going that route for the same product or something similar.

The question becomes then, does this help the people who fall in those gaps who are probably likely to have less financial means to begin with? There’s been some polling and things that suggest this may be too high a price point for them. I know there are some discounts on the price. Essentially if you can buy three months upfront or even some larger quantities, although again that means you then have to have that larger sum of money upfront, so that’s a big tug of war. I think the companies argue this is pretty similar pricing to other over-the-counter drug products in terms of volume and stuff, so we’ll see what happens.

Rovner: I think they were hoping it was going to be more like $5 a month and not $20 a month. I think that came as a little bit of a disappointment to a lot of these groups that have been working on this for a very long time.

Ollstein: Just quickly, the jury is also still out on insurance coverage, including advocacy groups are also pressuring public insurance, Medicaid, to come out and say they’ll cover it as well. So we’ll keep an eye on that.

Rovner: Yeah, although Medicaid does cover prescription birth control. All right, well let us catch up on the IVF [in vitro fertilization] controversy in Alabama, where there was some breaking news over last night. When we left off last week, the Alabama Legislature was trying to come up with legislation that would grant immunity to fertility clinics or their staff for “damaging or killing fertilized embryos,” without overtly overruling the state Supreme Court decision from February that those embryos are, “extrauterine children.” Alice, how’s that all going?

Ollstein: Well, it was very interesting to see a bunch of anti-abortion groups come out against the bill that Alabama, mostly Republicans, put together and passed and the Republican governor signed it into law. The groups were asking her to veto it; they didn’t want that kind of immunity for discarding or destroying embryos. Now what we will see is if there’s going to be a lawsuit that lands this new law right back in front of the same state Supreme Court that just opened this whole Pandora’s box in the first place, that’s very possible. That’s one thing I’m watching. I guess we should also watch for other states to take up this issue. A lot of states have fetal personhood language, either in their constitutions or in statute or something, so really any of those states could become the next Alabama. All it would take is someone to bring a court challenge and try to get a similar ruling.

Rovner: I was amused though that the [Alabama] Statehouse passed the immunity law yesterday, Wednesday during the day. But the Senate passed it later in the evening and the governor signed it. I guess she didn’t want to let it hang there while these big national anti-abortion groups were asking her to veto it. So by the time I woke up this morning, it was already law.

Ollstein: It’s just been really interesting, because the anti-abortion groups say they support IVF, but they came out against the Democrats’ federal bill that would provide federal protections. They came out against nonbinding House resolutions that Republicans put forward saying they support IVF, and they came out against this Alabama fix. So it’s unclear what form of IVF, if any, they do support.

Rovner: Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the state Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would permit a parent to seek child support retroactively to cover pregnancy expenses up until the child reaches age 1. So you have until the child turns 1 to sue for child support. Now, this isn’t technically a “personhood” bill, and it’s legit that there are expenses associated with becoming a parent even before a baby is born, but it’s skating right up to the edge of that whole personhood thing.

It brings me to my extra credit for this week, which I’m going to do early. It’s a story from NPR called, “How States Giving Rights to Fetuses Could Set Up a National Case on Abortion,” by Regan McCarthy of member station WFSU in Tallahassee. In light of Florida’s tabling of a vote on its personhood bill in the wake of the Alabama ruling last week, the story poses a question I hadn’t really thought about in the context of the personhood debate, whether some of these partway recognition laws, not just the one in Kentucky, but there was one in Georgia last year, giving tax deductions for children who are not yet born as long as you could determine a heartbeat in the second half of the year, because obviously in the first half of the year the child would’ve been born.

Whether those are part of a very long game that will give courts the ability to put them all together at some point and declare not just embryos but zygotes children. Is this in some ways the same playbook that anti-abortion forces use to get Roe [v. Wade] overturned? That was a very, very long game and at least this story speculates that that might be what they’re doing now with personhood.

Ollstein: Some anti-abortion groups are very open that it is what they want to do. They have been seeding the idea in amicus briefs and state policies. They’ve been trying to tuck personhood language into all of these things to eventually prompt such a ruling, ideally from the Supreme Court and, in their view. So whether that moves forward remains to be seen, but it’s certainly the next goal. One of many next goals on the horizon.

Rovner: Yes, one of many. All right, well moving on. Last week I called the cyberattack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the biggest under-covered story in health care. Well, it is not under-covered anymore. Two weeks later, thousands of hospitals, pharmacies, and doctor practices still can’t get their claims paid. It seems that someone, though it’s not entirely clear who, paid the hackers $22 million in ransom. But last time I checked the systems were still not fully up. I saw a letter this morning from the Medicaid directors worrying about Medicaid programs getting claims fulfilled. How big a wake-up call has this been for the health industry, Sarah? This is a bigger deal than anybody expected.

Karlin-Smith: There’s certainly been cyberattacks on parts of the health system before in hospitals. I think the breadth of this, because it’s UnitedHealth [Group], is really significant. Particularly, because it seems like some health systems were concerned that the broader United network of companies and systems would get impacted, so they sort of disconnected from things that weren’t directly changed health care, and that ended up having broader ramifications. It’s one consequence of United being such a big monolith.

Then the potential that United paid a ransom here, which is not 100% clear what happened, is very worrisome. Again, because there’s this sense that, that will then increase the — first, you’re paying the people that then might go back and do this, so you’re giving them more money to hack. But also again, it sets up a precedent, that you can hack health systems and they will pay you. Because it is so dangerous, particularly when you start to get involved in attacking the actual systems that provide people care. So much, if you’ve been in a hospital lately or so forth, is run on computer systems and devices, so it is incredibly disruptive, but you don’t want to incentivize hackers to be attacking that.

Rovner: I certainly learned through this how big Change Healthcare, which I had never heard of before this hack and I suspect most people even who do health policy had never heard of before this attack, how embedded they are in so much of the health care system. These hackers knew enough to go after this particular system that affected so much in basically one hack. I’m imagining as this goes forward, for those who didn’t listen to last week’s podcast, we also talked about the Justice Department’s new investigation into the size of UnitedHealth [Group], an antitrust investigation for… It was obviously not prompted by this, it was prompted by something else, but I think a lot of people are thinking about, how big should we let one piece of the health care system get in light of all these cyberattacks?

All right, well we’ll obviously come back to this issue, too, as it resolves, one would hope. That is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Neera Tanden, domestic policy adviser to President Biden, and director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. For those of you who don’t already know her, Neera has spent most of the last two decades making health policy here in Washington, having worked on health issues for Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and now President Joe Biden. Neera, thank you so much for joining us.

Neera Tanden: It’s really great to be with you, Julie.

Rovner: As we tape this, the State of the Union is still a few hours away and I know there’s stuff you can’t talk about yet. But in general, health care has been a top-of-mind issue for the Biden administration, and I assume it will continue to be. First, remind us of some of the highlights of the president’s term so far on health care.

Tanden: It’s a top concern for the president. It’s a top issue for us, but that’s also because it’s really a top issue for voters. We know voters have had significant concerns about access, but also about costs. That is why this administration has really done more on costs than any administration. This is my third, as you noted, so I’m really proud of all the work we’ve done on prescription drugs, on lowering costs of health care in the exchanges, on really trying to think through the cost burden for families when it comes to health care.

When we talk about prescription drugs, it’s a wide-ranging agenda, there are things or policies that people have talked about for decades, like Medicare negotiating drug prices, that this president is the first president to truly deliver on, which he will talk about in the State of the Union. But we’ve also innovated in different policies through the Inflation Reduction Act, the inflation rebates, which ensure that drug companies don’t raise the price of drugs faster than inflation. When they do, they pay a rebate both to Medicare but also ultimately to consumers. Those our high-impact policies that will really take a comprehensive approach on lowering prices.

Rovner: Yet for all the president has accomplished, and people who listen to the podcast regularly will know that it has been way more than was expected given the general polarization around Washington right now. Why does the president seem to get so little credit for getting done more things than a lot of his predecessors were able to do in two terms?

Tanden: Well, I think people do recognize the importance of prescription drug coverage. And health care as an issue that the president — it’s not my place to talk about politics, but he does have significant advantages on issues like health care. That I think, is because we’ve demonstrated tangible results. People understand what $35 insulin means. What I really want to point to in the Medicare negotiation process is, Sept. 1, Medicare will likely have a list of drugs which are significantly lower costs, that process is underway. But my expectation, you know I’m not part of it, that’s being negotiated by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and HHS, but we expect to have a list of 10 drugs that are high-cost items for seniors in which they’ll see a price that is lower than what they pay now. That’s another way in which, like $35 insulin, we’ll have tangible proof points of what this administration will be delivering for families.

