The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After narrowly passing in the House in May, President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill” has now arrived in the Senate, where Republicans are struggling to decide whether to pass it, change it, or — as Elon Musk, who recently stepped back from advising Trump, is demanding — kill it. 

Adding fuel to the fire, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill as written would increase the number of Americans without health insurance by nearly 11 million over the next decade. That number would grow to approximately 16 million should Republicans also not extend additional subsidies for the Affordable Care Act, which expire at year’s end. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Even before the CBO released estimates of how many Americans stand to lose health coverage under the House-passed budget reconciliation bill, Republicans in Washington were casting doubt on the nonpartisan office’s findings — as they did during their 2017 Affordable Care Act repeal effort.
• Responding to concerns about proposed Medicaid cuts, Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst, a Republican, this week stood behind her controversial rejoinder at a town hall that “we’re all going to die.” The remark and its public response illuminated the problematic politics Republicans face in reducing benefits on which their constituents rely — and may foreshadow campaign fights to come.
• Journalists revealed that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s report on children’s health may have been generated at least in part by artificial intelligence. The telltale signs in the report of what are called “AI hallucinations” included citations to scientific studies that don’t exist and a garbled interpretation of the findings of other research, raising further questions about the validity of the report’s recommendations.
• And the Trump administration this week revoked Biden-era guidance on the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Regardless, the underlying law instructing hospitals to care for those experiencing pregnancy emergencies still applies.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a Medicaid patient who had an emergency in another state and the big bill he got for his troubles. If you have an infuriating, outrageous, or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection,” by Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “Take the Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” by Emily Badger and Margot Sanger-Katz.

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “A DNA Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” by Isabelle Taft.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• NOTUS.org’s “The MAHA Report Cites Studies That Don’t Exist,” by Emily Kennard and Margaret Manto.
• The Washington Post’s “White House MAHA Report May Have Garbled Science by Using AI, Experts Say,” by Lauren Weber and Caitlin Gilbert.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump’s ‘One Big Beautiful Bill’ Lands in Senate. Our 400th Episode!

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 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 videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about a Medicaid patient who had a medical emergency out of state and got a really big bill to boot. But first the news. And buckle up — there is a lot of it. 

We’ll start on Capitol Hill, where the Senate is back this week and turning its attention to that “Big Beautiful” budget reconciliation bill passed by the House last month, and we’ll get to the fights over it in a moment. But first, the Congressional Budget Office on Wednesday finished its analysis of the House-passed bill, and the final verdict is in. It would reduce federal health care spending by more than a trillion dollars, with a T, over the next decade. That’s largely from Medicaid but also significantly from the Affordable Care Act. And in a separate letter from CBO Wednesday afternoon, analysts projected that 10.9 million more people would be uninsured over the next decade as a result of the bill’s provisions. 

Additionally, 5.1 million more people would lose ACA coverage as a result of the bill, in combination with letting the Biden-era enhanced subsidies expire, for a grand total of 16 million more people uninsured as a result of Congress’ action and inaction. I don’t expect that number is going to help this bill get passed in the Senate, will it? 

Ollstein: We’re seeing a lot of what we saw during the Obamacare repeal fight in that, even before this report came out, Republicans were working to discredit the CBO in the eyes of the public and sow the seeds of mistrust ahead of time so that these pretty damaging numbers wouldn’t derail the effort. They did in that case, among other things. And so they could now, despite their protestations. 

But I think they’re saying a combination of true things about the CBO, like it’s based on guesses and estimates and models and you have to predict what human behavior is going to be. Are people going to just drop coverage altogether? Are they going to do this? Are they going to do that? But these are the experts we have. This is the nonpartisan body that Congress has chosen to rely on, so you’re not really seeing them present their own credible sources and data. They’re more just saying, Don’t believe these guys. 

Rovner: Yeah, and some of these things we know. We’ve seen. We’ve talked about the work requirement a million times, that when you have work requirements in Medicaid, the people who lose coverage are not people who refuse to work. It’s people who can’t navigate the bureaucracy. And when premiums go up, which they will for the Affordable Care Act, not just because they’re letting these extra subsidies expire but because they’re going back to the way premiums were calculated before 2017. The more expensive premiums get, the fewer people sign up. So it’s not exactly rocket science figuring out that you’re going to have a lot more people without health insurance as a result of this. 

Ollstein: Honestly, it seems from the reactions so far that Republicans on the Hill are more impacted by the CBO’s deficit increase estimates than they are by the number of uninsured-people increase estimates. 

Rovner: And that frankly feels a little more inexplicable to me that the Republicans are just saying, This won’t add to the deficit. And the CBO — it’s arithmetic. It’s not higher math. It’s like if you cut taxes this much so there’s less money coming in, there’s going to be less money and a bigger deficit. I’m not a math person, but I can do that part, at least in my head. 

Jessie, you’re on the Hill. What are you seeing over in the Senate? We don’t even have really a schedule for how this is going to go yet, right? We don’t know if the committees are going to do work, if they’re just going to plunk the House bill on the floor and amend it. It’s all sort of a big question mark. 

Hellmann: Yeah, we don’t have text yet from any of the committees that have health jurisdiction. There’s been a few bills from other committees, but obviously Senate Finance has a monumental task ahead of them. They are the ones that have jurisdiction over Medicaid. Their members said that they have met dozens of times already to work out the details. The members of the Finance Committee were at the White House yesterday with President [Donald] Trump to talk about the bill. 

It doesn’t seem like they got into the nitty-gritty policy details. And the message from the president seemed to mostly be, like, Just pass this bill and don’t make any major changes to it. Which is a tall order, I think, for some of the members like [Sens.] Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Susan Collins of Maine, and even a few others that are starting to come out and raise concerns about some of the changes that the House made, like to the way that states finance their share of Medicaid spending through the provider tax. 

Lisa Murkowski has raised concerns about how soon the work requirements would take effect, because, she was saying, Alaska doesn’t have the infrastructure right now and that would take a little bit to work out. So there are clearly still a lot of details that need to be worked out. 

Rovner: Well, I would note that Senate Republicans were already having trouble communicating about this bill even before these latest CBO numbers came out. At a town hall meeting last weekend in Iowa, where nearly 1 in 5 residents are on Medicaid, Republican Sen. Joni Ernst had an unfortunate reaction to a heckler in the audience, and, rather than apologize — well, here’s what she posted on Instagram. 

Sen. Joni Ernst: Hello, everyone. I would like to take this opportunity to sincerely apologize for a statement that I made yesterday at my town hall. See, I was in the process of answering a question that had been asked by an audience member when a woman who was extremely distraught screamed out from the back corner of the auditorium, “People are going to die!” And I made an incorrect assumption that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth. 

So I apologize. And I’m really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the tooth fairy as well. But for those that would like to see eternal and everlasting life, I encourage you to embrace my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

Rovner: And what you can’t see, just to add some emphasis, Ernst recorded this message in a cemetery with tombstones visible behind her. I know it is early in this debate, but I feel like we might look back on this moment later like [Sen. John] McCain’s famous thumbs-down in the 2017 repeal-and-replace debate. Or is it too soon? Lauren. 

Weber: For all the messaging they’ve tried to do around Medicaid cuts, for all the messaging, We’re all going to die I cannot imagine was on the list of approved talking points. And at the end of the day, I think it gets at how uncomfortable it is to face the reality of your constituents saying, I no longer have health care. This has been true since the beginning of time. Once you roll out an entitlement program, it’s very difficult to roll it back. 

So I think that this is just a preview of how poorly this will go for elected officials, because there will be plenty of people thrown off of Medicaid who are also Republicans. That could come back to bite them in the midterms and in general, I think, could lead — combine it with the anti-DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] fervor— I think you could have a real recipe for quite the feedback. 

Rovner: Yes, and we’re going to talk about DOGE in a second. As we all now know, Elon Musk’s time as a government employee has come to an end, and we’ll talk about his legacy in a minute. But on his way out the door, he let loose a barrage of criticism of the bill, calling it, among other things, a, quote “disgusting abomination” that will saddle Americans with, quote, “crushingly unsustainable debt.” 

So basically we have a handful of Republicans threatening to oppose the bill because it adds to the deficit, another handful of Republicans worried about the health cuts — and then what? Any ideas how this battle plays out. I think in the House they managed to get it through by just saying, Keep the ball rolling and send it to the Senate. Now the Senate, it’s going to be harder, I think, for the Senate to say, Oh, we’ll keep the ball rolling and send it back to the House. 

Ollstein: Well, and to jump off Lauren’s point, I think the political blowback is really going to be because this is insult on top of injury in terms of not only are people going to lose Medicaid, Republicans, if this passes, but they’re being told that the only people who are going to lose Medicaid are undocumented immigrants and the undeserving. So not only do you lose Medicaid because of choices made by the people you elected, but then they turn around and imply or directly say you never deserved it in the first place. That’s pretty tough. 

Rovner: And we’re all going to die. 

Ollstein: And we’re all going to die. 

Weber: Just to add onto this, I do think it’s important to note that work requirements poll very popularly among the American people. A majority of Americans here “work requirements” and say, Gee, that sounds like a commonsense solution. What the reality that we’ve talked about in this podcast many, many times is, that it ends up kicking off people for bureaucratic reasons. It’s a way to reduce the rolls. It doesn’t necessarily encourage work. 

But to the average bear, it sounds great. Yes, absolutely. Why wouldn’t we want more people working? So I do think there is some messaging there, but at the end of the day, like Alice said, like I pointed out, they have not figured out the messaging enough, and it is going to add insult to injury to imply to some of these folks that they did not deserve their health care. 

Ollstein: And what’s really baffling is they are running around saying that Medicaid is going to people who should never have been on the program in the first place, able-bodied people without children who are not too young and not too old, sort of implying that these people are enrolling against the wishes of the program’s creators. 

But Congress explicitly voted for these people to be eligible for the program. And then after the Supreme Court made it optional, all of these states, most states, voted either by a direct popular vote or through the legislature to extend Medicaid to this population. And now they’re turning around and saying they were never supposed to be on it in the first place. We didn’t get here by accident or fraud. 

Rovner: Or by executive order. 

Ollstein: Exactly. 

Rovner: Well, even before the Senate digs in, there’s still a lot of stuff that got packed into that House bill, some of it at the last minute that most people still aren’t aware of. And I’m not talking about [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor Greene and AI, although that, too, among other things. And shout out here to our podcast panelist Maya Goldman over at Axios. The bill would reduce the amount of money medical students could borrow, threatening the ability of people to train to become doctors, even while the nation is already suffering a doctor shortage. 

It would also make it harder for medical residents to pay their loans back and do a variety of other things. The idea behind this is apparently to force medical schools to lower their tuition, which would be nice, but this feels like a very indirect way of doing it. 

Weber: I just don’t think it’s very popular in an era in which we’re constantly talking about physician shortages and encouraging folks that are from minority communities or underserved communities to become primary care physicians or infectious disease physicians, to go to the communities that need them, that reflect them, to then say, Look, we’re going to cut your loans. And what that’s going to do — short of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.], who has toyed with playing with the code. So who knows? We could see. 

But as the current structure stands, here’s the deal: You have a lot of medical debt. You are incentivized to go into a more lucrative specialty. That means that you’re not going into primary care. You’re not going into infectious disease care. You’re not going to rural America, because they can’t pay you what it costs to repay all of your loans. So, I do think — and, it was interesting. I think the Guardian spoke to some of the folks from the study that said that this could change it. That study was based off of metrics from 2006, and for some reason they were like, The financial private pay loans are not really going to cut it today. 

I find it hard to believe this won’t get fixed, to be quite honest, just because I think hating on medical students is usually a losing battle in the current system. But who knows? 

Rovner: And hospitals have a lot of clout. 

Weber: Yeah. 

Rovner: Although there’s a lot of things in this bill that they would like to fix. And, I don’t know. Maybe— 

Weber: Well, and hospitals have a lot of financial incentive, because essentially they make medical residents indentured servants. So, yeah, they also would like them to have less loans. 

Rovner: As I mentioned earlier, Elon Musk has decamped from DOGE, but in his wake is a lot of disruption at the Department of Health and Human Services and not necessarily a lot of savings. Thousands of federal workers are still in limbo on administrative leave, to possibly be reinstated or possibly not, with no one doing their jobs in the meantime. Those who are still there are finding their hands tied by a raft of new rules, including the need to get a political-appointee sign-off for even the most routine tasks. 

And around the country, thousands of scientific grants and contracts have been summarily frozen or terminated for no stated cause, as the administration seeks to punish universities for a raft of supposed crimes that have nothing to do with what’s being studied. I know that it just happened, but how is DOGE going to be remembered? I imagine not for all of the efficiencies that it has wrung out of the health care system. 

Ollstein: Well, one, I wouldn’t be so sure things are over, either between Elon and the Trump administration or what the amorphous blob that is DOGE. I think that the overall slash-and-burn of government is going to continue in some form. They are trying to formalize it by sending a bill to Congress to make these cuts, that they already made without Congress’ permission, official. We’ll see where that goes, but I think that it’s not an ending. It’s just morphing into whatever its next iteration is. 

Rovner: I would note that the first rescission request that the administration has sent up formally includes getting rid of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] and PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] and public broadcasting, which seems unlikely to garner a majority in both houses. 

Ollstein: Except, like I said, this is asking them to rubber-stamp something they’re already trying to do without them. Congress doesn’t like its power being infringed on, especially appropriators. They guard that power very jealously. Now, we have seen them a little quieter in this administration than maybe you would’ve thought, but I think there are some who, even if they agree on the substance of the cuts, might object to the process and just being asked to rubber-stamp it after the fact. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy continues to try to remake what’s left of HHS, although his big reorganization is currently blocked by a federal judge. And it turns out that his big MAHA, “Make America Healthy Again,” report may have been at least in part written by AI, which apparently became obvious when the folks at the news service NOTUS decided to do something that was never on my reporting bingo card, which is to check the footnotes in the report to see if they were real, which apparently many are not. Then, Lauren, you and your colleagues took that yet another step. So tell us about that. 

Weber: Yeah. NOTUS did a great job. They went through all the footnotes to find out that several of the studies didn’t exist, and my colleagues and I saw that and said, Hm, let’s look a little closer at these footnotes and see. And what we were able to do in speaking with AI experts is find telltale signs of AI. It’s basically a sign of artificial intelligence when things are hallucinated — which is what they call it — which is when it sounds right but isn’t completely factual, which is one of the dangers of using AI. 

And it appears that some of AI was used in the footnotes of this MAHA report, again, to, as NOTUS pointed out, create studies that don’t exist. It also kind of garbled some of the science on the other pieces of this. We found something called “oaicite,” which is a marker of OpenAI system, throughout the report. And at the end of the day, it casts a lot of questions on the report as a whole and: How exactly did it get made? What is the science behind this report? 

And even before anyone found any of these footnotes of any of this, a fair amount of these studies that this report cites to back up its thesis are a stretch. Even putting aside the fake studies and the garbled studies, I think it’s important to also note that a lot of the studies the report cites, a lot of what Kennedy does, take it a lot further than what they actually say. 

Rovner: So, this is all going well. Meanwhile, there is continuing confusion in vaccine land after Secretary Kennedy, flanked by FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Commissioner Marty Makary and NIH [National Institutes of Health] Director Jay Bhattacharya, announced in a video on X that the department would no longer recommend covid vaccines for pregnant women and healthy children, sidestepping the expert advice of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and its advisory committee of experts. 

The HHS officials say people who may still be at risk can discuss whether to get the vaccine with their doctors, but if the vaccines are no longer on the recommended list, then insurance is less likely to cover them and medical facilities are less likely to stock them. Paging Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, who still, as far as I can tell, hasn’t said anything about the secretary’s violation of his promise to the senator during his confirmation hearings that he wouldn’t mess with the vaccine schedule. Have we heard a peep from Sen. Cassidy about any of this? 

Ollstein: I have not, but a lot of the medical field has been very vocal and very upset. I was actually at the annual conference of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists when this news broke, and they were just so confused and so upset. They had seen pregnant patients die of covid before the vaccines were available, or because there was so much misinformation and mistrust about the vaccines’ safety for pregnant people that a lot of people avoided it, and really suffered the consequences of avoiding it. 

A lot of the issue was that there were not good studies of the vaccine in pregnant people at the beginning of the rollout. There have since been, and those studies have since shown that it is safe and effective for pregnant people. But it was, in a lot of people’s minds, too late, because they already got it in their head that it was unsafe or untested. So the OB-GYNs at this conference were really, really worried about this. 

Rovner: And, confusingly, the CDC on its website amended its recommendations to leave children recommended but not pregnant women, which is kind of the opposite of, I think, what most of the medical experts were recommending. Jessie, you were about to add something. 

Hellmann: I just feel like the confusion is the point. I think Kennedy has made it a pattern now to get out ahead of an official agency decision and kind of set the narrative, even if it is completely opposite of what his agencies are recommending or are stating. He’s done this with a report that the CDC came out with autism, when he said rising autism cases aren’t because of more recognition and the CDC report said it’s a large part because of more recognition. 

He’s done this with food dyes. He said, We’re banning food dyes. And then it turns out they just asked manufacturers to stop putting food dyes into it. So I think it’s part of, he’s this figurehead of the agency and he likes to get out in front of it and just state something as fact, and that is what people are going to remember, not something on a CDC webpage that most people aren’t going to be able to find. 

Rovner: Yeah, it sounds like President Trump. It’s like, saying it is more important than doing it, in a lot of cases. So of course there’s abortion news this week, too. The Trump administration on Tuesday reversed the Biden administration guidance regarding EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Biden officials, in the wake of the overturn of Roe v. Wade three years ago, had reminded hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid, which is all of them, basically, that the requirement to provide emergency care includes abortion when warranted, regardless of state bans. Now, Alice, this wasn’t really unexpected. In fact, it’s happening later than I think a lot of people expected it to happen. How much impact is it going to have, beyond a giant barrage of press releases from both sides in the abortion debate? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so, OK, it’s important for people to remember that what the Biden administration, the guidance they put out was just sort of an interpretation of the underlying law. So the underlying law isn’t changing. The Biden administration was just saying: We are stressing that the underlying law means in the abortion context, in the post-Dobbs context, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, that hospitals cannot turn away a pregnant woman who’s having a medical crisis. And if the necessary treatment to save her life or stabilize her is an abortion, then that’s what they have to do, regardless of the laws in the state. 

In a sense, nothing’s changed, because EMTALA itself is still in place, but it does send a signal that could make hospitals feel more comfortable turning people away or denying treatment, since the government is signaling that they don’t consider that a violation. Now, I will say, you’re totally right that this was expected. In the big lawsuit over this that is playing out now in Idaho, one of the state’s hospitals intervened as a plaintiff, basically in anticipation of this happening, saying, The Trump administration might not defend EMTALA in the abortion context, so we’re going to do it for them, basically, to keep this case alive. 

Rovner: And I would point out that ProPublica just won a Pulitzer for its series detailing the women who were turned away and then died because they were having pregnancy complications. So we do know that this is happening. Interestingly, the day before the administration’s announcement, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists put out a new, quote, “practice advisory” on the treatment of preterm pre-labor rupture of membranes, which is one of the more common late-pregnancy complications that result in abortion, because of the risk of infection to the pregnant person. 

Reading from that guidance, quote, “the Practice Advisory affirms that ob-gyns and other clinicians must be able to intervene and, in cases of previable and periviable PPROM” — that’s the premature rupture of membranes — “provide abortion care before the patient becomes critically ill.” Meanwhile, this statement came out Wednesday from the American College of Emergency Physicians, quote, ,“Regardless of variances in the regulatory landscape from one administration to another, emergency physicians remain committed not just by law, but by their professional oath, to provide this care.” 

So on the one hand, professional organizations are speaking out more strongly than I think we’ve seen them do it before, but they’re not the ones that are in the emergency room facing potential jail time for, Do I obey the federal law or do I obey the state ban? 

Ollstein: And when I talk to doctors who are grappling with this, they say that even with the Biden administration’s interpretation of EMTALA, that didn’t solve the problem for them. It was some measure of protection and confidence. But still, exactly like you said, they’re still caught in between seemingly conflicting state and federal law. And really a lot of them, based on what they told me, were saying that the threat of the state law is more severe. It’s more immediate. 

It means being charged with a felony, being charged with a crime if they do provide the abortion, versus it’s a federal penalty, it’s not on the doctor itself. It’s on the institution. And it may or may not happen at some point. So when you have criminal charges on one side and maybe some federal regulation or an investigation on the other side, what are you going to choose? 

Rovner: And it’s hard to imagine this administration doing a lot of these investigations. They seem to be turning to other things. Well, we will watch this space, and obviously this is all still playing out in court. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we could squeeze in. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Arielle Zionts, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Arielle Zionts, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Arielle, welcome back. 

Arielle Zionts: Hi. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient has Medicaid as his health insurance, and he left his home state of Florida to visit family in South Dakota for the holidays, where he had a medical emergency. Tell us who he is and what happened that landed him in the hospital. 

Zionts: Sure. So I spoke with Hans Wirt. He was visiting family in the Black Hills. That’s where Mount Rushmore is and its beautiful outdoors. He was at a water park, following his son up and down the stairs and getting kind of winded. And at first he thought it might just be the elevation difference, because in Florida it’s like 33 feet above sea level. Here it’s above 3,000 in Rapid City. 

But then they got him back to the hotel room and he was getting a lot worse, his breathing, and then he turned pale. And his 12-year-old son is the one who called 911. And medics were like, Yep, you’re having a heart attack. And they took him to the hospital in town, and that is the only place to go. There’s just one hospital with an ER in Rapid City. 

Rovner: So the good news is that he was ultimately OK, but the bad news is that the hospital tried to stick them with the bill. How big was it? 

Zionts: It was nearly $78,000. 

Rovner: Wow. So let’s back up a bit. How did Mr. Wirt come to be on Medicaid? 

Zionts: Yeah. So it is significant that he is from Florida, because that is one of the 10 states that has not opted in to expand Medicaid. So in Florida, if you’re an adult, you can’t just be low-income. You have to also be disabled or caring for a minor child. And Hans says that’s his case. He works part time at a family business, but he also cares for his 12-year-old son, who is also on Medicaid. 

Rovner: So Medicaid patients, as we know, are not supposed to be charged even small copays for care in most cases. Is that still the case when they get care in other states? 

Zionts: So Medicaid will not pay for patient care if they are getting more of an elective or non-medically necessary kind of optional procedure or care in another state. But there are several exceptions, and one of the exceptions is if they have an emergency in another state. So federal law says that state Medicaid programs have to reimburse those hospitals if it was for emergency care. 

Rovner: And presumably a heart attack is an emergency. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: So why did the hospital try to bill him anyway? They should have billed Florida Medicaid, right? 

Zionts: So what’s interesting is while there’s a law that says the Medicaid program has to reimburse the hospital, there’s no law saying the hospital has to send the bill to Medicaid. And that was really interesting to learn. In this case, the hospital, it’s called Monument Health, and they said they only bill plans in South Dakota and four of our bordering states. So basically they said for them to bill for the Medicaid, they would have to enroll. 

And they say they don’t do that in every state, because there is a separate application process for each state. And their spokesperson described it as a burdensome process. So in this case, they billed Hans instead. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? He presumably didn’t have $78,000 to spare. 

Zionts: Correct. Yeah. And he had told them that, and he said they only offered, Hey, you can set up a payment plan. But that would’ve still been really expensive, the monthly payments. So he reached out to KFF Health News, and I had sent my questions to the hospital, and then a few days later I get a text from Hans and he says, Hey, my balance is at zero now. He and I both eventually learned that that’s because the hospital paid for his care through a program called Charity Care. 

All nonprofit hospitals are required to have this program, which provides free or very discounted pricing for patients who are uninsured or very underinsured. And the hospital said that they screen everyone for this program before sending them to collections. But what that meant is that for months, Hans was under the impression that he was getting this bill. And he was, got a notice saying, This is your last warning before we send you to collection. 

Rovner: So, maybe they would’ve done it anyway, or maybe you gave them a nudge. 

Zionts: They say they would’ve done it anyways. 

Rovner: OK. So what’s the takeaway here? It can’t be that if you have Medicaid, you can’t travel to another state to visit family at Christmas. 

Zionts: Right. So Hans made that same joke. He said, quote, “If I get sick and have a heart attack, I have to be sure that I do that here in Florida now instead of some other state.” Obviously, he’s kidding. You can’t control when you have an emergency. So the takeaway is that you do risk being billed and that if you don’t know how to advocate yourself, you might get sent to collections. But I also learned that there’s things that you can do. 

So you could file a complaint with your state Medicaid program, and also, if you have a managed-care program, and they might have — you should ask for a caseworker, like, Hey, can you communicate with the hospital? Or you can contact an attorney. There’s free legal-aid ones. An attorney I spoke with said that she would’ve immediately sent a letter to the hospital saying, Look, you need to either register with Florida Medicaid and submit it. If not, you need to offer the Charity Care. So that’s the advice. 

Rovner: So, basically, be ready to advocate for yourself. 

Zionts: Yes. 

Rovner: OK. Arielle Zionts, thank you so much. 

Zionts: Thank you. 

Rovner: OK. We’re back, and it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Jessie, why don’t you go first this week? 

Hellmann: My story is from The New York Times. It’s called “A [DNA] Technique Is Finding Women Who Left Their Babies for Dead,” which I don’t know how I feel about that headline, but the story was really interesting. It’s about how police departments are using DNA technology to find the mothers of infants that had been found dead years and years ago. And it gets a little bit into just the complicated situation. 

Some of these women have gone on to have families. They have successful careers. And now some of them are being charged with murder, and some who have been approached about this have unfortunately died by suicide. And it just gets into the ethics of the issue and what police and doctors, families, should be considering about the context around some of these situations, about what the circumstances were, in some cases, 40 years ago and what should be done with that. 

Rovner: Really thought-provoking story. Lauren. 

Weber: With credit to Julie, too, because she brought this up again, was brought back to a classic from The New York Times back in 2020, which is called “Take a Quiz: Could You Manage as a Poor American?” And here are the questions: I will read them for the group. 

Rovner: And I will point out that this is once again relevant. That’s why it was brought back. 

Weber: It’s once again relevant, and one of them is, “Do you have paper mail you plan to read that has been unopened for more than a week?” Yes. I’m looking at paper mail on my desk. “Have you forgotten to pay a utility bill on time?” If I didn’t set up auto pay, I probably would forget to pay a utility bill on time. “Have you received a government document in the mail that you did not understand?” Many times. “Have you missed a doctor’s appointment because you forgot you scheduled it or something came up?” 

These are the basic facts that can derail someone from having access to health care or saddle them, because they lose access to health care and don’t realize it, with massive hospital bills. And this is a lot of what we could see in the coming months if some of these Medicaid changes come through. And I just, I think I would challenge a lot of people to think seriously about how much mail they leave unopened and what that could mean for them, especially if you are living in different homes, if you are moving frequently, etc. This paperwork burden is something to definitely be considered. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think we should sort of refloat this every time we have another one of these debates. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I wanted to recommend something I wrote [“‘They’re the Backbone’: Trump’s Targeting of Legal Immigrants Threatens Health Sector”]. It was my last story before taking some time off this summer. It is about the intersection of Trump’s immigration policies and our health care system. And so this is jumping off the Supreme Court allowing the Trump administration to strip legal status from hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Again, these are people who came legally through a designated program, and they are being made undocumented by the Trump administration, with the Supreme Court’s blessing. And tens of thousands of them are health care workers. 

And so I visited an elder care facility in Northern Virginia that was set to lose 65 staff members, and I talked to the residents and the other workers about how this would affect them, and the owner. And it was just a microcosm of the damage this could have on our health sector more broadly. Elder care is especially immigrant-heavy in its workforce, and everyone there was saying there just are not the people to replace these folks. 

And not only is that the case right now, but as the baby boomer generation ages and requires care, the shortages we see now are going to be nothing compared to what we could see down the road. With the lower birth rates here, we’re just not producing enough workers to do these jobs. The piece also looks into how public health and management of infectious diseases is also being worsened by these immigration raids and crackdowns and deportations. So, would love people to take a look. 

Rovner: I’m so glad you did this story, because it’s something that I keep running up and down screaming. And you can tell us why you’re taking some time off this summer, Alice. 

Ollstein: I’m writing a book. Hopefully it will be out next year, and I can’t wait to tell everyone more about it. 

Rovner: Excellent. All right. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Jazmin Orozco Rodriguez, and Arielle Zionts, who you just heard talking about her “Bill of the Month,” and it’s called “Native Americans Hurt by Federal Health Cuts, Despite RFK Jr.’s Promises of Protection.” And that sums it up pretty well. The HHS secretary had a splashy photo op earlier this year out west, where he promised to prioritize Native American health. But while he did spare the Indian Health Service from personnel cuts, it turns out that the Native American population is also served by dozens of other HHS programs that were cut, some of them dramatically, everything from home energy assistance to programs that improve access to healthy food, to preventing overdoses. The Native community has been disproportionately hurt by the purging of DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, because Native populations have systematically been subjected to unequal treatment over many generations. It’s a really good if somewhat infuriating story. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Before we go, if you will indulge me for a minute, this is our 400th episode of “What the Health?” We launched in 2017 during that year’s repeal-and-replace debate. I want to thank all of my panelists, current and former, for teaching me something new every single week. And everyone here at KFF Health News who makes this podcast possible. That includes not only my chief partners in crime, Francis Ying and Emmarie Huetteman, but also the copy desk and social media and web teams who do all the behind-the-scenes work that brings our podcast to you every week. And of course, big thanks to you, the listeners, who have stuck with us all these years. 

I won’t promise you 400 more episodes, but I will keep doing this as long as you keep wanting it. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Jessie? 

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and LinkedIn. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m @LaurenWeberHP on X and on Bluesky, shockingly, now. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Bluesky and @AliceOllstein on X. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
• Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old. 
• People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
• The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
• This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies. 
• HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
• The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
• The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, who has a new book out on the history and possible future of the “personhood” movement. But first, this week’s news. 

So, against all odds and many predictions, including my own, the House around 7 a.m. Thursday morning, after being in session all night, passed President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — that is its actual, official name — by a vote of 215-214, with one Republican voting present. Before we get into the details of the House-passed bill, what are the prospects for this budget reconciliation bill in this form in the Senate? Very different, I would think. 

Ollstein: Yeah, this is not going to come out the way it went in. Senate is already openly talking about a “‘One, Big Beautiful’ Rewrite” — that was the headline at Politico. 

And you’re going to see some of the same dynamics. You’re going to see hard-liners saying this doesn’t go far enough, this actually adds a lot to the deficit even with all of the deep cuts to government programs. And you’re going to have moderates who have a lot of people in their state who depend on Medicaid and other programs that are set to be cut who say this goes too far. And so you’re going to have that same push and pull. And the House, barely, by one vote, got this through. And so we’ll see if the Senate is able to do the same. 

Rovner: Yeah, so all eyes on [Sen.] John McCain in 2017. This year it could be all eyes on Josh Hawley, I suspect, the very conservative senator from Missouri who keeps saying “Don’t touch Medicaid.” 

But back to the House bill. We don’t have official scores yet from the Congressional Budget Office, and we won’t for a while, I suspect. But given some last-minute changes made to pacify conservatives who, as Alice pointed out, said this bill didn’t cut deeply enough, I think it’s clear that if it became law in this form, it would represent the biggest cuts to federal health programs in the 60-year history of Medicare and Medicaid. 

Those last-minute changes also took pretty square aim at the Affordable Care Act, too, so much that I think it’s safe to call this even more than a partial repeal of the health law. And Medicare does not go unscathed in this measure, either, despite repeated promises by President Trump on the campaign trail and since he took office. 

Let’s take these one at a time, starting with Medicaid. I would note that at a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, President Trump told them not to expletive around with Medicaid. You can go look up the exact quote yourself if you like. But apparently he’s OK with the $700 billion plus that would be cut in the bill, which Republicans say is just waste, fraud, and abuse. Where does that money come from? And would Medicaid really continue to cover everyone who’s eligible now, which is kind of what the president and moderate Republicans are promising? 

Edney: Well, it sounds like the bulk of it is coming from the work requirements that Alice mentioned earlier. And would it be able to cover them? Sure, but will it? No, in the sense that, as Alice has talked about often on this podcast, it’s basically a time tax. It’s not easy to comply with. All federal regulations, they’re not going to a website and putting in what you did for work. Particularly, if you are a freelancer or something, it can be really difficult to meet all the requirements that they’re looking for. And also, for some people, they just don’t have the ability, even the internet, to be able to do that reliably. So they’re going to save money because people are going to lose their health care. 

Rovner: I saw a lot of people referring to them this week not as work requirements anymore but as work reporting requirements. Somebody suggested it was like the equivalent of having to file your income taxes every month. It’s not just check a box and say, I worked this month. It’s producing documentation. And a lot of people have jobs that are inconsistent. They may work some hours some week and other hours the other week. And even people who work for small businesses, that would put an enormous burden on the employers to come up with all this. 

Obviously, the CBO thinks that a lot of people won’t be able to do this and therefore people are going to lose their health insurance. But Alice, as you have told us numerous times when we did this in Arkansas, it’s not that people aren’t working — it’s that people aren’t successfully reporting their work. 

Ollstein: Right. And we’ve seen this in Georgia, too, where this has been implemented, where there are many different ways that people who are working lose their insurance with this. People who don’t have good internet access struggle. People who have fluctuating work schedules, whether it’s agricultural work, tourism work, things that are more seasonal, they can’t comply with this strict monthly requirement. 

So there are numerous reports from the ground of people who should be eligible losing their coverage. And I’ll note that one of the last-minute changes the House made was moving up the start date of the requirements. And I’m hearing a lot of state officials and advocates warn that that gives states less time to set up a system where people won’t fall through the cracks. And so the predicted larger savings is in part because they imagine more people will be kicked off the program. 

Rovner: It’s also the most stringent work requirement we’ve seen. It would cover people from age 19 through age 64, like right up until you’re eligible for Medicare. And if you lose Medicaid because you fail to meet these reporting requirements, you’re no longer eligible for a subsidy to buy insurance in the ACA exchange. Is there a policy point to this? Or are they just trying to get the most people off the program so they can get the most savings? 

Edney: If you ask Republicans, they would tell you: We’re going to get people back working. We’re going to give them the pride of working — as if people don’t want that on their own. But the actual outcome is not that people end up working more. And there are cases even where they lose their health insurance and can’t work a job they already had. On the surface, and this is why it’s such a popular program, because it seems like it would get more people working. Even a large swath of Democrats support the idea when they just hear the name — of voters. But the actual outcome, that doesn’t happen. People aren’t in Medicaid because they aren’t working. 

Rovner: Right. And I get to say for the millionth time, nobody is sitting on their couch living on their Medicaid coverage. 

Edney: Right, right. 

Rovner: There’s no money that comes with Medicaid. It’s just health insurance. The health providers get paid for Medicaid and occasionally the managed-care companies. But there’s no check to the beneficiary, so there’s no way to live on your Medicaid. 

As Alice points out, most of the people who are working and have Medicaid are working at jobs, obviously, that don’t offer employer health insurance. So having, in many cases, as you say, Anna, having Medicaid is what enables you to work. 

All right, well, our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff have an excellent Medicaid story out this week on a new study that looks very broadly at Medicaid and finds that it actually does improve the health of its beneficiaries. Now this seems logical, but that has been quite a talking point for Republicans for many years, that we spend all this money and it doesn’t produce better health, because we’ve had a lot of studies that have been kind of neither here nor there on this. 

Do we finally have proof that Democrats need? Because I have heard, over many years — there was a big Oregon study in 2011 that found that it helped people financially and that it helped their mental health, but there was not a lot of physical health benefit that they saw. Of course, it was a brief. It was like two years. And it takes a longer time to figure out the importance of health insurance. But I’m wondering if maybe the Democrats will finally be able to put down that talking point. I didn’t hear it, actually, as much this week as I have in years past: Why are we spending all this money on Medicaid when we don’t know whether it’s producing better health? 

Karlin-Smith: One of the interesting things I thought about this study and sort of the timing of it, post-Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and more younger people being covered, is that it seems to really show that, not only does this study show it saves lives, but it’s really helping these younger populations. 

And I think there are some theories as to why it might have been harder to show the economic cost-effectiveness benefits people were looking for before, when you had Medicaid covering populations that were already either severely ill or older. Which doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, right? To provide health coverage to somebody who’s 75 or 80, but unfortunately we have not found the everlasting secret to life yet. 

So, but I think for economists who want to be able to show this sort of, as they show in this paper, this “quality-adjusted life year” benefit, this provides some really good evidence of what that expansion of Medicaid — which is a lot of what’s being rolled back, potentially, under the reconciliation process — did, which is, helps younger people be healthier and thus, right, hopefully, ideally, live a higher quality of life, and where you need less health coverage over time, and cost the government less. 

It’s quite interesting, for people who want to go look at the graph The New York Times put in their story, of just where Medicaid fits, in terms of other sort of interventions we spend a lot of money on to help save lives. Because I was kind of surprised, given how much health insurance does cover, that it comes out on sort of the lower end, as being a pretty good bargain. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we don’t have time to get into everything that’s in this bill, and there is a lot. It also includes a full ban of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. And it cuts reimbursement to states that use their own funds to provide coverage to undocumented people. Is this a twofer for Republicans, saving money while fighting the culture wars? 

Edney: Certainly. And I was surprised to see some very liberal states on the immigration front saying: We just have to deal with this. And this really sucks, but we have to balance our budget. And if we’re not going to get those tax dollars, then we aren’t going to be able to offer health insurance to people who are undocumented, or Medicaid to people who are undocumented. 

Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably. 

Edney: Yeah, California for sure. And they found a way to do it, hit them in the pocketbook, and that that’s a way for them to win the culture war, for sure. 

Rovner: Alice, you’ve spent a lot of time looking at gender-affirming care. Were you surprised to see it banned for adults, too? Obviously the gender-affirming care for minors has been a continuing issue for a while. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I would say not surprised, because this is sort of a common pattern that we see across different things, including in the abortion space, where first policies are targeted just at minors. That often is more politically palatable. And then it gets expanded to the general population. And so I think, given the wave of state bans on care for minors that we’ve seen, I think a lot of people had been projecting that this was the trajectory. 

I think that there’s been some really good reporting from The 19th and other outlets about what an impact this would have. Trans people are disproportionately low-income and dependent on Medicaid, and so this would have really sweeping impacts on a lot of people. 

Rovner: Well, turning to the Affordable Care Act, if you thought Republicans weren’t going to try to repeal the health law this time around, you thought wrong. There are a bucket of provisions in this bill that will make the Affordable Care Act coverage both more expensive and harder to get, so much that some analysts think it could reduce enrollment by as much as half of the 24 million people who have it now. Hasn’t someone told Republicans that many of these people are their voters? 

Edney: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know what the Republican strategists are telling them. But certainly they needed to save money. And so they found their loopholes and their different things that they thought they could scrape from. And maybe no one will notice? But I don’t think that’s going to happen. 

A lot of people suddenly have much higher ACA premiums because of the way they’re going to take away this ability that the insurers have had to silver-load, essentially, the way that they deal with the premium tax credits by setting some of the savings, kind of the cost sharing that they need to do, right into the silver plan, because the silver plan is where the premiums are set off of. And so they were able to offer the plans with lower premiums, essentially, but still get paid for cost-sharing reductions. So they were able to still get that money taken away from them. 

