The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Senators Have Mental Health Crises, Too

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

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

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

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

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

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

Rovner: I think it was a sibling, yeah.

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

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

Kenen: They were a very unlikely couple.

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: Or younger.

Rovner: Or younger, yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: That might be a sign of mental health.

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

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

Rovner: I think he had lymphoma. Yeah.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Always Grandma.

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

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

Kenen: Yeah, he blew a gasket.

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

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

Rovner: To change payments for Medicare Advantage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: And doctors’ rights to provide it.

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

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

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

Rovner: If only we could.

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

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

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

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

Roubein: Yes, Charlie Baker.

Rovner: If they were still … Charlie Baker.

Roubein: Sununu.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Health care was a recurring theme throughout President Joe Biden’s 2023 State of the Union address on Capitol Hill this week. He took a victory lap on recent accomplishments like capping prescription drug costs for seniors on Medicare. He urged Congress to do more, including making permanent the boosted insurance premium subsidies added to the Affordable Care Act during the pandemic. And he sparred with Republicans in the audience — who jeered and called him a liar — over GOP proposals that would cut Medicare and Social Security.

Meanwhile, abortion rights advocates and opponents are anxiously awaiting a federal court decision out of Texas that could result in a nationwide ban on mifepristone, one of two drugs used in medication abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• President Joe Biden’s State of the Union address emphasized recent victories against high health care costs, like Medicare coverage caps on insulin and out-of-pocket caps on prescription drug spending. Biden’s lively, informal exchange with lawmakers over potential cuts to Medicare and Social Security seemed to steal the show, though the political fight over cutting costs in those entitlement programs is rooted in a key question: What constitutes a “cut”?
• Biden’s calls for bipartisanship to extend health programs like pandemic-era subsidies for Affordable Care Act health plans are expected to clash with conservative demands to slash federal government spending. And last year’s Senate fights demonstrate that sometimes the opposition comes from within the Democratic Party.
• While some abortion advocates praised Biden for vowing to veto a federal abortion ban, others felt he did not talk enough about the looming challenges to abortion access in the courts. A decision is expected soon in a Texas court case challenging the future use of mifepristone. The Trump-appointed judge’s decision could ban the drug nationwide, meaning it would be barred even in states where abortion continues to be legal.
• The FDA is at the center of the abortion pill case, which challenges its approval of the drug decades ago and could set a precedent for legal challenges to the approval of other drugs. In other FDA news, the agency recently changed policy to allow gay men to donate blood; announced new food safety leadership in response to the baby formula crisis; and kicked back to Congress a question of how to regulate CBD, or cannabidiol, products.
• In drug pricing, the top-selling pharmaceutical, Humira, will soon reach the end of its patent, which will offer a telling look at how competition influences the price of biosimilars — and the problems that remain for lawmakers to resolve.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago about a new paper providing a possible middle ground in the effort to establish universal health insurance coverage in the U.S.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Don’t Let Republican ‘Judge Shoppers’ Thwart the Will of Voters,” by Stephen I. Vladeck

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Mpox Is Simmering South of the Border, Threatening a Resurgence,” by Carmen Paun

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Decisions by CVS and Optum Panicked Thousands of Their Sickest Patients,” by Arthur Allen

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings,” by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker, and Maya Miller

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Associated Press’ “20 Attorneys General Warn Walgreens, CVS Over Abortion Pills,” by Jim Salter
• NPR’s “A Trump-Appointed Texas Judge Could Force a Major Abortion Pill off the Market,” by Sarah McCammon
• Politico’s “Federal Judge Says Constitutional Right to Abortion May Still Exist, Despite Dobbs,” by Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein
• The Becker Friedman Institute’s “Achieving Universal Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: Addressing Market Failures or Providing a Social Floor?” by Katherine Baicker, Amitabh Chandra, and Mark Shepard

click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Health-Heavy State of the Union

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: A Health-Heavy State of the UnionEpisode Number: 284Published: Feb. 9, 2023

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 9, 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: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll play my interview with Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago. She’s one of the authors of a new paper outlining a new proposal for the U.S. to achieve universal health insurance coverage, something every other developing nation already has, but we have not yet been able to achieve. But first, this week’s health news. We’re going to start, of course, with the State of the Union, which was livelier than usual, with way more back and forth than I’ve ever seen at one of these, and also more health-heavy than usual. I’m going to start with entitlements, notably the president threatening Republican proposals to hold the debt ceiling hostage for cuts in Social Security and Medicare. I’m still trying to decide whether this was intended or not, but Biden nevertheless ended up getting Republicans to vow not to demand cuts in Social Security and Medicare in exchange for raising the debt ceiling later this year. Here is the tape.

President Joe Biden: So, folks, as we all apparently agree, Social Security and Medicare is off the books now, right? And they’re not going to strike … [prolonged applause] All right. We got unanimity!

Rovner: So was this very clever or very lucky or both?

Ollstein: Well, it’s a little not quite what it seems. Republicans have been swearing up and down more recently that they never intended to cut Medicare and Social Security. But when they say “We want to reform it, we want to shore it up,” they’re talking about things that could limit benefits for beneficiaries. So it’s a semantics game, in part. I also want to point out that neither Republicans nor Biden have yet said that they consider Medicaid in that same untouchable category. So that really jumped out at me in the speech as well.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, if you don’t touch Social Security or Medicare — and the Republicans are trying to say that because this has been used as a weapon for so many years — then basically that leaves Medicaid. And as we discovered in 2017, when they were trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid is actually pretty popular, too, because it takes care of a lot of people’s grandparents in nursing homes. I’m wondering when somebody is going to bring that up. Obviously, over the years, many, quote-unquote, “cuts” have been made to both Social Security and Medicare, mainly to slow the growth of the programs so that we can continue to afford them. Many more, quote-unquote, “cuts” will have to be made going forward. Every time you reduce payment to a drugmaker or a hospital or any other health care provider, that’s a cut, but it helps beneficiaries. So, you know, you say “cuts,” [and] beneficiaries say “they’re going to cut our benefits.” Not necessarily. They may just be making the program more affordable, including for the beneficiaries. I mean, this is just the continuous back and forth of each side, weaponizing Medicare in particular, right?

Ollstein: Well, and until we see actual proposals on paper, like you’re indicating, it is a semantics game — what some people consider a cut might not be what other people consider a cut. And there’s going to be all sorts of rhetorical games over the next several months along these lines. So, I’m waiting till we see an actual black-and-white proposal that we can all pick at and analyze together.

Rovner: Well, as we have seen, there’s danger in putting things on paper, as Rick Scott discovered this week. For those who don’t remember, it was his rather infamous proposal — was it last summer, I think? It was before the election — suggesting that all federal programs be sunsetted every five years and then have to be reauthorized, which would include Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid. And that’s not playing well at this point, as I think was predicted at the time, including by us. So moving on, I was also impressed at how the speechwriters managed to combine the, quote, “victory lap” stuff, record Affordable Care [Act] enrollment, Medicare drug price changes, limits on insulin, and surprise bills with the agenda ahead: expanding insulin price caps to the non-Medicare population, Medicaid expansion in the states that haven’t done it, making the Affordable Care Act subsidies expansions permanent. But none of these things — popular, though they may be — are likely to happen in this Congress, are they? … These are the things that fell out of the bill that passed last year.

Cohrs: Right. A lot of those cost money, which is going to cause even more problems this Congress than it did in the last one. And I thought it was pretty informative that the chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee in the House threw cold water on the insulin price-cap idea because it did gain some Republican support in the Senate when it came up for a vote. That was complicated. We won’t go into it. But yeah, it wasn’t a straight up-and-down vote on that policy, really. So I think there was some hope that maybe Republicans could get on board with it. But I think, because it applies to private market insurers, [it was called] a socialist policy, like, they just don’t want government in private plans, even though it’s a wildly popular policy. So, yeah, I think that doesn’t seem like a good signal for that policy in particular and for Medicaid expansion and a lot of these things. Democrats couldn’t even do it when they all agreed or had power in both the House and the Senate. So it’s definitely not a good indication for a lot of these things.

Ollstein: Let’s not forget that [Sen. Joe] Manchin [D-W.Va.] was the one who put the kibosh on the federal Medicaid expansion. He thought it wasn’t fair to states like his that expanded a long time ago and have been paying in a little bit. He thought it wasn’t right that states that were holdouts get a free ride. And the other Democrats argued back that it’s not fair for the residents in those states to be left out in the cold uninsured either. So this will continue. But like Rachel said, not going anywhere soon.

Rovner: So the things that in theory could happen, and these didn’t mostly come up in the speech or didn’t come up very much. But earlier in the day, Biden officials were floating a quote-unquote, “unity agenda” that included a long list of potentially bipartisan health issues, starting with the “cancer moonshot,” mental health and opioid treatment, strengthening the mental health parity rules. Some of these things actually could happen, right?

Cohrs: Yeah, I think especially on the mental health package, I think there was some unfinished business from last Congress, from the Senate Finance Committee. I think that all of these are issues that have been talked about this Congress already. And the leaders have signaled that they might be interested in. But I think there is some daylight here, and we’re still in very much the agenda-setting, throwing ideas out there that are a very vague part of this Congress. And I think actually getting things down on paper and going through hearings and that kind of thing will signal which areas there might actually be some agreement on. But again, spending is going to be a big challenge and there’s just not going to be time to get to everything.

Rovner: I think one of my frustrations is that normally the State of the Union comes right before the president’s budget comes out, usually within a week or two. And this year, the president’s budget isn’t coming out until March 9. So we have this, you know, talk about agenda-setting. We’re going to have a lot of time for people to just yap at each other without any specifics. But speaking of things that didn’t and aren’t likely to happen, the president didn’t talk very much about abortion. And what he did say — like threatening to veto any abortion ban Congress might pass, which won’t happen either with Democrats in charge of the Senate — that disappointed abortion rights supporters. They’re not happy, right, Alice?

Ollstein: Some were not. To be fair, some praised the speech, praised the president for saying the word “abortion.” This was a big thing over much of his career, including the beginning of his presidency. He would talk around it and not actually say the word “abortion,” which the groups felt contributed to stigma around it. And so the big mainstream groups, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, put out statements praising the speech, praising him for saying he would veto a ban, although, again, like you said, that’s a hypothetical. It’s not going to happen. But some other groups were critical that, one, he didn’t talk about some of the very looming direct threats to abortion access in the courts that we’re probably going to get to later.

Rovner: In a minute.

Ollstein: Just in a minute! But they were frustrated that he didn’t lay out more specifics that his administration will actually do to respond to the current loss of access in a lot of the country. They felt that we’re in a crisis moment and he spent less of the speech on abortion than he did on resort fees. That was a sore point for some advocates who I talked to.

Rovner: There was a lot of emphasis on junk fees. And I get why: These are the things that drive people crazy, and, particularly, in times of high inflation. But yes, abortion came very late in the speech — almost after a lot of people had tuned out and stopped paying attention, which I think also made some people unhappy. Well, speaking of abortion, here we are waiting for another make-or-break court decision out of Texas. Alice, this time it’s the future of the “abortion pill,” not just in Texas, but around the nation that’s at stake. How did we get here? And could we really see the abortion pill banned nationwide?

Ollstein: We really could. People have really been sleeping on this case, including some elected officials who were slow to realize the impact it could have. And mainly what people don’t understand is a bunch of states already ban all methods of abortion, including the pill, and then some additional states besides that have restrictions just on the pill. So this will mainly hit blue states and states where abortion access still exists. And so it could really have a huge impact because those states are now serving more than just their own populations. And in a lot of places, losing access to medication abortion means losing access to all abortion because there aren’t clinical services available. And so my colleague and I did some reporting on how the Biden administration is preparing or not for this ruling. They rebuffed calls from activists to declare a public health emergency for abortion. They said they don’t think that would help. While they do plan to appeal the ruling should the FDA lose, the upheaval that could happen in the meantime can’t really be overstated. And not to mention that an appeal would go to the 5th Circuit, which is very conservative, and then to the Supreme Court, which just overturned Roe v. Wade. And so while most experts we’ve talked to don’t think the legal arguments are that sound, you just can’t really …

Rovner: And remind us, this is the lawsuit that’s challenging the 22-year-old approval of the drug in the first place.

Ollstein: Exactly. And so health care legal experts also say that besides the absolute upheaval in the abortion space that this could cause, this would just completely destroy any certainty around drug approvals for the FDA. If anybody could come back decades later and challenge the approval of a drug, how can drugmakers feel comfortable developing and submitting things for approval and making their plans around that? It’s very chaotic.

Rovner: Sarah, is the FDA worried about this case? Has it not been on their radar either?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, they’re involved in the defense.

Rovner: They’re being sued.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think it is a concern if this is used, right? If the folks who want this drug pulled would win, does it become precedent-setting in a way that you can get other products pulled? Perhaps. Again, the sentiments would not be there for a lot of other products in the way to use it. But it is a bit concerning when you think about judges having this power to overrule the scientific decisions we’ve left to civil servants, not politicians or judges, because they have expertise in science and medicine and clinical trial design and all these things we just would not expect judges to be able to rule on.

Rovner: Well, speaking of more politics, this week — actually, last week — a group of 20 state attorneys general from states with abortion restrictions wrote to CVS and Walgreens, which had already announced that they would apply to become providers of the abortion pill, warning them not to rely on the Justice Department’s interpretation of a 19th-century law that banned the use of the U.S. mail to send abortifacients. The letter doesn’t outright threaten the companies. It merely says that, quote, “We offer you these thoughts on the current legal landscape.” Has anybody sued over this yet? And what do we expect to happen here? I mean, are CVS and Walgreens going to back off their plans to become providers?

