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 conventions are over, and the general-election campaign is officially on. While reproductive health is sure to play a key role in the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, it’s less clear what role other health issues will play.

Meanwhile, Medicare recently announced negotiated prices of the first 10 drugs selected under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The announcement is boosting attention to what was already a major pocketbook issue for both Republicans and Democrats.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Democratic National Convention highlighted reproductive rights issues as never before, with a parade of public officials and private citizens recounting some of their most personal, painful memories of needing abortion care. But abortion rights activists remain concerned that Harris has not promised to push beyond codifying the rights established under Roe v. Wade, which they believe allows too many barriers to care.
• As reproductive rights have taken center stage in her campaign, Harris has been less forthcoming about her other health policy plans so far. In her career, she has embraced fights against anticompetitive behavior by insurers and hospitals and in drug pricing.
• Would former President Donald Trump make Robert Kennedy Jr. his next health secretary? Even many Republicans would consider his elevation a bridge too far. Polls show Trump stands to gain from Kennedy’s departure from the presidential race, but likely only slightly more than Harris.
• In other national health news, abortion access will be on the ballot this fall in Arizona and Montana, and the federal government recently announced the first drug prices secured under Medicare’s new drug-negotiation program.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment about a woman who fought back after being charged for two surgeries despite undergoing only one. 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: The New York Times’ “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications,” by Emily Baumgaertner.

Joanne Kenen: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s “Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?” by Natalie Eilbert. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care,” by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods,” by Ariana Eunjung Cha. 

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Let the General Election Commence

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Let the General Election Commence’Episode Number: 361Published: Aug. 23, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, Aug. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via teleconference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about a woman who got two bills for the same surgery and refused to back down. But first, this week’s news. So, now both conventions are over. Labor Day is just over a week away. And I think it’s safe to declare the general election campaign officially on. What did we learn from the just-completed Democratic [National] Convention, other than that Beyoncé didn’t show up?

Luthra: I think the obvious thing we learned is there is a lot of abortion for Democrats to talk about and very little abortion Republicans would like to. I did the fun brain exercise of going back through old Democratic conventions to see how much abortion came up. It might be interesting to note that in 2012, for instance, [the former president of Planned Parenthood] Cecile Richards spoke, never mentioned abortion.

A Planned Parenthood patient came and didn’t talk about abortion, talked about endometriosis care. And I think that really underscores what a shift we have seen in the party from treating abortion as an issue for the base, but not one that got center stage very often. And that shifted a bit in 2016, but is really very different now.

We had abortion every night, and that is just such a marked contrast from the RNC, where Republicans went to great lengths to avoid the topic because Democrats are largely on the winning side of this issue and Republicans are not.

Rovner: I’ve watched every Democratic convention since 1984. I have to say, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of all of these, and not just women, but men and [Sen.] Tammy Duckworth talking about IVF and women who had various difficulties with pregnancy. Usually, it would be tucked into a section of one night, but every single night we had people getting up and telling their individual stories. I was kind of surprised. Alice, you wanted to add something?

Ollstein: Yeah. We also wrote about how the breadth of the kinds of abortion stories being told has also changed. There’s been frustration on the left for a while that only these medical emergency cases have been lifted up.

Rovner: The good abortions.

Ollstein: Exactly. So there’s a fear that that further stigmatizes people who just had an abortion because they simply didn’t want to be pregnant, which is the majority of cases. These really awful medical emergencies are the minority, even though they are happening, and people do want those stories told. But I think it was notable that the head of Planned Parenthood talked about a case that was simply someone who didn’t want to be pregnant and the lengths she had to go through to get an abortion.

I think we’re still mostly seeing the more politically palatable, sympathetic stories of sexual assault and medical emergencies, but I think you’re starting to see the discourse broaden a little bit more. It’s still not what a lot of activists want, but it’s widening. It’s opening the door a little bit more to those different stories.

Rovner: And certainly having [Kamala] Harris at the top of the ticket rather than Biden, I mean, she’s been the point person of this administration on reproductive health even before Roe v. Wade got overturned.

Ollstein: Right. And I think it’s been interesting to see the policy versus politics side of this, where politically she’s seen as such a stronger ally on abortion rights, and her messaging is much more aggressive than [President Joe] Biden’s, a lot more specific. But when it comes to the policy, she’s exactly where Biden was. She says, “I want to restore Roe v. Wade,” where a lot of activists say that’s not enough. Roe v. Wade left a lot of people out in the cold who couldn’t get an abortion that they wanted later in pregnancy, or they ran into all these restrictions earlier in pregnancy that were allowed under Roe. And so I think we’re going to see that tension going forward of the messaging is more along the lines of what the progressive activists want, but the policy isn’t.

Luthra: And to build on Alice’s point, I mean, a lot of the speakers we had this week are speakers who would’ve been there for a Biden campaign as well. Amanda Zurawski was a very effective Biden surrogate. She is now a Harris surrogate.

And I think what’s really important for us to remember as we look not just to November, but to potentially January and beyond, is that what Harris is campaigning on, what Biden tried to campaign on, although he struggled to say the words, is something that probably isn’t going to happen because they’re talking about signing a law to codify Roe’s protections and they in all likelihood won’t have the votes to do so.

Rovner: Yes. And they either have to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate or they have to have 60 votes, neither of which seems probable. And as I have pointed out many times, the Democrats have never had enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade. There’s never actually been a basically pro-choice Congress. The House has never been pro-choice until Trump was president, when obviously there was nothing they could do.

It’s not that Congress didn’t want to, or the Democrats in Congress didn’t want to or didn’t try, they never had the votes. For years and years and years, I would say, there were a significant number of Republicans who were pro-abortion rights and a significant, even larger number of Democrats who were anti-abortion. It’s only in the last decade that it’s become absolutely partisan, that basically each party has kicked out the ones on the other side. Joanne, you wanted to add something?

Kenen: Remember that the very last snag that almost pulled down the Affordable Care Act at zero hour, or zero minus, after zero hour, was anti-abortion Democrats. And that was massaged out and they cut a deal and they put in language and they got it through. But no, the phenomenon Julie’s talking about was that the dynamics have changed because of the polarization.

I mean, it wasn’t just abortion; there were centrists in both parties, and they’re pretty much gone. The other thing that struck me last night is there was rape victims and victims of traffic and abuse speaking both within the context of abortion. I mean, that was a mesmerizing presentation by a really courageous young woman.