Rovner: There’s now a record number of people who have health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, which I remember you also worked on. But in surveys, as you noted, voters now say they’re less worried about coverage and more worried about not being able to pay their medical bills even if they have insurance. I know a lot of what you’re doing on the drug side is limited to Medicare. Now, do you expect you’re going to be able to expand that to everybody else?

Tanden: First and foremost, our drug prices will be public, as you know. And as you know, prices in Medicare have been able to influence other elements of the health care system. That is really an important part of this. Which is that again, those prices will be public and our hope is that the private sector adopts those prices, because they’re ones that are negotiated. We expect this to affect, not just seniors, but families throughout the country.

There are additional actions we’ll be taking on Medicare drug negotiation. That will be a significant portion of the president’s remarks on health care, not just what we’ve been able to do in Medicare drug negotiation, but how we can really build on that and really ensure that we are dramatically reducing drug costs throughout the system. I look forward to hearing the president on that topic.

Rovner: I know we’re also going to get the budget next week. Are there any other big health issues that will be a priority this year?

Tanden: The president will have a range of policies on issues like access to sickle cell therapies, ensuring affordable generic drugs are accessible to everybody, ensuring that we are building on the Affordable Care Act gains. You mentioned this, but I just really do want to step back and talk about access under the Affordable Care Act. Because I think if people started off at the beginning of this administration and said the ACA marketplaces close to double, people would’ve been shocked. You know this well, a lot of people thought the exchanges were maximizing their potential. There are a lot of people who may not be interested in that, but the president had, in working with Congress, made the exchanges more affordable.

We’ve seen record adoption: 21 million people covered through the ACA exchanges today, when it was 12 million when we started. That’s 9 million more people who have the security of affordable health care coverage. I think it’s a really important point, which is, why are people signing up? Because it is a lot more affordable? Most people can get a very affordable plan. People are saving on average $800, and that affordability is crucial. Of course we have to do more work to reduce costs throughout the health care system. But it’s an important reminder that when you lower drug costs, you also have the ability to lower premiums and it’s another way in which we can drive health care costs down. I would be genuinely honest with you, which is, I did not think we would be able to do all of these things at the beginning of the administration. The president has been laser-focused on delivering, and as you know from your work on the ACA, he did think it was a big deal.

Rovner: I have that on a T-shirt.

Tanden: A lot of people have talked about different things, but he has been really focused on strengthening the ACA. He’ll talk about how we need to strengthen it in the future, and how that is another choice that we face this year, whether we’re going to entertain repealing the ACA or build on it and ensure that the millions of people who are using the ACA have the security to know that it’s there for them into the future. Not just on access, but that also means protections for preexisting conditions, ensuring women can no longer be discriminated against, the lifetime annual limits. There’s just a variety of ways that ACA has transformed the health care system to be much more focused on consumers.

Rovner: Last question. Obviously reproductive health, big, big issue this year. IVF in particular has been in the news these past couple of weeks, thanks to the Alabama Supreme Court. Is there anything that President Biden can do using his own executive power to protect access to reproductive health technology? And will we hear him at some point address this whole personhood movement that we’re starting to see bubble back up?

Tanden: I think the president will be very forceful on reproductive rights and will discuss the whole set of freedoms that are at stake and reproductive rights and our core freedom at stake this year. You and I both know that attacks on IVF are actually just the effectuation of the attacks on Roe. What animates the attacks on Roe, would ultimately affect IVF. I felt like I was a voice in the wilderness for the last couple of decades, where people were saying … They’re just really focused on Roe v. Wade. It won’t have any impact on IVF or [indecipherable] they’re just scare tactics when you talk about IVF.

Obviously the ideological underpinnings of attacks on Roe ultimately mean that you would have to take on IVF, which is exactly what women are saying. I think the president will speak forcefully to the attacks on women’s dignity that women are seeing throughout this country, and how this ideological battle has translated to misery and pain for millions of women. Misery and pain for their families. And has really reached the point where women who are desperate to have a family are having their reproductive rights restricted because of the ideological views of a minority of the country. That is a huge issue for women, a huge issue for the country, and exactly why he’ll talk about moving forward on freedoms and not moving us back, sometimes decades, on freedom.

Rovner: Well, Neera Tanden, you have a lot to keep you busy. I hope we can call on you again.

Tanden: There’s few people who know the health care system as well as Julie Rovner, so it’s just a pleasure to be with you.

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. I already did mine. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “My Son Is Not There Anymore: How Young People With Psychosis Are Falling Through the Cracks,” and it’s by Órla Ryan for The Journal. This was a really interesting story about schizophrenia in Ireland and just how the earlier someone’s symptoms are treated the better the outcome. But a lot of children and minors with psychosis and schizophrenia struggle to get access to the care they need and just fall through the cracks of being transferred from one system to another, especially if they’re also dealing with disabilities. If some of these symptoms are treated before puberty, the severity is likely to go down a lot and they’re much less likely to experience psychosis. She takes a really interesting look at a specific case and some of the consequences there.

Rovner: I feel like we don’t look enough at what other countries health systems are doing because we could all learn from each other. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I have a piece by KFF Health News called “Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America.” It’s looking at the toll taken by the long-standing restrictions on federal funding for research into gun violence, investigating it as a public health issue. Only recently this has started to erode at the federal level and some funding has been approved for this research, but it is so small compared to the death toll of gun violence. This article sort of argues that lacking that data for so many years is why a lot of the quote-unquote “solutions” that places have tried to implement to prevent gun violence, just don’t work. They haven’t worked, they haven’t stopped these mass shootings, which continue to happen. So, arguing that, if we had better data on why things happen and how to make it less lethal, and safe, in various spaces, that we could implement some things that actually work.

Rovner: Yeah, we didn’t have the research just as this problem was exploding and now we are paying the price. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at the first in a Stat News series by Lev Facher, “The War on Recovery: How the U.S. Is Sabotaging Its Best Tools to Prevent Deaths in the Opioid Epidemic.” It looks at why the U.S. has had access to cheap effective medicines that help reduce the risk of overdose and death for people that are struggling with opioid-use disorder haven’t actually been able, in most cases, to get access to these drugs, methadone and buprenorphine.

The reasons range from even people not being allowed to take the drugs when they’re in prison, to not being able to hold certain jobs if you’re taking these prescription medications, to Narcotics Anonymous essentially banning people from coming to those meetings if they use these drugs, to doctors not being willing or open to prescribing them. Then of course, there’s what always seems to come up these days, the private equity angle. Which is that methadone clinics are becoming increasingly owned by private equity and they’ve actually pushed back on and lobbied against policies that would make it easier for people to get methadone treatment. Because one big barrier to methadone treatment is, right now you largely have to go every day to a clinic to get your medicine, which it can be difficult to incorporate into your life if you need to hold a job and take care of kids and so forth.

It’s just a really fascinating dive into why we have the tools to make what is really a terrible crisis that kills so many people much, much better in the U.S. but we’re just not using them. Speaking of how other countries handle it, the piece goes a little bit into how other countries have had more success in actually being open to and using these tools and the differences between them and the U.S.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky or @julie.rovner at Threads. . Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: Trying mostly to be on Blue Sky, but on X, Twitter a little bit at either @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Blue Sky, and @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and on Blue Sky.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

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.

Reverberations from the Alabama Supreme Court’s first-in-the-nation ruling that embryos are legally children continued this week, both in the states and in Washington. As Alabama lawmakers scrambled to find a way to protect in vitro fertilization services without directly denying the “personhood” of embryos, lawmakers in Florida postponed a vote on the state’s own “personhood” law. And in Washington, Republicans worked to find a way to satisfy two factions of their base: those who support IVF and those who believe embryos deserve full legal rights.

Meanwhile, Congress may finally be nearing a funding deal for the fiscal year that began Oct. 1. And while a few bipartisan health bills may catch a ride on the overall spending bill, several other priorities, including an overhaul of the pharmacy benefit manager industry, failed to make the cut.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, and Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers are readying short-term deals to keep the government funded and running for at least a few more weeks, though some health priorities like preparing for a future pandemic and keeping down prescription drug prices may not make the cut.
• After the Alabama Supreme Court’s decision that frozen embryos are people, Republicans find themselves divided over the future of IVF. The emotionally charged debate over the procedure — which many conservatives, including former Vice President Mike Pence, believe should remain available — is causing turmoil for the party. And Democrats will no doubt keep reminding voters about it, highlighting the repercussions of the conservative push into reproductive health care.
• A significant number of physicians in Idaho are leaving the state or the field of reproductive care entirely because of its strict abortion ban. With many hospitals struggling with the cost of labor and delivery services, the ban is only making it harder for women in some areas to get care before, during, and after childbirth — whether they need abortion care or not.
• A major cyberattack targeting the personal information of patients enrolled in a health plan owned by UnitedHealth Group is drawing attention to the heightened risks of consolidation in health care. Meanwhile, the Justice Department is separately investigating UnitedHealth for possible antitrust violations.
• “This Week in Health misinformation”: Panelist Joanne Kenen explains how efforts to prevent wrong information about a new vaccine for RSV have been less than successful.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Greer Donley, an associate professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law, about how a 150-year-old anti-vice law that’s still on the books could be used to ban abortion nationwide.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Their States Banned Abortion. Doctors Now Say They Can’t Give Women Potential Lifesaving Care,” by Kavitha Surana.