Ollstein: Well, the anti-abortion elected officials and advocacy groups are hoping that’s the case. But I think this could play out in so many ways. I mean, one, we have this national ruling that could come down, but we also have a few state rulings that could flip things the other way and force states that have put restrictions on the abortion pill to lift those restrictions and allow it. So now we have cases pending in North Carolina and West Virginia. One of them is by the manufacturer of the abortion pill, saying that states don’t have the right to put the FDA’s hat on their own heads and make those decisions. And the other is by an abortion provider, a doctor who says that these state restrictions hurt her ability to practice and hurt her patients. And so it’s just wild that we can swing anywhere from a national ban to forcing states with bans to lift those bans. I mean, it’s just all up in the air right now. I wanted to quickly point out two other things. A lot of activist groups say they are not counting on the Biden administration to adequately respond to this crisis. And so they’re doing a couple things. One, they’re encouraging people to do something known as “advance provision,” which is order abortion pills before they’re pregnant, before you need them, and just have them on hand just in case. And so they’re advising people do that in advance of the ruling. Interestingly, the FDA does not support that practice, but activist groups are encouraging it anyways. And then the other thing is the abortion pill regimen is actually two pills. And the big FDA lawsuit only goes after the first one. And so people are saying, you know, you can terminate a pregnancy just by taking a few of the second pill, even though that has a higher rate of not working and needing a follow-up procedure. And so …

Rovner: Although it’s still like, 95%, right?

Ollstein: It’s still very effective, but not quite as effective as using the two pills together.

Rovner: And I think it used to be when people would go to Mexico, that’s what they would get. They would get misoprostol, not mifepristone, which is what we think of as “the abortion pill” — and also methotrexate, which we talked about in the context of people with diseases for which methotrexate is indicated not being able to get it because it can cause abortions. But that’s another option there, right? And … it would be hard for FDA to pull those drugs because those drugs do have a lot of uses for other diseases.

Karlin-Smith: Or FDA could, I guess, be forced to take off the formal indication for use for abortion, but the drug would be out there and then could be subject to off-label prescribing, which then could potentially, I guess, impact insurance coverage if you’re using it for abortion. Pivot to if you had to go back to this one-drug regimen while, yes, it would still exist and be possible, I think a lot of providers are worried about the added burden that would create on folks that help people obtain abortion. And this system is just not set up to have enough workers to deal with that more complicated regimen. And it seems like it could end up leading to more need for surgical abortions, depending on how well it works and so forth. So I think logistically it creates a lot more challenges.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a mess. Well, meanwhile, last issue here, we have a curious story out of a lawsuit in federal district court here in Washington, D.C., in which a judge proffered the notion that while the Supreme Court may have found no right to abortion in the 14th Amendment, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a federal right under the 13th Amendment. That’s the one barring slavery, specifically the restriction on the pregnant person’s personal liberty. As the judge correctly pointed out, the majority in last year’s Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling may well believe there’s no right to abortion anywhere in the Constitution. But that’s not the question that they litigated. Is this potentially an avenue that abortion rights advocates are going to explore?

Ollstein: I am not hearing a lot of hope being placed on this. If it goes anywhere, it would go back to the same Supreme Court that just ruled last year. And so abortion rights advocates are not optimistic about this strategy, but I think it’s a good indication of really both sides right now just trying to get as creative as possible and explore every legal avenue in the U.S. Constitution, in state constitutions, things where it never says the word abortion, but you could interpret it a certain way. I think that’s what we’re seeing right now. And so it’s really interesting to see where it goes.

Rovner: We are literally at the point where everybody is throwing whatever they can against the wall and seeing what sticks. All right. Well, let us turn to the federal research establishment. Late last month, a panel of advisers recommended a set of policies to strengthen oversight of so-called gain-of-function research that could inadvertently cause new pandemics. This was also one of the subjects of the first House hearing that called leading federal public health officials up on the carpet. What do we learn from the hearing? And has the federal government actually been funding gain-of-function research, or do we even know for sure?

Cohrs: So there has been a moratorium on this sort of research. And the interim director of the NIH [National Institutes of Health] quibbled over the term “gain-of-function research.” And he said we’re talking about a very select part of all of the research that could technically fall under that umbrella term. But he did say that there is a moratorium on funding that right now; there’s not current funding because they are reviewing their practices. And an advisory board did pass proposals and he laid out the process forward for that. So once those are finalized, he’ll write a memo to [Department of Health and Human Services] HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, then it will get to the White House. So there is this bureaucratic progression that these new guidelines are going to go under, and it’s been pretty transparent and public so far. But we’ll see how things ultimately turn out. But I think they are very sensitive to this politically and they are trying to create guidelines that offer some lessons learned from some of the criticism they’ve gotten recently.

Rovner: And I think, I mean, this has become one of the major lines of argument about Republicans trying to figure out where covid came from. Perhaps it came from U.S.-funded gain-of-function research in China, which we don’t know, I don’t think. But there’s been a lot of “Yes, you did”-“No, you didn’t” going on. I mean, Sarah, does this go back to the, you know, politicians playing scientists?

Karlin-Smith: A little bit. And I think at the hearing, a lot of the Republicans who are pressuring NIH in particular on this are not super interested in listening to the subtleties and nuance of the argument. They just really want to make the point and bring up in people’s minds the possibility of, you know, covid being a lab leak, which I think … which hasn’t 100% been ruled out, but it’s kind of on the 98%, probably 99% ruled out by a lot of scientists. And so it was very hard for NIH and those lawmakers to have a reasonable discussion about the nuances and where this research might possibly benefit us in future pandemic prep. What type of precautions do need to be put in place? And I think NIH was trying to strive to communicate that actually a lot of what was recommended in this oversight report is things they’ve been working on and have put in place. But the hearing was designed by Republicans more to land those political punches and sound bites and not really delve into “Are there policy improvements that could be made here?”

Rovner: Well, speaking of civil servants trying to do their science policy jobs, the FDA’s been busy the last couple of weeks, including lifting a ban on men who have sex with other men donating blood. That’s a ban that’s been in effect in one way or another since the 1980s, when AIDS was first discovered. And in the wake of baby formula shortages, there’s now going to be a new deputy commissioner for food. And finally, the agency is asking Congress for new authority to regulate CBD [cannabidiol] products, particularly as more states legalize marijuana in all forms for recreational use. Sarah, this is an awful lot of stuff at once. Big policy changes where they try to hide some of them, or did they just all show up at once because that’s when they got finished?

Karlin-Smith: The food changes were sort of driven by events not quite within their control, and the blood policy, the CBD stuff were things in the works for some number of years now. So FDA is busy, and these are different divisions operating under it. I think the CBD stuff is drawing a lot of frustration because FDA had been working on considering how to regulate this aspect of hemp for a while now. And instead of coming up with a policy and taking action, they’ve rewound the circle; we’re back to square one and putting it on Congress’ issues. So that’s like one area where there’s a lot of frustration versus, I think, people are generally happier that the blood donation process was finally gone through and changed.

Rovner: Yes, the wheels of the federal regulatory process move slowly, as we know. All right. Finally this week, drug prices. Humira — which is a biological that treats rheumatoid arthritis and many other serious ailments, and for which you have undoubtedly seen TV commercials if you have ever turned on your television, because it’s the top-selling pharmaceutical in the world — is reaching the end of its patent life. That will soon provide the first real test of where the Affordable Care Act’s pathway to allow biosimilar competitors — effectively biologics version of generic drugs — whether that will actually bring down prices. Because there’s a chance here that there’s going to be a bunch of competitors to Humira and the price isn’t going to come down, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I mean, that’s a major concern for a number of reasons that get us back to the broader U.S. drug pricing debate and — including the role of pharmacy benefit managers in figuring out how people get coverage of their drugs. So Humira is one of the first biologics to lose patent protection, where patients actually fill the prescriptions themselves and give themselves the medicine, which is a very different payment system than if you’re getting a biologic medicine at a doctor’s office or a hospital. And so the way that most of the insurers are covering the drug for this year, they’re actually going to charge patients the same out-of-pocket cost in most instances, as if you’ve got the brand drug or the biosimilar. And because, unlike traditional generic medicines, a lot of these, at least initially, they’re not what is called auto-substitutable. So if your doctor writes you Humira, the pharmacist doesn’t automatically give you that generic. So you’d actually have to request a new prescription from your doctor, and they’d have to write it. And if you’re not going to pay less, why are you motivated to do that?

Rovner: When you’re not even positive how much whether the drug works the same way, whether the biosimilar works the same way.

Karlin-Smith: Right. And they think people are a little bit more hesitant. They don’t understand how biosimilars work compared to generic drugs, where it took — again, when the generic drug industry first started, it took people a while to get comfortable. So there are those issues. So, basically, what has happened is AbbVie has given insurance plans and payers’ discounts on their brand drug to keep it in a good place on their formularies. So there will be savings to the broader health system, for sure. The problem is if that doesn’t get passed on to the patients, and AbbVie can continue their market monopoly, my worry is, down the line, what happens to this biosimilar industry overall? Humira is not the only top-selling, big-selling biologic medicine where we want to bring down the cost. So if these biosimilar competitors don’t eventually gain market share and make money off of doing this, why are they going to go back and develop a biosimilar and try and lower the cost of the next big drug? And that’s what people are watching. I think there’s cautious optimism that, as more biosimilars for Humira launch, there will be some pressure for insurance companies to cut deals and lower prices and not just rely on making money off high rebates. But we don’t really know how it’s going to play out. And AbbVie was pretty creative over the years. In some ways that helped patients and others questionable — how much of … like, you know, there’s high concentration of the drug, low concentration. There is citrate-free, non-citrate-free. And that means that not all the competitors are going to be exactly the same in a way that creates as much competition as it seems at first. So yeah, it’s going to be messy.

Rovner: This is the famous evergreening that we saw with drugs. I mean, where they would change something small and get a whole new patent life.

Karlin-Smith: Right. So usually with generic research, you need three direct competitors to help bring the price down a lot. But in the case of Humira, while there’s going to be, probably at least six competitors this summer, maybe more, they’re not all direct competitors for the same version of Humira. So it sort of bifurcates the space a bit more and makes it harder to, you know, figure out the economics of all of that.

Rovner: Well, if you thought that drug pricing was confusing, now we’re adding a whole new level to it. So, I’m sure we will be talking about this more as we go forward. OK. That’s the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with Kate Baicker of the University of Chicago. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am excited to welcome to the podcast Katherine Baicker, currently the dean of the University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy and soon to be provost of the university. Congratulations.

Katherine Baicker: Thank you so much.

Rovner: So, Kate is a health economist who is well known to health policy students for a lot of things, but most notably as the co-lead author of the Oregon Medicaid health experiment, which was able to follow a randomized population of people who got Medicaid coverage and a population that didn’t to help determine the actual impact of having Medicaid health insurance. Today, she’s here as lead author of a paper with a new way to possibly provide health coverage to all Americans. Kate, thank you so much for joining us.

Baicker: It’s a pleasure.

Rovner: So your new paper is called “Achieving Universal Health Insurance Coverage in the United States: Addressing Market Failures or Providing a Social Safety Net.” And in that single sentence, you’ve pretty much summed up the entire health insurance debate for, like, the last half-century. For those who don’t know, why is it that the U.S. doesn’t have universal insurance when literally all of our economic competitors do?

Baicker: Well, like so many things about our health care system, it goes back to the history of how it evolved, as well as some things that are different about the U.S. from other countries. If you look at how big the U.S. is geographically, how diverse our country is, how heterogeneous the health needs are. A lot of the solutions you see in other countries might not work so well in the U.S.

Rovner: So … and we’ve basically just not ever gotten over the hump here.

Baicker: Well, I also think we haven’t been asking the right questions necessarily. There is a real debate about whether health care is a “right” or not. And, of course, your listeners can’t see my “air quotes,” but I put that in air quotes because I think that’s the wrong question. Health care is not just one thing. Health care is a continuum of things. And if we just boil it down to should people have access to care or not, that doesn’t let us engage with the hard question of how much care we want to provide to everyone and how we’re going to pay for it.

Rovner: So I know a lot of people assume that the Affordable Care Act would — I’ll use my air quotes — “fix” the U.S. health insurance problem. And it has gone a long way to cover a lot of previously uninsured people. But who are the rest of the uninsured and why don’t they have coverage? It’s not necessarily who you think, right?

Baicker: That’s right. And, you know, the ACA, or Obamacare, actually made a lot of headway in covering big swaths of the uninsured population. There was a lot of discussion about health insurance exchanges, but actually more people were covered by Medicaid expansions than by health insurance exchanges. But both of those, as well as letting young people up to age 26 get on their parents’ policies. All of this chipped away at the ranks of the uninsured, but it left, for example, undocumented immigrants uninsured and also the vast majority of the uninsured people in the U.S. are already eligible for either a public program or heavily subsidized private insurance. And we have a problem of takeup and availability, not just affordability.

Rovner: So let’s get to your proposal. It’s not really that different from things that either we’ve tried in some parts of our health insurance ecosystem or what other countries do. What would it actually look like if we were to do it?

Baicker: Well, if you go back to what I think is the right question of how much health care do we want to make sure that everyone has access to and how are we going to get them enrolled in those programs? I think one key feature is having that coverage be as low-hassle as possible, automatic if possible, because we know that nonfinancial barriers to insurance are responsible for a lot of the uninsured population we still see today.

Rovner: We’ve seen that with pension plans, right? That automatically enrolling people get more people to actually put money away?