And then there were other episodes about sexual violence against women, a nod to Biden a couple of times, who actually wrote the original Violence Against Women Act in ’94, part of the crime bill, but also in terms of liberal Democrats or progressives who … “prosecutor” isn’t their favorite title. But because they tied these themes together or at least link them or they were there in a basket together of her as a protector of victims of trafficking, rape, and abuse, starting when she was in high school with her friend.

So I thought that that was another thing that we would not have spoken about. You did not have young women talking about being raped by their stepfather and impregnated at age 12.

Rovner: So aside from reproductive rights, which was obviously a headline of this convention, it’s almost impossible to discern what a second Trump administration might mean for health because Trump has been literally all over the place on most health issues. And he may or may not hire back the former staffers who compiled Project 2025.

But we don’t really know what a Harris administration would mean either. There is still no policy section on the official Harris for President website. One thing we do seem to know is that she seems to have backed away from her support for “Medicare for All,” which she kind of ran on in 2019.

Luthra: Sort of.

Rovner: Yeah, kind of, sort of. What else do we know about what she would do on health care other than on reproductive health, where she’s been quite clear?

Ollstein: So the focus on the policies that have been rolled out so far have been cost of living and going after price-gouging. She also has a history, as California attorney general, of using antitrust and those kinds of legal tools to go after monopolistic practices in health care. In California, she did that on the insurance front and the hospital front and the drug pricing front. So there is an expectation that that would be a focus. But again, they have not disclosed to us what the plans are.

Kenen: I mean, one of the immediate things, and I watched a fair amount of the convention and none of us absorbed every word, but I don’t think I heard a single mention of it was the extension of the ACA subsidies, which expire next year. I mean, if they mentioned it, it was in passing by somebody. So you didn’t really hear too much ACA, right? You hear that wonderful line from President [Barack] Obama when he said the Affordable Care Act, and then he said that aside: “Now that it’s popular, they don’t call it Obamacare anymore.”

But you didn’t hear a lot of ACA discussion. You heard a lot of drug price and you heard a lot of some vague Medicare, mostly in the context of drug prices. But there wasn’t a segment of one night devoted to the health policy. So I mean, I think we can assume she’s pretty much going to be Biden-like. I would be surprised if she didn’t fight to preserve the subsidies.

The Medicare drug stuff is in law now and going ahead. I think Julie wants to come back to that, but I don’t think we know what’s different. And I don’t know what, in that to-do list, I don’t think she articulated the priorities, although I would imagine she’ll start talking about the subsidies because the Republicans are probably going to oppose that. But no, it wasn’t a big focus. It was like sprinkles on an ice cream cone instead of serving a sundae.

Rovner: It’s hard to remember that just four years ago in 2020, there was this huge fight about the future of health care. Do we want to go to Medicare for All? What do we want to do about the ACA? Biden was actually the most conservative, I think, of the Democratic candidates when it came to health care.

Kenen: And then he expanded things way more than people expected him to.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. I was going to say, but the other thing that jumped out at me is how many liberals, [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, talking like a moderate basically, I mean, giving this big speech. It feels like the left wing of the Democratic Party, at least on health care, has figured out that it’s better to be pragmatic and get something done, which apparently the right wing of the Republican Party has not figured out.

Luthra: Well, part of what happened, right, is, I mean, the left lost in 2020. Joe Biden won. He became president. And there’s this real interesting effort that we saw this week to try and recapture the energy of 2008, 2012, the Obama era, and that wasn’t a Medicare-for-All-type time. That was much more vibes and pragmatism, which is what we are seeing now.

Kenen: The other thing is that the progressives, more centrist, more moderate, whatever you call the mainstream bring, they kissed and made up. I mean, [Sen.] Bernie Sanders became an incredible backer of Biden. I mean, they fought on the original Bring [Build] Back Better. That became the watered-down Inflation Reduction [Act]. They had some policy differences and some of which were stark.

But basically, Bernie Sanders became this bulwark for it, helped create party unity, helped move it ahead, supported Biden when he was thinking about staying in the race. So I think that Bernie’s support of Biden, who did do an awful lot of things on the progressive agenda; he did expand health care, although not through single-payer, but through expanded ACA. He did do a lot on climate. He did do a lot of things they cared about, and the party is less divided. We don’t know how long that’ll last. We had, not just unusual, but unprecedented last two months. So these things like Medicare for All versus strengthening the ACA, they’ll bubble up again, but they’re not going to divide the party in the next seven weeks, eight weeks, whatever we’re out: 77 days. Do the math, 10 weeks.

Rovner: Seventy-some days. In other political news, third-party candidate and anti-vax crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is going to drop out of the race later today and perhaps endorse Donald Trump. The rumor is he’s hoping to win a position in a second Trump administration, if there is one, possibly even secretary of Health and Human Services. What would that look like? A lot of odd faces from our panelists here.

Ollstein: I’m always skeptical. There’s also talk about Elon Musk getting a Cabinet job. I’m always skeptical of these incredibly wealthy individuals — who, currently, as private citizens, can basically do whatever they want — I have a hard time imagining them wanting to submit to the constrictures and the oversight of being in the Cabinet. I would be surprised. I think that it sounds good to have that power, but to actually have to do that job, I think, would not be appealing to such people. But I could be surprised.

Rovner: We did have Steve Mnuchin as secretary of the Treasury, and he seemed to have a pretty good time doing it.

Ollstein: I guess so, but I think his background was maybe a little more suited to that. I don’t know.

Kenen: Mnuchin, you’ve also had Democrats who appoint Wall Street types. Rubin being one of several, at least.

Rovner: We tend to have billionaires at the Treasury Department.

Kenen: The idea of Bobby Kennedy running HHS, I think even many Republicans who support Trump would find a bridge too far. And remember they want … if you look at the part of the Republican Party that really equate … their priority is anti-abortion, that’s it for them. There’s some on the right who talked about — I’m pretty sure this is in 2025, but at least it’s out there — change it to the Department of Life.

There’s a faction within the Republican Party who sees HHS as the way of driving an anti-abortion agenda. What’s left of abortion, right? It has oversight over the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], et cetera. You can’t say that Trump won’t do something because he is a very unpredictable person. So, who knows what Donald Trump would do? I don’t think it’s all that likely that Bobby Kennedy gets HHS.

But I do think that in order to get the endorsement that Trump wants, he’d have to promise him something in the health realm — whether it’s a special adviser for vaccine safety, who knows what it would be? But something that makes him feel like he got something in exchange for the support.

Rovner: I do wonder what the support would mean politically to have prominent anti-vaxxer. If Trump is out trying to capture swing voters, this doesn’t seem necessarily a way to appeal to suburban moms.