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School,” by Joseph Goldstein.

Joanne Kenen: Axios’ “An Unexpected Finding Suggests Full Moons May Actually Be Tough on Hospitals,” by Tina Reed.

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “US Seeks to Limit China’s Access to Americans’ Personal Data,” by Riley Griffin and Mackenzie Hawkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “Florida Lawmakers Postpone ‘Fetal Personhood’ Bill After Alabama IVF Ruling,” by Lori Rozsa.
• Stat’s “Congress Punts on PBM Reform Efforts,” by Rachel Cohrs and John Wilkerson.
• Politico Magazine’s “There’s a New Life-Saving Vaccine. Why Won’t People Take It?” by Joanne Kenen.
• Stat’s “Experts Say Scale of Change Cyberattack Shows Risks of Centralized Claims Processing,” by Brittany Trang, Tara Bannow, and Bob Herman.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “U.S. Opens UnitedHealth Antitrust Probe,” by Anna Wilde Mathews and Dave Michaels.
• CNN’s “Opinion: It’s Too Dangerous to Allow This Antiquated Law to Exist Any Longer,” by David S. Cohen, Greer Donley, and Rachel Rebouché.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Alabama’s IVF Ruling Still Making Waves

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Alabama’s IVF Ruling Still Making WavesEpisode Number: 336Published: Feb. 29, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 29, at 10 a.m. Happy leap day, everyone. 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 Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Riley Ray Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Hello, hello.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with University of Pittsburgh law professor Greer Donley about that 150-year-old Comstock Act we’ve talked about so much lately. But first, this week’s news.

So as we tape this morning, the latest in a series of short-term spending bills for the fiscal year that began almost five months ago, is a day and a half away from expiring, and the short-term bill for the rest of the government is 15 days from expiring. And apparently the House and Senate are in the process of preparing yet another pair of short-term bills to keep the government open for another week each, making the new deadlines March 8 and March 22. I should point out that the Food and Drug Administration is included in the first set of spending bills that would expire, and the rest of HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] is in the second batch.

So what are the chances that this time Congress can finish up the spending bills for fiscal 2024? Rachel, I call this Groundhog Day, except February’s about to be over.

Cohrs: Yeah, it’s definitely looking better. I think this is the CR [continuing resolution] where, as I’m thinking about it, the adults are in the room and the negotiations are actually happening. Because we had a couple of fake-outs there, where nobody was really taking it seriously, but I think we are finally at a place where they do have some agreement on some spending bills. The House hopefully will be passing some of them, and I’m optimistic that they’ll get it at least close within that March 8-March 22 time frame to extend us out a few more months until we get to do this all over again in September.

At least right now, which it could change, they do have a couple of weeks, but it’s looking like the main kind of health care provisions that we were looking at are going to be more of an end-of-year conversation than happening this spring.

Rovner: Which is anticipating my next question, which is a bunch of smaller bipartisan bills that were expected to catch a ride on the spending bill train seemed to have been jettisoned because lawmakers couldn’t reach agreement. Although it does look like a handful will make it to the president’s desk in this next round, and its last round, of fiscal spending bills for fiscal 2024.

Let’s start with the bills that are expected to be included when we finally get to these spending bills, presumably in March.

Cohrs: So, from my reporting, it sounds like that there’s going to be an extension of funding for the really truly urgent programs that are expiring. We’re talking community health center funding, funding for some public health programs. It’s funding for safety-net hospitals through Medicaid. Those policies might be extended. There’s a chance that there could be some bump in Medicare payments for doctors. I haven’t seen a final number on that yet, but that’s at least in the conversation for this round.

Again, there’s going to be more cuts at the end of this year. So, I think we’ll be continuing to have this conversation, but those look like they’re in for now. Again, we don’t have final numbers, but that’s kind of what we’re expecting the package to look like.

Kenen: And the opioids is under what you described as public health, right, or is that still up in the air?

Cohrs: I think we’re talking SUPPORT Act; I think that is up in the air, from my understanding. With public health programs talking, like, special diabetes reauthorization — there are a couple more small-ball things, but I think SUPPORT Act, PAHPA [Pandemic and All Hazards Preparedness Act], to my understanding, are still up in the air. We’ll just have to wait for text. That hopefully comes soon.

Rovner: Riley, I see you nodding too. Is that what you’re hearing?

Griffin: Yeah. Questions about PAHPA, the authorizations for pandemic and emergency response activities, have been front of mind for folks for months and months, particularly given the timing, right? We are seeing this expire at a time when we’ve left the biggest health crisis of our generation, and seeing that punted further down the road I think will come as a big disappointment to the world of pandemic preparedness and biodefense, but perhaps not altogether unexpected.

Rovner: So Rachel, I know there were some sort of bigger things that clearly got left on the cutting room floor, like legislation to do something about pharmacy benefit managers and site-neutral payments in Medicare. Those are, at least for the moment, shelved, right?

Cohrs: Yes. That’s from my understanding. Again, I will say now they bought themselves a couple more weeks, so who knows? Sometimes a near-death experience is what it takes to get people moving in this town. But the most recent information I have is that site-neutral payments for administering drugs in physicians’ offices, that has been shelved until the end of the year and then also reforms to how PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] operate. There’s just a lot of different policies floating around and a lot of different committees and they just didn’t come to the table and hash it out in time. And I think leadership just lost patience with them.

They do see that there’s another bite at the apple at the end of the year. We do have a lot of members retiring, Cathy McMorris Rodgers on the House side, maybe [Sen.] Bernie Sanders. He has not announced he’s running for reelection yet. So I think that’s something to keep in mind for the end of the year. And there also is a big telehealth reauthorization coming up, so I think they view that as a wildly popular policy that’s going to be really expensive and it’s going to be another … give them some more time to just hash out these differences.

Kenen: I would also point out that this annual fight about Medicare doctor payments was something that was supposedly permanently fixed. Julie and I spent, and many other reporters, spent countless hours staking out hallways in Congress about this obscure thing that was called SGR, the sustainable growth rate, but everyone called it the “doc fix.” It was this fight every year that went on and on and on about Medicare rates and then they replaced it and it was supposed to be, “We will never have to deal with this again.”

I decided I would never write another story about it after the best headline I ever wrote, which was, “What’s up, doc fix?” But here we are again. Every single year, there’s a fight about …

Rovner: Although this isn’t the SGR, it’s just …

Kenen: They got rid of SGR, that era was over. But what we’ve learned is that era will probably never be over. Every single year, there will be a lobbying blitz and a fight about Medicare Advantage and about Medicare physician pay. It’s like leap year, but it happens every year instead of every four.

Rovner: Because lobbyists need to get paid too.

All right, well, I want to turn to abortion where the fallout continues from that Alabama Supreme Court ruling earlier this month that found frozen embryos are legally children. Republicans, in particular, are caught in an almost impossible position between portions of their base who genuinely believe that a fertilized egg is a unique new person deserving of full legal rights and protections, and those who oppose abortion but believe that discarding unused embryos as part of the in vitro fertilization process is a morally acceptable way for couples to have babies.

In Alabama, where the ruling has not just stopped IVF clinics from operating in the state, but has also made it impossible for those in the midst of an IVF cycle to take their embryos elsewhere because the companies that would transport them are also worried about liability, the Republican-dominated legislature is scrambling to find a way to allow IVF to resume in the state without directly contradicting the court’s ruling that “personhood” starts at fertilization.

This seems to be quite a tightrope. I mean, Riley, I see you nodding. Can they actually do this? Is there a solution on the table yet?

Griffin: No, I don’t think there’s a solution on the table yet, and there are eight clinics in Alabama that do this work, according to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Three of them have paused IVF treatment across the board. We’ve been in touch with these clinics as days go by as we see some of these developments, and they’re not changing their policies yet. Some of these efforts by Republicans to assure that there won’t be criminal penalties, they’re not reassuring them enough.

So, it certainly is a tightrope for providers and patients. It’s also a tightrope, as you mentioned, Julie, for the Republican Party, which is divided on this matter, and for Republican voters, who are also divided on this matter. But ultimately, this whole conversation comes back to what constitutes a human being? What constitutes a person? And the strategy of giving rights to an embryo allows abortion laws to be even more restrictive across this country.

