Y ven a la vicepresidenta y candidata demócrata como la mejor esperanza para preservar el acceso de los estadounidenses a seguros de salud. La cobertura integral que limita los costos directos de los pacientes es la mejor defensa contra el endeudamiento, dicen los expertos.

La administración Biden ha ampliado las protecciones financieras para los pacientes, incluyendo una propuesta histórica de la Oficina de Protección Financiera del Consumidor (CFPB) para eliminar la deuda médica de los informes de crédito de los consumidores.

En 2022, el presidente Joe Biden también firmó la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación, que limita cuánto deben pagar los afiliados de Medicare por medicamentos recetados, incluyendo un tope de $35 al mes para la insulina. Y en legislaturas de todo el país, demócratas y republicanos han trabajado juntos de manera discreta para promulgar leyes que frenen a los cobradores de deudas.

Sin embargo, defensores dicen que el gobierno federal podría hacer más para abordar un problema que afecta a 100 millones de estadounidenses, obligando a muchos a trabajar más, perder sus hogares y reducir el gasto en alimentos y otros artículos esenciales.

“Biden y Harris han hecho más para abordar la crisis de deuda médica en este país que cualquier otra administración”, dijo Mona Shah, directora senior de política y estrategia en Community Catalyst, una organización sin fines de lucro que ha liderado los esfuerzos nacionales para fortalecer las protecciones contra la deuda médica. “Pero hay más por hacer y debe ser una prioridad para el próximo Congreso y administración”.

Al mismo tiempo, los defensores de los pacientes temen que si el ex presidente Donald Trump gana un segundo mandato, debilitará las protecciones de los seguros permitiendo que los estados recorten sus programas de Medicaid o reduciendo la ayuda federal para que los estadounidenses compren cobertura médica. Eso pondría a millones de personas en mayor riesgo de endeudarse si enferman.

En su primer mandato, Trump y los republicanos del Congreso intentaron en 2017 derogar la Ley de Cuidado de Salud a Bajo Precio (ACA), un movimiento que, según analistas independientes, habría despojado de cobertura médica a millones de estadounidenses y habría aumentado los costos para las personas con afecciones preexistentes, como diabetes y cáncer.

Trump y sus aliados del Partido Republicano continúan atacando a ACA, y el ex presidente ha dicho que quiere revertir la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación, que también incluye ayuda para que los estadounidenses de bajos y medianos ingresos compren seguros de salud.

“Las personas enfrentarán una ola de deuda médica por pagar primas y precios de medicamentos recetados”, dijo Anthony Wright, director ejecutivo de Families USA, un grupo de consumidores que ha apoyado las protecciones federales de salud. “Los pacientes y el público deberían estar preocupados”.

La campaña de Trump no respondió a consultas sobre su agenda de salud. Y el ex presidente no suele hablar de atención médica o deuda médica en la campaña, aunque dijo en el debate del mes pasado que tenía “conceptos de un plan” para mejorar la ACA. Trump no ha ofrecido detalles.

Harris ha prometido repetidamente proteger ACA y renovar los subsidios ampliados para las primas mensuales del seguro creados por la Ley de Reducción de la Inflación. Esa ayuda está programada para expirar el próximo año.

La vicepresidenta también ha expresado su apoyo a un mayor gasto gubernamental para comprar y cancelar deudas médicas antiguas de los pacientes. En los últimos años, varios estados y ciudades han comprado deuda médica en nombre de sus residentes.

Estos esfuerzos han aliviado la deuda de cientos de miles de personas, aunque muchos defensores dicen que cancelar deudas antiguas es, en el mejor de los casos, una solución a corto plazo, ya que los pacientes seguirán acumulando facturas que no pueden pagar sin una acción más sustantiva.

“Es un bote con un agujero”, dijo Katie Berge, una cabildera de la Sociedad de Leucemia y Linfoma. Este grupo de pacientes fue una de más de 50 organizaciones que el año pasado enviaron cartas a la administración Biden instando a las agencias federales a tomar medidas más agresivas para proteger a los estadounidenses de la deuda médica.

“La deuda médica ya no es un problema de nicho”, dijo Kirsten Sloan, quien trabaja en política federal para la Red de Acción contra el Cáncer de la Sociedad Americana de Cáncer. “Es clave para el bienestar económico de millones de estadounidenses”.

La Oficina de Protección Financiera del Consumidor está desarrollando regulaciones que prohibirían que las facturas médicas aparezcan en los informes de crédito de los consumidores, lo que mejoraría los puntajes crediticios y facilitaría que millones de estadounidenses alquilen una vivienda, consigan un trabajo o consigan un préstamo para un automóvil.

Harris, quien ha calificado la deuda médica como “crítica para la salud financiera y el bienestar de millones de estadounidenses”, apoyó con entusiasmo la propuesta de regulación. “No se debería privar a nadie del acceso a oportunidades económicas simplemente porque experimentó una emergencia médica”, dijo en junio.

El compañero de fórmula de Harris, el gobernador de Minnesota, Tim Walz, quien ha dicho que su propia familia luchó con la deuda médica cuando era joven, firmó en junio una ley estatal que reprime el cobro de deudas.

Los funcionarios de la CFPB dijeron que las regulaciones se finalizarán a principios del próximo año. Trump no ha indicado si seguiría adelante con las protecciones contra la deuda médica. En su primer mandato, la CFPB hizo poco para abordarla, y los republicanos en el Congreso han criticado durante mucho tiempo a la agencia reguladora.

Si Harris gana, muchos grupos de consumidores quieren que la CFPB refuerce aún más las medidas, incluyendo una mayor supervisión de las tarjetas de crédito médicas y otros productos financieros que los hospitales y otros proveedores médicos han comenzado a ofrecer a los pacientes. Por estos préstamos, las personas están obligadas a pagar intereses adicionales sobre su deuda médica.

“Estamos viendo una variedad de nuevos productos financieros médicos”, dijo April Kuehnhoff, abogada senior del Centro Nacional de Derecho del Consumidor. “Estos pueden generar nuevas preocupaciones sobre las protecciones al consumidor, y es fundamental que la CFPB y otros reguladores supervisen a estas empresas”.

Algunos defensores quieren que otras agencias federales también se involucren.

Esto incluye al enorme Departamento de Salud y Servicios Humanos (HHS), que controla cientos de miles de millones de dólares a través de los programas de Medicare y Medicaid. Ese dinero otorga al gobierno federal una enorme influencia sobre los hospitales y otros proveedores médicos.

Hasta ahora, la administración Biden no ha utilizado esa influencia para abordar la deuda médica.

Pero en un posible anticipo de futuras acciones, los líderes estatales en Carolina del Norte recientemente obtuvieron la aprobación federal para una iniciativa de deuda médica que obligará a los hospitales a tomar medidas para aliviar las deudas de los pacientes a cambio de ayuda gubernamental. Harris elogió la iniciativa.

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).

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 Vice President Kamala Harris appears poised to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, health policy in general and reproductive health issues in particular are likely to have a higher profile. Harris has long been the Biden administration’s point person on abortion rights and reproductive health and was active on other health issues while serving as California’s attorney general.

Meanwhile, Congress is back for a brief session between presidential conventions, but efforts in the GOP-led House to pass the annual spending bills, due by Oct. 1, have run into the usual roadblocks over abortion-related issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Stephanie Armour of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Stephanie Armour
KFF Health News

@StephArmour1

Read Stephanie's stories.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race has turned attention to his likely successor on the Democratic ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. At this late hour in the campaign, she is expected to adopt Biden’s health policies, though many anticipate she’ll take a firmer stance on restoring Roe v. Wade. And while abortion rights supporters are enthusiastic about Harris’ candidacy, opponents are eager to frame her views as extreme.
• As he transitions from incumbent candidate to outgoing president, Biden is working to frame his legacy, including on health policy. The president has expressed pride that his signature domestic achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, took on the pharmaceutical industry, including by forcing the makers of the most expensive drugs into negotiations with Medicare. Yet, as with the Affordable Care Act’s delayed implementation and results, most Americans have yet to see the IRA’s potential effect on drug prices.
• Lawmakers continue to be hung up on federal government spending, leaving appropriations work undone as they prepare to leave for summer recess. Fights over abortion are, once again, gumming up the works.
• In abortion news, Iowa’s six-week limit is scheduled to take effect next week, causing rippling problems of abortion access throughout the region. In Louisiana, which added the two drugs used in medication abortions to its list of controlled substances, doctors are having difficulty using the pills for other indications. And doctors who oppose abortion are pushing higher-risk procedures, like cesarean sections, in lieu of pregnancy termination when the mother’s life is in danger — as states with strict bans, like Texas and Louisiana, are reporting a rise in the use of surgeries, including hysterectomies, to end pregnancies.
• The Government Accountability Office reports that many states incorrectly removed hundreds of thousands of eligible people from the Medicaid rolls during the “unwinding” of the covid-19 public health emergency’s coverage protections. The Biden administration has been reluctant to call out those states publicly in an attempt to keep the process as apolitical as possible.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Wright spent the past two decades in California, working with, among others, now-Vice President Kamala Harris on various health issues.

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 “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges,” by Ed Silverman, and Politico’s “Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and David Lim. 

Stephanie Armour: Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients,” by Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• States Newsroom’s “Anti-Abortion Researchers Back Riskier Procedures When Pregnancy Termination Is Needed, Experts Say,” by Sofia Resnick.
• KFF Health News’ “Louisiana Reclassifies Drugs Used in Abortions as Controlled Dangerous Substances,” by Rosemary Westwood, WWNO.
• The New York Times’ “Biden and Georgia Are Waging a Fight Over Medicaid and the Future of Obamacare,” by Noah Weiland.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Harris in the Spotlight

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Harris in the Spotlight’Episode Number: 357Published: July 25, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Stephanie Armour, who I am pleased to say has now officially joined us here at KFF Health News. Stephanie, so great to have you back.

Stephanie Armour: Great to be back.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we will have my interview with Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Anthony previously spent two decades working on health issues in California so he’s pretty familiar with the health work of the current vice president and soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and he’ll share some of that knowledge with us. But first, this week’s news.

So it’s safe to say a lot has changed since the last time we met. In fact, it may be fair to say that just about everything has changed. President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection after all, he endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, and she proceeded to all but lock up the nomination in less than 48 hours. Obviously, this will be a huge deal for the fight over abortion and reproductive health care, which we will get to in a moment. But how is this going to impact health care, in general, as a campaign issue?

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s interesting because Kamala Harris has been a public figure for a while and has held a bunch of different offices, and so we can glean some clues as to where she is on various health care issues. But she’s been a bit hard to pin down. And when my colleagues and I were talking to a lot of folks throughout the health care industry over the past week, there were a lot of question marks on their end, so we know a few things. We know that she used the powers of the AG [attorney general] office to go after monopolies and consolidation and anticompetitive practices in California.

She did that in the insurance space, in the provider space, in the drug space, and so people are expecting that she would be maybe more aggressive on that front. We know that she did co-sponsor [Sen. Bernie Sanders’] “Medicare for All” bill, but then she also introduced her own, arguably more moderate, one that preserved private health insurance. And then, of course, abortion rights. She’s been very vocal on that front, but since becoming the presumptive nominee, she hasn’t really laid out what, if anything, she would do differently than Joe Biden. So like I said, a lot of question marks.

Rovner: Stephanie, you led our coverage of Harris’ health record. What did you learn?

Armour: Well, I think a number of the people that I’ve talked with really expect that she’ll be a standard-bearer to what Biden has already done, and I think that’s probably true. I don’t think she’s going to go back stumping for Medicare for All right now, for example. What I did find really interesting is, yes, she’s very much made abortion and reproductive rights a cornerstone of her vice presidency and, I assume, will be of her campaign. But based on where abortion is polling right now, a number of the strategists I spoke to said she really needs to do something pretty major on it in order to get a real uptick in terms of galvanizing voters, just because economy and immigration are so high. They’re saying that she really needs to do something like say that she’ll bring back legislation to restore Roe v. Wade, for example, to really make a difference. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how much that can really motivate voters when there’s so much competing for interest right now.

Cohrs Zhang: Oh, there is one other issue that I wanted to bring up. And I think especially from her time in the Senate, she didn’t sit on health care committees, but she did go out of her way to take ownership over concerns about maternal mortality. She was lead Senate sponsor of the Momnibus Act, which included a whole slew of different policies and programs that could help support mothers, especially Black mothers. And I think she has continued that interest in the White House and really championed health equity, which does, again, just draw a very stark contrast. So we haven’t seen a lot of passion or interest in the traditional health policy sense from her outside of abortion, but that is one issue she really has owned.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it has not been part of her quote-unquote “portfolio” as vice president, anything except, as I mentioned, reproductive rights, which will obviously be the biggest change from Biden to Harris. The president, as we all know, does not even like to say the word “abortion.” She, on the other hand, has been all over the issue since well before Roe got overturned and obviously particularly since then. Alice, how are advocates on both sides of this issue reacting to this switch at the top of the ticket?

Ollstein: Yeah, honestly, it’s been this interesting convergence because the pro-abortion-rights side is really jazzed. They’ve basically all rushed to endorse her and talk about how they’ve been working with her for years and really know her and trust her, and they believe she’ll be more aggressive than Biden was. But you also have the anti-abortion side being excited to have her as the villain, basically. They’ve had a hard time portraying Biden as extreme on this issue and they think they’ll have an easier time portraying Kamala Harris as extreme on abortion rights. One other thing from her record and background is her fight with the conservatives who recorded sting videos at Planned Parenthood that the anti-abortion movement still brings that up a lot. So yeah, it’ll be really interesting to see for which side this really lights a fire more because we’re hearing claims from both that it will fuel them.

Rovner: And, actually, I think it will actually fuel both sides of this. I would think that the abortion-rights groups were very — I mean everybody was pretty quick to endorse her — but the abortion-rights groups were right there right away, as were the anti-abortion groups saying she is extreme on abortion, which in some ways will fuel the abortion-right side. It’s like, “Oh good. The more the antis don’t like her, the stronger that means she is for us.” I mean, I literally could see this fueling both sides of this issue and …

Armour: Whereas you see Republicans backing away increasingly from abortion like the RNC [Republican National Committee] platform. And so it’s turning out to be still very much a hot-button issue and difficult issue for Republicans.

Rovner: So they say that the vice presidency is not very good for much, and I definitely agree with that. I mean, everybody always says, “The vice president hasn’t done anything.” Because the vice president doesn’t really have a job to do anything. Often the only time the vice president is on TV is when he or she sits behind the president at the State of the Union. But I feel like, in Harris’ case, it’s made her a much more confident and natural and comfortable campaigner. I watched her a lot when she was running for president in 2019 and 2020, and she was, to be kind, a little bit awkward; I mean she was just not one of those natural, had-that-rapport with a crowd, and I feel like that has changed a lot having watched her crisscross the country, particularly on reproductive health. Am I the only one that feels that way? I feel like people are going to see a very different vice president than they think they saw, while she was doing her due diligence as vice president.

Ollstein: Definitely, and I’ve found it interesting that it’s only been a few days since all of this went down, but I have noticed that while she has brought up abortion rights in pretty much every speech and appearance she’s given, she has not given specifics. She has not indicated if she is in the Biden camp of let’s restore Roe v. Wade, or with a lot of the rest of the movement that says Roe was never good enough, we need to aim for something much more expansive. So we didn’t know where she is on that. I mean, largely she’s been just saying, “Oh, I will stop Donald Trump from banning abortion nationally.” And using him as the foil and pledging to stop him. And so we haven’t really seen her make an affirmative case of what she would do on this front.

Rovner: Well, I think that would probably be as difficult for her as it is for the Republicans to try and figure out how far they want to go banning. Because yeah, as you mentioned, I mean, there’s a lot of the abortion-rights movement that think that restoring Roe, even if they could, is not enough because obviously under Roe, many, many types of restrictions were allowed and were in place. That is obviously not where the abortion-rights side wants to end up. And on the other side, as we’ve talked about ad nauseum, do anti-abortion forces, are they OK with state-by-state bans? Do they want a national ban? If so, what would it look like? So that will obviously continue.

Now that we have, relatively, mostly settled who’s going to be at the top of the ticket, we are once again, back to the “Who will be the VP pick?” sweepstakes. Now that we’ve finished the Republican side, we’re back to the Democratic side of the short list. We’ve all been hearing Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. They all have significant health records, but mostly on different issues. Who do you think of the people who are being mentioned would make the biggest splash on the health care scene?

Ollstein: I’ve been hearing a lot of people talk about Gov. Beshear’s record on Medicaid expansion and pushing back against work requirements, and also opposing legislation to restrict trans care. And so there’s definitely a lot there. Really, a lot of them have something there, but I’ve been hearing the most about him.