Rovner: So let me see if I can do it. It was, and this was something that Trump tried to do in 2017, that he thought was going to hurt the marketplace plans. And it ended up doing the opposite— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —because it basically shifted money from the insurance companies and the beneficiaries back to the federal government, because it made the premium subsidies bigger. 

So I think the point I want to make is that we’ve been talking all year about these extra subsidies that are going to expire, and that will make premiums go up, and the Republicans did not move to extend those subsidies. But this going back to the government paying these cost-sharing reduction payments is going to basically reverse the accidental lowering of premiums that Trump did in 2017. And therefore, raise them again. 

So now we have a double whammy. We have premiums going up because the extra subsidies expire, and then we’ll have premiums going up even more because they’re going back to this original cost-sharing reduction. And yet, as we have said many times, a lot of these additional people who are now on the Affordable Care Act are people in the very red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. These are Republican voters. 

Karlin-Smith: We haven’t talked a lot about the process of how they got this bill through this week. It was incredibly fast and done literally in the dead of night. 

Ollstein: Multiple nights. 

Karlin-Smith: So you have to wonder, particularly, if you think back to the last time Republicans tried to overturn Obamacare — and they did come pretty close — eventually, I think, that unpalatableness of taking away health care from so many of their own constituents came back to really hurt them. And you do have to wonder if the jamming was in part to make more people unaware of what was happening. You’d still think there’d be political repercussions later down the line when they realize it. But I think, especially, again, just thinking back on all the years when Republicans were saying Democrats were pushing the ACA through too fast and nobody could read the bill, or their CBO scores. This was a much, much faster version of that, with a lot less debate and public transparency and so forth. 

Rovner: Yeah, they went to the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday, so Tuesday night. The Rules Committee went until almost 9 o’clock the next evening, just consecutively. And shout out to Rules Committee chairman Virginia Foxx, who sat there for, I think, the entire time. And then they went straight from rules to the floor. 

So it’s now Wednesday night at 10 o’clock at night, and then went all the way through and voted, I think, just before 7 a.m. I’ve done a lot of all-nighters in the Capitol. I haven’t seen one that was two nights in a row like this. And I have great admiration for the people who really were up for 48 hours to push this thing through. 

Well, finally, let’s remember President Trump’s vow not to touch Medicare. Well, Medicare gets touched in this bill, too. In addition to restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants who are able to get coverage now, and making it harder for some low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get extra financial help, mostly through Medicaid, the bill as a whole is also likely to trigger a 4% Medicare sequester. Because, even all those other health cuts and food stamp cuts and other cuts don’t pay for all the huge tax breaks in the bill. Alice, you pointed that out. Is there any suggestion that this part might give people some pause, maybe when it gets to the Senate? 

Edney: I’ve heard the Senate mostly seem upset about Medicaid. And I also feel like this idea that sequestration is coming back up into our consciousness is a little bit new. Like you said, it was pushed through and it was like, Oh, wait, this is enough to trigger sequestration. I think it certainly could become a talking point, because Trump said he would not cut Medicare. I don’t think, if senators are worried about Medicaid — and I think maybe some of us were a little surprised that that is coming from some red-state senators. Medicare is a whole different thing, and in the sense of being even more wildly popular with a lot of members of Congress. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this whole thing hasn’t, you’re right, sort of seeped into the general consciousness yet. Alice, did you want to say something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so a couple things, a couple patterns we’ve seen. So one, there are a lot of lawmakers on the right who have been discrediting the CBO, even in advance of estimates coming out, basically disparaging their methodology and trying to convince the public that it’s not accurate. And so I think that’s both around the deficit projections as well as how many people would be uninsured under different policies. So that’s been one reaction to this. 

We’ve seen a pattern over many administrations where certain politicians are very concerned about things adding to the deficit when the opposition party is in power. And suddenly those concerns evaporate when their own party is in power and they don’t mind running up the deficit if it’s to advance policies that they want to advance. And so I think, yes, this could bother some fiscal hawks, and we saw that in the House, but I think, also, these other factors are at play. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this has a long way to go. There’s still a lot that people, I think you’re right, have not quite realized is in there. And we will get to more of it in coming weeks, because this has a long process in the Senate. 

All right, well, segueing to abortion, the One Big Beautiful Bill also includes a couple of pretty significant abortion provisions. One would effectively ban abortion and marketplace plans for people with lower incomes. Affordable Care Act plans are not currently a big source of insurance coverage for abortion. Many states already ban abortion from coverage in these plans. But this would disrupt one of the big compromises that ultimately got the ACA passed in 2010. 

The other provision would evict Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, even though federal Medicaid funds don’t and never have been used for abortions. Many, many Medicaid patients use Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, including contraception and cancer screenings, and that is covered by Medicaid. 

But while I see lots of anti-abortion groups taking victory laps over this, when the House passed a similar provision in 2017 as part of its repeal bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not go in a budget reconciliation bill, because its purpose was not, quote, “primarily budgetary.” So is this all for show? Or is there a belief that something different might happen this time? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there is more interest in ignoring or overruling the parliamentarian among Senate Republicans than there has been in the past. We’re seeing that now on an unrelated environmental issue. And so that could signal that they’re willing to do it more in the future. Of course, things like that cut both ways, and that raises the idea that the Democrats could also do that the next time they’re in power. 

Rovner: And we should say, that if you overrule the parliamentarian in reconciliation — it’s a she right now — when she says it can’t go in reconciliation, that is equivalent to getting rid of the filibuster. 

Ollstein: Correct. 

Rovner: So I mean, that’s why both parties say, We want to keep the filibuster. But the moment you say, Hey, parliamentarian, we disagree with you and we’re just going to ignore that, that has ramifications way beyond budget reconciliation legislation. 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so that’s been a line that a lot of senators have not been willing to cross, but I think you’re seeing more willingness than before. So that’s definitely something to watch on that. But I think, in terms of abortion, I think this is a real expansion of trends that were already underway, in ever-expanding the concept of what federal dollars going to abortion means. And it’s now in this very indirect way, where it’s reaching into the private insurance market, and it’s using federal funding as a cudgel to prevent groups like Planned Parenthood, and then also these private plans, from using other non-federal money to support abortions. And so it’s a real expansion beyond just you can’t use federal money to pay directly for abortions. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, two other reproductive-associated health stories worth mentioning. In California, a fertility clinic got bombed. The bomber apparently died in the explosion, but this is the first time I can remember a purposeful bombing to a health center that was not an abortion clinic. How significant is it to the debate, that we’re now seeing fertility clinics bombed as well? And what do we know, if anything, about why the bomber went after a fertility clinic? 

Karlin-Smith: There has been, obviously, some pressure on the right, I think, to go after fertility processes, and IVF [in vitro fertilization], and lump that in with abortion. Although, I think Trump and others have pushed back a bit on that, realizing how common and popular some of these fertility treatments are. And also it conflicts, I think, to some extent with their desire to grow the American population. 

The motives of this particular person don’t seem aligned with, I guess, the anti-abortion movement. He sort of seems more anti-natalist movement and stuff. So from that perspective, I didn’t see it as being aligned with kind of a bigger, more common political debate we’ve had recently, which is, again, does the Republican Party want to expand the anti-abortion debate even further into fertility treatments and stuff. 

Rovner: I was going to say, it certainly has drawn fertility clinics into the abortion debate, even if neither side in the abortion debate would presumably have an interest in blowing up a fertility clinic. But it is now sort of, I guess, in the general consciousness of antisocial people, if you will, that’s out there. 

The other story in the news this week is about a woman named Adriana Smith, a nurse and mother from Georgia who was nine weeks pregnant in February when she was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency. Smith has been kept alive on life support ever since, not because her family wants that but because her medical team at Emory University Hospital is worried about running afoul of Georgia’s abortion ban, which prohibits terminations after cardiac activity can be detected. Even if the mother is clinically dead? I feel like this case could have really ominous repercussions at some point. 

Ollstein: Well, I just want to point out that, yes, the state’s abortion ban is playing a role here, but this was happening while Roe v. Wade was still in place. There were cases like this. Some of it has to do with legislation around advanced directives and pregnancy. So I will point out that this is not solely a post-Dobbs phenomenon. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think it also bears watching. Well, there was lots of vaccine news this week — I’m so glad we have Anna and Sarah here — with both the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declaring an end to recommending covid vaccines for what seems to be most of the population. Sarah, what did they do? And what does this mean? 

Karlin-Smith: So the new director of FDA’s biologics center and the FDA commissioner released a framework for approving covid shots moving forward. And basically they are saying that, because covid, the virus, shifts, and we want to try and update our vaccines at least yearly, usually, to keep up with the changing viruses, but we want to do that in a reasonable time so that by the time when you update the vaccine it’s actually available within that time — right? — FDA has allowed companies to do studies that don’t require full clinical trials anymore, because we sort of have already done those trials. We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We’re making minor tweaks to them, and they do immunogenicity studies, which are studies that basically show they mount the proper immune response. And then they approve them. 

FDA is now, seems to be, saying, We’re only going to allow those studies to approve new covid vaccine updates for people who are over 65, or under 65 and have health conditions, because they are saying, in their mind, the risk-benefit balance of offering these shots doesn’t necessarily pan out favorably for younger, healthier populations, and we should do clinical trials. 

It’s not entirely clear yet, despite them rolling out a framework, how this will actually play out. Can they relabel shots already approved? Will this only impact once companies do need to do a strain change next as the virus adapts? Did they go about doing this in a sort of legal manner? It came out through a journal kind of editorial commentary piece, not through the Federal Register or formal guidance. There’s been no notice of comment. 

So there’s a lot of questions to remain as to how this will be implemented, which products it would affect, and when. But there is a lot of concern that there may be reduced access to the products moving forward. 

Rovner: That’s because the vaccine makers aren’t going to — it’s not probably worth it financially to them — to remount all these studies. Right? 

Karlin-Smith: First off, a lot of people I’ve talked to, and this came up yesterday at a meeting FDA had, don’t believe it’s actually ethical to do some of the studies FDA is now calling for. Even though the benefits, particularly when you’re talking about boosting people who already had a primary vaccination series for covid, or some covid, is not the same as the benefits of getting an original covid vaccine series. 

There still are benefits, and there still are benefits for pretty much everybody that outweigh the risks. On average, these are extremely safe shots. We know a lot about their safety, and the balance is positive. So people are saying, once that exists, you cannot ethically test it on placebo. Even as [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary says, Well, so many Americans are declining to take the shot, so let’s test it and see. A lot of ethicists would say it’s actually, even if people are willing to do something that may not be ideal for their health, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical to test it in a trial. 

So, I think there’s questions about, just, ethics, but also, right, whether companies would want to invest the time and money it would take to achieve and try to do them under this situation. So that is a big elephant in the room here. And I think some people feel like this is just sort of a push by Makary and his new CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director, essentially, to cut off vaccine access in a little bit of a sneaky way. 

Rovner: Well, I did see, also this week, was I think it was Moderna, that was going to make a combination flu covid vaccine, has decided not to. I assume that’s related to all of this? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So Moderna had a, what people call a next-generation vaccine, which is supposed to be an improved update over the original shot, which is a bigger deal than just making a strain change. They actually think they provide a better response to protecting against the virus. And then they also added flu vaccine into it to sort of make it easier for people to get protected from both, and also provided solid data to show it would work well for flu. 

And they seem to have probably pulled their application at this point over, again, these new concerns, and what we know Novavax went through in trying to get their covid vaccine across the finish line dealing with this new administration. So I think people have their sort of alert lights up going forward as to how this administration is going to handle vaccine approvals and what that will mean for access going forward. 

Rovner: Well, in somewhat related news, we got the long-awaited report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which is supposed to lay out a blueprint for an action plan that will come later this summer. Not much in the 68-page report seems all that surprising. Some is fairly noncontroversial, calling for more study of ultra-processed foods and less screen time and more physical activity for kids. 

And some is controversial but at this point kind of predictable, calling for another look at the childhood vaccine schedule, including, as we just discussed, more placebo studies for vaccines, and also less fluoride available, except in toothpaste. Anything jump out at you guys from the report that we should keep an eye on? 

Karlin-Smith: I think one thing to think about is what it doesn’t address and doesn’t talk about. It’s not surprising the issues they call out for harming health in America, and some of them are debatable as to how much they do or don’t harm health, or whether their solutions would actually address those problems. 

But they never talk about the U.S.’ lack of a health insurance system that assures people have coverage. They don’t mention the Republican Party’s and likely president’s willingness to sign onto a major bill that’s going to impact health. They don’t really talk about the socioeconomic drivers that impact health, which I find particularly interesting when they talk about food, because, obviously, the U.S. has a lot of healthy and unhealthy food available. And a lot of people know sort of how they could make better choices, but there are these situational factors outside of, often, an individual’s control to lead to that. 

And I think the other thing that jumped out to me is, I think The Washington Post had a good line in their paragraph about just how many of the points are either overstated or misstated scientific findings. And they did a pretty good job of going through some of those. And it’s a difficult situation, I think, for the public to grapple with when you have leadership and the top echelons of our health department that is pushing so much misinformation, often very carefully, and having to weed out what is correct, where is the grains of truth, where does it go off into misinformation. 

I don’t know. I find it really hard as a journalist. And so I do worry about, again, how this all plays into public perception and misunderstanding of these topics. 

Rovner: And apparently they forgot about gun violence in all of this, which is rather notably not there. 

Ollstein: Cars and guns are the big killers. And yeah, no mention of that. 

Edney: I thought another glaring omission was tobacco. Kids are using e-cigarettes at high rates. We don’t really know much about them. And to Sarah’s point about misinformation, too, I think the hard part of being able to discern a lot of this, even as a member of the public, is everything they’ve done so far is only rhetoric. There hasn’t been actual regulation, or — this could be anything that you’re talking about. It could be food dyes. It could be “most favored nations.” We don’t know what they actually want to implement and what the potential for doing so — I think maybe on vaccines we’re seeing the most action. But as Sarah mentioned, we don’t know how that, whether it legally is going to be something that they can continue doing. 

So even with this report, it was highly anticipated, but I don’t think we got anything beyond what I probably heard Kennedy say over and over throughout the campaign and in his bid for health secretary. So I am wondering when they actually decide to move into the policymaking part of it, instead of just telling us they’re going to do something. 

Rovner: And interestingly, Secretary Kennedy was interviewed on CNN last night and walked back some of the timelines, even, including that vow that they were going to know the cause of autism by September and that they were going to have an action plan for this ready in another, I think, a hundred days. So this is going to be a hurry-up-and-wait. 

All right, well, that is as much news as we have time for in this incredibly busy week. Now we will play my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis. She’s also a historian of the abortion movement. And her newest book, just out, is called “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.” 

Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again. 

Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked about personhood a lot on our podcast, including with you, but it means different things to different people. What’s your working definition, at least for the purpose of this book? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I’m interested in this book in the legal fight for personhood, right? Some people have religious ideas of personhood. Bioethicists have ideas of personhood. Philosophers debate personhood. But I’m really interested in the legal claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, which gives us liberty and equality, applies the moment an egg is fertilized. Because it’s that legal claim that’s had a lot of knock-on effects with abortion, with IVF, and potentially even beyond. 

Rovner: So if we as a society were to accept that fetuses or embryos or zygotes were people with full constitutional rights at the moment of creation, that can impact things way beyond abortion, right? 

Ziegler: Definitely, yeah, especially if you make the moves that the anti-abortion movement, or the pro-life movement, in the United States has made, right? So one of the other things that’s probably worth saying is, if you believe the claim I laid out about fetal personhood, that doesn’t mean you necessarily think abortion should be criminalized or that IVF should be criminalized, either. 

But the people who are leading the anti-abortion movement do, in large part, right? So it would have ramifications in lots of other contexts, because there’s a conclusion not only that human life begins at fertilization and that constitutional rights begin at fertilization but that the way you honor those constitutional rights is primarily by restricting or criminalizing certain things that threaten that life, in the views of the people who advocate for it. 

Rovner: Right. And that includes IVF and forms of contraception. That’s where we sort of get to this idea that an abortion is murder or that, in this case, doing anything that harms even a zygote is murder. 

Ziegler: Yeah. And it gets us to the Adriana Smith case in Georgia, too. So there’s sort of end-of-life cases that emerge. So, it obviously would have a big impact on abortion. So it’s not wrong to think about abortion in this context. It’s just that would definitely not be the stopping point. 

Rovner: So, many people have only talked about personhood, really, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, but the concept is a lot older than that. I started covering personhood in like 2010, I think, when a couple of states were trying to vote on it. I didn’t realize until I read your book that it goes back well beyond even that. 

Ziegler: Yeah. So I think a lot of people had that conception. And in the 2010s, there were state constitutional amendment efforts to write the idea of fetal personhood into state constitutions. And they all failed. So I think the narrative coming out of that was that you had the anti-abortion movement on the one hand, and then you had this more extreme fetal personhood movement on the other hand. 

And that narrative fundamentally is wrong. There is no one in the anti-abortion movement who’s opposed to fetal personhood. There are disagreements about how and when it can be recognized. There’s strategic disagreements. There are no substantive disagreements much to speak of on the basics of fetal personhood. 

So the idea goes all the way back to the 1960s, when states were first reforming the 19th-century criminal laws you sometimes see coming back to life as zombie laws. And initially it started as a strategic necessity, because it was very hard for the early anti-abortion movement to stop this reform wave, right? They were saying things like, Oh, abortion is going to lead to more sexual promiscuity, or, No one really needs abortion, because pregnancy is no longer dangerous. And that just wasn’t getting the job done. 

So they began to argue that no one had a choice to legalize abortion in worse circumstances, because it would violate the rights of the unborn child. What’s interesting is that argument went from being this kind of strategic expedient to being this tremendously emotionally resonant long-term thing that has lived on the American right for now like a half-century. Even in moments when, I think arguably like right now, when it’s not politically smart to be making the argument, people will continue to, because this speaks to something, I think, for a lot of people who are opposed to abortion and other things like IVF. 

Rovner: I know you’ve got access in writing this book to a lot of internal documents from people in the anti-abortion movement. I’m jealous, I have to say. Was there something there that surprised you? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I think I was somewhat surprised by how much people talked this language of personhood when they were alone, right? This was not just something for the consumption of judges, or the consumption of politicians, or sort of like a nicer way to talk about what people really wanted. This was what people said when there was no one else there. 

That didn’t mean they didn’t say other things that suggested that there were lots of other values and beliefs underlying this concept of personhood. But I think one of the important lessons of that is if you’re trying to understand people who are opposed to abortion, just assuming that everything they’re saying is just pure strategy is not helpful, right? Any more than it would be for people who support reproductive rights, to have it assume that everything they’re saying is not genuine. You just fail to understand what people are doing, I think. And I think that was probably what I was the most surprised about. 

Rovner: I was struck that you point out that personhood doesn’t have to begin and end with the criminalization of abortion. How could more acceptance of the rights of the unborn change society in perhaps less polarized ways? 

Ziegler: Yeah, one of the things that’s really striking is that there are other countries that recognize a right to life for a fetus or unborn child that don’t criminalize abortion or don’t enforce criminal abortion laws. And often what they say is that it’s not OK for the state to start with criminalization when it isn’t doing things to support pregnant women, who after all are necessary for a fetus or unborn child to survive, right? 

So there are strategies that you could use to reduce infant mortality, for example, to reduce neonatal mortality, to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth, to improve maternal health, to really eliminate some of the reasons that people who may want, all things being equal, to carry a child to term. That’s not, obviously, going to be everybody. Some people don’t want to be parents at all. 

But there are other people for whom it’s a matter of resources, or it’s a matter of overcoming racial discrimination, or it’s a matter of leaving an abusive relationship. And if governments were more committed to doing some of those things, it’s reasonable to assume that a subset of those people would carry pregnancies to term, right? 

So there are lots of ways that if a state were serious about honoring fetal life, that it could. I think one of the other things that’s striking that I realized in writing the book is that that tracks with what a subset of Americans think. You’ll find these artifacts in polls where you’ll get something like 33% of people in Pew Forum’s 2022 poll saying they thought that life and rights began at conception, but also that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized. 

So there are a subset of Americans who, whether they’re coming from a place of faith or otherwise, can hold those two beliefs at once. So I think an interesting question is, could we have a politics that accommodates that kind of belief? And at the moment the answer is probably not, but it’s interesting to imagine how that could change. 

Rovner: It’s nice to know that there is a place that we can hope to get. 

Ziegler: Yeah, exactly. 

Rovner: Mary Ziegler, thank you so much for joining us again. 

Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile devices. Sarah, you chose first this week. You go first. 

Karlin-Smith: I purposely chose a sort of light story from Australia, where scientists studied remote work, and the headline is “[Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have] Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier.’” And it just goes through some of the benefits and perks people have found from working remotely, including more sleep, more time with friends and family, things like that. And it just felt like a nice, interesting read in a time where there’s a lot of heavy health news. 

Rovner: Also, scientific evidence of things that I think we all could have predicted. Anna. 

Edney: Apologies for going the other direction here, but it’s a story that I wrote this week, an investigation that I’ve been working on for a long time, “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug.” So this is one, in particularly a lot of women have used. You can go in any CVS, Target, Walmart, stores like that, and buy it. Called Azo, for urinary tract infections. And all these stores sell their own generic versions as well, under phenazopyridine. 

And this drug, I was kind of shocked to learn, is not FDA-approved. There are prescription versions that are not FDA-approved, either. It’s just been around so long that it’s been grandfathered in. And that may not be a big deal, except that this one, the FDA has raised questions about whether it causes cancer and whether it needs a stronger cancer warning, because the National Cancer Institute found in 1978 that it causes tumors in rats and mice. But no other work has been done on this drug, because it hasn’t been approved. So no one’s looked at it in humans. And it masks issues that really need antibiotics and causes a host of other issues. 

There were — University of Virginia toxicologists told me they found, in the last 20 years, at least 200 suspected teen suicides where they used this drug, because of how dangerous this drug can be in any higher amounts than what’s on the box. So I went through this drug, but there are other ones on the market as well that are not approved. And there’s this whole FDA system that has allowed the OTC [over-the-counter] market to be pretty lax. 

Rovner: OK, that’s terrifying. But thank you for your work. Alice. 

Ollstein: Speaking of terrifying, I chose a piece from NPR called, “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago.” And this is a look at all of the ways our public health agency that is supposed to be letting us know when outbreaks are happening, and where, and how to protect ourselves, they’ve gone dark. They are not posting on social media. They are not sending out alerts. They are not sending out newsletters. And it walks through the danger of all of that happening, with interviews with people who are still on the inside and on the outside experiencing the repercussions. 

Rovner: Well, my extra credit, it helps explain why Alice’s extra credit, because it’s about all the people who were doing that who have been fired or laid off from the federal government. It’s called, “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson. 

And it’s the result of interviews with more than 30 current and former federal workers, along with the families of some who died or killed themselves. And it’s a review of documents to confirm those stories. It’s a super-depressing but beautifully told piece about the dramatic mental health impact of the federal DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs and firings, and the impact that that’s been having on these workers, their families, and their communities. 

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks to our fill-in editor this week, Rebecca Adams, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Anna? 

Edney: Both of those [X and Bluesky], @annaedney. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Everywhere — X, Bluesky, LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X and @alicemiranda on Bluesky. 

Rovner: I am off to California next week, where we’ll be taping the podcast at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Care Journalists, which we won’t post until the following Monday. So everyone please have a great Memorial Day holiday week. And until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Es que el hospital donde se atendía, Winner Regional Health, se ha sumado recientemente al cada vez mayor número de centros de salud rurales que cierran sus unidades de maternidad.

“Ahora va a ser mucho más estresante y complicado para las mujeres recibir la atención médica que necesitan, porque tienen que ir mucho más lejos”, dijo Hofeldt, que tiene fecha de parto de su primer hijo el 10 de junio.

Hofeldt agregó que los viajes más largos suponen más gasto en gasolina y un mayor riesgo de no llegar a tiempo al hospital. “Mi principal preocupación es tener que parir en un auto”, afirma.

Más de un centenar de hospitales rurales han dejado de atender partos desde 2021, según el Center for Healthcare Quality and Payment Reform, una organización sin fines de lucro. El cierre de los servicios de obstetricia se suele achacar a la falta de personal y la falta de presupuesto.

En la actualidad, alrededor del 58% de los condados de Dakota del Sur no cuentan con salas de parto. Es la segunda tasa más alta del país, después de Dakota del Norte, según March of Dimes, una organización que asiste a las madres y sus bebés.

Además, el Departamento de Salud de Dakota del Sur informó que las mujeres embarazadas y los bebés del estado — especialmente las afroamericanas y las nativas americanas— presentan tasas más altas de complicaciones y mortalidad.

Winner Regional Health atiende a comunidades rurales en Dakota del Sur y Nebraska, incluyendo parte de la reserva indígena Rosebud Sioux. El año pasado nacieron allí 107 bebés, una baja considerable respecto de los 158 que nacieron en 2021, contó su director ejecutivo, Brian Williams.

Los hospitales más cercanos con servicios de maternidad se encuentran en pueblos rurales a una hora de distancia, o más, de Winner.

Sin embargo, varias mujeres afirmaron que el trayecto en coche hasta esos centros las llevaría por zonas donde no hay señal de celular confiable, lo que podría suponer un problema si tuvieran una emergencia en el camino.

KFF Health News habló con cinco pacientes de la zona de Winner que tenían previsto que su parto fuera en el Avera St. Mary’s Hospital de Pierre, a unas 90 millas de Winner, o en uno de los grandes centros médicos de Sioux Falls, a 170 millas de distancia.

Hofeldt y su novio conducen cada tres semanas para ir a las citas prenatales en el hospital de Pierre, que brinda servicios a la pequeña capital y a la vasta zona rural circundante.

A medida que se acerque la fecha del parto, las citas de control y, por lo tanto los viajes, tendrán que ser semanales. Ninguno de los dos tiene un empleo que le brinde permiso con goce de sueldo para ese tipo de consulta médica.

“Cuando necesitamos ir a Pierre, tenemos que tomarnos casi todo el día libre”, explicó Hofeldt, que nació en el hospital de Winner.

Eso significa perder una parte del salario y gastar dinero extra en el viaje. Además, no todo el mundo tiene auto ni dinero para la gasolina, y los servicios de autobús son escasos en las zonas rurales del país.

Algunas mujeres también tienen que pagar el cuidado de sus otros hijos para poder ir al médico cuando el hospital está lejos. Y, cuando nace el bebé, tal vez tengan que asumir el costo de un hotel para los familiares.

Amy Lueking, la médica que atiende a Hofeldt en Pierre, dijo que cuando las pacientes no pueden superar estas barreras, los obstetras tienen la opción de darles dispositivos para monitorear el embarazo en el hogar y ofrecerles consulta por teléfono o videoconferencia.

Las pacientes también pueden hacerse los controles prenatales en un hospital o una clínica local y, más tarde, ponerse en contacto con un profesional de un hospital donde se practiquen partos, dijo Lueking.

Sin embargo, algunas zonas rurales no tienen acceso a la telesalud. Y algunas pacientes, como Hofeldt, no quieren dividir su atención, establecer relaciones con dos médicos y ocuparse de cuestiones logísticas como transferir historias clínicas.

Durante una cita reciente, Lueking deslizó un dispositivo de ultrasonido sobre el útero de Hofeldt. El ritmo de los latidos del corazón del feto resonó en el monitor.

“Creo que es el mejor sonido del mundo”, expresó Lueking.

Hofeldt le comentó que quería un parto lo más natural posible.

Pero lograr que el parto se desarrolle según lo planeado suele ser complicado para quienes viven en zonas rurales, lejos del hospital. Para estar seguras de que llegarán a tiempo, algunas mujeres optan por programar una inducción, un procedimiento en el que los médicos utilizan medicamentos u otras técnicas para provocar el trabajo de parto.

Katie Larson vive en un rancho cerca de Winner, en la localidad de Hamill, que tiene 14 habitantes. Esperaba evitar que le indujeran el parto.

Larson quería esperar a que las contracciones comenzaran de forma natural y luego conducir hasta el Avera St. Mary’s, en Pierre.

Pero terminó programando una inducción para el 13 de abril, su fecha probable de parto. Más tarde, la adelantó al 8 de abril para no perderse una venta de ganado muy importante, que ella y su esposo estaban preparando.

“La gente se verá obligada a elegir una fecha de inducción aunque no sea lo que en un principio hubiera elegido. Si no, correrá el riesgo de tener al bebé en la carretera”, afirmó.

Lueking aseguró que no es frecuente que las embarazadas den a luz mientras se dirigen al hospital en automóvil o en ambulancia. Pero también recordó que el año anterior cinco mujeres que tenían previsto tener a sus hijos en Pierre acabaron haciéndolo en las salas de emergencias de otros hospitales, porque el parto avanzó muy rápido o porque las condiciones del clima hicieron demasiado peligroso conducir largas distancias.

Nanette Eagle Star tenía previsto que su bebé naciera en el hospital de Winner, a cinco minutos de su casa, hasta que el hospital anunció que cerraría su unidad de maternidad. Entonces decidió dar a luz en Sioux Falls, porque su familia podía quedarse con unos familiares que vivían allí y así ahorrar dinero.

El plan de Eagle Star volvió a cambiar cuando comenzó el trabajo de parto prematuramente y el clima se puso demasiado peligroso para manejar o para tomar un helicóptero médico a Sioux Falls.

“Todo ocurrió muy rápido, en medio de una tormenta de nieve”, contó.

Finalmente, Eagle Star tuvo a su bebé en el hospital de Winner, pero en la sala de emergencias, sin epidural, ya que en ese momento no había ningún anestesista disponible. Esto ocurrió  solo tres días después del cierre de la unidad de maternidad.

El fin de los servicios de parto y maternidad en el Winner Regional Health no es solo un problema de salud, según las mujeres de la localidad. También tiene repercusiones emocionales y económicas en la comunidad.

Eagle Star recuerda con cariño cuando era niña e iba con sus hermanas a las citas médicas. Apenas llegaban, iban a un pasillo que tenía fotos de bebés pegadas en la pared y comenzaban una “búsqueda del tesoro” para encontrar polaroids de ellas mismas y de sus familiares.

“A ambos lados del pasillo estaba lleno de fotos de bebés”, contó Eagle Star. Recuerda pensar: “Mira todos estos bebés tan lindos que han nacido aquí, en Winner”.

Hofeldt contó que muchos lugareños están tristes porque sus bebés no nacerán en el mismo hospital que ellos.

Anora Henderson, médica de familia, señaló que la falta de una correcta atención a las mujeres embarazadas puede tener consecuencias negativas para sus hijos. Esos bebés pueden desarrollar problemas de salud que requerirán cuidados de por vida, a menudo costosos, y otras ayudas públicas.

“Hay un efecto negativo en la comunidad”, dijo. “Simplemente no es tan visible y se notará bastante más adelante”.

Henderson renunció en mayo a su puesto en el Winner Regional Health, donde asistía partos vaginales y ayudaba en las cesáreas. El último bebé al que recibió fue el de Eagle Star.

Para que un centro de salud sea designado como hospital con servicio de maternidad, debe contar con instalaciones donde se pueden efectuar cesáreas y proporcionar anestesia las 24 horas del día, los 7 días de la semana, explicó Henderson.

Williams, el director ejecutivo del hospital, dijo que el Winner Regional Health no ha podido contratar suficientes profesionales médicos con formación en esas especializaciones.

En los últimos años, el hospital solo había podido ofrecer servicios de maternidad cubriendo aproximadamente $1,2 millones anuales en salarios de médicos contratados de forma temporal, señaló. Pero el hospital ya no podía seguir asumiendo ese gasto.

Otro reto financiero está dado porque muchos partos en los hospitales rurales están cubiertos por Medicaid, el programa federal y estatal que ofrece atención a personas con bajos ingresos o discapacidades.

El programa suele pagar aproximadamente la mitad de lo que pagan las aseguradoras privadas por los servicios de parto, según un informe de 2022 de la U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).

Williams contó que alrededor del 80% de los partos en Winner Regional Health estaban cubiertos por Medicaid.

Las unidades obstétricas suelen constituir el mayor gasto financiero de los hospitales rurales y, por lo tanto, son las primeras que se cierran cuando un centro de salud atraviesa dificultades económicas, explica el informe de la GAO.

Williams dijo que el hospital sigue prestando atención prenatal y que le encantaría reanudar los partos si pudiera contratar suficiente personal.

Henderson, la médica que dimitió del hospital de Winner, ha sido testigo del declive de la atención materna en las zonas rurales durante décadas.

Recuerda que, antes de que naciera su hermana, acompañaba a su madre a las citas médicas. En cada viaje, su madre recorría unas 100 millas después de que el hospital de la ciudad de Kadoka cerrara en 1979.

Henderson trabajó durante casi 22 años en el Winner Regional Health, lo que permitió que muchas mujeres no tuvieran que desplazarse para dar a luz, como le ocurrió a su madre.

A lo largo de los años, atendió a nuevas pacientes cuando cerraron las unidades de maternidad de un hospital rural cercano y luego las de un centro del Servicio de Salud Indígena. Finalmente, el propio hospital de Henderson dejó de atender partos.

“Lo que ahora realmente me frustra es que pensaba que iba a dedicarme a la medicina familiar y trabajar en una zona rural, y que así íbamos a solucionar estos problemas, para que las personas no tuvieran que conducir 100 millas para tener un bebé”, se lamentó.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After narrowly passing a budget resolution this spring foreshadowing major Medicaid cuts, Republicans in Congress are having trouble agreeing on specific ways to save billions of dollars from a pool of funding that pays for the program without cutting benefits on which millions of Americans rely. Moderates resist changes they say would harm their constituents, while fiscal conservatives say they won’t vote for smaller cuts than those called for in the budget resolution. The fate of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” containing renewed tax cuts and boosted immigration enforcement could hang on a Medicaid deal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate by agreeing with the Biden administration that a Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone should be dropped. It’s clear the administration’s request is purely technical, though, and has no bearing on whether officials plan to protect the abortion pill’s availability.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congressional Republicans are making halting progress on negotiations over government spending cuts. As hard-line House conservatives push for deeper cuts to the Medicaid program, their GOP colleagues representing districts that heavily depend on Medicaid coverage are pushing back. House Republican leaders are eying a Memorial Day deadline, and key committees are scheduled to review the legislation next week — but first, Republicans need to agree on what that legislation says.
• Trump withdrew his nomination of Janette Nesheiwat for U.S. surgeon general amid accusations she misrepresented her academic credentials and criticism from the far right. In her place, he nominated Casey Means, a physician who is an ally of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and a prominent advocate of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
• The pharmaceutical industry is on alert as Trump prepares to sign an executive order directing agencies to look into “most-favored-nation” pricing, a policy that would set U.S. drug prices to the lowest level paid by similar countries. The president explored that policy during his first administration, and the drug industry sued to stop it. Drugmakers are already on edge over Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on drugs and their ingredients.
• And Kennedy is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week. The hearing would be the first time the secretary of Health and Human Services has appeared before the HELP Committee since his confirmation hearings — and all eyes are on the committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who expressed deep concerns at the time, including about Kennedy’s stances on vaccines.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and co-wrote the latest KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” installment, about an unexpected bill for what seemed like preventive care. If you have an outrageous, baffling, or infuriating medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured,” by Andrea Hsu. 

Maya Goldman: Stat’s “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. 

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare,” by Zachary R. Mider and Zeke Faux. 

Sandhya Raman: The Louisiana Illuminator’s “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” by Anna Claire Vollers. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s series “Life of the Mother: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, and the winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism.
• The New York Times’ “G.O.P. Targets a Medicaid Loophole Used by 49 States To Grab Federal Money,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
• KFF Health News’ “Seeking Spending Cuts, GOP Lawmakers Target a Tax Hospitals Love to Pay,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Axios’ “Out-of-Pocket Drug Spending Hit $98B in 2024: Report,” by Maya Goldman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 8, 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 a videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where Sandhya is coming directly from, where regular listeners to this podcast will be not one bit surprised that Republicans working on President [Donald] Trump’s one “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill are at an impasse over how and how deeply to cut the Medicaid program. Originally, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was supposed to mark up its portion of the bill this week, but that turned out to be too optimistic. Now they’re shooting for next week, apparently Tuesday or so, they’re saying, and apparently that Memorial Day goal to finish the bill is shifting to maybe the Fourth of July? But given what’s leaking out of the closed Republican meetings on this, even that might be too soon. Where are we with these Medicaid negotiations? 

Raman: I would say a lot has been happening, but also a lot has not been happening. I think that anytime we’ve gotten any little progress on knowing what exactly is at the top of the list, it gets walked back. So earlier this week we had a meeting with a lot of the moderates in Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s office and trying to get them on board with some of the things that they were hesitant about, and following the meeting, Speaker Johnson had said that two of the things that have been a little bit more contentious — changing the federal match for the expansion population and instituting per capita caps for states — were off the table. But the way that he phrased it is kind of interesting in that he said stay tuned and that it possibly could change. 

And so then yesterday when we were hearing from the Energy and Commerce Committee, it seemed like these things are still on the table. And then Speaker Johnson has kind of gone back on that and said, I said it was likely. So every time we kind of have any sort of change, it’s really unclear if these things are in the mix, outside the mix. When we pulled them off the table, we had a lot of the hard-line conservatives get really upset about this because it’s not enough savings. So I think any way that you push it with such narrow margins, it’s been difficult to make any progress, even though they’ve been having a lot of meetings this week. 

Rovner: One of the things that surprised me was apparently the Senate Republicans are weighing in. The Senate Republicans who aren’t even set to make Medicaid cuts under their version of the budget resolution are saying that the House needs to go further. Where did that come from? 

Raman: It’s just been a difficult process to get anything across. I mean, in the House side, a lot of it has been, I think, election-driven. You see the people that are not willing to make as many concessions are in competitive districts. The people that want to go a little bit more extreme on what they’re thinking are in much more safe districts. And then in the Senate, I think there’s a lot more at play just because they have longer terms, they have more to work with. So some of the pushback has been from people that it would directly affect their states or if the governors have weighed in. But I think that there are so many things that they do want to get done, since there is much stronger agreement on some of the immigration stuff and the taxes that they want to find the savings somewhere. If they don’t find it, then the whole thing is moot. 

Rovner: So meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Democrats is out with estimates of what some of these Medicaid options would mean for coverage, and it gives lie to some of these Republican claims that they can cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid without touching benefits, right? I mean all of these — and Maya, your nodding. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

Rovner: All of these things would come with coverage losses. 

Goldman: Yeah, I think it’s important to think about things like work requirements, which has gotten a lot of support from moderate Republicans. The only way that that produces savings is if people come off Medicaid as a result. Work requirements in and of themselves are not saving any money. So I know advocates are very concerned about any level of cuts. I talked to somebody from a nursing home association who said: We can’t pick and choose. We’re not in a position to pick and choose which are better or worse, because at this point, everything on the table is bad for us. So I think people are definitely waiting with bated breath there. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans over the last week or so with the talking points. If we’re just going after fraud and abuse then we’re not going to cut anybody’s benefits. And it’s like — um, good luck with that. 