Baicker: That’s right. That’s one of the takeaways from behavioral economics is that defaults matter. Meaning what the baseline is and letting you opt in and out makes a big difference because people tend to stick with where they are. There’s a lot of inertia in saving for retirement, in enrolling in health insurance, in lots of different things. And being sophisticated in how we design the mechanics of those programs is important, as well as making sure that they’re financially affordable to people. So one step is making sure that whatever is available to people is as easy as possible for them to take advantage of. But the other is having a much harder discussion about what we want that basic package to be. And when you say “I want everybody to have all of the care that might possibly be available, no matter what price and no matter how much it impacts their health,” that’s more than 100% of GDP. We just can’t do that and still have any money for anything like food and housing and education and roads and all of the things that we also care about. So if we had that tough discussion as a nation, as a body politic, to say, here is the care that we think is really high-value that we think is a right for everyone and that we want to make sure is available to everyone, then people could be automatically enrolled in that default package and have the option to get more care that is more expensive and maybe a little less effective, but still worth it to them that they purchase on their own. And that opens up a whole host of other questions and ethical dilemmas that I’m sure you’re going to want to ask about.

Rovner: But it also — as a lot of people are concerned, that something like “Medicare for All” would eliminate the incentive to innovate new kinds of care. I mean, obviously, there’s this race to figure out, you know, a drug to treat Alzheimer’s and that if the federal government were to basically set prices for everything, that there would be no more innovation incentive. You actually address that here, right?

Baicker: Yes. And I’m so glad you raised that concern, because there are many challenges to having a monolithic one-size-fits-all Medicare for All type plan. One of them is, you know, affordability for the system and accessibility. But another is the dulled incentive for innovation and the dulled drive towards having new medicines and new treatments available. Medicare is very slow to innovate. It took 40-plus years for Medicare to include prescription drugs at all. And that was because when Medicare was formed in the Sixties, prescription medicine wasn’t a very important part of health care. It wasn’t a very expensive part of health care, there just weren’t that many drugs to treat people. Well, now those medicines are crucial to health and well-being. And Medicare finally added a prescription drug benefit in 2005. But that was a long lag, and that’s just one example. So I think having some fundamental access to care that we know is of high value for everyone could be coupled with having the option to purchase more generous insurance that covers more things. And that private insurance layered on top would really provide the financial incentives for continued innovation. It acknowledges the reality that in a world of scarce resources, higher-income people are going to have more health care than lower-income people. And that is an ugly reality and one that we ought to grapple with ethically, and as a matter of public policy priorities. I would argue we’re already rationing care. It is not possible for public programs to pay for all care for all people, no matter what the price, no matter what the health benefit, and being intentional about defining what it is we’re going to cover with public dollars and then letting people buy more care with private dollars is a way perhaps to make a financially sustainable system that also promotes innovation.

Rovner: And this isn’t really new. I mean, lots of other countries do this. I was in Switzerland a decade ago, and I remember that they … their extra-benefit package includes things like single rooms in hospitals and homeopathic medicine and things that I’m not sure we would end up putting into our top-up plans, but it’s something that’s important to them.

Baicker: Yes. And when people point to our European counterparts and say, look, they all have single-payer. In fact, a lot of them have a hybrid system like the one that we’re describing. And it’s important to differentiate: We’re talking about a basic plan that’s available for everyone. That doesn’t mean that it only covers cheap things. It should only cover high-value things. But some cheap things are incredibly ineffective and low-value, and some expensive things are really important for health and very high-value. So it’s about the value of the dollar spent in terms of producing health, not whether it’s expensive or cheap. And so when you think about having a top-up plan, it shouldn’t be about billing cost sharing that, you know, lower-income people are exposed to in the basic plan. It should be about adding services that are of less health importance but still valuable to the people purchasing them.

Rovner: Obviously, the biggest issue here is going to be who’s going to make that determination? I’m old enough to remember fights over the ACA, death panels, and the independent Medicare advisory board that never happened. In fact, there were a lot of these, you know, we’re going to appoint experts. And it never happened because none of the experts ever wanted to be on these panels. How do you overcome that hurdle of actually grappling with the decision of what should be covered?

Baicker: Yes, the devil is always in the details for these things, and you put your finger on a really important one where we haven’t provided a robust answer, and our analysis is meant to highlight the importance of making these hard decisions and the value of this framework. But we don’t have a magic bullet for this. I would argue that having Congress make this decision every year is a recipe for lobbying and decision-making that doesn’t actually line up with value. There’s an opportunity perhaps to have a panel of experts who, as you note, is just a hop, skip and a jump from being called a “death panel.” But I think we can rely on some clinical guidelines as guardrails on this. And we do have some examples of experimentation in this direction in the U.S. In fact, more than experimentation — if you look at Medicare Advantage, this used to be a small part of the Medicare program. These are private plans for Medicare beneficiaries that are now, I think, pretty soon going to be the majority of plans that people have. And it’s a mechanism for people to choose among plans that have some things that have to be covered, but can then add additional benefits for enrollees, and it can be a little more tailored to what people value in their plans. So I don’t think that’s the answer either. But it’s a proof of concept that we can do something like this in the U.S.

Rovner: So in some ways this would bridge the gap between Republican marketplace ideas and Democratic Medicare for All ideas. But it feels like, since the fight over the Affordable Care Act, Republicans have moved more to the right on health care and Democrats have moved more to the left on health care. You are no stranger to partisan politics nor the ways of Washington, D.C. How could everybody be brought back to what I daresay looks like a political compromise?

Baicker: Well, I’m an economist, as you noted, and that’s notoriously bad at understanding actual human beings. I don’t have any idea for the path forward through the political thicket that we’re in. In some ways, it is a little disheartening to see how difficult it is to do some basic commonsense things. In any complicated system like the U.S. health care system, there are always small technical fixes that need to be made that are just commonsense, that ought not to be political. And it’s hard to do those.

Rovner: We’re lacking in common sense right now in Washington.

Baicker: Yeah. So I can’t say that I’m hugely optimistic about a big change happening right away. On the other hand, I think covid really highlighted to people across the political spectrum how important it is to have continuity of coverage, how disparate our current system is in terms of access to care, how problematic it is to have your main avenue of health insurance be through your employer when a pandemic is coupled with a recession. So I think the challenges and the vast inequities of our health care system were laid bare during covid. So it is perhaps salient enough that people might be willing to consider alternative structures. But I can’t say I’m holding my breath.

Rovner: Well, Kate Baicker, thank you very much for, if anything, a great thought experiment. It’s really wonderful to look your way through … it’s like, oh, we could get there, maybe in another half a century.

Baicker: I hope sooner than that.

Rovner: I do, too. Thank you so much.

Baicker: My pleasure.

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

Cohrs: My extra credit is headlined “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings,” in ProPublica by David Armstrong, Patrick Rucker, and Maya Miller. And I thought this story was just such a good illustration of the jargon that we use in D.C., of, like, utilization management and prior authorization. And sometimes these terms just feel so impersonal. But I feel like this story did such a good job walking through one patient’s struggle to find something that worked and then just the arbitrary choices that insurers were making, looking at their bottom line to try to prevent him from getting a very expensive treatment that actually did increase his quality of life significantly. So I would definitely recommend, as we’re thinking about insurers’ role in this whole health care cost debate as well.

Rovner: Yeah, it does bring home how the patient is always in the middle of this. Alice.

Ollstein: I chose a piece by my colleague Carmen Paun called “Mpox Is Simmering South of the Border, Threatening a Resurgence,” and it’s about how the U.S. was extremely successful in vaccinating high-risk people against mpox, which for folks who still remember the artist formerly known as monkeypox, the name was changed to reduce stigma and be more accurate. The U.S. vaccination campaign and messaging campaign to the most high-risk populations was really successful and did the trick. But as we learned from covid and every other infectious disease, if you don’t take care of other parts of the world, it could eventually come back. We’re not an island, and even islands aren’t safe. But, you know, this is about a bunch of countries, including Mexico, that really have made no mass vaccination effort at all. You know, some civil society groups are trying on their own, but they just don’t have official government backing. And that’s really dangerous. And it meant that cases are surging in parts of Latin America and parts of Africa. And as we saw from covid, that leads to the development of new variants and things traveling back to the U.S. and other places around the world. So, certainly, something to pay attention to.

Rovner: Public health is important. World public health is important. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a piece called “Decisions by CVS and Optum Panicked Thousands of Their Sickest Patients,” by Arthur Allen for Kaiser Health News. It’s a deep dive into CVS and Optum moving out of, to some degree, business places where they provide home infusion services of perinatal nutrition to people that essentially cannot eat or drink in most cases. And they basically decided that it’s not a great business opportunity for them in many cases. But these are people that really depend on these services to live and survive, and they’re very complex medicines and essential nutrition to get and deliver. And at the same time, I think what really fascinated me about this story is it talks about this dynamic of while companies are getting out of the space where you’re providing this service to people that need these IV treatments to survive and live, there also has been development of these medical spas, as they’re called, where people that actually do not need IV hydration or IV nutrition are essentially being given it for nonmedical purposes. And there’s a lot of money being made there. And it just shows you how some of the profit incentives in our system don’t necessarily align with treating the people that actually need the health care first.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s like the people with diabetes not being able to get their drugs because people in Hollywood want to lose 10 pounds fast. But this obviously is, you know, another life-or-death issue. Well, I chose an op-ed this week in The New York Times by the University of Texas law professor Steven I. Vladeck called “Don’t Let Republican ‘Judge Shoppers’ Thwart the Will of Voters.” And it answered a lot of questions for me. First, how is it that so many suits end up in front of the same judges who the plaintiffs know are likely to rule in their favor, and all in Texas? So it turns out that Texas has distributed its federal judges in a way that in nine districts there is only one judge. And in 10 more, there are only two judges. Obviously, there’s no random draw in those districts where there’s only one judge. That’s what you’re going to get. So we keep seeing some of the same Texas judges, first Judge Reed O’Connor in Fort Worth, and now Matthew Kacsmaryk, a former advocate for a conservative think tank and the only federal judge in Amarillo. Judge O’Connor had the big ACA case, now has a big preventive care case. Judge Kacsmaryk has the abortion pill case that we’ve been talking about. It’s a really interesting piece about how that could really twist justice. But it also includes several ways to fix it. We’ll have to see if any of them actually get taken up.

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

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Rachel

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Having spent its entire first week choosing a speaker, the Republican-led U.S. House finally got down to legislative business, including passing two bills backed by anti-abortion groups. Neither is likely to become law, because they won’t pass the Senate nor be signed by President Joe Biden. But the move highlights how abortion is sure to remain a high-visibility issue in the nation’s capital.

Meanwhile, as open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act nears its Jan. 15 close, a record number of people have signed up, taking advantage of renewed subsidies and other help with medical costs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

https://www.nytimes.com/by/margot-sanger-katz

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The House now has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll call votes. That paved the way for members to be sworn in, committee assignments to be made, and new committee chairs to be named. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.) and Jason Smith (R-Mo.) will be taking the helm of major health committees.
• McMorris Rodgers will lead the House Energy and Commerce Committee; Smith will be the chairman of Ways and Means. Unlike McMorris Rodgers, Smith has little background in health issues and has mostly focused on tax issues in his public talking points. But Medicare is likely to be on the agenda, which will require the input of the chairs of both committees.
• One thing is certain: The new GOP-controlled House will do a lot of investigations. Republicans have already reconstituted a committee to investigate covid-19, although, unlike the Democrats’ panel, this one is likely to spend time trying to find the origin of the virus and track where federal dollars may have been misspent.
• The House this week began considering a series of abortion-related bills — “statement” or “messaging” bills — that are unlikely to see the light of day in the Senate. However, some in the caucus question the wisdom of holding votes on issues like these that could make their more moderate members more vulnerable. So far, bills have had mostly unanimous support from the GOP. Divisions are more likely to emerge on topics like a national abortion ban. Meanwhile, the Title X program, which pays for things like contraception and testing for sexually transmitted infections, is becoming a hot topic at the state level and in some lawsuits. A case in Texas would restrict contraception availability for minors through this program.
• It’s increasingly clear that abortion pills are going to become an even bigger part of the abortion debate. On one hand, the FDA has relaxed some of the risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) from the prescribing rules surrounding abortion pills. The FDA puts these extra restrictions or safeguards in place for certain drugs to add additional protection. Some advocates say these pills simply do not bring that level or risk.
• Anti-abortion groups are planning protests in early February at large pharmacies such as CVS and Walgreens to try to get them to walk back plans to distribute abortion pills in states where they are legal.
• A growing number of states are pressuring the Department of Health and Human Services to allow them to import cheaper prescription drugs from Canada — or, more accurately, importing Canada’s price controls. While this has long been a bipartisan issue, it has also long been controversial. Officials at the FDA remain concerned about breaking the closed supply chain between drugs being manufactured and delivered to approved U.S. buyers. The policy is popular, however, because it promises lower prices on at least some drugs.
• Also in the news from the FDA: The agency granted accelerated approval for Leqembi for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease. Leqembi is another expensive drug that appears to work, but also carries big risks. However, it is generally viewed as an improvement over the even more controversial Alzheimer’s drug Aduhelm. Still to be determined is whether Medicare — which provides insurance to most people with Alzheimer’s — will cover the drug.
• As the Affordable Care Act enrolls a record number of Americans, it is notable that repealing the law has not been mentioned as a priority for the new GOP majority in the House. Rather, the top health issue is likely to be how to reduce the price of Medicare and other health “entitlement” programs.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week that they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein

Margot Sanger-Katz: Roll Call’s “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit,” by Jessie Hellmann

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Grant Wahl Was a Loving Husband. I Will Always Protect His Legacy.” By Céline Gounder

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KHN’s “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say,” by Lauren Sausser

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KHN’s “States Challenge Biden to Lower Drug Prices by Allowing Imports From Canada,” by Phil Galewitz
• Politico’s “Next Frontier in the Abortion Wars: Your Local CVS,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Lauren Gardner
• KFF’s “Millions of Uninsured People Can Get Free ACA Plans,” by Jared Ortaliza, Justin Lo, Gary Claxton, Krutika Amin, and Cynthia Cox

TRANSCRIPT

Click here for a transcript of the episode.