Rovner: And Mark Kelly, of course, is married to Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at a campaign event and is now a leading voice in the gun control movement. So they all seem to have slightly different major health issues. Roy Cooper in North Carolina got North Carolina to expand Medicaid, which was a very, very, very big deal with a very, very, very Republican legislature. I’m not going to ask anybody to guess who it’s going to be because I can’t imagine that any of us have any major insight into this. Whoever it turns out to be, and I imagine we’ll know in the next week or two, we will go in and examine their health care record. One of the advantages that Vice President Harris will have on the campaign trail is she gets to campaign on the Biden administration’s record, which is fairly accomplished on the health care front without the drag of being in her 80s. Somebody remind us of all the health policies the Biden administration has gotten done. Start with the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cohrs Zhang: The name of the legislation is very general, but I think President Biden, in his goodbye speech last night, did mention the drug pricing portion of that bill. He’s described it as beating Big Pharma. And I think that’s definitely something that he talked about in his State of the Union, that he wanted to expand some of those pricing mechanisms to more people, not just people in Medicare, but people in commercial health plans, too. So I think that’s been something that he has really felt passionate about and Vice President Harris now could certainly use on the campaign trail. It’s a really popular issue and, again, not a huge policy departure, but, certainly, there’s more work to be done there on Democrats’ side.

Armour: And also I think the ACA [Affordable Care Act] extensions in terms of how many more people have been eligible for coverage is something that will definitely be part of Biden’s legacy as well. And the record-low uninsurance that we saw is something I bet that will be remembered, too.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean I’ve been personally surprised at some of the things that he’s gotten done in a Congress with virtually minuscule majority. I mean, one vote in the Senate and, when the Democrats were controlling the House, it was, what, four votes in the House. That takes, I think, a certain kind of legislator to get things passed. I know people walk around and say, “Oh, the Biden administration hasn’t done anything.” And you want to pull your hair out because that’s all we’ve spent the last six years talking about, things that have actually gotten done and not gotten done.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. Well, I mean doing things and communicating well about doing things are different issues, and I think that’s going to be Vice President Harris’ challenge over the next few months.

Rovner: Yeah, and so we’ve seen, and I think the Biden administration has prevented a lot of things from happening, which is always very hard to campaign on. It’s like, “Well, if we hadn’t done this, then this might’ve happened.” I mean, I think that’s true about the pandemic. Things could have gone much, much worse and didn’t and that’s tricky to say, “Hey, we prevented things from getting even more terrible than they were.”

Ollstein: And on the drug pricing front, I mean it just always reminds me of the Affordable Care Act where the payoff is years down the road, and so selling it to voters in the moment when they’re not feeling the effects yet is really hard. So it makes sense that people aren’t aware that they got this major legal change that’s been decades in the making over the finish line because the drugs aren’t cheaper yet for a lot of people.

Rovner: That’s true. And the caps on spending haven’t really kicked in yet. It is a lot like the Affordable Care Act, which took four years from the time of passage to the time it was fully implemented.

Well, in other news, and there is some other news, Congress is back after a break for the Republican [National] Convention, although they’re about to leave again. At the top of the House’s list was passing the spending bills that they didn’t manage to pass last year. So how’s that all going, Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: I think they’ve just thrown in the towel this week, given up a bit. I think there’s been an attitude of just apathy on the Hill and especially on health care issues that the sense has been, “We’ll return to this in December when we all have a little bit more information about the dynamics going to the lame-duck session.” And I think that clearly has bled over into any will that remains to pass appropriations bills before August recess. I think they’re ready to get out there, ready to be on the campaign trail and put this on the back burner.

Rovner: Yeah, and in an election year, you basically have the six months leading up to the first convention and then almost nothing until they come back after the election. They were going gangbusters on some of these spending bills. They were getting them out of committee even though they were obviously not in the kind of shape that they were going to become law. We talked at some length about all of the riders and all of the funding cuts that the Republicans have put in some of these bills, but they couldn’t even get them through the floor. I mean, Alice we’re hung up on abortion, again!

Ollstein: Oh, as always. And it’s the exact same policy fights as last time. The fight’s going to happen in the ag[riculture] bill, around FDA [Food and Drug Administration] regulation of abortion pills. There’s going to be fights about the provisions helping veterans and active-duty service members access abortion, knowing that these appropriations bills are the only real legislation that has any chance of going anywhere. People are putting all of their policy priorities in as riders. And last round of this, there were anti-abortion provisions tacked onto basically every single spending bill, and almost all of them got stripped out in the end and did not become law. Obviously, they kept long-standing things like the Hyde Amendment, but they didn’t add the new restrictions Republicans wanted to add. That is likely to happen again. We’ll see. This could drag past the election potentially. So the dynamics, depending on the outcome of the election, could be really different than they are today.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess the House is going out and they won’t be back until September. It used to be there would be an August recess in an election year, and they would come back in September, and they would actually work until the beginning or even the middle of October. And even that seems to have gone away. Now, once they’re gone for the quote-unquote “August recess,” it’s like, bye-bye getting much of anything done.

Well, there’s also some more news on the abortion front: The on-again off-again, on-again, off-again, six-week abortion ban in Iowa appears to be on again, possibly to start as soon as next week. Alice, I think we’ve mentioned this before, but this is going to affect a lot more than just people in Iowa.

Ollstein: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we’re seeing a big erosion of access across the Midwest Great Plains, like that whole area, that whole swath, the Dakotas, et cetera. And there’s already a lot of pressure on Illinois as the destination and clinics there are already overwhelmed with folks coming in from all over. And so this will add to that. As we’ve seen when this has happened in other states, wait times can go up, shortages of providers needed to care for everyone. Telemedicine does relieve some of that, and there are these groups that mail abortion pills into any state regardless of restrictions. But not everyone is comfortable doing that or knows how to do that or wants to do that or can afford to do that. And so this is said to have a big impact, and we’ll have to see what happens.

Rovner: There were two other pieces about abortion that caught my eye this week, and they’re both about things that we’ve talked about before. One is the push by anti-abortion doctors to change medical practice. In Louisiana, the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, both of which are used for many more things than just abortion, are now on the state’s list of controlled substances. And then from States Newsroom, there’s a piece about how anti-abortion OB-GYNs are trying to get medically necessary abortions that happen later in pregnancy, switched instead to C-sections or having the pregnant person go through and induce labor and delivery. I’ve been covering this issue, as I like to say, for nearly 40 years. This is the most intense effort I’ve ever seen from inside the medical profession to actually change how medicine is practiced in terms of what’s considered the standard of care, both for things like — not even so much mifepristone the abortion pill, but misoprostol, which is used for a lot of things other than abortion.

Armour: Was it initially an ulcer medication?

Rovner: Yes, yes, misoprostol.

Armour: That’s what I thought. Yeah.

Rovner: Cytotec. It was for a long time one of the go-to ulcer medicine. And in fact, the only reason it stopped becoming the go-to ulcer medicine because, if you were pregnant and wanted to be, it could help end your pregnancy. It is known to have that as a side effect, but yes, it’s an ulcer medication.

Armour: Yeah, this is the first I had seen anywhere, and I could be wrong, but of a real push to try and change the management of late-term medical miscarriages to how it would actually be carried out, which was just very interesting and to see what they were recommending instead.

Rovner: ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has put out guidelines — forever, that’s what they do — about how to handle pregnancy problems later in pregnancy. Generally using the least invasive procedure is considered the safest and, therefore, best for the patient. And that’s not necessarily having a C-section, which is major surgery, or going through labor and delivery. People forget that it’s really dangerous to be pregnant. I mean, it’s amazing that we have all of these kids and happy parents because if you go back and look in history, a lot of women used to die in childbirth. They still do. It’s obviously not as bad as it used to be, but it is not everything-goes-fine-99%-of-the-time thing that I think a lot of people think it is.

Armour: That’s right. Yeah.

Rovner: All right, well, meanwhile, before we bid Congress goodbye for the rest of the summer, the House Oversight Committee, which is usually as partisan a place as there is in this Congress, held a hearing this week on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and there seems to be pretty bipartisan support that something needs to be done. Rachel, I keep asking this question: It seems that just about everybody on Capitol Hill wants to do something to rein in PBM drug price abuse, and yet no one ever does. So are we getting closer yet?

Cohrs Zhang: We are getting closer, I think, as we approach December. My understanding was that lawmakers were pretty close on a deal on PBMs back in March. But I think it was just a symptom of “Appropriations Bill Has to Move.” They want it to be clean. If they add one committee’s extra stuff, they have to let other committees add extra stuff, too, and it gets too complicated on deadline. But it’s wild to me that we’re still seeing new PBM reform bills at this point. But there’s just a huge, huge pile of bills at this point, everyone wants their name on it. And so I really do believe that we’re going to see something in December. I think the big question is how far some of these reforms will reach: whether they’ll be limited to the Medicare program or whether some of these will start to touch private insurance as well. I think that’s what the larger industry is waiting to see. But I think there’s a lot of appetite. I mean with congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers retiring, she’s led a package on this issue …

Rovner: She’s chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which obviously has the main jurisdiction over this in the House.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. So if we’re thinking about legacy, getting some of these things across the finish line, it does depend how dynamics change in the lame duck. But I think there is a very good chance that we’re going to see some sort of action here.

Rovner: Congressman Jamie Raskin, at that hearing, had maybe my favorite line ever about PBMs, which is, he said, “The more I hear about this, the less I understand it.” It’s like you could put that on a T-shirt.

Ollstein: That’s great. Yeah.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes.

Rovner: The PBM debate in one sentence. All right. Finally, this week we have some Medicaid news, a new report from the GAO [Government Accountability Office] finds pretty much what we already knew: that states have been wrongly kicking eligible people off of their Medicaid coverage as they were, quote, “unwinding from the public health emergency.” According to the report, more than 400,000 people lost coverage because the state looked at the household’s eligibility instead of individual eligibility. Even though Medicaid income thresholds are much higher for many people, like children and pregnant women. So if the household wasn’t eligible, possibly, even probably, the children still were. It’s a pretty scathing report. Is anybody going to do anything about it? I mean, the GAO’s recommendation was that the administration act a little more strongly and the administration says, “We already are.”

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I actually had the chance to talk with a White House official about this dynamic, and just, I think there’s only so far that they’re willing to go, and I think might talk about, in a while. I think there’s been clashes between the Biden administration and conservative states, especially on Medicaid programs, and there’s really only so much influence they can exert. And I think without provoking an all-out war, I’m personally expecting them to get much more aggressive in the last six months of their administration, if they weren’t going to do it before, when they really could have potentially made a difference and really made it a calling card in some of these states. So I’m not expecting much change from the White House on this issue.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember the administration was so sensitive about this that when we were first learning about how states were cutting people off who they shouldn’t have been, the administration said, “We’re working with the states.” And we all said, “Which states?” And they said, “We’re not going to tell you.” I mean, that’s literally how sensitive it was. They would not give us the list of the states who they said were incorrectly knocking people off the roll. So yeah, clearly this has been politically sensitive for the administration, but I’m …

Armour: And the Medicaid directors, too. They really pushed back, especially initially, about not wanting it to be too adversarial. I think the administration really took that to heart. Whether that was the right call or not remains to be seen, but there was a lot of tension around that from the get-go.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, also this week, The New York Times has a deep dive into the one remaining Medicaid work requirement in the country, Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage. In case you don’t remember, this was the program that Georgia said would enroll up to 100,000 people, except, so far it’s only managed to sign up about 4,500. It feels relevant again though, because the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which is now all over the campaign trail, would go even further than previous Republican efforts to rein in Medicaid by possibly imposing lifetime caps on coverage. Cutting Medicaid didn’t go very well in 2017 when the Republicans tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. What makes them think an even bigger cutback would be more popular now?

Armour: Well, the study’s authors say to me that if they’re not cutting Medicaid, which goes back to the original debate back when they were talking about …

Rovner: The Project 2025 authors.

Armour: Yes, authors. Right. And that goes back to the original debate of how do you define it? A little bit of sleight of hand. And the other thing is that would definitely bring back the Medicaid work requirements and some premiums for some, which also turned out not to be super-popular as well. So it does dive right into an issue. But it’s also an issue that conservatives have been, boy, working on for years and years now to try and get this accomplished.

Rovner: Oh yeah, block-granting Medicaid goes back decades.

Armour: Exactly. Yeah.

Rovner: And there’ve been various ways to do it. And then work requirements, obviously Alice, you were the queen of our work requirement coverage in Arkansas because they put in a work requirement and it didn’t go well. Remind us.

Ollstein: Yeah. So this is what a lot of experts and advocates predicted, which is that we know from years of data that pretty much everybody on Medicaid who can work is already working and those who aren’t working are not working because they are a student or they have to care for a relative or they have a disability or there are all these reasons. And so when these work requirements actually went into effect, just a lot of people who should have been eligible fell through the cracks. It was hard to navigate the bureaucracy of it all. And so even people who were working struggled to prove it and to get their benefits. And so people really point to that as a cautionary tale for other states. But this is something conservatives really believe in ideologically, and so I don’t expect it to be going away anytime soon.

Rovner: To swing back to where we started. I imagine we will see more talk about health care on the presidential campaign trail as we go forward.

All right, well that’s as much news for this week as we can fit in. Now we will play my interview with Families USA’s Anthony Wright, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Anthony Wright, the brand-new executive director of Families USA, one of the nation’s leading consumer health advocacy groups. And a big part of why we even have the ACA. Anthony is no stranger to health care battles. He spent more than 20 years heading up the group Health Access California, where he worked on a variety of health issues, large and small, and encountered someone who is suddenly very much in the news: Vice President Kamala Harris. Anthony Wright, welcome to “What the Health?”

Anthony Wright: Thank you so much for having me. I’m a longtime listener, but first-time caller.

Rovner: Awesome. So, for those who are not familiar with Families USA, tell us about the group and tell us what your immediate priorities are.

Wright: So, Families USA has been a longtime voice for health care consumers in Congress, at the administration, working nationally for the goal of quality, affordable, equitable health care for all Americans. I’m pleased to take on that legacy and to try to uplift those goals. I’m also particularly interested in continuing to uplift and amplify the voices of patients in the public in health policy debates. It’s opaque to try to figure out how normal people engage in the federal health policy discussions so that health reforms actually matter to them. I would like families to do more to provide pathways so that they have an effective voice in those policy discussion tables. There’s so many policy debates where it’s the fight between various parts of the industry, when, in fact, the point of the health care system is patients, is the public, and they should be at the center of these discussions.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m embarrassed to admit that we spend an enormous amount of time talking about the players in the health care debate that are not patients. They are basically the people who stand to make money from it. What’s your biggest priority for this year and next?

Wright: Yeah, I want to take some of the lessons that I’ve learned over the 22 years of working in California, where we had the biggest drop of the uninsured rate of all 50 states, mostly working to implement and improve the Affordable Care Act. And I recognize that some of those lessons will have to be adopted and changed for the different context of [Washington,] D.C., or the 49 other states. But there is work that we can do, and we should do, moving forward. There are things on the plate right now. For example, in the next year, the additional affordability assistance that people have in the exchanges is set to expire. And so we can either have a system where everybody has a guarantee that their premiums are capped at 8.5% of their income or less on a sliding scale, or we can let those enhanced tax credits expire and to have premiums go up by hundreds, or for many people, thousands of dollars literally in the next year or so.

So that’s a very important thing that will be on the ballot this fall, along with a number of other issues and we want to highlight that. But frankly, I’m also interested in the work around expanding coverage, including in those 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid yet. In California, we’ve done a lot of work on health equity dealing with racial and ethnic disparities and just meeting the specific needs of specific communities. That was an imperative in California with the diversity and the size and scale of that state. But there’s more we can do both in California, but nationally, with regard to that. And then I think there’s more to work on costs with regard to just how darn expensive health care is and how do we fix the market failures that lead to, not just high, but irrational and inflated health prices.

Rovner: So obviously a big part of what you will or won’t be able to do next year depends on who occupies the White House and who controls Congress. You’re from California and so is Vice President Harris. Tell us about her record on health care.

Wright: Yeah, she actually has a significant record, mostly from her time as attorney general of California. She didn’t have much of a portfolio as district attorney, but when she did become the attorney general — attorney generals have choices about where they focus their time and she made a point to focus more on health care and start an evolution of the attorney general being more involved in health care issues — on issues like reviewing mergers of hospitals and putting conditions to make sure that emergency rooms stayed open, that hospitals continued their commitments to charity care. She worked on broader issues of consolidation, for example, joining the [U.S.] Justice Department in opposing the merger of Anthem and Cigna.

And she took on, whether it’s the insurers or the drug companies or the hospital chains, on issues of pricing and anticompetitive practices, whether it was Bayer and Cipro and other drug companies with regard to pay-for-delay practices, basically schemes to keep the price of drugs inflated. Or on the issue of high hospital prices. She began the investigations that led to a landmark Sutter settlement where that hospital chain paid $575 million in fines, but also agreed to a series of conditions with regard to no longer engaging in anticompetitive contracting practices. And that kind of work is something that we worked on with her, and I think is really relevant to the moment we’re in now where we really do see that consolidation is one of the major drivers of why health care prices are so high. And that kind of experience that she could talk about as she talks about health care costs broadly, medical debt, and some of the issues that are on the campaign trail today.

Rovner: So, obviously, with the exception of reproductive health, health in general has not been a big part of the campaign this year. Do you think it’s going to get bigger now that Harris is at the head of the ticket?