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

Rovner: That’s right. Well, one place Congress could recoup a lot of money from Medicaid is by cracking down on provider taxes, which 49 of the 50 states use to plump up their federal Medicaid match, if you will. Basically the state levies a tax on hospitals or nursing homes or some other group of providers, claims that money as their state share to draw down additional federal matching Medicaid funds, then returns it to the providers in the form of increased reimbursement while pocketing the difference. You can call it money laundering as some do, or creative financing as others do, or just another way to provide health care to low-income people. 

But one thing it definitely is, at least right now, is legal. Congress has occasionally tried to crack down on it since the late 1980s. I have spent way more time covering this fight than I wish I had, but the combination of state and health provider pushback has always prevented it from being eliminated entirely. If you want a really good backgrounder, I point you to the excellent piece in The New York Times this week by our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff. What are you guys hearing about provider taxes and other forms of state contributions and their future in all of this? Is this where they’re finally going to look to get a pot of money? 

Raman: It’s still in the mix. The tricky thing is how narrow the margins are, and when you have certain moderates having a hard line saying, I don’t want to cut more than $500 billion or $600 billion, or something like that. And then you have others that don’t want to dip below the $880 billion set for the Energy and Commerce Committee. And then there are others that have said it’s not about a specific number, it’s what is being cut. So I think once we have some more numbers for some of the other things, it’ll provide a better idea of what else can fit in. Because right now for work requirements, we’re going based on some older CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers. We have the CBO numbers that the Democrats asked for, but it doesn’t include everything. And piecing that together is the puzzle, will illuminate some of that, if there are things that people are a little bit more on board with. But it’s still kind of soon to figure out if we’re not going to see draft text until early next week. 

Goldman: I think the tricky thing with provider taxes is that it’s so baked into the way that Medicaid functions in each state. And I think I totally co-sign on the New York Times article. It was a really helpful explanation of all of this, and I would bet that you’ll see a lot of pushback from state governments, including Republicans, on a proposal that makes severe changes to that. 

Rovner: Someday, but not today, I will tell the story of the 1991 fight over this in which there was basically a bizarre dealmaking with individual senators to keep this legal. That was a year when the Democrats were trying to get rid of it. So it’s a bipartisan thing. All right, well, moving on. 

It wouldn’t be a Thursday morning if we didn’t have breaking federal health personnel news. Today was supposed to be the confirmation hearing for surgeon general nominee and Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat. But now her nomination has been pulled over some questions about whether she was misrepresenting her medical education credentials, and she’s already been replaced with the nomination of Casey Means, the sister of top [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] aide Calley Means, who are both leaders in the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] movement. This feels like a lot of science deniers moving in at one time. Or is it just me? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that the Meanses have been in this circle, names floated for various things at various times, and this was a place where Casey Means fit in. And certainly she espouses a lot of the views on, like, functional medicine and things that this administration, at least RFK Jr., seems to also subscribe to. But the one thing I’m not as clear on her is where she stands with vaccines, because obviously Nesheiwat had fudged on her school a little bit, and— 

Rovner: Yeah, I think she did her residency at the University of Arkansas— 

Edney: That’s where. 

Rovner: —and she implied that she’d graduated from the University of Arkansas medical school when in fact she graduated from an accredited Caribbean medical school, which lots of doctors go to. It’s not a sin— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —and it’s a perfectly, as I say, accredited medical school. That was basically — but she did fudge it on her resume. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: So apparently that was one of the things that got her pulled. 

Edney: Right. And the other, kind of, that we’ve seen in recent days, again, is Laura Loomer coming out against her because she thinks she’s not anti-vaccine enough. So what the question I think to maybe be looking into today and after is: Is Casey Means anti-vaccine enough for them? I don’t know exactly the answer to that and whether she’ll make it through as well. 

Rovner: Well, we also learned this week that Vinay Prasad, a controversial figure in the covid movement and even before that, has been named to head the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research, making him the nation’s lead vaccine regulator, among other things. Now he does have research bona fides but is a known skeptic of things like accelerated approval of new drugs, and apparently the biotech industry, less than thrilled with this pick, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, they are quite afraid of this pick. You could see it in the stocks for a lot of vaccine companies, for some other companies particularly. He was quite vocal and quite against the covid vaccines during covid and even compared them to the Nazi regime. So we know that there could be a lot of trouble where, already, you know, FDA has said that they’re going to require placebo-controlled trials for new vaccines and imply that any update to a covid vaccine makes it a new vaccine. So this just spells more trouble for getting vaccines to market and quickly to people. He also—you mentioned accelerated approval. This is a way that the FDA uses to try to get promising medicines to people faster. There are issues with it, and people have written about the fact that they rely on what are called surrogate endpoints. So not Did you live longer? but Did your tumor shrink? 

And you would think that that would make you live longer, but it actually turns out a lot of times it doesn’t. So you maybe went through a very strong medication and felt more terrible than you might have and didn’t extend your life. So there’s a lot of that discussion, and so that. There are other drugs. Like this Sarepta drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a big one that Vinay Prasad has come out against, saying that should have never been approved, because it was using these kind of surrogate endpoints. So I think biotech’s pretty — thinking they’re going to have a lot tougher road ahead to bring stuff to market. 

Rovner: And I should point out that over the very long term, this has been the continuing struggle at FDA. It’s like, do you protect the public but make people wait longer for drugs or do you get the drugs out and make sure that people who have no other treatments available have something available? And it’s been a constant push and pull. It’s not really been partisan. Sometimes you get one side pushing and the other side pushing back. It’s really nothing new. It’s just the sort of latest iteration of this. 

Edney: Right. Yeah. This is the pendulum swing, back to the Maybe we need to be slowing it down side. It’s also interesting because there are other discussions from RFK Jr. that, like, We need to be speeding up approvals and Trump wants to speed up approvals. So I don’t know where any of this will actually come down when the rubber meets the road, I guess. 

Rovner: Sandhya and Maya, I see you both nodding. Do you want to add something? 

Raman: I think this was kind of a theme that I also heard this week in the — we had the Senate Finance hearing for some of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nominees, and Jim O’Neill, who’s one of the nominees, that was something that was brought up by Finance ranking member Ron Wyden, that some of his past remarks when he was originally considered to be on the short list for FDA commissioner last Trump administration is that he basically said as long as it’s safe, it should go ahead regardless of efficacy. So those comments were kind of brought back again, and he’s in another hearing now, so that might come up as an issue in HELP [the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] today. 

Rovner: And he’s the nominee for deputy secretary, right? Have to make sure I keep all these things straight. Maya, you wanting to add something? 

Goldman: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think there is a divide between these two philosophies on pharmaceuticals, and my sense is that the selection of Prasad is kind of showing that the anti-accelerated-approval side is winning out. But I think Anna is correct that we still don’t know where it’s going to land. 

Rovner: Yes, and I will point out that accelerated approval first started during AIDS when there was no treatments and basically people were storming the — literally physically storming — the FDA, demanding access to AIDS drugs, which they did finally get. But that’s where accelerated approval came from. This is not a new fight, and it will continue. 

Turning to abortion, the Trump administration surprised a lot of people this week when it continued the Biden administration’s position asking for that case in Texas challenging the abortion pill to be dropped. For those who’ve forgotten, this was a case originally filed by a bunch of Texas medical providers demanding the judge overrule the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in the year 2000. The Supreme Court ruled the original plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but in the meantime, three states —Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — have taken their place as plaintiffs. But now the Trump administration points out that those states have no business suing in the Northern District of Texas, which kind of seems true on its face. But we should not mistake this to think that the Trump administration now supports the current approval status of the abortion bill. Right, Sandhya? 

Raman: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. It doesn’t surprise me. If they had allowed these three states, none of which are Texas — they shouldn’t have standing. And if they did allow them to, that would open a whole new can of worms for so many other cases where the other side on so many issues could cherry-pick in the same way. And so I think, I assume, that this will come up in future cases for them and they will continue with the positions they’ve had before. But this was probably in their best interest not to in this specific one. 

Rovner: Yeah. There are also those who point out that this could be a way of the administration protecting itself. If it wants to roll back or reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, it would help prevent blue states from suing to stop that. So it serves a double purpose here, right? 

Raman: Yeah. I couldn’t see them doing it another way. And even if you go through the ruling, the language they use, it’s very careful. It’s not dipping into talking fully about abortion. It’s going purely on standing. Yeah. 

Rovner: There’s nothing that says, We think the abortion pill is fine the way it is. It clearly does not say that, although they did get the headlines — and I’m sure the president wanted — that makes it look like they’re towing this middle ground on abortion, which they may be but not necessarily in this case. 

Well, before we move off of reproductive health, a shoutout here to the incredible work of ProPublica, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service this week for its stories on women who died due to abortion bans that prevented them from getting care for their pregnancy complications. Regular listeners of the podcast will remember that we talked about these stories as they came out last year, but I will post another link to them in the show notes today. 

OK, moving on. There’s even more drug price news this week, starting with the return of, quote, “most favored nation” drug pricing. Anna, remind us what this is and why it’s controversial. 

Edney: Yeah. So the idea of most favored nation, this is something President Trump has brought up before in his first administration, but it creates a basket, essentially, of different prices that nations pay. And we’re going to base ours on the lowest price that is paid for— 

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

Edney: Yeah. Essentially, yes. We can’t import their drugs, but we can import their prices. And so the goal is to just basically piggyback off of whoever is paying the lowest price and to base ours off of that. And clearly the drug industry does not like this and, I think, has faced a number of kind of hits this week where things are looming that could really come after them. So Politico broke that news that Trump is going to sign or expected to sign an executive order that will direct his agencies to look into this most-favored-nation effort. And it feels very much like 2.0, like we were here before. And it didn’t exactly work out, obviously. 

Rovner: They sued, didn’t they? The drug industry sued, as I recall. 

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re right. Yes. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering correctly, it was an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit though, right? So— 

Rovner: It was. Yes. It was about a regulation. Yes. 

Goldman: —who knows what would happen if they go through a different procedure this time. 

Rovner: So the other thing, obviously, that the drug industry is freaked out about right now are tariffs, which have been on again, off again, on again, off again. Where are we with tariffs on — and it’s not just tariffs on drugs being imported. It’s tariffs on drug ingredients being imported, right? 

Edney: Yeah. And that’s a particularly rough one because many ingredients are imported, and then some of the drugs are then finished here, just like a car. All the pieces are brought in and then put together in one place. And so this is something the Trump administration has began the process of investigating. And PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], the trade group for the drug industry, has come out officially, as you would expect, against the tariffs, saying that: This will reduce our ability to do R&D. It will raise the price of drugs that Americans pay, because we’re just going to pass this on to everyone. And so we’re still in this waiting zone of seeing when or exactly how much and all of that for the tariffs for pharma. 

Rovner: And yet Americans are paying — already paying — more than they ever have. Maya, you have a story just about that. Tell us. 

Goldman: Yeah, there was a really interesting report from an analytics data firm that showed the price that Americans are paying for prescriptions is continuing to climb. Also, the number of prescriptions that Americans are taking is continuing to climb. It certainly will be interesting to see if this administration can be any more successful. That report, I don’t think this made it into the article that I ended up writing, but it did show that the cost of insulin is down. And that’s something that has been a federal policy intervention. We haven’t seen a lot of the effects yet of the Medicare drug price negotiations, but I think there are signs that that could lower the prices that people are paying. So I think it’s interesting to just see the evolution of all of this. It’s very much in flux. 

Rovner: A continuing effort. Well, we are now well into the second hundred days of Trump 2.0, and we’re still learning about the cuts to health and health-related programs the administration is making. Just in this week’s rundown are stories about hundreds more people being laid off at the National Cancer Institute, a stop-work order at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, that studies Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases, and the layoff of most of the remaining staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

A reminder that this is all separate from the discretionary-spending budget request that the administration sent up to lawmakers last week. That document calls for a 26% cut in non-mandatory funding at HHS, meaning just about everything other than Medicare and Medicaid. And it includes a proposed $18 billion cut to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and elimination of the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of low-income Americans pay their heating and air conditioning bills. Now, this is normally the part of the federal budget that’s deemed dead on arrival. The president sends up his budget request, and Congress says, Yeah, we’re not doing that. But this at least does give us an idea of what direction the administration wants to take at HHS, right? What’s the likelihood of Congress endorsing any of these really huge, deep cuts? 

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

Raman: It’s not going to happen, and they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the appropriations bills. I think that when we’re looking in the House in particular, there are a lot of things in what we know from this so-called skinny budget document that they could take up and put in their bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. But I think the Senate’s going to be a different story, just because the Senate Appropriations chair is Susan Collins and she, as soon as this came out, had some pretty sharp words about the big cuts to NIH. They’ve had one in a series of two hearings on biomedical research. Concerned about some of these kinds of things. So I cannot necessarily see that sharp of a cut coming to fruition for NIH, but they might need to make some concessions on some other things. 

This is also just a not full document. It has some things and others. I didn’t see any to FDA in there at all. So that was a question mark, even though they had some more information in some of the documents that had leaked kind of earlier on a larger version of this budget request. So I think we’ll see more about how people are feeling next week when we start having Secretary Kennedy testify on some of these. But I would not expect most of this to make it into whatever appropriations law we get. 

Goldman: I was just going to say that. You take it seriously but not literally, is what I’ve been hearing from people. 

Edney: We don’t have a full picture of what has already been cut. So to go in and then endorse cutting some more, maybe a little bit too early for that, because even at this point they’re still bringing people back that they cut. They’re finding out, Oh, this is actually something that is really important and that we need, so to do even more doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, that state of disarray is purposeful, I would guess, and doing a really good job at sort of clouding things up. 

Goldman: One note on the cuts. I talked to someone at HHS this week who said as they’re bringing back some of these specialized people, in order to maintain the legality of, what they see as the legality of, the RIF [reduction in force], they need to lay off additional people to keep that number consistent. So I think that is very much in flux still and interesting to watch. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think that’s part of what we were seeing this week is that the groups that got spared are now getting cut because they’ve had to bring back other people. And as I point out, I guess, every week, pretty much all of this is illegal. And as it goes to courts, judges say, You can’t do this. So everything is in flux and will continue. 

All right, finally this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who as of now is scheduled to appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next week to talk about the department’s proposed budget, is asking CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to develop new guidance for treating measles with drugs and vitamins. This comes a week after he ordered a change in vaccine policy you already mentioned, Anna, so that new vaccines would have to be tested against placebos rather than older versions of the vaccine. These are all exactly the kinds of things that Kennedy promised health committee chairman Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do. And yet we’ve heard almost nothing from Cassidy about anything the secretary has said or done since he’s been in office. So what do we expect to happen when they come face-to-face with each other in front of the cameras next week, assuming that it happens? 

Edney: I’m very curious. I don’t know. Do I expect a senator to take a stand? I don’t necessarily, but this— 

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

Edney: Yeah, he hasn’t yet. But this is maybe about face-saving too for him. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

Edney: For Cassidy, given he said: I’m going to keep an eye on him. We’re going to talk all the time, and he is not going to do this thing without my input. I’m not sure how Cassidy will approach that. I think it’ll be a really interesting hearing that we’ll all be watching. 

Rovner: Yes. And just little announcement, if it does happen, that we are going to do sort of a special Wednesday afternoon after the hearing with some of our KFF Health News colleagues. So we are looking forward to that hearing. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, welcome back. 

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got preventive care, which the Affordable Care Act was supposed to incentivize by making it cost-free at the point of service — except it wasn’t. Tell us who the patient is and what kind of care they got. 

Sausser: Carmen Aiken is from Chicago. Carmen uses they/them pronouns. And Carmen made an appointment in the summer of 2023 for an annual checkup. This is just like a wellness check that you are very familiar with. You get your vaccines updated. You get your weight checked. You talk to your doctor about your physical activity and your family history. You might get some blood work done. Standard stuff. 

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

Sausser: The bill ended up being more than $1,400 when it should, in Carmen’s mind, have been free. 

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

Rovner: I assume that there was a complaint to the health plan and the health plan said, Nope, not covered. Why did they say that? 

Sausser: It turns out that alongside with some blood work that was preventive, Carmen also had some blood work done to monitor an ongoing prescription. Because that blood test is not considered a standard preventive service, the entire appointment was categorized as diagnostic and not preventive. So all of these services that would’ve been free to them, available at no cost, all of a sudden Carmen became responsible for. 

Rovner: So even if the care was diagnostic rather than strictly preventive — obviously debatable — that sounds like a lot of money for a vaccine and some blood test. Why was the bill so high? 

Sausser: Part of the reason the bill was so high was because Carmen’s blood work was sent to a hospital for processing, and hospitals, as you know, can charge a lot more for the same services. So under Carmen’s health plan, they were responsible for, I believe it was, 50% of the cost of services performed in an outpatient hospital setting. And that’s what that blood work fell under. So the charges were high. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked a lot on the podcast about this fight in Congress to create site-neutral payments. This is a case where that probably would’ve made a big difference. 

Sausser: Yeah, it would. And there’s discussion, there’s bipartisan support for it. The idea is that you should not have to pay more for the same services that are delivered at different places. But right now there’s no legislation to protect patients like Carmen from incurring higher charges. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

Sausser: Carmen ended up paying it. They put it on a credit card. This was of course after they tried appealing it to their insurance company. Their insurance company decided that they agreed with the provider that these services were diagnostic, not preventive. And so, yeah, Carmen was losing sleep over this and decided ultimately that they were just going to pay it. 

Rovner: And at least it was a four-figure bill and not a five-figure bill. 

Sausser: Right. 

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? I imagine it is not that you should skip needed preventive/diagnostic care. Some drugs, when you’re on them, they say that you should have blood work done periodically to make sure you’re not having side effects. 

Sausser: Right. You should not skip preventive services. And that’s the whole intent behind this in the ACA. It catches stuff early so that it becomes more treatable. I think you have to be really, really careful and specific when you’re making appointments, and about your intention for the appointment, so that you don’t incur charges like this. I think that you can also be really careful about where you get your blood work conducted. A lot of times you’ll see these signs in the doctor’s office like: We use this lab. If this isn’t in-network with you, you need to let us know. Because the charges that you can face really vary depending on where those labs are processed. So you can be really careful about that, too. 

Rovner: And adding to all of this, there’s the pending Supreme Court case that could change it, right? 

Sausser: Right. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments. It was in April. I think it was on the 21st. And it is a case that originated out in Texas. There is a group of Christian businesses that are challenging the mandate in the ACA that requires health insurers to cover a lot of these preventive services. So obviously we don’t have a decision in the case yet, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: We will, and we will cover it on the podcast. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thank you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Maya, you were the first to choose this week, so why don’t you go first? 

Goldman: My extra credit is from Stat. It’s called “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. And I just think it’s a really interesting evidence point to the United States’ losses, other countries’ gain. The U.S. has long been the pinnacle of research science, and people flock to this country to do research. And I think we’re already seeing a reversal of that as cuts to NIH funding and other scientific enterprises is reduced. 

Rovner: Yep. A lot of stories about this, too. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from a couple of my colleagues that they did earlier this week. “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare.” And I thought it was really interesting because it had brought me back to these cheap, bare-bones plans that people were allowed to start selling that don’t meet any of the Obamacare requirements. And so this guy who used to, in the ’80s and ’90s, wrote for sitcoms — “Coach” or “Night Court,” if anyone goes to watch those on reruns. But he did a series of random things after that and has sort of now landed on selling these junk plans, but doing it in a really weird way that signs people up for a job that they don’t know they’re being signed up for. And I think it’s just, it’s an interesting read because we knew when these things were coming online that this was shady and people weren’t going to get the coverage they needed. And this takes it to an extra level. They’re still around, and they’re still ripping people off. 

Rovner: Or as I’d like to subhead this story: Creative people think of creative things. 

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: So my pick is “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” and it’s from Anna Claire Vollers at the Louisiana Illuminator. And her story looks at some of the ties between civil rights and health. So 2025 is the 70th anniversary of the bus boycott, the 60th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act. And it’s also the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. And she goes into, Medicaid isn’t something you usually consider a civil rights win, but health as a human right was part of the civil rights movement. And I think it’s an interesting piece. 

Rovner: It is an interesting piece, and we should point out Medicare was also a huge civil rights, important piece of law because it desegregated all the hospitals in the South. All right, my extra credit this week is a truly infuriating story from NPR by Andrea Hsu. It’s called “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured.” And it’s a situation that if a private employer did it, Congress would be all over them and it would be making huge headlines. These are federal workers who are trying to do the right thing for themselves and their families but who are being jerked around in impossible ways and have no idea not just whether they have jobs but whether they have health insurance, and whether the medical care that they’re getting while this all gets sorted out will be covered. It’s one thing to shrink the federal workforce, but there is some basic human decency for people who haven’t done anything wrong, and a lot of now-former federal workers are not getting it at the moment. 

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions, We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: I’m on X, @SandhyaWrites, and also on Bluesky, @SandhyaWrites at Bluesky. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_. Same on Bluesky and also increasingly on LinkedIn. 

Rovner: All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

A week into the reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services announced by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the scope of the staff cuts and program cutbacks is starting to become clear. Among the biggest targets for reductions were the nation’s premier public health agencies: the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, and the FDA.

Meanwhile, Kennedy did not show up as invited to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, known as HELP, but he did visit families in Texas whose unvaccinated children died of measles in the current outbreak and called for an end to water fluoridation during a stop in Utah.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Victoria Knight of Axios, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Amid a dearth of public information about federal health cutbacks, HHS employees currently on administrative leave report they were given no opportunity to hand off their responsibilities, suggesting important work will simply be discontinued. Critical staff members have been cut from the FDA offices funded by user fees, for instance — affecting the drugmakers that pay the fees in exchange for timely evaluation of their products, as well as the patients hoping for access to those drugs. Even if the cuts were reversed, the damage could linger, especially in areas where there will be gaps in data such as disease surveillance.
• Meanwhile, the temporary public communications freeze implemented in the Trump administration’s early days apparently has not ended. State officials, desperate for information from federal health officials about ongoing programs, are receiving no response as they seek guidance from offices in which most or all staffers were laid off.
• President Donald Trump issued an executive order this week that instructs federal department heads to summarily repeal any regulation they deem “unlawful.” The order threatens to effectively short-circuit the federal regulatory process, which involves public notices and opportunities to comment. Businesses rely on that process to make decisions, and Trump’s order could create further instability for health care and other industries.
• And Kennedy traveled West this week, using his public appearances to call for removing fluoride from the water supply and to discuss the measles outbreak. He issued his strongest endorsement of the measles vaccine yet, but he also praised doctors who have used alternative and unapproved remedies to treat measles patients. Senators had called him to testify before Congress this week about the ongoing upheaval at HHS, but the hearing was canceled.
• Legislators in a growing number of states are introducing abortion bans that would punish women seeking abortions as well as abortion providers, suggesting a long game for abortion opponents that goes well beyond overturning a nationwide right to the procedure.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Georgetown Law School professor Stephen Vladeck about the limits of presidential power.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin,” by Richard Fausset.  

Victoria Knight: Wired’s “Dr. Oz Pushed for AI Health Care in First Medicare Agency Town Hall,” by Leah Feiger and Steven Levy.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Guardian’s “‘We Are Failing’: Doctors and Students in the US Look to Mexico for Basic Abortion Training,” by Carter Sherman.  

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “In Sweden, a Focus on Smokeless Tobacco,” by Sandhya Raman. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “The Three States That Are Especially Stuck if Congress Cuts Medicaid,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• The AP’s “Ex-Official Says He Was Forced out of FDA After Trying To Protect Vaccine Safety Data From RFK Jr.,” by Matthew Perrone.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Dismantling of HHS

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 10, 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 videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios news. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Georgetown University law professor Stephen Vladeck, who will talk about the limits of presidential power — if there are any left. But first, this week’s news. 

So the dust is starting to settle, sort of, in that ginormous reorganization of the Department of Health and Human Services launched by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. last week, which I am now calling “The Great Dismantling.” Here’s some of what we know about the casualties at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. Offices that worked on sexually transmitted disease prevention, injury prevention, lead poisoning surveillance, and tobacco were basically gutted. At NIH [the National Institutes of Health], the chronic pain division was eliminated, as was the Office of Long Covid. And at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], offices handling veterinary medicine, generic drugs, and food safety were dramatically reduced. Now that we’ve had a week to absorb what’s been done and, despite claims of the contrary from Secretary Kennedy, we are told there is no plan to hire back some of those workers who were apparently let go in error, what are you guys hearing about where we are? 

Ollstein: Yeah, there’s a lot of people who were put on administrative leave, which is going to run out in a few weeks. By and large, they are not expecting to be called back. They are holding out hope. They would love to be called back. They keep telling me that they would love to get back to the work they were doing. They’re really worried about it not continuing without them, but they’re mostly assuming that these cuts are permanent for now. And contrary to claims from HHS that work isn’t being eliminated, it’s just being consolidated or folded in or there’s different words they’re using, all of these different laid-off workers told me from different divisions that they were basically given no opportunity to hand over their ongoing projects to anyone else, to train anyone else, to make sure it keeps going. So as far as they know, a lot of this surveillance work, research work, coordination work is just not going to be happening going forward. 

Rovner: As far as I can tell, money that’s supposed to be going out the door from places like the NIH isn’t. 

Knight: Yeah, you hit some of the offices, programs that have been cut, but also I think at FDA, we did some reporting this week on the user drug fee program and how staff that do the evaluating drugs and things like that have been cut. And it’s interesting because pharmaceutical companies pay these fees hoping that they’ll get timely evaluations of their drugs, and also— 

Rovner: They pay these fees and are told they will get timely evaluation of these drugs in exchange. That’s the deal. 

Knight: Exactly. And I know pharmaceutical companies are definitely concerned about this, and it’s also concerning for patients who may be waiting for certain drugs to be approved and things like that. And I think it’s interesting, also, Republicans like to talk a lot about innovation and getting new drugs approved and things like that, and this would harm that process if the staff are not rehired. I haven’t really heard an update on that, so— 

Raman: I would also add that part of it is that we just don’t have a lot of information, right? We had Secretary Kennedy invited to come testify before the Senate HELP Committee this week and go through some of these things and explain the rationale and get into that, and that did not happen. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ll get to that. 

Raman: Yes, and I think, at the same time, a lot of those cuts were also to the communications folks within those agencies that could be disseminating this information to external folks, to internal folks to provide more clarity about where things would be going. And we don’t have those there now, so it will take some time to kind of see where things are going, and even when there’s going to be a delay in some of that stuff, getting that information out is going to be difficult. 

Ollstein: Sandhya is absolutely right about the communications issue here, and I’m just hearing that on so many fronts. States are desperate to get in contact with someone in the federal government to understand what’s going on. Do they have to keep collecting data and sending it to the federal government even though there’s no one left to compile and process it? They’re reaching out asking: Are certain grants going to continue or not? What should we do? Are we going to be in legal trouble if we continue some of this work? And there’s just no one answering, sometimes because all the people that would’ve answered have been let go. But also the communications freeze that was supposed to be temporary at the very beginning of the administration, a lot of federal workers told me that never really ended. 

So there are these email accounts that they were ordered to stop checking and responding to. So one example is the entire team that worked on IVF [in vitro fertilization], evaluating which IVF clinics had the best pregnancy success rates, monitoring safety, all of that — they were all eliminated. And one consequence of that is that there was this email account that doctors, patients, anybody could reach out to for information and to ask questions, and no one’s checking it, no one’s responding. 

Rovner: I don’t know about you guys. I am starting to hear from health care stakeholders. The federal government is so intertwined in, basically it’s a fifth of the economy, what we spend on health care, and it’s creating so much uncertainty. As you were saying, people don’t know if they’re going to get in trouble for not doing things or for doing things. But we do know, as we said, we talked about last week, FDA missed a deadline to rule on a Novavax vaccine. This is going to have ramifications way beyond just the people who are losing their jobs in the federal government, right? 

Raman: There’s so many people that receive the services that we contract out, that we put grants through across the country. And I think that even in speaking to some of these employees that have lost their jobs, one of the top concerns is not even for their own job but that no one else can do the work that they did. Or in some cases, the only person that could have done that work has also already been let go. And just that those things are going to fall through the cracks for a lot of vulnerable communities. 

Ollstein: Some of the folks also told me that even if this is reversed in the future, the damage will just be there for a very long time, especially on things like surveillance and data collection. If you have a gap in there, that skews things. That messes things up for the future. It makes it harder to make comparisons. It makes it harder to know if things are getting better or worse on, like, asthma rates and levels of lead in people’s blood, all kinds of things, things that are not politically controversial or partisan. And so it’ll just be really difficult going forward to know which programs are working, which interventions are working or not working. 

Rovner: So things are happening almost too fast to keep track of. But in his latest round of executive orders on Wednesday, President [Donald] Trump signed one called Directing the Repeal of Unlawful Regulations, in which he basically instructs the heads of all departments to repeal rules they consider unlawful, without notice or comment, which is not how this is supposed to work. I’m not sure even, though, quite what to make of all this. And it seems to be going mostly unnoticed in all of the attention, deservedly, to the other news that’s happening, some of which we’ll get to. But repealing rules basically on a whim could be as important to how the federal government functions as firing all these people, right? 

Raman: Yeah, there’s a reason that the rulemaking process is the way it is, that it takes a certain amount of time. You allow stakeholders to weigh in, to meet, to revise, and that the things aren’t changing too drastically. And there are some rules that go back and forth between the administrations, but a lot of things last over time, and the process is the way it is to make sure that you get the best possible result for whatever you’re changing and— 

Rovner: That you get stability. 

Raman: Yes. 

Rovner: I think that’s the theme here, is that that’s what we’re lacking right now. Nobody can count on what the rules are. 

Knight: And I was going to say, from an industry perspective, industries make decisions based on these rules and knowing when they’re going to come out and when they might change. Think about the insurance industry, physicians, people within the health care industry. And so that could really impact those groups as well a lot. So, and exactly, going back to what you said about stability, so it’ll make it really hard to make business decisions. 

Rovner: Right. So this goes along with the stuff with the tariffs, is that we have no idea what the rules of the road are going to be going forward if rules can be sort of disappeared in a matter of days the way staff is being. Well, let’s move to Congress. Remember Congress? Late last Friday, or I guess it was technically early Saturday, the Senate passed what was supposed to be a compromise Republican budget resolution between the House and the Senate. For those who have forgotten, while the House passed a resolution that would lead to a single gigantic budget reconciliation bill, including tax cuts and likely big cuts to Medicaid, the Senate’s original budget resolution would only have led to a bill on immigration and energy, saving the tax and health fights for later in the year. 

Well, it seems like the compromise, which is kind of a vaguer version of the House blueprint, didn’t go over so well in the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson had hoped to push it through this week. A vote was scheduled for Wednesday, then it got delayed, then it got shelved, at least for the night. They’re apparently trying to regroup and do this this morning. Where are we in this? 

Knight: Yeah, so you gave a pretty good rundown. I was here late last night talking to Freedom Caucus members, the House Freedom Caucus, the hard-liners. Their concerns with, this is basically a Senate amendment to the House’s resolution. And so what the Senate passed was an amendment, and it technically really just gives instructions for the Senate. It didn’t touch the House’s resolution. So the House’s budget resolution they passed is the same thing, but House Freedom Caucus members had issue that the Senate ceilings for cuts is much lower than the House’s. And so they’re saying— 

Rovner: It’s in the billions instead of trillions. 

Knight: Exactly. Exactly. So coming out, they holed up with Speaker Johnson last night and House GOP leadership and were saying, We need more binding cuts on the Senate side, and were like: We need you guys to commit to this, otherwise we’re unhappy with this amount of cuts. This is going to increase spending. There’s been a lot of discussion on how to do the budget math for these things, but it’s pretty clear the Senate’s resolution would not cut spending as much as the House’s. So that was what they came out demanding last night. This morning, Speaker Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune came out, did a press conference, and said: We’re going to proceed with this. We’ll see if that changes. But it was interesting to note that Thune said, he noted that there are Senate Republicans that do want cuts that may be up to the $1.5 trillion, but he did not commit to making cuts on his side. So we’ll see how this goes. That seems to be the state of play. It’s very in flux. That could change over time. So if anyone has anything to add, I think that’s a rundown. 

Rovner: Yeah, it feels like they’re kind of buying time to see if they can keep together what’s clearly a very fractious group here. 

Knight: Yeah, and jet fumes are always a good motivator, and also holidays. So there’s supposed to be a two-week recess right after this, and Passover starts this weekend and Easter next weekend, so we’ll see if that motivates people to vote for it. I will say, an argument that we’ve heard from a lot of the moderates that are concerned about the Medicaid cuts, when they voted for these, they’ve said: This is just an outline. It’s just a blueprint. It’s not committing us to anything. But hard-liners don’t seem to like that argument as much. So can they convince them that way? I don’t know. 

Rovner: Well, let’s talk about those Medicaid cuts for a minute, which, by the way, as you pointed out, Victoria, is not really what’s holding up the vote in the House. Our New York Times podcast pals Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz had a really interesting story over the weekend about three red states that would really be stuck if Medicaid gets cut. Oklahoma, Missouri, and South Dakota all passed their Medicaid expansions by ballot measure, including it as part of their state constitutions. Now this is exactly the opposite of those states that would immediately cancel their expansions if Congress cuts the Medicaid match. These three states would be totally stuck, unless they could have another ballot measure that would then eliminate what they added. I guess that helps explain why very conservative Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley says he is so opposed to reducing the Medicaid match. But he seems OK with Medicaid work requirements that would also cut people off the rolls, just not necessarily in a way that would cost the state so much money, right? 

Ollstein: Yeah, I think we’re going to see a lot of interesting semantic games going forward. I think we’re going to see a lot of different interpretations of what a cut is. We’re going to see a lot of claims made about who does and doesn’t deserve Medicaid coverage. We’ve been seeing this for a long time, but as these tough decisions have to be made on the Hill, I think a lot of that is going to come to a head. And so I think you see a lot of conservatives wrestling with believing very strongly in cutting government spending but also recognizing that a lot of their constituents could be harmed by these policies and they would be very angry with their members if that happened. 

And so trying to thread that needle, we’ll see how they do it, whether they can do it successfully without getting a lot of political blowback. Even though there has been a lot of turnover in Congress, you have a decent number of folks who were there last time Congress tried to take a big whack at Medicaid in the Affordable Care Act repeal fight. 

Rovner: In 2017. 

Ollstein: Exactly. Exactly. And the impact on Medicaid is one of the biggest things that garnered a backlash. And Capitol Hill was covered in folks with disabilities protesting, and it was a really bad look, and it contributed to that effort failing. 

Knight: And I think interesting talking about Hawley, but also the Republican Governors Association joined up with some other conservative groups this week to start an ad saying, Don’t cut Medicaid, basically. And so we’re starting to hear that from the states. States are really concerned how this could affect their budgets. They’ve already expanded the program. It would be really hard for them to have to make up in the state that amount of money if the federal government takes away money from the Medicaid program for them or caps it or whatever. It’s interesting to see people walk that line. And House GOP moderates, they are more likely to fold, I think, than hard-liners, but they keep telling me when I talk to them, We’re OK with work requirements, but anything past that might be really hard for us to vote for. But who knows? They could fold if they have enough pressure, but they’re trying to walk the line at this moment. 

Rovner: This is going to be a very different Medicaid fight than it was in 2017. Well, turning to this week in “Make America Healthy Again,” I think we mentioned last week that HHS Secretary RFK Jr. had been invited to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee today. Well, as Sandhya pointed out, that did not happen. We’re not entirely sure why, but the secretary continues to do things, well, things he kind of promised senators that he wouldn’t, like saying that he’s going to order the CDC to stop recommending adding fluoride to public water supplies, which he did on a trip to Utah this week. Once more for those in the back, why do most public health professionals support water fluoridation? 

Raman: It really reduces dental decay, by like 25%. ADA [the American Dental Association] has been recommending fluoride for years. So it’s a big proponent of that. 

Rovner: And as someone pointed out, it’s against dentists’ interests to be recommending something that gives them less work and yet they’re still recommending it. 

Ollstein: And even though we have a very silly system in the U.S. where dental care is siloed off from the rest of health care, it does impact your overall health a lot. So it could lead to lung issues, heart issues, all kinds of things if you have dental issues. So it’s not just a cosmetic problem, it can be a very serious health problem. And I will say, too, people should keep in mind that there’s a lot of pointing at studies about negative health impacts from excessive consumption of fluoride, but those studies have a level that is much, much higher than what’s in the U.S. tap water right now. So anything in excess can be bad for you — even just plain water can kill you if you have too much of it. And so I think that people should keep that in mind and remain skeptical about claims being made. 

Rovner: Well, RFK Jr. also continues to make news in his handling of the measles outbreak in Texas, which is now the largest in the nation in the past 30 years, having sickened nearly 600 people, mostly unvaccinated children. Kennedy traveled to the heart of the outbreak last week and visited with the families of the two children that we know have died so far of the virus. He also praised the measles vaccine, but then just hours later posed with and praised two doctors who are using unapproved treatments for measles, including one who was disciplined by Texas medical regulators. Meanwhile, Peter Marks, the FDA vaccine official forced to resign last month, is speaking out, calling Kennedy’s actions thus far, quote, “very scary” in an interview with The Wall Street Journal and telling the AP [Associated Press] that he got fired for trying to keep Kennedy’s team from editing or possibly erasing the very sensitive Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System kept by the FDA. Is there any way we didn’t see all of this coming? 

Knight: Well, going back to the congressional aspect. The HELP chair, [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, he had both the HELP hearing and the Senate Finance hearing where he questioned Kennedy repeatedly about his views on vaccines, his views on the link between vaccines and autism, I think also measles and autism. And he didn’t really ever get a super substantial answer from Kennedy. And yet the compromise was somewhat that Cassidy said, You’ll have to come quarterly before the HELP Committee and testify about what’s going on, what your views are. And we saw Cassidy try to do that last week. And Kennedy has, as far as I know, the latest is that he received the request but he hasn’t accepted it yet, and unclear if he will. 

So that congressional oversight was supposed to be the way to keep him in check, somewhat. And that’s not happening. It’s not really that enforceable. So I think it’s pretty predictable what’s happening. I think what will be interesting is if the White House gets unhappy with some of Kennedy’s things that he’s doing. There’s been some stories of how they’re having to take over his communications because there’s been no communications from HHS on it, and so they’re kind of unhappy with that. We’ll see if that reaches to a level where they could change leadership or something. But, not there yet, certainly, but something to watch. 

Rovner: Again, so much going on. I think this would normally rise to a higher level than it has given all of the other news that’s happening. Moving on to abortion. We talked last week, or maybe it was the week before, about the Overton window moving towards criminalizing women who have or even seek abortions. That’s apparently the point of a bill introduced in the Alabama Legislature. In North Carolina, a new bill could subject anyone convicted of performing or receiving an abortion to life in prison. We talked a few weeks ago about a similar bill in Georgia that got a legislative hearing. Even if none of these bills pass — and it seems that none of them will pass, at least this year — it certainly seems that claims by the anti-abortion movement that they don’t want to punish women are either not true or falling on deaf ears. 