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: GOP House Opens With Abortion AgendaEpisode Number: 279Published: Dec. 12, 2023

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

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

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Hello.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So no interview this week, but lots of news, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with the new Congress, where the House finally has a speaker after 15 rounds of full-chamber roll calls. Settling the speaker meant that the rest of the House could be sworn in and things like committee chairs elected. Two key health committees, Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, will both have new chairs, not just new because they’re Republican, but new because they have not chaired the committee previously. Energy and Commerce will be headed by a woman for the first time, Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington state, who’s had a longtime interest in health policy and was also in the Republican leadership. Over at Ways and Means, the new chairman is Jason Smith of Missouri, who I confess I had never heard of before this. Does anyone know anything about him? And does he have any interest in health care?

Ollstein: Most of what he said about chairing the committee has been about things other than health care. It’s been a lot on taxes, for instance. The new House majority is very “exorcised” about the IRS funding that the previous Congress approved and trying to get rid of that. But he has shown some interest in some telehealth provisions. And so I think also I’m sure we’re going to discuss some interest in, shall we say, revisiting Medicare’s benefits and funding …

Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to get to that next.

Ollstein: So there could be some things, but it doesn’t seem that he’s been a big health care guy or will be a big health care guy going forward.

Rovner: In the olden days, when I started covering this, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee frequently did not have either an interest or an expertise in health care. But the chairman of the Ways and Means health subcommittee did. That’s where pretty much everything came from. Do we know yet who is going to chair the Ways and Means health subcommittee …? We do not. So we’ll wait to see that. But yes …. even though I read Chairman Smith’s little introduction about what he’s interested in — and I know he mentioned rural health — but he did not anywhere mention Medicare. And of course, the Ways and Means Committee has jurisdiction over most of Medicare in the House. It is going to come up, as far as we can tell, right?

Sanger-Katz: One imagines so because some of the promises that leadership has made to its members to think about how to balance the budget in the long term, to consider entitlement reform, whatever that may mean. And, you know, Medicare is where the money is. So you would think that the Ways and Means Committee would want to be looking seriously at how to reform the program, if that’s the interest of leadership on this policy area.

Rovner: And they’ve already said that they want to tie any debt ceiling vote, which [is] one of those things that Congress absolutely has to do to reforms, quote-unquote, of the Medicare and Social Security programs. Because, again, as Margot said, that’s where the money goes. So we expect to see Medicare as an issue, regardless of what the Ways and Means Committee does, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. There were a lot of calls for Democrats to address the debt ceiling issue during their final months in power. They did not do so. That means that it’s going to be a big, messy fight this year. One of the biggest things to watch. This is an instance where the Republican House majority will be able to flex its muscles even though they don’t have the Senate and White House, because they can trigger a budget standoff that puts the faith and credit of the country in jeopardy and demand concessions, including cuts to Medicare. So we’ll see how that goes.

Rovner: Although I will say, Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii was on Twitter, and he didn’t ask me anything much to the horror of his communications staff. But one of the questions that somebody asked him was, “Why didn’t you do the debt ceiling?” And he just said: We didn’t have the votes. So that at least answers the question of why didn’t they take care of this before the Republicans took the majority back? Well, one thing we do know is going to happen is that the new Republican-controlled House is going to do a lot of investigations. Indeed, one of the first orders of business in the new Congress was the re-establishment of a committee on the covid pandemic with a new focus on investigating the origins of the virus and the government’s response to it. What are we expecting out of that?

Karlin-Smith: As you said, Julie, I think two of the things is, one, they’re going to do more investigation into the origin of the virus. Republicans have pushed the potential theory that this was borne out of a lab in China, not necessarily something more naturally occurring. And I think a lot of scientists have said this theory has been fairly close to disproven and find that the focus on it distracts from really dealing with the current pandemic. But I think we should expect a lot of that. And that will include, I think, a lot of relitigation of Anthony Fauci and his particular role in the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and funding different types of research on viruses, both in the U.S. and abroad. The second thing I think they’re going to look very closely at is how the U.S. has spent the covid funding that Congress has doled out and appropriated. That’s certainly a lot of money. And I think, again, oversight is always probably … it’s a good thing to see if Congress gives money, are we spending it? … Does it actually get to where it needs to go? Does it go to where it’s supposed to go? I think that … in general, I think most people think that’s a good thing. Sometimes what ends up happening is it gets taken a little bit to …  this disingenuous step forward in Washington, where everything gets questioned or they pick on jurisdictions for not spending the money fast enough when it’s just not realistic. So you have to read between the lines really carefully when you’re looking at some of the findings from that type of work. Because sometimes, again, when you give a state $1,000,000 to do something, they’re not often able to make that change in two months.

Rovner: And then if they do, they get criticized for spending it on the wrong thing, so …

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Sanger-Katz: But I will say, speaking as a journalist, not as a congressional investigator, I do think that the covid funding is really ripe for a lot of investigation. There’s already been very good reporting that a lot of the small-business programs were broadly defrauded. I think there was a real emphasis by Congress and — in a bipartisan way, Republicans obviously voted for these bills as well. But I think there was a real emphasis on just getting money out the door. People were so scared of a catastrophic economic collapse that, unlike a lot of programs that Congress designs that fund various things, there weren’t a lot of initial safeguards, there wasn’t a lot of process or administrative burden associated with getting money. And so that means it really is valuable to look and see where did it go, who may have defrauded the program, what are ways that in the next crisis it might be possible to do these kinds of programs in a way that is more efficient. You know, it occurs to me that in addition to the small-business money, hospitals got a whole lot of money as part of these programs. And again, there’s been some journalism about this, but I do think I’m all for more oversight, trying to learn some real lessons. I agree with Sarah that there is probably some of this that’s going to veer into the disingenuous and kind of “gotcha.” But there may be some useful and interesting findings as a result of this process as well.

Rovner: And as we saw with the Jan. 6 committee, Congress has powers that journalists don’t. As we know, the Justice Department has powers that Congress doesn’t. But Congress has pretty good investigatory powers. They can subpoena things when they need to. So, yes, I imagine we’re going to learn something about the fate of all of those dollars that went out the door.

Ollstein: Just to be fair, Republicans have sort of claimed that the Democrat-led effort to investigate covid didn’t have any financial accountability aspect. That’s not true. It did. They really scrutinized a lot of government contracts — like no-bid government contracts that funneled lots and lots of money to things that did not pan out or help anybody. There has been some of that already. But I agree that there’s definitely more to look at.

Rovner: And there … obviously, there was a Republican and a Democratic administration handling the covid pandemic. So one presumes there are things to investigate on both sides. Well, even while the House committees are gearing up, Republicans are bringing “statement” bills to the floor, bills that we know the Senate won’t take up and the president won’t sign. And despite the fact that abortion rights drove a lot of the midterm elections in the other direction, two of the first bills brought to the floor by the new Republican majority seek to do the bidding of anti-abortion groups. This, apparently, making Republican moderates, particularly those in swing districts, not so happy. Alice, are we looking at pretty much the same split in the Republicans in the House as in a lot of states — the people who think that the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done more and people who think the Republicans didn’t do well because they should have done less?

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. And there’s a split on how to talk about it or whether to talk about it as well. It’s not just the actions, it’s the messaging in addition. And so, yes, there are some in the House who are, like, why are we doing this? Why are we taking these votes that have no chance of becoming law? It just puts our members from swing districts in a more vulnerable position. The things they voted on so far this week have pretty unanimous support on the Republican side, I would say. I think where you could start to see some bigger divides are when they get into votes on an actual national abortion restriction that would put a gestational limit on the procedure, or something like that, which absolutely some members want to do and want to take a vote on. I think that’s where you could start to see some Republicans being, like, wait, wait, wait, wait, why are we doing this? But the things so far are, like you said, they’re “messaging” bills, but they’re ones that have pretty broad support on the conservative side.

Rovner: And we should mention, I mean, one of them was just a sense of Congress that, you know, that bombing pregnancy crisis centers is bad. Or that violence against pregnancy centers …

Sanger-Katz: I’m not going to give credit for this correctly, but I saw a tweet on this topic last week when the list of demands and the list of these bills that we’re going to get a vote on was released where someone asked, Oh, did D-Triple-C [the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee] co-author this list? Where I do think there is an interesting tension, as Alice said, where the particular message bills that the most conservative members of the House Republican caucus want to vote on are those issues where we see in public opinion polling, where we see in the last election that the majority of Americans are not really with those most conservative Republicans. And I think a lot of moderate Republicans would just prefer not to vote on those issues, particularly because they know that they can’t make them policy. And we were talking about changes to Medicare and Social Security, and I think that also falls very much in that category where there might be a situation in which if Republicans really thought that they could reform these programs, maybe they would want to take the political risk, because I do think it’s an important long-term goal of many Republicans. But I think there’s also a frustration, you know, why would we take all these votes on something that is generally unpopular? Everyone knows that both Social Security and Medicare are really, really popular programs and people are very wary of changes to them. There is a political risk in taking a bunch of votes saying that you want to pull money out of those programs or change them structurally when you can’t even achieve it.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, speaking of that, during Wednesday’s abortion debate on the House floor, Republican moderate Nancy Mace of South Carolina kept saying to any cable outlet that would put a microphone in front of her that Congress should be making birth control more widely available instead of voting on abortion. But we are also seeing the first shots fired in an effort to restrict birth control. Well, last month, a Trump-appointed judge ruled that the Title X family planning program is illegally providing contraception to minors. Now, this is a fight that dates back to even before I started covering it. It was called “the Squeal Rule” in the early 1980s, an effort by the Reagan administration to require parental involvement before teens could use Title X family planning services. It was eventually struck down in federal court, but now it’s back. Is this where we’re headed?

Ollstein: I think it’s really important to watch things in law and policy that are just directed at minors because inevitably it does not stop there. Like, that’s sort of the testing ground. It’s where people are more comfortable with more restrictions and more hoops to jump through. But as we’ve seen with gender-affirming care, it doesn’t stop there. What’s tested out as a policy for minors is inevitably proposed for adults as well, and so …

Sanger-Katz: What’s the adult version of this, Alice? Like who? Like spousal consent?

Rovner: Yes, there had been — I was just going to say — not so much in contraception, although originally it was, but also on abortion that, yeah, if there’s a partner that the partner would have to consent.

Ollstein: But there’s also been spousal consent stuff for more permanent … getting your tubes tied, those kinds of things. That’s been a debate as well. And, I mean, in the abortion space we’ve seen this for, in terms of like traveling across state lines for an abortion. That’s been a restriction for minors that’s also been proposed for adults. So it’s just this phase we should absolutely watch — as well as Title X program continues to be a space for proposed restrictions. It’s a lever that they’re able to hold because it does have federal funding and it does have constraints that other pots of money don’t have.

Rovner: My favorite piece of trivia is that the Title X program has not been reauthorized since 1984 because Congress has never been able to find the votes. You know, when the Democrats were in charge and wanted to do it, the Republicans would have all of these amendments that the Democrats probably couldn’t fight off. The Republicans wanted to do it and put all these stringent rules that the Democrats wouldn’t have. So, literally, this program has been … it gets funded every year, but it’s been marching along for now several decades without Congress having formally reauthorized it.

Ollstein: Yeah, that’s why you keep seeing different presidential administrations trying to put their stamp on it through rulemaking, which, of course, can be rolled back by the subsequent president, as we’ve seen with [Donald] Trump and [Joe] Biden. And so it just keeps going back and forth. And these clinics that are out there getting this funding, which, again, can’t be used for abortion, for contraception, STD testing, fertility stuff, all kinds of stuff, but not abortion. But they keep having to comply with these wildly different rules. It’s really difficult.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. All right. Well, last week we talked about the Biden administration’s effort to make abortion pills more available through both pharmacies and the mail. On the one hand, some abortion rights advocates say that the FDA is still overregulating the abortion pill by requiring extra hoops for both pharmacies and doctors to jump through in order to offer or write prescriptions for a medication that’s proved safe and effective over two decades. On the other hand, we now have the specter of abortion opponents protesting at CVSes or Walgreens near you. And Alice, they’re already planning to do that, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, that’s right. They would have done it sooner, but they didn’t want to step on the March for Life, which is coming up in a couple of weeks. And so they’re planning these protests at CVS and Walgreens around the country for early February, trying to pressure the company to walk back its announcement that they will participate in the distribution of abortion pills in states where they remain legal, which is, by our count, currently 18 can’t do this either because abortion is banned entirely or because there are laws specifically restricting how people get the pills.