Rovner: Yeah, I can’t tell you how many stories I’ve written about “When does life begin?” over the last 30 years, because that’s really what this comes down to. Does life begin at fertilization? Does it begin … I mean, doctors, I have learned this over the years, that conception is actually not fertilization. Conception is when basically a fertilized egg implants in a woman’s uterus. That’s when pregnancy begins. So there’s this continuing religious and scientific and ethical and kind of a quagmire that now is front and center again.

Joanne, you wanted to add something?

Kenen: No. I mean, I thought [Sen.] Lindsey Graham had one of the best quotes I’ve seen, which is, “Nobody’s ever been born in a freezer.” So this is a theological question that is turning into a political question. And even the proposed legislation in Alabama, which would give the clinics immunity or a pardon, I mean, pardon means you committed a crime. In this case, a murder, but you were pardoned for it. I mean, I don’t think that’s necessarily … and it’s only good for this was a stopgap that would, if it passes, I believe it would be just till early 2025.

So it might get these clinics open for a while. They may come up with some way of getting families that are in the middle of fertility treatments to be able to complete it, but other states could actually go the way Alabama went. We have no guarantee. There are people pushing for that in some of the more conservative states, so this may spread. The attempt in Congress, in the Senate, to bring up a bill that would address it …

Rovner: We’ll get to that in a second.

Kenen: I mean, Alabama’s a conservative state, but the governor, who was a conservative anti-abortion governor, has said she wants to reopen the clinics and protect them, but they haven’t come up with the formula to do that yet.

Rovner: So speaking of other states, when this decision came down in Alabama, Florida was preparing to pass its own personhood bill, but now that vote has been delayed at the request of the bill’s sponsor. The, I think, initial reaction to the Alabama decision was that it would spur similar action in other states, as you were just saying, Joanne, but is it possible that the opposite will happen, that it will stop action in other states because those who are pushing it are going to see that there’s a huge divide here?

Griffin: That hesitation certainly signals that that’s a possibility. The pause in pushing forward that path in Florida is a real signal that there is going to be more debate within the Republican Party.

One thing I do want to mention is a lot of focus has been on whether clinics in Alabama or otherwise would stop IVF treatment altogether. But I think equally important is how the clinics that are continuing to offer IVF treatment, what changes they’re making. The ones that we’re seeing, are speaking with in Alabama that are continuing to offer IVF, are changing their consent forms. They are fertilizing fewer eggs, they’re freezing eggs, but they’re not fertilizing them because they don’t want to have excess wastage, in their perspective, that could lead them to a place of liability.

So all these things ultimately have ramifications for patients. That is more costly. It means a longer timeline. It also means fewer shots on goal. It means that it is potentially harder for you to get pregnant, at the end of the day. So I want to center the fact that clinics that are continuing to offer IVF are facing real changes here too.

Rovner: We know from Texas that when states try to indemnify, saying, “Well, we won’t prosecute you,” that that’s really not good enough because doctors don’t want to run the chance of ending up in court, having to hire lawyers. I mean, even if they’re unlikely to be convicted and have their licenses taken away, just being charged is hard enough. And I think that’s what’s happening with doctors with some of these abortion exceptions, and that’s what’s happening with these IVF clinics in places where there’s personhood.

Sorry, Joanne. Go ahead.

Kenen: Egg-freezing technology has gotten better than it was just a few years ago, but egg-freezing technology, to the best of my knowledge, egg-freezing technology, though improved, is nowhere near as good as freezing an embryo. Particularly now they can bring embryos out to what they call the blastocyst stage. It’s about five days. They have a better chance of successful implantation.

In addition to the expense of IVF, and it’s expensive and most people don’t have insurance cover[age] for it, it means you’re going through drugs and treatment and all of us have had friends, I think, who’ve gone through it or relatives. It is just an incredibly stressful, emotionally painful process.

Rovner: Well, you’re pumping yourself full of hormones to create more eggs, so yeah.

Kenen: And you’re also trying to get pregnant. If you’re spending $20,000 a cycle or whatever it is, and pumping yourself full of hormones, doing all this, it means that having a child is of utmost importance to you.

And the emotional trauma of this, if you listen to the … we’ve heard interviews in the last few days of women who were about to have a transfer and things like that, the heartbreak is intense, and fertility is not like catching a cold. It’s really stressful and sad, and this is just causing anguish to families trying to have a child, trying to have a first child, trying to have a second child, whatever, or trying to have a child because there’s a health issue and they want to do the pre-implantation genetic testing so that they don’t have another child die. I mean, it’s really complicated and terrible costs on all kinds of costs, physical, emotional, and financial.

Rovner: Yeah, there are lots of layers to this.

Well, meanwhile, this decision has begun to have repercussions here on Capitol Hill. In the Senate, the Democrats are, again, while it’s in the news, trying to force Republicans into taking a stand on this issue by bringing up a bill that would guarantee nationwide access to IVF. This is a bill that they tried to bring up before and was blocked by Republicans. On Wednesday, a half a dozen senators led by Illinois’ Tammy Duckworth, a veteran who used IVF to have her two children, chided Republicans on the floor who failed again to let them bring up the IVF bill. This time, as last time, it was blocked by Republican Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith of Mississippi.

I imagine the Democrats aren’t going to let this go anytime soon though. They certainly indicated that this is not their last attempt at this.

Kenen: No. Why should they? If anyone thought that the politics of abortion were going to subside by November, this has just given it … I don’t even have a word for how much it’s been reinvigorated. This is going to stick in people’s minds, and Republicans are divided on IVF, but there’s no path forward. Democrats are going to be trying again and again, if they can, and they’re going to remind voters of it again and again.

Rovner: And in the Republican House, they’re scrambling to figure out again, as in Alabama, how to demonstrate support for IVF without running afoul of their voters who are fetal personhood supporters.

Just to underline how delicate this all is, the personhood supporting anti-abortion group, Susan B. Anthony [Pro-Life America], put out a statement this week, not just thrashing the Democrats’ bill, which one would expect, but also the work going on by Republicans in Alabama and in the U.S. House for not going far enough. They point out that Louisiana has a law that allows for IVF, but not for the destruction of leftover embryos. Although that means, as Riley was saying before, those embryos have to be stored out of state, which adds to the already high cost of IVF.

It is really hard to imagine how Republicans at both the state and federal level are going to find their way out of this thicket.

Kenen: It’s a reproductive pretzel.

Griffin: It’s a reproductive pretzel where two-thirds of Americans say frozen embryos shouldn’t be considered people. So I mean, there is data to suggest that this isn’t a winning selling point for the Republican Party, and we saw that play out with presidential candidate Donald Trump immediately distancing himself from the Alabama Supreme Court decision. So, what a pretzel it is.

It’s going to be interesting to see how this pans out as the logistical hurdles continue to arise. And some are basic. I mean, I spoke last week with one clinic in Alabama that said that they had had dozens, I think they said 30 to 40, embryos that had been abandoned over decades going back as 2008, and they had tried to reach people by phone, by mail, by email. They had just been left behind. What do you do in that situation? They had been prepared to dispose of those embryos and now they’re sitting on shelves. Is that the answer? Is the only answer to have shelves and shelves of frozen embryos?

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it is. It is definitely a pretzel.

Kenen: There was a move at one point to allow them to be adopted. I think …

Rovner: It’s still there. It’s still there.

Kenen: Right, but I don’t know what kind of consent you need. I mean, if the situations where someone left the frozen embryo and doesn’t respond or their email, they’ve changed their email or whatever, there may be some kind of way out for this mess that involves the possibility of adopting them at some point down the road, and they may not be biologically viable by that point. But when I was thinking of what are the political outs, what is the exit ramp, I haven’t heard any politicians talk about this yet, but that occurred to me as something that might end up figuring into this.

And the other thing, just to the point as to how deeply divided, I think many listeners know this, but for the handful who don’t, the illustration of how deeply divided even very anti-abortion Republicans are, is [former Vice President] Mike Pence, his family was created through IVF, and he’s clearly, he’s come out this week. I mean, there’s no question that Mike Pence is anti-abortion, there’s not a lot of doubt about that, but he has come forth and endorsed IVF as a life-affirming rather, as a good thing.

Rovner: And I actually went and checked when this all broke because Joanne probably remembers in the mid-2000s when they were talking about stem cell research that President George W. Bush had a big event with what were called “snowflake children,” which were children who were born because they were adopted leftover embryos that someone else basically gestated, and that …

Kenen: But I don’t think they’ll call them “snowflake” anymore.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, that adoption agency is still around and still working and still accepting leftover embryos to be adopted out. That does still exist. I imagine that’s probably of use in Louisiana too, where you’re not allowed to destroy leftover embryos.