Ollstein: So the anti-abortion movement, just like the pro-abortion-rights movement, is not a monolith. And just like the political parties, there are moderates and hard-liners. There are people who disagree on tactics. And so I think for so long the movement appeared united because their main goal was just overturning Roe v. Wade. And they were able to paper over other divisions by focusing pretty exclusively on that, or not exclusively but that being the overriding goal. And now that they’ve accomplished that and now that there are a lot more opportunities for them, you’re seeing these divisions. And we’ve seen that over the past few years. There were people who said, OK, a 15-week ban is better than nothing, and we can build on it. And there are people who say: No, that’s an unacceptable compromise, and it has to be a total ban or nothing. And if you do a 15-week ban, you’re endorsing the murder of most babies, because most abortions happen before 15 weeks of pregnancy. 

So I think this is a continuation of that. And it’s also a reflection that there is a lot of frustration in the anti-abortion movement that not only have abortions not ceased when states enact bans, in some cases they’ve gone up, nationally. And that’s a combination of people traveling, that’s a combination of people using telehealth and getting pills mailed to them. That’s become a huge thing that people rely on. And so looking at ways to crack down on those things, including this kind of criminalization of the pregnant patient that’s been sort of a third rail that is now more in the conversation. Of course, people have been proposing such things for a while now, but it’s getting more prominent attention than before. 

Rovner: Yeah. And that was my question, is it used to be a real outlier, and now we’ve seen legislation introduced in 10 states that would criminalize the woman in some way, shape, or form. Sandhya, you wanted to add something. 

Raman: I was going to say it’s also a long game. There are things that we’ve had proposed years ago that I think garnered attention then as being very outside the realm of something that people would consider. And then a few years later, when we first saw some of these personhood bills years ago, I think those got attention as being a little different than some of the other things that were being considered. And now that has become more mainstream. We see that in a lot of states now. And I think that something like this, even though it is very different than the messaging we’ve seen in the past, it doesn’t mean that, down the line, a greater portion of the movement pivots toward this. Because we’ve seen so much of this throw the spaghetti at the wall with seeing different things that they can see, what can pass, what doesn’t get litigated, that kind of thing. So a lot of this is kind of a long game. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And there is an imbalance between the two sides where the right is much more willing to throw spaghetti at the wall and see what sticks, much more willing to throw out things that could anger people, could generate controversy, could generate backlash, but they do believe will advance the goal. And you’re not really seeing the same willingness on the left. You’re not really seeing states propose, Let’s get rid of all abortion restrictions in total. And so you have this imbalance of what each side is willing to even consider, where the left has been, overall, not exclusively, but overall much more cautious and much more consensus-seeking. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in Texas, where over the past few years we’ve had story after story about women with wanted pregnancies nearly dying from complications, the legislature finally has before it a compromise bill that would better define when doctors can end a doomed pregnancy without risking going to prison, except it’s turning out to be not as much of a compromise as its backers had hoped. Is there any way to actually find a compromise on what is a necessary abortion and what is saving the woman’s life? They write these things and they say: Well, look. Here are the exceptions, and they should work. But now they’re trying to spell out the exceptions and they can’t seem to agree on those, either. 

Ollstein: So it’s really a catch-22. And I was just in Texas. I was interviewing OB-GYNs, and they were explaining — and those in other states with bans have said the same thing — that, look, it’s really tough, because if a law is too broad and too vague, then doctors don’t feel comfortable doing even things they feel are absolutely medically necessary. But if a law is too prescriptive — if, for example, it tries to list every single possible condition that would necessitate an emergency abortion or an abortion to save someone’s life for health — you’re never going to be able to list everything. So many things can go wrong during a pregnancy, and so any attempt to be comprehensive will inevitably leave something out. And so if you go the route of listing specific conditions and someone comes in with a condition that’s not on the list, doctors won’t feel comfortable, because they’ll feel that, Oh, well, because the law lists these other conditions, that must mean that anything else is not allowed. 

But on the other hand, if it’s too vague, you have the opposite problem. And so really a lot of mainstream medical groups like ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, have really come down on, like: Just don’t legislate this at all. Just let us do our jobs. Because they are in this conundrum. I will say, there are divides within the medical community despite that, where some feel like, OK, well, if we can add a few more exceptions and that can even help a few more people, that’s at least something to consider, where others think, OK, no, if we endorse these quote-unquote “fixes,” that kind of in a way is endorsing the underlying ban, and we don’t want to do that. And so there’s some tension there as well. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is going to continue to be an issue going forward. All right, well, finally this week there is some other policy news. The Trump administration last week reversed a Biden administration decision to start covering those GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide 1] drugs for people with obesity as well as those with diabetes. According to The New York Times, the administration didn’t attribute the decision to Secretary Kennedy’s known dislike of the drugs, which he has said are inferior to people just, you know, eating better, and that it may reconsider the decision in the future. But obviously cost is a huge issue here. These drugs are less expensive than they were, but they are still super expensive if they’re going to be taken by the millions of people who would qualify for an indefinite period of time. Is there any talk of finding a way to bring that cost down? That would obviously be popular and something that President Trump has said he wants to do in terms of drug prices overall. 

Raman: I have not heard of anything on bringing the cost down. I think that the only discussions that really come about are really tailoring who would qualify within that bucket, and to narrow that as a piece to bring the cost down rather than the cost of the specific drugs. And we’ve been — yeah. 

Rovner: I would say, I know that Ozempic is on the list of Medicare drugs to be negotiated this year, but I think that’s only for the diabetic indication. So on the one hand, that could bring down the cost for— 

Ollstein: And that wouldn’t help people for years and years. Yeah. 

Rovner: Exactly. So I mean we might — if you have diabetes, Medicare could start saving money on one of the GLP drugs, but I guess it’s going to be a while before we see the cost fall. And of course, we didn’t even talk about the potential tariffs on prescription drugs, because we’re not going to talk about that this week. 

That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with law professor Stephen Vladeck, then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Stephen Vladeck, professor at Georgetown University Law School and author of the invaluable Substack “One First,” which helps explain the workings of the Supreme Court to us lay folks. Steve Vladeck, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Stephen Vladeck: Thanks, Julie. Great to be with you. 

Rovner: So I’ve asked you to help us with the next in a series I’m calling “How Things Are Supposed to Work in Health Policy.” And I’m particularly interested in how much power the president has vis-à-vis Congress and the courts. Is there kind of a 30-second law school description of who has the power to do what? 

Vladeck: It’s a little longer than 30 seconds, but to make the long version shorter: Congress makes laws, the president carries those laws into effect, and the courts decide whether everyone’s playing by the rules and abiding by those laws. That’s how it’s supposed to go — and if only that were how it actually was. 

Rovner: Now, I’m not a lawyer, but I have been at this for a long time, and I always understood that executive orders from presidents were mostly for show. They were expressions of intent that needed to be carried out by someone else in the executive branch most of the time, usually using the formal regulatory process. But that is not at all what this administration is doing with its executive orders, right? 

Vladeck: So, Julie, I think part of the problem is that we really are at the apex of something that’s been building for a while, which is that as Congress has stopped doing its job, as Congress has stopped passing statutes to respond to our pressing issues of the day, presidents of both parties have been left to govern more and more aggressively based on increasingly, for lack of a better word, creative interpretations of old statutes and constitutional authorities. And so, yes, I think we’re seeing differences in both degree and kind from President Trump, but some of this has been building for a while where, we haven’t had meaningful immigration reform since 1986. We haven’t had meaningful financial systems reform in 25 years. And so in those spaces, presidents are going to do what they can to try to accomplish their policy goals, which means more and more executive orders where the presidents are at least purporting to interpret authorities that they’ve been given, either by statute or the Constitution, as we get further and further away from those authorities themselves. 

Rovner: So this is the unitary executive theory that we’ve, those of us who play to be lawyers sometimes, have heard about. But how abnormal is what Trump is doing now? Is this even legal, a lot of what he’s doing? 

Vladeck: So a lot of what he’s doing is not legal, but some of it is legal. And one of the complications is that the illegalities are at scales and in ways that we haven’t really seen before and that therefore our existing legal processes aren’t necessarily well set up to respond to. I would break Trump’s behavior into a couple of categories. So I think there’s the internal stuff, which is firing tons of people, hollowing out the bureaucracy, demanding political fealty from even those who are civil servants. And we’ve seen, Julie, I think, flash points of those before. What’s novel about what’s happening now is just the sheer scale on which it’s happening. I think the biggest area of real novel action is the effort by Trump really to sort of change how all federal money is spent, right? Money is supposed to be Congress’s, like, superpower. Not only is appropriations Congress’ most important function, but it’s actually the only thing that the Constitution specifically says only Congress can do. 

And yet we’re seeing really novel assertions by the president of the power to not spend money Congress has appropriated, of the power to stop paying for contracts where the work has already been performed, of the power to threaten Maine and other jurisdictions with the withholding of federal funds if they don’t just bend the knee to Trump. And that is really, I think, both shocking and dangerous because it basically means that the president’s trying to seize unilateral control over what has historically been Congress’ principal vehicle for doing policy. And at that point, you don’t really have much of a separation of powers anymore. You’ve just got a president. 

Rovner: Could Congress take back this authority if it wanted to? 

Vladeck: Sure. But just before letting folks get too optimistic, one of the problems is that taking back this authority probably means, at the very least, passing new statutes, and Trump’s not going to sign those statutes. So one of the things that has been a fear of separation-of-power scholars for a long time is that when Congress delegates authority to the president, or when Congress acquiesces in the drift of power to the president, it’s actually really hard for Congress to get that power back, because it’s usually going to require veto-proof supermajorities, and really hard to see in our current political climate a veto-proof supermajority agreeing even to the fact that today is Tuesday, let alone that we should take back power from the president. So Congress could do tons of things. The problem is that assuming Congress won’t, we really are left to these series of confrontations between the president and the courts, because the courts are all that’s left. 

Rovner: Which brings me to something that I think most people would think would be not really health-policy-related but really is, which are all these threats against these big law firms. How does that play into this whole thing? 

Vladeck: So I think it’s a big piece of the puzzle because what the threats, I think, are really intended to do is to cow law firms into submission, to try to increase the cost both economically and politically of bringing lawsuits challenging what the federal government’s doing. And Julie, I think that the long-term idea is to chill people from suing the federal government, to chill people from hiring folks who worked in administrations from the wrong party in ways that I think are really disruptive not just to the economics of law firms but to the courts. The courts depend upon a strong, robust, and independent bar that is able to actually move freely when it comes to challenging the government. Courts can’t go out and find cases. Lawyers bring the cases to them. And if the lawyers are for some reason disincentivized from bringing those cases, part of the separation of powers breaks down even further. 

Rovner: Or basically, in this case, I guess they’re promising not to bring cases that the administration doesn’t like. 

Vladeck: Exactly. We should be terrified. No matter what you think of lawyers, no matter what you think of the administration, we should want a world in which there’s no disincentive to challenge what the government’s doing in court. We should want a world, as James Madison put it, where ambition is counteracting ambition, where the branches are pushing up against each other, not where they are stunned into submission. 

Rovner: And finally, you’re an expert in the Supreme Court. Is there any chance that the Supreme Court’s going to rescue us here? 

Vladeck: No, but I think what I would say — to try to both be a little more optimistic and to try to put a little more depth into my one-word answer — it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to rescue us. It’s the Supreme Court’s job to protect the separation of powers. And as you and I are sitting here, we’ve seen a couple of early rulings from the court that have kind of sided with Trump in these sort of very, very fleeting technical emergency postures without actually saying anything about what he’s doing is legal. I have at least a modicum of faith, Julie, that when the courts get to the legality questions, they’re going to find that most of this stuff actually is illegal. 

I think the question is, what happens then? And this is why, although I’m as big a believer in a powerful and independent judiciary as anyone, the courts alone can’t save us, right? What we need is we need the courts backed by Congress, by the people, by our other institutions, universities, law firms. I mean it should be all of the institutions of our civil society, not opposing Trump to oppose Trump but standing up for the notion that our institutions matter and that the way that we can be confident that the government is working the way it’s supposed to is when the institutions are pushing up against each other with all their might and without the fear of what’s going to happen to them if they lose. 

Rovner: I feel like one of the bright spots out of this is that finally the nation is getting the lesson in civics that it’s needed for a while. 

Vladeck: I couldn’t agree more. I think we are seeing the very, very real costs of generations of insufficient civics education, but I also think this opens the door to real conversation about how to fix this. And in the short term, some of it is about stopping a lot of what Trump is doing, and that’s what a lot of these lawsuits are about. When we talk about, Julie, building back institutions, whether it’s in the public health space or more broadly, I hope that we keep having the civics lesson, and I hope that we don’t forget that it’s actually really important to have independent agencies, and it’s important to have a civil service, and it’s important to have institutions that are actually not just subject to the whims of whoever happens to be the current president. And the more that we can build off of that going forward, maybe the more that we can prevent what has happened already over the first 11 weeks of the second Trump administration from becoming a permanent feature of our constitutional system. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep at it. I hope you’ll come back and join us again. 

Vladeck: I’d love to. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, why don’t you go first this week? 

Raman: So my piece for extra credit is from me, on Roll Call. It’s called “In Sweden, a Focus on Smokeless Tobacco,” and it’s the first in my series I’m doing through the Association of Health Care Journalists, where I went to Sweden to learn about smoking cessation and public health between Sweden and what we can learn in the U.S. And the story looks at the different political factions of the Parliament over there and how they found some common ground in areas to become hopefully the first country in Europe below 5% daily smokers, and just what lessons the U.S. can learn as they’re trying to reduce smoking here as well. 

Rovner: So jealous that you got to do this. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: I chose a piece from The Guardian by Carter Sherman [“‘We Are Failing’: Doctors and Students in the US Look to Mexico for Basic Abortion Training”] on an issue that has interested me for a long time, which is how U.S. residents are learning how to provide abortions when their training opportunities have been eliminated in so many states. I’ve been covering those who have been traveling to different U.S. states, but this piece is about a small but growing number who are traveling to Mexico for this training. Mexico, like many countries in Latin America and really around the world over the last few years, has moved in the direction of decriminalizing abortion as the U.S. has moved in the opposite direction and is very eager to help train more people. 

But the article stresses that this is not a solution for everyone in the U.S. who needs this training, because you have to be able to speak fluent Spanish in order to do it. You have to already have some abortion experience, which not every medical resident has. And it’s also expensive. There are fellowships, but the trip and the training and everything costs thousands of dollars. And so I think it’s a very interesting opportunity for some people. And the article also talks about folks who are doing some training in the U.K., as well. And so I wonder if these international opportunities will become more of a piece of the puzzle in the future. 

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: OK, my extra credit for this week is an article in Wired called “Dr. Oz Pushed for AI Health Care in First Medicare Agency Town Hall.” So basically this was Dr. [Mehmet] Oz’s first town hall talking to CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] staff, and he talked about a lot of his personal story and not as much of the goals of the agency, seemed to be the vibe of the meeting. But also, interestingly, he talked about using AI avatars instead of actual people. So that’s like people that do simple health diagnoses using AI instead to diagnose people, is kind of what it sounded like. And that’s in part because— 

Rovner: My comment to this story was: Not at all creepy. Sorry. 

Knight: Right. And— 

Rovner: I interrupted you, Victoria. 

Knight: No, no, that’s OK. But he was saying the benefit of this is that it could cost less because it could only cost maybe like $2 an hour versus a doctor could be a hundred dollars for a consult. And so people interviewed in the story were CMS employees that felt very concerned about that and also felt like it could come off a bit tone-deaf when there have been a bunch of CMS staff also just recently let go. And CMS was actually on the agencies that was hit with less workforce cuts. But even so, people are still upset about it. And so, it was like, Why are you replacing great people that worked here with AI? It was just an interesting look at his first week at the agency 

Rovner: Yeah. And it’s a big agency with a lot of money. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “Why the Right Still Embraces Ivermectin,” by Richard Fausset. And it’s a pretty hair-raising story of medical malfeasance, foisted on people by those seeking political or financial gain or both. Quoting from the story: “Ivermectin has become a sort of enduring pharmacological MAGA hat: a symbol of resistance to what some of the movement described as an elitist and corrupt cabal of politicians, scientists and medical experts.” This is another in a long list of unproven remedies people take just to thumb their noses at treatments that have, you know, actual scientific evidence behind them. It’s a really interesting read. 

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Alice, you’re the birthday girl. Where can we all wish you a happy birthday? 

Ollstein: Mainly on Bluesky, @alicemiranda, but still hanging on X, @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: On X and Bluesky, @sandhyawrites. 

Rovner: Victoria. 

Knight: I’m just on X, @victoriaregisk. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As had been rumored for weeks, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. unveiled a plan to reorganize the department. It involves the downsizing of its workforce, which formerly was roughly 80,000 people, by a quarter and consolidating dozens of agencies that were created and authorized by Congress.

Meanwhile, in just the past week, HHS abruptly cut off billions in funding to state and local public health departments, and canceled all research studies into covid-19, as well as diseases that could develop into the next pandemic.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Maya Goldman of Axios News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

Read Maya's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As federal health officials reveal the targets of a significant workforce purge and reorganization, the GOP-controlled Congress has been notably quiet about the Trump administration’s intrusions on its constitutional powers. Many of the administration’s attempts to revoke and reorganize federally funded work are underway despite Congress’ previous approval of that funding. And while changes might be warranted, reviewing how the federal government works (or doesn’t) — in the public forums of congressional hearings and floor debate — is part of Congress’ responsibilities.
• The news of a major reorganization at HHS also comes before the Senate finishes confirming its leadership team. New leaders of the National Institutes of Health and the FDA were confirmed just this week; Mehmet Oz, the nominated director of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, had not yet been confirmed when HHS made its announcement; and President Donald Trump only recently named a replacement nominee to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, after withdrawing his first pick.
• While changes early in Trump’s second term have targeted the federal government and workforce, the impacts continue to be felt far outside the nation’s capital. Indeed, cuts to jobs and funding touch every congressional district in the nation. They’re also being felt in research areas that the Trump administration claims as priorities, such as chronic disease: The administration said this week it will shutter the office devoted to studying long covid, a chronic disease that continues to undermine millions of Americans’ health.
• Meanwhile, in the states, doctors in Texas report a rise in cases of children with liver damage due to ingesting too much vitamin A — a supplement pushed by Kennedy in response to the measles outbreak. The governor of West Virginia signed a sweeping ban on food dyes and additives. And a woman in Georgia who experienced a miscarriage was arrested in connection with the improper disposal of fetal remains.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF senior vice president Larry Levitt about the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and the threats the health law continues to face.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “State Lawmakers Are Looking To Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times Wirecutter’s “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now,” by Max Eddy. 

Maya Goldman: KFF Health News’ “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers,” by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani. 

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “West Virginia Bans 7 Artificial Food Dyes, Citing Health Concerns,” by Alice Callahan.
• The Washington Post’s “Why I Left My Job Leading Public Health Messaging for the CDC,” by Kevin Griffis.
• Politico’s “The Limits of RFK Jr.’s Power,” by Joanne Kenen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Ax Falls at HHS

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 27, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast — really fast this week — and things might well have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Senior Vice President Larry Levitt, who will riff on the 15th anniversary of the signing of the Affordable Care Act and what its immediate future might hold. But first, this week’s news. 

So for this second week in a row, we have news breaking literally as we sit down to tape, this time in the form of an announcement from the Department of Health and Human Services with the headline “HHS Announces Transformation to Make America Healthy Again.” The plan calls for 10,000 full-time employees to lose their jobs at HHS, and when combined with early retirement and other reductions, it will reduce the department’s workforce by roughly 25%, from about 82,000 to about 62,000. It calls for creation of a new “Administration for a Healthy America” that will combine a number of existing HHS agencies, including the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health under one umbrella. 

Reading through the announcement, a lot of it actually seems to make some sense, as many HHS programs do overlap. But the big overriding question is: Can they really do this? Isn’t this kind of reorganization Congress’ job? 

Ollstein: Congress has not stood up for itself in its power-of-the-purse role so far in the Trump administration. They have stood by, largely, the Republican majorities in the House and Senate, or they’ve offered sort of mild concerns. But they have not said, Hey guys, this is our job, all of these cuts that are happening. There’s talk of a legislative package that would codify the DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] cuts that are already happening, rubber-stamping it after the fact. But Congress has not made moves to claw back its authority in terms of saying, Hey, we approved this funding, and you can’t just go back and take it. There’s lawsuits to that effect, but not from the members — from outside groups, from labor unions, from impacted folks, but not our dear legislative branch. 

Rovner: You know, Joanne, you were there for a lot of this. We covered the creation of a lot of these agencies. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, I covered the creation of its predecessor agency, which there were huge compromises that went into this, lots of policymaking. It just seems that RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. going to say: We don’t actually care all these things you did. We’re just going to redo the whole thing. 

Kenen: As many of the listeners know, many laws that Congress passes have to be reauthorized every five years or every 10 years. Five is the most typical, and they often don’t get around to it and they extend and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. But basically the idea is that things do change and things do need to be reevaluated. So, normally when you do reauthorization — we all just got this press release announcing all these mergers of departments and so forth at HHS. None of us are experts in procurement and IT. Maybe those two departments do need to be merged. I mean, I don’t know. That’s the kind of thing that, reauthorization, Congress looks at and Congress thinks about. Well, and agencies and legislation do get updated. Maybe the NIH [National Institutes of Health] doesn’t need 28 institutes and they should have 15 or whatever. But it’s just sort of this, somebody coming in and waving a magic DOGE wand, and Congress is not involved. And there’s not as much public input and expert input as you’d have because Congress holds hearings and listens to people who do have expertise. 

So it’s not just Congress not exercising power to make decisions. It’s also Congress not deliberating and learning. I mean all of us learned health policy partly by listening to experts at congressional panels. We listen to people at Finance, and Energy and Commerce, and so forth. So it’s not just Congress’ voice being silenced. It’s this whole review and fact-based — and experts don’t always agree and Congress makes the final call. But that’s just been short-circuited. And I mean we all know there’s duplication in government, but this isn’t the process we have historically used to address it. 

Rovner: You know, one other thing, I think they’re merging agencies that are in different locations, which on the one hand might make sense. But if you have one central IT or one central procurement agency in Washington or around Washington, you’ve got a lot of these organizations that are outside of Washington. And they’re outside of Washington because members of Congress put them there. A lot of them are in particular places because they were parochial decisions made by Congress. That may or may not make sense, but that’s where they are. It might or might not make sense. Maya, sorry I interrupted you. 

Goldman: No, I was just going to add to Joanne’s point. Julie, I think before we started recording you mentioned that the administration is saying: We’ve thought this all out. These are well-researched decisions. But they’ve been in office for two months. How much research can you really do in that time and how intentional can those decisions really be in that time frame? 

Ollstein: Especially because all of the leaders aren’t even in place yet. Some people were just confirmed, which we’re going to talk about. Some people are on their way to confirmation but not there yet. They haven’t had the chance to talk to career staff, figure out what the redundancies are, figure out what work is currently happening that would be disrupted by various closures and mergers and stuff. So Maya’s exactly right on that. 

Goldman: You know there’s — the administration chose a lead for HRSA and other offices. And so what happens to those positions now? Do they just get demoted effectively because they’re no longer heads of offices? I would be pretty— 

Rovner: But we have a secretary of education whose job is to close the department down, so—. 

Goldman: Good point. 

Rovner: That’s apparently not unprecedented in this administration. Well, as Alice was saying, into this maelstrom of change comes those that President [Donald] Trump has selected to lead these key federal health agencies. The Senate Tuesday night confirmed policy researcher Jay Bhattacharya to head the NIH and Johns Hopkins surgeon and policy analyst Marty Makary to head the Food and Drug Administration. Bhattacharya was approved on a straight party-line vote, while Makary, who I think it’s fair to say was probably the least controversial of the top HHS nominees, won the votes of three Democrats: Minority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois and New Hampshire’s Democrats, [Sens.] Maggie Hassan and Jeanne Shaheen, along with all of the Republicans. What are any of you watching as these two people take up their new positions? 

Kenen: Well, I mean, the NIH, Bhattacharya — who I hope I’ve learned to pronounce correctly and I apologize if I have not yet mastered it — he’s really always talked about major reorganization, reprioritization. And as I said, maybe it’s time to look at some overlap, and science has changed so much in the last decade or so. I mean are the 28 — I think the number’s 28 — are the 28 current institutes the right— 

Rovner: I think it’s 27. 

Kenen: Twenty-seven. I mean, are there some things that need to be merged or need to be reorganized? Probably. You could make a case for that. But that’s just one thing. The amount of cuts that the administration announced before he got there, and there is a question in some things he’s hinted at, is he going to go for that? His background is in academia, and he does have some understanding of what this money is used for. We’ve talked before, when you talk to a layperson, when you hear the word “overhead,” “indirect costs,” what that conjures up to people as waste, when in fact it’s like paying for the electricity, paying for the staff to comply with the government regulations about ethical research on human beings. It’s not parties. It’s security. It’s cleaning the animal cages. It’s all this stuff. So is he going to cut as deeply as universities have been told to expect? We don’t know yet. And that’s something that every research institution in America is looking at. 

The FDA, he’s a contrarian on certain things but not across the board. I mean, as you just said, Julie, he’s a little less controversial than the others. He is a pancreatic surgeon. He does have a record as a physician. He has never been a regulator, and we don’t know exactly where his contrarian views will be unconventional and where — there’s a lot of agreement with certain things Secretary Kennedy wants to do, not everything. But there is some broad agreement on, some of his food issues do make sense. And the FDA will have a role in that. 

Rovner: I will say that under this reorganization plan the FDA is going to lose 3,500 people, which is a big chunk of its workforce. 

Kenen: Well things like moving SAMHSA [the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration], which is the agency that works on drug abuse within and drug addiction within HHS, that’s being folded into something else. And that’s been a national priority. The money was voted to help with addiction on a bipartisan basis several times in recent years. The grants to states, that’s all being cut back. The subagency with HHS is being folded into something else. And we don’t know. We know 20,000 jobs are being cut. The 10 announced today and the 10 we already knew about. We don’t know where they’re all coming from and what happens to the expertise and experience addressing something like the addiction crisis and the drug abuse crisis in America, which is not partisan. 

Rovner: All right. Well we’ll get to the cuts in a second. Also on Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee voted, also along party lines, to advance to the Senate floor the nomination of Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. And while he would seem likely to get confirmed by the full Senate, I did not have on my bingo card Dr. Oz’s nomination being more in doubt due to Republicans than Democrats. Did anybody else? 

Ollstein: Based on our reporting, it’s not really in doubt. [Sen.] Josh Hawley has raised concerns about Dr. Oz being too squishy on abortion and trans health care, but it does not seem that other Republicans are really jumping on board with that crusade. It sort of reminds me of concerns that were raised about RFK Jr.’s background on abortion that pretty much just fizzled and Republicans overwhelmingly fell in line. And that seems to be what’s going to happen now. Although you never know. 

Rovner: At least it hasn’t been, as you point out, it hasn’t failed anybody else. Well, the one nominee who did not make it through HHS was former Congressman Dave Weldon to head the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. So now we have a new nominee. It’s actually the acting director, Susan Monarez, who by the way has a long history in federal health programs but no history at the CDC. Who can tell us anything about her? 

Goldman: She seems like a very interesting and in some ways unconventional pick, especially for this administration. She was a career civil servant, and she worked under the Obama administration. And it’s interesting to see them be OK with that, I think. And she also has a lot of health care background but not in CDC. She’s done a lot of work on AI in health care and disaster preparedness, I think. And clearly she’s been leading the CDC for the last couple months. So she knows to that extent. But it will be very interesting when she gets around to confirmation hearings to hear what her priorities are, because we really have no idea. 

Rovner: Yeah, she’s not one of those good-on-Fox News people that we’ve seen so many of in this administration. So while Monarez’s nomination seems fairly noncontroversial, at least so far, the nominee to be the new HHS inspector general is definitely not. Remember that President Trump fired HHS IG Christi Grimm just days after he took office, along with the IGs of several other departments. Grimm is still suing to get her job back, since that firing violated the terms of the 1978 Inspector General Act. But now the administration wants to replace her with Thomas Bell, who’s had a number of partisan Republican jobs for what’s traditionally been a very nonpartisan position and who was fired by the state of Virginia in 1997 for apparently mishandling state taxpayer funds. That feels like it might raise some eyebrows as somebody who’s supposed to be in charge of waste, fraud, and abuse. Or am I being naive? 

Goldman: My eyebrows were definitely raised when I saw that news. I, to be honest, don’t know very much about him but will be very interested to see how things go, especially given that fraud, waste, and abuse and rooting out fraud, waste, and abuse are high priorities for this administration, but also things that are very up to interpretation in a certain way. 

Ollstein: Yes, although it’s clearly been very mixed on that front because the administration is also dismantling entire agencies that go after fraud and abuse— 

Goldman: Exactly. 

Ollstein: —like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So there is some mixed messaging on that front for sure. 

Rovner: Well, as Joanne mentioned, the DOGE cuts continue at the NIH. In just the last week, billions of dollars in grants have been terminated that were being used to study AIDS and HIV, covid and other potential pandemic viruses, and climate change, among other things. The NIH also closed its office studying long covid. Thank you, Alice, for writing that story. This is, I repeat, not normal. NIH only generally cancels grants that have been peer reviewed and approved for reasons of fraud or scientific misconduct, yet one termination letter obtained by Science Magazine simply stated, quote, “The end of the pandemic provides cause to terminate COVID-related grant funds.” Why aren’t we hearing more about this, particularly for members of Congress whose universities are the ones that are being cut? 

Kenen: I mean, the one Republican we heard at the very beginning was [Sen.] Katie Britt because the University of Alabama is a big, excellent, and well-respected national medical and science center, and they were targeted for a lot of cuts. She’s the only Republican, really, and she got quiet. I mean, she raised her voice very loud and clear. We may go into a situation — and everybody sort of knows this is how Washington sometimes works — where individual universities will end up negotiating with NIH over their funds and that— 

Rovner: Columbia. Cough, cough. 

Kenen: Right. And Alabama may come out great and Columbia might not, or many other leading research institutions. But these job cuts affect people in every congressional district across the country. And the funding cuts affect every congressional district across the country. So it’s not just their constitutional responsibilities. It’s also, like, their constituents are affected, and we’re not hearing it. 

Rovner: And as I point out for the millionth time, it’s not a coincidence that these things are located in every congressional district. Members of Congress, if not the ones who are currently in office then their predecessors, lobbied and worked to get these funds to their states and to their district. And yet the silence is deafening. 

Ollstein: To state the obvious, one, covid is not over. People are still contracting it. People are still dying from it. But not only that, a lot of this research was about preparing for the inevitable next pandemic that we know is coming at some point and to not be caught as unawares as we were this past time, to be more prepared, to have better tools so that there don’t have to be widespread lockdowns, things can remain open because we have more effective prevention and treatment efforts. And that’s what’s being defunded here. 

Kenen: The other thing is that long covid is in fact a chronic disease and even though it’s caused by an infectious disease, a virus. But people have long covid but it is a chronic disease, and HHS says that’s their priority, chronic disease, but they’re not including long covid. And there’s also more and more. When we think of long covid, we think of brain fog and being short of breath and tired and unable to function. There’s increasing evidence or conversation in the medical world about other problems people have long-term that probably stem from covid infections or multiple covid infections. So this is affecting millions of Americans as a chronic disease that is not well understood, and we’ve just basically said, That one doesn’t count, or: We’re not going to pay attention to that one. We’re going to, you know, we’re looking at diabetes. Yeah, we need to look at diabetes. That’s one of the things that Kennedy has bipartisan support. This country does not eat well. I wrote about this about a week ago. But what he can and can’t do, because he can’t wave a magic wand and have us all eating well. But it’s very selective in how we’re defining both the causes of diseases and what diseases we’re prioritizing. We basically just shrunk addiction. 

Goldman: In the press release announcing the reorganization this morning, there was a line talking about how the HHS is going to create this new Administration for a Healthy America to investigate chronic disease and to make sure that we have, I think it was, wholesome food, clean water, and no environmental toxins, in order to prevent chronic disease. And those are the only three things that it mentions that lead to chronic disease. 

Rovner: And none of which are under HHS’ purview. 

Goldman: Right, right. Yeah. 

Rovner: With the exception of— 

Goldman: There are things that HHS does in that space. But yeah, we’re being very selective about what constitutes a chronic disease and what causes a chronic disease. If you’re trying to actually solve a problem, maybe you should be more expansive. 

Kenen: So HHS has some authority over food, not significant authority of it, but it is shared with the USDA [U.S. Department of Agriculture]. Like school lunches are USDA, the nutritional guidelines are shared between USDA and HHS, things like that. So yeah, it has some control about, over food but not entirely control over food. 

And then EPA [Environmental Protection Agency], which has also been completely reoriented to be a pro-fossil-fuel agency, is in charge of clean water and the environmental contaminants. That’s not an HHS bailiwick. And Kennedy is not aligned with other elements of the administration on environmental issues. And also genetics, right? Genetics is also, you know, who knows? That’s NIH? But who knows what’s going to happen to the National Cancer Institute and other genetic research at NIH? We don’t know. 

Rovner: Yes. Clearly much to be determined. Well, speaking of members of Congress whose states and districts are losing federal funds, federal aid is also being cut by the CDC. In a story first reported by NBC News, CDC is reportedly clawing back more than $11 billion in covid-related grants. Among other things, that’s impacting funding that was being used in Texas to fight the ongoing measles outbreak. How exactly does clawing back this money from state and local public health agencies make America healthy again? 

Goldman: That’s a great question, and I’m curious to see how it plays out. I don’t have the answer. 

Rovner: And it’s not just domestic spending. The fate of PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], the international AIDS/HIV program that’s credited with saving more than 20 million lives, remains in question. And The New York Times has gotten hold of a spreadsheet including more global health cuts, including those for projects to fight malaria and to pull the U.S. out of Gavi. That’s the global vaccine alliance that’s helped vaccinate more than 1.1 billion children in 78 countries. Wasn’t there a court order stopping all of these cuts? 

Ollstein: So there was for some USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] work, but not all of these things fall under that umbrella. And that is still an ongoing saga that has flipped back and forth depending on various rulings. But I think it’s worth pointing out, as always, that infectious diseases don’t respect international borders, and any pullback on efforts to fight various things abroad inevitably will impact Americans as well. 

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, we’ve seen these measles cases obviously in Texas, but now we’re getting measles cases in other parts of the country, and many of them are people coming from other countries. We had somebody come through Washington, D.C.’s Union Station with measles, and we’ve had all of these alerts. I mean, this is what happens when you don’t try and work with infectious diseases where they are, then they spread. That’s kind of the nature of infectious disease. 

Well, at the same time, HHS Secretary RFK Jr. is putting his Make America Healthy Again agenda into practice in smaller ways as well. First up, remember that study that Kennedy promised again to look into any links between childhood vaccines and autism? It will reportedly be led by a vaccine skeptic who was disciplined by the Maryland Board of Physicians for practicing medicine without a license and who has pushed the repeatedly debunked assertion that autism can be caused by the preservative thimerosal, which used to be used in childhood vaccines but has long since been discontinued. One autism group referred to the person who’s going to be running this study as, quote, “a known conspiracy theorist and quack.” Sen. [Bill] Cassidy seemed to promise us that this wasn’t going to happen. 

Kenen: Well, we think that Sen. Cassidy was promised it wouldn’t happen, and it’s all happening. And in fact, when a recent hearing, he was very outspoken that there’s no need to research the autism link, because it’s been researched over and over and over and over and over again and there’s a lot of reputable scientific evidence establishing that vaccination does not cause autism. We don’t know what causes autism, so— 

Rovner: But we know it’s not thimerosal. 

Kenen: Right, which has been removed from many vaccines, in fact, and autism rates went up. So Cassidy has not come out and said, Yeah, I’m the guy who pulled the plug on Weldon. But it’s sort of obvious that he had, at least was, a role in. It is widely understood in Washington that he and a few other Republicans, [Sens. Lisa] Murkowski and [Susan] Collins, I believe — I think Murkowski said it in public — said that the CDC could not go down that route. 

Rovner: Well, I would like to be inadvertently invited to the Signal chat between Secretary Kennedy and Sen. Cassidy. I would very much wish to see that conversation. 

Meanwhile, in Texas, where HHS just confiscated public health funding, as we said, a hospital in Lubbock says it’s now treating children with liver damage from too much vitamin A, which Secretary Kennedy recommended as a way to prevent and or treat measles. Which it doesn’t, by the way. But that points to, that some of these — I hesitate of how to describe these people who are “making America healthy again.” But some of the things that they point to can be actively dangerous, not just not helpful. 

Goldman: Yeah. And I think it also shows how much messaging from the top matters, right? People are listening to what Secretary Kennedy says, which makes sense because he’s the secretary of health and human services. But if he’s pedaling misinformation or disinformation, that can have real harmful effects on people. 

Kenen: And his messages are being amplified even if some people are not, their parents, who aren’t maybe directly tuned in to what Kennedy personally is saying, but they follow various influencers on health who are then echoing what Kennedy’s saying about vitamin A. Yeah, we all need vitamin A in our diet. It’s something, part of healthy nutrition. But this supplement’s unnecessary, or excess supplements, vitamin A or cod liver oil or other things that can make them sick, including liver damage. And that’s what we’re seeing now. Vitamin A does have a place in measles under very specific circumstances, under medical supervision in individual cases. But no, people should not be going to the drugstore and pouring huge numbers of tablets of vitamin C down their children’s throat. It’s dangerous. 

Rovner: And actually the head of communications at the CDC not only quit his job this week but wrote a rather impassioned op-ed in The Washington Post, which I will post in our show notes, talking about he feels like he cannot work for an agency that is not giving advice that is based in science and that that’s what he feels right now. Again, that’s before we get a new head of the CDC. Well, MAHA is apparently spreading to the states as well. West Virginia Republican Gov. Patrick Morrisey this week signed a bill to ban most artificial food coloring and two preservatives in all foods sold in the state starting in 2028. Nearly half the rest of the states are considering similar types of bans. But unless most of those other states follow, companies aren’t going to remake their products just for West Virginia, right? 

Kenen: West Virginia is not big enough, but they sometimes do remake their products for California, which is big. The whole food additive issue is, traditionally the food manufacturers have had a lot of control over deciding what’s safe. It’s the industry that has decided. Kennedy has some support across the board and saying that’s too loose and we should look at some of these additives that have not been examined. There are others, including some preservatives, that have been studied and that are safe. Some preservatives have not been studied and should be studied. There are others that have been studied and are safe and they keep food from going rotten or they can prevent foodborne disease outbreaks. Something that does make our food healthy, we probably want to keep them in there. So, and are there some that— 

Rovner: I think people get mixed up between the dyes and the preservatives. Dyes are just to make things look more attractive. The preservatives were put there for a reason. 

Kenen: Right. And there’s some healthy ways of making dyes, too, if you need your food to be red. There’s berry abstracts instead of chemical extracts. So things get overly simplified in a way that does not end up necessarily promoting health across the board. 

Rovner: Well, not all of the news is coming from the Trump administration. The Supreme Court next week will hear a case out of South Carolina about whether Medicaid recipients can sue to enforce their right to get care from any qualified health care providers. But this is really another case about Planned Parenthood, right, Alice? 