Rovner: Sarah, I want you to talk about some of these extra hoops that have to be jumped through because a lot of people think it’s just for this pill and it’s not. This is something that the FDA has for any drug that’s potentially abusable, right?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I wouldn’t say abusable is the right word, but basically people call this a REMS. It stands for risk evaluation and mitigation strategy. And it’s actually an authority Congress gave the FDA to — we use this term “safe and effective,” but we know all drugs, even when we say that “safe” term, will come with risks. And the idea here is that when the benefit-risk balance would be … so that it would be … FDA might say, OK, this is actually too risky to approve. However, we think we could make it kind of safe enough if we put in a little extra safeguards instead of just letting it go out there. Here’s a drug, doctors, you can prescribe it, follow the normal pathway, which is that the federal government, or at least the FDA, doesn’t really have a lot of say in exactly how the practice of medicine works. That’s left up to states. And, you know, doctors individually. They implement other practices to help ensure that safety balance is there. So one famous example is Accutane, which is an acne drug. It’s incredibly harmful to a developing fetus and birth defects. So women of pregnancy, bearing age are usually required to take regular pregnancy tests and so forth and monitor the status of that. And you’re not supposed to use the drug while pregnant because of the incredible harm you do to a baby. So there’s everything from things like that to just simply more written literature might be provided for certain drugs. Sometimes in the cases of the abortion pill, you know, who could actually dispense it and when was restricted. Sometimes there are particular sorts of trainings doctors have to take to get that extra authority to prescribe the drug. And again, the idea is that just to provide a little extra safeguard. Again, the controversy over the years with this pill is that people feel like it doesn’t meet that standard to have a REMS, that it can be safe and effective through our normal prescribing systems. Actually, Stat this week had an interesting interview with Jane Henney, who was the FDA commissioner when they first approved this drug. And she …

Rovner: Yeah, in the year 2000.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Which is actually …

Rovner: Right at the end of the Clinton administration.

Karlin-Smith: Actually predates this formal REMS authority. But there were others, different authorities that then evolved into REMS. But she said she thought that a lot of these restrictions would be gone by now and that what, at the time, what they were waiting for was more U.S.-specific experience with the drug, because what they were basing the original approval on was a lot of use of the drug in France, which had such a different health system than the U.S., they were a little bit uncomfortable, I guess, opening the floodgates in a way. So I thought that was an interesting historical point that came out this week.

Rovner: But clearly, Alice, I mean, this is going to be the next big fight in abortion, right, is trying to restrict the abortion pill?

Ollstein: Absolutely. I’ve been writing about this since before Roe v. Wade was overturned. The pills were already becoming one of the most popular and now are the most popular way to terminate a pregnancy in the U.S., which makes sense. You can take them in the comfort of your home with the people that you want to be with you, not in a scary medical environment. It’s also a lot cheaper than having a surgical procedure. So but then, of course, with the pandemic, people started using them even more because it was more dangerous to go to a clinical setting. And so this has been a big focus of both sides of this fight for a long time: either how to increase access to the pills or restrict them. Also, now that Roe v. Wade has been overturned, the pills and the ability to order them online from overseas in this legal gray area, that’s been a major way people have been getting around state bans, and the anti-abortion groups know that. And so they want to look at any way they can to crack down on this. And so with the Biden administration opening up a new potential pathway with these local retail pharmacies, they’re of course going to try to crack down on that as well.

Karlin-Smith: I mean, we talked about this before in the podcast, but I think this issue of federal preemption, if it gets teed up, is going to be a big thing that’s beyond just abortion, in terms of when does FDA’s approval of a drug trump state regulations around how it’s going to be used? And, you know, I feel like some people have not been satisfied on the … who want more access to abortion drugs in terms of how FDA has handled the rollback of the REMS. But you also have to wonder if they’re operating in this setting where, again, if you push things too far and you get a legal challenge, given how our courts are, right? And how politically it can backfire. And so it’s a complicated balance there.

Rovner: Well, speaking of drugs that are in gray areas that people order online, my KHN colleague Phil Galewitz reports that four states — Florida, Colorado, New Hampshire, and New Mexico — are now pressuring the Biden administration to allow them to import prescription drugs from Canada in an effort to reduce the cost of drugs for their residents. Now, despite the fact that this has been and remains a very bipartisan ask, the FDA, under both Republican and Democratic commissioners, has strongly objected to it over the years. Somebody remind us why this is so controversial.

Karlin-Smith: I think the big thing FDA has objected to is that when you allow importation in the way states have often asked for it, you basically often give up the supply chain oversight that we have in the U.S. that ensures people are not getting drugs that are counterfeit and have somehow been tampered with as they’ve gotten through the supply chain. And so, actually, I was refreshing my memory, and I can’t believe how long ago it is. When the Trump administration first became the first administration to say, Oh, actually, OK, we are going to agree that we think this could be come safely. Then they put out regulations that tried to … basically like made it so that to do importation, you would almost have to mimic the same supply-chain safety measures we already have for the FDA. So it became this double-edged sword of, sure, you can do the importation, but you’re going to have to jump to this level of hurdles that then makes it unusable. And so I think that’s the key barrier here, is that can a state actually propose a program that would get sign-off? And I think it’s not really surprising to me that the Trump team tried to thread the needle in that way of giving people the win of saying, Oh, we’ll allow it without actually making it feasible.

Sanger-Katz: I think it also highlights what a weird ask this is in some ways because what the states are looking to do is they are not looking to import drugs from other countries because they think that other countries have better manufacturing, have better safety protocols, have different drugs. They just want to import the lower prices that other countries pay for the same drugs. And so this is, in some ways, a very cludgy workaround that the states are basically asking for price regulation of drugs. But that obviously is a very difficult political act. So instead they’re saying, well, can we just import the prices that some other country has negotiated. And then it raises all these other issues about, Well, you know, there is like a reason why, in general, the United States has regulatory control over the drug supply.

Rovner: Also, Canada doesn’t have enough drugs to serve all of these states. I mean, that’s the thing that I’ve never managed to get over. And, in fact, Canada has said that they’re not anxious to do this because they don’t have enough drugs to serve both Canada and the United States. I mean, it also seems just literally impractical.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, we are seeing, of course, like in the Inflation Reduction Act, there were new measures that would allow Medicare, in particular, to start negotiating for lower prices for certain drugs. Obviously, that policy has a fair number of limitations, including that it’s only for Medicare, it’s only for certain drugs, and it’s not going to be instant. But while we did get some new timeline from the Biden administration this week, and it looks like that policy is going to start rolling out. So I think states are asking for this now because they want to import prices from other countries. But also, for the first time, Medicare, or the federal government is starting to take on drug prices directly. And we’re going to see how that looks relatively soon.

Rovner: Yes, this ship turns very slowly, but it does seem to be turning a little bit. Well, as we previewed last week, the FDA has approved another controversial Alzheimer’s disease drug, Leqembi. I think that’s how you say it, which has a Q without a U. Sarah, you’ve been following this. Are we headed down potentially the same road we traveled with Aduhelm? It feels kind of familiar. It’s a drug that we think works, but we don’t really know, and it has some big risks and will be expensive.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I mean, similar, but slightly different. And perhaps the analogy that things slowly make their way in a different direction is also right here. This drug, I think most people see it as an improvement on Aduhelm because it has, in one major clinical trial, shown some benefit on people’s cognitive decline slowing a bit. However, the big debate there is that … how meaningful the change that was seen in the trial is. Is it really going to be meaningful in people’s lives and is that worth the price? The company is … actually a similar company is involved here, but they priced it quite a bit lower than the original Aduhelm price, even lower than the price of Aduhelm now. It’s still seen as on the very high end of what a lot of cost-effective watchdogs say is a fair price. And as of right now, CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] or Medicare is not going to be covering it at all because right now the drug only has what’s known as an accelerated approval. So we’re going to, over the next probably less than a year, in about nine months or so, FDA will have to weigh in on whether it gives the drug a full formal approval. And at that point, we’ll see if Medicare also gives the sign-off that they think this drug might actually be effective for people and are willing to pay for it. I think my bottom line on this drug is, you know, it provides some hope and some improvement for people, but it looks like to be a small clinical benefit for a big trade-off in risks. So I think as more data comes out over time, we’ll see again if that benefit-risk trade-off for most people falls on the right side of the coin.

Rovner: And we’ll watch this whole process go forward again. All right. Finally this week, but not least, there’s also news on the health insurance coverage front. With the end of open enrollment for the Affordable Care Act coverage rapidly approaching in most states, by Jan. 15, officials at the Department of Health and Human Services this week reported that enrollment is already up 13% from last year to almost 16 million people, including about 3.1 million people who are new enrollees. In the meantime, though, my colleagues over the firewall at KFF report that some 5 million more uninsured Americans are actually eligible for free health care coverage under the ACA. It feels ironic because this is not the first year of expanded subsidies and there’s been relatively little media coverage of open enrollment. Is it just that it takes time for knowledge of these offers to trickle down to people? Or that the Biden administration put a lot more effort into outreach this year?

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s all of the above. I think for the first few years of the Obamacare program, there were a lot of complaints that this insurance really wasn’t affordable enough for people. And, obviously, that’s why Congress, first in part of the pandemic stimulus bill and now again in the Inflation Reduction Act, really jacked up the subsidies and made the plans cheaper and, in many cases, have more wraparound benefits so that low-income people could get insurance that was either free or relatively low-premium and also didn’t ask them to pay a lot out-of-pocket for their own care. And we can see also that the Biden administration did a lot of outreach. I mean, it’s definitely the case that they both, through Congress, made the plans cheaper and also, through various administrative actions, made the plans more widely publicized. And I just want to highlight, I think last year was the record year for Obamacare enrollment. And now we’re seeing this huge increase on top of a record year. So these things seem to matter. I think the affordability of plans, the availability of free plans for a lot of uninsured Americans is very appealing. And yet the people who are uninsured and poor, I think, are difficult to reach. There is a lot of long-standing opposition to Obamacare. There are a lot of places where there are a lot of uninsured Americans, where there’s not particularly effective and robust outreach. People don’t know how to find these things, how to sign up. And it is really administratively complex to sign up for these plans. I mean, I don’t know how many of our listeners have tried to do it. It’s not impossible. It is on the internet. You know, anyone can do it. And you don’t have to have someone holding your hand. But I think in many cases you probably do want someone holding your hand if it’s your first time doing it. There are, in many markets, lots of choices. It’s confusing. It’s hard to know what the best option is, sometimes it’s a little bit hard to figure out what it’s going to cost you until you enter in a lot of information about your income. And you might also be scared that if you’re not sure or you put something in wrong, you could get in trouble. So I think this is just an ongoing challenge of getting all these people who are now eligible for these really low-cost plans to actually interact with the system and get insurance.

Rovner: One thing I guess bears mentioning is that with the Republicans just, you know, plan to do all of these things like try to repeal the Inflation Reduction Act because they don’t like the drug price provisions … [but] they are not talking about repealing the Affordable Care Act anymore, right? Have we finally come to the end of that particular fight?

Sanger-Katz: It sure looks that way.

Ollstein: Yeah. The right the writing has been on the wall in terms of the lack of that talk on the campaign trail for a few years now. I was joking with some colleagues that, you know, the “repeal Obamacare” is tired; the “repeal the drug price negotiation provisions” is wired. That’s the new talking point, although that’s not going to happen either, obviously, because of the control of the Senate and because of how insanely expensive it would be to repeal that. But the Republicans definitely have moved on to other targets.

Sanger-Katz: Although I will say, you know, once again, the fact that House leadership has committed to proposing cuts to health entitlement programs, the fact that they have committed to proposing a budget that balances in 10 years means that, I think, it will be extremely difficult for them to avoid talking about particular cuts or changes to Affordable Care Act programs. You know, again, it’s just like this is where the dollars are. They can take a lot of dollars out of Medicare, that is very politically unpopular. They can take some dollars out of Medicaid, you know, the largest expansion of which is part of ACA. They can take money out of these subsidies, which, you know, have been supercharged in recent years beyond even what Congress initially passed in 2010. And I do think, as Alice said, you know, this is not a popular talking point. I don’t think Republicans, by and large, want to be talking about repealing Obamacare anymore. And yet I think they are backed into this corner where they’re going to have to make and propose specific modifications and cuts to these programs in order to achieve these high-level philosophical goals that they’ve signed up for. And so I think it will be interesting to see what does it look like, maybe they’re not going to call it Obamacare repeal anymore, but they might still be sucking $1,000,000,000,000 out of Medicaid, like some of the Trump administration budgets did.

Rovner: Yeah. And it’s important to mention, again, I mean, the Republicans talk about all these things they’re going to do and people are thinking, Oh, my God, if they vote for this balanced budget, in 10 years it’s going to happen. They can’t do most of these things without the Senate and/or the president unless they have two-thirds to override, which they don’t. The one place that we do think they could exercise some leverage, obviously, is this debt ceiling vote where the Congress has to vote to raise the debt ceiling or the U.S. will default on things that it has already bought but not paid for — basically paying the credit card bill. And that, certainly, they’re going to try to make some entitlement changes. But all of these other things that they say they’re, quote-unquote, “going to do,” they’re mostly just quote-unquote, “making political statements,” right?

Sanger-Katz: But they’re going to have to talk about them. They’re going to have to write things down. They’re going to have to have specific dollars attached to this. I do think that it will be politically salient and that it will create some visibility into, like, well, how do you balance the budget in 10 years? What does entitlement reform look like? And they’re not saying Obamacare repeal anymore and they don’t want to, they understand that they don’t want to. And yet I think they’re going to be in this position where they’re going to effectively have to lay out something that looks like Obamacare repeal, something that looks like Social Security reform, something that looks like big changes to Medicare. And we will have a political debate about that because Democrats are just salivating to have those conversations. I think they feel like that is very strong political ground on them. They think that voters trust them to protect those very popular programs if they’re under assault. And, you know, which is very similar to the political dynamic we saw when Republicans were really trying in earnest, when they had full control of government and wanted to repeal Obamacare.