Well, meanwhile, we have some new numbers on something else we’ve been talking about since Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization]. Doctors who deliver babies in states with abortion bans are choosing to leave rather than to risk arrest or fines for providing what they consider evidence-based care. In Idaho, according to a new report, 22% of practicing obstetricians stopped practicing or left the state from August 2022 to November 2023. And, at the same time, two hospitals’ obstetric programs in the state closed, while two others report having trouble recruiting enough doctors to keep their doors open.

I would think this is going to particularly impact more sparsely populated states like Idaho, which also, coincidentally or not, are the states that tend to have the strictest abortion bans. I mean, it’s going to be … this seems to be another case where it’s going to be harder, where abortion bans are going to make it harder to have babies.

Cohrs: Yeah. I mean, we’re already seeing a trend of hospital systems being reluctant to keep OB-GYN delivery units open anyway. We’ve seen care deserts. It’s really not a profitable endeavor unless you have a NICU [neonatal intensive care unit] attached. So I think this just really compounds the problems that we’ve been hearing about staffing, about rural health in general, recruiting, and just makes it one step harder for those departments that are really important for women to get the care they need as they’re giving birth, and just making sure that they’re safe and well-staffed for those appointments leading up to and following the birth as well.

Kenen: Right. And at a time we’re supposedly making maternal mortality a national health priority, right? So you can’t really protect women at risk, and, as Rachel said, it’s during childbirth, but it’s for months after. And without proper care, we are not going to be able to either bring down the overall maternal mortality rates nor close the racial disparities.

Griffin: I was just going to say, I highly recommend a story the New Yorker did this past January, “Did an Abortion Ban Cost a Young Texas Woman Her Life?” It’s a view into many of these different themes and will show you a real human story, a tragic one at that, about what these deserts, how they have consequential impact on people’s lives for both mother and baby.

Rovner: Yeah, and we talked about that when it came out. So if you go back, if you scroll back, you’ll find a link to it in the show notes.

I was going to say March is when we get “Match Day,” which is when graduating medical students find out where they’re going to be completing their training. And we saw just sort of the beginnings last year of kind of a dip in graduating medical students who want to become OB-GYNs who are applying to programs in states with abortion bans. I’ll be really curious this year to see whether that was a statistical anomaly or whether really people who want to train to be OB-GYNs don’t want to train in states where they’re really worried about changing laws.

We have to move on. I want to talk about something I’m calling the most under-covered health story of the month, a huge cyberattack on a company called Change Healthcare, which is owned by health industry giant UnitedHealth [Group]. Change processes insurance claims and pharmacy requests for more than 300,000 physicians and 60,000 pharmacies. And as of Wednesday, its systems were still down a week after the attack.

Rachel, I feel like this is a giant flashing red light of what’s at risk with gigantic consolidation in the health care industry. Am I wrong?

Cohrs: You’re right, which is why a couple of my colleagues did cover it as just this important red flag. And there are new SEC [Securities and Exchange Commission] reporting rules as well that require more disclosure around these kind of events. So I think that will …

Rovner: Around the cyberattacks?

Cohrs: Yes, around the cyberattacks, yes. But I think just the idea that, we’ll talk about this later too, but that Change is owned by UnitedHealth and just so much is consolidated that it really does create risks when there are vulnerabilities in these very essential processes. And I think a lot of people just don’t understand how many health care companies, they don’t provide any actual care. They’re just helping with the backroom kind of operations. And when you get these huge conglomerates or services that are bundled together under one umbrella, then it really does show you how a very small company maybe not everyone had heard of before this week could take down operations when you go to your pharmacy, when you go to your doctor’s office.

Rovner: Yeah, and there are doctors who aren’t getting paid. I mean, there’s bills that aren’t getting processed. Everything was done through the mail and it was slow and everybody said, “When we digitize it, it’s all going to be better and it’s all going to happen instantly.” And mostly what it’s done is it’s created all these other companies who are now making money off the health care system, and it’s why health care is a fifth of the U.S. economy.

But anticipating what you were about to say, Rachel, speaking of the giant consolidation in the health industry by UnitedHealth, I am not the only one, we are not the only ones who have noticed. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that the Justice Department has begun an antitrust investigation of said UnitedHealthcare, which provides not only health insurance and claims processing services like those from Change Healthcare, but also through its subsidiary Optum, owns a network of physician groups, one of the largest pharmacy benefit managers, and provides a variety of other health services. Apparently one question investigators are pursuing is whether United favors Optum-owned groups to the detriment of competing doctors and providers.

I think my question here is what took so long? I know that the Justice Department looked at it when United was buying Change Healthcare, but then they said that was OK.

Cohrs: Yeah. I will say I think this is a great piece of reporting here, and these are excellent questions about what happens when the vertical integration gets to this level, which we just really haven’t seen with UnitedHealthcare, where they’re aggressively acquiring provider clinics. I think it was a home health care company that they were trying to buy as well.

So I think it is interesting because now that the acquisitions have happened on some of these, there will be evidence and more material for investigators to look at. It won’t be a theoretical anymore. So I will be interested to see just how this plays out, but it does seem like the questions they’re asking are pretty wide-ranging, certainly related to providers, but also related to an MLR [medical loss ratio]. What if you own a provider that’s charging your insurance company? How does that even work and what are the competitive effects of that for other practices? So I think …

Rovner: And MLRs, for those who are not jargonists, it’s minimum loss ratios [also known as medical loss ratio], and it’s the Affordable Care Act requirement that insurers spend a certain amount of each dollar on actual care rather than overhead and profit and whatnot. So yeah, when you’re both the provider and the insurer, it’s kind of hard to figure out how that’s going.

I am sort of amazed that it’s taken this long because United has been sort of expanding geometrically for the last decade or so.

Kenen: It’s sort of like the term vertical integration, which is the correct term that Rachel used, but as she said that, I sort of had this image of a really tall, skinny, vertical octopus. There’s more and more and more things getting lumped into these big, consolidating, enormous companies that have so much control over so much of health care and concentrated in so few hands now. It’s not just United. I mean, they’re big, but the other big insurers are big too.

Cohrs: Right. I did want to also mention just that we’re kind of seeing this play out in other places too, like Eli Lilly creating telehealth clinics to prescribe their obesity medications. Again, there’s no evidence that they’re connected to this in any way, but I think it is going to be a cautionary tale for other health care companies who are looking into this model and asking themselves, “If UnitedHealthcare can do it, why can’t we do it?” It will be interesting to see how this plays out for the rest of the industry as well.

Rovner: Yeah, when I started covering health policy, I never thought I was going to become a business reporter, but here we are.

Moving on to “This Week in Health Misinformation,” we have Joanne, or rather an interesting, and as it turns out, extremely timely story about vaccines that Joanne wrote for Politico Magazine. Joanne, tell us your thesis here with this story.

Kenen: I wanted to look at how much the public health and clinician community had learned about combating misinformation, sort of a real-life, real-time unfolding before our eyes, which was the rollout of the RSV vaccine.

And I think the two big takeaways, I mean, it’s a fairly … I guess there were sort of three takeaways from that article. One, is they’ve learned stuff but not enough.

Two, is that it’s not that there was this huge campaign against the RSV vaccine, there is misinformation about the RSV vaccine, but basically it just got subsumed into this nonstop, ever-growing anti-vaccine movement that you didn’t have to target RSV. Vaccines is a dirty word for a section of the population.

And the third thing I learned is that the learning about fighting disinformation, the tools we have, you can learn about those tools and deploy those tools, but they don’t work great. There’ve been some studies that have found that what they call debunking or fact-checking, teaching people that what they believe is untrue, that they say, “Ah, that’s not right,” and then a week later they’re back to their original, as little as one week in some studies. One week, you’re back to what you originally thought. So we just don’t know how to do this yet. There are more and more tools, but we are not there.

Rovner: Well, and I say this story is timely because we’re looking at a pretty scary measles outbreak in Florida and a Florida surgeon general who has rejected all established public health advice by telling parents it’s up to them whether to send their exposed-but-unvaccinated children to school rather than keep them home for the full 21 days that measles can take to incubate.

The surgeon general has been publicly taken to task by, among others, Florida’s former surgeon general. I can remember several measles outbreaks over the years, often in less-than-fully-vaccinated communities, but I can’t remember any public health officials so obviously flouting standard public health advice.

Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this?

Kenen: No. It’s like his public stance is like, “Measles, schmeasles.” It’s like a parent has the right to decide whether they’re potentially contagious, goes to school and infects other children, some of whom may be vulnerable and have health problems. It is this complete elevation of medical liberty or medical freedom completely disconnected to the fact that we are connected to one another. We live in communities. We supposedly care about one another. We don’t do a very good job of that, and this is sort of the apotheosis of that.