Kenen: Remember the vaccine commission to study vaccine safety? And it was Bobby Kennedy who came out of a meeting with Trump and said it was going to happen, that he was going to be the chair of it. The commission didn’t happen, and Bobby Kennedy didn’t chair it. So we already know that this goes back, what, eight years now. So there’s going to be a tit-for-tat. That’s politics. Whether the tat is HHS secretary, I’m skeptical. But again, I’d never say anything isn’t possible in Washington.

Rovner: If nothing else, this year has shown us that …

Kenen: I think it’s extremely unlikely.

Luthra: To your point about who Bobby Kennedy appeals to, the polls tell us that everyone who supports him, by and large, would vote for Trump if he dropped out. So I mean, that’s obviously why this would happen. It’s because it is a net gain for Trump and his calculus is probably that it would outweigh the losses he might get from having someone with a strong anti-vax bent on his side. I think that’s a pretty obvious, to me at least, gain for him rather than loss, especially given how close the race is.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of national politics and abortion, former President Trump this week said in an interview with CBS that he would not enforce the Comstock Act to basically impose a national abortion ban, reiterating that he wants to leave it to the states to decide what they want to do. Alice, it’s fair to say this did not go over very well with the anti-abortion base, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. It’s interesting. I reached out to lots of different folks in the anti-abortion movement to get their take, and I expected at least some of them to say, “Oh, Trump’s just saying that. He doesn’t really mean it. He’ll still do it anyways.” None of them said that. They all completely took him seriously and said that they were extremely upset about this. I mean, it’s also not happening in a vacuum.

They were already upset about the RNC [Republican National Convention] platform having some anti-abortion language being taken out of it. There is still some anti-abortion language in there. Folks should remember him declining to endorse a national abortion ban. Him refusing to say how he plans to vote in Florida’s referendum on abortion coming up. So this is one more thing that they’re upset about. And they told me that they think it could really cost him some votes and enthusiasm from the base.

He’s having trouble winning over these moderate swing voters. If that’s true, then he needs every vote on the more religious right/conservative wing of things. And they’re saying, look, most people are probably going to vote for him anyways because they don’t want Kamala Harris to be president. But will they volunteer? Will they tell a friend? Will they go knock on doors? Begrudgingly voting for someone versus being enthusiastic difference.

Rovner: I think it’s fair to say that it was the anti-abortion right that basically got him over the finish line in 2016 when he put out that list of potential Supreme Court nominees and signed a now-infamous letter that Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America] list put together. Then the anti-abortion movement put a lot of money into door-knocking and getting out the vote. And obviously, as we all remember, it was just a few thousand votes in a couple of states that made him president.

So I was a little bit surprised that he was that definitive — although as we said 14 times already this morning — he often says one thing and does another, or says one thing and says another thing later, right.

Kenen: In the same day!

Rovner: Or in the same conversation sometimes. I was interested to see Kamala Harris in her speech refer to the Comstock Act without doing it by name. I thought that was artfully done.

Ollstein: Yeah, and several other speakers did talk about it by name, which is interesting because I think earlier this year there was this attitude among Democrats and some abortion rights leaders that there should not be a lot of talk about the Comstock Act because they didn’t want to give the right ideas. But I think now it’s pretty clear that the right doesn’t need to be given ideas. They already had these ideas. And so there’s a lot more open talk about it.

And just this piece of Project 2025, along with all of the focus on Project 2025 in general, just really seemed to resonate with voters in a really unusual way. And no matter how much Trump tries to disavow it or distance himself from it, it doesn’t seem like people are convinced, because these are very close allies of Trump who worked for him, who are likely to work for him in the future, who are the authors of this.

Rovner: And who put together this whole list of people who could work in a second administration. It’s basically the second Trump term all ready to go. It’s hard to imagine where he would then find a list of people to populate his agencies if not turning to the list that was put together by Project 2025.

So Trump says, as we’ve mentioned, that he wants voters in each state to decide how to regulate abortion. And that’s pretty much what he’s getting. Since we last talked, several states have finalized abortion rights ballot questions. But some have come with a couple of twists. Alice, where are we on the state ballot measure checklist?

Ollstein: It’s been a crazy couple of weeks. So we have Arizona and Montana certified for the ballot. Those are two huge states that also have major Senate races. Arizona is a presidential swing state. Montana, arguably not. But these are states that are going to get a blitz of ads and campaign attention. I think there is an expectation that the abortion measures on the ballot will benefit the Democratic candidates.

I would caution people to be skeptical about this. We’ve done analyses of the abortion ballot measures that have been on the ballot in the past couple of years in other states, and they did not always benefit the Democratic candidates who shared the ballot. Of course, this is a presidential year. It could be totally different.

At the same time, the big news this week was that a Arkansas Supreme Court ruling means that their abortion rights ballot measure will almost certainly not be on the ballot in November. And there’s a lot of consternation about that. The dissenting justices accused the majority of making up rules out of whole cloth and treating different ballot measures differently based on the content.

So basically there was a medical marijuana ballot measure and the sponsors of it wrote a brief saying, “Hey, we made the same alleged paperwork error that the abortion rights folks are accused of making, yet ours was certified for the ballot and theirs wasn’t. What gives?” So there are accusations of the conservative officials of Arkansas making these rulings to prevent a vote on abortion rights in that state. So they could try again in 2026. They are weighing their options right now.

Rovner: So abortion issues are not just bubbling among voters and in the elections. We now have a series of lawsuits with patients accusing hospitals that deny them emergency care of violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Some may remember this was also the subject of a Supreme Court case this term. For those who have forgotten, Shefali, what happened with that Supreme Court case? Where are we with EMTALA?

Luthra: Great question, Julie. We are waiting, as ever, and we will be waiting for a long time because the Supreme Court after taking up that case said, “Actually, never mind. We were wrong to take this case up now. It should go back to the lower courts and continue to progress.” And what that means is uncertainty. It does mean that EMTALA’s protections exist for now in Idaho. They do not exist in Texas, where there is a related corresponding case going through the courts as well.

But regardless, EMTALA’s protections are quite meaningful for providers compared to not having them. But they are still pretty vague and pretty limited in terms of how abortion can come up in pregnancy. And that’s why we are still seeing patients filing these complaints saying, “My rights were violated. I did not get this emergency care I needed until it was very late.” But the problem there is that: A, EMTALA is retroactive.

So these complaints only come up when people know to file them; when they have perhaps already suffered medical consequences such as losing a fallopian tube, as two women in Texas both reported experiencing. You know, serious implications for their future fertility. And the other thing that’s important to note is that complaints are one step, but enforcement is another one.