Wright: One of the things that I’m happy with is that, after several weeks where the conversation has much been about the campaign processes, we can maybe focus back on policy and the very real issues that are at stake. Our health care is on the ballot, whether it is reproductive health and abortion care, but also there’s a very easy leap to also talk about the threats, not just to reproductive health, but also to the Affordable Care Act, to Medicaid, to Medicare. There’s very different visions and records of the last two administrations with regard to the Affordable Care Act, whether to repeal it or build upon it, on Medicaid and whether to bolster it or to block-grant it. And even on the question of something like prescription drug negotiation, whether we took some important steps under the Inflation Reduction Act. Do we now expand that authority to cover more drugs for more discounts for more people? Or do we give up that authority to negotiate for the best possible price?

Those are very key issues that are at stake in this election. We are a nonpartisan, non-endorsing organization, but we do want to make sure that health care issues are on people’s minds, and also, frankly, policymakers to make some commitments, including on something like what I was talking about earlier with those enhanced tax credits. Again, at a time when people are screaming about affordability, but we know that they’ve been actually screaming about health care affordability for not just years but decades. And that’s a very specific, concrete thing that literally means hundreds or thousands of dollars in people’s pockets.

Rovner: So then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was a supporter of Medicare for All in 2020 when she ran. Do you expect that that may have changed, as she’s learned how hard it is even to make incremental change? I haven’t seen anybody ask her yet what her feeling is on systemic health reform.

Wright: I mean, she had a modified proposal that I think was trying to both take seriously the question of how do we get to universal coverage while also recognizing the politics and procedural barriers that exist. And so I think there’s a practical streak of how do we get the most help to the most people and help change, frankly, the financial incentives in our system, which are right now just to get bigger, not to get better. And so I think that there’s some very practical questions on the table right now, like these tax credits, this cap on how much a percentage of your income should go for premium. That’s something that’s front of mind because it literally expires next year. So it’s something that maybe gets dealt with in a lame duck, but hopefully early in the next year, since rates need to be decided early. And so those are the immediate things.

But I do think she’s also, in her record — I’m not going to talk about what may be — but in her record, she’s been supportive of the Affordable Care Act. I mean our biggest actual engagement with then-U.S. Sen. Harris was at a time when we all thought that the Affordable Care Act was a goner. It would be repealed and replaced. She was willing to be loud and proud at our rallies, in front of a thousand people, in front of a Los Angeles public hospital, talking about the need to defend the Affordable Care Act and protections for people with preexisting conditions. And she came again in July and just at a time where we needed that forceful defense of the Affordable Care Act. She was there and we very much appreciated that. I think she would continue to do that as well as want to work to build upon that financing and framework to make additional gains forward.

Rovner: This being Washington, everybody’s favorite parlor game this week is handicapping the vice presidential sweepstakes. And who about-to-be-candidate Harris is going to choose to be her running mate. Are any of the big names in contention more or less important in terms of their health care backgrounds?

Wright: I have my credentials to talk about the Californian on the ticket. I probably have less there. I do know that some of those governors and others have their own records of trying to take the framework of the ACA and adapt it to their state. And I think that would be a useful thing to continue to move forward on the trail. I’m not in a position, again, as a non-endorsing organization, we’re focused on the issues.

Rovner: You’re agnostic about the vice presidential candidate.

Wright: You’re right, I think the point is how can we make sure that people recognize what is at stake for the health care that they depend on and, frankly, the financial piece of it. Affordability has been something that has been talked about a lot and there is no greater source of economic anxiety and insecurity than the health care bill. A hospital bill is the biggest bill that anybody will get in their entire life. So how do you deal with it? And whether it’s a conversation about medical debt and how you deal with it, or what kind of tax credits we can provide to provide some security that you don’t pay more than the percentage of your income. Or how do you deal with the root causes of the market failures in our health care system, whether it’s consolidations and mergers or anticompetitive practices. Those are the things that I think we should have a bigger conversation in this campaign cycle about.

Rovner: Hopefully we’ll be able to do this again as it happens. Anthony Wright, thank you so much.

Wright: Thank you.

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

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. There’s a lot of good health journalism out there, but I have to highlight a new project from my colleagues. Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence are looking into UnitedHealth’s business practices, and there’s been a lot of buzz about UnitedHealthcare on the Hill, and the first part of their investigation is headlined “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients.” It focuses on the trend that UnitedHealth has been acquiring so many physician practices and looks at the incentives of what actually happens when an insurer owns a physician practice.

What pressures are they putting on? What’s the patient experience? What’s the physician experience? Their physicians on the record were telling them about their experiences: having to turn through patients; feeling pressure to make patients look sicker on paper so UnitedHealth could get more money from the federal government to pay for them. And just, I mean, the documentation here is just really superb reporting. It’s part one of a series. And I think reporting like this really helps inform Washington about how these things are actually playing out and what’s next in terms of whether action should be taken to rein these practices in.

Rovner: I feel like the behemoth that is UnitedHealthcare is going to keep a lot of health reporters busy for a very long time to come. Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. So there’s been a lot of news on the PrEP front recently. That’s the drug that prevents transmission of HIV. And so basically two steps forward, one step back. I chose this piece from Stat News [“A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges”], about a new form of PrEP that is an injection that you get just twice a year that has proven wildly effective in clinical trials. And so folks are really excited about that, and I think it could really make a difference because, as with birth control and as with lots of other medication, the effectiveness rate is only if you use it perfectly, which, you know, we’re humans. And humans don’t always adhere perfectly. And so something like just a couple injections a year that you could get from your doctor would go a long way towards compliance and making sure people are safe with their medications.

But my colleague and I also scooped this week that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is ending one of its big PrEP distribution programs [“Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down”]. It’s called Ready, Set, PrEP. It debuted under the Trump administration in 2019. And the reason given by HHS for it ending — which, by the way, they were very quiet about and didn’t even tell a lot of providers that it was ending — they said it was because there are all these other ways people can get PrEP now, that didn’t exist back then, like generic versions. And while that’s true, we also heard from a lot of advocates who said the program was just really flawed from the start and didn’t reach even a fraction of the people it should have reached. And so we’ll continue to dig on that front.

Rovner: Good stories. Stephanie.

Armour: Yes. I picked the story by Dylan Scott on Vox about “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage.” And it looks at Michael Bloomberg, who is donating a billion dollars to Johns Hopkins to try to pay for medical school for students there. The idea being that, “Look, there’s this doctor shortage and what can we do to help?” And what’s really interesting about the story is it goes beyond just the donation to look at the fact that it’s not really that there’s a doctor shortage, it’s that we don’t have the right kind of doctors and it’s the distribution. Where you don’t have nearly what we need when it comes to psychiatrists, for example. And there’s a real dearth of physicians in areas that are rural or in the Midwest. So I think what it raises is what resources do we want to spend and where? What other steps can we do that would really help drive doctors to where they’re most needed? So it’s a good story. It’s worth a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it is a good story. It is a continuing problem that I continue to harp on. But we now have quote-unquote “free medical school,” mostly in really urban, really expensive places.

Armour: Yes.

Rovner: New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore. That’s nice for the doctors who will now graduate without $200,000 in medical debt. But yeah, as Dylan points out, it’s not exactly solving the problem that we have. Well, I went cute this week. My extra credit this week is from NPR. It’s called “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman. Now, we’ve known for a fairly long time that dogs’ sensitive noses can detect physical changes in their humans. That’s how alert dogs for epilepsy and diabetes and other ailments actually work.

But what we didn’t know until now is that if a dog smells a person’s stress, it can change the dog’s emotional reaction. It was a complicated experiment that you can read about if you want, but as somebody who competes with my dogs, and who knows how differently they act when I am nervous, this study explains a lot.

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

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs on X.

Rovner: Stephanie.

Armour: @StephArmour1.

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.

The Republican National Convention highlighted a number of policy issues this week, but health care was not among them. That was not much of a surprise, as it is not a top priority for former President Donald Trump or most GOP voters. The nomination of Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio adds an outspoken abortion opponent to the Republican ticket, though he brings no particular background or expertise in health care.

Meanwhile, abortion opponents are busy trying to block state ballot questions from reaching voters in November. Legal battles over potential proposals continue in several states, including Florida, Arkansas, and Arizona.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio has cast few votes on health policy since joining Congress last year. He has taken a doctrinaire approach to abortion restrictions, though, including expressing support for prohibiting abortion-related interstate travel and invoking the Comstock Act to block use of the mail for abortion medications. He also speaks openly about his mother’s struggles with addiction, framing it as a health rather than criminal issue in a way that resonates with many Americans.
• Although Republicans have largely abandoned calls to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, it would be easy for former President Donald Trump to undermine the program in a second term; expanded subsidies for coverage are due to expire next year, and there’s always the option to cut spending on marketing the program, as Trump did during his first term.
• Trump’s recent comments to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about childhood vaccinations echoed tropes linked to the anti-vaccination movement — particularly the false claim that while one vaccine may be safe, it is perhaps dangerous to receive several at once. The federal vaccination schedule has been rigorously evaluated and found to be safe and effective.
• Covid is surging once again, with President Joe Biden among those testing positive this week. The virus is proving a year-round concern and has peaked regularly in summertime; covid spreads best indoors, and lately millions of Americans have taken refuge inside from extremely high temperatures. Meanwhile, the virology community is concerned that the nation isn’t testing enough animals or humans to understand the risk posed by bird flu.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam, who wrote the June installment of KFF Health News-NPR’s “Bill of the Month,” about a patient who walked into what he thought was an urgent care center and walked out with an emergency room bill. If you have an exorbitant or baffling medical bill, you can send it to us here.

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

Julie Rovner: Time magazine’s “‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town,” by Andrew R Chow.

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “A Mom Struggles To Feed Her Kids After GOP States Reject Federal Funds,” by Annie Gowen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, but No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “Promised Cures, Tainted Cells: How Cord Blood Banks Mislead Patients,” by Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

The Wall Street Journal’s “Mail-Order Drugs Were Supposed To Keep Costs Down. It’s Doing the Opposite,” by Jared S. Hopkins.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: At GOP Convention, Health Policy Is Mostly MIA

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘At GOP Convention, Health Policy Is Mostly MIA’Episode Number: 356Published: July 18, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, July 18, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith at the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam, about the latest “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient went to a facility with urgent care in its name but then got charged emergency room prices. But first, this week’s news.

So as of this morning, we are most of the way through the Republican National Convention, which obviously has a somewhat different tone than was expected, following last weekend’s assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The big news of the week is Trump’s selection of Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance as his running mate. Vance has only been in the Senate since 2023, had not served previously in public office, and he doesn’t have much of a record on much of anything in health care. So, what do we know about what he thinks?

Ollstein: Well, I have been most focused on his abortion record, which is somewhat more extensive than his record on other health policy. Obviously, Congress has not done very much on abortion, but he’s been loud and proud about his anti-abortion views, including calling for national restrictions. He calls it a national minimum standard, but the idea is that he does not want people in conservative states where abortion is banned to be able to travel to progressive states where it is allowed. He has given interviews to that effect. He has signed letters to that effect. He has called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which, as we’ve talked about before, is this long dormant statute that prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs or medical instruments that could be used to terminate a pregnancy. And so this is a very interesting moment to pick Vance.

The Republican Party is attempting to reach out to more moderate voters and convince them that they are hoping to leave this issue to the states. Vance’s record somewhat says otherwise. He also opposed efforts in his own state of Ohio to hold a referendum that ended up striking down that state’s abortion ban. So, definitely a lot for Democrats to go after in his record and they are not wasting any time; they are already doing it.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m kind of surprised because Vance, very much like Trump, has been kind of everywhere, or at least he has said that he’s kind of everywhere on abortion. But as you mentioned, Alice, you don’t have to look very hard to see that he’s pretty doctrinaire on the issue. Do you think people are going to buy this newer, softer Republicanism on abortion?

Ollstein: Well, abortion rights groups that I’ve spoken to are worried that people are buying it. They’re worried as they campaign around the country that the Republican Party’s attempt to walk away from their past calls for national restrictions on abortion are breaking through to people. And so they are trying really hard to counter that message and to stress that Republicans can and would pursue national restrictions, if elected.

I think both Democratic candidates and abortion rights groups are working to say even the leave-it-to-states position is too extreme and is harming people. And so they’re lifting up the stories of people in Texas and other states with bans who have experienced severe medical harm as a result of being denied an abortion. And so they’re lifting up those stories to say, “Hey, even saying let’s leave it to the states, let’s not do a national ban — even that is unacceptable in the eyes of the left.”

Kenen: The other issue obviously with his life story is opioids. His mother was addicted. Originally it began with being prescribed a legal painkiller. It’s a familiar story: became addicted, he was raised by his grandmother. His mother, who he showed on TV last night and she was either in tears or really close to tears, she’s 10 years sober now. He had a tough life and opioids was part of the reason he had a tough life. And whatever you think of his politics, that particular element of his life story resonates with people because it may explain some of his political views. But that experience is not a partisan experience and he was a kid. So I think he clearly does see opioids as a medical problem, not just, oh, let’s throw them in jail. I mean, the country and the Republican Party, that has been a change. It’s not a change that’s completed, but that shift is across party lines as well. That’s part of him that — it’s something you listen to when he tells that story.

I mean also, he told a story about his grandmother late in life, the grandmother who raised him, having, when she died, they found 19 handguns in the house all over the place. And he told sort of a funny story that she was old and frail and she always wanted to have one within reach. And all I could think of is, all these unlocked handguns with kids in the house! I mean, which is not a regulatory issue, but there’s a gun safety issue there. I’m just thinking, oh my God, 19 guns in drawers all over the house. But he’s obviously a very, the Republican Party is … I mean, after the assassination attempt, you have not heard Donald Trump say, “Maybe I need to rethink my position on gun control.” I mean, that’s not part of the dialogue right now.

I think having someone with that experience, talking about it the way he does, is a positive thing, really. Saying, “Here’s what we went through. Here’s why. Here’s how awful it was. Here’s how difficult it was to get out of it. And this is what these families need.” I mean, that is …

Rovner: Although it’s a little bit ironic because he’s very anti-social programs, in general.

Karlin-Smith: And he’s had a bad track record of trying to address the opioid crisis. He had a charity he started that he ended I guess about when he was running for Senate that really was deemed nonsuccessful. It also had questionable ties to Purdue Pharma, that’s sort of responsible for the opioid crisis. And the other thing that you sometimes hear in both him and Trump’s rhetoric is the blaming of immigrants and the drug cartels and all of that stuff for the opioid crisis. So, there’s a little bit of use of the topic, I think, to drop anti-immigrant sentiment and not really think about how to address the actual health struggles.

Kenen: When he talks about his family, he’s not saying China sent my mother fentanyl. I think it is good for people to hear stories from the perspective of a family who had this, as it is a health problem, reminding people that this is not thugs on the street shooting heroin. It’s a substance abuse disorder, it’s a disease. And so I think the country has come a long way, but it isn’t where it needs to be in terms of understanding that it’s a behavioral health problem. So I think in that sense he will probably be a reminder of that. But he doesn’t have a health record. I mean, he wasn’t there during the Obamacare wars. We don’t really know what he thinks about. I’m not aware of anything he’s really said about entitlements and Medicare. He does come from the state … I mean, Trump is saying he won’t touch it. But I mean if he said Medicare stuff, I missed it. I mean, if one of you knows, correct …

Karlin-Smith: Well, he has actually said that he supports Medicare drug price negotiation at times, which is interesting and unique for a Republican. And I mean Trump, as well, has been a bit different from the traditional Republican, I think, when it comes to the pharma industry and stuff, but I think that maybe is even a bridge too far in some ways.

Rovner: Yeah, he’s generally pretty anti-social program, so it’ll be interesting to see how he walks that line.

Well, this is all good segue into my next question, which is, health in general has been mostly MIA during this convention, including any update on Trump’s ear injury from the attempted assassination. Are we finally post-repeal-and-replace in the Republican Party? Or is this just one of those things that they don’t want to talk about but might yet take up if they get into office?

Kenen: We don’t know what the balance of power is in the Senate and the House, right? I mean, that’s probably going to be part of it. I mean, if they have huge … if they capture both chambers with huge majorities, it’s a new ballgame. Whether they actually try to repeal it, versus there’s all sorts of ways they can undermine it. Trump did not succeed in repealing it. Trump and the House Republicans did not, the Republicans in general did not succeed in repealing it, despite a lot of effort. But they did undermine it in all sorts of ways and coverage actually fell during the Trump administration. ACA [Affordable Care Act] coverage did drop; it didn’t vanish completely, but it dropped. And under Biden it continued to grow. Now, the Republicans get their health care through the ACA, so it’s become much more normalized, but we don’t know what they will do. Trump is not a predictable politician, right? I mean, he often made a big deal about trying to lower drug prices early in his term, and then nothing. And then he even released huge, long list of things …

I remember one of our reporters — Sarah and I were both … Sarah, Alice, and I were all at Politico — and I think it was David who counted the number of question marks in that report. And at the end of the day, nothing much happened. I don’t think the ACA is untouchable; it may or may not be unrepealable in its entirety, but it’s certainly not untouchable.