Ollstein: Yep. If South Carolina gets the green light to kick Planned Parenthood out of its Medicaid program, which is really what is at the heart of this case, even though it’s sort of about whether beneficiaries can sue if their rights are denied. A right isn’t a right if you can’t enforce it, so it’s expected that a ruling in that direction would cause a stampede of other conservative states to do the same, to exclude Planned Parenthood from their Medicaid programs. Many have tried already, and that’s gone around and around in the courts for a while, and so this is really the big showdown at the high court to really decide this. 

And as I’ve been writing about, this is just one of many prongs of the right’s bigger strategy to defund Planned Parenthood. So there are efforts at the federal level. There are efforts at the state level. There are efforts in the courts. They are pushing executive actions on that front. We can talk. There was some news on Title X this week. 

Rovner: That was my next question. Go ahead. 

Ollstein: Some potential news. 

Rovner: What’s happening with Title X? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So HHS told us when we inquired that nothing’s final yet, but they’re reviewing tens of millions of Title X federal family planning grants that currently go to some Planned Parenthood affiliates to provide subsidized contraception, STI [sexually transmitted infection] screenings, various non-abortion services. And so they are reviewing those grants now. They are supposed to be going out next week, so we’ll have to see what happens there. There was some sort of back-and-forth in the reporting about whether they’re going to be cut or not. 

Rovner: What surprises me about the Title X grant, and there has been, there have been efforts, as you point out, going back to the 1980s to kick Planned Parenthood out of the Title X program. That’s separate from kicking Planned Parenthood out of Medicaid, which is where Planned Parenthood gets a lot more money. 

But the first Trump administration did kick Planned Parenthood out of Title X, and they went through the regulatory process to do it. And then the Biden administration went through the regulatory process to rescind the Trump administration regulations that kicked them out. Now it looks like the Trump administration thinks that it can just stop it without going through the regulatory process, right? 

Ollstein: That’s right. So not only are they going around Congress, which approves Title X funding every year, they are also going around their own rulemaking and just going for it. Although, again, it has not been finally announced whether or not there will be cuts. They’re just reviewing these grants. 

Rovner: But I repeat for those in the back, this is not normal. It’s not how these things are supposed to work it. 

Kenen: It’s normal now, Julie. 

Rovner: Yeah, clearly it’s becoming normal. Well, finally this week, another case of a woman arrested for a poor pregnancy outcome. This happened in Georgia where the woman suffered a natural miscarriage, not an abortion, which was confirmed by the medical examiner, but has been arrested on charges of improperly disposing of the fetal remains. Alice, this is turning into a trend, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. And it’s important for people to remember that this was happening before Dobbs. This was happening when Roe v. Wade was still in place. This has happened since then in states where abortion is legal. Some prosecutors are finding other ways to charge people. Whether it’s related to, yeah, the disposal of the fetus, whether it’s related to substance abuse, substance use during pregnancy, even sometimes the use of substances that are actually legal, but people have been charged, arrested for using them during pregnancy. So yes, it’s important to remember that even if there’s not a quote-unquote “abortion ban” on the books, there are still efforts underway in many places to criminalize pregnancy loss however it happens, naturally or via some abortifacient method. 

Rovner: Well, something else we’ll be keeping an eye on. All right, that’s as much news as we have time for this week. Now, we will play my interview with KFF’s Larry Levitt. Then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

So, last Sunday was the 15th anniversary of President Barack Obama’s signing of the original Affordable Care Act. And before you ask, yes, I was there in the White House East Room that day. Anyway, to discuss what the law has meant to the U.S. health system over the last decade and a half and what its future might be, I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF colleague Larry Levitt, executive vice president for health policy. 

Larry, thanks for joining us again. 

Larry Levitt: Oh, thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, [then-House Speaker] Nancy Pelosi was mercilessly derided when she said that once the American people learned exactly what was in the ACA, they would come to like it. But that’s exactly what’s happened, right? 

Levitt: It is. Yes. I think people took her comments so out of context, but the ACA was incredibly controversial and divisive when it was being debated. Frankly, after a pass, the ACA became pretty unpopular. If you go back to 2014, just before the main provisions of the ACA were being implemented, there was all this controversy over the individual mandate, over people’s plans being canceled because they didn’t comply with the ACA’s rules. And then, of course, healthcare.gov, the website, didn’t work. So the ACA was very underwater in public opinion. And even after it first went into effect and people started getting coverage, that didn’t necessarily turn around immediately, there was still a lot of divisiveness over the law. 

What changed is, No. 1, over time, more and more people got covered, people with preexisting conditions, people who couldn’t afford health insurance, people who turned 26 or could stay on their parents’ plans until 26 and then could enroll in the ACA or Medicaid after turning 26. All these people got coverage and started to see the benefits of the law. The other thing that happened was in 2017, Republicans tried unsuccessfully to repeal and replace the ACA, and people really realized what they could be missing if the law went away. 

Rovner: So what’s turned out to be the biggest change to the health care system as a result of the ACA? And is it what you originally thought it would be? 

Levitt: Well, yeah, in this case it was not a surprise, I think. The biggest change was the number of people getting covered and a big decrease in the number of people uninsured. We have been at the lowest rate of uninsurance ever recently due to the ACA and some of the enhancements, which we’ll probably talk about. And that was what the law was intended to do, was to get more people covered. And I think you’d have to call that a success, in retrospect. 

Rovner: I will say I was surprised by how much Medicaid dominated the increased coverage. I know now it’s sort of balanced out because of reductions in premiums for private coverage, I think in large part. But I think during the 2017 fight to undo the ACA, that was the first time since I’ve been covering Medicaid that I think people really realized how big and how important Medicaid is to the health care system. 

Levitt: No, that’s right. I mean the ACA marketplace, healthcare.gov, the individual mandate, preexisting condition protections, I mean, those are the things that got a lot of the public attention. But in fact, yeah, in the early years of the ACA, I mean really up until just the last couple years, the Medicaid expansion in the ACA was really the engine of coverage. And that’s not what a lot of people expected. In fact, Congressional Budget Office in their original projections kind of got that wrong, too. 

Rovner: So what was the biggest disappointment about something the ACA was supposed to do but didn’t do or didn’t do very well? 

Levitt: Yeah, I mean, I would have to point to health care costs as the biggest disappointment. The ACA really wasn’t intended to address health care costs head-on. And that was both a policy judgment but also a political decision. If you go back to the debate over the Clinton health plan in the early ’90s, which failed spectacularly — you and I were both there — it addressed health care costs aggressively, took on every segment of the health care industry, and died under that political weight. The political judgment of Obama and Democrats in Congress with the ACA was to not take on those vested health care interests and not really address health care costs head-on. That’s what enabled it to get passed. But it sort of lacked teeth in that regard. There were some things in the ACA like expansion of ACOs, accountable care organizations, which maybe had some promise but frankly have not done a whole lot. 

Rovner: And of course, Congress undoing what teeth there were in the ensuing years probably didn’t help very much, either. 

Levitt: No. I mean there was this provision in the ACA called the Cadillac plan tax, right? The idea was to tax so-called Cadillac health plans, very generous health plans. That probably would’ve had an effect. I’m not sure it would’ve done what people intended for it to do. I mean, I think it would’ve actually shifted costs to workers and caused deductibles to rise even higher. But no one but economists liked that Cadillac plan tax, and it was repealed. 

Rovner: So, as you mentioned, you and I are both also veterans of the 1993, 1994 failed effort by President Bill Clinton to overhaul the nation’s health care system, which, like the fight over the ACA, featured large-scale, deliberate mis- and disinformation by opponents about what a major piece of health legislation could do. In fact, and I have done lots of stories on this, scare tactics about the possible impact of providing universal health insurance coverage date back to the early 1900s and have been a feature of every single major health care debate since then. What did we learn from the ACA debate about combating this kind of deliberate misinformation? 

Levitt: Yeah, you’re so right about the disinformation, and I was actually looking yesterday — we have a timeline of health policy over the decades in our KFF headquarters in San Francisco, and we have an ad up there from the debate over the Truman health plan. You and I were not there for that debate. 

Rovner: Thank you. 

Levitt: And the AMA [American Medical Association] opposed that as socialized medicine and ran these ads featuring robots who were going to be your doctor if the Truman plan passed. So this is certainly nothing new. And we saw it in the ACA with death panels, right? I mean, which just spread like wildfire through the media and over social media. I would kind of hope we learned some lessons from the ACA. I’m not sure we have. And I kind of worry that with declining trust in institutions, particularly government institutions, I just wonder whether we’ll get back to a place where, yeah, we’ll disagree about policy. There will be spin, there will be scare tactics, but at least there’s some trusted source of facts and data that we can rely on, and I’m not so hopeful there. 

Rovner: Somebody asked former [HHS] Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at a 15th-anniversary event what she regretted most about not having in the ACA, and she said, With all the talk of our actually taking over the health care system, we should have just taken over the health care system, since that’s what everybody was accusing it of. It might’ve worked better. 

Levitt: Yeah, there is — we could have a whole other session on “Medicare for All” and single payer and the pros and cons of that. But one thing I think we did learn from the ACA, that complexity is just a huge problem. Even what’s supposed to be the simplest part of our health care system now, Medicare, has become incredibly complex with Part A and Part B and Part C and Part D. Seniors kind of scratch their heads trying to figure out what to do, and the ACA even more so. 

And I think back to your original question, part of what made the ACA so hard for people to grasp is there was not one single, Oh, I’m going to sign up for the ACA. There were so many pieces of it. And over time, I’m not even sure people identify those pieces with the ACA anymore. 

Rovner: Yeah. Oh, no, I am surprised at how many younger people have no idea of what the insurance market was like before the ACA and how many people were simply redlined out of getting coverage. 

Levitt: Right. No. I mean, once you fix those problems, then people don’t see them anymore. 

Rovner: So let’s look forward quickly. It seemed at least for a while after the Republicans failed in 2017 to repeal and replace the law that efforts to undo it were finally over. But while this administration isn’t saying directly that they want to end it, they do have some big targets for undoing big pieces of it. What are some of those and what are the likelihood of them happening? 

Levitt: Yeah, in some ways we have an ACA repeal-and-replace debate going on right now, just not in name. And there are really kind of two big pieces on the table. One, of course, is potential cuts to Medicaid. The House has passed a budget resolution calling for $880 billion in cuts, by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over Medicaid. The vast majority of those cuts would have to be in Medicaid. The math is simply inescapable. And a big target on the table is that expansion of Medicaid that was in the ACA. 

And interestingly, you’re even hearing Republicans on the Hill talking about repealing the enhanced federal matching payments for the ACA Medicaid expansion and saying: Well, that’s not Medicaid cuts. That’s Obamacare. That’s not Medicaid. But 20 million people are covered under that Medicaid expansion. So it would lead to the biggest increase in the number of people uninsured we’ve ever had, if that gets repealed. 

The other issue really has not gotten a lot of attention yet this year, which is the extra premium assistance that was passed under [President Joe] Biden and by Democrats in Congress. And that’s led to a dramatic increase in ACA marketplace enrollment. ACA enrollment has more than doubled to 24 million since 2020. Those subsidies expire at the end of this year. So if Congress does nothing, people would be faced with very big out-of-pocket premium increases. And I suspect it’s going to get more attention as we get closer to the end of the year, but so far there hasn’t been a big debate over it yet. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll continue to talk about it. Larry Levitt, thank you so much. 

Levitt: Oh, thanks. Great conversation. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: There’s a piece in The Atlantic this week called “America Is Done Pretending About Meat,” by Yasmin Tayag, and it’s basically saying that half of the people who said they were vegan or vegetarian were lying and that meat is very much back in fashion. That the new pejorative term — some of us may remember from 20 years or so ago, the “quiche eaters” —now it’s the “soy boy.” And that one of the new “in” foods, and I think this is the first for the podcast to use the phrase, raw beef testicles. So when we’re talking about political red meat, it’s not just political red meat. America is, we’re eating a lot more meat than we said we did, and we’re no longer saying that we’re not eating it. 

Rovner: Real red meat for the masses. 

Ollstein: For what it’s worth, “soy boy” has been a slur since the Obama administration. 

Kenen: Well, it’s just new to me. Thank you. I welcome the— 

Ollstein: I unfortunately have been in the online fever swamps where people say things like that. 

Kenen: Thank you, Alice. Now I know. 

Rovner: Maya, why don’t you go next? 

Goldman: My extra credit is a KFF Health News article by Rachana Pradhan and Aneri Pattani called “‘I Am Going Through Hell’: Job Loss, Mental Health, and the Fate of Federal Workers.” And I think it’s just worth remembering that there are real consequences, real mental health consequences to mass upheaval at the scale of what’s going on in the federal government right now with so many people losing their jobs and just not sure if their jobs are stable, especially in light of this morning’s news about HHS reorganizations. But also I think this article does a really good job of highlighting how this chaos and instability is only going to exacerbate already ongoing mental health crises that some of these workers that have been laid off were trying to help solve. And so it’s just this cycle that keeps running through. It’s worth remembering. 

Rovner: The chaos is the point. Alice. 

Ollstein: So, I have a piece from the New York Times Wirecutter section called “23andMe Just Filed for Bankruptcy. You Should Delete Your Data Now.” And it’s what it says. The company that millions and millions of people have sent samples of their DNA to over the years to find out what percent European they are and all this stuff and their propensity for various inherited diseases, that company is going bankrupt, and there is the expectation that it will be sold off for parts, including people’s very sensitive DNA. And the article points out that because they are not a health care provider, they are not subject to HIPAA [Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act]. And so many elected officials and privacy advocates are recommending that people, very quickly, if they have given their DNA to this company, go and delete their information now before it gets sold off to who knows who. 

Rovner: And for who knows what reason. My extra credit this week is something I really did think at first was from The Onion. It’s actually from CNN, and it’s called “State Lawmakers Are Looking to Ban Non-Existent ‘Chemtrails.’ It Could Have Real-Life Side Effects,” by Ramishah Maruf and Brandon Miller, who’s a CNN meteorologist. It seems that several states are moving to ban those white lines the jets leave behind them, on the theory that they are full of toxic chemicals and/or intended to manipulate the weather. In fact, they’re mostly just water vapor. They’re called contrails because the con is for condensation. But these laws could outlaw some new types of technologies that are aimed at addressing things like climate change. Clearly we need to teach more science along with more civics. 

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks, as always, to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you could email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Maya? 

Goldman: I am on X and Bluesky. If you search Maya Goldman, you’ll find me. And also increasingly on LinkedIn. Find me there. 

Rovner: Hearing that a lot. Alice. 

Ollstein: I am on X, @AliceOllstein, and Bluesky, @alicemiranda. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: I’m mostly at Bluesky, and I’m also using LinkedIn a lot. @joannekenen at Bluesky. LinkedIn is reverberating more. 

Rovner: All right, we’ll be back in your feed next week with still more breaking news. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As abortion and other reproductive issues gain more prominence in the looming election, some Republicans are trying to moderate their anti-abortion positions, particularly in states where access to the procedure remains politically popular. 

Meanwhile, open enrollment is underway for Medicare, even as some health plans are challenging in court the federal government’s decision to reduce their quality ratings — with millions of dollars at stake. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• With polls showing more voters citing abortion as a top voting issue, some candidates with long track records opposing abortion rights are working to moderate their positions.
• Many older Americans will spend less on prescription drugs next year due to a new out-of-pocket pricing cap, among other changes in store as provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act take effect. But some are realizing the limits on those benefits, as deeper problems persist in drug pricing, insurance coverage, and access.
• The FDA is reconsidering a weight-loss drug decision that caused confusion for patients and compounding pharmacies. Compounded drugs are intended for individual issues, like needing a different dosage — and while the process can be used to augment mass manufacturing during times of drug shortages, it is not well suited to address access and pricing issues.
• In abortion news, a comprehensive study shows abortions have increased since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, even among women in states with strict restrictions — and those states are seeing higher infant mortality rates, according to separate research. And an effort is underway to revive in a Texas court the challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval. The last challenge failed because the Supreme Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Tricia Neuman, senior vice president of KFF and executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy, about Medicare open enrollment and the changes to the program for 2025. 

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Vanity Fair’s “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health,” by Katherine Eban. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Atlantic’s “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch.  

Victoria Knight: NPR’s “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year,” by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Abortions Have Increased, Even for Women in States With Rigid Bans, Study Says,” by Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• CNN’s “Infants Died at Higher Rates After Abortion Bans in the US, Research Shows,” by Deidre McPhillips.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Less Than Two Weeks To Go

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Oct. 24, 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 Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my friend and KFF colleague Tricia Neuman about Medicare open enrollment and what to expect in Medicare in the coming year. 

But first, this week’s news. We will start on the campaign trail since Election Day is now less than two weeks away. Let that sink in. Abortion is, at least according to many polls, on the upswing as a voting issue and, probably not coincidentally, abortion-adjacent issues, like contraception, are also getting more attention. But while it’s clear that Democrats are still pretty much the party of abortion rights and Republicans are pretty much the party representing anti-abortion activists, we’re seeing some Republican candidates working pretty hard to muddy the waters. Yes? 

Knight: Yeah, it’s been interesting this election cycle. We have seen some Republicans saying that they are pro-choice. And this is at a time when, finally, on the Democratic side in Congress, there really are not many anti-abortion Democrats left. We have in the House congressman Henry Cuellar [of Texas] is really the only one left. [Pennsylvania] Sen. Bob Casey, we’ve kind of seen him swing over time to be more in the camp of pro-choice, pro-abortion rights and so … 

Rovner: … which was really, in Casey’s case, really interesting, because his father, who was the governor of Pennsylvania, was sort of the original anti-abortion Democrat back in the early 1990s. 

Knight: Yeah. I’m interested to see if this works in — we’re seeing, particularly in some more moderate, swinging House seats, that Republicans are trying to message in this way that they’re more moderate on abortion, saying they’re more pro-choice. I’m interested to see if this actually works. And then we have perhaps this caucus within the House, if that works, that are more moderate. I mean, you already see in the current makeup of the House, there are some House Republicans, particularly the New York Republicans, that were really careful in this 118th Congress when they were having to vote on certain bills that would restrict, for example, access to mifepristone. That was kind of a rider in the FDA appropriations bill, and they didn’t want to vote for it, and they helped cause chaos on the House floor for that bill, particularly, because they didn’t want to pass it because they knew that would look bad on their record and they were having to run for the House again. So, will this messaging work for the kind of new people that are running this cycle? I’m not sure, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: I was kind of surprised to see Liz Cheney this week (who was out campaigning with Vice President [Kamala] Harris), who’s strongly anti-abortion, has been her entire career, actually pipe up on her own — and she’s not running for anything; she’s basically a person without a party at the moment — but say that even though she’s anti-abortion, she is not in favor of some of the things that are happening with some of these abortion bans, like women having miscarriages not being able to get immediate medical [care]. I was fascinated to see somebody who, with as strong anti-abortion credentials as she has, speak out about these things that one would assume even people who are anti-abortion would not be against. We do see the anti-abortion group saying making abortion illegal doesn’t make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage care, even though it gets all muddled when you’re actually on the ground doing it and you’re a doctor facing potential jail time. 

Knight: Well, and I think the thing is, people are seeing the realities of the abortion bans a couple of years in. I think that’s really the consequences. … When these first happened two years ago, people can say all these kind of things, but now that they’ve been in place for a couple years and women have died, we’re hearing these stories from news outlets of how that happens and it’s often women that want the babies. It’s like people are having to moderate their stances somewhat, I think. 

Rovner: It’s — there’s nuance. … Politics is not great with nuance, but we’re seeing nuance. 

Well, one abortion-adjacent story that jumped out at me this week is happening in Florida, where it seems that the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis himself was behind legal threats to TV stations running ads in favor of the ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Florida Department of Health general counsel John Wilson said he was given prewritten letters from one of DeSantis’ lawyers … Oct. 3 and told to send them under his own name, he wrote in a sworn affidavit.” Wilson subsequently resigned rather than send out more letters. In between, a judge warned the state to cease and desist with the threat, saying, and I quote, “It’s the First Amendment, stupid.” I have honestly never seen anything quite like this, although I would also point out I’ve never seen anything quite like Florida’s surgeon general recommending against people getting vaccines. What the heck is going on in Florida? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’ve seen state officials in Florida try to enact their will and challenge public health recommendations. Certainly, we saw that happen during the covid-19 pandemic. They were trying to put out their own guidelines on vaccination, and so I don’t think it’s a particular surprise. I think it is just uglier than usual now that we get the full backstory on how these letters came to be. And court cases take a long time, and I think that’ll extend to beyond the next couple of weeks. But it’s an interesting publicity stunt for what it is, and yeah I … 

Rovner: I wouldn’t want to be one of the TV stations threatening to have its license canceled, although the head of the FCC, I think, got involved too and said, “Um, this is not how this works.” 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think so. I don’t expect that the court would find that political ads you don’t like are illegal, so, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the governor can tell you to pull political ads that they don’t like. Pretty sure that’s not how these things work. 

Well, meanwhile, given the very real possibility that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the D.C. rumor mill is already spinning out names of those who could fill Cabinet and other senior health posts. What are you guys hearing? And is RFK Jr. really going to end up in some big health policymaking job? 

Knight: That’s funny that you say that because I was just having a talk with my editors about the names that we’re hearing. I have heard, and I am sure Rachel and Sarah have names on their mind as well, but someone said this to me, I think it’s funny: A very 2004 pick would be Bobby Jindal. He’s at the America First Policy Institute, which has a lot of former Trump administration people there, and it’s kind of seen this swing, I think recently, now that Project 2025 is kind of like no one wants to touch Project 2025 anymore. It seems like more people are, like, OK, AFPI is the place to pick people from if there’s a new Trump administration. And there’s been some stories this week about the chief of staff potentially coming from AFPI. So, people have been telling me Bobby Jindal, but I think he seems to have some solid grounding in that. You probably are more familiar with him, Julie, than I am, but … 

Rovner: Oh, yes. I’ve known him since 2004. I’ve known him since before 2004. He was actually … he was brought to Washington by Democratic Sen. John Breaux to staff a Medicare commission back in, I think it was the very late 1990s. He served in Congress, he was the governor of Louisiana, and he served in HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in the George W. Bush administration. So he’s got lots of experience, and he’s coincidentally all over Twitter this week with a paid ad, trashing Kamala Harris’ support for “Medicare for All,” which, of course, she hasn’t supported since 2019. But yeah, suddenly Bobby Jindal, who we hadn’t seen in a while, is kind of everywhere. He was one of the bright young lights about, what, eight years ago? 

Knight: Right, right. 

Rovner: But I guess before Trump, he was one of the bright young Republican lights. So yeah, I keep hearing his name too. 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t know … 

Rovner: Go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that I don’t think there are a lot of people that we’ve been talking to who are worried about RFK himself getting appointed to one of these posts, but I think there has been a lot of buzz about some of his allies, like Calley and Casey Means. I know my colleague Isa Cueto did a great — just, profile of kind of who they are and kind of how their rise has just been so meteoric, and I think we’re also seeing some allies. So people who rose in the conservative movement over skepticism, over vaccine mandates, and just like the whole public health establishment have really gotten a new platform. And so I think people are a little nervous, as we’ve reported, both health care industry leaders who are worried about anti-pharmaceutical industry sentiment, anti-science sentiment, and even establishment Republican leaders and officials who served in prior Trump administrations that the picks could be more extreme than a Bobby Jindal establishment-Republican type and that this could be taking a turn. 

Rovner: Sarah, what are you hearing with FDA? 

Karlin-Smith: I mean, it’s a little less clear, I think, who might end up in FDA, but the sentiment has been probably a more typical Trump pick than maybe we got last time. FDA was sort of insulated in some ways, I think, from some of the drama, if you will, of the Trump administration last time. Scott Gottlieb was able to run FDA with pretty hands-off from other parts of the administration, and I think he ran FDA more like you would expect a traditional Republican to run FDA, not necessarily a Trump Republican. And I think people are recognizing that FDA will be a lot more vulnerable this time around that we’re probably not going to get another kind of Scott Gottlieb to save FDA if Trump is president. There’s certainly more concerns about how that impacts staff turnover as well, among civil service folks. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will see. 

All right, well, moving on. Open enrollment for Medicare began last week and continues until Dec. 7. That’s when people on Medicare can join or change their private prescription drug and/or Medicare Advantage plans. We explore this in more detail in my interview later in this episode with KFF’s Tricia Neuman. We know that most people with Medicare and most people with private insurance, where they can change plans during an open enrollment season, don’t actually bother to do anything. But this year there really are a lot of changes coming in Medicare, particularly on the prescription drug side. Why is it extra important this year that people take a look at their coverage? 

Karlin-Smith: So, some of the big changes with the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that kick in this year for Medicare and the prescription side, like the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap. Your plan actually has to cover that. One thing, I was at a conference this week and they’re saying that drug has to be, actually be on your plan for you to reap those savings of hitting that cap, which seems obvious, but … 

Rovner: Oh, I don’t know. I think people don’t quite realize that. It’s like they think that there’s a $2,000 cap no matter what, and it’s important. It’s, like, if your drug is not one of the drugs that’s covered by your plan, does not count. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, and so it’s looking for all of those things to make sure all the pieces of your plan actually fit together with your medical needs. There’s been, I think, a reduction, in some degree, into the amount of particularly Part D stand-alone plans for people who elect to use traditional Medicare for their other health benefits. So you may just want to look a little bit more closely at what the options are, what the premiums are, because some of these changes to Part D have impacted premiums a bit, though the federal government has stepped in to try to alleviate that. 

But I think this is seen as an adjustment year for the plans because one of the ideas behind the IRA is to put both health insurance companies as well as the pharmaceutical companies more on the hook, in some ways, for the cost of drugs. The old way Part D plans worked, the government ended up bearing a lot of the costs of the drugs to a point where it didn’t give a lot of incentives for both the drug companies to want to lower the prices, for the insurance companies to push for that. So I think it may take a little bit of time for them to figure out now how to adjust the benefits and the premiums and so forth, given this new dynamic. So people just may want to pay a little bit more close attention for premium aspects and others as well to the plans they’re picking. 

Rovner: And if you’re helping someone on Medicare, which I know many people are, it’s good to do a little extra homework this year. 

Well, another story that caught my eye is a survey of independent drugstores that suggests many of them won’t stock the very expensive drugs that Medicare negotiations are making less expensive, because they would actually lose money dispensing them. Sarah, is this an unexpected glitch, and can it be fixed, or is this just the price of bringing down drug prices? 

Karlin-Smith: I would say not entirely unexpected. These independent pharmacies have warned CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and tried to push in guidance so that when they’re dispensing a drug, basically, they will be entitled to get quicker rebates from the drug companies so that they can make stocking these drugs more reasonable for them. And these pharmacies, I think in particular, have been raising alarm bells outside of Medicare drug price negotiations for a while now, that they’re being placed in these difficult positions where they have to buy drugs at whatever the wholesale acquisition cost is. And then there’s all of this insurance back-end stuff going on, and they sometimes get reimbursed by the plans and so forth for less than they’ve actually bought the drugs. 

So it’s not just a Medicare drug price negotiation issue here. Some of it is, again, about the time that the pharmaceutical companies have to rebate the costs and they ask Medicare for a bit of leeway. And others, it’s just this broader way our system works, where they’re buying wholesale. You have a patient come to the counter that pays their small portion of it, their plan pays, whatever, and everybody has to sort of, right at the end … and these pharmacies are saying, “We can’t afford to do that.” I do think, politically, if this becomes a problem, if patients can’t get the negotiated prices/drugs at the pharmacies they’re used to, this could be politically problematic for the IRA moving forward. Even though, again, I’m not entirely sure. It’s illuminating a broader problem in the system that I think existed without it. 

Rovner: Right, it’s all a big mess, and it’s underlining it. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, but that doesn’t mean that politics won’t come into play and blame drug price negotiation. And certainly, anytime an opposing party hates something — we know Democrats are really into this, Republicans aren’t, and I’m sure they will try and blame it on the IRA as much as possible. And we’ll see if CMS maybe realizes that they had a little more leverage to try and make this a little bit easier and fixes it for the next round. 

Rovner: Yeah. Before we leave Medicare, I want to talk briefly about Medicare Advantage. This Medicare Advantage market is so valuable to insurers and so competitive that we now have at least two lawsuits charging that Medicare wrongly lowered the number of quality stars some plans received. Now, this feels like a restaurant suing Yelp for lowering its rating from four stars to three, but in Medicare Advantage, this is a really big deal, right, when they lose a star? 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, I think if the Yelp rating was worth $70 million, or whatever that figure is, then yeah, maybe they would sue. So I think we certainly — I think it’s a measure that is so important to insurers, to regulators, but that individual people might not understand. And there were some really interesting details from that lawsuit about the potential that there was one call-center call that tipped the balance into a quality measure and that there might’ve been some technical difficulties, and it does just cast these larger questions that I think I’ll be interested to see what documents come out during these lawsuits. And just questioning how useful these metrics really are, if that really was the case. 

Rovner: Yeah, I found it, I also was taken aback. It’s like, really, one call to a customer service center didn’t happen properly, and so the whole plan loses a star? That seemed a little bit dramatic, but yes, like you, I’ll be interested to see. There’s a lot of pressure on Medicare Advantage from every conceivable angle, but we are now in litigation over it. 

Well, while we are on the subject of private health companies suing the federal government, the compounding pharmacies who have been legally selling unapproved copies of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound have apparently successfully gotten the FDA to reverse its earlier finding, based on the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ say-so, that those drugs are no longer in shortage. That’s a decision that would’ve made it illegal for the compounders to continue to make and sell those drugs. At the same time, Novo Nordisk, maker of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, are trying to get the FDA to stop compounders from copying their drugs, which are still in shortage. Can somebody please explain what’s going on here? 

Karlin-Smith: So, basically, compounding is where pharmacists can sometimes make drugs in a more customized fashion because a person maybe can’t swallow a pill or needs a slightly different dose or a different inactive ingredient, but there’s not … 

Rovner: And they add flavoring for kids too, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Isn’t that a big compounding thing? 

Karlin-Smith: But it’s not supposed to be something that takes the place of mass-manufactured drugs. But one of the times when it kind of can — and FDA, after some big safety incidents in 2013, developed a sort of scheme where there can be some degree mass compounding, but there’s a little bit more safety oversight from their end. 

And one of the cases where you can do more compounding is when a drug is in shortage. But once FDA flipped the switch and said, “Oh, OK, actually, these drugs are no longer in shortage,” that makes it illegal. So these companies sued. My understanding from talking to legal experts is it’s not necessarily clear that FDA is entirely reversing course and agreeing that drugs aren’t in shortage. They’re agreeing to re-look at their decision, which may mean they are going to bolster their case so when they get back into court, they have a much clearer documentation of why the drugs are actually out of shortage. But in the meantime, we have probably at least another four weeks or so where everybody can compound these products. 

At the same time, I think Novo Nordisk and, actually, Eli Lilly before them had also submitted a similar citizen petition to FDA trying to basically get these drugs from being on lists where you really could not compound them at all. And there’s clearly a lot of money at stake here. These are probably some of the most well-known drugs right now with huge markets in the U.S., but they’re also really expensive and they haven’t been picked up and covered by a lot of insurance plans, particularly when you’re talking about the weight loss element. I think for Type 2 diabetes, there’s pretty good coverage. And the thing here that’s really so significant is this is probably one of the first times in the U.S. where we’ve seen this mass-market compounding for a drug kind of at the beginning-ish of its exclusivity, at least when you’re talking about weight loss — again, not diabetes. And it’s not like a niche thing. So many people are using it,  through compounding. And again, it’s really like … 

Rovner: The advertising is everywhere on social media. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, that just surprised me, I think, at first to begin with, how open these companies were about it being available via compounding pharmacies. And so I think FDA is in a really tricky position, particularly if they can clearly document it’s not a shortage situation anymore, because there still probably is going to be a lot of demand because of the cheaper prices coming from compounders, because of health insurance coverage issues. But, again, the compounding system is not meant to address those sorts of price and access issues. Right? It’s supposed to be for very particular situations where people really can’t use the exact manufactured drug, in most cases. And so maybe this tension will force us to address the other issues of price and insurance coverage, but it’s an awkward position for FDA to be in. 

And again, because, I think, it’s just also important just to go backtrack and remember, you know, FDA facilitates an important role of inspecting the manufacturing facilities, ensuring every lot is being manufactured to a consistent quality, approving the drug to begin with. So there’s certainly this delicate dance of you want people to be able to get drugs they need and you also don’t want this kerfuffle to undermine the entire drug-approval system we have that ensures that when you get a drug, a prescription drug, you know it’s a certain quality. 

Rovner: And it is what it says it is. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Yes. All right, well, turning back to abortion. A new study out this week suggests that not only has the number of abortions not gone down since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it actually might’ve gone up. Now there are lots of caveats with these numbers and, clearly, one big reason is the loosening of restrictions on obtaining abortion medication by mail. We also have a separate study this week that found infant mortality in states with abortion bans are rising, perhaps due to less available medical care in some of those states, as well as more fetuses with deadly anomalies being carried to term. But I have to wonder what these numbers will prompt from the anti-abortion side. Are they going to double down on efforts to impose some sort of nationwide restrictions or bans if Republicans regain control of the White House and Congress? And how are they going to address the rising infant mortality numbers? Victoria, are you hearing anything from the anti-abortion side? I’ve heard kind of not a lot. I’ve been surprised at how much I have not heard. 

Knight: Yeah, I mean I think this has been an interesting election for them because I think Trump has said different things throughout this election cycle on his stance on abortion and being — taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, but then at the same time being, like, it’s a states issue. And I’ve seen some reporting on that a lot of these groups are frustrated with Trump, but they kind of are sticking with him for the moment because they’re, like, this is the guy we have. 

So I think that perhaps they will put more pressure, depending on what the makeup of Congress is, and I think it’s important to remember it really depends on the majorities, this upcoming Congress, what will that look like? So if there is a Republican sweep, how many senators will be there? How many Republican senators? Also in the House, it may not be a huge majority either. And as we talked about earlier in this episode, there are some Republicans that are trying to walk the line more and be more moderate on abortion. And will they want to vote for a national abortion ban? That seems doubtful to me. And, for now, the filibuster is still in place in the Senate, so you still need 60 votes to pass anything. So, I think that they’re being quiet for now, but I think, depending on what Congress looks like, they could up their ante later. 

Cohrs Zhang: Again, I think Congress just has no appetite really to talk about these things, and I don’t expect that to change, especially, like you said, with narrow majorities. And I just think that the cost-benefit, maybe we’re going to see new leadership in the Senate Republican party too, and I think a lot of that could shape how much appetite they have to pick a fight on this. So yeah, just a lot of unknowns at this point. 

Rovner: And, as we’ve discussed before, if Trump is elected, he can do a lot from the executive branch that wouldn’t require Congress, and I completely agree with Rachel: I think Congress does not have a whole lot of appetite for this. 

Knight: Right. 

Rovner: Possibly on either side. 

Knight: And I think one more thing also interesting to point out is that the current House speaker, Mike Johnson, is very anti-abortion. Throughout his congressional career and even his career as a state lawmaker, he’s always been very anti-abortion, but he’s been in power now over a year, at least a year, and he has done, really, nothing on this. And he has a slim majority, but also I think you see that, yeah, as Rachel said, there’s just not an appetite for it, so … 

Rovner: He doesn’t have the votes. 

Knight: Yeah, exactly. He doesn’t have the votes, but he’s staunchly anti-abortion, has done really nothing, so. 

Rovner: Well, Sarah, you have a story on the revived lawsuit challenging the FDA over its rules for the abortion pill mifepristone. This is my chance to say I told you so, when the Supreme Court ruled that the original plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to sue. We said at the time: not over. Not over, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, three states are trying to revive that case in the court in Texas, where it originated. And it’s not particularly a surprise, like you said, the Supreme Court didn’t totally throw out the case. They said, “You guys don’t have standing,” that the doctors’ group that filed suit there. One of the interesting things now, given the timing, is as this case moves forward and if Trump wins the election, it’s not really clear to me whether his FDA and his Justice Department and so forth would actually want to defend this case or whether they would just, again, use the powers they have and push FDA to go back to the older restrictions around mifepristone’s availability. And basically make it … 

Rovner: We’re no longer talking about pulling it from the market right now? We’re just talking about the changes that were made in 2016 that makes it more easily available? 

Karlin-Smith: Right, so they sort of … 

Rovner: Is that a fair way to put it? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s like one change, which by the time we got to the Supreme Court, we were largely arguing about this as well, but they had initially started to just — by trying to get it off the market entirely. But now we’re basically arguing about changes that have made it easier to take later in pregnancy, so up to 10 weeks, and just made it easier to access. So you can now get it via telehealth and via mail and so forth, which has been really important given some of the state-specific bans on abortion. And it’s why abortion pills have become a really much more popular method for abortion. So a lot of legal experts don’t actually think these three states have standing either, or have jurisdiction, certainly in this court. However, I think they also acknowledge there’s a good chance this case proceeds and proceeds very similarly to how it did before, if for no other reason than the judges involved in the past have been willing to let these states be heard in their courtroom. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is in the 5th Circuit land of mostly Republican anti-abortion judges. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So there’s a good chance, again, barring this sort of scenario where Trump administration comes in and just says, “We’re not going to defend this. We’re going to revert to the old restrictions anyway.” But under a Democratic administration, they could end up back all the way at the Supreme Court having to defend mifepristone’s newer availability as well. 

And the other thing that there’s been a number of mifepristone cases around the country, but there’s one that’s very similar in the 9th Circuit, where judges have basically ruled that the entire, what’s known as a REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy], these restrictions related to mifepristone should actually be removed altogether. And they, actually, in some ways, want to make it more easily accessible. So whenever you have a circuits … but you also know that the Supreme Court is likely to take things up against. So yeah, I think the big thing is if people thought that last June’s Supreme Court ruling was kind of like Eh, it’s over, mifepristone is here to stay, that was just sort of the first round of many fights in access and availability of that in the courts. 

Rovner: Could a Trump administration just say, “The FDA should never have approved this drug,” and pull it from the market? Or does somebody have to file a petition for that to happen? 

Karlin-Smith: Ooh, that’s a good, tough question. I mean, there are very formal processes that go around withdrawing a drug. I think it would be challenging because at least the generic companies that manufacture the drug still want to be manufacturing it at this point. And I would imagine there would be quite a process FDA would have to go through, particularly to try and declare it no longer safe and effective to be marketed. And you, again, to raise strange history, I think if you looked at all the documents in science, because you have FDA scientists who over the years have declared it’s safe and effective and said, “Actually, as we’ve got more use with this, we realize you can actually give it to more women at different parts of pregnancy, and it’s safer than we thought. We don’t need to monitor a woman at a doctor’s office while she takes it.” So I think it would be challenging. I certainly wouldn’t put it past them trying this. 

But it does get to, I think, what’s been worrying about this mifepristone case to begin with for just people outside of the abortion space, but who follow FDA and the drug industry, which is this lack of certainty you start to lose when politicians come in and start trying to undermine the scientific drug-approval process and using politics instead, and their whims, to shift what is available or not available, because, obviously, it undermines FDA’s authority. 