And we haven’t seen a ton of hospitals being penalized by the federal government for not giving people care in these medical emergencies. And so if you’re a hospital, the dilemma is complicated, but in some ways not. Because if you provide care for someone and you find yourself in violation of state law, that’s a felony, potentially. But if you are going against EMTALA, well, maybe it’ll be reported, maybe it won’t be. Maybe you’ll be fined or penalized by the federal government, but maybe you won’t be. And that creates a real challenge for patients in particular because they are once again caught in a situation where they need emergency medical care, and the incentives are against hospitals providing it.

Ollstein: The Biden administration has not been transparent on how many complaints have been filed, how many hospitals they’ve investigated, what measures they’ve taken to make hospitals correct their behavior, whether they’ve come into compliance or not, whether they are getting these penalties, including losing Medicare status, which is one of the most severe penalties possible.

We just don’t know. And so they say they’re making this big focus on EMTALA enforcement, but we are not really seeing the evidence of that. And the only way we even know anything is happening is when the patients themselves are choosing to disclose it, either to advocacy groups or the media.

Rovner: Or the Democratic National Convention, where we saw several of these stories. It is a continuing theme as we go forward. Well, moving on. While we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] here on “What the Health?” last week — and if you did not hear that special episode, I highly recommend it — the Biden administration unveiled negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs chosen under the new authority granted by the Inflation Reduction Act.

It’s hard to tell how much better the prices that they got are because so much of the information remains proprietary. But Joanne, what’s the reaction been, both in the drug industry and larger in the political realm?

Kenen: The drug industry obviously doesn’t like it. This is only 10 drugs this year, but it’ll be more in the future. Look, I’m not so sure how well that message has gotten through yet. The Medicare drugs came under what ended up being called the Inflation Reduction Act. There’s several measures in it. There’s protection for everybody in Medicare, how much you spend on drugs in a year, it’s $2,000. That’s it. Which is a big difference from what some of the out-of-pocket vulnerabilities people had in the past.

When you look at the polls or you look at interviews with undecided voters, you wonder who’s paying attention other than us? The Democrats have wanted this for more than 20 years. Twenty years is a conservative estimate. I mean, it was part of the fight over what became the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003.

They fought for it every year. They lost every year. They finally got it through. So the idea of having Medicare negotiating drug prices is a huge victory for the Democrats. Ten drugs, not a big deal for the industry, but they know something changed. They will fight every opportunity for a lawsuit or a lobbying campaign or blocking a new regulation or the next round of negotiations.

This is going to be probably just like these annual fights we have about physician pay. This’ll be an annual fight about how much can PhRMA punch back. That would assume that a Democrat wins and that these policies don’t get rescinded. It’s a big deal. It’s not a big deal for individual pocketbooks yet, but it’s a big, big deal on the balance of power between PhRMA, which is so powerful, and the federal government, which pays for these drugs.

Rovner: I’m reminded of a sentence I wrote about the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was passed and repealed much at the behest of the drug industry because it had what would’ve been the first Medicare outpatient drug benefit ever. And I wrote, the drug industry fought this tooth and nail because they were concerned that if Medicare started covering drugs, they would want to have some say in how much they cost. That was, I think, 1989.

Kenen: Right.

Rovner: And here we are, however many years later it is.

Kenen: It’s really hard to take away a benefit, as the Republicans learned when they spent all that energy trying and failing to repeal the ACA. Once people have a benefit, it’s hard to say, “Whoops! No more.” However, that doesn’t mean there’s not fights about technical matters or how the regulations are worded or how deep discounts are or what other things they could get in exchange that make up for the losses on this.

I mean, PhRMA is really a huge lobby, hugely influential, and sympathetic in some ways because they do create a pro … — unlike something like tobacco — they do create products that saves our lives, right? And their argument, innovation, and those arguments resonate with people. But I don’t really see this turning back. I don’t think any of us can predict how PhRMA will regain some of the influence that it did lose in this battle.

It’s certainly not permanent defeat of PhRMA. I mean, PhRMA is powerful. PhRMA has allies in both parties. But this was a huge victory for the Democrats. They got something after 20-plus years.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, earlier this spring we talked at some length about the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission proposal to ban noncompete clauses, which in health care often applied to even the lowest-level jobs. It was supposed to take effect Sept. 4, but a federal district court judge in Texas has ruled in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the agency lacks the authority to implement such a sweeping rule.

And the appeals court there in the 5th Circuit is notoriously conservative and unlikely to overturn that lower-court decision even if Vice President Harris wins and becomes president. Are we just going to continue to see every agency effort blocked by some Trump-appointed judge in Texas? That seems to be what’s happening now.

Ollstein: I mean, I think especially with the recent Supreme Court rulings on Chevron, I think we’re just … I mean, that plus the makeup of the judiciary means that executive power is just a lot more curtailed than it used to be. Theoretically, that should apply to both parties to whoever is president, but we have seen courts be very politicized and treat different things differently. So I think that it will be a special challenge for a Democratic or progressive administration to push those policies going forward.

Rovner: And of course in Texas, as we have pointed out on many occasions, there are all these single-judge districts, where if you file in certain places you know which judge you’re going to get. I mean, it’s the ultimate in judge shopping.

Luthra: I was just thinking about [U.S. District Judge] Reed O’Connor and [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk, two names that listeners know well.

Rovner: Yes, that’s right. And this was a third judge, by the way. This was neither Reed O’Connor nor Matthew Kacsmaryk in this case.

Ollstein: But a secret third thing.

Rovner: A secret, a secret third thing.

Kenen: I mean, what Alice just referred to as the Supreme Court reducing the power of the regulators, and they said Congress has to pass the laws. You’re not going to get something this sweeping through Congress. But could you end up getting bits of it written into legislation about hospital personnel or doctors or things like that? I can see nibbles added in certain fields. And also you’re going to see some of it at the state level. I’m pretty sure Maryland has passed some kind of a noncompete.

Rovner: Yeah, there are states that have their own noncompete laws.

Kenen: I think they’ll go at it piecemeal. They may not be able to do anything that huge, all noncompetes, but by profession, or sector by sector, I think they may try to keep nibbling away at it. But the effort that we saw is gone.

Rovner: I mean, just to broaden it out, obviously this was something that the Biden administration has relied on the power of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, something that the Biden administration has highlighted. It’s something that I think Vice President Harris is relying on going forward. So this is probably not a good sign for wanting to make policy in this way.

See, nods all around. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back to “What the Health?”