Rovner: And one of the main reasons that public schools require vaccines is not just for the kids themselves, but for kids who may have younger siblings at home who are not yet fully vaccinated. That’s the whole idea behind herd immunity, is that if enough people are vaccinated then those who are still not fully vaccinated will be protected because it won’t be floating around. And obviously in Florida, measles, which is, according to many doctors, one of the most contagious diseases on the planet, is making a bit of a comeback. So it is sort of, as you point out, kind of the end result of this demonization of all vaccines.

Kenen: And our overall vaccination rate for childhood immunization has dropped and it’s dropped, I’d have to fact-check myself, I think what you need for herd immunity is 95% and it’s …

Rovner: I think it’s over 95.

Kenen: And that we’re down to maybe 93[%]. I mean, this number was in that article that I wrote, but I wrote it a few weeks ago and I may be off by a percentage point, so I want to sort of clarify that nobody should quote me without double-checking that. But basically, we’re not where we need to be and we’re not where we were just a few years ago.

Rovner: Another space we will continue to watch.

Well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with law professor Greer Donley, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am thrilled to welcome to the podcast, Greer Donley, associate dean for research and faculty development and associate professor of law at the University of Pittsburgh Law School. She’s an expert in legal issues surrounding reproductive health in general and abortion in particular, and someone whose work I have regularly relied on over the past several years, so thank you so much for joining us.

Greer Donley: I’m so happy to be here. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So I’ve asked you here to talk about how an anti-abortion president could use an 1873 law called the Comstock Act to basically ban abortion nationwide. But first, because it is still so in the news, I have to ask you about the controversy surrounding the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos for in vitro fertilization are legally children. Do you think this is a one-off, or is this the beginning of states really, fully embracing the idea of personhood from the moment of fertilization?

Donley: Man, I have a lot to say about that. So I’ll start by saying that first of all, this is the logical extension of what people have been saying for a long time about, “If life starts at conception, this is what that means.” So in some sense, this is one of those things where people say, “Believe people when they tell you something.” Folks have been saying forever, “Life starts at conception.” This is a logical outgrowth of that. So in some sense, it’s not particularly surprising.

It’s also worth noting that states have been moving towards personhood for decades, often through these kind of state laws, like wrongful death, which is exactly what happened here. So this is the first case that found that an embryo outside of a uterus was a children for this purpose of wrongful death, but many states had been moving in the direction of finding a fetus or even an embryo that’s within a pregnant person to be a child for the purpose of wrongful death for a while now. And that has always been viewed as the anti-abortion movement towards personhood. In some sense, this is just kind of the logical outgrowth, the logical extension, of the personhood movement and the permission that Dobbs essentially gave to states to go as far as they wanted to on this question.

So whether or not this is going to be the beginning of a new trend is, I think, in my mind, going to be really shaped by public backlash to the Alabama decision, particularly. I think that many folks within the anti-abortion movement, again, they mean what they say. They do believe that this is a life and it should be treated as any other life, but whether or not they are going to perceive this as the ideal political climate in which to push that agenda is another question.

And my personal view is that, given the backlash to the Alabama Supreme Court, you might see folks retreating a little bit from this. I think we’re starting to see a little bit of that, where more moderate people within the Republican Party are going to say, “This is not the moment to go this far,” or maybe even, “I’m not sure I actually support this logical outgrowth of my own opinion,” and so we’re going to have to kind of …

Rovner: “I co-sponsored this bill, but I didn’t realize that’s what it would do.”

Donley: Exactly. Right? So we’re going to, I think, really have to see how people’s views change in response to the backlash.

Rovner: Let us go back to Comstock. Who was this person, Anthony Comstock? What does this law do and why is it still on the books 151 years after it was passed?

Donley: Ugh, yes, OK. So Anthony Comstock, he is what people often call, “The anti-vice crusader.” This law passed in 1873. It’s actually a series of laws, but we often compile them and call them the Comstock Act.

The late 1800s were a moment of change, where many people in this country were for the first time being exposed to the idea that abortion is immoral for religious reasons. Before that for a long time, in the early 1800s, people regularly purchased products to try to what they call, “Bring on the menses,” or menstrual regulation. So it was not uncommon. It was a fairly commonly held view up until late 1800s that the pregnancy was nothing until it was a quickening, there was a quickening where the pregnant person felt movement.

So Comstock was one of the people who was really kind of a part of changing that culture in the late 1800s, and he had the power as the post office inspector of investigating the mail throughout our country. So he was influential not only in helping to pass a law that made it illegal to ship through interstate commerce all sorts of things that he considered immoral, which explicitly included abortion and contraception, but also used vague terms like “anything immoral.” And he was the person that was then in charge of enforcing those laws by actually investigating the mail. His investigations led to pretty horrible outcomes, including many people killing themselves after he started investigating them for a variety of Comstock-related crimes at the time.

So obviously, this law was passed before women had the right to vote, in a completely different time period than we exist today, and it really remained on the books by an accident of history, in my mind.

So in the early 1900s, there was a series of cases. This was the moment where we particularly saw a huge movement towards birth control. So as that movement was going on, you saw a lot of litigation in the courts that were interpreting the Comstock laws related to contraception, finding that it had to be narrowly limited to only unlawful contraception or unlawful abortion. Because the Comstock laws, by its terms, which this should shock everybody who’s hearing me, has literally no exceptions, not even for the life of the pregnant person. And it is so broad that it would ban abortion nationwide from the beginning of a pregnancy without exception. Procedural abortion, pills, everything.

Rovner: And people think of this as the U.S. mail, but it’s not just the U.S. mail. It’s basically any way you move things across state lines, right?

Donley: Right. Because we live in a national economy now, so there’s nothing in medicine that exists in a purely intrastate environment. So every abortion provider in the country is dependent on them and their state mail to get things that they need for procedural abortion and pills.

In the early to mid-1900s, right around the 1930s, there was a series of cases that said this law only applied for unlawful contraception and abortion because they had to read that term into the law. Eventually in the late 1930s, you saw the federal government stop enforcing it completely. And then you had the constitutional cases came out that found a right to contraception and abortion, and so the law was presumed unconstitutional for half a century. No one was repealing it because everyone assumed that it was never going to come back to life. In comes Dobbs, in come the modern anti-abortion movement, and now we are here.

Rovner: Yeah. So how could a President Trump, if he returns to the White House, use this to ban abortion nationwide?

Donley: Yes, because this law was never repealed, and because the case that presumptively made it unconstitutional, Roe v. Wade, and the cases that came after that, are now no longer good law, presumptively the law, like a zombie, comes back to life.

And so the anti-abortion movement is now trying to reinterpret the law, right? We’re talking about such a long period of time and all those 1930s cases, since that time period, you have the rise of what we call textualism, which is a theory of statutory interpretation that really likes to stick to the text. That was something that’s been around for a while, but in modern jurisprudence, that has become increasingly important, and the anti-abortion movement sees, “Well, all these judges are now textualists, and we can say this law is still good. By its clear terms, it bans shipping through interstate commerce anything that could be used for an abortion. Voila. We have our national abortion ban without having to get a single vote in Congress. All we need is a Republican president that will enforce the law as it’s written and on the books today,” and that is their theory.

Rovner: And that’s included, I think, in one of the briefs that was filed today in the abortion pill case, right?

Donley: Absolutely. In that case, that’s a case concerning the regulation of mifepristone, one of the abortion pills, that’s before the Supreme Court this summer. You had parties saying, “The law is clear and it is as broad as it’s written,” essentially.

Rovner: Well, this doesn’t apply to contraception anymore, right?

Donley: Right. So right after the Supreme Court case Griswold [v. Connecticut], which found a constitutional right to contraception, but before Roe, you had the Congress actually repealed the portion of Comstock related to contraception. But again, it was before Roe, so they didn’t repeal the part related to abortion, and then Roe came in and made that part presumptively unconstitutional.

Of course, going back in time, we would say, “You got to repeal that law. You have no idea what the future may be,” but I don’t think people really saw this moment coming. They should have. We should have all been preparing for this more. But, yeah.

Rovner: One of the things that I don’t think I had appreciated until I read the op-ed that you co-wrote, thank you very much, is that there could be a reach-back here. It’s not even just abortions going forward, right?

Donley: Right. So the idea here is that, generally, laws have a statute of limitations, right? So you could potentially have a President Trump come in, say that he’s going to start enforcing this law immediately, and even if the second Jan. 1 comes, people stop shipping anything through interstate commerce, he could still go back and say, “Well, the statute of limitations is five years.” So you go back in time for five years and potentially bring charges against someone.

So one of the important pieces of advocacy that we might have in this moment is to really encourage President Biden, if he were to not win the election, to preemptively essentially pardon anybody for any Comstock-related crimes to make sure that that can’t be used against them. That’s a power he actually has and will be a very important power for him to use in that instance. But it’s quite alarming how Comstock could be used in this period, but also retrospectively.