And for the drug industry, I mean, a big thing they dislike is certainty, right? You’re investing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars to bring a drug to market. You want some confidence that if it’s successful and FDA says yes, it’s going to stay there unless some new, real, true safety event happens, which it does occasionally happen, but for the most part, you don’t want a new president to come into office or a new member of the Congress to flip and all of a sudden you have a drug that they’ve decided to challenge. So it’s an abortion case that’s always had these broader undertones of just confidence and trust and certainty around our scientific agencies in the U.S. 

Rovner: Yet another space we will continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with KFF’s Tricia Neuman, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Tricia Newman, who’s KFF’s senior vice president and executive director of KFF’s Program on Medicare Policy, and senior adviser to the president, and the person I always turn to first when I have a question about Medicare and have done so for more than three decades. Tricia, welcome back to “What the Health?” 

Tricia Neuman: Hi, Julie. Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So, as anybody who watches over-the-air or cable TV knows, it’s Medicare open enrollment right now until Dec. 7. What should people in Medicare or people helping people in Medicare know about changes coming for 2025? 

Neuman: This is the time for people to really compare coverage options. What we’ve seen in our own research is that most people don’t compare options during the open enrollment period, but plans change, people’s needs change, and this is a great moment. People have between now until Dec. 7, as you said. The important thing to do is figure out what is actually most important to either yourself or the person you’re helping. 

Some people really need certain drugs covered by their plan, and so that might be the go-to question. Other people care very much about being able to see certain doctors or hospitals. So, for them, it’s a question of do they want to be in traditional Medicare, where they can see virtually any doctor and go to any hospital? Or if they want to be in a Medicare Advantage plan for a variety of reasons, the question is, are the doctors that they care most about covered by their plan? 

Rovner: There are big changes coming next year both for prescription drugs and for Medicare Advantage, right? 

Neuman: Absolutely. I mean, Medicare Advantage plans also cover prescription drugs, and what the big thing people need to know there is there’s a new out-of-pocket limit that’s coming. There’s not really much you have to do in order to get; it’s a Medicare benefit. So that’s really a huge change and it really is a change that helps people who take very expensive medications. I mean, I can tell you how helpful it would be to some family members of mine. I have a family member who is taking a drug, she had a Part D plan, and it was costing her $13,000 a year for this particular drug for her cancer treatment. With the new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, her costs would drop from $13,000 to $2,000. Keep in mind that half of all people on Medicare live on an income of $36,000 or less, so this is a big deal. And not everybody is going to need this benefit in any given year, but over time, you never know. And so it’s a big change that will be helpful to people who take expensive medications. 

Rovner: Over the spring and summer, it looked like, because of this $2,000 cap, Part D plans were going to raise their premiums dramatically. That mostly didn’t happen. Why not? 

Neuman: The administration, the government put in place what they call a demonstration or a model, and essentially what it did is it limited premium increases. So no Part D plan will have a premium increase greater than $35 between 2024 and 2025. 

Rovner: … of $35 a month. 

Neuman: … of $35-a-month increase. Now that said, some will increase by $35, some will decrease. There are going to be changes, and that’s an important thing for people to keep an eye on as they consider their drug coverage for next year. 

Rovner: There are Republicans in Congress who say that what the administration did was sort of unfairly politically tinkering with Medicare, but this isn’t the first time this kind of thing has been put into place, right? 

Neuman: That’s absolutely true. I mean, I would agree that there was some concern that people in Medicare would see big increases in their drug premiums, and that was part of the concern that motivated the administration. But that was also a concern that motivated prior administrations. In fact, right after the drug benefit went into effect, and that was under the Bush administration, there were similar demonstrations that took effect. And at the time, nobody really complained because the main issue was protecting people from higher premiums. 

Rovner: But now everything is more political. 

Well, regular listeners to the podcast know that Medicare Advantage has become not just more popular among beneficiaries, but also much more controversial. Some companies are even using artificial intelligence to deny benefits and micromanaging doctors and other health care providers. Has the cost-benefit analysis for Medicare Advantage shifted over the past few years? 

Neuman: I think the focus on Medicare Advantage has changed. The way people are thinking about it is changing. Medicare Advantage is quite popular among people because plans, for a variety of reasons related to their payments, are able to offer extra benefits, and they are appealing. I mean, dental, vision, hearing. Now, the latest thing is “flex cards,” which is just kind of offering money for people to sign up for a plan. So it’s really appealing, particularly for people with fixed incomes. But the medical community has sort of surfaced and started raising concerns about what these prior authorizations and other cost-management tools mean for them and for their patients. 

So hospitals, for example, have expressed concerns about delayed payments. Doctors are now talking about prior authorization hassles. We recently did a study that documented 46 million prior-authorization requests, close to 2 million requests per enrollee. That’s a hassle for doctors. It also can delay or lead to no care for beneficiaries when it’s been prescribed by their doctor. It could, of course, limit inappropriate care, not necessary care, but I think the medical community now sees that Medicare Advantage is a big part of their patient profile and has some concerns. 

We’ve also been reading stories about some medical groups that are saying that we’re not going to take any more Medicare Advantage patients. So I think there’s a little bit more of an eye toward, gee, this has gotten really big. We know it’s really popular, but it might require a closer look. 

Rovner: Speaking of which, I mean, Medicare hasn’t really been a big campaign issue in 2024 when maybe it should have been. It doesn’t seem that safe to leave a program of its size and importance on autopilot, which is kind of what former President Trump is promising. What do we know about what Vice President Harris would do for Medicare if she were elected and what former President Trump would do if he was elected? 

Neuman: We actually know very little about what former President Trump would do. 

Rovner: He says he wouldn’t touch it. 

Neuman: He said he wouldn’t touch it. He said he’s concerned about drug costs, but we’re not really sure what more he would do there. He was for a proposal called Most Favored Nation, but he’s now withdrawn support for that. So it’s hard to know whether he would implement anything new or scale back what has already become the law of the land. For example, it’s not clear what he would do about government negotiations and whether or not there would be sufficient pressure in his caucus to scale back that pretty popular proposal that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Vice President Harris has talked about strengthening Medicare and improving the solvency, mostly through revenues on higher-income people. So that is one major proposal she has with regard to solvency. She has recently put out a proposal that would add a home care benefit to Medicare. This responds to a huge issue that you and I have talked about, that a lot of families across the country have talked about where people are really struggling to care for a family member. Family members are dropping out of the workforce in order to care for somebody because they cannot afford to get help at home. Medicare really does not currently provide a home care benefit except under limited circumstances. So this is recognizing a huge issue for families that are, it’s an economic issue if people, mostly women, have to step out of the workforce. It’s also an issue if you just cannot afford or you’re paying huge amounts for people to come into your home to help a parent, grandparent, spouse who’s unable to care for themselves. So that’s a big initiative on her part that would be funded primarily out of expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drugs. 

Rovner: So neither candidate is talking about solvency issues with Medicare, though, and that’s a long-term issue that somebody’s going to need to address, right? 

Neuman: Yes, that is absolutely true. It is an issue that is not going away. We have more and more people aging onto Medicare and the people who are on Medicare are getting older. And as people grow older, they tend to be more expensive. So this is not an imminent concern, but it is an issue that policymakers will have to deal with one way or the other in the years to come. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep talking about it. Tricia Neuman, thank you so much. 

Neuman: And thank you for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we will put the links in our show notes, on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week? 

Knight: Sure. My extra credit is a story on NPR, it’s called “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year.” It was on Weekend Edition, and it is by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins, basically detailing that in the past, the Catholic Church and bishops have been really big in the anti-abortion movement and that has also translated to donating a lot of money to anti-abortion campaigns. But this year, they’re kind of seeing almost a historic low in how little they’re donating to anti-abortion campaigns. And they didn’t really have a clear answer of what the reason for that was, except that maybe they’re just acknowledging the reality of the situation. When you look at particularly the ballot measures in states and how popular those have been — we’ve seen since 2022 that the ballot measures, even in more conservative-leaning states, that protect abortion access, and those vary depending on the state, what they look like, they’ve been really, really popular. And they really have been really overwhelmingly approved, even if there’s Republicans running on the same ballot with them and that people are voting for. People still really support abortion rights mostly. 

So that seems to be the reason — they didn’t really have a clear reason, but it was an interesting marker in the trend of just kind of following where abortion rights are going, as well as where the Catholic Church is moving as well. It seems to be becoming somewhat more progressive over time. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by this story, which I just heard on the radio as I was driving, because the Catholic Church is the originator of the right-to-life movement in the United States. And for a long time, it was almost exclusively the Catholic Church that was pushing this, and now it seems to have moved sort of into other places. So this is sort of the exclamation point on that, that it’s broadened and changed, but it’s no longer being driven as much by the Catholic Church as it used to be. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. So my piece is in The Atlantic, and the headline is “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch. And I just love this story because it’s a look back on this policy that seemed like a good idea at the time, where these really wealthy benefactors are donating to elite, often elite medical schools to make tuition free. And the whole idea was that more doctors will go into primary care if they don’t have debt, and it might open medical school to a more diverse cohort of students. And the opposite has almost happened, where they’re not seeing any more doctors going into primary care and their student body has actually gotten more wealthy than it was before. So I mean, it’s just a great check-in, because I feel like so often we’re just looking forward with the news that we don’t take a moment to question whether some of these policies or stories that we’ve covered, how they’ve worked out a couple of years later. So, I thought it was a great look back. 

Rovner: Yes, in health care, so many things go in, we try things with so much promise, and sometimes they don’t work. So it’s good to notice when they don’t work. Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a Vanity Fair piece by Katherine Eban: “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health.” And it’s a fascinating deep dive to the challenges the U.S. has faced in containing what is, right now at least, mostly just an epidemic in animals, but certainly has public health folks worried about the potential for a human spillover pandemic, if not properly contained. And it’s just a really great story that shows you all of the tensions, and how it has a lot of these flashbacks to early days of covid, where you had different parts of the government with different responsibilities, not quite working together well, and not quite knowing how to play together well. Because you have the USDA in this case, which in many ways has the economics of farmers and the dairy industry in mind more than perhaps broader health concerns. You have FDA, which regulates milk; CDC, which comes in and does the human health; and then you have states, which don’t necessarily always have to answer to everything the federal government would like them to be doing here. 

And the biggest, I think, crisis we face now is just we don’t have a lot of data. We don’t have enough information to truly know the scope of this outbreak. And without knowing that, I think you risk something bad happening before we are on top of it. And that’s really what people are really concerned about now, particularly with seasonal flu season coming up, is if you mix this virus and a human being with seasonal flu or even in an animal, you could develop an even more dangerous virus. So, it’s a warning to everybody in the public health space that this is something we need to be paying attention to because, obviously, the best thing to do is contain it and tamp it out and not have to deal with a much larger human pandemic. 

Rovner: Yes, that would be nice. Something else to keep us awake at night. 

My story this week is from NBC News, it’s called “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks. She got a hold of the intake forms of a pregnancy center in Idaho, which included not just the typical medical questions, but also questions about religious and financial status. And one asking, “What decision would the father like you to make, regarding the outcome of your pregnancy?” The answers, which are not protected by HIPAA, because crisis pregnancy centers are not technically medical providers, allow the staff to score whether a patient is “abortion-vulnerable,” which would lead them to try to talk her out of ending the pregnancy. 

It also includes a story of one patient who was strung along so long waiting for test results from this crisis pregnancy center that she ended up needing a second-trimester abortion. It’s quite the look at what goes on behind the scenes at some of these centers, and I strongly recommend it. 

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

Karlin-Smith: A little bit on X, a little bit on Bluesky, at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X @rachelcohrs and also spending some time on LinkedIn, so feel free to follow me there. 

Rovner: Great. Victoria? 

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk still on X. I am trying to post more on LinkedIn, too. 

Rovner: OK, well, we will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The 2024 campaign — particularly the one for president — has been notably vague on policy. But health issues, especially those surrounding abortion and other reproductive health care, have nonetheless played a key role. And while the Affordable Care Act has not been the focus of debate the way it was over the previous three presidential campaigns, who becomes the next president will have a major impact on the fate of the 2010 health law.

The panelists for this week’s special election preview, taped before a live audience at KFF’s offices in Washington, are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Tamara Keith of NPR, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Cynthia Cox and Ashley Kirzinger of KFF.

Panelists

Ashley Kirzinger
KFF

@AshleyKirzinger

Read Ashley's bio.

Cynthia Cox
KFF

@cynthiaccox

Read Cynthia's bio.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Tamara Keith
NPR

@tamarakeithNPR

Read and listen to Tamara's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As Election Day nears, who will emerge victorious from the presidential race is anyone’s guess. Enthusiasm among Democratic women has grown with the elevation of Vice President Kamala Harris to the top of the ticket, with more saying they are likely to turn out to vote. But broadly, polling reveals a margin-of-error race — too close to call.
• Several states have abortion measures on the ballot. Proponents of abortion rights are striving to frame the issue as nonpartisan, acknowledging that recent measures have passed thanks in part to Republican support. For some voters, resisting government control of women’s health is a conservative value. Many are willing to split their votes, supporting both an abortion rights measure and also candidates who oppose abortion rights.
• While policy debates have been noticeably lacking from this presidential election, the future of Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act hinges on its outcome. Republicans want to undermine the federal funding behind Medicaid expansion, and former President Donald Trump has a record of opposition to the ACA. Potentially on the chopping block are the federal subsidies expiring next year that have transformed the ACA by boosting enrollment and lowering premium costs.
• And as misinformation and disinformation proliferate, one area of concern is the “malleable middle”: people who are uncertain of whom or what to trust and therefore especially susceptible to misleading or downright false information. Could a second Trump administration embed misinformation in federal policy? The push to soften or even eliminate school vaccination mandates shows the public health consequences of falsehood creep.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Resistance to Public Health, No Longer Fringe, Gains Foothold in G.O.P. Politics,” by Sheryl Gay Stolberg.
• KFF Health News’ “‘What the Health?’: SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies.”
• KFF’s Health Misinformation and Trust Initiative, a program aimed at tracking health misinformation in the U.S., analyzing its impact on the American people, and mobilizing media to address the problem.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: LIVE From KFF: Health Care and the 2024 Election

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Please put your hands together and join me in welcoming our panel and our host, Julie Rovner. 

Julie Rovner: Hello, good morning, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the very best and smartest health reporters in Washington, along with some very special guests today. We’re taping this special election episode on Thursday, October 17th, at 11:30 a.m., in front of a live audience at the Barbara Jordan Conference Center here at KFF in downtown D.C. Say hi, audience. 

As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

So I am super lucky to work at and have worked at some pretty great places and with some pretty great, smart people. And when I started to think about who I wanted to help us break down what this year’s elections might mean for health policy, it was pretty easy to assemble an all-star cast. So first, my former colleague from NPR, senior White House correspondent Tamara Keith. Tam, thanks for joining us. 

Tamara Keith: Thank you for having me. 

Rovner: Next, our regular “What the Health?” podcast panelist and my right hand all year on reproductive health issues, Alice Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi Julie. 

Rovner: Finally, two of my incredible KFF colleagues. Cynthia Cox is a KFF vice president and director of the program on the ACA [Affordable Care Act] and one of the nation’s very top experts on what we know as Obamacare. Thank you, Cynthia. 

Cynthia Cox: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And finally, Ashley Kirzinger is director of survey methodology and associate director of our KFF Public Opinion and Survey Research Program, and my favorite explainer of all things polling. 

Ashley Kirzinger: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, welcome to all of you. Thanks again for being here. We’re going to chat amongst ourselves for a half hour or so, and then we will open the floor to questions. So be ready here in the room. Tam, I want to start with the big picture. What’s the state of the race as of October 17th, both for president and for Congress? 

Keith: Well, let’s start with the race for President. That’s what I cover most closely. This is what you would call a margin-of-error race, and it has been a margin-of-error race pretty much the entire time, despite some really dramatic events, like a whole new candidate and two assassination attempts and things that we don’t expect to see in our lifetimes and yet they’ve happened. And yet it is an incredibly close race. What I would say is that at this exact moment, there seems to have been a slight shift in the average of polls in the direction of former President [Donald] Trump. He is in a slightly better position than he was before and is in a somewhat more comfortable position than Vice President [Kamala] Harris. 

She has been running as an underdog the whole time, though there was a time where she didn’t feel like an underdog, and right now she is also running like an underdog and the vibes have shifted, if you will. There’s been a more dramatic shift in the vibes than there has been in the polls. And the thing that we don’t know and we won’t know until Election Day is in 2016 and 2020, the polls underestimated Trump’s support. So at this moment, Harris looks to be in a weaker position against Trump than either [Hillary] Clinton or [Joe] Biden looked to be. It turns out that the polls were underestimating Trump both of those years. But in 2022 after the Dobbs decision, the polls overestimated Republican support and underestimated Democratic support. 

So what’s happening now? We don’t know. So there you go. That is my overview, I think, of the presidential race. The campaigning has really intensified in the last week or so, like really intensified, and it’s only going to get more intense. I think Harris has gotten a bit darker in her language and descriptions. The joyful warrior has been replaced somewhat by the person warning of dire consequences for democracy. And in terms of the House and the Senate, which will matter a lot, a lot a lot, whether Trump wins or Harris wins, if Harris wins and Democrats lose the Senate, Harris may not even be able to get Cabinet members confirmed. 

So it matters a lot, and the conventional wisdom — which is as useful as it is and sometimes is not all that useful — the conventional wisdom is that something kind of unusual could happen, which is that the House could flip to Democrats and the Senate could flip to Republicans, and usually these things don’t move in opposite directions in the same year. 

Rovner: And usually the presidential candidate has coattails, but we’re not really seeing that either, are we? 

Keith: Right. In fact, it’s the reverse. Several of the Senate candidates in key swing states, the Democratic candidates are polling much better than the Republican candidates in those races and polling with greater strength than Harris has in those states. Is this a polling error, or is this the return of split-ticket voting? I don’t know. 

Rovner: Well, leads us to our polling expert. Ashley, what are the latest polls telling us, and what should we keep in mind about the limitations of polling? I feel like every year people depend a lot on the polls and every year we say, Don’t depend too much on the polls. 

Kirzinger: Well, can I just steal Tamara’s line and say I don’t know? So in really close elections, when turnout is going to matter a lot, what the polls are really good at is telling us what is motivating voters to turn out and why. And so what the polls have been telling us for a while is that the economy is top of mind for voters. Now, health care costs — we’re at KFF. So health care plays a big role in how people think about the economy, in really two big ways. The first is unexpected costs. So unexpected medical bills, health care costs, are topping the list of the public’s financial worries, things that they’re worried about, what might happen to them or their family members. And putting off care. What we’re seeing is about a quarter of the public these days are putting off care because they say they can’t afford the cost of getting that needed care. 

So that really shows the way that the financial burdens are playing heavily on the electorate. What we have seen in recent polling is Harris is doing better on the household expenses than Biden did and is better than the Democratic Party largely. And that’s really important, especially among Black women and Latina voters. We are seeing some movement among those two groups of the electorate saying that Harris is doing a better job and they trust her more on those issues. But historically, if the election is about the economy, Republican candidates do better. The party does better on economic issues among the electorate. 

What we haven’t mentioned yet is abortion, and this is the first presidential election since post-Dobbs, in the post-Dobbs era, and we don’t know how abortion policy will play in a presidential election. It hasn’t happened before, so that’s something that we’re also keeping an eye on. We know that Harris is campaigning around reproductive rights, is working among a key group of the electorate, especially younger women voters. She is seen as a genuine candidate who can talk about these issues and an advocate for reproductive rights. We’re seeing abortion rise in importance as a voting issue among young women voters, and she’s seen as more authentic on this issue than Biden was. 

Rovner: Talk about last week’s poll about young women voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, one of the great things that we can do in polling is, when we see big changes in the campaign, is we can go back to our polls and respondents and ask how things have changed to them. So we worked on a poll of women voters back in June. Lots have changed since June, so we went back to them in September to see how things were changing for this one group, right? So we went back to the same people and we saw increased motivation to turn out, especially among Democratic women. Republican women were about the same level of motivation. They’re more enthusiastic and satisfied about their candidate, and they’re more likely to say abortion is a major reason why they’re going to be turning out. But we still don’t know how that will play across the electorate in all the states. 

Because for most voters, a candidate’s stance on abortion policy is just one of many factors that they’re weighing when it comes to turnout. And so those are one of the things that we’re looking at as well. I will say that I’m not a forecaster, thank goodness. I’m a pollster, and polls are not good at forecasts, right? So polls are very good at giving a snapshot of the electorate at a moment in time. So two weeks out, that’s what I know from the polls. What will happen in the next two weeks, I’m not sure. 

Rovner: Well, Alice, just to pick up on that, abortion, reproductive health writ large are by far the biggest health issues in this campaign. What impact is it having on the presidential race and the congressional races and the ballot issues? It’s all kind of a clutter, isn’t it? 

Ollstein: Yeah, well, I just really want to stress what Ashley said about this being uncharted territory. So we can gather some clues from the past few years where we’ve seen these abortion rights ballot measures win decisively in very red states, in very blue states, in very purple states. But presidential election years just have a different electorate. And so, yes, it did motivate more people to turn out in those midterm and off-year elections, but that’s just not the same group of folks and it’s not the same groups the candidates need this time, necessarily. And also we know that every time abortion has been on the ballot, it has won, but the impact and how that spills over into partisan races has been a real mixed bag. 

So we saw in Michigan in 2022, it really helped Democrats. It helped Governor Gretchen Whitmer. It helped Michigan Democrats take back control of the Statehouse for the first time in decades. But that didn’t work for Democrats in all states. My colleagues and I did an analysis of a bunch of different states that had these ballot measures, and these ballot measures largely succeeded because of Republican voters who voted for the ballot initiative and voted for Republican candidates. And that might seem contradictory. You’re voting for an abortion rights measure, and you’re voting for very anti-abortion candidates. We saw that in Kentucky, for example, where a lot of people voted for (Sen.) Rand Paul, who is very anti-abortion, and for the abortion rights side of the ballot measure. 

I’ve been on the road the last few months, and I think you’re going to see a lot of that again. I just got back from Arizona, and a lot of people are planning to vote for the abortion rights measure there and for candidates who have a record of opposing abortion rights. Part of that is Donald Trump’s somewhat recent line of: I won’t do any kind of national ban. I’ll leave it to the states. A lot of people are believing that, even though Democrats are like: Don’t believe him. It’s not true. But also, like Ashley said, folks are just prioritizing other issues. And so, yes, when you look at certain slices of the electorate, like young women, abortion is a top motivating issue. But when you look at the entire electorate, it’s, like, a distant fourth after the economy and immigration and several other things. 

I found the KFF polling really illuminating in that, yes, most people said that abortion is either just one of many factors in deciding their vote on the candidates or not a factor at all. And most people said that they would be willing to vote for a candidate who does not share their views on abortion. So I think that’s really key here. And these abortion rights ballot measures, the campaigns behind them are being really deliberate about remaining completely nonpartisan. They need to appeal to Republicans, Democrats, independents in order to pass, but that also … So their motivation is to appeal to everyone. Democrats’ motivation is to say: You have to vote for us, too. Abortion rights won’t be protected if you just pass the ballot measure. You also have to vote for Democrats up and down the ballot. Because, they argue, Trump could pursue a national ban that would override the state protections. 

Rovner: We’ve seen in the past — and this is for both of you — ballot measures as part of partisan strategies. In the early 2000s, there were anti-gay-marriage ballot measures that were intended to pull out Republicans, that were intended to drive turnout. That’s not exactly what’s happening this time, is it? 

Keith: So I was a reporter in the great state of Ohio in 2004, and there was an anti-gay-rights ballot measure on the ballot there, and it was a key part of George W. Bush’s reelection plan. And it worked. He won the state somewhat narrowly. We didn’t get the results until 5 a.m. the next day, but that’s better than we’ll likely have this time. And that was a critical part of driving Republican turnout. It’s remarkable how much has changed since then in terms of public views. It wouldn’t work in the same way this time. 

The interesting thing in Arizona, for instance, is that there’s also an anti-immigration ballot measure that’s also polling really well that was added by the legislature in sort of a rush to try to offset the expected Democratic-based turnout because of the abortion measure. But as you say, it is entirely possible that there could be a lot of Trump abortion, immigration and [House Democrat and Senate candidate] Ruben Gallego voters. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. And I met some of those voters, and one woman told me, look, she gets offended when people assume that she’s liberal because she identified as pro-choice. We don’t use that terminology in our reporting, but she identified as pro-choice, and she was saying: Look, to me, this is a very conservative value. I don’t want the government in my personal business. I believe in privacy. And so for her, that doesn’t translate over into, And therefore I am a Democrat. 

Rovner: I covered two abortion-related ballot measures in South Dakota that were two years, I think it was 2006 and 2008. 

Ollstein: They have another one this year. 

Rovner: Right. There is another one this year. But what was interesting, what I discovered in 2006 and 2008 is exactly what you were saying, that there’s a libertarian streak, particularly in the West, of people who vote Republican but who don’t believe that the government has any sort of business in your personal life, not just on abortion but on any number of other things, including guns. So this is one of those issues where there’s sort of a lot of distinction. Cynthia, this is the first time in however many elections the Affordable Care Act has not been a huge issue, but there’s an awful lot at stake for this law, depending on who gets elected, right? 

Cox: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, it’s the first time in recent memory that health care in general, aside from abortion, hasn’t really been the main topic of conversation in the race. And part of that is that the Affordable Care Act has really transformed the American health care system over the last decade or so. The uninsured rate is at a record low, and the ACA marketplaces, which had been really struggling 10 years ago, have started to not just survive but thrive. Maybe also less to dislike about the ACA, but it’s also not as much a policy election as previous elections had been. But yes, the future of the ACA still hinges on this election. 

So starting with President Trump, I think as anyone who follows health policy knows, or even politics or just turned on the TV in 2016 knows that Trump has a very, very clear history of opposing the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare. He supported a number of efforts in Congress to try to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And when those weren’t successful, he took a number of regulatory steps, joined legal challenges, and proposed in his budgets to slash funding for the Affordable Care Act and for Medicaid. But now in 2024, it’s a little bit less clear exactly where he’s going. 

I would say earlier in the 2024 presidential cycle, he made some very clear comments about saying Obamacare sucks, for example, or that Republicans should never give up on trying to repeal and replace the ACA, that the failure to do so when he was president was a low point for the party. But then he also has seemed to kind of walk that back a little bit. Now he’s saying that he would replace the ACA with something better or that he would make the ACA itself much, much better or make it cost less, but he’s not providing specifics. Of course, in the debate, he famously said that he had “concepts” of a plan, but there’s no … Nothing really specific has materialized. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen any of those concepts. 

Cox: Yes, the concept is … But we can look at his record. And so we do know that he has a very, very clear record of opposing the ACA and really taking any steps he could when he was president to try to, if not repeal and replace it, then significantly weaken it or roll it back. Harris, by contrast, is in favor of the Affordable Care Act. When she was a primary candidate in 2020, she had expressed support for more-progressive reforms like “Medicare for All” or “Medicare for More.” But since becoming vice president, especially now as the presidential candidate, she’s taken a more incremental approach. 

She’s talking about building upon the Affordable Care Act. In particular, a key aspect of her record and Biden’s is these enhanced subsidies that exist in the Affordable Care Act marketplaces. They were first, I think … They really closely mirror what Biden had run on as president in 2019, 2020, but they were passed as part of covid relief. So they were temporary, then they were extended as part of the Inflation Reduction Act but, again, temporarily. And so they’re set to expire next year, which is setting up a political showdown of sorts for Republicans and Democrats on the Hill about whether or not to extend them. And Harris would like to make these subsidies permanent because they have been responsible for really transforming the ACA marketplaces. 

The number of people signing up for coverage has doubled since Biden took office. Premium payments were cut almost in half. And so this is, I think, a key part of, now, her record, but also what she wants to see go forward. But it’s going to be an uphill battle, I think, to extend them. 

Rovner: Cynthia, to sort of build on that a little bit, as we mentioned earlier, a Democratic president won’t be able to get a lot accomplished with a Republican House and/or Senate and a Republican president won’t be able to get that much done with a Democratic House and/or Senate. What are some of the things we might expect to see if either side wins a trifecta control of the executive branch and both houses of Congress? 

Cox: So I think, there … So I guess I’ll start with Republicans. So if there is a trifecta, the key thing there to keep in mind is while there may not be a lot of appetite in Congress to try to repeal and replace the ACA, since that wasn’t really a winning issue in 2017, and since then public support for the ACA has grown. And I think also it’s worth noting that the individual mandate penalty being reduced to $0. So essentially there’s no individual mandate anymore. There’s less to hate about the law. 

Rovner: All the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Cox: Yeah the pay-fors are gone, too. 

Rovner: So the lobbyists have less to hate. 

Cox: Yes, that too. And so I don’t think there’s a ton of appetite for this, even though Trump has been saying, still, some negative comments about the ACA. That being said, if Republicans want to pass tax cuts, then they need to find savings somewhere. And so that could be any number of places, but I think it’s likely that certain health programs and other programs are off-limits. So Medicare probably wouldn’t be touched, maybe Social Security, defense, but that leaves Medicaid and the ACA subsidies. 

And so if they need savings in order to pass tax cuts, then I do think in particular Medicaid is at risk, not just rolling back the ACA’s Medicaid expansion but also likely block-granting the program or implementing per capita caps or some other form of really restricting the amount of federal dollars that are going towards Medicaid. 

Rovner: And this is kind of where we get into the Project 2025 that we’ve talked about a lot on the podcast over the course of this year, that, of course, Donald Trump has disavowed. But apparently [Senate Republican and vice presidential candidate] JD Vance has not, because he keeps mentioning pieces of it. 

Ollstein: And they’re only … They’re just one of several groups that have pitched deep cuts to health safety net programs, including Medicaid. You also have the Paragon group, where a lot of former Trump officials are putting forward health policy pitches and several others. And so I also think given the uncertainty about a trifecta, it’s also worth keeping in mind what they could do through waivers and executive actions in terms of work requirements. 

Rovner: That was my next question. I’ve had trouble explaining this. I’ve done a bunch of interviews in the last couple of weeks to explain how much more power Donald Trump would have, if he was reelected, to do things via the executive branch than a President Harris would have. So I have not come up with a good way to explain that. Please, one of you give it a shot. 

Keith: Someone else. 

Rovner: Why is it that President Trump could probably do a lot more with his executive power than a President Harris could do with hers? 

Cox: I think we can look back at the last few years and just see. What did Trump do with his executive power? What did Biden do with his executive power? And as far as the Affordable Care Act is concerned or Medicaid. But Trump, after the failure to repeal and replace the ACA, took a number of regulatory steps. For example, trying to expand short-term plans, which are not ACA-compliant, and therefore can discriminate against people with preexisting conditions, or cutting funding for certain things in the ACA, including outreach and enrollment assistance. 

And so I think there were a number — and also we’ve talked about Medicaid work requirements in the form of state waivers. And a lot of what Biden did, regulatory actions, were just rolling that back, changing that, but it’s hard to expand coverage or to provide a new program without Congress acting to authorize that spending. 

Kirzinger: I think it’s also really important to think about the public’s view of the ACA at this point in time. I mean, what the polls aren’t mixed about is that the ACA has higher favorability than Harris, Biden, Trump, any politician, right? So we have about two-thirds of the public. 

Rovner: So Nancy Pelosi was right. 

Kirzinger: I won’t go that far, but about two-thirds of the public’s now view the law favorably, and the provisions are even more popular. So while, yes, a Republican trifecta will have a lot of power, the public — they’re going to have a hard time rolling back protections for people with preexisting conditions, which have bipartisan support. They’re going to have a hard time making it no longer available for adult children under the age of 26 to be on their parents’ health insurance. All of those components of the ACA are really popular, and once people are given protections, it’s really hard to take them away. 

Cox: Although I would say that there are at least 10 ways the ACA protects people with preexisting conditions. I think on the surface it’s easy to say that you would protect people with preexisting conditions if you say that a health insurer has to offer coverage to someone with a preexisting condition. But there’s all those other ways that they say also protects preexisting conditions, and it makes coverage more comprehensive, which makes coverage more expensive. 

And so that’s why the subsidies there are key to make comprehensive coverage that protects people with preexisting conditions affordable to individuals. But if you take those subsidies away, then that coverage is out of reach for most people. 

Rovner: That’s also what JD Vance was talking about with changing risk pools. I mean, which most people, it makes your eyes glaze over, but that would be super important to the affordability of insurance, right? 

Cox: And his comment about risk pools is — I think a lot of people were trying to read something into that because it was pretty vague. But what a lot of people did think about when he made that comment was that before the Affordable Care Act, it used to be that if you were declined health insurance coverage, especially by multiple insurance companies, if you were basically uninsurable, then you could apply to what existed in many states was a high-risk pool. 

But the problem was that these high-risk pools were consistently underfunded. And in most of those high-risk pools, there were even waiting periods or exclusions on coverage for preexisting conditions or very high premiums or deductibles. So even though these were theoretically an option for coverage for people with preexisting conditions before the ACA, the lack of funding or support made it such that that coverage didn’t work very well for people who were sick. 

Ollstein: And something conservatives really want to do if they gain power is go after the Medicaid expansion. They’ve sort of set up this dichotomy of sort of the deserving and undeserving. They don’t say it in those words, but they argue that childless adults who are able-bodied don’t need this safety net the way, quote-unquote, “traditional” Medicaid enrollees do. And so they want to go after that part of the program by reducing the federal match. That’s something I would watch out for. I don’t know if they’ll be able to do that. That would require Congress, but also several states have in their laws that if the federal matches decreased, they would automatically unexpand, and that would mean coverage losses for a lot of people. That would be very politically unpopular. 

It’s worth keeping in mind that a lot of states, mainly red states, have expanded Medicaid since Republicans last tried to go after the Affordable Care Act in 2017. And so there’s just a lot more buy-in now. So it would be politically more challenging to do that. And it was already very politically challenging. They weren’t able to do it back then. 

Rovner: So I feel like one of the reasons that Trump might be able to get more done than Harris just using executive authority is the makeup of the judiciary, which has been very conservative, particularly at the Supreme Court, and we actually have some breaking news on this yesterday. Three of the states who intervened in what was originally a Texas lawsuit trying to revoke the FDA’s [Federal Drug Administration’s] approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, officially revived that lawsuit, which the Supreme Court had dismissed because the doctors who filed it initially didn’t have standing, according to the Supreme Court. 

The states want the courts to invoke the Comstock Act, an 1873 anti-vice law banning the mailing and receiving of, among other things, anything used in an abortion, to effectively ban the drug. This is one of those ways that Trump wouldn’t even have to lift a finger to bring about an abortion ban, right? I mean, he’d just have to let it happen. 

Ollstein: Right. I think so much of this election cycle has been dominated by, Would you sign a ban? And that’s just the wrong question. I mean, we’ve seen Congress unable to pass either abortion restrictions or abortion protections even when one party controls both chambers. It’s just really hard. 

Rovner: And going back 60 years. 

Ollstein: And so I think it’s way more important to look at what could happen administratively or through the courts. And so yes, lawsuits like that, that the Supreme Court punted on but didn’t totally resolve this term, could absolutely come back. A Trump administration could also direct the FDA to just unauthorize abortion pills, which are the majority of abortions that take place within the U.S. 

And so — or there’s this Comstock Act route. There’s — the Biden administration put out a memo saying, We do not think the Comstock Act applies to the mailing of abortion pills to patients. A Trump administration could put out their own memo and say, We believe the opposite. So there’s a lot that could happen. And so I really have been frustrated. All of the obsessive focus on: Would you sign a ban? Would you veto a ban? Because that is the least likely route that this would happen. 

Kirzinger: Well, and all of these court cases create an air of confusion among the public, right? And so, that also can have an effect in a way that signing a ban — I mean, if people don’t know what’s available to them in their state based on state policy or national policy. 

Ollstein: Or they’re afraid of getting arrested. 

Kirzinger: Yeah, even if it’s completely legal in their state, we’re finding that people aren’t aware of whether — what’s available to them in their state, what they can access legally or not. And so having those court cases pending creates this air of confusion among the public. 

Keith: Well, just to amplify the air of confusion, talking to Democrats who watch focus groups, they saw a lot of voters blaming President Biden for the Dobbs decision and saying: Well, why couldn’t he fix that? He’s president. At a much higher level, there is confusion about how our laws work. There’s a lot of confusion about civics, and as a result, you see blame landing in sort of unexpected places. 

Rovner: This is the vaguest presidential election I have ever covered. I’ve been doing this since 1988. We basically have both candidates refusing to answer specific questions — as a strategy, I mean, it’s not that I don’t think — I think they both would have a pretty good idea of what it is they would do, and both of them find it to their political advantage not to say. 

Keith: I think that’s absolutely right. I think that the Harris campaign, which I spend more time covering, has the view that if Trump is not going to answer questions directly and he is going to talk about “concepts” of a plan, and he’s just going to sort of, like, Well, if I was president, this wouldn’t be a problem, so I’m not going to answer your question — which is his answer to almost every question — then there’s not a lot of upside for them to get into great specifics about policy and to have think tank nerds telling them it won’t work, because there’s no upside to it. 

Cox: We’re right here. 

Panel: [Laughing] 

Rovner: So regular listeners to the podcast will know that one of my biggest personal frustrations with this campaign is the ever-increasing amount of mis- and outright disinformation in the health care realm, as we discussed at some length on last week’s podcast. You can go back and listen. This has become firmly established in public health, obviously pushed along by the divide over the covid pandemic. The New York Times last week had a pretty scary story by Sheryl Gay Stolberg — who’s working on a book about public health — about how some of these more fringe beliefs are getting embedded in the mainstream of the Republican Party. 

It used to be that we saw most of these kind of fringe, anti-science, anti-health beliefs were on the far right and on the far left, and that’s less the case. What could we be looking forward to on the public health front if Trump is returned to power, particularly with the help of anti-vaccine activist and now Trump endorser R.F.K. [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr.? 

Kirzinger: Oh, goodness to me. Well, so I’m going to talk about a group that I think is really important for us to focus on when we think about misinformation, and I call them the “malleable middle.” So it’s that group that once they hear misinformation or disinformation, they are unsure of whether that is true or false, right? So they’re stuck in this uncertainty of what to believe and who do they trust to get the right information. It used to be pre-pandemic that they would trust their government officials. 

We have seen declining trust in CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], all levels of public health officials. Who they still trust is their primary care providers. Unfortunately, the groups that are most susceptible to misinformation are also the groups that are less likely to have a primary care provider. So we’re not in a great scenario, where we have a group that is unsure of who to trust on information and doesn’t have someone to go to for good sources of information. I don’t have a solution. 

Cox: I also don’t have a solution. 

Rovner: No, I wasn’t — the question isn’t about a solution. The question is about, what can we expect? I mean, we’ve seen the sort of mis- and disinformation. Are we going to actually see it embedded in policy? I mean, we’ve mostly not, other than covid, which obviously now we see the big difference in some states where mask bans are banned and vaccine mandates are banned. Are we going to see childhood vaccines made voluntary for school? 

Ollstein: Well, there’s already a movement to massively broaden who can apply for an exception to those, and that’s already had some scary public health consequences. I mean, I think there are people who would absolutely push for that. 