Tony Leys: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient: who she is, where she’s from, and what kind of medical care she got.

Leys: The patient is Jamie Holmes, who lives in Washington state. In 2019, she went to a surgical center to have her fallopian tubes tied. While she was on her anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous tissue grows in and around the uterus. The surgeon took care of that secondary issue. Holmes said he later told her the whole operation was done within the allotted time for the original surgery, which was about an hour.

Rovner: As one who’s had and knows a lot of people who’ve had endometriosis, it is extremely painful and very difficult to treat. So medically, at least this story seems to have a happy ending, a doctor who was on his toes spotted an impending problem and took care of it on the spot. But then, as we say, the bill came.

Leys: The bill came. The surgery center billed her for two separate operations, $4,810 each.

Rovner: So even though she only went under anesthesia once and simply had two different things done to her at the time.

Leys: Right. And the surgery center is the place that does the support work for the operation. And there was just one operation.

Rovner: So obviously she figured this must be a mistake and complained. What happened?

Leys: She thought once she explained what really happened, they would go, “Oh,” and they would fix it. But that didn’t work. And after adjustments and the insurance payment for the one operation, they said that she still owed the surgery center $2,605, and she said, “Nope.”

Rovner: This was in 2019. So obviously things have happened since then.

Leys: Right. The bill was turned over to a collections agency, which wound up suing Holmes last year for about $3,800, including interest and fees.

Rovner: Now, to be clear, Jamie says she doesn’t object to paying extra for the extra service that she got. What she does object to is being charged as if it was two separate surgical procedures. So what happened next?

Leys: I mean, she joked that it was as if she went to a fast-food restaurant and ordered a value meal, ended up with one extra order of fries and then got charged for two full meals. The collections agency went to court. They asked for a summary judgment, which could have allowed the collection agency to garnish Holmes’ wages.

But she went to a couple of court hearings and explained her side, and the judge ruled last February that he wasn’t going to grant summary judgment to the collection agency. And if it really wanted to pursue the matter, it would have to go to trial. And she has not heard from them since then.

Rovner: Because presumably it would cost them more to go to trial than it would to collect her … however many couple of thousand dollars they say she still owes, right?

Leys: That could certainly be the explanation. We don’t know.

Rovner: So what’s a takeaway here?

Leys: The takeaway is if you get a bill that’s totally bogus, don’t necessarily pay it. Don’t be afraid to fight it. And if someone sues you, don’t be afraid to go to court and tell your side of it.

Rovner: Yeah, because I mean, that’s mostly what happens is that these collection agencies go to court, nobody shows up on the other side, and they get to start garnishing wages, right?

Leys: Exactly. That’s probably what would’ve happened here.

Rovner: She didn’t even have to hire a lawyer. She just showed up and told her side of the story.

Leys: And her take on it is she could have arranged to pay it. It’s not a huge, huge amount of money. But she just wasn’t going to do it. So she stood her ground.

Rovner: And as we pointed out, she was willing to pay for the extra order of fries. She just wasn’t willing to pay for an entire second meal that she didn’t get.

Leys: Right. I mean, she told me, “I didn’t get the extra burger and drink and a toy.”

Rovner: There we go. So basically fight back if you have a problem, and don’t be afraid to fight back.

Leys: Exactly.

Rovner: Tony Leys, thank you so much.

Leys: Thanks, Julie.

Rovner: OK, we are back. 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 links to all of these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Alice, you chose first this week. Why don’t you go first?

Ollstein: Sure. So I had an interesting piece from The Wall Street Journal by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans called “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care.” So we’ve seen this growing effort from conservative activists to go after so-called DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, to go after affirmative action, to go after a lot of various programs in government and in the private sector that take race into account when allocating resources.

And so now this is coming to health care where you have a lot of major players. This story is about a complaint filed against the Cleveland Clinic. But throughout health care, you have efforts to say, OK, certain racial groups and other demographics have higher risk and are less likely to get treatment for various diseases. This one is about strokes, but it applies in many areas of health care. And so they have created these targeted programs to try to help those populations because they are at higher risk and have been historically marginalized and denied care. And now those efforts are coming under attack. And so it’s unclear. So this is a federal complaint, and so the federal government would have to agree with it and take action. I don’t think that’s super likely from the Biden administration to crack down on a minority health care program. But this could be yet another thing people should keep in mind regarding the stakes of the election because a conservative administration could very well take a different approach.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from The Washington Post. It is by Ariana Eunjung Cha, and the headline is “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods.” I think this is a really smart framing and it gets at something that folks have been worried about for a long time, which is that we have these revolutionary drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy. They show massive improvements for people with diabetes, for people with obesity. And they are so expensive and often not covered by Medicaid. Or if you are uninsured, you cannot get them. And what this story gets at really …

Rovner: If you’re insured, you can’t get them in a lot of cases.

Luthra: It’s true. What I love about this story is it sets us in place. It takes us to Atlanta and helps us see in the different parts of the city, based on income, on access to all sorts of other, to use the jargon, race, social determinants of health, obesity and diabetes are already very unequal diseases. They hit people differently because of access to safe places to exercise, walkable streets, affordable groceries, time to cook, all of that. And then you add on it another layer, which is this drug that can be very helpful is just out of reach for people who are already at higher risk because of systemic inequalities. The story also gets into some of the more social challenges that you might see from a drug like Ozempic. People saying, “Well, I know that rich people get that drug, but how do I know they would be giving the same thing to me? How do I know that the side effects will not be really damaging down the line because these drugs are so new?” And what it speaks to, in a way that I think we’re seeing a lot more journalism do very intelligently, is that there are going to be very real challenges — economic and cultural and social and political — to helping these drugs have the impact that they were touted as potentially able to have.

Rovner: Indeed. Joanne.

Kenen: Well, after that amazing moment with Gus Walz and his dad on the convention floor, I looked up the quick 24-hour coverage of what was going to best explain what a nonverbal learning disorder is and a little bit about who Gus Walz is. And Natalie Eilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a nice piece [“Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?”]

Nothing I read yesterday answered every question I had about this particular processing disorder, but this was a good one and it explained what kind of things kids with these kinds of issues have trouble comprehending, and also what kind of things they’re really good at. This is not a learning disability. You can be really, really smart and still have a learning disability.

There’s actually an acronym, as there always is, which is GTLD: gifted and talented and learning disabled. Much of the country responded really warmly, as we all saw, and some of the country did not. But in terms of just what is this disorder and how does it affect your ability to communicate, which is part of what it is, understanding language cues, Natalie Eilbert did a good job.