Rovner: Yes. And I would say, as we absolutely saw in 2017, when they failed to repeal it, Republicans very much agree on their goals, but they very much disagree on how to get there. There is no unified Republican plan for either reforming, you know, the Affordable Care Act or Medicare or Medicaid, I mean, except for basically cutting money out of it. So I will be interested, as Margot says, to see what they actually put down on paper.

Sanger-Katz: And, sorry, just one more thing on this point, which is, again, I think that the kinds of show votes that the Republican House leadership is going to have to put on these issues are probably not going to be particularly politically productive and may be politically damaging to them. But I do think, setting that aside for the moment, I do think we are entering in an environment of much higher interest rates, of really more accelerating federal debt. You know, there are a lot of conditions right now that are potentially ripe for thinking about government spending and particularly thinking about these big categories of government spending that are our federal health care programs. I think the last few years there’s been this sense that, you know, debt is free and the deficit doesn’t matter. And I think inflation is high, interest rates are rising. I do think that we’re in a moment where there may be a greater sense of a need to confront this problem. And I’m interested in what that conversation looks like, which may be a little bit different than the kind of highly ideological conversation that we’re going to see in the very near term.

Rovner: I was going to say that that would require actually having substantive talks about what might work, which we don’t know is going to happen, but we can cross our fingers and hope. All right. That is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a story by Kaiser Health News’ Lauren Sausser: “Hospitals’ Use of Volunteer Staff Runs Risk of Skirting Labor Laws, Experts Say.” I thought this was a fascinating story about hospitals’ reliance on volunteers, not for the types of activities I usually associate hospital volunteers with, which would be …

Rovner: Like candy stripers.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Like light … I don’t know, “light” is not the right word, but, you know, visiting people, comforting them in some way, providing added benefit of sorts. And this is really people that are being asked to do medical care and the basics, some of the basic care you need when you are in a hospital. And I think her story cites about $5 billion maybe in the U.S. of free labor through these types of volunteers. And the question becomes, you know, is this violating labor laws? And should these people be getting paid for the work, or should they … are they basically, because they’re using volunteers, taking money and job opportunities away from other people? And I thought it was a fascinating story just because I had no idea of all of this, you know, volunteer labor was being used and the impacts on these hospitals during the pandemic, when they couldn’t have volunteers. And just, I think, important to think about, too, how this impacts the quality of care as well people receive.

Rovner: Hospitals are very clever. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from Jessie Hellman at Roll Call called “Providers Say Medicare Advantage Hinders New Methadone Benefit.” And I’ve been doing a lot of reporting on the Medicare Advantage program lately. And so I was a little bit jealous of this story. Congress just recently required Medicare to pay for methadone. You know, a very evidence-based treatment for opioid addiction that it hadn’t been covering before. And what this article found is that these Medicare Advantage plans, or private competitors to the government Medicare program, have been enacting a lot of roadblocks that make it hard for people to get this treatment. So they technically cover it, but they require often what’s called prior authorization, where you have to … doctors and others have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove that the person really needs it. And when I saw this article, I put out a bat signal on my Twitter and I said, Can anyone think of the medical reason why you would want to have … restrict access to methadone treatment? And, you know, this is just a Twitter poll, but no one could come up with the reason. They could think of lots of reasons why the insurance company might not want to cover it, because it’s expensive, because patients who have opioid addiction probably are pretty expensive in general. And so, you know, this could be a way to avoid paying for a complex treatment or a way to discourage patients who have complex health care needs from choosing a Medicare Advantage plan. Anyway, so just a good story and just, you know, another illustration of, you know, even after Congress does something like add a new benefit, there’s always value in doing oversight to see how is that actually working in the real world and is it giving patients the care that was intended?

Rovner: Yes. And we will be talking, I think, much more about Medicare Advantage this year. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a very sad piece to recommend. It is an op-ed by Céline Gounder, who is a public health expert that we all know well, as well as the widow of Grant Wahl, the soccer journalist who died covering the World Cup. And she wrote about how her husband’s death has been co-opted by anti-vax conspiracy theorists who are trying to draw some connection to what happened to him and being vaccinated for covid. But she really smartly walks through the misinformation playbook because it is a very sort of predictable playbook with very predictable points and, you know, dismantles them one by one. And I think it’s really helpful for the inevitable next time we see this come up to be prepared in advance and be able to refute those points. Very tragic but very helpful thing to know.

Rovner: Yeah. Céline is our colleague now at KHN, in addition to everything else that she does, and I can just say to these trolls: Don’t mess with Céline. It really was a very good piece. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post, and it’s a great story that ran in the dead week between Christmas and New Year’s. So I … gave it an extra week. It’s called “Social Security Denies Disability Benefits Based on List With Jobs From 1977,” by Lisa Rein. And while I’ve known for a long time that the Social Security disability program has a multiyear backlog, one thing I didn’t know until I read this story is that a lot of otherwise likely eligible people get their benefits denied because they could theoretically do jobs that largely no longer exist. Among the jobs the government says people who are disabled might be able to do are nuts sorter, dowel inspector, or egg processor. That’s because the last time the labor market data used to determine if a disabled person might be able to do a job was last updated 45 years ago. The agency has been working since 2012 to update its listing of jobs that could be done by sedentary individuals. But somehow the new directory of jobs has not made it into use yet. Meanwhile, thousands of people deserving of disability benefits are being steered to jobs that are now largely automated, offshored, or otherwise obsolete, something that clearly needs to be fixed.

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

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin

Rovner: Margot?

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. In the meantime, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio Producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories

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

The year-end government spending bill includes a lot of changes to federal health programs, including changes to Medicare payments and some structure for states to begin to disenroll people on Medicaid whose eligibility has been maintained through the pandemic.

Separately, the Biden administration took several steps to expand the availability of the abortion pill, which in combination with another drug can end a pregnancy within about 10 weeks of gestation. Anti-abortion forces have launched their own campaign to limit the reach of the abortion pill.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress ended the year by passing a nearly $1.7 trillion government spending package. The legislation included smaller-than-scheduled cuts to Medicare payments for physicians, extended telehealth flexibilities, and funding boosts for programs like the Indian Health Service and the federal 988 mental health hotline.
• But lawmakers left out many priorities, such as more money in response to the covid-19 emergency, and included a change to Medicaid eligibility that could result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance.
• The Biden administration took perhaps its biggest stand on abortion rights since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade last year, with the FDA announcing that retail pharmacies will be permitted to dispense abortion pills for the first time, and the Justice Department confirming that it is legal to send the pills through the U.S. Postal Service.
• A new congressional report on Aduhelm, the controversial Alzheimer’s drug, reveals its manufacturer, Biogen, knew the impact its pricing could have on the Medicare program — and priced it high anyway. The report also raises big questions about the FDA’s decision-making in approving the drug and what some officials were willing to do to make it happen.
• And in price transparency news, insurers are now required to provide patients with cost-estimating tools designed to make more than 500 nonemergency services “shoppable.” But it is unclear whether insurance companies are prepared to help consumers access and use that information.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Mark Kreidler, who wrote the latest NPR-KHN “Bill of the Month” feature, about two patients with the same name and a mistaken bill. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

Plus, for extra credit, the panelists recommend their favorite health policy stories of the week they think you should read, too:

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Now Says It Plainly: Morning-After Pills Are Not Abortion Pills,” by Pam Belluck

Joanne Kenen: Politico Magazine’s “Racist Doctors and Organ Thieves: Why So Many Black People Distrust the Health Care System,” by Joanne Kenen and Elaine Batchlor

Rachel Cohrs: The New York Times’ “‘Major Trustee, Please Prioritize’: How NYU’s E.R. Favors the Rich,” by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg

Rachel Roubien: KHN’s “Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” by Noam N. Levey

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

Stat’s “‘Rife With Irregularities’: Congressional Investigation Reveals FDA’s Approval of Aduhelm Marked by Secret Discussions, Breaches of Protocol,” by Rachel Cohrs

KHN’s “Want a Clue on Health Care Costs in Advance? New Tools Take a Crack at it,” by Julie Appleby

Stat’s “Congress Reaches Major Health Policy Deal on Medicare, Medicaid, and Pandemic Preparedness,” by Rachel Cohrs and Sarah Owermohle

USA Today’s “Half of Ambulance Rides Yield Surprise Medical Bills. What’s Being Done to Protect People?” by Ken Alltucker

Click to expand

Episode Transcript

Julie Rovner: Hello, Happy New Year, and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 5, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. Welcome back. 

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, Julie. 

Rovner: And we welcome to the podcast panel this week Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So I plan to call you guys “Rachel C.” and “Rachel R.” since I have you both today. Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with Mark Kreidler. This month’s patient got a bill for care that was actually delivered to someone else and eventually had that bill sent to collections. We will try to sort this all out in far less time than it took her. But first, the news. And there’s plenty with what happened over the break. So we’re going to start with the bill that ended the 117th Congress. That huge omnibus spending bill that included all 12 of the annual appropriations that fund much of the government through the end of the fiscal year. That bill also served as a vehicle for a lot of other bills, including an array of health legislation. Rachel C., why don’t you start us off with what the bill did for Medicare and Medicaid? Both of which are pretty significant. 

Cohrs: Sure. For Medicare, I think, doctors had been worried that they were going to see pay cuts at the end of the year, and they had been asking Congress to make sure they were budget-neutral there. Congress didn’t quite meet their demands all the way. They blunted the effect of the cuts. So a little bit of cuts will go into effect this year, and then those cuts will increase a little bit next year as well. So it’s some of what they asked for, not all of it. On Medicaid, there was a really big change to what we call in D.C. the redetermination process. Basically, to get extra money from the federal government during the pandemic, states had to agree not to kick people off Medicaid — even if they were no longer eligible. But starting in April, states are going to be able to start kicking people off Medicaid if they are no longer eligible. And there’s a phase-out of that extra money that states were getting to treat these people as well.  

Rovner: This has been the big concern about the public health emergency and why everybody’s cared whether or not when it ends, because when it ended, states were going to start being able to basically kick off the program people who weren’t eligible. And there was a whole lot of concern about how they would do it and how long it would take. And this basically sets up a process, right? 

Cohrs: Right. It provides a lot more certainty. And states and CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] have been preparing for this for months. There’s resources. But I think the ultimate question is whether these people are going to transition from Medicaid onto another form of coverage or whether there’s going to become uninsured. And, I think KFF estimates about … between maybe 5 million and 14 million people will lose Medicaid coverage. And if there’s not a smooth transition, that could have really big implications for coverage. So those were the two big things. There were many other smaller policies that this paid for, though, because it saved money based on all the congressional budget magic that CBO [the Congressional Budget Office] uses. So I think there’s more protections for children on Medicaid as well. It extends CHIP [the Children’s Health Insurance Program] until 2029, makes permanent maternal health programs. So there were improvements that Congress decided to make to the Medicaid program with this money. But I think it does … it’s a little bit of a tighter timeline than some people were expecting.  

Rovner: They basically are, to some extent, divorcing the Medicaid unwinding from the end of the public health emergency, which people expect will be sometime this year. But we’ve expected that public health emergency to end for a while. Joanne, you want to add something. 

Kenen: And I think this is the time to point out, yet again, they’ll probably be a certain amount of chaos and disruption. But most people in most states who are leaving this enhanced Medicaid will in fact be eligible for Affordable Care Act coverage with good subsidies, if they’re low-income. But we still have the Medicaid gap, so there are about a dozen states — it might be down to 11 now — but there are about a dozen, 11 or 12 states where people who won’t have enhanced Medicaid won’t have anything. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: And that’s just political reality. 

Rovner: That was something that the Democratic Congress tried very hard to fix last year and it ended up on the cutting-room floor. It didn’t make it into the Inflation Reduction Act … 

Kenen: Yes, it was in Build Back Better. It was sent … 

Rovner: Right. It was in Build Back Better and it didn’t pass.  

Kenen: An attempt to fix it was in Build Back Better and it did not make it into the final what did pass, which was the so-called Inflation Reduction Act. 

Rovner: And there were a bunch of things that members had tried to get into this last-minute package, this year-end package, that didn’t make it either, right? Like the child tax credit. Yeah. 

Kenen: I mean, there’s some mental health provisions and substance abuse provisions, but many of them didn’t make it. 

Rovner: The covid money didn’t make it. Rachel R., you would like to add something? 

Roubein: I think there’s a lot of under-the-radar provisions that people had championed for a long time that did make it. And obviously covid money didn’t. There was some pandemic preparedness that didn’t. But a bipartisan independent commission to study covid did not make it into the package, but some kind of interesting under-the-radar provisions, I think, included like a longer-term funding fix for the Indian Health Service, which Native Americans have been championing for a long time. And there was a pretty big funding boost for the 988 mental health crisis hotline, like a $400 million increase.  

Kenen: Another thing is — this is a little obscure — but normally Medicare drug coverage does not include something that would be under an emergency authorization. My understanding is — right? You’re shaking your heads — that they did fix that so that as the covid money didn’t get in, some of these drugs and therapeutics, and shots, and everything else that was not going to be subsidized by the government, they’re not gonna be free. And there was a problem with Paxlovid, which is the outpatient oral drug that you can get at a drugstore. Very important for the senior population that that was going to be really expensive, hundreds of dollars, because it’s an emergency authorization. So Medicare wasn’t going to be able to cover it. They did fix that. So seniors who do get covid, which is — may we repeat it yet again — still here and still spreading and yet another subvariant, can in fact get that under their drug coverage. They don’t have to put out hundreds of dollars out-of-pocket, which would have really been an impediment to some people. And it’s a really good drug. It’s one of the few things we have that really works. 