Kirzinger: I think regardless of who wins the presidency, I think that the misinformation and disinformation is going to have an increasing role. Whether it makes it into policy will depend on who is in office and Congress and all of that. But I think that it is not something that’s going away, and I think we’re just going to continue to have to battle it. And that’s where I’m the most nervous. 

Keith: And when you talk about the trust for the media, those of us who are sitting here trying to get the truth out there, or to fact-check and debunk, trust for us is, like, in the basement, and it just keeps getting worse year after year after year. And the latest Gallup numbers have us worse than we were before, which is just, like, another institution that people are not turning to. We are in an era where some rando on YouTube who said they did their research is more trusted than what we publish. 

Rovner: And some of those randos on YouTube have millions of viewers, listeners. 

Keith: Yes, absolutely. 

Rovner: Subscribers, whatever you want to call them. 

Ollstein: One area where I’ve really seen this come forward, and it could definitely become part of policy in the future, is there’s just a lot of mis- and disinformation around transgender health care. There’s polling that show a lot of people believe what Trump and others have been saying, that, Oh, kids can come home from school and have a sex change operation. Which is obviously ridiculous. Everyone who has kids in school knows that they can’t even give them a Tylenol without parental permission. And it obviously doesn’t happen in a day, but people are like, Oh, well, I know it’s not happening at my school, but it’s sure happening somewhere. And that’s really resonating, and we’re already seeing a lot of legal restrictions on that front spilling. 

Rovner: All right, well, I’m going to open it up to the audience. Please wait to ask your question until you have a microphone, so the people who will be listening to the podcast will be able to hear your question. And please tell us who you are, and please make your question or question. 

Madeline: Hi, I’m Madeline. I am a grad student at the Milken Institute of Public Health at George Washington. My question is regarding polling. And I was just wondering, how has polling methodologies or tendencies to over-sample conservatives had on polls in the race? Are you seeing that as an issue or …? 

Kirzinger: OK. You know who’s less trusted than the media? It’s pollsters, but you can trust me. So I think what you’re seeing is there are now more polls than there have ever been, and I want to talk about legitimate scientific polls that are probability-based. They’re not letting people opt into taking the survey, and they’re making sure their samples are representative of the entire population that they’re surveying, whether it be the electorate or the American public, depending on that. 

I think what we have seen is that there have been some tendencies when people don’t like the poll results, they look at the makeup of that sample and say, oh, this poll’s too Democratic, or too conservative, has too many Trump voters. Or whatever it may be. That benefits no pollster to make their sample not look like the population that they’re aiming to represent. And so, yes, there are lots of really, really bad polls out there, but the ones that are legitimate and scientific are still striving to aim to make sure that it’s representative. The problem with election polls is we don’t know who the electorate’s going to be. We don’t know if Democrats are going to turn out more than Republicans. We don’t know if we’re going to see higher shares of rural voters than we saw in 2022. 

We don’t know. And so that’s where you really see the shifts in error happen. 

Keith: And if former President Trump’s — a big part of his strategy is turning out unlikely voters. 

Kirzinger: Yeah. We have no idea who they are. 

Rovner: Well, yeah, we saw in Georgia, their first day of in-person early voting, we had this huge upswell of voters, but we have no idea who any of those are, right? I mean, we don’t know what is necessarily turning them out. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. And historically, Democrats have been more likely to vote early and vote by mail, but that has really shifted since the pandemic. And so you see these day voting totals now, but that really doesn’t tell you anything at this point in the race. 

Rovner: Lots we still don’t know. Another question. 

Rae Woods: Hi there. Rae Woods. I’m with Advisory Board, which means that I work with health leaders who need to implement based on the policies and the politics and the results of the election that’s coming up. My question is, outside some of the big things that we’ve talked about so far today, are there some more specific, smaller policies or state-level dynamics that you think today’s health leaders will need to respond to in the next six months, the next eight months? What do health leaders need to be focused on right now based on what could change most quickly? 

Ollstein: Something I’ve been trying to shine a light on are state Supreme Courts, which the makeup of them could change dramatically this November. States have all kinds of different ways to … Some elect them on a partisan basis. Some elect them on a nonpartisan basis. Some have appointments by the governor, but then they have to run in these retention elections. But they are going to just have so much power over … I mean, I am most focused on how it can impact abortion rights, but they just have so much power on so many things. 

And given the high likelihood of divided federal government, I think just a ton of health policy is going to happen at the state level. And so I would say the electorate often overlooks those races. There’s a huge drop-off. A lot of people just vote the top of the ticket and then just leave those races blank. But yes, I think we should all be paying more attention to state Supreme Court races. 

Rovner: I think the other thing that we didn’t, that nobody mentioned we were talking about, what the next president could do, is the impact of the change to the regulatory environment and what the Supreme Court’s decision overturning Chevron is going to have on the next president. And we did a whole episode on this, so I can link back to that for those who don’t know. But basically, the Supreme Court has made it more difficult for whoever becomes president next time to change rules via their executive authority, and put more onus back on Congress. And we will see how that all plays out, but I think that’s going to be really important next year. 

Natalie Bercutt: Hi. My name is Natalie Bercutt. I’m also a master’s student at George Washington. I study health policy. I wanted to know a little bit more about, obviously, abortion rights, a huge issue on the ballot in this election, but a little bit more about IVF [in vitro fertilization], which I feel like has kind of come to the forefront a little bit more, both in state races but also candidates making comments on a national level, especially folks who have been out in the field and interacting with voters. Is that something that more people are coming out to the ballot for, or people who are maybe voting split ticket but in support of IVF, but for Republican candidate? 

Ollstein: That’s been fascinating. And so most folks know that this really exploded into the public consciousness earlier this year when the Alabama Supreme Court ruled that frozen embryos are people legally under the state’s abortion ban. And that disrupted IVF services temporarily until the state legislature swooped in. So Democrats’ argument is that because of these anti-abortion laws in lots of different states that were made possible by the Dobbs decision, lots of states could become the next Alabama. Republicans are saying: Oh, that’s ridiculous. Alabama was solved, and no other state’s going to do it. But they could. 

Rovner: Alabama could become the next Alabama. 

Ollstein: Alabama could certainly become the next Alabama. Buy tons of states have very similar language in their laws that would make that possible. Even as you see a lot of Republicans right now saying: Oh, Republicans are … We’re pro-IVF. We’re pro-family. We’re pro-babies. There are a lot of divisions on the right around IVF, including some who do want to prohibit it and others who want to restrict the way it’s most commonly practiced in the U.S., where excess embryos are created and only the most viable ones are implanted and the others are discarded. 

And so I think this will continue to be a huge fight. A lot of activists in the anti-abortion movement are really upset about how Republican candidates and officials have rushed to defend IVF and promised not to do anything to restrict it. And so I think that’s going to continue to be a huge fight no matter what happens. 

Rovner: Tam, are you seeing discussion about the threats to contraception? I know this is something that Democratic candidates are pushing, and Republican candidates are saying, Oh, no, that’s silly. 

Keith: Yeah, I think Democratic candidates are certainly talking about it. I think that because of that IVF situation in Alabama, because of concerns that it could move to contraception, I think Democrats have been able to talk about reproductive health care in a more expansive way and in a way that is perhaps more comfortable than just talking about abortion, in a way that’s more comfortable to voters that they’re talking to back when Joe Biden was running for president. Immediately when Dobbs happened, he was like, And this could affect contraception and it could affect gay rights. And Biden seemed much more comfortable in that realm. And so— 

Rovner: Yeah, Biden, who waited, I think it was a year and a half, before he said the word “abortion.” 

Keith: To say the word “abortion.” Yes. 

Rovner: There was a website: Has Biden Said Abortion Yet? 

Keith: Essentially what I’m saying is that there is this more expansive conversation about reproductive health care and reproductive freedom than there had been when Roe was in place and it was really just a debate about abortion. 

Rovner: Ashley, do people, particularly women voters, perceive that there’s a real threat to contraception? 

Kirzinger: I think what Tamara was saying about when Biden was the candidate, I do think that that was part of the larger conversation, that larger threat. And so they were more worried about IVF and contraception access during that. When you ask voters whether they’re worried about this, they’re not as worried, but they do give the Democratic Party and Harris a much stronger advantage on these issues. And so if you were to be motivated by that, you would be motivated to vote for Harris, but it really isn’t resonating with women voters and the way now that abortion, abortion access is resonating for them. 

Rovner: Basically, it won’t be resonating until they take it away. 

Kirzinger: Exactly. If, I think, the Alabama Supreme Court ruling happened yesterday, I think it would be a much bigger issue in the campaign, but all of this is timing. 

Ollstein: Well, and people really talked about a believability gap around the Dobbs decision, even though the activists who were following it closely were screaming that Roe is toast, from the moment the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and especially after they heard the case and people heard the tone of the arguments. And then of course the decision leaked, and even then there was a believability gap. And until it was actually gone, a lot of people just didn’t think that was possible. And I think you’re seeing that again around the idea of a national ban, and you’re seeing it around the idea of restrictions on contraception and IVF. There’s still this believability gap despite the evidence we’ve seen. 

Rovner: All right. I think we have time for one more question. 

Meg: Hi, my name’s Meg. I’m a freelance writer, and I wanted to ask you about something I’m not hearing about this election cycle, and that’s guns. Where do shootings and school shootings and gun violence fit into this conversation? 

Keith: I think that we have heard a fair bit about guns. It’s part of a laundry list, I guess you could say. In the Kamala Harris stump speech, she talks about freedom. She talks about reproductive freedom. She talks about freedom from being shot, going to the grocery store or at school. That’s where it fits into her stump speech. And certainly in terms of Trump, he is very pro–Second Amendment and has at times commented on the school shootings in ways that come across as insensitive. But for his base — and he is only running for his base — for his base, being very strongly pro–Second Amendment is critical. And I think there was even a question maybe in the Univision town hall yesterday to him about guns. 

It is not the issue in this campaign, but it is certainly an issue if we talk about how much politics have changed in a relatively short period of time. To have a Democratic nominee leaning in on restrictions on guns is a pretty big shift. When Hillary Clinton did it, it was like: Oh, gosh. She’s going there. She lost. I don’t think that’s why she lost, but certainly the NRA [National Rifle Association] spent a lot of money to help her lose. Biden, obviously an author of the assault weapons ban, was very much in that realm, and Harris has continued moving in that direction along with him, though also hilariously saying she has a Glock and she’d be willing to use it 

Ollstein: And emphasizing [Minnesota governor and Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim] Walz’s hunting. 

Keith: Oh, look, Tim Walz, he’s pheasant hunting this weekend. 

Rovner: And unlike John Kerry, he looked like he’d done it before. John Kerry rather famously went out hunting and clearly had not. 

Keith: I was at a rally in 2004 where John Kerry was wearing the jacket, the barn jacket, and the senator, the Democratic senator from Ohio hands him a shotgun, and he’s like … Ehh. 

Kirzinger: I was taken aback when Harris said that she had a Glock. I thought that was a very interesting response for a Democratic presidential candidate. I do think it is maybe part of her appeal to independent voters that, As a gun owner, I support Second Amendment rights, but with limitations. And I do think that that part of appeal, it could work for a more moderate voting block on gun rights. 

Rovner: We haven’t seen this sort of responsible gun owner faction in a long time. I mean, that was the origin of the NRA. 

Keith: But then more recently, Giffords has really taken on that mantle as, We own guns, but we want controls. 

Rovner: All right, well, I could go on for a while, but this is all the time we have. I want to thank you all for coming and helping me celebrate my birthday being a health nerd, because that’s what I do. We do have cake for those of you in the room. For those of you out in podcast land, as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you could subscribe wherever you get your podcast. 

We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our live-show coordinator extraordinaire, Stephanie Stapleton, and our entire live-show team. Thanks a lot. This takes a lot more work than you realize. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @KFF.org, or you can still find me. I’m at X at @jrovner. Tam, where are you on social media? 

Keith: I’m @tamarakeithNPR. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

Rovner: Cynthia. 

Cox: @cynthiaccox. 

Rovner: Ashley. 

Kirzinger: @AshleyKirzinger. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As part of a media blitz aimed at women voters, Vice President Kamala Harris this week rolled out a plan for Medicare to provide in-home long-term care services. It’s popular, particularly for families struggling to care for both young children and older relatives, but its enormous expense has prevented similar plans from being implemented for decades.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden called out former President Donald Trump by name for having “led the onslaught of lies” about the federal efforts to help people affected by hurricanes Helene and Milton. Even some Republican officials say the misinformation about hurricane relief efforts is threatening public health.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to expand Medicare to cover more long-term care is popular but not new, and in the past has proved prohibitively expensive.
• Former President Donald Trump has abandoned support for a drug price policy he pursued during his first term. The idea, which would lower drug prices in the U.S. to their levels in other industrialized countries, is vehemently opposed by the drug industry, raising the question of whether Trump is softening his hard line on the issue.
• Abortion continues to be the biggest health policy issue of 2024, as Republican candidates — in what seems to be a replay of 2022 — try to distance themselves from their support of abortion bans and other limits. Voters continue to favor reproductive rights, which creates a brand problem for the GOP. Trump’s going back and forth on his abortion positions is an exception to the tack other candidates have taken.
• The Supreme Court returned from its summer break and immediately declined to hear two abortion-related cases. One case pits Texas’ near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires emergency abortions to be performed in certain cases. The other challenges a ruling earlier this year from the Alabama Supreme Court finding that embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization have the same legal rights as born humans.
• The 2024 KFF annual employer health benefits survey, released this week, showed a roughly 7% increase in premiums, with average family premiums now topping $25,000 per year. And that’s with most employers not covering two popular but expensive medical interventions: GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and IVF.

Also this week, excerpts from a KFF lunch with “Shark Tank” panelist and generic drug discounter Mark Cuban, who has been consulting with the Harris campaign about health care issues.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” by Mel Leonor Barclay.

Jessie Hellmann: The Assembly’s “Helene Left Some NC Elder-Care Homes Without Power,” by Carli Brosseau.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It,” by Kate Morgan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Outright Lies’ About Hurricane Response,” by Michael D. Shear.
• The Miami Herald’s “Florida Threatens To Prosecute TV Stations Over Abortion Ad. FCC Head Calls It ‘Dangerous,’” by Claire Healy and Ana Ceballos.
• KFF’s “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Yet Another Promise for Long-Term Care Coverage

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

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

Today we are joined via teleconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Jesse Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have some excerpts from the Newsmaker lunch we had here at KFF this week with Mark Cuban — “Shark Tank” star, part-owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team, and, for the purposes of our discussion, co-founder of the industry-disrupting pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Vice President [Kamala] Harris, who’s been making the media rounds on women-focused podcasts and TV shows like “The View.” To go along with that, she’s released a proposal to expand Medicare to include home-based long-term care, to be paid for in part by expanding the number of drugs whose price Medicare can negotiate. Sounds simple and really popular. Why has no one else ever proposed something like that? she asks, knowing full well the answer. Joanne, tell us! 

Kenen: As the one full-fledged member of the sandwich generation here, who has lived the experience of being a family caregiver while raising children and working full time, long-term care is the unfulfillable, extremely expensive, but incredibly important missing link in our health care system. We do not have a system for long-term care, and people do not realize that. Many people think Medicare will, in fact, cover it, where Medicare covers it in a very limited, short-term basis. So the estimates of what families spend both in terms of lost work hours and what they put out-of-pockets is in, I think it’s something like $400 billion. It’s extraordinarily high. But the reason it’s been hard to fix is it’s extraordinarily expensive. And although Harris put out a plan to pay for this, that plan is going to have to be vetted by economists and budget scorers and skeptical Republicans. And probably some skeptical Democrats. It’s really expensive. It’s really hard to do. Julie has covered this for years, too. It’s just— 

Rovner: I would say this is where I get to say one of my favorite things, which is that I started covering health care in 1986, and in 1986 my first big feature was: Why don’t we have a long-term care policy in this country? Thirty-eight years later, and we still don’t, and not that people have not tried. There, in fact, was a long-term-care-in-the-home piece of the Affordable Care Act that passed Congress, and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] discovered that they could not implement it in the way it was written, because only the people who would’ve needed it would’ve signed up for it. It would’ve been too expensive. And there it went. So this is the continuing promise of something that everybody agrees that we need and nobody has ever been able to figure out how to do. Shefali, I see you nodding here. 

Luthra: I mean, I’m just thinking again about the pay-fors in here, which are largely the savings from Medicare negotiating drug prices. And what Harris says in her plan is that they’re going to get more savings by expanding the list of drugs that get lower prices. But that also feels very politically suspect when we have already heard congressional Republicans say that they would like to weaken some of those drug negotiation price provisions. And we also know that Democrats, even if they win the presidency, are not likely to have Congress. It really takes me back to 2020, when we are just talking about ideas that Democrats would love to do if they had full power of Congress, while all of us in Washington kind of know that that is just not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yes, I love that one of the pay-fors for this is cutting Medicare fraud. It’s like, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. In every Medicare proposal for the last 45 years. 

Kenen: And it also involves closing some kind of international tax loopholes, and that also sounds easy on paper, and nothing with taxes is ever easy. The Democrats probably are not going to have the Senate. Nobody really knows about the House. It looks like the Democrats may have a narrow edge in that, but we’re going to have more years of gridlock unless something really changes politically, like something extraordinary changes politically. The Republicans are not going to give a President Harris, if she is in fact President Harris, her wish list on a golden platter. On the other hand there’s need for this. 

Rovner: But in fairness, this is what the campaign is for. 

Kenen: Right. There is a need for something on long-term care. 

Rovner: And everybody’s complaining: Well, what would she do? What would she do if she was elected? Well, here’s something she said she would do if she could, if she was elected. Well, meanwhile, former President [Donald] Trump has apparently abandoned a proposal that he made during his first term to require drugmakers to lower their prices for Medicare to no more than they charge in other developed countries where their prices are government-regulated. Is Trump going soft on the drug industry? Trump has been, what, the Republican, I think, who’s been most hostile towards the drug industry until now. 

Hellmann: I would say maybe. I think the “most favored nation” proposal is something that the pharmaceutical industry has feared even more than the Democrats’ Medicare negotiation program. And it’s something that Trump really pursued in his first term but wasn’t able to get done. In such a tight race, I think he’s really worried about angering pharmaceutical companies, especially after they were just kind of dealt this loss with Medicare price negotiation. And if he does win reelection, he’s going to be kind of limited in his ability to weaken that program. It’s going to be hard to repeal it. It’s extremely popular, and he may be able to weaken it. 

Rovner: “It” meaning price negotiation, not the “most favored nations” prices. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s going to be really hard to repeal that, and he may be able to weaken it through the negotiation process with drug companies. It’s definitely an interesting turn. 

Rovner: Joanne, you want to add something? 

Kenen: Trump rhetorically was very harsh on the drug companies right around the time of his inauguration. I think it was the week before, if I remember correctly. Said a lot of very tough stuff on drugs. Put out a list of something like dozens of potential steps. The drug companies have lots of allies in both parties, and more in one than the other, but they have allies on the Hill, and nothing revolutionary happened on drug pricing under Trump. 

Rovner: And his HHS secretary was a former drug company executive. 

Kenen: Yes, Eli Lilly. So we also pointed out here that former President Trump is not consistent in policy proposals. He says one thing, and then he says another thing, and it’s very hard to know where he’s going to come down. So Trump and drug pricing is an open question. 

Rovner: Yes, we will see. All right, well, moving on. Drug prices and Medicare aside, the biggest health issue of Campaign 2024 continues to be abortion and other reproductive health issues. And it’s not just Trump trying to back away from his anti-abortion record. We’ve had a spate of stories over the past week or so of Republicans running for the House, the Senate, and governorships who are trying to literally reinvent themselves as, if not actually supportive of abortion rights, at least anti abortion bans. And that includes Republicans who have not just voted for and advocated for bans but who have been outspokenly supportive of the anti-abortion effort, people like North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, along with former Michigan Republican representative and now Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Donald Trump has gotten away repeatedly, as Joanne just said, with changing his positions, even on hot-button issues like abortion. Are these candidates going to be able to get away with doing the same thing, Shefali? 

Luthra: I think it’s just so much tougher when your name is not Donald Trump. And that’s because we know from focus group after focus group, and survey after survey, that voters kind of give Trump more leeway on abortion. Especially independent voters will look at him and say, Well, I don’t think he actually opposes abortion, because I’m sure he’s paid for them. And they don’t have that same grace that they give to Republican lawmakers and Republican candidates, because the party has a bad brand on abortion at large, and Trump is seen as this kind of maverick figure. But voters know that Republicans have a history of opposing abortion, of supporting restrictions. 

When you look at surveys, when you talk to voters, what they say is, Well, I don’t trust Republicans to represent my interests on this issue, because they largely support access. And one thing that I do think is really interesting is, once again, what we’re seeing is kind of a repeat of the 2022 elections when we saw some very brazen efforts by Republican candidates for the House and Senate try and scrub references to abortion and to fetal personhood from their websites. And it didn’t work, because people have eyes and people have memories, and, also, campaigns have access to the internet archive and are able to show people that, even a few weeks ago, Republican candidates were saying something very different from what they are saying now. I don’t think Mark Robinson can really escape from his relatively recent and very public comments about abortion. 

Rovner: Well, on the other hand, there’s some things that don’t change. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance told RealClearPolitics last week that if Trump is elected again, their administration would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood because, he said, and I quote, “We don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.” Notwithstanding, of course, that even before the overturn of Roe, less than half of all Planned Parenthoods even performed abortions and almost none of those who did perform them later in pregnancy. Is it fair to say that Vance’s anti-abortion slip is showing? 

Luthra: I think it might be. And I will say, Julie, when I saw that he said that, I could hear you in my head just yelling about the Hyde Amendment, because we know that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But we also know that JD Vance has seen that he and his ticket are kind of in a tough corner talking about abortion. He has said many times, We need to rebrand — he’s very honest about that, at least — and trying to focus instead on this nonmedical term of “late term” abortions. 

It’s a gamble. It’s hoping that voters will be more sympathetic to that because they’ll think, Oh, well, that sounds very extreme. And they’re trying to shift back who is seen as credible and who is not, by focusing on something that historically was less popular. But again, it’s again tricky because when we look at the polling, voters’ understanding of abortion has shifted and they are now more likely to understand that when you have an abortion later in pregnancy, it is often for very medically complex reasons. And someone very high-profile who recently said that is Melania Trump in her new memoir, talking about how she supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy because often these are very heart-wrenching cases and not sort of the murder that Republicans have tried to characterize them as. 

Rovner: I think you’re right. I think this is the continuation of the 2022 campaign, except that we’ve had so many more women come forward. We’ve seen actual cases. It used to be anti-abortion forces would say, Oh, well, this never happened. I mean, these are wrenching, awful things that happened to a lot of these patients with pregnancy complications late in pregnancy. And it is, I know, because I’ve talked to them. It’s very hard to get them to talk publicly, because then they get trolled. Why should they step forward? 

Well, now we’ve seen a lot of these women stepping forward. So we now see a public that knows that this happens, because they’re hearing from the people that it’s happened to and they’re hearing from their doctors. I do know also from the polling that there are people who are going to vote in these 10 states where abortion is on the ballot. Many of them are going to vote for abortion access and then turn around and vote for Republicans who support restrictions, because they’re Republicans. It may or may not be their most important issue, but I still think it’s a big question mark where that happens and how it shakes out. Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: You’re seeing two competing things at the same time. You have a number of Republicans trying to moderate their stance or at least sound like they’re moderating their stance. At the same time, you also have the whole, where the Republican Party is on abortion has shifted to the right. They are talking about personhood at the moment of conception, the embryo — which is, scientifically put, a small ball of cells still at that point — that they actually have the same legal rights as any other post-birth person. 

So that’s become a fairly common view in the Republican Party, as opposed to something that just five or six years ago was seen as the fringe. And Trump is going around saying that Democrats allow babies to be executed after birth, which is not true. And they’re particularly saying this is true in Minnesota because of [Gov.] Tim Walz, and some voters must believe it, right? Because they keep saying it. So you have this trend that Shefali just described and that you’ve described, Julie, about this sort of attempting to win back trust, as Vance said. And it sounded more moderate, and at the same time as you’re hearing this rhetoric about personhood and execution. So I don’t think the Republicans have yet solved their own whiplash post-Roe. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, the abortion debate is getting mired in the free-speech debate. In Florida, Republican governor Ron DeSantis is threatening legal action against TV stations airing an ad in support of the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. That has in turn triggered a rebuke from the head of the Federal Communications Commission warning that political speech is still protected here in the United States. Shefali, this is really kind of out there, isn’t it? 

Luthra: It’s just so fascinating, and it’s really part of a bigger effort by Ron DeSantis to try and leverage anything that he can politically or, frankly, in his capacity as head of the state to try and weaken the campaign for the ballot measure. They have used the health department in other ways to try and send out material suggesting that the campaign’s talking points, which are largely focused on the futility of exceptions to the abortion ban, they’re trying to argue that that is misinformation, and that’s not true. And they’re using the state health department to make that argument, which is something we don’t really see very often, because usually health departments are supposed to be nonpartisan. And what I will say is, in this case, at least to your point, Julie, the FCC has weighed in and said: You can’t do this. You can’t stop a TV station from airing a political ad that was bought and paid for. And the ads haven’t stopped showing at this point. I just heard from family yesterday in Florida who are seeing the ads in question on their TV, and it’s still— 

Rovner: And I will post a link to the ad just so you can see it. It’s about a woman who’s pregnant and had cancer and needed cancer treatment and needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to get the cancer treatment. It said that the exception would not allow her to, which the state says isn’t true and which is clearly one of these things that is debatable. That’s why we’re having a political debate. 

Luthra: Exactly. And one thing that I think is worth adding in here is, I mean, this really intense effort from Governor DeSantis and his administration comes at a time when already this ballot measure faces probably the toughest fight of any abortion rights measure. And we have seen abortion rights win again and again at the ballot, but in Florida you need 60% to pass. And if you look across the country at every abortion rights measure that has been voted on since Roe v. Wade was overturned, only two have cleared 60, and they are in California and they are in Vermont. So these more conservative-leaning states, and Florida is one of them, it’s just, it’s really, really hard to see how you get to that number. And we even saw this week there’s polling that suggests that the campaign has a lot of work to do if they’re hoping to clear that threshold. 

Rovner: And, of course, now they have two hurricanes to deal with, which we will deal with in a few minutes. But first, the Supreme Court is back in session here in Washington, and even though there’s no big abortion case on its official docket as of now this term, the court quickly declined to hear two cases on its first day back, one involving whether the abortion ban in Texas can override the federal emergency treatment law that’s supposed to guarantee abortion access in medical emergencies threatening the pregnant woman’s life or health. The court also declined to overrule the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can be considered legally as unborn children. That’s what Joanne was just talking about. Where do these two decisions leave us? Neither one actually resolved either of these questions, right? 

Luthra: I mean, the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] question is still ongoing, not because of the Texas case but because of the Idaho case that is asking very similar questions that we’ve talked about previously on this podcast. And the end of last term, the court kicked that back down to the lower courts to continue making its way through. We anticipate it will eventually come back to the Supreme Court. So this is a question that we will, in fact, be hearing on at some point. 

Rovner: Although, the irony here is that in Idaho, the ban is on hold because there was a court stay. And in Texas, the ban is not on hold, even though we’re talking about exactly the same question: Does the federal law overrule the state’s ban? 

Luthra: And what that kind of highlights — right? — is just how much access to abortion, even under states with similar laws or legislatures, really does depend on so many factors, including what circuit court you fall into or the makeup of your state Supreme Court and how judges are appointed or whether they are elected. There is just so much at play that makes access so variable. And I think the other thing that one could speculate that maybe the court didn’t want headlines around reproductive health so soon into an election, but it’s not as if this is an issue that they’re going to be avoiding in the medium- or long-term future. These are questions that are just too pressing, and they will be coming back to the Supreme Court in some form. 

Rovner: Yes, I would say in the IVF [in vitro fertilization] case, they simply basically said, Go away for now. Right? 

Luthra: Yeah. And, I mean, right now in Alabama, people are largely able to get IVF because of the state law that was passed, even if it didn’t touch the substance of that state court’s ruling. This is something, for now, people can sort of think is maybe uninterrupted, even as we all know that the ideological and political groundwork is being laid for a much longer and more intense fight over this. 

Rovner: Well, remember back last week when we predicted that the judge’s decision overturning Georgia’s six-week ban was unlikely to be the last word? Well, sure enough, the Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned the immediate overturning of the ban, which officially went back into effect on Monday. Like these other cases, this one continues, right? 

Luthra: Yes, this continues. The Georgia case continued for a while, and it just sort of underscores again what we’ve been talking about, just how much access really changes back and forth. And I was talking to an abortion clinic provider who has clinics in North Carolina and Georgia. She literally found out about the decision both times and changed her plans for the next day because I texted her asking her for comment. And providers and patients are being tasked with keeping up with so much. And it’s just very, very difficult, because Georgia also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which means that every time the decision around access has changed — and we know it very well could change again as this case progresses — people will have to scramble very quickly. And in Georgia, they have also been trying to do that on top of navigating the fallout of a hurricane. 

Rovner: Yeah. And as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the court overturned the North Dakota ban, there are no abortion providers left in North Dakota. Now that there’s no ban, it’s only in theory that abortion is now once again allowed in North Dakota. Well, before we leave abortion for this week, we have two new studies showing how abortion bans are impacting the health care workforce. In one survey, more than half of oncologists, cancer doctors, who were completing their fellowships, so people ready to go into practice, said they would consider the impact of abortion restrictions in their decisions about where to set up their practice. And a third said abortion restrictions hindered their ability to provide care. 

Meanwhile, a survey of OBGYNs in Texas by the consulting group Manatt Health found “a significant majority of practicing OB/GYN physicians … believe that the Texas abortion laws have inhibited their ability to provide highest-quality and medically necessary care to their patients,” and that many have already made or are considering making changes to their practice that would “reduce the availability of OB/GYN care in the state.” What’s the anti-abortion reaction to this growing body of evidence that abortion bans are having deleterious effects on the availability of other kinds of health care, too? I mean, I was particularly taken by the oncologists, the idea that you might not be able to get cancer care because cancer doctors are worried about treating pregnant women with cancer. 

Luthra: They’re blaming the doctors. And we saw this in Texas when the Zurawski case was argued and women patients and doctors in the state said that they had not been able to get essential, lifesaving medical care because of the state’s abortion ban and lack of clarity around what was actually permitted. And the state argued, and we have heard this talking point again and again, that actually the doctors are just not willing to do the hard work of practicing medicine and trying to interpret, Well, obviously this qualifies. That’s something we’ve seen in the Florida arguments. They say: Our exceptions are so clear, and if you aren’t able to navigate these exceptions, well, that’s your problem, because you are being risk-averse, and patients should really take this up with their doctors, who are just irresponsible. 

Rovner: Yes, this is obviously an issue that’s going to continue. Well, moving on. The cost of health care continues to grow, which is not really news, but this week we have more hard evidence, courtesy of my KFF colleagues via the annual 2024 Employer Health Benefit Survey, which finds the average family premium rose 7% this year to $25,572, with workers contributing an average of $6,296 towards that cost. And that’s with a distinct minority of firms covering two very popular but very expensive medical interventions, GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] drugs for obesity and IVF, which we’ve just been talking about. Anything else in this survey jump out at anybody? 

Hellmann: I mean, that’s just a massive amount of money. And the employer is really paying the majority of that, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact on people. That means it’s going to limit how much your wages go up. And something I thought of when I read this study is these lawsuits that we’re beginning to see, accusing employers of not doing enough to make sure that they’re limiting health care costs. They’re not playing enough of a role in what their benefits look like. They’re kind of outsourcing this to consultants. And so when you look at this data and you see $25,000 they’re spending per year per family on health care premiums, you wonder, what are they doing? 

Health care, yes, it’s obviously very expensive, but you just kind of question, what role are employers actually playing in trying to drive down health care costs? Are they just taking what they get from consultants? And another thing that kind of stood out to me from this is, I think it’s said in there, employers are having a hard time lately of passing these costs on to employees, which is really interesting. It’s because of the tight labor market. But obviously health care is still very expensive for employees — $6,000 a year in premiums for family coverage is not a small amount of money. So employers are just continuing to absorb that, and it does really impact everyone. 

Rovner: It’s funny. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was employers who were sort of driving the, You must do something about the cost of health care, because inflation was so fast. And then, of course, we saw health care inflation, at least, slow down for several years. Now it’s picking up again. Are we going to see employers sort of getting back into this jumping up and down and saying, “We’ve got to do something about health care costs”? 

Hellmann: I feel like we are seeing more of that. You’re beginning to hear more from employers about it. I don’t know. It’s just such a hard issue to solve, and I’ve seen more and more interest from Congress about this, but they really struggle to regulate the commercial market. So … 

Rovner: Yes, as we talk about at length every week. But it’s still important, and they will still go for it. Well, finally, this week in health misinformation. Let us talk about hurricanes — the public health misinformation that’s being spread both about Hurricane Helene that hit the Southeast two weeks ago, and Hurricane Milton that’s exiting Florida even as we are taping this morning. President [Joe] Biden addressed the press yesterday from the White House, calling out former President Trump by name along with Georgia Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading deliberate misinformation that’s not just undermining efforts at storm relief but actually putting people in more danger. Now, I remember Hurricane Katrina and all the criticism that was heaped, mostly deservedly, on George W. Bush and his administration, but I don’t remember deliberate misinformation like this. I mean, Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this? You lived in Florida for a while. 

Kenen: I went through Andrew, and there’s always a certain — there’s confusion and chaos after a big storm. But there’s a difference between stuff being wrong that can be corrected and stuff being intentionally said that then in this sort of divided, suspicious, two-realities world we’re now living in, that’s being repeated and perpetuated and amplified. It damages public health. It damages people economically trying to recover from this disastrous storm or in some cases storms. I don’t know how many people actually believe that Marjorie Taylor asserted that the Democrats are controlling the weather and sending storms to suppress Republican voters. She still has a following, right? But other things … 

Rovner: She still gets reelected. 

Kenen: … being told that if you go to FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] for help, your property will be confiscated and taken away from you. I mean, that’s all over the place, and it’s not true. Even a number of Republican lawmakers in the affected states have been on social media and making statements on local TV and whatever, saying: This is not true. Please, FEMA is there to help you. Let’s get through this. Stop the lies. A number of Republicans have actually been quite blunt about the misinformation coming from their colleagues and urging their constituents to seek and take the help that’s available. 

This is the public health crisis. We don’t know how many people have been killed. I don’t think we have an accurate total final count from Helene, and we sure don’t have from Milton. I mean, the people did seem to take this storm seriously and evacuated, but it also spawned something like three dozen tornadoes in places where people hadn’t been told, there’s normally no need to evacuate. There’s flooding. It’s a devastating storm. So when people are flooding, power outages, electricity, hard to get access to health care, you can’t refrigerate your insulin. All these— 

Rovner: Toxic floodwaters, I mean, the one thing … 

Kenen: Toxic, yeah. 

Rovner: … we know about hurricanes is that they’re more dangerous in the aftermath than during the actual storm in terms of public health. 

Kenen: Right. This is a life-threatening public health emergency to really millions of people. And misinformation, not just getting something wrong and then trying to correct it, but intentional disinformation, is something we haven’t seen before in a natural disaster. And we’re only going to have more natural disasters. And it was really — I mean, Julie, you already pointed this out — but it was really unusual how precise Biden was yesterday in calling out Trump by name, and I believe at two different times yesterday. So I heard one, but I think I read about what I think was the second one really saying, laying it at his feet that this is harming people. 

Rovner: Yeah, like I said, I remember Katrina vividly, and that was obviously a really devastating storm. I do also remember Democrats and Republicans, even while they were criticizing the federal government reaction to it, not spreading things that were obviously untrue. All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play a segment from our Newsmaker interview with Mark Cuban, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

On Tuesday, October 8th, Mark Cuban met with a group of reporters for a Newsmaker lunch at KFF’s offices in Washington, D.C. Cuban, a billionaire best known as a panelist on the ABC TV show “Shark Tank,” has taken an interest in health policy in the past several years. He’s been consulting with the campaign of Vice President Harris, although he says he’s definitely not interested in a government post if she wins. Cuban started out talking about how, as he sees it, the biggest problem with drug prices in the U.S. is that no one knows what anyone else is paying. 

Mark Cuban: I mean, when I talk to corporations and I’ve tried to explain to them how they’re getting ripped off, the biggest of the biggest said, Well, so-and-so PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] is passing through all of their rebates to us. 

And I’m like: Does that include the subsidiary in Scotland or Japan? Is that where the other one is? 

I don’t know. 

And it doesn’t. By definition, you’re passing through all the rebates with the company you contracted with, but they’re not passing through all the rebates that they get or that they’re keeping in their subsidiary. And so, yeah, I truly, truly believe from there everybody can argue about the best way. Where do you use artificial intelligence? Where do you do this? What’s the EHR [electronic health record? What’s this? We can all argue about best practices there. But without a foundation of information that’s available to everybody, the market’s not efficient and there’s no place to go. 

Rovner: He says his online generic drug marketplace, costplusdrugs.com, is already addressing that problem. 

Cuban: The crazy thing about costplusdrugs.com, the greatest impact we had wasn’t the markup we chose or the way we approach it. It’s publishing our price list. That changed the game more than anything. So when you saw the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] go after the PBMs, they used a lot of our pricing for all the non-insulin stuff. When you saw these articles written by the Times and others, or even better yet, there was research from Vanderbilt, I think it was, that says nine oncology drugs, if they were purchased by Medicare through Cost Plus, would save $3.6 billion. These 15, whatever drugs would save six-point-whatever billion. All because we published our price list, people are starting to realize that things are really out of whack. And so that’s why I put the emphasis on transparency, because whether it’s inside of government or inside companies that self-insure, in particular, they’re going to be able to see. The number one rule of health care contracts, particularly PBM contracts, is you can’t talk about PBM contracts. 

Rovner: Cuban also says that more transparency can address problems in the rest of the health care system, not just for drug prices. Here’s how he responded to a question I asked describing his next big plan for health care. 

We’ve had, obviously, issues with the system being run by the government not very efficiently and being run by the private sector not very efficiently. 

Cuban: Very efficiently, yeah. 

Rovner: And right now we seem to have this sort of working at cross-purposes. If you could design a system from the ground up, which would you let do it? The government or— 

Cuban: I don’t think that’s really the issue. I think the issue is a lack of transparency. And you see that in any organization. The more communication and the more the culture is open and transparent, the more people hold each other responsible. And I think you get fiefdoms in private industry and you get fiefdoms in government, as well, because they know that if no one can see the results of their work, it doesn’t matter. I can say my deal was the best and I did the best and our outcomes are the best, but there’s no way to question it. And so talking to the Harris campaign, it’s like if you introduce transparency, even to the point of requiring PBMs and insurers to publish their contracts publicly, then you start to introduce an efficient market. And once you have an efficient market, then people are better able to make decisions and then you can hold them more accountable. 