Rovner: Last question, and I know the answer to this, but I think I need to remind listeners, if Congress doesn’t have to pass anything to implement a nationwide ban, why haven’t previous anti-abortion Republican presidents tried to do this?

Donley: While Roe and [Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v.] Casey were good law, there was no way that they could possibly do that. It would’ve been unconstitutional for them to try to criminalize people for exercising their constitutional right to reproductive health care for abortion. So we’re really in a new moment where essentially the Supreme Court overturned those cases while President Biden was in office, and so the real question is whether a Republican administration could come in and change everything.

Rovner: We shall see. Greer Donley, thank you so much for coming to explain this.

Donley: Thank you for having me.

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.

Rachel, you were the first to choose this week. Why don’t you go first?

Cohrs: The article I chose is in The New York Times. The headline is “$1 Billion Donation Will Provide Free Tuition at a Bronx Medical School” by Joseph Goldstein. And it’s about how this 93-year-old widow of an early investor in Berkshire Hathaway has given $1 billion to a medical school in the Bronx to pay for students’ tuition. And I think her idea behind it is that it will open up the pool of students who might be able to go to medical school. I imagine applications might increase to this school as well. And she was a professor at the school during her career as well.

To me, it’s not a scalable solution necessarily for the cost of medical education, but I think it does highlight how broke everything is. When we’re talking about Medicare payment to doctors, I think one of the arguments they always use is doctors have debt and there’s inflation and costs have gone up so much, and I think the cost of education in this country certainly is one factor in that, that it’s really hard to address from a simply health care policy standpoint.

So I think not necessarily a scalable solution, but will definitely make a difference in a lot of students’ lives and just give them more freedom to practice in the specialty that they might want to, which we all know we need more primary care doctors and doctors in a variety of different settings. So I think it’s a rare piece of good news.

Rovner: Yeah, it might not be scalable, but it’s not the first, which is kind of … I remember, in fact, NYU is now having a no-tuition medical school. UCLA, although I think UCLA is only for students who can demonstrate financial need. But in doing those earlier stories, and I have not updated this, at the time, which is a couple of years ago, the average medical student debt graduating is over $250,000. So you can see why they feel like they need to be in more lucrative specialties because they’re going to be paying their student loans back until they’re in their 40s, most of them. This is clearly a step in that direction.

Riley, why don’t you go next?

Griffin: Yeah. I wanted to share a story that I’ve been fairly obsessed with over the last month. It’s one of my own. It’s “US Seeks to Limit China’s Access to Americans’ Personal Data.” This week, the Biden administration announced that it is issuing, or has at this point issued, an executive order to secure Americans’ sensitive personal data, and we broke this story about a month ago.

Why it is so interesting to the health world is, one of the key parts that was a motivating factor in putting together this executive order, is DNA, genomic data. The U.S., the National Security Council, our national security apparatus is really concerned about what China and other foreign adversaries are doing with our genetic information. And we can get more into that in the story itself, but it is fascinating, and now we’re seeing real action to regulate and protect and ensure that that bulk data doesn’t get into the hands of people who want to use it for blackmail and espionage.

Rovner: Yeah, it was super scary, I will say. Joanne?

Kenen: I couldn’t resist this one. It’s in Axios. It’s by Tina Reed, and the headline is “An Unexpected Finding Suggests Full Moons May Actually Be Tough on Hospitals.” Caveat, before I go on, there is research out there that proves what I’m about to say is wrong.

But anyway, a company that makes panic buttons, so a hospital security company that one of the things they do is provide panic buttons, they did a study of how and when these panic buttons are used, and they found they go up during full moons. And they also found that other things rise during full moons. GI [gastro-intestinal] disorders go up, ambulance rides connected to motor vehicle accidents go up, and psychiatric admissions go up. So maybe that research that I cited at the beginning saying this is hogwash needs to be reevaluated in some subcategories.

Rovner: There’s always new things to find out in science.

My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “Their States Banned Abortion. Doctors Now Say They Can’t Give Women Potential Lifesaving Care,” by Kavitha Surana. It’s another in a series of stories we’ve seen about women with serious pregnancy complications that are not immediately life-threatening, but who nevertheless can’t get care that their doctors think they need.

This story, however, is written from the point of view of the doctors, specifically members of an abortion committee at Vanderbilt Hospital in Nashville who are dealing with the Tennessee ban that’s one of the strictest in the nation. It’s really putting doctors in an almost impossible position in some cases, feeling that they can’t even tell patients what the risks are of continuing their pregnancies for fear of violating that Tennessee law. It’s a whole new window into this story that we keep hearing about and a really good read.

OK. That is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us too. Special thanks as always to our very patient 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 hanging around at Twitter, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads.

Joanne, where are you hanging these days?

Kenen: Mostly at Threads, @joannekenen1. I still occasionally use X, and that’s @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Riley, where can we find you on social media?

Griffin: You can find me at X @rileyraygriffin.

Rovner: And Rachel?

Cohrs: I’m at X @rachelcohrs and on LinkedIn more these days, so feel free to follow me there.

Rovner: There you go. We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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

Occupational Therapists Change Lives. CMS Must Better Support Them.

Occupational therapists are critical in helping patients adjust to new circumstances, empowering them with the tools they need to overcome barriers and regain control over their lives. Whether you’re transitioning from homelessness into a home (“In Los Angeles, Occupational Therapists Tapped to Help Homeless Stay Housed,” Jan. 24) or relearning how to do everyday tasks following a stroke, OTs are key to patients’ care plan.

But the critical care provided by OTs is being threatened by another year of payment cuts imposed by Medicare, our nation’s health care program for people age 65 and up. Many older patients treated by OTs access insurance coverage through Medicare, which typically reimburses providers at a lower rate than private insurers. And now, with payment cuts that went into effect on Jan. 1 — despite warnings and backlash from lawmakers, patients, and providers — OTs are struggling to deliver care with lower Medicare payment.

Investing in occupational therapy improves health outcomes for patients, has the potential to reduce the burden on hospitals and other health care clinicians, and keeps individuals healthy and independent. Medicare’s payment cuts only compromise the ability of providers to deliver comprehensive, compassionate care. Medicare must recognize the long-term patient benefits occupational therapy has to offer.

Luckily, Congress is considering a bill that would reverse these harmful payment cuts. The Preserving Seniors’ Access to Physicians Act of 2023 (HR 6683), would reverse the cuts that went into effect on Jan. 1, alleviating financial stress for occupational therapists and preserving patient access. I strongly urge lawmakers to prioritize and protect occupational therapy services and immediately pass HR 6683 for America’s Medicare patients.

— Doug Fosco, an occupational therapist practicing at Two Trees Physical Therapy in Ventura, California

An assistant professor at Ontario’s Western University weighed in on X.

Great to see the role of #occupationaltherapy with persons who experience #homelessness profiled in @latimes. Thanks #deborahpitts for your work in LA with @USC and #skidrowhousingtrust . Check it out @CAOT_ACE @OSOTvoice ! @CAEHomelessness https://t.co/S5s9jhgoxI

— Carrie Anne Marshall, PhD (@cannemarshall) January 24, 2024

— Carrie Anne Marshall, Sydenham, Ontario

Congress Must Finish the Job on Site-Neutral Payments

There’s an obvious solution to rein in government spending and patient out-of-pocket costs: Pay identical prices for identical care (“In Fight Over Medicare Payments, the Hospital Lobby Shows Its Strength,” Feb. 13).

As a community oncologist, it is clear to me how Medicare favors hospitals by paying more for services provided in hospital outpatient departments (HOPDs) than the same care delivered in community-based facilities. For example, last year, Medicare paid over 2.5 times as much in an HOPD as in a free-standing office for drug administration services. It’s not just Medicare paying too much; patients also face higher out-of-pocket costs for care provided in HOPDs. If the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act is signed into law, cancer patients would immediately pay less for treatments like chemotherapy.

One unintended consequence of current payment disparities is consolidation. To leverage higher reimbursements, health systems scoop up independent practices — a growing problem that is particularly pronounced in oncology. From 2008 to 2020, 435 community cancer clinics closed, while 722 contracted with or were acquired by hospitals. This consolidation is reducing patient access, particularly in rural areas, where many independent clinics operate small satellite sites that tend to be the first to close when hospitals acquire a community-based practice.

It’s time for Congress to finish the job through bills like the Lower Costs, More Transparency Act and the SITE Act, which would help level the playing field once and for all.

— Scott Rushing, Vancouver, Washington

The chief marketing officer of SKYGEN cut to the chase on X.