Rovner: And before we move away from this, it also included the pandemic preparedness bill that had been pushed by Sen. [Patty] Murray and retiring Sen. [Richard] Burr, the bipartisan bill, right? 

Cohrs: It’s not in its full form, but it’s pretty close to what they introduced. And a couple pieces to highlight there is that now the future CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] directors will have to be Senate-confirmed. And there’s a new pandemic office at the White House, which I think it’ll be really interesting to see how the infrastructure there shifts to instead of having, you know, a czar for covid and monkeypox and Ebola, you know, there’s going to be some sort of permanent infrastructure there. There’s also some public health data provisions and, like, recruitment for infectious disease doctors. There’s a lot in that package, but I think it’s definitely worth highlighting, as you said. The one other item that I think we haven’t touched on is that pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities have been extended for two years, which provides a lot of certainty with something that the health care industry really wanted. So that’ll continue with business as usual for another couple of years as Congress figures out what they would actually want to make permanent. 

Kenen: And the longer that goes on, right, the harder it is to take it away. 

Rovner: That was another thing that people were worried about when the public health emergency ended is that that freedom to do telehealth was going to end. Sorry, Joanne. 

Kenen: No, I mean, and the longer people have access to telehealth, the harder it will be for Congress to change it in two years. I mean, it’s probably here to stay.  

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: They may tinker how they pay, or formulas, or certain limits. I mean, who knows what they’ll do in two years? It might not be exactly with the way it is right now, but the idea that telehealth is going to go away? It’s not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s … I also think it’s here to stay. All right. Let us turn to abortion. There has been a lot of news since we last talked about this in mid-December. But some of the biggest news that’s happened just came in the last few days from the Biden administration, which is taking some pretty significant actions, particularly by the Food and Drug Administration and the Justice Department, to make the abortion pill more widely available. Rachel R., tell us what they did. 

Roubein: On Tuesday night, and not with a ton of fanfare, there wasn’t a huge press release. But the Food and Drug Administration said that they will permit some retail pharmacies to dispense abortion pills for the first time. So that’s potentially a major step towards easing access to medication abortion — I should say, in states where it is legal. I think the really big question was what will major retail pharmacy chains do? On Tuesday night, they said they were still looking at it. But yesterday, CVS and Walgreens did say they planned to seek certification to do that. There’s a few steps they have to go through. The expectation is those two major retailers deciding to do that could have implications for other pharmacy use decisions. They may follow suit as well. 

Kenen: But to be clear, this still requires a prescription. This is not over-the-counter access. The so-called quote “morning-after” pill is over-the-counter. The abortion pill, which is [for] the first, I believe, 10 weeks of pregnancy, will still require a prescription, but it’ll be easier to fulfill that prescription. And there are time pressures when you can take that drug. It’s going to be easier to go to a neighborhood pharmacy and pick it up once you have the prescription. 

Roubein: Exactly. 

Rovner: When it first got approved, there were a lot of restrictions, including for a long time — and now in some states — that the doctor has to actually hand the pill to the pregnant person who has to then take it in the doctor’s presence. That obviously is starting to be relaxed because we now have 20 years of data that shows that this is a pretty safe way to end a pregnancy. But let’s not skip … what did the Justice Department do? They added to this, right?  

Roubein: Yes. So the Justice Department essentially cleared the U.S. Postal Service to deliver abortion pills to women in states that have banned or restricted the medication to terminate a pregnancy. Basically, the gist is that Postal Service had requested an opinion from the office. And the legal opinion issued Tuesday basically concluded that mailing the drugs doesn’t violate a nearly 150-year-old statute. 

Rovner: The Comstock law, for people who have covered the … 

Roubein: Yes, the Comstock law. 

Rovner: … the early history of birth control, that was what was used to ban the distribution of birth control until the 1960s. So I imagine that this is going to make the anti-abortion movement very angry because they seem to be honing in on the abortion pill, because they’re worried that in places where you ban abortion and you don’t have any more abortion clinics, people are going to turn to the abortion pill, which more than half of people are anyway, even in sort of the pre-end of Roe v. Wade world, when abortion was legal. 

Roubein: There was a lot of backlash from the anti-abortion movement in the past few days. And we’ve already seen a major conservative group file a lawsuit even over the approval of the pills from the FDA. 

Rovner: From the year 2000. The original approval, which seems a long time to wait, but I imagine that this will end up being maybe the biggest deal of anything the Biden administration has done. Because I can see … 

Kenen: On abortion. 

Rovner: Yeah, on abortion. Excuse me. Yes. When President [Joe] Biden said, after Roe v. Wade got overturned, that they were going to do everything they could to make abortion accessible and available, and they hadn’t done very much, all of a sudden, they seem to do a lot — at the last minute at the end of the year. Actually, there was one more thing that we should add to this last week in the middle of the break between Christmas and New Year, the Biden administration formally moved to reverse the Trump administration’s so-called conscience rules, which had been blocked by federal courts anyway. But that’s a fight that’s been going on since 2008, at the very tail end of the George W Bush administration, trying to balance the rights of individual health care workers to opt out of providing services that violate their conscience and balance that with the rights of patients to actually obtain care. The Biden administration signaled they were going to rewrite those rules in March of 2021. Does anybody have any idea what took them so long or is this just really hard to balance? 

Kenen: And one more quick thing that happened over the break is the FDA came out and formally stated, or restated more publicly and explicitly, that the so-called morning-after pill does not cause abortion. 

Rovner: That’s my extra credit. So we’ll get to that.  

Kenen: All right.  

Rovner: That’s another thing that I’ve been covering pretty much forever. All right. Well, let us move on. Also over the break, there was an unusually large amount of news between Christmas and New Year this year. We got a very juicy report from a congressional committee on its investigation into how Aduhelm, that promising, expensive, and ultimately mostly ineffective drug for Alzheimer’s disease, was approved by the FDA. Rachel C., you wrote about the report, and I know it’s very long, but what are a couple of the highlights here?  

Cohrs: The most interesting findings fell into two buckets for me. The first was looking behind the curtain at how Biogen priced this drug. The initial price was around $56,000 a year, which is really expensive. They later dropped that. But, I mean, it caused a great upheaval in the Medicare program. It caused a dramatic spike in premiums and then a drop the next year. I mean, it really impacted people’s lives. And the documents that the committee uncovered showed that Biogen was well aware of the impact that this drug could have on the Medicare program. They knew that if they priced this drug above around $20,000 a year, that some patients wouldn’t be able to access it. And they chose a really high price point anyway. And I think it just offers some interesting graphs to show that they saw the breakdown and they understood all the finances and they just wanted to make it the biggest drug launch in history. They wanted the blockbuster; they wanted the glory. And it definitely was historic, but not for the reasons that they quite wanted. 

Rovner: I was gonna say, they succeeded at making it a really big deal! 

Cohrs: And I think the other aspect that was really interesting as we got a little bit more insight into the FDA’s reflection on this whole process. And there was an internal review that the agency conducted that was made public in part for the first time, and they decided to exonerate themselves. They thought that communications were appropriate and that was kind of their top-line takeaway. But they did go through and admit that there were some problems. And I think one big issue was that Biogen and some FDA officials were working together to prepare presentations for FDA advisers. But there were other parts of the FDA that were a little bit more skeptical of the drug that were almost entirely left out of that process. They said the skeptical division didn’t know that this report was happening. They didn’t know they were working with Biogen, and they only hav, like, two days to comment. And then ultimately, that dispute wasn’t resolved before advisers got this presentation that was supposed to represent this “unity FDA perspective” that didn’t really exist. And I think there was some reflection there. But we still have some unanswered questions. We don’t know if there’s been any discipline within the agency. We saw no reference to it. But again, with personnel issues that can be sensitive. We don’t know what progress exactly they’ve made toward any of the committee’s recommendations or any of the internal review findings or suggestions there. But I think there are some big questions about the agency’s decision-making and how badly they wanted this drug approved and what they were willing to do to make it happen. 

Kenen: And … beyond the $56,000 [annual price] and beyond this whole controversy about the process within the FDA, there’s also the fact that this big controversial drug, expensive drug … there’s big questions about whether it works, how well it works, and how safe it is. I mean, it’s not like the hepatitis C drugs, which had these huge launches — eight? $84,000, you know, 10 years ago was a lot of money, or 12 years ago, whenever it was. They work. They cure hepatitis. I’m not defending the price point. But there’s a whole other thing. It’s this whole saga about this drug and, like, it’s not even a clear-cut, useful drug. 

Rovner: Well, and that … it looks like history might be about to repeat itself. We’re expected to hear possibly by the end of this week, FDA’s decision on a similar drug, lecanemab, which seems to work somewhat better than Aduhelm, but which also has dangerous side effects. Do we assume the FDA is going to be more careful with this one? 

Cohrs: I mean, I think there’s definitely a sensitivity by FDA as to how rebuilding public trust in the agency, because I think there was so much skepticism. Again, this is a different drug with the different data behind it that showing it maybe could be more clinically effective. But I think the agency is … I mean, we’ll see over time, but hopefully going to document and their decision-making process more clearly and being more accountable. But I think that there are going to be these lingering questions about this new drug, both for FDA and for Medicare, ultimately in deciding how they’re going to give Medicare beneficiaries access to this drug or not, because the parameters were based on this other drug, which is a strange situation. But that’s how these things work.  

Rovner: Yeah, but I mean, but to be clear, though, I mean, finding a cure for … an effective treatment for Alzheimer’s would be an enormous medical breakthrough that people, scientists, have been working towards for a couple of generations now. So at least it feels like they’re getting closer, but perhaps they’re not there yet.  

Cohrs: I think, yeah, there’s a little bit of a gap sometimes between, I think, what some people wish these drugs were and what they actually are. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: So it’s sort of this first-draft phenomenon, like a drug will come out and it’s not great. But down the road — we’ve seen this with cancer, too — I mean, you have a certain kind of drug that’s the first of its kind and in the in the years to come, they’ll be a better version. I don’t think there’s a consensus on that with Alzheimer’s, though. I mean, they still don’t agree on what causes it. 

Rovner: Yeah, So we may not be there yet. All right. Well, moving on, Jan. 1 brought us another step in the government quest to help patients figure out how much medical care might cost before they get it. In addition to hospitals and insurers having to post prices, insurers will have to give their clients access to a cost estimate or that takes into account out-of-pocket costs like copays and deductibles. The goal is to make 500 different nonemergency services, quote, “shoppable.” Joanne, price transparency is one of the few reforms to the health care system that Democrats and Republicans actually agree on. Why is that? What makes … yeah, to a point … what makes transparency something that transcends the partisan disagreements about health care? 

Kenen: Well, I think that it’s hard to be against transparency. You know, you’re supposed to be for consumers not knowing anything? That politically is not great, right? So everybody’s for transparency. I think that the partisan difference is how much you think it matters. Like, the Democrats are for transparency, they’re not going to say, “No, consumers shouldn’t have tools” and that insurers and hospitals and everybody else shouldn’t empower us with more information that’s actually usable. The Republicans tend to think that this is much more of a cure-all for health care costs than the Democrats. Generally speaking, you’ll … it’s not 100%, but generally speaking, the Republicans have more faith in this as something that’ll really, really empower consumers and bring down prices and spur more competition. You know, I can see this provider charges this, this provider charges that; I’m going to go to the cheaper one. But that’s actually not how it always works in the real world. Sometimes people think in health care there’s two phenomena. One is like Hospital A can see that Hospital B is getting away with charging more and they raise their prices, or that people think the more expensive care is, the better care is, which is not true. So, yes, transparency is good. Yes, transparency is bipartisan. But how well this tool works in the real world? Health care is complicated, as we’ve all heard people say. It might be easier to find out, OK, you know, I need a mammogram. It’s going to be, you know, $30 here out-of-pocket and $90 there. That might be an easier call. But some of these really complicated conditions people have and treatments … and things go wrong. An insurer said that it’s going to cost $90. But then something happened and it cost $900. I mean, I just don’t see it as like, OK, we fixed health care.  

Rovner: And plus, what we’ve discovered from the transparency that we have is that people don’t shop even when they can. 

Kenen: Right. 

Rovner: You know, if their doctor says you should go to this place, that’s where they go. So it’s been hard to get them to use the transparency that’s available. Rachel R., you wanted to say something? 

Roubein: I think I found one of the interesting things about some of these debates over surprise bills and transparencies is sometimes it doesn’t always fall under ideological lines. Sometimes it is — at least in the surprise billing debate — lawmakers who are more hospital- or provider-friendly will stick together, whether they’re Republicans and Democrats. And then seven or more insurer-friendly will stick together. We saw some real fights between just committees in general on this. 

Cohrs: There was one more item I wanted to add on this, and I think when I first saw this kicked in, I was like, oh, I’m curious, does my health plan have this? So I poked around, couldn’t really find … it wasn’t on the homepage, you know, we have this flashy new feature. So I called the number on my card and they didn’t know anything about it, couldn’t help me. And so then I asked the media line, and then I finally figured out … like, they taught me how to do it. But I think there’s a big possibility that people just don’t know about this. And if they’re not asking the media line, it’s possible customer service reps aren’t trained in how to help people find it. And I think there’s just this disconnect sometimes, as things are rolling out. So I’m curious to see how many people use it, and it shows kind of generally what your plan allows, like generally what you might be expected to pay. But it wasn’t necessarily, like, here’s your bill, like what that’s going to be at one provider versus another. So I think I’ll be curious to see, once the reports and once academics do their wonderful work on really evaluating compliance over the next couple of months, what the results of that are and how that compares with what we’ve seen from hospitals. 