Rovner: Well, he also changes positions on a whim, as we’ve seen. Most politicians you can at least count on to, when they take a position, to keep it at least for a matter of days or weeks, and Trump sometimes in the same interview can sort of contradict himself, as we know. But I mean, obviously a quick way to undermine the ACA, as you say, would just be to let the extended subsidies expire because they would need to be re-upped if that’s going to continue and there are many millions of people that are now …

Kenen: And they expire next year.

Rovner: … Yes, that are …

Kenen: And there are also two other things. You cut the navigating budget. You cut advertising. You don’t try to sell it. I don’t mean literally sell it, but you don’t try to go out and urge … I mean, that was their playbook last time, and that’s why — it’s one reason enrollment dropped. And that was, the subsidies were under Biden, the extended subsidies. So that’s one year away.

Ollstein: But it’s no surprise that this hasn’t been a big topic of discussion at the RNC [Republican National Convention]. I mean, polling shows that voters trust Democrats more on health care; it’s one of their best issues. It’s not a good issue for Republicans. And so it was fully expected that they would stick to things that are more favorable to them: crime, inflation, whatnot. So, I do expect to hear a lot about health care at the DNC [Democratic National Convention] in a few weeks. But beyond that, we do not know what’s going to happen at the DNC.

Rovner: Yeah.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, the one health issue we haven’t really touched on, which the Republicans have been hammering on, is transgender health care and pushing limits on it, especially for people transitioning, children, and adolescents. And I think that’s clearly been a strategic move, particularly as they’ve gotten into more political trouble with abortion and women in the party. They clearly seem to think that the transgender issue, in general, appeals more to their base and it’s less risky for them.

Rovner: Their culture warrior base, as you will. Yeah, and we have in fact seen a fair bit of that. Well, before we leave the convention, one more item: It seems that Trump and RFK Jr. [independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] had a phone conversation, which of course leaked to the public, during which they talked about vaccine resistance. Now we know that RFK Jr. is a longtime anti-vaxxer. What, if anything, does the recounting of this conversation suggest about former President Trump’s vaccine views? And we’ve talked about this a little bit before, he’s been very antimandate for the covid vaccine, but it’s been a little bit of a blank on basic childhood vaccines.

Karlin-Smith: And I mean, his remarks are, they’re almost a little bit difficult to parse, they don’t quite make sense, but they seem to be essentially repeating anti-vax tropes around, well, maybe one vaccine on their own isn’t dangerous, but we give kids too many vaccines at a time or too close together. And all of that stuff has been debunked over the years as incorrect. The vaccine schedule has been rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy and so forth.

That said, Trump obviously was in office when we spearheaded the development of covid vaccines, which ended up being wildly successful, and he didn’t really undermine that process, I guess, for the most part when he was in office. So it’s hard to know. Again, there’s a lot of difficulty in predicting what Trump will actually do and it may depend a lot who he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to key positions in his health department and what their views are. Because he seems like he can be easily persuaded and right now he may just be in, again, campaign mode, very much trying to appeal to a certain population. And you could easily see him — because he doesn’t seem to care about switching positions — just pivoting and being slightly less anti-vax. But it’s certainly concerning to people who have been even more about the U.S. anti-vax sentiments since covid and decreases in vaccination rates.

Rovner: It did feel like he was trying to say what he thought RFK Jr. wanted to hear, so as to win his endorsement, which we know that Trump is very good at doing. He channels what he says depending on who he’s talking to, which is what a lot of politicians do. He just tends to do it more obviously than many others.

Kenen: Julie, we heard this at the tail end of the 2016 campaign. He made a few comments, exactly, very, very similar to this, the size of a horse vaccine and you see the changes — there’s too many, too many vaccines, too large doses. We heard this briefly in the late 2016, and we heard it at the very — I no longer remember whether it was during transition in 2016 or whether it was early in 2017 when he was in the White House — but we heard a little bit of this then, too. And he had a meeting with RFK then. And RFK said that Trump was talking about maybe setting up a commission and RFK at one point said that Trump had asked him to head the commission. We don’t think that was necessarily the case.

First of all, there was no commission. The White House never confirmed that they had asked RFK to lead it. Who knows who said what in a closed room, or who heard what or what they wanted to hear; we don’t know. But we heard this whole episode, including Trump and RFK, at approximately the beginning of 2017, and it did go away. Covid didn’t happen right away; covid was later. There was no anti-vax commission. There was no vax commission. There was no change in vaccination policy in those early years prepandemic. And as Sarah just pointed out, Trump was incredibly pro-vaccine during the pandemic. I mean, the Operation Warp Speed was hailed by even people who didn’t like anything else about Trump. When public health liked Operation Warp Speed, he got vaccines into arms fast, faster than many of us thought, right?

The difference — there were anti-vaxxers then; there have been since smallpox — but it is much more politicized and much more prominent, and in some ways it has almost replaced the ACA as your identifying health issue. If you talk to somebody about the ACA, you know what party they are, you even know where within the party they are, what wing. And that’s not 100% true of anti-vaxxers. There are anti-vaxxers on both sides, but the politicization has been on the Republican-medical-libertarian side, that you-can’t-tell-me-what-to-do-it’s-my-body side. It is much more part of his base and a more intense, visible, and vocal part of his base. So, it’s the same comments, or very similar comments, to the same person in a different political context.

Rovner: Well, I think it’s safe to say that abortion does remain the most potent political health issue of the year, and there was lots of state-based abortion election news this week. As we’ve been discussing all year, as many as a dozen states will have abortion questions on the ballot for voters this November, but not without a fight. Florida has just added an addendum to its ballot measures, suggesting that if passed, it could cost the state money. And in Arkansas and Montana, there are now legal fights over which signatures should or shouldn’t be counted in getting some of those questions to the ballot.

Alice, in every state that’s voted on abortion since Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], the abortion-right side has prevailed. Is the strategy here to try to prevent people from voting in the first place?

Ollstein: Oh, yes. I wrote a story about this in January. It’s been true for a while, and it’s been true in the states that already had their votes, too. There were efforts in Ohio to make a vote harder or to block it entirely. There were efforts in Michigan to do so. And even the same tactics are being repeated. And so the fight over the cost estimate in Florida, which is usually just a very boring, bureaucratic, routine thing, has become this political fight. And that also happened in Missouri. So, we’re seeing these trends and patterns and basically any aspect of this process that can be mobilized to become a fight between conservative state officials and these groups that are attempting to get these measures on the ballot, it has been. And so Arizona is also having a fight over the language that is going to go in the voter guide that goes out to everybody. So there’s a fight going on there that’s going to go to court next week about whether it says fetus or unborn child. So, all of these little aspects of it, there’s going to be more lawsuits over signature, validation, and so it’s going to be a knockdown, drag-out fight to the end.

It’s been really interesting to see that conservative efforts to mount these so-called decline-to-sign campaigns, where they go out and try to just convince people not to sign the petition — those have completely failed, even in states that haven’t gotten the kind of national support and funding that Florida and Nevada and some of these states have. Even those places have met their signature goals and so they’re now moving to this next phase of the fight, which is these legal and bureaucratic challenges.

Rovner: This is going to play out, I suspect, right, almost until the last minute, in terms of getting some of these on the ballot.

Meanwhile, here on Capitol Hill, there’s an effort underway by some abortion rights backers to repeal the 1873 Comstock Act, which some anti-abortion activists say could be used to establish a national abortion ban. On the one hand, repealing the law would take away that possibility. On the other hand, suggesting that it needs to be repealed undercuts the Biden administration’s contention that the law is currently unenforceable. This seemed to be a pretty risky proposition for abortion rights forces no matter which way they go, right?

Ollstein: Well, for a while, the theory on the abortion rights side was, oh, we shouldn’t draw attention to Comstock because we don’t want to give the right the idea of using it to make a backdoor abortion ban. But that doesn’t really hold water anymore because they clearly know about it and they clearly have the idea already and are open about their desire to use it in documents like Project 2025, in letters from lawmakers urging enforcement of the Comstock Act. And so the whole …

Rovner: In concurring opinions in Supreme Court cases.

Ollstein: … Exactly, exactly. In legal filings in Supreme Court cases from the plaintiffs. So clearly, the whole “don’t give the right the idea thing” is not really the strategy anymore; the right already has the idea. And so now I think it’s more like you said, about undercutting the legal argument that it is not enforceable anyway. But those who do advocate for its repeal say, “Why wouldn’t we take this tool out of contention?” But this is sort of a philosophical fight because they don’t have the votes to repeal it anyway.

Rovner: Yeah, though I think the idea is if you bring it up you put Republicans on the record, as …

Ollstein: Sure, but they’ve been doing that on so many things. I mean, they’ve been doing that on IVF [in vitro fertilization], they’ve been doing that on contraception, they’ve been doing that on abortion, they’ve been doing it on the right to travel for an abortion. They’ve been doing it over and over and over and I don’t see a lot of evidence that it’s making a big impact in the election. I could be wrong, but I think that’s the current state of things.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m with you on that one.

All right, well, while we are all busy living our lives and talking about politics, covid is making its now annual summer comeback. President Biden is currently quarantining at his beach house in Rehoboth after testing positive. HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Xavier Becerra was diagnosed earlier this week. And wastewater testing shows covid levels are “very high” in seven states, including big ones like Florida, Texas, and California. Sarah, do we just not care anymore? Is this just not news?

Karlin-Smith: Probably, it depends on who you ask, right? But I think obviously with Biden getting covid, it’s going to get more attention again. I think that a lot of health officials, including in the Biden administration, spent a lot of time trying to maybe optimistically hope that covid was going to become a seasonal struggle, much like flu, where we really sort of know a more defined risk period in the winter and that helps us manage it a bit. And always sort of seemed a little bit more optimistic than reality. And I think recently I’ve listened to some CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] meetings and stuff where — it’s not really, it’s a little bit subtle — but I think they’re finally kind of coming around to, oh wait, actually this is something where we probably are going to have these two peaks every year. They’re sort of year-round risk. But there hasn’t been a ton done to actually think through, OK, what does that mean for how we handle it?

In this country, every year they have been approving a second vaccine for the people most at risk, although uptake of that is incredibly low. So it does seem like it’s become a little bit of a neglected public health crisis. And certainly in the news sometimes when something kind of stays at this sort of constant level of problem, but nothing changes, it can sometimes, I think, be harder for news outlets to figure out how to draw attention to it.

Rovner: It does seem like, I mean, most of the prominent people who have been getting it have been getting mild cases. I imagine that that sort of has something to do … We’re not seeing … even Biden, who’s as we all know, 81, is quarantining at his beach house, so.

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, if you kind of stay up to date, as the terminology is, on your vaccinations, you don’t have a lot of high-risk conditions, if you are in certain at-risk groups you get Paxlovid. For the most part a lot of people are doing well. But that said, I think, I’m afraid to say the numbers, but if you look up the amount of deaths per week and so forth, it’s still quite high. We’re still losing — again, more people are still dying from covid every year, quite a few more than from the flu. I mean, one thing I think people have also pointed out is when new babies are born, you can’t get vaccinated until you’re 6 months. The under-6-month population has been impacted quite a bit again. So, it is that tension. And we saw it with the flu before covid, which is every year flu is actually a very big issue in the U.S. and the public health world for hospitals and stuff but the U.S. never quite put enough maybe attention or pressure to figure out how to actually change that dynamic and get better flu vaccine uptake and so forth.

Kenen: And the intense heat makes it, I mean — covid is much, much, much, much more transmissible inside than outside. And the intense heat — we’re not sitting around enjoying warm weather, we’re inside hiding from sweltering weather. We’re all in Washington or the Washington area, and it’s been hot with a capital H for weeks here, weeks. So people are inside. They can’t even be outside in the evening, it’s still hot. So we think of winter as being the indoors time in most of the country, and summer sort of the indoors time in only certain states. But right now we are in more transmissible environments for covid and …

Rovner: Meanwhile, while we’re all trying to ignore covid, we have bird flu that seems to be getting more and more serious, although people seem to just not want to think about it. We’re looking at obviously in many states bird flu spreading to dairy cows and therefore spreading to dairy workers. Sarah, we don’t really even know how big this problem is, right? Because we’re not really looking for it?

Karlin-Smith: That seems to be one of the biggest concerns of people in the public health-virology community who are criticizing the current response right now, is just we’re not testing enough, both in terms of animal populations that could be impacted and then the people that work or live closely by these animal populations, to figure out how this virus is spreading, how many people are actually impacted. Is the genetics of the virus changing? And the problem of course then is, if you don’t do this tracking, there’s a sense that we can get ourselves in a situation where it’s too late. By the time we realize something is wrong, it’s going to already be a very dangerous situation.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, before covid, the big concern about a pandemic was bird flu. And was bird flu jumping from birds to other animals to humans, which is exactly what we’re seeing even though we’re not seeing a ton of it yet.

Kenen: We’re not seeing a ton of it, and in its current form, to the best of our knowledge, it’s not that dangerous. The fear is the more species it’s in and the more people it’s in, the more opportunities it has to become more dangerous. So, just because people have not become seriously ill, which is great, but it doesn’t mean it stays great, we just don’t — Sarah knows more about this than I do, but the flu virus mutates very easily. It combines with other flu viruses. That’s why you hear about Type A and Type B and all that. I mean, it’s not a stable virus and that is not, I’m not sure if stable is the right …

Rovner: It’s why we need a different flu shot every year.

Kenen: Right, and the flu shots we have, bird flu is different.

Rovner: Well, we will continue to watch that.

Kenen: Sarah can correct anything I just got wrong. But I think the gist was right, right?

Rovner: Sarah is nodding.

All right, well finally, one follow up from last week in the wake of the report from the Federal Trade Commission on self-dealing by pharmacy benefits managers: We get a piece from The Wall Street Journal this week [“Mail-Order Drugs Were Supposed To Keep Costs Down. It’s Doing the Opposite.”] documenting how much more mail-order pharmacies, particularly mail-order pharmacies owned by said PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are charging. Quoting from the story, “Branded drugs filled by mail were marked up on average three to six times higher than the cost of medicines dispensed by chain and grocery-store pharmacies, and roughly 35 times higher than those filled by independent pharmacies.” That’s according to the study commissioned by the Washington State Pharmacy Association. It’s not been a great month for the PBM industry. Sarah, I’m going to ask you what I asked the panel last week: Is Congress finally ready to do something?

Karlin-Smith: It seemed like Congress has finally been ready to do something for a while. Certainly, both sides have passed legislation and committees and so forth, and it’s been pretty bipartisan. So we’ll see. I think some of it costs — I forget if some of it costs a little money — but some of it does save. And that’s always an issue. And we know that Congress is just not very good at passing stand-alone bills on particular topics, so I think the key times will be to look at when we get to any big end-of-year funding deals and that sort of thing, depending on all the dynamics with the election and the lame duck, but …

Rovner: I mean, this has been so bipartisan. I mean, there’s bipartisan irritation in both houses, in both parties.

Karlin-Smith: Right, and I think the antitrust sort of element of this with PBMs kind of appeals to the Republican side of the aisle quite a bit. And that’s why there’s always been a bit of bipartisan interest. And the question becomes: PBMs sort of fill the role that in other countries government price negotiators fill. And that’s not particularly popular in the U.S., particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. And so most of the legislation that is pending, I think, will maybe hopefully get us to some transparency solutions, tweak some things around the edges, but it’s not really going to solve the crisis. It’s going to be, I mean, a very [Washington,] D.C. health policy move, which is kind of, take some incremental steps that might eventually move us down to later reforms, but it’s going to be slow-moving, whatever happens. So, PBMs are going to be in the spotlight for probably a while longer.

Rovner: Yes, which popular issue moves slower: drug prices or gun control?

All right, well finally this week the health policy community has lost another giant. Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under the first President Bush, and the advisory group MedPAC for many years after that, died of cancer last week at age 81. Gail managed to be both polite and outspoken at the same time. A Republican economist who worked with and disagreed with both Democrats and Republicans, and who, I think it’s fair to say, was respected by just about everyone who ever dealt with her. She taught me, and lots of others, a large chunk of what I know about health policy. She will be very much missed. Joanne, I guess you worked with her probably as long as I did.

Kenen: Yeah, I’m the one who told you she had died, right?

Rovner: That’s true.

Kenen: I think that when I heard her speak in a professional setting in the last few years, she talked to her about herself not as a Republican health economist, but as a free market health economist. She was very well respected and very well liked, but she also ended up being a person without a party. But she was a fixture and she was a nice person.

Rovner: And she wasn’t afraid to say when she was the head of MedPAC she made a lot of people angry. She made a lot of Republicans angry in some of those sort of positions that she took. She basically called it as she saw it and let the chips fall.

Kenen: And Julie, she went to Michigan, right?

Rovner: Yes, and she went to Michigan. That’s true. A fellow Michigan Wolverine. All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with Renuka Rayasam, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Renuka Rayasam, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about what should have been a simple visit to an urgent care center but of course turned out to be anything but. Renu, thanks for joining us.