And I think that’s going to spill over beyond pharm. We’re working on — it’s not a company — but we’re working on something called Cost Plus Wellness, where we’re eating our own dog food. And it’s not a company that’s going to be a for-profit or even a nonprofit, for that matter, just for the lives that I cover for my companies, that we self-insure. We’re doing direct contracting with providers, and we’re going to publish those contracts. And part and parcel to that is going through the — and I apologize if I’m stumbling here. I haven’t slept in two days, so bear with me. But going through the hierarchy of care and following the money, if you think about when we talk to CFOs and CEOs of providers, one of the things that was stunning to me that I never imagined is the relationship between deductibles for self-insured companies and payers, and the risk associated with collecting those deductibles to providers. 

And I think people don’t really realize the connection there. So whoever does Ann’s care [KFF Chief Communications Officer Ann DeFabio, who was present] — well, Kaiser’s a little bit different, but let’s just say you’re employed at The Washington Post or whoever and you have a $2,500 deductible. And something happens. Your kid breaks their leg and goes to the hospital, and you’re out of market, and it’s out of network. Well, whatever hospital you go to there, you might give your insurance card, but you’re responsible for that first $2,500. And that provider, depending on where it’s located, might have collection — bad debt, rather — of 50% or more. 

So what does that mean in terms of how they have to set their pricing? Obviously, that pricing goes up. So there’s literally a relationship between, particularly on pharmacy, if my company takes a bigger rebate, which in turn means I have a higher deductible because there’s less responsibility for the PBM-slash-insurance company. My higher deductible also means that my sickest employees are the ones paying that deductible, because they’re the ones that have to use it. And my older employees who have ongoing health issues and have chronic illnesses and need medication, they’re paying higher copays. But when they have to go to the hospital with that same deductible, because I took more of a rebate, the hospital is taking more of a credit risk for me. That’s insane. That makes absolutely no sense. 

And so what I’ve said is as part of our wellness program and what we’re doing to — Project Alpo is what we call it, eating our own dog food. What I’ve said is, we’ve gone to the providers and said: Look, we know you’re taking this deductible risk. We’ll pay you cash to eliminate that. But wait, there’s more. We also know that when you go through a typical insurer, even if it’s a self-insured employer using that insurer and you’re just using the insurance company not for insurance services but as a TPA [third-party administrator], the TPA still plays games with the provider, and they underpay them all the time. 

And so what happens as a result of the underpayment is that provider has to have offices and offices full of administrative assistants and lawyers, and they have to not only pay for those people, but they have the associated overhead and burden and the time. And then talking to them, to a big hospital system, they said that’s about 2% of their revenue. So because of that, that’s 2%. Then, wait, there’s more. You have the pre-ops, and you have the TPAs who fight you on the pre-ops. But the downstream economic impacts are enormous because, first, the doctor has to ask for the pre-op. That’s eating doctor’s time, and so they see fewer patients. And then not only does the doctor have to deal with them, they go to HR at the company who self-insures and says, Wait, my employee can’t come to work, because their child is sick, and you won’t approve this process or, whatever, this procedure, because it has to go through this pre-op. 

Or if it’s on medications, it’s you want to go through the step-up process or you want to go through a different utilization because you get more rebates. All these pieces are intertwined, and we don’t look at it holistically. And so what we’re saying with Cost Plus Wellness is, we’re going to do this all in a cash basis. We’re going to trust doctors so that we’re not going to go through a pre-op. Now we’ll trust but verify. So as we go through our population and we look at all of our claims, because we’ll own all of our claims, we’re going to look to see if there are repetitive issues with somebody who’s just trying to —there’s lots of back surgeries or there’s lots of this or there’s lots of that — to see if somebody’s abusing us. And because there’s no deductible, we pay it, and we pay it right when the procedure happens or right when the medication is prescribed. Because of all that, we want Medicare pricing. Nobody’s saying no. And in some cases I’m getting lower than Medicare pricing for primary care stuff. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. Now it’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include the links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week. 

Kenen: There was a fascinating story in The New York Times by Kate Morgan. The headline was “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It.” So I knew nothing about this, and it was so interesting. Placentas have amazing healing properties for wound care, burns, infections, pain control, regenerating skin tissue, just many, many things. And it’s been well known for years, and it’s not widely used. This is a story specifically about a really severe burn victim in a gas explosion and how her face was totally restored. We don’t use this, partly because placenta — every childbirth, there’s a placenta. There are lots of them around. There’s I think three and a half million births a year, or that’s the estimate I read in the Times. One of the reasons they weren’t being used is, during the AIDS crisis, there was some development toward using them, and then the AIDS crisis, there was a fear of contamination and spreading the virus, and it stopped decades later. 

We have a lot more ways of detecting, controlling, figuring out whether something’s contaminated by AIDS or whether a patient has been exposed. It is being used again on a limited basis after C-sections, but it seems to have pretty astonishing — think about all the wound care for just diabetes. I’m not a scientist, but I just looked at the story and said, it seems like a lot of people could be healed quicker and more safely and earlier if this was developed. They’re thrown away now. They’re sent to hospital waste incinerators and biohazard waste. They’re garbage, and they’re actually medicine. 

Rovner: Definitely a scientist’s cool story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from my brilliant colleague Mel Leonor Barclay. The headline is “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” and as part of this really tremendous series that she has running this week, looking at how Latinas as a much more influential and growingly influential voter group could shape gun violence, abortion rights, and housing. And in this story, which I really love, she went to Arizona and spent time talking to folks on all sides of the issue to better understand how Latinas are affected by abortion rights and also how they’ll be voting on this. 

And she really challenges the narrative that has existed for so long, which is that Latinas are largely Catholic, largely more conservative on abortion. And she finds something much more complex, which is that actually polls really show that a large share of Latina voters in Arizona and similar states support abortion rights and will be voting in favor of measures like the Arizona constitutional amendment. But at the same time, there are real divides within the community, and people talk about their faith in a different way and how it connects their stance on abortion. They talk about their relationships with family in different ways, and I think it just underscores how rarely Latina voters are treated with real nuance and care and thoughtfulness when talking about something as complex as abortion and abortion politics. And I really love the way that she approaches this piece. 

Rovner: It was a super-interesting story. Jesse. 

Hellmann: My story is from The Assembly. It’s an outlet in North Carolina. It’s called “Helene Left Some North Carolina Elder-Care Homes Without Power.” Some assisted living facilities have been without power and water since the hurricane hit. Several facilities had to evacuate residents, and the story just kind of gets into how North Carolina has more lax rules around emergency preparedness. While they do require nursing homes be prepared to provide backup power, the same requirements don’t apply to assisted living facilities. And it’s because there’s been industry pushback against that because of the cost. But as we see some more of these extreme weather events, it seems like something has to be done. We cannot just allow vulnerable people living in these facilities to go hours and hours without power and water. And I saw that there was a facility where they evacuated dozens of people who had dementia, and that’s just something that’s really upsetting and traumatizing for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, once again, now we are seeing these extreme weather events in places that, unlike Florida and Texas, are not set up and used to extreme weather events. And it is something I think that a lot of people are starting to think about. Well, my story this week is from our KFF Health News public health project called Health Beat, and it’s called “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly. And it’s one of those stories you never really think about until it’s pointed out that in areas, particularly those that had been redlined, in particular, the lack of safety infrastructure that most of us take for granted — crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic lights are not really there. And that’s a public health crisis of its own, and it’s one that rarely gets addressed, and it’s a really infuriating but a really good story. 

All right, that is our show. Next week, for my birthday, we’re doing a live election preview show here at KFF in D.C., because I have a slightly warped idea of fun. And you’re all invited to join us. I will put a link to the RSVP in the show notes. I am promised there will be cake. 

As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me for the moment at X. I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where are you? 

Kenen: @JoanneKenen sometimes on Twitter and @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on Twitter.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil on Twitter.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

When it comes to health care, this year’s presidential campaign is increasingly a matter of which candidate voters choose to believe. Democrats, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, say Republicans want to further restrict reproductive rights and repeal the Affordable Care Act, pointing to their previous actions and claims. Meanwhile, Republicans, led by former President Donald Trump, insist they have no such plans.

Meanwhile, with open enrollment approaching for Medicare, the Biden administration dodges a political bullet, avoiding a sharp spike next year in Medicare prescription drug plan premiums.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio muddled his ticket’s stances on health policy during the vice presidential debate, including by downplaying the possibility of a national abortion ban. And Melania Trump, the former president’s wife, spoke out in support of abortion rights. Their comments seem designed to soothe voter concerns that former President Donald Trump could take actions to further block abortion access.
• Vance raised eyebrows with his debate-night claim that Trump “salvaged” the Affordable Care Act — when, in fact, the former president vowed to repeal the law and championed the GOP’s efforts to deliver on that promise. Meanwhile, Trump deflected questions from AARP about his plans for Medicare, replying, “What we have to do is make our country successful again.”
• On the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on health, in particular by pushing out new ads highlighting the benefits of the ACA and Trump’s efforts to restrict abortion. Polls show health is a winning issue for Democrats and that the ACA is popular, especially its protections for those with preexisting conditions.
• Also in the news, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported a slight dip in average Medicare drug plan premiums for next year. Coming in an annual report — out shortly before Election Day — it looks as though government subsidies cushioned changes to the system, sparing seniors from potentially paying in premiums what they may save under the new $2,000 annual out-of-pocket drug cost cap, for instance.
• And in abortion news, a judge struck down Georgia’s six-week abortion ban — but many providers have already left the state. And a new California law protects coverage for in vitro fertilization, including for LGBTQ+ couples.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-Washington Post “Bill of the Month,” about a teen athlete whose needed surgery lacked a billing code. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” by Ronnie Cohen.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees,” by John Tozzi.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene,” by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus.

Sandhya Raman: The Asheville Citizen Times’ “Without Water After Helene, Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” by Jacob Biba.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• SisterSong v. State of Georgia: Superior Court of Fulton County decision.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Health of the Campaign

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, October 4th, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Rovner: Today we are joined via teleconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient is a high school athlete whose problem got fixed, but his bill did not. But first, the news. 

We’re going to start this week with the campaign. It is October. I don’t know how that happened. On Tuesday, vice-presidential candidates Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota held their first and only debate. It felt very Midwestern nice, with Walz playing his usual Aw shucks self and Vance trying very hard to seem, for want of a better word, likable. Did we learn anything new from either candidate? 

Edney: I don’t think I heard anything new, no — not that I can remember. 

Rovner: I know, obviously, they exchanged some views on abortion. Vance tried very hard to distance himself from his own hard-line views on the subject, including denying that he’d ever supported a national abortion ban, which he did, by the way. Meanwhile, during the debate, former President [Donald] Trump announced on social media that he would veto a national abortion ban, something he’d not said in those exact words before. Alice, you’ve got a pretty provocative story out this week suggesting that this all might actually be working on a skeptical public. Is it? 

Ollstein: Yes. This has been a theme I’ve been tracking for a little bit. It was part of the reporting I was doing in Michigan a couple weeks ago. One, what I thought was interesting about that night was Trump and Vance have been talking past each other on abortion and contradicting each other, and now … 

Rovner: Oh, yeah. 

Ollstein: … it finally seems that they are on the same page, in terms of trying to convince the public: Nothing to see here. We won’t do a national ban. Don’t worry about it. Democrats and abortion rights groups are running around screaming: They’re lying. Look at their record. Look at what their allies have proposed in things like Project 2025. But the Republican message on this front does seem to be working. Polls show that even people who care about abortion rights and support abortion rights in some of these key battleground states still plan to vote for Trump. It’s a continuation of a pattern we’ve seen over the past few years where a decent chunk of people vote for these state ballot initiatives to protect abortion but then also vote for anti-abortion politicians. 

Voters contain multitudes. We don’t know exactly if it’s because they are not worried that Trump and Vance will pursue national restrictions. We don’t know if it’s because just other issues are more important to them. But I think it’s really worth keeping an eye on in terms of a pattern. And KFF has done some really interesting polling showing that people in states where the ballot initiatives have already passed sort of view it as, Oh, we took care of that, it’s settled, and they don’t see the urgency and the threat of a national ban in the way that Democrats and abortion rights groups want them to. 

Rovner: Which we’ll talk about separately in a minute. In late breaking news, Melania Trump this week came out and said that she supports abortion rights. Is this part of the continuing muddle where everybody can see what it is that they want to see, or is this going to have any impact at all? 

Ollstein: Can I say one more thing about the debate first? 

Rovner: Sure. 

Ollstein: OK. So what really struck me about what Vance said about abortion at the debate is he really portrayed two arguments that I’ve seen sort of trickle up from the grass roots of the anti-abortion movement. So one, there were some semantics quibbles around what is a ban. There’s really been an effort in the anti-abortion movement to say that only a total ban throughout pregnancy with no exceptions, only that they call a ban. Everything else, they don’t consider it a ban. 

Rovner: It’s a national standard. 

Ollstein: Yeah, minimum standard, federal standard. There’s a lot of different words they use — “limit,” “restriction.” But what they’re describing is what others call a ban. It’s not a different policy, and so we saw that on full display on the debate stage. We also saw this argument sort of that these government programs and funding and support are the answer to abortion, so, basically, promoting the idea that with enough child care supports and health care supports, fewer people would have abortions — which the data is mixed on that, I will say, from the U.S. and from other countries. But financial hardship is just one of many reasons people have abortions, so that would impact some people and not others. It also goes against a lot of the sort of traditional small-government, cut-government-spending Republican ethos, and so it is this really interesting sort of pro-natalist direction that some of the party wants to go in and some of the activist movement wants to go in. But there’s definitely some tension around that. And, of course, we’ve seen Republicans vote against those programs and funding at the state and federal level. 

Rovner: Things like paid family leave have been a Democratic priority much, much longer than it’s been a Republican priority, if it ever was and if it is now. 

Ollstein: But it’s interesting that he was promoting that to sort of show a kinder, gentler face to the anti-abortion movement, which has been a trend we’ve been seeing. 

Rovner: Yes. Yes, not just from JD Vance but from lots of Republicans on the anti-abortion side. And Melania— 

Ollstein: Sorry, back to Melania. 

Rovner: Is there any impact from this? 

Edney: Oh, it’s certainly worked for the Trump campaign to muddy the waters on any subject. If you think about immigration, certainly that worked before, and I think you can see where they’re realizing that. And they are coming together, like Alice mentioned, with JD Vance and Trump talking on the same page now a bit better but using sort of a, I don’t want to say “underling,” but like a second … 

Rovner: A surrogate. 

Edney: Yeah, a surrogate, a secondary character to say, I support abortion rights. And she has Trump’s ear, and that could really be a solid salve to a lot of people. 

Rovner: I was fascinated because she’s been pretty much invisible all year. I think this is the first time we have actually heard her voice, the first time I have heard her voice in 2024. 

Raman: I would add that it’s not unprecedented for a first lady on the Republican side to come out in favor of abortion rights. I think what makes it so interesting is, A, how close we are to the election and that we are actively in a campaign. When we look at the remarks that Laura Bush made several years ago, it was after [former President George W.] Bush had left office for a few years. And so this, I think, is just what really makes it, if the book is going to come out about a month or so before the election that … 

Rovner: Melania’s book. 

Raman: Yeah, Melania’s book, yes. 

Rovner: So yes, we will see. All right. Well, abortion was not the only health issue that came up during the debate. So did the Affordable Care Act. JD Vance went as far to claim that Donald Trump is actually the one that saved the Affordable Care Act. That’s not exactly how I remember things happening. You’re shaking your head. 

Raman: I think this was one of the most striking parts of the debate for me, just because he made several comments about how this was a bipartisan process and Trump was trying to salvage the ACA. And for those of us that were reporting in 2017, he was kind of ringleading the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And I guess there were just numerous claims within the few statements he made that were just all incorrect. He was talking about how Trump had divided risk pools, and that was not something that happened. I think that we assume that he was referring to the reinsurance waivers, but those were also created under the Obama administration, so it wasn’t like a Trump invention. We just had some approved under Trump. And he’d mentioned that enrollment was reaching record heights. Health enrollment grew more under the Biden administration than it did under Trump. 

Rovner: Yeah, I went back and actually looked up those numbers because I was so, like, “What are you talking about?” Actually, it was the moderator question: Didn’t enrollment go up during the Trump administration? No, it went down every year. 

Ollstein: The number of uninsured went up, in fact, during the Trump administration. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Ollstein: But, I mean, this is, again, part of a long pattern. Trump has routinely taken credit for things that were the decisions of other administrations, both before and after him. 

Rovner: And things that he tried to do and failed to do. 

Ollstein: Right. 

Rovner: Like lowering drug prices. 

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. Exactly. Exactly. Like Anna said, there was very little new that was revealed in this exchange. 

Rovner: Well, elsewhere on the campaign trail, the Harris campaign is working hard to elevate health care as an issue, including rolling out not just a 60-second ad warning of what repealing the Affordable Care Act could mean, but also issuing a 43-page white paper theorizing what Trump and Vance are likely to have in mind with their, quote, “concepts” of a health care plan based on what they’ve said and done in the past. They must be seeing something in the polls suggesting this could have some legs, don’t you think? I’m a little surprised, because everybody keeps saying: Not a health care election. This is not a health care election. But I don’t know. The Harris campaign sure keeps behaving like it might be. 

Raman: Hammering in on the preexisting conditions and protecting those, just because that is such a popular part of the ACA across the board, is probably a good strategy for them, just because that is something that is not the most wonky with that and that people can understand in a campaign ad and kind of distill down. 

Edney: Yeah, that was what I was thinking as well, is it’s a popular issue for, certainly, to be talking about, but also just the idea that he’s talking about it in a way that people think, Oh, we don’t have to worry. And Alice has made this point on abortion before. There’s a lot that he can do through executive order and things like that, and did do like taking away money for the navigators and things to help people enroll. So even if they don’t think it’s maybe going to be about health care fully, it makes sense to try to counter some of that. And you can’t do that on a debate stage most of the time, not in an effective way, but certainly putting out this paper, I mean, it did get some press and things like that, and if you really wanted to go read it, you could. 

Rovner: Even I didn’t want to read all 43 pages. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: Well, as Anna previewed, the AARP released what’s normally a pretty routine interview with both candidates about issues important to Americans over age 50, things like Medicare, Social Security, and caregiving. But I think it’s fair to say that, at least, former President Trump’s answers were anything but routine. Asked how he would protect Medicare from cuts and improve the program, he said, and I quote: “What we have to do is make our country successful again. This has to do with Medicare and Social Security and other things. We have to let our country become successful, make our country successful again, and we’ll be able to do that.” How do you even respond to things like that? Or is this campaign now so completely divorced from the issues that literally nothing matters? 

Edney: Well, I kind of noticed a trend in between that answer and one JD Vance gave when he was talking about abortion, and he said: We just need to make women trust us. They need to trust us again. We need to make them trust us. I was like, I don’t understand how that even connects. But also, how are you going to do that? And I think that this is the same thing. You’re just saying these words over and over again in relation. So in somebody’s mind, Medicare and success is Trump’s word, and trust and abortion as JD Vance’s thing, and you’re connecting these in their minds. And I was seeing this as a trend. It just felt familiar to me after listening to the vice-presidential debate. They’re not going to talk about any policy or anything, but repeating these words over and over again like you were listening to morning affirmations or something was going to really get that through in a voter’s mind is maybe what they’re going for. 

Rovner: And I have to say, I mean, when candidates start to talk about actual policy ideas, it gets really wonky really fast. Sort of going back to the debate, JD Vance was talking about visas and immigration, and I think it’s an app that he was talking about. I know this stuff pretty well. I had no idea what he was talking about. I mean, maybe it does work better when Trump says, I’m not going to cut Medicare or Social Security, and leave it at that. 

Ollstein: Well, right, because when you talk specific policies, that opens it up to critique. And when you just talk total platitudes, then it’s harder to pick apart and criticize, even though it’s clearly not an answer to the questions they’re asking. And it was even a little bit funny to me for the AARP interview, because I believe they sent in written responses, and so they had the ability— 

Rovner: I think they also talked on the phone. 

Ollstein: Oh, OK. 

Rovner: So I think it was a little bit of both. 

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. It wasn’t the sort of live televised interview. They could have looked up — it was an open-book test. 

Rovner: It was. 

Ollstein: And yet all of the responses from Trump were just like, We’re going to do something and it’s going to be great and awesome and it’ll fix everything, and it was completely devoid of policy specifics, which again may be smarter politically than actually saying what you plan to do, which as we’ve seen in Project 2025, generates a lot of backlash. But it is also a little bit dangerous to go into the election not knowing the specifics of what someone wants to do on health care. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know. I find when I listen to some of these focus groups with undecided voters, we want to know what exactly they’re going to do, except they don’t really want to know what exactly they’re going to do. They think they do, but it appears that that is not necessarily the case. One thing that we know does matter, at least to people on Medicare, is the premiums they pay for their coverage. And unfortunately, for every administration, that announcement comes just weeks before Election Day every year. So this year, the Biden administration was worried about big jumps in premiums for Medicare Part D drug coverage, mostly thanks to the new caps on spending that will save consumers money but will cost insurers more. That didn’t happen, though. And in fact, average premiums will actually fall slightly next year. 

Now, I’m not sure I understand exactly what the administration did to avoid this, but they used existing demonstration authority to boost payments to insurers. And, not surprisingly, Republicans are pretty furious. On the other hand, Republicans used pretty much this same authority to avoid Medicare premium spikes in the past. Anna, is this just political manipulation or good governing, or a little bit of both? 

Edney: Yeah, it is certainly very timely and probably necessary also because the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, kept the seniors’ out-of-pocket pay at $2,000 a year. And so that was going to skyrocket premiums, and they did not want to face that, particularly in an election year. And as you mentioned, this all happens around that time. And so they did this demonstration, and I have read a few things trying to figure out exactly what it does, and I can’t. 

Rovner: So it’s not just me. It’s complicated. 

Edney: It’s not just you. It’s really complicated, and it has to do with payments that usually come at the end that insurers are now going to get upfront. And that’s the best I can tell you. But they’ll be getting some subsidies upfront, and it’s to try to spread these premium increases to help mitigate those so that seniors don’t have to then pay on that end instead of for their drugs out-of-pocket. So I think that they need to do something. I mean, already, the premiums were able to go up. I think it’s $35 a month, and some plans did elect to do that and others have them staying even. And you even have some with them going down a little bit. So I guess the moral of the story is for consumers to shop around this year, certainly. 

Rovner: That’s right, and we will talk more about Medicare open enrollment, which opens in a couple of weeks, because it’s October, and all of these things happen at once. Moving back to abortion, a judge in Georgia struck down, at least for now, the state’s six-week abortion ban, quoting from “The Handmaid’s Tale” about how the law requires women to serve as human incubators. And I’ll put a link to the decision, because that’s quite the decision. But Alice, this is far from the last word on this, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. It’s just so fascinating what a slow burn these lawsuits are. I mean, this, the one in North Dakota recently that restored access, these just sort of simmer under the radar for months or even years, and then a decision can have a major impact. And so access has been restored in some of these states. Some interesting things that came to mind were, one, it could be reversed again and pingpong back and forth, and all of that is very challenging for doctors and patients to manage. 

But also — and I’m thinking more of North Dakota, because Georgia is sort of a medical powerhouse with a lot of providers and hospitals and facilities and stuff — but in North Dakota, the state’s only abortion clinic moved out of state, and they do not plan to move back as a result of this decision. This isn’t a switch you can flip back and forth. And so when access is restored on paper in the law, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be restored in practice. You need doctors willing to work in these states and provide the procedure. And even with the court rulings, they may not feel comfortable doing so, or the logistics are just too daunting to move back. So I would urge people to keep that in mind. 

Rovner: Yeah, and the state’s already said that it’s going to appeal to the next-higher court. So we will see this continue, but I think it was definitely worth mentioning. We’ve talked a lot this year about women experiencing pregnancy complications not being able to get care in states with abortion bans and restrictions. Well, it’s happening in states where abortion is supposed to be widely available, too. 

In California, the state’s attorney general filed suit this week against a Catholic hospital in the rural northern part of the state that refused to terminate the doomed pregnancy of a woman carrying twins after her water broke at 15 weeks, because they said one of the twins still had a heartbeat. She eventually was driven to the only other hospital within a hundred miles of the labor and delivery unit, where she did get the care that she needed, although she was hemorrhaging, but not until after a nurse at the Catholic hospital gave her a bucket of towels, quote, “in case something happens in the car.” Meanwhile, the labor and delivery unit at the hospital she was taken to is itself scheduled to close. Are women starting to get the idea that this is about more than just selective abortions and that no matter where they live, that being pregnant could be more dangerous than it has been in the past? 

Raman: I was going to say this is something that abortion rights advocates have been saying for years now, that it’s not just abortion, that they point to things like the whole ordeal that we’ve been having with IVF [in vitro fertilization] and birth control and so many other things. Even in the last couple years, people trying to get other medications that have nothing to do with pregnancy and not being able to get those because they might have an effect or cause miscarriage or things like that. So I think in one way, yes. But at the same time, when you look at something like what we saw happen with the two deaths in Georgia, right? The messaging from the anti-abortion crowd has been that this was not because of the abortion ban but because of the regulations that allowed these people to get a medication abortion and that’s what’s driving the death. 

So we think that, in some ways, there’s certain camps that are just going to be focused on a different side of how the emergency might not be related to abortion at all, or the branding is that this is not an abortion in certain cases versus an abortion, it’s just semantics. So I don’t know how many minds it’s changing at this point. 

Ollstein: Like Sandhya said, the awareness that this is not just for so-called elective abortions. Obviously, that term is disputed and there’s gray area of what that means. I think the overwhelming focus in messaging — from Democrats, anyway — has been about these wanted pregnancies that suffer medical complications and people can’t get care, and so the spillover effect on miscarriage care. But I think the piece that’s new that this could emphasize is that it’s not a strict red-state-blue-state divide, that Catholic hospitals and other facilities in states with protections, like California — it could happen there, too. So I think that’s what this case may be contributing in a new way to people’s understanding. 

Rovner: And, of course, this was happening long before Dobbs — I mean, with Catholic hospitals, particularly Catholic hospitals in areas where there are not a lot of hospitals, denying care according to Catholic teachings and women having basically no place, at least nearby, to go. So I think people are seeing it in a new light now that it seems to be happening in many, many places at the same time. Well, while we are visiting California, Governor Gavin Newsom this week signed legislation requiring large group health insurance plans to cover IVF and other fertility treatments starting next year. California is far from the first state to do this. I think it’s now up to over a dozen. But it’s by far the most populous state to do this. Do we expect to see more of this, particularly given, as you were saying, Sandhya, the attention that IVF is suddenly getting? 

Raman: I think we could. We’ve had a lot of states do different variations of those so far, and they haven’t necessarily been blue versus red. I think one thing that was interesting about the California law in particular was that it included LGBTQ people within the infertility definition, which we’ve been having IVF laws for over 20 years at this point and I don’t know that that has been necessarily there in other ones. So I would be watching for more things like that and seeing how widespread that would be in some of the bills coming up in the next legislative cycle. 

Rovner: Yes, and another issue that I suspect will continue to simmer beyond this election. Well, finally this week, two big business-of-health-related stories: Over the summer, we talked about how the CEO of Steward Health Care, which is a chain of hospitals bought out by private equity and basically run into bankruptcy, refused to show up to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Well, in the last two weeks, the committee, followed by the full Senate, voted to hold CEO Ralph de la Torre in criminal contempt. And as of last week, he is now ex-CEO Ralph de la Torre, and now he is suing the Senate over that contempt vote. If nothing else, I guess this raises the stakes in Congress to continue to look at the impact of private equity in health care? 

Edney: Yeah, I think it’s interesting, because when you look at [Sen.] Bernie Sanders calling in pharmaceutical CEOs, they typically show up and they take their hits and they go home. And in this case, it probably kind of heightens that idea that private equity is the evil person. And I’m not saying everyone thinks pharma is not, but they do understand Washington. And there’s a chance that a lot of New York–focused, Wall Street–focused private equity folks may not get that quite in the same way or just may not view it as important. But now, that may be changing. 

Rovner: I was surprised by how bipartisan this was. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: I mean, beating up on pharma tends to be a Democratic thing, but this was bipartisan in the committee and bipartisan in the Senate. I mean, it’s also important to remember that Steward Health Care is a chain of hospitals in a whole bunch of states, so there are a lot of senators who are seeing hospitals in, now, dire straits through this whole private equity thing, who I imagine are not very happy about it. And their constituents are not very happy about it. But I think the bipartisanship of it is what sort of stuck out to me. 

Raman: I was just going to say hospitals are such a big employer for so many districts that I think that, but I would say this was the first time in 50 years they’ve sent a contemptor to the DOJ [Department of Justice]. And especially doing that in a unanimous fashion is just very striking to me, and I’m curious if DOJ kind of goes forth and does, takes penalty and action with it. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is a real under-the-radar story that I think could explode in a big way at some point. Well, the other big, evolving business story this week involves Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative that gives enrollees extra benefits and makes insurance shareholders rich, mostly at taxpayer expense. Well, the party is, if not ending, then at least slowly closing down. Humana’s stock price dropped dramatically this week after the company reported the new way Medicare officials are calculating quality scores from Medicare Advantage. They get stars. The more stars, the better. The new way that Humana appears to be getting its stars could effectively deprive it of its entire operating profit. 

In separate news, UnitedHealthcare is suing Medicare over its Medicare Advantage payments in one of those single-judge conservative districts in Texas, of course. Democrats have been working to at least somewhat rein in these excess payments to Medicare Advantage for the past, I don’t know, two decades or so, but I assume this will all likely be reversed if Trump wins. And Medicare Advantage has been a troublesome issue because it’s really popular with beneficiaries, but it’s really expensive, because it’s really popular, because they get extra money, and some of that extra money goes to give extra benefits. Talk about things that are hard to explain to people. It’s great that you get all these extra benefits, but it’s costing the government more than it should. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Raman: I guess I do wonder if people, how much attention they’re paying. Are they going to switch plans if it’s dropping that many stars? If you’re on a Humana plan and a huge number of them got demoted to a lower rating, the next time you’re looking for a plan, are you going to switch to something else? And how often people are doing that and just if that would move the needle, because it’s just a longer process than overnight. 

Rovner: Although, I think it isn’t just that people have to switch. If people stay in those plans with fewer stars, the company gets less money. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Rovner: Because they get bonuses when people are in the, quote-unquote, “higher quality” plan. So even if their four-star plan is now a three-star plan and they stay in it, the company’s going to lose money, which I think is why the stock price took such a quick and dramatic bath. 

Edney: Yeah, I was surprised. It’s such a seemingly wonky issue, but it did really hit Humana very hard in the stock price. Technically, I think — correct me if I’m wrong — the stars aren’t even out yet. This is people doing searches to see if they can find some of them that have been changed at all, and so they’re coming out soon, but Humana particularly is very Medicare-focused out of all of the insurers. They rely on that for a large part of their revenue, so it is a big deal for them. I don’t know how much, but certainly Wall Street was. And as you mentioned with Trump, the Republicans typically really have supported Medicare Advantage because it is private insurers offering this instead of being just government-run Medicare. So that could have an effect. 

It’s hard to tell why their stars went down currently. With UnitedHealth, you at least get a little insight. They’re suing because, last year, their star rating went down for some plans, they said, because of one bad customer service phone call. So someone from Medicare calls and does a test thing, and UnitedHealth says they didn’t ask the right question, so the person never got a chance to answer it correctly, and then their star ratings went down. So, it does feel like it could happen at any point for any reason, so I don’t know how conducive that is, how much that actually plays into people who might have a Humana plan that think, “Oh, I haven’t had any issues, so why would I change?” 

Rovner: Yeah. All these under-the-hood things, as you point out, we have all looked at and don’t quite understand is worth billions and billions and billions of dollars. It’s one of the reasons why health care is so expensive and such a big part of the economy. All right. Well, we will continue to watch that space, too. That is the news for the week. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, thanks for joining us. 

Lauren Sausser: Thanks for having me. 

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

Sausser: This month’s patient is a young man named Preston Nafz. He’s 17. He’s a senior in high school. He lives in Hoover, Alabama, which is right outside of Birmingham. And he played youth sports his whole life and recently is focused on lacrosse, but like many kids in this country, he has sort of cycled through a bunch of different sports, and ended up injured last year. 

Rovner: And what happened? 

Sausser: He had really debilitating pain in his hip, and the pain was progressive. And, obviously, they tried some treatments on one end of the spectrum, but it kept growing worse and worse. And at one point last year, he ended up limping off of the lacrosse field. He couldn’t do really simple things like turning over in bed or getting in and out of a car. These things were really painful for him. So he ended up as a patient at a sports medicine clinic, and providers at that clinic recommended surgery. 

Rovner: And to cut to the chase, the story, at least medically, has a happy ending, right? The surgery worked? He’s better? 

Sausser: Yes, the surgery worked. He ended up getting something late last year, a procedure called a sports hernia repair, which is a little bit of a misnomer because he didn’t actually have a hernia. But it’s kind of a catchall phrase that orthopedic surgeons use to talk about a procedure to relieve this type of pain that he was having in his pelvis, groin area. And the recovery was longer than he was anticipating, but yes, it medically does have a happy ending. He was able to play lacrosse again, although the last time I spoke to him, he had another sports-related injury. But the sports hernia repair did do what it was supposed to do, so that’s the good news. 

Rovner: So it sounded like it should have been routine. Kid growing up, gets hurt playing sports, family has health insurance, goes to sports medicine, doctor fixes problem. Except for the bill, right? 

Sausser: Yeah. So the interesting thing about this story, and this is really why we pursued it, is because there is no CPT [Current Procedural Terminology] code for a sports hernia repair. CPT codes, your listeners are probably familiar with, but they’re the medical codes that providers and insurers use to figure out how things get paid for. And it can become more complicated when there’s no code for a procedure, which was the case here. So Preston’s dad was told before the surgery that he was going to have to pay upfront because his insurance company, which was Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, likely wasn’t going to pay for it. 

Rovner: And how much was it upfront? 

Sausser: It was just over $7,000. So the surgery itself was $6,000. There was, I think, almost $500 for anesthesia, a little over $600 for the facility fee. And Preston’s dad paid for it on a few different credit cards. 

Rovner: So kid has the surgery, is in rehab, and Dad is now trying to recoup this money that he has paid for upfront. And what happened then? 

Sausser: Yeah. Before the surgery even happened, Preston’s dad tried to call his insurance company and say: Can I get this covered? My son’s doctor says this is medically necessary. And initially, he got good news. His insurer said: It sounds like this is something that should be covered. If this is something that’s medically necessary, your insurance plan generally covers those things. As the date of the surgery grew closer and closer, he found that the people he was talking to at the insurance company weren’t being as definitive with their answers. And so before the surgery, he got a no. He said he got a no from his insurer saying that they were not going to cover this. Now, on the back end of the surgery, after he’d paid the bill with those credit cards, he tried to appeal that decision by filing a lot of paperwork. And he did end up getting a few hundred dollars reimbursed, but when the insurer sent him that check, it was unclear exactly what they were covering. And, obviously, that didn’t come close to the $7,000-plus that they had paid for it. 

Rovner: So that’s what eventually happened with the bill, right? He ended up getting stuck with almost all of it? 

Sausser: Yeah. 

Rovner: Is there anything he could have done differently that might’ve helped this get reimbursed? 

Sausser: That’s the tricky thing about this story, because they did do almost everything right. But it’s almost a cautionary tale for people who are faced with this prospect in the future. So if your provider is recommending something that doesn’t have a CPT code, it is going to be harder to get reimbursed from your insurer. You should assume that. That’s not to say it’s impossible, but it’s going to take more work on your end. It’s going to take more paperwork, it may take more work on your doctor’s end, and you should be prepared to get some pushback, if that makes sense. 

Rovner: And has he just sort of written this off? 

Sausser: I mean, he paid off the surgery using the credit cards. And the last I spoke to this family, they were still getting some confusing communication from their insurer. I don’t know that they’ve gotten the final, final no yet. I think that he still is invested in getting reimbursed if he can. But at this point, we’re approaching almost the one-year anniversary of the surgery, so it’s looking less likely. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep following it. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. 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. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We’ll include links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. We have two hurricane-related extra credits this week. Sandhya, why don’t you go first? 

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Without Water After Helene: Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” and it is from the Asheville [North Carolina] Citizen Times, by Jacob Biba. And the story just looks at the residents of a specific complex in Asheville that have been hit really hard by the hurricane. And, when this was written, they’d been without water for two days and it might not come back for weeks, and just some of the public health impacts they were facing. One person couldn’t clean their nebulizer or their tracheostomy tube. Others were worrying about sanitation from not being able to flush toilets. I think it’s a good one to check out. 

Rovner: Yeah. We think about so many things with hurricanes. We think about being without power. We don’t tend to think about being without water. Alice, you have a related story. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and this is more of a supply chain story but really shows that these hurricanes and natural disasters can have really widespread impacts outside the region that they’re in. And so this is from The Wall Street Journal. It’s called “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene.” It’s by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus, and it’s about a facility in North Carolina that produces, like I said, IV bag fluids that hospitals around the country depend on. And yeah, we’ve talked before about just how vulnerable our medical supply chains are and we don’t spread the risk around maybe as much as we need to in this age of climate instability. And so, yeah, hospitals, they’re not rationing the fluids, but they are taking steps to conserve. And so they’re thinking, OK, certain patients can take fluids orally instead of intravenously in order to conserve. And so that’s happening now. Hopefully, it doesn’t become rationing down the road. But, yeah, with the long recovery the region is expecting, it’s a bit scary. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: I did one from a colleague of mine at Bloomberg, John Tozzi. It’s “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees.” So he looked at this Blue Shield of California plan that is deciding to just bypass the pharmacy benefit managers and go directly to a drugmaker to get a biosimilar of Humira, the rheumatoid arthritis and many other ailments drug. And they’re going to be getting it for $525 a month for this drug that a lot of the PBMs are offering for more than a thousand dollars. And so the PBMs mentioned to him, We give rebates, and it’s less than a thousand dollars. But they didn’t say if it was as low as $525. And Blue Shield of California seems to think that this is a really good deal and that they’re basically going to give it for free just to show that it can reach Americans affordably. And so I thought it was a good look at this plan and at maybe a trend, I don’t know, that plans might start going outside of the PBM network. 

Rovner: We shall see. Well, I chose a story from KFF Health News this week from Ronnie Cohen, and it’s called “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” and it’s a really thoughtful piece about how to best protest things you disagree with. In this case, some doctors want medical groups to move professional conferences out of states with abortion bans, in order to exert financial pressure and to make a point. But there are those who worry that that amounts to punishing the victims and that it won’t do much anyway, frankly, unless you’re the Super Bowl or the baseball All-Star Game. It’s not like your conference is going to make or break some city’s annual budget. But it’s a microcosm of a bigger debate that’s going on in medicine that I’ve been covering. How do doctors balance their duty to serve patients with their duty to themselves and their own families? There are obviously pregnant medical professionals who do not wish to travel to states with abortion bans lest something bad happens. It’s a struggle that is obviously going to continue. It’s a really interesting story. 

OK. That is our show. Before we go this week, it is October and we want your scariest Halloween haikus. The winner will get their haiku illustrated by our award-winning in-house artists, and I will read it on the podcast that we tape on Halloween. We will have a link to the entry page in our show notes. 

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

Raman: @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: @annaedney. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).