Rovner: And no matter what you can be proud of your dad, particularly when he’s just been nominated to run for vice president. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications.” And it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while because packages get subjected to major extremes of temperature in both the summer and the winter.

Indeed, now we have studies that show particularly that heat can degrade the efficacy and safety of some medications. One new study that embedded data-logging thermometers in packages found that those packages spent more than two-thirds of their transit time outside the recommended temperature range.

While the FDA has very strict temperature guidelines for shipping and storing medications between manufacturers and wholesalers and pharmacies, once it leaves the pharmacy it’s apparently up to each state to regulate. Just one more unexpected consequence of climate change.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. 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. Shefali, where are you these days?

Luthra: I am on the former Twitter platform @shefalil.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: On X @aliceollstein.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: On X @JoanneKenen and on Threads @JoanneKenen1.

Rovner: Before we go, a quick note about our schedule. We are taking next week off. I’m going to the beach. The week after that, we’ll have a very special show from The Texas Tribune TribFest in Austin. We’ll be back with our regular panel and all the news we might’ve missed on Sept. 12. 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).

View the full post Caricom statement on mpox outbreak on NOW Grenada.

A novel study in the Journal of Investigative Dermatology, published by Elsevier, details the findings of an analysis of 2,161,900 Korean children from 2009 to 2020 to investigate the relationship between obesity or dynamic changes in body weight and the development of IMSDs.

IMSDs have detrimental effects on quality of life, including emotional, physical, social, and functional wellbeing, in children and their families. Although several biologics have proven effective for treating children with atopic dermatitis or psoriasis, limited treatment options and a lack of clinical trials for systemic therapy still present considerable challenges in treating children with IMSDs. Childhood obesity rates have surged over the past years, transforming it into an undeniable public health crisis, which was compounded by the effects of the pandemic and national lockdowns. The precise mechanisms responsible for the involvement of obesity in the development of chronic inflammatory skin diseases, including psoriasis, atopic dermatitis, and skin malignancies, remains uncertain.

Co-lead investigator of the study, Seong Rae Kim, MD, Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea, explains, "Previously, many studies have looked at the link between childhood obesity and IMSDs. However, most of these studies only looked at data from one point in time or compared groups with and without the condition (i.e., obesity or overweight), and they had small sample sizes. Very few studies have followed children over a long period to see how their body weight affects the development of these skin conditions. This means we still don’t know for sure whether being obese or overweight causes atopic dermatitis and psoriasis or if the opposite is true. Also, no studies have yet looked at the effect of body weight on alopecia areata or how dynamic changes in a child’s weight affect development of common IMSDs."

Co-lead investigator Hyunsun Park, MD, PhD, Department of Dermatology, Seoul National University College of Medicine; Laboratory of Intestinal Mucosa and Skin Immunology; and Department of Dermatology, Seoul Metropolitan Government-Seoul National University Boramae Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea, adds, "Our research team is very interested in the skin-gut access. We think that various factors, including diet, obesity, or other lifestyles can affect gut environment and contribute to the development of IMSDs. We are trying to find the puzzle pieces to demonstrate how they are connected, and our current research is a step towards that understanding. We conducted a large study using data from a national database in Korea, which includes information on almost all infants and children across the country. Our goal was to see how a child’s weight and changes in their weight are related to the development of alopecia areata, atopic dermatitis, and psoriasis."

The study revealed that children who were obese were more likely to develop common IMSDs compared to children with a normal weight. Among the three most common IMSDs, atopic dermatitis demonstrated the most obvious trend; children who gained weight (normal to overweight) had a higher risk of developing atopic dermatitis than children who maintained their normal weight, and children who lost weight (overweight to normal) had a lower risk of developing atopic dermatitis than children who maintained their overweight.

Co-lead investigator Seong-Joon Koh, MD, PhD, Department of Internal Medicine and Liver Research Institute, Seoul National University College of Medicine; and Laboratory of Intestinal Mucosa and Skin Immunology, Seoul, Republic of Korea, concludes, "Our findings support the importance of promoting weight maintenance among children who are already within the normal weight range because it may help reduce the risk of developing atopic dermatitis. In addition, prevention of excessive weight gain and purposeful weight loss, including adopting healthy diet strategies in children with obesity to prevent atopic dermatitis, particularly before school age, should be promoted. Implementing purposeful interventions, including nutritional strategies, to decrease body weight may aid in reducing the risk of developing IMSDs in children."

Reference:

Seong Rae Kim, Seong-Joon Koh, Hyunsun Park, Childhood Obesity, Weight Change, and Pediatric Immune-Mediated Skin Diseases, Journal of Investigative Dermatology, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jid.2024.01.037.

The Ministry of Health and Wellness has advised that a statement currently circulating about a case of mpox, (previously known as monkey pox), is not current.

The information in question comes from a statement made by former Minister of Health and Wellness, Ian Gooding-Edghill in July 22, 2022.

The Ministry would like to take this opportunity to provide an update on mpox, verifying that, currently, there are no known active cases on island. Since the initial case in 2022, there have been two additional imported cases. One was recorded in January 2024, and the second one, six weeks ago. Contact tracing indicates that there was no in country spread.

The World Health Organization/Pan American Health Organization have advised that vaccines are not currently required in low-risk settings such as Barbados. However, Barbados is part of a global community of nations and is, therefore, not exempt from the possibility of mpox and other public health threats.

The Ministry of Health and Wellness will continue to take all reasonable measures to protect the public from the importation and spread of mpox. (MHW/BGIS)

The post No active cases of Mpox in Barbados, says health ministry appeared first on Barbados Today.

Santo Domingo.- The Dominican Republic’s Ministry of Health announced that no new monkeypox cases have been reported since April 2024. Despite this, the Ministry has heightened epidemiological surveillance as a preventive measure following a World Health Organization emergency declaration urging countries to take precautionary steps.

As of week 33 in 2024, the country has recorded a total of eight confirmed monkeypox cases, with no signs of community transmission. The Ministry confirmed that vaccines are available, and over 2,000 people, particularly those in high-risk groups, have been vaccinated since 2022.

The public is advised to avoid direct skin contact with individuals showing smallpox-like rashes and to be cautious with items used by infected persons. Regular hand washing with soap and water or using alcohol-based sanitizers is also recommended to reduce the risk of infection. Monkeypox typically presents with rashes or lesions, especially on the face, hands, and feet.