Renuka Rayasam: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what kind of medical problem he had.

Rayasam: Sure, let me tell you about the patient in this month’s “Bill of the Month.” His name is Tim Chong. He’s a Dallas man, and last December he felt severe stomach pain and he didn’t know what it was from. And he thought at first maybe he’d had some food poisoning. But the pain didn’t subside and he thought, OK, I don’t want to have to pay an ER bill, so let me go to an urgent care. And he opted to visit Parkland Health’s Urgent Care Emergency Center, where he learned he had a kidney stone and was told to go home and that it would pass on its own.

Rovner: Now, we’re told all the time exactly what he was told, that if we have a health problem that needs immediate attention but probably not a hospital-level emergency, we should go to an urgent care center rather than a hospital emergency room. And most insurers encourage you to do this; they give you a big incentive by charging a far smaller copay for urgent care. So, that’s what he tried to do, right?

Rayasam: That’s what he tried to do, at least that’s what he thought he was doing. Like I said, this is a facility, it’s called Urgent Care Emergency Center. He told me that he walked in, he thought he was at an urgent care, he got checked out, was told it was a kidney stone. He actually went back five days later because his stomach pain worsened and didn’t get better. And it wasn’t until he got the bills the following month that he realized he was actually at an emergency center and not an urgent care center. His bill was $500 for each visit, not $50 for each visit as he had anticipated.

Rovner: And no one told him when he went there?

Rayasam: He said no one told him. And we reached out to Parkland Health and they said, “Well, we have notices all over the place. We label it very clearly: This is an emergency care center, you may be charged emergency care fees,” but they also sent me a picture of some of those notices and those are notices that are buried among a lot of different notices on walls. Plus, this is a person who is suffering from severe stomach pain. He was really not in a position to read those disclosures. He went by what the front desk staff did or didn’t tell him and what the name of the facility was.

Rovner: I was going to say, there was a sign that said “Urgent Care,” right?

Rayasam: Right, absolutely. Urgent Care Emergency Center, right? And so when we reached out to Parkland, they said, “Hey, we are clearly labeled as an emergency center. We’re an extension of the main emergency room.” And that’s the other thing you have to remember about this case, which is that this is the person who knew Parkland’s facility. He knew they had a separate emergency room center and he said, “I didn’t go into that building. I didn’t go into the building that’s labeled emergency room. I run into this building labeled Urgent Care Emergency Center.” Parkland says, hey, this is an extension of their main emergency room. This is where they send lower-level emergency cases, but obviously it’s a really confusing name and a really confusing setup.

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. So, how did this all turn out? Medically, he was OK eventually, right?

Rayasam: Medically he was OK eventually. Eventually the stone did pass. And it wasn’t until he got these bills that he kind of knew what happened. When he first got the bills, he thought, well, obviously there’s some mistake. He talked to his insurer. His insurer, BlueCross and BlueShield of Texas, told him that Parkland had billed these visits using emergency room codes and he thought, wait a second, why are they using emergency room codes? I didn’t go into the emergency room. And that’s when Parkland told him, “Hey, you actually did go into an emergency room. Sorry for your confusion. You still owe us $1,000 total.” He paid part of the bills. He was trying to challenge the bills and he reached out to us at “Bill of the Month,” but eventually his bill got sent to collection and Parkland’s sort of standing by their decision to charge him $500 for each visit.

Rovner: So he basically still owes $1,000?

Rayasam: Yes, that’s right.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? This feels like the ultimate bait and switch. How do you possibly make sure that a facility that says urgent care on the door isn’t actually a hospital emergency room?

Rayasam: That’s a great question. When it comes to the American medical system, unfortunately patients still have to do a lot of self-triage. One expert I’ve talked to said it’s still up to the patients to walk through the right door. Regulators have done a little bit, in Texas in particular, of making sure these facilities, these freestanding emergency room centers, as they’re called — and this one is hospital-owned, so the name is confusin, but it’s technically a freestanding emergency center, so it did have the name emergency in the name of the facility, and I think that that’s required in Texas — but I’ve talked to others who’ve said, you should ban the term urgent care from a facility that’s not urgent care. Because this is a concept that’s very familiar to most Americans. Urgent care has been around for decades; you have an idea of what an urgent care is.

And when you look at this place on its website, it’s called Urgent Care Emergency Center, it’s sort of advertised as a separate clinic within Parkland structure. It’s closed on nights, it’s closed on Sundays. The list of things they say they treat very much resembles an urgent care. So, this patient’s confusion I think is very, very understandable and he’s certainly not the only one that’s had that confusion at this facility. Regulators could ban the term urgent care for facilities that bill like emergency rooms. But until that happens it’s up to the patients to call, to check, and to ask about billing when they show up, which isn’t always easy to do when you’re suffering from severe stomach pain.

Rovner: Another thing for patients to watch out for.

Rayasam: Yes, absolutely, and worry about.

Rovner: Yes, Renuka Rayasam, thank you so much for joining.

Rayasam: Thank you, Julie.

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure, I looked at a New York Times piece called “Promised Cures, Tainted Cells: How Cord Blood Banks Mislead Patients.” And it’s about the often very aggressive sort of tactics of these banks to convince women to save some of the cord blood after they give birth with the promise that it may be able to help treat your child’s illness down the road. And the investigation into this found that there’s a number of problems. One is that, for the most part, the science has progressed in a way that some of what people used to maybe use some of these cells for, they now use adult stem cells. The other is these banks are just not actually storing the products properly and much of it gets contaminated so it couldn’t even be used. Or sometimes you just don’t even collect enough, I guess, of the tissue to even be able to use it.

In one instance, they documented a family that — the bank knew that the cells were contaminated and were still charging them for quite a long time. And the other thing that I actually personally found fascinated by this — because my OB-GYN actually did kind of, I feel like, push one of these companies — was that they can pay the OB-GYNs quite a hefty fee for what seems like a very small amount of work. And it’s not subject to the same sort of kickback type of regulation that there may be for other pharmaceutical/medical device interactions between doctors and parts of the biotech industry. So I found that quite fascinating as well, what the economic incentives are to push this on people.

Rovner: Yeah. One more example of capitalism and health care being uncomfortable bedfellows, Chapter 1 Million. Joanne?

Kenen: There was a fantastic piece in The Washington Post by Annie Gowan: “A Mom Struggles To Feed Her Kids After GOP States Reject Federal Funds,” which was a long headline, but it was also a long story. But it was one of those wonderful narrative stories that really put a human face on a policy decision.

The federal government has created some extra funds for childhood nutrition, childhood food, and some of the Republican governors, including in this particular family’s case, the Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma, have turned down these funds. And families … So this is a single, full-time working mom. She is employed. She’s got three teenagers. They’re all athletic and active and hungry and she doesn’t have enough food for them. And particularly in the summer when they don’t get meals in school, the struggle to get enough food, she goes without meals. Her kids — one of the kids actually works in the food pantry where they get their food from. The amount of time and energy this mom spends just making sure her children get fed when there is a source of revenue that her state chose not to us: It’s a really, really good story. It’s long, but I read it all even before Julie sent it to me. I said, “I already read that one.” It’s really very good and it’s very human. And, why?

Rovner: Policy affects real people.

Kenen: This is hungry teenagers.

Rovner: It’s one of things that journalism is for.

Kenen: Right, right, and they’re also not eating real healthy food because they’re not living on grapefruits and vegetables. They’re living on starchy stuff.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a good piece from ProPublica called “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, but No One Knows if It Works.” And it is about just how little oversight there is of the budgets of taxpayer dollars that are going to these anti-abortion centers that in many cases use the majority of funding not for providing services. A lot of it goes to overhead. And so there’s a lot of fascinating details in there. These centers can bill the state a lot of money just for handing out pamphlets, for handing out supplies that were donated that they got for free. They get to charge the state for handing those out. And there’s just not a lot of evaluation of, is this serving people? Is this improving health outcomes? And I think it’s a good critical look at this as other states are moving towards adopting similar programs to what’s going on in Texas.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re seeing a lot of states put a lot of money towards some of these centers.

Well, my extra credit this week is from Time magazine. It’s called, “‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town,” by Andrew Chow. And in case we didn’t already have enough to worry about, it seems that the noise that comes from the giant server farms used to mine bitcoin can cause all manner of health problems for those in the surrounding areasm from headaches to nausea and vomiting to hypertension. At a local meeting, one resident reported that “her 8-year-old daughter was losing her hearing and fluids were leaking from her ears.”

The company that operates the bitcoin plant says it’s in the process of moving to a quieter cooling system. That’s what makes all the noise. But as cryptocurrency mining continues to grow and spread, it’s likely that other communities will be affected in the way the people of Granbury, Texas, have been.

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

Karlin-Smith: I’m mostly on X @SarahKarlin or on some other platforms like Bluesky, at @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I’m on X @AliceOllstein and on Bluesky @alicemiranda.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: A little bit on X @JoanneKenen and a little bit on Threads @joannekenen1.

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.

In what will certainly be remembered as a landmark decision, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority this week overruled a 40-year-old legal precedent that required judges in most cases to yield to the expertise of federal agencies. It is unclear how the elimination of what’s known as the “Chevron deference” will affect the day-to-day business of the federal government, but the decision is already sending shockwaves through the policymaking community. Administrative experts say it will dramatically change the way key health agencies, such as the FDA and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, do business.

The Supreme Court also this week decided not to decide a case out of Idaho that centered on whether a federal health law that requires hospitals to provide emergency care overrides the state’s near-total ban on abortion.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In 1984, the Supreme Court ruled broadly that courts should defer to the decision-making of federal agencies when an ambiguous law is challenged. On Friday, the Supreme Court ruled that the courts, not federal agencies, should have the final say. The ruling will make it more difficult to implement federal laws — and draws attention to the fact that Congress, frequently and pointedly, leaves federal agencies much of the job of turning written laws into reality.
• That was hardly the only Supreme Court decision with major health implications this week: On Thursday, the court temporarily restored access to emergency abortions in Idaho. But as with its abortion-pill decision, it ruled on a technicality, with other, similar cases in the wings — like one challenging Texas’ abortion ban.
• In separate rulings, the court struck down a major opioid settlement agreement, and it effectively allowed the federal government to petition social media companies to remove falsehoods. Plus, the court agreed to hear a case next term on transgender health care for minors.
• The first general-election debate of the 2024 presidential cycle left abortion activists frustrated with their standard-bearers — on both sides of the aisle. Opponents didn’t like that former President Donald Trump doubled down on his stance that abortion should be left to the states. And abortion rights supporters felt President Joe Biden failed to forcefully rebut Trump’s outlandish falsehoods about abortion — and also failed to take a strong enough position on abortion rights himself.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs,” by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. 

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,” by Lisa Rein.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell,” by Ruth Reader.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “Inside the $100 Million Plan To Restore Abortion Rights in America,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.
• JAMA Network Open’s “Use of Oral and Emergency Contraceptives After the US Supreme Court’s Dobbs Decision,” by Dima M. Qato, Rebecca Myerson, Andrew Shooshtari, et al.
• JAMA Health Forum’s “Changes in Permanent Contraception Procedures Among Young Adults Following the Dobbs Decision,” by Jacqueline E. Ellison, Brittany L. Brown-Podgorski, and Jake R. Morgan.
• JAMA Pediatrics’ “Infant Deaths After Texas’ 2021 Ban on Abortion in Early Pregnancy,” by Alison Gemmill, Claire E. Margerison, Elizabeth A. Stuart, et al.

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies’Episode Number: 353Published: June 28, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer, and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast, “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday, we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Friday, June 28, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of Nursing and Public Health and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s episode from Aspen Ideas: Health. This week we’re back in Washington with tons of breaking news, so let’s get right to it. We’re going to start at the Supreme Court, which is nearing, but not actually at, the end of its term, which we now know will stretch into next week. We have breaking news, literally breaking as in just the last few minutes: The court has indeed overruled the Chevron Doctrine. That’s a 1984 ruling that basically allowed experts at federal agencies to, you know, expert. Now it says that the court will get to decide what Congress meant when it wrote a law. We’re obviously going to hear a lot more about this ruling in the hours and days to come, but does somebody have a really quick impression of what this could mean?

Ollstein: So this could prevent or make it harder for health agencies, and all the federal agencies that touch on health care, to both create new policies based on laws that Congress pass and update old ones. Things need to be updated; new drugs are invented. There’s been all these updates to what Obamacare does and doesn’t have to cover. That could be a lot harder going forward based on this decision. It really takes away a lot of the leeway federal agencies had to interpret the laws that Congress passed and implement them.

I think kicking things back to courts and Congress could really slow things down a lot, and a lot of conservatives see that as a good thing. They think that federal agencies have been too untouchable and not have the same accountability mechanisms because they’re career civil servants who are not elected. But this has health policy experts … Honestly, we interviewed members of previous Republican administrations and Democratic administrations and they’re both worried about this.

Rovner: Yeah, going forward, if Donald Trump gets back into the presidency, this could also hinder the ability of his Department of Health and Human Services to make changes administratively.

Knight: These agencies are stacked with experts. This is what they work on. This is what they really are primed to do. And Congress does not have that same type of staffing. Congress is very different. It’s very young. There’s a lot of turnover. There are experienced staffers, but usually when they’re writing these laws, they leave so much up to interpretation of the agency because they are experts.

So I think pushing things back on Congress would really have to change how Congress works right now. When I talked to experts, we would need staffers who are way more experienced. We would need them to write laws that are way more specific. And Congress is already so slow doing anything. This would slow things down even more. So that’s a really important congressional aspect I think to note.

Rovner: I think when we look back at this term, this is probably going to be the biggest decision. Joanne, you want to add something before we move on?

Kenen: We’re recording. We don’t know if immunity just dropped, which is all still going to be, not a health care decision but an important decision of the country. I’ve got SCOTUSblog on my other screen. Here’s a quote from [Justice Elena] Kagan’s dissent. She says, because it’s very unfocused for what we do on this podcast, “Chevron has become part of the warp and woof of modern government, supporting regulatory efforts of all kinds, to name a few, keeping air and water clean, food and drugs safe and financial markets honest.” So two of the three of us. Financial markets affect the health industry as well.

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

Kenen: But I think that what the public doesn’t always understand is how much regulatory stuff there is in Washington. Congress can write a 1,000-page law like the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. I’ve never counted how many pages of regulation because I don’t think I can count that high. It’s probably tens of thousands.

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

Kenen: Right. And that every one of those, there’s a lobbying fight and often a legal fight. It’s like the coloring book when we were kids. Congress drew the outline and then we all tried to scribble within the lines. And when you go out of the lines, you have a legal case. So the amount of stuff, regulatory activity is something that the public doesn’t really see. None of us have read every reg pertaining to health care. You can’t possibly do it in a lifetime. Methuselah couldn’t have done it. And Congress cannot hire all the expert staff and all the federal agencies and put them in; they won’t fit in the Capitol. That’s not going to happen. So how do they come to grips with how specific are they going to have to be? What kind of legal language can they delegate some of this to agency experts. We’re in really uncharted territory.

Rovner: I think you can tell from the tones of all of our voices that this is a very big deal, with a whole lot of blanks to be filled in. But for the moment …

Kenen: Maybe they’ll just let AI do it.

Rovner: Yeah, for the moment, let’s move on because, until just now, the biggest story of the week for us was on Thursday. We finally got a decision in that case about whether Idaho’s near-total ban on abortion can override a federal law called EMTALA, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, which requires doctors in emergency rooms to protect a pregnant woman’s health, not just her life. And much like the decision earlier this month to send the abortion pill case back to the lower courts because the plaintiffs lacked legal standing, the court once again didn’t reach the merits here. So Alice, what did they do?

Ollstein: So like you said, both on abortion pills and on EMTALA, the court punted on procedural issues. So it was standing on the one and it was ripeness on the other one. This one was a lot more surprising. I think based on the oral arguments in the mifepristone case, we could see the standing-based decision coming. That was a big focus of the arguments. This was more of a surprise. This was a majority of justices saying, “Whoops, we shouldn’t have taken this case in the first place. We shouldn’t have swooped in before the 9th Circuit even had a chance to hear it. And not only take the case, but allow Idaho to fully enforce its law even in ways that people feel violate EMTALA in the meantime.” And so what this does temporarily is restore emergency abortion access in Idaho. It restores a lower-court order that made that the case, but it’s not over.

Rovner: Right. It had stayed Idaho’s ban to the extent that it conflicted with EMTALA.

Ollstein: So this goes back to lower courts and it’s almost certain to come back to the Supreme Court as early as next year, if not at another time. Because this isn’t even the only major federal EMTALA case that’s in the works right now. There’s also a case on Texas’ abortion ban and its enforcement in emergency situations like this. And so I think the main reaction from the abortion rights movement was temporary relief, but a lot of fear for the future.