Rovner: I was already going to ask my next question: that politicians want this, but there’s been a lot of resistance from both health care providers and insurers who are loath to release what they consider proprietary information. And, Rachel C., as you pointed out, we have seen less than stellar showings for the information that’s supposed to be available already. We’ve also seen a lot of hospitals simply not post the information that they were supposed to post. Do we think that Congress might go back to this or is there some good way to nudge them to comply?  

Cohrs: I think there are some signals that the oversight could be a priority for … especially the Energy and Commerce Committee, I believe? The chair and ranking member, I think, last Congress wrote a joint letter, which is sort of unusual for Democrats and Republicans to join together in that way, saying that it’s an area of interest for them and that they would like to check into that more. So I think there are not a whole lot of things that Democrats and Republicans will be agreeing on this session. So I think this is a really ripe area for oversight.  

Rovner: Yes. Rachel R. 

Roubein: Off of what the other Rachel is saying, I think another place to watch here is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, because over the summer they had done the first warning shot and fined two hospitals for flouting federal price transparency rules. So if they kick up more fines, etc., that could put pressure on other hospitals. 

Rovner: And finally, this week, while we’re talking about price transparency, there’s a new study from the U.S. Public Interest Research Group that finds that half of ambulance rides result in an out-of-network balance bill. Yet — we’ve talked about this before — air ambulances were covered in the surprise bill law, but ground ambulances were not. Any chance that might change? 

Roubein: You’re right. Ground ambulances were not. Basically, what Congress had [done] was said that they were going to require that an advisory committee begin, and that advisory committee work is going to start in January. CMS released the names of the people who are going to be part of it, and they will essentially have to issue a report to Congress within, like, 180 days of their first meeting, which I think is mid-January. 

Rovner: So stay tuned for that one. Obviously, more to come on this. All right. Well, that’s as much news as we have time for. Now we’re going to play my interview for the “Bill of the Month” with Mark Kreidler, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Mark Kreidler, who reported and wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Mark, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Mark Kreidler: Hi, Julie. Nice to be with you. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient definitely got an outrageous bill, although the outrageous part was not so much the amount. It was the fact that she got a bill at all. Tell us who the patient is and what happened. 

Kreidler: Well, if we’re really getting serious about it, there were two patients. They’re both named Grace Elliott and that lies at the heart of the confusion. Our patient, the woman that we first interviewed to talk to about this story, is Grace E. Elliott. She’s 31 years old. She’s a preschool teacher now living in San Francisco, California. There’s another Grace Elliott. She’s 81 years old, a retiree living in Venice, Florida. Younger Grace, for lack of a better way to put it, once used a hospital in Venice, Florida. It was in 2013. She was a kid home from college on break. Younger Grace was taken to the hospital in Venice, which at that time was really just called Venice Hospital or Venice Regional Hospital. She was treated, held overnight for a kidney infection, received a prescription for antibiotics the next morning, and sent on her way. She remembers that it cost her about 100 bucks, which as a college kid, struck her as exorbitant. Those were the good old days. And that was the last time that Grace Elliott, the younger, ever used the hospital in Venice. In fact, it apparently was the first and last time. But that doesn’t mean her name wasn’t still in their records system. It was. And about this time one year ago, her mother, still living in Venice, received a letter from the hospital, now owned by a hospital corporation called ShorePoint, with her daughter’s name on it. She got a bad feeling about that letter, called her daughter in California. Younger Grace Elliott asked her mother to please open it, and what she found inside was a bill for $1,170 for hospital services at Venice, rendered over a six-day period the previous September. So Grace was a little bit confused. 

Rovner: So September of 2021. 

Kreidler: We’re now talking about nearly 10 years after she’d been to the hospital, she received a bill for services that she’d obviously never had. 

Rovner: So she actually must have started to go after to figure out what it was, right? 

Kreidler: Her first reaction was to do what any of us would do and say, “Oh, this is a case of mistaken identity.” Called the hospital, explained it very nicely: “Oh, you’ve got the wrong person.” The hospital basically at that point said, “We don’t think so. We’re pretty sure we have the right person.” And so this young woman was basically plunged into the medical billing system nightmare in which she has been misidentified. We now know because we reported the story, we know what happened. We know that when Grace Ann Elliott, an 81-year-old, as I mentioned earlier, living in Venice, needed a shoulder replacement, she went to the Venice hospital, she was checked in, and a registration clerk typed in her name, Grace Elliott. Clearly errantly retrieved the file of a 50-year-younger person, and then didn’t verify — and that’s where the story breaks down — the registration desk employee simply never confirmed via birth date or photo ID or anything like that. And at that point, two medical patients’ records functionally become one. That’s what younger Grace Elliott, the woman we spent most of our time with, wound up having to deal with. 

Rovner: I mean, this should have been easy to sort out. You call the hospital and say, “No, these are two different people. This is not my bill. I have not been to Venice, Florida. Obviously, this is not me.” And they take care of it. That’s what would usually happen in this situation. But that’s not what happened in this situation, was it? 

Kreidler: No. One of the things that happened to younger Grace Elliott was that she simply had been straight-up identified as the patient. The hospital was at that point simply trying to collect a bill. And so, in the early stages, Grace is calling this hospital. And then at a later point, she’s calling the medical system, you know, the owner of the hospital. But at each step, she’s just getting someone who never had anything to do with the case in the first place. And it’s simply part of the bill collection process. They’re just doing billing and records. And so even though Grace at one point was really able to definitively establish that she was not the person in question, and even though the hospital, at least one person in this hospital food chain, did say to her, “You’re right, we’ve got the wrong person.” Again, she made — I don’t even want to call it a mistake; she reacted the way most of us would. She exhaled a little bit and thought, “Well, good, this will be taken care of.” The next thing that she knew, she was being sent a letter from a collection agency because the hospital had done — hospitals do this all the time — if they have trouble collecting a bill, they’ll eventually pass it over to a collection agency. Now, Grace had a collection agency after her, so that’s got two problems. 

Rovner: So the whole thing sounds funny. The younger Grace Elliott got a bill for someone else’s care and got it sent to collections. The older Grace Elliott got her private medical records sent to the younger Grace Elliott, right?  

Kreidler: Yeah.  

Rovner: So how did this all get sorted out? 

Kreidler: Well, that is the really stunning thing that happened. And yes, she received, essentially as she appealed to the collection agency, in their denial of her appeal, they furnished medical records, which they thought was proof that they had the right person. In fact, they were sending her the records of Grace Elliott, this 81-year-old retiree who was obviously terribly upset to learn that her medical information had been shared. Luckily for her, I would say, it was shared with a very responsible younger person who not only started acting on her own behalf, but acting on older Grace Elliott’s behalf. The takeaway is that Grace was denied her appeal. She was denied a second time. She contacted us, and I’m not even really sure how she knew to do that. But I’m happy that she did because after we made a few phone inquiries, Grace began to see action. The hospital acknowledged that it had made a mistake. The hospital then went back and corrected its electronic records and took her out of the database of the collection agency. So they say, I mean, I think she’s being careful. She wants to see that this actually all happens the way it’s said that it would have happened. But yeah, they did eventually. And they acknowledged the mistake so that it was a straight-up human error. And that’s where the problem started. But for Grace, the nightmare was that once the problem started, even though as we sit here talking about it, Julie, it seems like such an easy fix. It took her one year to get this done. And really only journalists getting involved to really moved the needle on it. 

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here for other people? I mean, obviously, clerical errors do happen. Should either of these women have done something that would have avoided this or that would have cleaned it up faster? 

Kreidler: One of the big takeaways for medical patients is your information can be incorrectly entered and once it’s there, unless you forcefully push back, and I mean early and hard, it can be very difficult for that information to get removed. You know, database information lives on for generations. It can be hard to fix. So one big takeaway for anyone who’s using a hospital system, who sees a doctor regularly and has a health plan: Get online, look at your medical profile. Look at what your own profile says about you. And I have personal experience with this from a person very close to me who found a mistake in her medical record that took much pushback to eliminate. And it can be something as basic as a medication you never took. It can be a procedure you never had done. Sometimes things get eerily entered. So big takeaway is: Check your profile. Know what your medical record says about you so that if you need to push back on any aspect of it, you have your forces ready to be marshaled. 

Rovner: And obviously you can always complain to us, but there are other places that you can complain to, right? 

Kreidler: You certainly can. And you can go to the Better Business Bureau. These are, on some levels, consumer protection and consumer rights issues. So there are consumer agencies, federal agencies and state agencies, that can get involved on your behalf. In this case, the best defense is a good offense. Be very aggressive. Know what your profile says about you. Check your records often and do all the grunt work that we normally don’t want to do. But in a case like this, it becomes obvious pretty quickly how important it is. 

Rovner: Good advice. Glad this worked out for both of the Grace Elliotts. And Mark Kreidler, thank you very much. 

Kreidler: You bet. Thank you. 

Rovner: We are back now. It’s time for our extra-credit segment, where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel C., why don’t you go first this week?  

Cohrs: Sure. The piece I chose is headlined “‘Major Trustee, Please Prioritize’: How NYU’s E.R. Favors the Rich,” in The New York Times by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. And I think this piece is the last installment in the Times’ series on nonprofit hospitals. And this one really stood out to me because it seemed like it was a new phenomenon. Like, I hadn’t really read a whole lot of stories about a case like NYU’s ER, where the reporters describe this dynamic where — theoretically in an ER, everyone comes in, you know, the urgency of your medical issue, the severity determines what priority you get. But they showed here that children of donors, politicians, family members were getting special treatment. There was even a special room that they typically went to that could have negatively impacted other patients’ care. And I think it was remarkable how many doctors that used to work there, they got on the record saying that this was morally questionable. And yeah, it was just really well done, really comprehensively documented. And I thought it was interesting as well how the hospital chose to engage with them by calling into question the integrity of the doctors that spoke with the Times. And it was just really not something that we see every day from hospitals’ emergency departments. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was a very interesting story.  

Cohrs: It was wild, great, well done, highly recommend. 

Rovner: Rachel R. 

Roubein: The piece I chose was titled “Hundreds of Hospitals Sue Patients or Threaten Their Credit, a KHN Investigation Finds. Does Yours?” And it was by Noam N. Levey, and this was part of a long-running series, I believe all year, a partnership between Kaiser Health News and NPR. And I just think they’ve been doing really interesting, impactful journalism on this. What really stood out to me here was reading the numbers, and I feel like the data tells a powerful story. So some snapshots of the numbers from KHN’s analysis was more than two-thirds of hospitals sue patients or take other legal action against them, such as garnishing wages or placing liens on their home or property. And about 1 in 5 deny nonemergency care to people with outstanding debt. 

Rovner: Yeah, which is quite a number. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a story I wrote and I spent many months talking to people for it, and I wrote it with a physician in California who’s also a hospital executive in a poor neighborhood of L.A. And it was called “Racist Doctors and Organ Thieves: Why So Many Black People Distrust the Health Care System.” I think the takeaways of that is, you know, I think we tend — or at least white people tend — to blame the distrust on historical atrocities like Tuskegee. And there are many others that are not as famous. But … and I wrote about them, and people recalled them and told me about them. 

Rovner: Henrietta Lacks. 

Kenen: Henrietta Lacks, but … I mean, one person I talked about growing up poor and Black in the South and a kid in the neighborhood cut himself — a Black child, a poor Black child — and the doctor stitched his hand up. And when they found out he couldn’t pay, he took the stitches out. And this was in our lifetimes, right? At least, Julie, in my lifetime. So, you know, it’s not just a historical legacy. It’s today. It’s subtler today. It may be implicit and unintentional, but it exists. And the other thing, it’s not income-related. It’s not just poor people. It’s just pervasive. It was a really eye-opening story for me. And I have some follow-ups I’m working on. And the organ thieves. There was a heart transplant in Richmond, Virginia. A Black laborer. His family didn’t find out. It’s one of the first heart transplants in the country, and the family didn’t find out about it until the funeral home called and asked where his heart was or said they didn’t know where his heart was. 

Rovner: It is quite a story, and I think everybody really needs to read it. Well, as Joanne teased earlier, my story this week is from The New York Times by Pam Belluck. It’s called “The F.D.A. Now Says It Plainly: Morning-After Pills Are Not Abortion Pills.” And this is a story that I’ve been tracking personally for more than a decade. In 2012, Pam Belluck wrote the first story of the studies that found that, contrary to previous belief, the morning-after pill does not work by preventing the implantation of a fertilized egg. It only works by preventing ovulation, meaning there’s not an egg available to be fertilized. It was the possibility that the morning-after pill might prevent implantation that led many abortion opponents to oppose the pill. This … remember the morning-after pill, not the abortion pill. But they call preventing implantation a very early abortion, even though that’s not the medical definition of pregnancy or abortion. I was surprised at the time that Pam’s story didn’t seem to get a lot of traction. So I did my own version of it the next year for NPR, which also didn’t get a whole lot of traction, which is another story that I have found out the reason for. But one of the things that I uncovered is that European drug regulators had already changed their labels to say that morning-after pills only work by preventing ovulation. Yet the FDA didn’t get around to changing the label here until last week. Maybe now some of this confusion will stop.  

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

Kenen: I’m marginally still on Twitter: @JoanneKenen  

Rovner: Rachel C. 

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs 

Rovner: Rachel R. 

Roubein: @rachel_roubein 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).