Claim:

In a recent viral video, the woman at the event of Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh claims that she is a naturopath and also a mother and slams various celebrities for coming out in favor of HPV vaccine for the prevention of cancer. She appeals to the mothers in the audience by saying that when you cook at home you carefully choose ingredients like turmeric, salt, chili, and spices so that you know what you are feeding your children, Similarly please study the ingredients of the HPV vaccine implying that it is akin to giving poison children. "No matter what any celebrity says, you cannot give poison to your children." She also says "Even if Amitabh Bachchan, Jhanvi Kapoor, or Shilpa Shetty say so, you must go beyond that. It’s your child, not the government’s, not the doctor’s, not the celebrity’s—it’s your child. You need to study what this is."

She then goes on to claim that this virus (HPV) has suddenly emerged, adding that if you decide to give the HPV vaccine, informed consent is like a death warrant. "If you decide to give it demand informed consent because, in informed consent, it’s written that the HPV vaccines can cause death." a woman claims. She then goes on to say that we haven't heard of cervical cancer before, that it happens to sex workers, and it can cure itself. Further questioning the audience about whether their children are sex workers and appealing that they should not give their children this HPV vaccine. The woman then goes on to claim that she is a cancer survivor who naturally healed herself without chemotherapy, radiation, or surgery. 

She said, "So I know that cancer can also be natural, and it’s not as scary as they say. This cervical cancer is nothing to fear; it’s like a ghost, a ghost, a ghost, a ghost. Prove it—there’s no data showing its presence. There’s no fragrance, no HPV virus, so why put our children in the jaws of death out of deception?"

She further claims, "Your children are being used for a trial. This is real; it’s not rare. It’s already happening. They are compromising your children’s fertility so they won’t be able to have children in the future. One side effect is ovarian failure, which means your child’s eggs will be permanently destroyed, and they won’t be able to have children in the future. This is what they say when they claim they haven't studied this yet, that the biggest side effect that affects a child’s life hasn’t been studied. What are you approving? Just think about what our regulatory agencies are passing. Our children are not toys to be experimented on. They are not for trial and error."

This video has gone viral on WhatsApp. It is also available on Youtube. The youtube video can be accessed here.

Fact Check

The claims made in the video are FALSE and MISLEADING. The video in question appears to spread misinformation and fear regarding the HPV vaccine and cervical cancer. The claims made in the video are largely unsupported by scientific evidence and include certain elements of conspiracy theories, misleading statements, and false assertions about the safety and efficacy of the HPV vaccine. The video makes several scientifically inaccurate claims that are not backed by credible scientific evidence. 

Let's look at the claims made in the video one by one.  

Is the HPV virus real, or is it a myth?

HPV is not a myth and exists in reality. Cancer.gov defines, "HPV or human papillomavirus is a type of virus that has been well studied in the scientific domain and certainly does exist. It is concluded by the researchers that more than 200 related viruses, some of which are transmitted through vaginal, anal, or oral sexual contact. These sexually transmitted HPV types are classified into two categories: low-risk and high-risk.

In an article published in Clinical Microbiology Reviews, it was shown that several forms of HPV have been studied to show a risk of cancer. High-risk HPV strains have the potential to cause various forms of cancer. There are 12 identified high-risk types, including HPV 16, 18, 31, 33, 35, 39, 45, 51, 52, 56, 58, and 59, with HPV 16 and 18 being responsible for the majority of HPV-related cancers. While low-risk HPV types rarely lead to cancer, some can cause warts to develop on or around the genitals, anus, mouth, or throat. When these warts appear in the larynx or respiratory tract, they can result in a condition called respiratory papillomatosis, which may lead to breathing difficulties.

In a document published by ICMR, the epidemiological estimates suggest that the global prevalence of HPV infection ranges from 9 to 13%, equating to approximately 630 million women affected."

The Medical Dialogues Fact Check Team spoke with Dr Anuja Thomas, Consultant - Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Motherhood Hospital and she said, "Human Papillomavirus (HPV) is real and not a myth. It impacts millions worldwide and is known to be the most common sexually transmitted infection. HPV is transmitted after coming in skin-to-skin contact, including genital-to-genital contact, oral sex, vaginal sex, and anal sex. HPV vaccine prevents cervical, vaginal, vulvar, anal, oropharyngeal, and penile cancers. So, remember that HPV vaccination can prevent cancers both, in women and men along with sexually transmitted infections (STIs). It is imperative to consult the doctor and take vaccination without fail."

Has the HPV virus suddenly emerged?

No, the HPV virus hasn't emerged suddenly. HPV's association with warts (benign skin growths) has been known since ancient times. However, the understanding that these warts were caused by a virus came with the advent of virology in the 20th century.

In the mid-1980s, Harald zur Hausen and his team’s molecular cloning of HPV16 and HPV18 genomes uncovered that HPV infection is the primary cause of most cervical cancers. Their research highlighted the significance of viral E6 and E7 oncogenes, deepening the understanding of cervical cancer's viral-driven pathogenesis. For this very discovery of “human papillomavirus causing cervical cancer”, Harald zur Hausen was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008. You can read about his journey on the official site of Nobel by clicking on this Link 

Is HPV Vaccine Safe?

Several international guidelines recommend vaccines as major prevention. As per the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "More than 15 years of monitoring and research have accumulated reassuring evidence that HPV vaccination provides safe, effective, and long-lasting protection against cancers caused by HPV infections.

WHO emphasizes that the HPV vaccine is crucial for preventing cervical cancer. The WHO's Global Strategy aims to eliminate cervical cancer by reducing new cases to 4 or fewer per 100,000 women. By 2030, targets include vaccinating 90% of girls with the HPV vaccine by age 15, screening 70% of women by ages 35 and 45, and treating 90% of women with cervical disease.

Can the HPV vaccine lead to infertility or cause ovarian failure in women?

This myth has been circulating but has no scientific basis. This very hypothesis has been the subject of scientific scrutiny. Studies have found that there is no link between the vaccine and ovarian failure 

A study led by Robert A. Bednarczyk et. al. found no link between HPV vaccination and ovarian failure. Early ovarian insufficiency, which occurs more frequently than anticipated, affects approximately 1 in 10,000 young women. In a large study involving nearly 200,000 young women, 46 cases of ovarian insufficiency were identified, but none were connected to the HPV vaccine or other routine vaccines given during adolescence.