Rovner: And I saw a lot of people reminding everybody that this Texas ruling in Idaho, now the federal law is taking precedence, but there’s a stay of the federal law in the 5th Circuit. So in Texas, the Texas ban does overrule the federal law that requires abortions in emergency circumstances to protect a woman’s health. That’s what the dispute is basically about. And of course, you see a lot of legal experts saying, “This is a constitutional law 101 case that federal law overrides state law,” and yet we could tell by some of the add-on discussion in this case, as they’re sending it back to the lower court, that some of the conservatives are ready to say, “We don’t think so. Maybe the federal law will have to yield to some of these state bans.” So you can kind of see the writing on the wall here?

Ollstein: It’s really hard to say. I think that you have some justices who are clearly ready to say that states can fully enforce their abortion bans regardless of what the federal government’s federal protections are for patients. I think they put that out there. I think the case is almost certain to come back to them, and there was clearly not a majority ready to fully side with the Biden administration on this one.

Rovner: And clearly not a majority ready to fully side with Idaho on this one. I think everything that I saw suggested that they were split 3-3-3. And with no majority, the path of least resistance was to say, “Our bad. You take this back lower court. We’ll see when it comes back.”

Ollstein: It was a very unusual move, but some of the justification made sense to me in that they cited that Idaho state officials’ position on what their abortion ban did and didn’t do has wavered over time and changed. And what they initially said when they petitioned to the court is not necessarily exactly what they said in oral arguments, and it’s not exactly what they have said since. And so at the heart here is you have some people saying there’s a clear conflict between the patient protections under EMTALA — which says you have to stabilize anyone that comes to you at a hospital that takes Medicare — and these abortion bans, which only allow an abortion when there’s imminent life-threatening situation. And so you have people, including the attorney general of Idaho, saying, “There is no conflict. Our law does allow these emergency abortions and the doctors are just wrong and it’s just propaganda trying to smear us. And they just want to turn hospitals into free-for-all abortion facilities.” This is what they’re arguing. And then you have people say …

Rovner: [inaudible 00:11:12] … in the meanwhile, we know that women are being airlifted out of Idaho when they need emergency abortions because doctors are worried about actually performing abortions …

Ollstein: Correct.

Rovner: And possibly being charged with criminal charges for violating Idaho’s abortion ban.

Ollstein: Sure, but I’m saying even amongst conservatives, there are those who are saying, “There’s no conflict between these two policies. The doctors are just wrong either intentionally or unintentionally.” And then there’s those who say there is a conflict between EMTALA and state bans, and it should be fine for the state to violate EMTALA.

Rovner: No. Obviously this one will continue as the abortion pill case is likely to continue. Well, also in this end-of-term Supreme Court decision dump, an oddly split court with liberals and conservatives on both sides, struck down the bankruptcy deal reached with Purdue Pharma that would’ve paid states and families of opioid overdose victims around $6 billion, but would also have shielded the company’s owners, the Sackler family, from further legal liability. What are we to make of this? This was clearly a difficult issue. There were a lot of people even who were involved in this settlement who said the idea of letting the Sackler family, which has hidden billions of dollars from the bankruptcy settlement anyway, and clearly acted very badly, basically giving them immunity in exchange for actually getting money. This could not have been an easy… obviously was not an easy decision even for the Supreme Court.

Kenen: No, it wasn’t theoretical. The ones who opposed blowing up the agreement were very much, “This is going to add delay any kind of justice for the families and the plaintiffs.” It was not at all abstract. It was like there are a lot of people who aren’t going to get help. At least the help will be delayed if this money doesn’t start flowing. So I was struck by how practical, relating to the families who have lost people because of the actions of Purdue. But the other side was, also that was much more a clear-cut legal issue, that people didn’t give up their right to sue. It was cutting off the right to sue was imposed on potential plaintiffs by the settlement. So that was a much more legalistic argument versus, it was a little bit more real world, but they need the help now. And including some of the conservatives. This is an interesting thing to read. This was painstaking. This is a huge settlement. It took so long. It had many, many moving parts. And I don’t know how you go back and put it together again.

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

Kenen: I don’t know if they have to start entirely from scratch. You’d have to be nuts to get the Sacklers to say, “OK, we’ll be sued,” which they’re obviously you’re not going to. Is somebody going to come up with a “Split the difference, let’s get this moving and we won’t sue anymore?” I don’t know. But I don’t know that you have to start 100% from scratch, but you’re surely not anywhere near a finish line anymore.

Rovner: That’s big Supreme Court case No. 3 for this week. Now let’s get to big Supreme Court case No. 4. Earlier this week, the court turned back a challenge that the government had wrongly interfered with free speech by urging social media organizations to take down covid misinformation. But again, as with the abortion pill case, the court did not get to the merits. But instead, they ruled that the states and individuals who sued did not have standing. So we still don’t know what the court thinks of the role of government in trying to ensure that health information is correct. Right?

Knight: Right. And I thought it was interesting. Basically the White House was like, “Well, we talked to the tech companies, but it was their decision to do this. So we weren’t really mandating them do this.” I think they’re just being like, “OK, we’ve left it up to the tech companies. We haven’t really interfered. We’re just trying to say these things are harmful.” So I guess we’ll have to see. Like you said, they didn’t take it up on standing, but overall, conservatives that were saying, “This was infringing on free speech.” It was particularly some scientists, I think, that promoted the herd immunity theory, things like that.

So I think they’re obviously going to be upset in some way because their posts were depromoted on social media. But I think it just leaves things the way they are, the same way. But it would be interesting, I guess, if Trump does go to the White House, how that might play out differently?

Rovner: This court has been a lot of the court deciding not to decide cases, or not to decide issues. Sorry, Alice, go ahead.

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think it is pretty similar to the abortion pill case in one key way, which is that it’s the court saying, “Look, the connection between the harm you think you suffered and the entity you are accusing of causing that suffering, that connection is way too tenuous. You can’t prove that the Biden administration voicing concerns to these social media companies directly led to you getting shadow-banned or actual banned,” or whatever it is. And the same in the abortion pill case, the connection between the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] approving the drug and regulating the drug and these individual doctors’ experiences is way too tenuous. And so that’s something to keep in mind for future cases that, we’re seeing a pattern here.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m not suggesting that the court is directly trying to duck these issues. These are legitimate standing cases and important legal precedents for who can sue in what circumstance. That is the requirement of constitutional review that first you have to make sure that there’s both standing in a live controversy and there’s all kinds of things that the court has to go through before they get to the merits. So more often than not, they don’t get there.

Well, meanwhile, we have our first hot-button, Supreme Court case slotted in for next term. On Monday, the court granted “certiorari” [writ by which a higher court reviews a decision of a lower court] to a case out of Tennessee where the Biden administration is challenging the state’s ban on transgender care for minors. It was inevitable that one of these cases was going to get to the high court sooner or later, right?

Kenen: Yeah, I think it’s not a surprise, the politics of it and the techniques or tools used by the forces that are against the treatment for minors. It’s very similar to the politics and patterns of the abortion case, of turning something into an argument that it’s to protect somebody. A lot of the abortion requirements and fights were about to protect the woman. Ostensibly, that was the political argument. And now we’re seeing we have to protect the children so that it’s the courts, as opposed to families and doctors, who are, “protecting the children.”

There’s a lot of misunderstanding about what these treatments do and who gets them and at what age;  that they’re often described as mutilation and irreversible. For the younger kids, for preteen, middle school age-ish, early teens, nothing is irreversible. It’s drugs that if you stop them, the impact goes away. But it has become this enormous lightning rod for the intersection of health and politics. And I think we all have a pretty good guess as to where the Supreme Court’s going to end up on this. But you’re sometimes surprised. And also, there could be some …

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

Kenen: There could be some kind of moderation, too. It could be a certain … they don’t have to say all … it depends on how clinical they want to get. Maybe they’ll rule on certain treatments that are more less-reversible than a puberty blocker, which is very reversible, and some kind of safeguards. We don’t know the details. We’re not surprised that it ended up … and we know going in, you could have a gut feeling of where it’s likely to turn out without knowing the full parameters and caveats and details. They haven’t even argued it yet.

Rovner: This is a decision that we’ll be waiting for next June.

Kenen: Right. Well, could not. Maybe it’s so clear-cut, it’ll be May. Who knows, right?

Rovner: Yeah, exactly. All right, well, moving on. There was a presidential debate last night. I think it was fair to say that it didn’t go very well for either candidate, nor for anybody interested in what President Biden or former President Trump thinks about health issues. What did we learn, if anything?

Ollstein: Well, I was mainly listening for a discussion of abortion and, boy was it all over the place. What I thought was interesting was that both candidates pissed off their activist supporters with what they said. I was texting with a lot of folks on both sides and conservatives were upset that Trump doubled down on his position that this should be entirely left to states, and they disagree. They want him to push for federal restrictions if elected.

And on the left, there was a lot of consternation about Biden’s weird, meandering answer about Roe v. Wade. He was asked about abortions later in pregnancy. One, neither he nor the moderators pushed back on what Trump’s very inflammatory claims about babies being murdered and stuff. There was no fact-checking of that whatsoever. But then Biden gave a confusing answer, basically saying he supports going to the Roe standard but not further, which is what I took out of it. And that upset a lot of progressives who say Roe was never good enough. For a lot of people, when Roe v. Wade was still in place, abortion was a right in name only. It was not actually accessible. States could impose lots of restrictions that kept it out of reach for a lot of people. And in this moment, why should we go back to a standard that was never good enough? We should go further. So just a lot of anxiety on both sides of this.

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, Trump seemed to say that he would leave the abortion pill alone, which jumped out at me.

Kenen: But that was a completely … CNN made a decision not to push back. They were going to have online fact-checking. Everybody else had online fact. … And they didn’t challenge. And I guess they assumed that the candidates would challenge each other, and Biden had a different kind of challenging night. Trump actually said that the previous Supreme Court had upheld the use of the abortion drug and that it’s over, it’s done. That was not a true statement. The Supreme Court rejected that case, as Alice just explained, on standing. It’s going to be back. It may be back in multiple forms, multiple times. It is not decided. It is not over, which is what Trump said, “Oh, don’t worry about the abortion drug. The Supreme Court OK’d it.” That’s not what the Supreme Court did, and Biden didn’t counter that in any way.

And then Biden, in addition to the political aspect that Alice just talked about, he also didn’t describe Roe, the framework of Roe, particularly accurately. And, as Alice just pointed out, the things that Trump said were over-the-top even for Trump, and that they went unchallenged by either the moderators or President Biden.

Rovner: I was a little bit surprised that there wasn’t anything else on health care or there wasn’t much else.

Knight: Biden tried to hit his health care talking points and did a very terrible job. Alice had a really good tweet getting the right. … He initially said wrong numbers for the insulin cap, for the cap on out-of-pocket for Medicare beneficiaries, how much they can spend on prescription drugs. He got both of those wrong. I think he got insulin right later in the night. And then the very notably, “We will beat Medicare.” That was just unclear what he even meant by that. Maybe it was about drug price negotiations, I’m sure. So he was trying, but just could not get the facts right and I don’t think it came across effective in any way. And health care does do really well for Democrats. Abortion does really well for Democrats. So he was not effective in putting those messages.

I also noticed the moderators asked a question about opioids, addressing the opioid epidemic. Trump did not answer at all, pivoted to I think border or something like that. I don’t think Biden really answered either, honestly. So that was an opportunity for them to also talk about addressing that, which I think is something they could both probably talk about in a winning way for both. But I thought it was mentioned more than I expected a little bit. I thought they may want to talk about it at all. So it was still not much substantive policy discussion on health care.

Kenen: Biden tried to get across some of the Democratic policies on drug prices and polls have shown that the public doesn’t really understand that is actually the law in going forward. So if any attempt to message that in front of a very large audience was completely muddled. Nobody listening to that debate would’ve come out — unless they knew going in — they would’ve not have come out knowing what was in the law about Medicare price negotiations. They would’ve gotten four different answers of what happened with insulin, although they probably figured something good, helpful happened. And a big opportunity to push a Democratic achievement that has some bipartisan popularity was completely evaporated.

Rovner: I think Biden did the classic over-prepare and stuff too many talking points into his head and then couldn’t sort them all out in the moment. That seemed pretty clear. He was trying to retrieve the talking point and they got a little bit jumbled in his attempt to bring them out. Well, back to abortion: Alice, you got a cool scoop this week about abortion rights groups banding together with a $100 million campaign to overturn the overturn of Roe. Tell us about that?

Ollstein: Yeah, so it’s notable because there’s been so much focus on the state level battles and fighting this out state by state, and the ballot initiatives that have passed at the state level and restored or protected access have been this glimmer of hope for the abortion rights movement. But I think there was a real crystallization of the understanding that that strategy alone would leave tens of millions of people out in the cold because a lot of states don’t have the ability to do a ballot initiative. And also, if there were to be some sort of federal restrictions imposed under a Trump presidency or whatever, those state level protections wouldn’t necessarily hold. So I think this effort of groups coming together to really spend big and say that they want to restore federal protections is really notable.

I also think it’s notable that they are not committing to a specific bill or plan or law they want to see. They are keeping on the, “This is our vision, this is our broad goal.” But they’re not saying, “We want to restore Roe specifically, we want to go further,” et cetera. And that’s creating some consternation within the movement. I’ve also, since publishing the story, heard a lot of anxiety about the level of spending going to this when people feel that that should be going to direct support for people who are suffering on the ground and struggling to access abortion. Right now you have abortion funds screaming that they’re being stretched to the breaking point and cannot help everyone who needs to travel out of state right now. So, of course, infighting on the left is a perennial, but I think it’s particularly interesting in this case.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, we have a trio this week of examples of what I think it’s safe to call unintended consequences of the Supreme Court’s overturn of Roe. First, a study in the medical journal JAMA Pediatrics this week, found that in the first year abortion was dramatically restricted in Texas — remember, that was before the overturn of Roe — infant deaths rose fairly dramatically. In particular, deaths from congenital problems rose, suggesting that women carrying doomed fetuses gave birth instead of having abortions. What’s the takeaway from seeing this big spike in infant mortality?

Ollstein: So I’ve seen a lot of anti-abortion groups trying to spin this and push back really hard on it. Specifically picking up on what you just said, which is that a lot of these are fatal fetal anomalies. And so they were saying, “Were abortion still legal, those pregnancies could have been terminated before birth.” And so they’re saying, “There’s no difference really, because we consider that an infant death already. So now it’s an infant death after birth. Nothing to see here.”

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

Ollstein: Yeah, that is the response I’m seeing on the right. On the left, I am seeing arguments that anyone who labels themselves pro-life should think twice about the impact of these policies that are playing out. And like you said, we’re only just beginning to get glimmers of this data. In part because Texas was out in front of everybody else, and so I think there’s a lot more to come.

The other pushback I’ve seen from anti-abortion groups is that infant mortality also rose in states where abortion remains legal. So I think that’s worth exploring, too. Obviously, correlation is not always causation, but I think it’s hard when you’re getting the data in little dribs and drabs instead of a full complete picture that we can really analyze.

Rovner: Well, in another JAMA study, this one in JAMA Network Open, they found that the use of Plan B, the morning-after birth control pill, fell by 60% in states that implemented abortion bans after the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision. Now, for the millionth time, Plan B is not the same as the abortion pill. It’s a high-dose contraceptive. But apparently, a combination of the closure of family planning clinics in states that impose bans, which are an important source of pills for people with low incomes who can’t afford over-the-counter versions, and misinformation about the continuing legality of the morning-after pill, which continues to be legal, contributed to the decline. At least that’s what the authors theorize. This is one of many ironies in the wake of Dobbs; that states with abortion bans may well be ending up with more unintended pregnancies rather than fewer.

Ollstein: Well, one trends that could be feeding this is that some of the clinics where people used to go to to access contraception, also provided abortion and have not been able to keep their doors open in a post-Roe environment. We’ve seen clinics shutting down across the South. I went to Alabama last year to cover this, and there are clinics there that used to get most of their revenue from abortion, and they’re trying to hang on and provide nonabortion gynecological services, including contraception, and the math just ain’t mathing, and they’re really struggling to survive.

And so this goes back to the finger-pointing within the movement about where money should be going right now. And I know that red state clinics that are trying to survive feel very left behind and feel that this erosion of access is a result of that.

Kenen: Julie, and also to put in, even before Dobbs, it was not easy in many parts of the country for low-income women to get free contraception. There are states in which clinics were few and far between. Federal spending on Title X has not risen in many years.

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

Kenen: Right. Alice knows this, and maybe I’ve said on the podcast, I once just pretty randomly with me and my cursor plunked my cursor down on a map of Texas and said, “OK, if I live here, how far is the nearest clinic?” And I looked at the map of the clinics and it was far, it was something like 95 miles, the nearest one. So we had abortion deserts. We’ve also had family planning deserts, and that has only gotten worse, but it wasn’t good in the first place.

Rovner: Well, finally, and for those who really want to make sure they don’t have unintended pregnancies, according to a study in a third AMA journal, JAMA Health Forum, the number of young women aged 18 to 30 who were getting sterilized doubled in the 15 months after Roe was overturned. Men are part of this trend, too. Vasectomies tripled over that same period. Are we looking at a generation that’s so scared, they’re going to end up just not having kids at all?