In the battle to control healthcare costs, hospitals are deploying their political power to protect their bottom lines. https://t.co/97r502KrpM

— Donald H. Polite (@DonaldPolite) February 15, 2024

— Donald H. Polite, Milwaukee

The ‘Gold Card’ Shuffle

Prior authorization, by definition, creates delays in care and bureaucratic barriers for physicians — which is why it is so troubling that many insurers now require prior authorization for large categories of procedures with no evidence of overuse or inappropriate use. With health insurers increasingly implementing questionable prior authorization policies, state and federal lawmakers are racing to erect safeguards that ensure patients’ access to timely care (“States Target Health Insurers’ ‘Prior Authorization’ Red Tape,” Feb. 12).

Much of the legislation to address this growing problem centers around the use of “Gold Cards” that exempt providers whose previous requests for prior authorization have been approved for a certain period. In general, these laws are important for patients who can’t afford to wait for care — especially in the field of gastroenterology where severe abdominal pain or blood in the stool could indicate a serious condition like cancer.

However, some insurance companies are co-opting the “Gold Card” term to justify new prior authorization requirements instead of streamlining existing ones. Consider the case of UnitedHealthcare, which announced it would roll out a “Gold Card” prior authorization program this year for most colonoscopies and endoscopies. No other insurer has levied such a policy, nor does the research suggest there is an overutilization of these vital services. Despite nearly a year of good faith efforts to seek transparency and guidance from UHC, the company has failed to release any data or justification that these services are improperly utilized.

If anything, diagnostic and surveillance colonoscopies and endoscopies may be underutilized. New research from the American Cancer Society shows an alarming spike in the number of younger Americans being diagnosed with and dying from colorectal cancer. Since symptoms of colorectal cancer don’t often appear until the disease is at a more advanced stage, early detection is key. Any disruption to surveillance colonoscopies (which follow removal of a precancerous polyp and are part of the screening continuum) caused by UHC’s forthcoming prior authorization policy would be dangerous for the company’s 27 million commercial beneficiaries.

The American Gastroenterological Association strongly urges UHC to rescind its “Gold Card” prior authorization policy. Policymakers must monitor how insurers are co-opting concepts meant to protect patients, in particular UHC’s faux “Gold Card,” which threatens patient access to a procedure proven to save lives.

— Barbara Jung, president of the American Gastroenterological Association, Seattle

In an X post, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute pointed out the value in requiring prior authorization.

Case-by-case prior authorization is never fun, but surely preferable to most other methods of eliminating needless spending (ex post denials of reimbursement, higher cost-sharing, capped global budgets, etc…) https://t.co/nYijeiAUtP

— Chris Pope (@CPopeHC) February 12, 2024

— Chris Pope, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute, New York City

Hospice in Prison: A Transformative View

I was so impressed with Markian Hawryluk’s exceptionally well-written article “Death and Redemption in an American Prison” (Feb. 21). I was privileged to serve as an inaugural member of the American Hospital Association’s Circle of Life Award committee, from 1999 to 2004. The awards were established to recognize the most outstanding hospice and palliative care programs in the U.S. The very first year, we received an application from the country’s largest maximum-security prison in Angola, Louisiana, the subject of Mr. Hawryluk’s wonderful article. The prison was one of the five finalists chosen for a site visit in 2000. I volunteered to be on team to visit and evaluate the prison’s hospice services.

Twenty-four years later, I still remember my conversation with one of the inmate volunteers who had just returned from bathing and feeding a dying prisoner. He told me the inmate said, “I love you.” Then the inmate volunteer stated, “I never heard those words before — not from my father, who I never met, nor from my mother.” In 2000, if one were sentenced to life at the Louisiana State Penitentiary, there was no chance for parole. When we met with the warden, he mentioned there was a waiting list of prisoners who wanted to be hospice volunteers.

Please convey my deep appreciation to Mr. Hawryluk for his outstanding article.

— Paul Hofmann, president of the Hofmann Healthcare Group, Moraga, California

A digital storyteller shared the article on X.

Your one, long read for today – it's beautifully and thoughtfully written and reported"Sometimes when you're in a dark place, you find out who you really are and what you wish you could be," Steven Garner said. "Even in darkness, I could be a light."https://t.co/57asjh11ZV

— Ameera B. ا ميرة بت 🪬 (@meerabee) February 19, 2024

— Ameera Butt, Los Angeles

Feeling Insecure Because of Social Security Tactics

When will you continue your series on the overpayments to the Social Security Administration (“Overpayment Outrage”)? People are still suffering without benefits because the agency says people were overpaid and wants the money back. Why is nobody else asking more questions?

People in this country worked hard and paid taxes. And when it is time to retire, the Social Security Administration refuses to pay if, all of a sudden, it discovers you have been overpaid. They have told me I owe them $30,000 from over 20 years ago, and I do not know what they are talking about, but they want to take my retirement money until it’s paid off. Or they want you to say it is OK to take a percentage out. Doing that would say you’re guilty and you owe the money — to me, that’s blackmail.

New immigrants get free phones, medical care, debit cards, food assistance, schooling … that comes to more than my little amount of retirement money. It seems the government can afford to take care of them, but not their own. Everyone who has had their Social Security taken away should be entitled to the free services they get, as we are in the same position — now we have nothing either.

— Thomas Troy, New York City

Lifelong Minnesotan and epidemiologist Eric Weinhandl chimed in on X.

Relatively severe incompetency. Social Security Chief Apologizes to Congress for Misleading Testimony on Overpaymentshttps://t.co/HYPcTU5tVW

— Eric Weinhandl (@eric_weinhandl) December 27, 2023

— Eric Weinhandl, Victoria, Minnesota

A Balanced View of the Law Curbing Surprise Bills

KFF Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal has long advocated for quality, patient-centric medical care. However, her recent article, “The No Surprises Act Comes with Some Surprises” (Feb. 14), falls short in its analysis of surprise medical billing and the federal No Surprises Act (NSA). While she places blame on physicians, the reality is more complicated.

Patients with health insurance should not be burdened with paying more than their normal in-network cost-sharing amount for unexpected out-of-network care. This is not controversial. The legislative debate was never about whether to act on surprise billing, but rather how to act. While insurers favored policies that would allow them to calculate the payment rate medical providers receive, with the NSA, Congress instead chose an approach intended to protect sustainable payment rates that would preserve patients’ access to care. The NSA removes patients from payment disputes between insurers and providers and is intended to encourage negotiations between insurers and providers, with an option for neutral arbitration.

Rosenthal’s article implies a “greedy doctor” narrative, omitting discussion of insurers as contributing to the problems with the NSA’s implementation. While the article notes that many requests for arbitration came from private equity-associated provider organizations, it neglected to note that a single insurance company (UnitedHealthcare) was involved in almost 40% of arbitration disputes. That is more than the rest of the top five insurance organizations combined. The article also quotes and references papers by Zack Cooper, whose undisclosed connections with UnitedHealthcare came to light through litigation. As reported, UnitedHealthcare not only provided data to Cooper, but helped frame the narrative of the work.

NSA rulemaking has financially incentivized insurers to leverage the NSA to unilaterally reduce existing contracted rates and push physicians out-of-network. As for the projected number of requests for arbitration in 2022 (which underestimated “providers’ ire by an order of magnitude”), that projection ignored existing data. In just the first six months of 2021, Texas alone had more than twice as many arbitration submissions for its state law as the federal government projected for the nation for a full year. More importantly, the article ignores the issue of why doctors request arbitration. Since arbitration is baseball-style and “loser pays,” there is a strong disincentive to request it without a solid reason. In the second quarter of 2023, providers won nearly 80% of disputes, reflecting the fact that doctors are going to arbitration when insurers’ actions are unreasonable.

Further, while it is true that before the NSA too many patients were receiving bills for unexpected out-of-network care, a report from the Department of Health and Human Services noted that out-of-network billing was actually declining prior to the NSA. Physician survey data suggests that post-NSA out-of-network care is now increasing due to some insurers’ actions.

The bipartisan NSA is a balanced solution to a complicated problem. Difficulties with the law’s implementation, including the volume of dispute submissions and backlog of cases, are due to unintended consequences from rulemaking. Addressing these challenges requires an honest conversation about their cause. Going forward, rulemaking is needed to promote fair network contracting, limit the need for arbitration, and, most importantly, protect patients’ access to care.

— Rich Heller, a pediatric radiologist and the associate chief medical officer for health policy, Radiology Partners, Chicago

Anesthetist-emergency physician-family doctor David Moniz, in an X post, warned of the “unseen consequences” of the No Surprises Act.

Check out the surprising outcomes of the No Surprises Act, designed to protect patients from unexpected medical bills. While it's successfully shielded many patients, there are unseen consequences. Read the full article here: https://t.co/YFa0xweRe7#health, #healthpolicy, #he…

— David Moniz (@DavidMoniz15) February 14, 2024

— David Moniz, Chilliwack, British Columbia

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).