Another study published in JAMA Network in 2021 by Anders Hviid et. al found no link between HPV vaccination and primary ovarian insufficiency. This study was performed on 996 300 Danish girls and women

Dr Smriti Uppal, MBBS, MD, Consultant Obstetrician and Gynaecologist said, "There’s a lot of misinformation out there about the HPV vaccine, including concerns that it might cause infertility or lead to ovarian failure in women. As a doctor, I want to reassure you that this isn't true. The vaccine is an important tool in preventing cervical and other cancers, which can have serious health consequences if left unchecked. I understand that making decisions about vaccines can be stressful, especially when it comes to your reproductive health. But please know that the HPV vaccine has been rigorously tested, and its benefits far outweigh any unfounded concerns. If you have any worries, I encourage you to discuss them with an oncologist so you can make an informed choice."

Is the HPV vaccine harmful, potentially acting as a poison?

No HPV vaccine is one of the well-studied vaccines and has been considered safe by various bodies,

According to UNICEF, the HPV vaccine is a reliable and effective method to protect against HPV infections and cancers associated with the virus. By being informed about vaccinating your children, you are helping to ensure a healthier future for the next generation. UNICEF also mentioned that similar to other vaccines, the HPV vaccine may cause side effects, which are typically mild, such as pain at the injection site, fever, or dizziness. Serious side effects are exceedingly uncommon.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, more than 135 million doses of HPV vaccines have been administered in the United States, with extensive data affirming their safety. The CDC's VAERS data indicates that there are some common side effects of to the HPV vaccine that include pain, redness, and swelling at the injection site, along with dizziness, fainting (especially in adolescents), nausea, and headaches. Severe allergic reactions, such as anaphylaxis, are rare, occurring at a rate of approximately 3 cases per million doses.

Dr. Anuja Thomas, Consultant - Obstetrician & Gynaecologist, Motherhood Hospital further explained, "While side effects can occur, they are generally mild, and the benefits of the vaccine greatly outweigh the risks for the vast majority of recipients The benefits of protection against these cancers far outweigh the minor and very rare side effects associated with the vaccine.Be assured that the vaccine doesn’t have any negative effect on a woman’s reproductive performance, fertility, or any signs of developmental toxicity. There is no study to prove that the HPV vaccine affects fertility. The HPV vaccine is safe and efficacious and should be taken by women without fail. It can offer protection against viruses that can lead to cancer."

Can HPV-related cancer be treated naturally without any medical intervention? 

No, HPV-related cancers cannot be effectively be treated naturally without medical intervention. As per WHO, Cancer can be managed and may be prevented by certain lifestyle changes.

"Between 30% and 50% of cancer deaths could be prevented by modifying or avoiding key risk factors and implementing evidence-based prevention strategies. Early detection and effective management of patients who develop cancer can significantly reduce the cancer burden, while prevention remains the most cost-effective long-term strategy for cancer control," states the WHO

WHO (link provided before) lays down the preventive and treatment strategies for managing cancer.

Key preventive measures include avoiding tobacco use, maintaining a healthy weight, eating a diet rich in fruits and vegetables, exercising regularly, and limiting alcohol consumption. Practicing safe sex and getting vaccinated against hepatitis B and human papillomavirus (HPV) are also crucial. Additionally, reducing exposure to ultraviolet (UV) radiation, minimizing unnecessary ionizing radiation exposure through safe occupational practices and medical use, and avoiding urban air pollution and indoor smoke from solid fuels can lower cancer risk. Regular medical care is vital for early detection and addressing chronic infections that may contribute to cancer, particularly in low- and middle-income countries where the prevalence of such infections is higher. By adopting these strategies, a significant portion of cancer cases and deaths could be avoided, leading to improved public health outcomes globally.

Preventive strategies for early cancer detection include two key approaches which include Early diagnosis involves identifying symptomatic cancer cases as soon as possible to improve treatment outcomes. Screening is used to detect individuals with potential cancer or pre-cancer conditions before symptoms appear, ensuring they receive timely diagnosis and treatment.

Treatment options vary, including surgery, cancer medications, and radiotherapy, either individually or in combination. A multidisciplinary team of cancer specialists recommends the most appropriate treatment plan based on the type of tumor, cancer stage, clinical factors, and patient preferences, while also considering the health system's capabilities.

Palliative care, which aims to enhance the quality of life for patients and their families, is a critical aspect of cancer care. Survivorship care involves ongoing monitoring for cancer recurrence, detecting new cancers, managing long-term side effects, and providing services to meet the needs of cancer survivors.

Dr. Aditya Sarin, Associate Consultant Department of Oncology, Sir Gangaram Hospital said, "HPV is a sexually transmitted virus and it has high risk genotypes like HPV 16 and 18, which causes you know 70% cervical cancer. There are other types as well like 31, 33, 45, 52, 58, which causes additional 20% of the cancer. In fact, HPV 16 and 18 also cause 90% of anal cancers and other cancers like oropharyngeal, vulvar, vaginal and penile cancers. HPV 6 and 11 is associated with 90% of anogenital warts. So you can just see how much this virus is contributing to the morbidity. In India, this is the second most common cancer, which is the cervical cancer we are facing. There are 1.2 lakh new patients every year and 80,000 deaths per year as per Globocon 2022. So, obviously, we need to have vaccines to prevent such kind of cancers. So HPV vaccine, these have been developed to protect against the HPV infection and the development of the subsequent HPV associated disease. In US, Sanders et al and Roulette et al has predicted that HPV vaccine can prevent more than 2 lakh HPV infections, more than 1 lakh abnormal cytology and approximately 3 to 4,000 cases of cervical cancers. So therefore, it is very important in our setting before it becomes a major disease burden to stop the spread of HPV virus. The good thing about the vaccine is that it has the ability to develop a herd immunity so that if a lot of females have been vaccinated, there can be a development of herd immunity. It is also helpful in males as well. So one thought was that it is only to be given in the females. Well, no, it is to be given in the males as well because HPV 16 and HPV 18 are associated with anal cancers. So with this background, I think whatever amount of information we have, it is sufficient to say that HPV vaccine should be done as early as possible. So from 9 years to 14 years of a female, you give 2 doses and patients who are more than 15 years, you give 3 doses."  

Medical dialogues Final Take

The video makes False and Misleading making series of false claims about the HPV and HPV vaccine, and instilling unnecessary fear against the vaccine. The statements that the HPV vaccine can cause death or infertility are not true and lack scientific support. The HPV vaccine is proven to be safe and effective in preventing HPV-related cancers, like cervical cancer. It is recommended by major health organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Contrary to the video's claims, informed consent for the HPV vaccine does not state that it "can cause death." Instead, it mentions that side effects are usually mild, with serious reactions being extremely rare. Misinformation like this video can lead people adds to vaccine hesitancy and people not taking the vaccine which can have more serious consequences in the risk of cervical cancer 

Hence, this video is false and misleading