Kenen: Well, there are a lot of kids in this generation who are saying they don’t want to have kids for a variety of reasons: economic, climate, all sorts of things. I think that I was a little surprised to see that study because there are safe long-acting contraceptives. You can get an IUD that lasts seven to nine years, I think it is. I was a little surprised that people were choosing something irreversible because.. I do know young people who… You’re young, you go through lots of changes in life, and there is an alternative that’s multiyear. So I was a little surprised by that. But that’s apparently what’s happening. And it’s for… This generation is not as… What are they, Gen[eration] Z? They’re not as baby-oriented as their older brothers and sisters even.

Knight: Well, that age range is millennial and Gen Z. But I don’t know. I’m a millennial. I think a lot of my friends were not baby-oriented. So I think that’s probably a fair statement to say. But it is interesting that they wouldn’t choose an IUD or something like that instead. But I do think people are scared. We’ve seen the stories of people moving out of states that have really strict abortion bans because they are so concerned on what kind of medical care they could have, even if they think they want to get pregnant. And sometimes you don’t have a healthy pregnancy and then need to get an abortion. So I’m sure it has something to do with that but…

Rovner: Yeah, it’s one of those trends to keep an eye out for. Well, moving on, U.S. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has been busy these past couple of weeks. First, he published an op-ed in The New York Times calling for a warning label for social media that’s similar to the one that’s already on tobacco products, warning that social media has not been proven safe for children and teenagers. Of course, he doesn’t have his own authority to do that. Congress would have to pass a law. Any chance of that? I know Congress is definitely into the “What are we going to do about social media” realm.

Kenen: But talking about it and doing something or thinking, it’s a long way. Is this as, compared to his other topic of the week, which was gun safety? He’s got a lot more bipartisan …

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

Kenen: … He’s got a lot more bipartisan support for the concern about health of young people and what social media is. What is social media? Social media is mixed. There are good things and bad things, and what is that balance? There is a bipartisan concern. I don’t know that that means you get to the labeling point. But the labeling point is one thing. That the larger concept of concern about it, and recognition about it, and what do we do about it, is bipartisan up to a point. How do you even label? What do you label? Your phone? Your computer? I’m not sure where the label goes. Your eyelids? [inaudible 00:33:07]

Knight: Right. Well, tech bills in Congress in general are like… Even though TikTok was surprisingly able to get done in the House. But TikTok lobby was big. But there would be a big social media lobby, I’m sure, against that. I guess there is bipartisan support. I don’t know. It’s not something I’ve asked members about, but I think that would be pretty far off from a reality actually happening.

Rovner: Well, also this week, as Joanne mentioned, the surgeon general issued a Surgeon General’s Advisory, declaring gun violence a public health crisis, calling for more research funding on gun injuries and deaths, universal background checks for gun buyers, and bans on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines. I feel like the NRA [National Rifle Association] has lost some of its legendary clout on Capitol Hill over the past few years, thanks to a series of scandals, but maybe not enough for some of these things. I feel like I’ve heard these suggestions before, like over the last 25 or 30 years.

Kenen: I think one of the interesting things about Vivek Murthy is he came to public prominence on gun safety and guns in public health before people were really talking about guns in public health. I forgot what year it was — 2016, 2017, whenever Obama first nominated him. Because remember, this is his second run as surgeon general. It was an issue that he had spoken about and had made a signature issue, and as he became a more public figure before the nomination. And then he went silent on it. He had trouble getting confirmed. He didn’t do anything about it. We never really heard … as far as I can recollect, we never even heard him talk about it once. Maybe there was a phrase or two here or there. He certainly didn’t push it or make it a signature issue.

Right now, he’s at the end of the last year with the Biden administration. Some kind of arc is being completed. He’s a young man, there’ll be other arcs. But this arc is winding down and the president cares about gun violence. Congress actually did, not the full agenda, but they did something on it, which was unusual. And I think that this is his chance to use his bully pulpit while he still has it in this particular perch to remind people that we do have tools. We don’t have all the solutions to gun violence. We do not understand everything about it. We do not understand why some people go and shoot a movie theater or a school or a supermarket or whatever, and there are multiple reasons. There are different kinds of mass killers. But we do know that there are some public health tools that do work. That red flag laws do seem to help. That safe gun storage … There are things that are less controversial than a spectrum of things one can do.

Some of them have broader support, and I think he is using this time — not that he expects any of these things to become law in the final year of the Biden administration — but I think he’s using it. This is bully pulpit. This is saying, “Moving forward, let’s think about what we can come to agreement on and do what we can on certain evidence-based things.” Because there’s been a lot of work in the last decade or so on the public health, not just the criminal… Obviously, it’s a legal and criminal justice issue. It’s also a public health issue, and what are the public health tools? What can we do? How do we treat this as basically an epidemic? And how can we stop it?

Rovner: Finally this week, since we didn’t really do news last week, there have been a couple of notable stories we really ought to mention. One is a court case, Braidwood v. Becerra. This is the case where a group of Christian businesses are claiming that the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services provisions that require them to provide no cost-sharing access to products, including HIV preventive medication, violates their freedom of religion because it makes them complicit in homosexual behavior. Judge Reed O’Connor, district court judge — if that name is familiar, it’s because he’s the Texas judge who tried to strike down the entire ACA back in 2018. Judge O’Connor not only found for the plaintiffs, he tried to slap a nationwide injunction on all of the ACA’s preventive services, which even the very conservative 5th Circuit appeals court struck down. But meanwhile, the appeals court has come up with its ruling. Where does that leave us on the ACA preventive services?

Ollstein: It leaves us right where we were when the 5th Circuit took the case because they said that, “We’re going to allow the lower court ruling to be enforced just for the plaintiffs in the meantime, but we’re not going to allow the entire country’s preventive care coverage to be disrupted while this case moves forward.” And so that basically continues to be the case. Some of the arguments are getting sent back down to the lower court for further consideration. And we still don’t know whether either side will appeal the 5th Circuit’s ruling to the Supreme Court.

Rovner: But notably, the appeals court said that U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which is appointed by the Department of Health and Human Services, is basically illegally constituted because it should be nominated by the president, approved by the Senate, which it is not. That could in the long run be kind of a big deal. This is a group of experts that supposedly shielded from politics.

Kenen: Yeah, I don’t think this story is over either. It is for now. Right now we’re at the status quo, except for this handful of people who brought recommendations on all sorts of health measures, including vaccination and cancer screenings and everything else. They stand. They’re not being contested at this moment. How that will evolve under the next administration and this court remains to be seen.

Rovner: Finally, finally, finally, to end on a bit of a frustrating note, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, has found that two decades after it first called out some of the most egregious inequities in U.S. health care, not that much has changed. Joanne, this has been a very high-profile issue. What went wrong?

Kenen: Well, I think this report got very little attention probably because it’s like, oh, reports aren’t necessarily news stories. And it was like nothing changed, so why do we report it? But I think when I read the report — and I did not get through all 375 pages yet, but I did read a significant amount of it and I listened to a webinar on it — I think what really struck me is how we’re not any better than we really were 20 years ago. And what really was jarring is the report said, “And we actually know how to fix this and we’re not doing it. And we have the scientific and public health and sociological knowledge. We know if we wanted to fix it, we could, and we haven’t. Some of that is needing money and some of it is needing will.” So I thought the bottom line of it was really quite grim. If we didn’t know how bad it was, if the general public didn’t know how bad it was, the pandemic really should have taught them that because of the enormous disparities, and we’re back on this glide path toward nothing.

Rovner: I do think at very least, it is more talked about. It’s a little higher profile than it was, but obviously you’re right.

Kenen: They didn’t say no gains in any… I mean, the ACA helped. There are people who have coverage, including minorities, who didn’t have it before. That was one of the bright spots. But there’s still 10 states where it hasn’t been fully implemented. It was a pretty discouraging report.

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

Knight: Sure. So I was reading a story in The New York Times about PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers]. It was called “The Opaque Industry Secretly Inflating Prices for Prescription Drugs.” It’s by Rebecca Robbins and Reed Abelson. And so it kind of is basically an investigation into PBM practices. It was interesting for me because I cover health care in Congress, and so it’s always the different industries are fighting each other. And right now, one of the biggest fights is about PBMs. And for those that don’t know, PBMs negotiate with drug companies, they’re supposed to pay pharmacies, they help patients get their medications. And so they’re this middleman in between everyone. And so people don’t really know they exist, but they’re a big monopoly. There’s only three of them, really big ones in the U.S. that make up 80% of the market. And so they have a lot of control over things.

Pharma blames them for high drug prices and the PBMs blame pharma. So that’s always a fun thing to watch. There actually is quite a bit of traction in Congress right now for cracking down on PBM practices. Basically, The Times reporters interviewed a bunch of people and they came away with saying that PBMs …

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

Knight: Yeah, and they came away with a conclusion that PBMs are causing higher drug prices and they’re pushing patients towards higher drugs. They’re charging employers of government more money than they should be. But it was interesting for me to watch this play out on Twitter because the PBM lobby was, of course, very upset by the story. They were slamming it and they put out a whole press release saying that it’s anecdotal and they don’t have actual data. So it was interesting, but I think it’s another piece in the policy puzzle of how do we reduce drug prices? And Congress thinks at least cracking on PBMs is one way to do it, and it has bipartisan support.

Rovner: And apparently this story is the first in a series, so there’s more to come.

Knight: Yes, I saw that. Yeah, more to come, so it’ll be fun. I also just noticed as I was just pulling it up on my phone and they had closed the comment section. It was causing some robust debate.

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

Kenen: I should just say that after I read that story in The Times that same day, I think I got a phone call from a relative, a copay that had been something like $60 for 30 days is now $1,000. And this relative walked away without getting the drug because that’s not OK. So anyway, my extra credit [“Social Security To Drop Obsolete Jobs Used To Deny Disability Benefits,”] is from The Washington Post. Lisa Rein posted an investigation a couple of years ago, and this was the coda of the Social Security Administration finally followed through on what that investigation revealed. And Lisa wrote about the move, how it’s being addressed. That to get disability benefits, you have to be unemployable basically. And the Social Security Administration had a list of … it’s called the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. It had not been updated in 47 years. So disabled people were being denied Social Security disability benefits because they were being told, well, they could do jobs like being a nut sorter or a pneumatic tube operator or a microfilm something or other. And these jobs stopped existing decades ago.

So the Social Security Administration got rid of these obsolete jobs. You’re no longer being told, literally, to go store nuts. If you are, in fact, legitimately disabled, you’ll now be able to get the Social Security disability benefits that you are, in fact, qualified for. So thousands of people will be affected.

Rovner: No one can see this, but I’m wearing my America Needs Journalists T-shirt today. Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a piece [“Opioid Deaths Rose 50 Percent During the Pandemic. in These Places, They Fell”] by my colleague Ruth Reader, about a county in Ohio that, with some federal funds, implemented all of these policies to reduce opioid overdoses and deaths, and they had a lot of success. Overdoses went down 20% there, even as they went up by a lot in most of the country. But bureaucracy and expiring funding means that those programs may not continue, even though they’re really successful. The federal funding has run out. It is not getting renewed, and the state may not pick up the slack.

So it’s just a really good example. We see this so often in public health where we invest in something, it works, it makes a difference, it helps people, and then we say, “Well, all right, we did it. We’re done.” And then the problems come roaring back. So hopefully that does not happen here.

Rovner: Alas. Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post. It’s called “Masks Are Going From Mandated to Criminalized in Some States.” It’s by Fenit Nirappil. I hope I’m pronouncing that right. In some ways, it’s a response to criminals who have obviously long used masks, and also to protesters, particularly those protesting the war in Gaza. But it’s also a mark of just how intolerant we’ve become as a society that people who are immunocompromised or just worried about their own health can’t go out masked in public without getting harassed. The irony, of course, is that this is all coming just as covid is having what appears to be now its annual summer surge, and the big fight of the moment is in North Carolina where the Democratic governor has vetoed a mask ban bill, that’s likely to be overridden by the Republican legislature. Even after covid is no longer front and center in our everyday lives, apparently a lot of the nastiness remains.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comment or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at Twitter, which the Supreme Court has now decided it’s going to call Twitter. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: I’m at Twitter, @JoanneKenen. And I’m on Threads @joannekenen1, and I occasionally decided I just have better things to do.

Rovner: It’s all good. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The presidential election is less than five months away, and while abortion is the only health policy issue expected to play a leading role, others are likely to be raised in the presidential and down-ballot races. This election could be critical in determining the future of key health care programs, such as Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.

In this special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” taped at the Aspen Ideas: Health festival in Aspen, Colorado, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call join Julie Rovner, KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, to discuss what the election season portends for top health issues.

Panelists

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Policies surrounding abortion — and reproductive health issues, in general — likely will dominate in many races, as Democrats try to exploit an issue that is motivating their voters and dividing Republican voters. The topics of contraception and in vitro fertilization are playing a more prominent role in 2024 than they have in past elections.
• High prescription drug prices — which, for frustrated Americans, are a longtime symbol, and symptom, of the nation’s dysfunctional health care system — have been a priority for the Biden administration and, previously, the Trump administration. But the issue is so confusing and progress so incremental that it is hard to say whether either party has an advantage.
• The fate of many major health programs will be determined by who wins the presidency and who controls Congress after this fall’s elections. For example, the temporary subsidies that have made Affordable Care Act health plans more affordable will expire at the end of 2025. If the subsidies are not renewed, millions of Americans will likely be priced out of coverage again.
• Previously hot-button issues like gun violence, opioid addiction, and mental health are not playing a high-profile role in the 2024 races. But that could change case by case.
• Finally, huge health issues that could use public airing and debate — like what to do about the nation’s crumbling long-term care system and the growing shortage of vital health professionals — are not likely to become campaign issues.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Live From Aspen: Health and the 2024 Elections’Episode Number: 352Published: June 21, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. I am joined tonight by a couple of our regular panelists: Margot Sanger-Katz, The New York Times.

Sanger-Katz: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good evening everyone.

Rovner: For those of you who aren’t regular listeners, we have a rotating panel of more than a dozen health policy reporters, all of whom just happen to be women, and every week we recap and analyze the week’s top health news. But tonight we’ve been given a slightly different assignment to talk about how health policy is likely to shape the 2024 elections and, vice versa, how the elections are likely to shape health policy.

So, this is actually my 10th presidential election season as a health reporter, which is terrifying, and I can say with some experience that health is one of those issues that’s always part of the political debate but is relatively rarely mentioned when pollsters ask voters what their top issue is. Of those of you who went to the pollsters session this afternoon might’ve seen that or said we’re not going to… it’s not going to be a health election this year.

This year, though, I think will be slightly different. As you’ll hear, I’ve divided these issues into three different buckets: Those that are likely to be pivotal or very important to how people vote; those that are likely to come up over the next few months in the presidential and/or congressional and Senate races; and finally, a couple of issues that aren’t as likely to come up but probably should. It would be good to have a debate about them.

So we will start with the political elephant in the room: reproductive health. Since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade two years ago next week, abortion has been front and center in just about every political contest, usually, though not always, with the abortion-right side prevailing. How do you two see abortion playing out both at the presidential and congressional level these next couple of months?

Raman: I see it playing out in kind of two different ways. We see already at the presidential level that President Joe Biden has been really going in, all in, that this is his No. 1 issue, and I think this will continue to play out, especially next week with the anniversary of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision.

And a lot of the Democrats in the Senate have kind of been taking lead from that and also really amping up the issue. They’ve been doing kind of messaging votes on things within the reproductive health spectrum and it seems like they’re going to continue that in July. So we’re going to see it really focused on there. On the Republican side, they’ve been not focused on this issue as much.

Rovner: They’ve been ducking this issue.

Raman: Yes, they’ve been ducking this issue, so I think it’ll just be continued to be downplayed. They’ve really been going in on immigration more than any other of the issues that they’ve got this year.

Sanger-Katz: If you look at the public polling, abortion is one of really the only issues where the Democrats and Joe Biden seem to have a real advantage over the Republicans and Donald Trump. And so I think that that tells you that they’re going to have to be hitting it a lot. This is an issue where the voters are with the Democrats. They trust Biden more. They agree more with the policies the Democrats are promoting around reproductive health care. So it’s just impossible for me to imagine a scenario in which we don’t see Democrats kind of up and down the ticket really taking advantage of this issue, running ads on it, talking about it, and trying to really foreground it.

I think for Biden, in particular, it’s a hard issue. I think he has always had some personal ambivalence about abortion. He’s a Catholic. He, early in his career, had opposed certain abortion rights measures that other Democrats had endorsed, and you can kind of see him slowly getting comfortable with this issue. I think he said the word abortion for the first time just in the last six months. I think I would anticipate a real ramping up of discussion of this issue among Democrats. The other dynamic that I think is pretty important is that there are a number of states that have ballot initiatives to try to kind of permanently enshrine abortion rights into state constitutions.

And some of those are in states that are not pivotal to the election, and they will be important in those states, and for those state senate races and governor races and other things, because they may pull in more of these voters who care a lot about reproductive rights. But there are some of these ballot measures that are in pivotal states for the presidential race, the kind of battleground states that we’re all watching. And so there’s a big emphasis on those as well. And I think there’s some interesting tensions with those measures because abortion rights actually are valued by people across the political spectrum.

So I think we tend to think of this as a Democrat-Republican issue where Republicans want to restrict abortion rights, and Democrats want to promote them. But we’re seeing in the public polling now that’s not really true. There are a lot of Republicans that are uncomfortable with the kind of abortion bans that we’re seeing in certain parts of the country now. So it’s this question: Are they going to come out and vote and split their ticket where they’ll vote for constitutional measure to protect abortion rights and still vote for President Trump? Or will the abortion issue mobilize them so much that they will vote across the board as Democrats?

And I think that’s a big question, and I think it’s a big challenge. In fact, for many of the people that are running these campaigns to get these ballot measures passed, how much they want to kind of lean into the Democratic messaging and try to help prop up Democratic candidates in their state. And how much they want to just take a step back and try to get Republicans to support their particular measure, even if it doesn’t help Democratic candidates on the ticket.

Rovner: Well, of course, it’s not just abortion that’s on the ballot, literally and figuratively. There’s a not-insignificant portion of the anti-abortion movement that not only wants to ban abortion nationwide but wants to establish in law something called personhood. The concept that a person with full legal rights is created at fertilization.

That would result in outlawing many forms of contraception, as well as if we have seen rather vividly this spring, IVF. Unlike abortion, contraception and IVF are very widely supported, not nearly as divisive as abortion itself is. Are we potentially looking at a divorce between the Republican Party and its longtime absolutist, anti-abortion backers?

Raman: I think that Republicans have been toeing the line on this issue so far. We’ve seen them not support some of the Democrats’ bills on the state level, the federal level, that are related to IVF, but at the same time, kind of introducing their counterparts or issuing broad statements in support of IVF, in support of contraception. Even just like a couple of weeks ago, we had Sen. Rick Scott of Florida release an IVF-themed full ad.

And so we have a lot of messaging on this, but I think at the same time a lot of these are tiptoeing the line in that they might not add any new protections. They might not codify protections for any of these procedures. They might just issue support or not address some of the other issues there that people have been going back and forth with the personhood issue.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is a big challenge for the Republican Party, not just over the course of this particular election cycle, but I think thinking further into the future. The pro-life movement has been such a pivotal group of activists that have helped elect Republicans and have been so strongly allied with various other Republican interest groups across the last few decades. And you can see that those activists helped overturn Roe after nearly 50 years of having a constitutional right to abortion.

Many of them don’t want to give up there. They really want to abolish abortion. They think it’s a morally abhorrent and something that shouldn’t happen in this country. And they’re concerned that certain types of contraception are similar to abortion in certain ways and that IVF is also morally abhorrent. And we saw recently with the [Southern] Baptist Convention that there was a vote basically to say that they did not support in vitro fertilization and assisted reproductive technologies.

Yet, at the same time, you can see in public polling and in the way that the public responds to these kinds of messages that the activists are way out further than the typical voter and certainly way out further than the typical Republican voter. And there’s this interesting case study that happened a few months ago where the Alabama Supreme Court issued a ruling — the implications of which suggested that IVF might be imperiled in that state — and it was kind of uncertain what the result that would be.

And what happened, in fact, is that Republicans and the Alabama State Legislature and the Republican governor of Alabama, many of whom had sort of longtime pro-life connections and promises, immediately passed a bill to protect in vitro fertilization because they saw that it was something that their voters really cared about and that’s something that could really hurt them politically if they were being seen as being allied with a movement that wanted to ban it.

But the activists in this movement are really important part of the Republican coalition, and they’re very close to leadership. And I think this is going to be a real tension going forward about how does the party accommodate itself to this? Do they win hearts and minds? They figure out a way to get the public on their side? Or do they kind of throw over these people who have helped them for so long, and these ideological commitments that I do think that many Republican politicians really deeply do hold?

Rovner: How much wild card is Donald Trump can be in this? He’s been literally everywhere on this issue, on reproductive rights in general. He is not shy about saying he thinks that abortion is a loser of an issue for Republicans. He wants to just continue to say, “Let the states do whatever they want.”

But then, of course, when the states do things like perhaps ban IVF — that I would think would even make Donald Trump uncomfortable — he seems to get away with being anywhere he wants with these very strong evangelical and pro-life groups who have supported him because, after all, he appointed the two Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe. But I’m wondering if, down-ballot, how all these other candidates are going to cope with the forever sort of changing position of the head of their ticket.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s pretty interesting. I was talking with a colleague about this recently. It seems like Trump’s strategy is to just have every position. If you look at his statements, he said just about every possible thing that you could possibly say about abortion and where he stands on it. And I think it’s actually quite confusing to voters in a way that may help him because I think if you’re only looking for the thing that you want to hear, you can find it.

If you’re someone who’s really a pro-life activist who cares a lot about restricting abortion, he brags about having been responsible for overturning Roe. And if you’re someone who really cares about protecting IVF, he’s said that he wants that. If you’re someone who want… lives in a state that has… continues to have legal abortion, he said, “We’re going to leave that up to the states.”

If you’re in a state that has banned abortion, that has very extreme bans, he said something that pleases you. And so, I don’t know. I did a story a few weeks ago where I interviewed voters who had been part of a New York Times/Siena poll, and these were voters who, they were asked a question: Who do you find responsible for the Dobbs decision for the overturning of Roe v. Wade? And these were voters who supported abortion rights but thought that Joe Biden was responsible. And there’re like… it’s not a lot of people, but it’s …

Rovner: But it’s like 20%, isn’t it?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it’s like 10[%], 15% of voters in battleground states, people whose votes are really going to matter and who support abortion rights. They don’t know who was responsible. They don’t really understand the dynamics of where the candidates are on this issue. And I think for those of us who are very politically engaged and who are following it closely, it’s kind of hard to imagine. But they’re just a lot of people who are not paying close attention.

And so I think that makes Trump being everywhere on the issue, it makes it easier for those people to not really engage with abortion. And I think that’s again why I think we’re going to see the Biden campaign and other Democrats kind of hitting it over and over and over again. “This is Trump’s fault. We are going to protect abortion rights.” Because I think that there are a lot of voters who don’t really know what to make of the candidates and don’t know what to make of Trump on this particular issue.

Rovner: Well, Sandhya, they keep trying to bring it up in Congress, but I don’t think that’s really breaking through as a big news story.

Raman: No, and I think that for Congress, we’ve seen the same thing this year, but we’ve also seen it in previous years where they coalesce around a certain week or a certain time and bring up different bills depending on who’s in control of that chamber to message on an issue. But it hasn’t really moved the needle either way that we get similar tallies, whether it was this year or three years ago or 10 years ago.

One thing that I think activists are really looking at on the pro-life side is just really Trump’s record on these issues. Regardless of what he’s saying this week or last week or in some of these different interviews that’s a little all over the place. They’ve pointed to a lot of things that he’s done, like different things that he’s expanded more than previous Republican presidents. And for them, that might be enough.

That’s if it’s just the dichotomy of Biden versus Trump, that to get to their end goal of more pro-life policies, then Trump is the easy choice. And in the past years, the amount of money that they have poured into these elections to just really support issues… candidates that are really active on these issues, has grown astronomically. So I don’t know that necessarily if he does make some of these statements it’s going to make a huge difference in their support.

Sanger-Katz: And I think it also comes back to Julie’s opening point, which is I think abortion is an issue on which the Democrats have a huge edge, and I do think it is an issue that is very mobilizing for certain types of voters. But I also think that this is an election in which a lot of voters, whatever their commitments are on abortion, may be deciding who to vote for based on another set of issues. Those people that I talked to who were kind of confused about abortion, they really cared a lot about the economy.

They were really concerned about the cost of groceries. And so I think for those people, they may have a preference on abortion. If they could sort of pick each individual issue, they might pick something different. But I think the fact that they supported abortion rights did not necessarily mean that even if they really understood where the candidates were that they were necessarily going to vote for Joe Biden. I think a lot of them were going to vote for Donald Trump anyway because they thought he was better on the issues that were affecting their daily lives more.

Rovner: Well, Margot, to your point about voters not knowing who’s responsible for what, I think another big issue in this campaign is going to be prescription drug prices. As we know, drug prices are kind of the stand-in for everything that’s currently wrong with the nation’s health care system. The system is byzantine. It can threaten people’s health and even their lives if they can’t afford it.

And just about every other country does it better than we do. Interestingly, both President Biden and former President Trump made drug prices a top health priority, and both have receipts to show what they have done, but it’s so confusing that it’s not clear who’s going to get credit for these things that have gotten done.

Trump said that Biden was lying when Biden said that he had done the insulin cap for Medicare, which in fact was done by the Democrats, although Trump had done sort of a precursor to it. So, who wins this point, or do you think it’s going to end up being a draw? Because people are not going to be able to figure out who was responsible for which parts of this. And by the way, we haven’t really fixed it anyway.

Raman: I would say it was a draw for two reasons. I think, one, when we deal with something like drug prices, it takes a while for you to see the effects. When we have the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that made it so that we can negotiate the price of some drugs under Medicare, the effects of that are over a long tailwind. And so it’s not as easy to kind of bring that up in political ads and that kind of thing when people aren’t seeing that when they go to the pharmacy counter.

And I think another thing is that for at least on the congressional level, there’s been a little bit of a gap in them being able to pass anything that kind of moves the point along. They made some efforts over the past year but weren’t able to get it over the finish line. I think it’s a lot more difficult to say, “Hey, we tried but didn’t get this done” without a … as a clear campaign message and to get votes on that.

Sanger-Katz: I also think it’s this issue that’s really quite hard because — setting aside $35 insulin, which we should talk about — most people have insurance, and so the price of the drug doesn’t always affect them in a direct way. A lot of times, when people are complaining about the high cost of drugs, they’re really complaining about the way that their insurance covers the drug. And so the price of the drug might, in fact, be astronomical, but it’s the $100 copayment that people are responding to.

And so it could be that the government is taking all these actions, or the companies by themselves, and the price has gone down, but if you’re still paying that $100 copayment, you’re not really experiencing the benefits of that change. So I do think that the Democrats and Joe Biden have done two things that are helpful in that regard. So, one, is this $35 cap on copayments for insulin. So that’s just for people in Medicare, so it’s not everyone. But I do think that is… it’s a great talking point. You can put that on an ad. It’s a real thing.

People are going to go to the pharmacy counter, and they’re not going to pay more than that. It’s easy to understand. The other thing that they did, and I think this is actually harder to understand, is they redesigned the drug benefit for people who have Medicare. So it used to be in Medicare that if you had a really expensive set of drugs that you took, like, say, you had cancer and you were taking one of these newer cancer drugs that cost tens of thousands dollars a year, you could be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars a year out of your own pocket, on top of what your insurance covered.

If you took less-expensive drugs, your insurance kind of worked the way it works for people in the commercial market where you have some copayments, not that you don’t pay anything, but it wasn’t sort of unlimited. But for really high-cost drugs in Medicare, people in Medicare were on the hook for quite a lot of money, and the Inflation Reduction Act changed that. They changed the Medicare drug benefit, and now these people who have these really expensive health conditions have a limit. They only have to pay a couple of thousand dollars a year.

Rovner: But it doesn’t start until next year.

Sanger-Katz: But it doesn’t start until next year. So I just think a lot of this stuff around drug prices is, people feel this sense of outrage that the drugs are so expensive. And so I think that’s why there’s this huge appetite for, for example, having Medicare negotiate the price of drugs. Which is another thing that the Inflation Reduction Act enabled, but it’s not going to happen in time for the election.

But I don’t think that really hits people at the pharmacy counter. That is more the benefits of that policy are going to affect taxpayers and the government. They’re not going to affect individual people so much. And I think that’s part of why it’s such a hard issue. And I think that President Trump bumped up against this as well.

His administration was trying all of these little techniques deep in the works of the drug pricing and distribution system to try to find ways to lever down the prices of drugs. And some of them worked, and some of them didn’t. And some of them got finalized, and some of them didn’t. But I think very few of them had this obvious consumer impact. And so it was hard for them to go to the voters and say, “We did this thing. It affected your life.”

Rovner: I see some of these ads, “We’ve got to do something about the PBMs [Pharmacy Benefit Managers].” And I’m like, “Who’s this ad even aimed at? I cover this for a living, and I don’t really understand what you’re talking about.” I wonder, though, if some… if candidates really on both sides, I mean, this is a unique election in that we’ve got two candidates, both of whom have records behind them.

I mean, normally, you would have at least one who’s saying, “This is what I will do.” And, of course, when it comes to drug prices, the whipping boy has always been the drug companies. And I’m wondering if we’re not going to see candidates from both parties at all levels just going up against the drug companies because that’s worked in the past.

Raman: I think it’s kind of a difficult thing to do when I think so many candidates, congressional level especially, have good relationships with pharmaceutical companies as some of the top donors for their campaigns. And so there’s always that hesitation to go too hard on them when that is helping keep them in office.

So it’s a little bit more difficult there to see teeth-out going into an ad for something like that. I think when we go back to something like PBMs where it seems like everyone in Congress just has made that kind of the bully of this past couple years, then that might be something that’d be easier to throw into ads saying, “I will go after PBMs.”

Sanger-Katz: I think we’re likely to see, especially in congressional races, a lot of candidates just promising to lower your drug prices without a whole lot of detail under that.

I don’t know that it’s necessarily going to be like the evil pharmaceutical companies, and I don’t think it’s going to be detailed policy proposals for all the reasons I just said: because it’s complicated; doesn’t always affect people directly; it’s hard to understand. But I think it will be a staple promise that we’ll particularly see from Democrats and that I expect we will hear from President Trump as well because it’s something that has been part of his kind of staple of talking points.

Rovner: So let’s move on to some of the issues that are sort of the second-tier issues that I expect will come up, just won’t be as big as immigration and abortion. And I want to start with the Affordable Care Act. I think this is the first time in a presidential election year that it seems that the continuing existence of the ACA is no longer in question. If you disagree, do let me know, but that’s not to suggest …

Sanger-Katz: Maybe last time.

Rovner: Little bit. That’s not to suggest, though, that the fate of the Affordable Care Act is not also on the line in this election. The additional subsidies that the Democrats added in the Inflation Reduction Act, which will sunset at the end of next year unless they are renewed, are responsible in large part for the largest percentage of Americans with health insurance ever measured.

And conversely, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that enrollment would fall by an immediate 20% if the subsidies are allowed to expire. It’s hard to see how this becomes a campaign issue, but it’s obviously going to be really important to what… I mean who is elected is going to be really important to what happens on this issue, and it’s a lot of people.

Raman: Using the subsidies as a campaign point is a difficult thing to do. It’s a complicated issue to put in a digestible kind of ad thing. It’s the same thing with a lot of the prescription drug pricing policies where, to get it down to the average voter, is hard to do.

And I think had we not gotten those subsidies extended, we would’ve seen people more going into that in ads. But when it’s keeping the status quo, people aren’t noticing that anything has changed. So it’s an even more difficult thing to kind of get across.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is one of, in health care, one of the highest-stakes things. That I feel like there’s just a very obvious difference in policy depending on who is elected president. Whereas a lot of the things that we’ve talked about so far, drug prices, abortion, a little harder to predict. But just to get out of the weeds for a second, Congress increased the amount of money that poor and middle-class people can get when they buy their own health insurance on the Obamacare exchanges. And they also made it possible for way more people to get health insurance for free.

So there are a lot of Americans who were uninsured before who now have insurance that they don’t pay a single dollar for. And there are also a lot of Americans that are higher, the kind of people that were disadvantaged in the early years of Obamacare, sort of self-employed people, small business owners who bought their own insurance and used to just have sort of uncapped crazy premiums. People who earn more than $100,000 a year now have financial assistance for the first time ever. And that policy has been in place for several years, and we’ve seen record enrollment.

There’s lots more people with insurance now, and their insurance is more affordable than it’s ever been. And those things are, of course, related. I think it’s almost definitely going to go away if Trump is elected to the presidency and if Republicans take at least one house of Congress because basically it’s on a glide path to expiration. So if nothing is done, that money will go away. What needs to happen is for Congress to pass a new law that spends new money to extend those subsidies and for a president to sign it.

And I just think that the basic ACA, the stuff that passed in 2010, I think is relatively safe, as Julie says. But lots of people are going to face much more expensive insurance and maybe unaffordable insurance. And again, the CBO [Congressional Budget Office] projects that a lot of people will end up giving up their insurance as a result of those changes if these policies are allowed to expire. And so I don’t know. I think we don’t see candidates talking about it very much. But I don’t actually think it’s that hard to message on. You could just say, “If you vote for this guy, your insurance premiums are going to go up by 50% or whatever.”

That doesn’t seem like a terrible message. So I do wonder if we’ll see more of that, particularly as we get closer to the election. Because it does feel like a real pocketbook issue for people. The cost of health care, the cost of health insurance, like the cost of drugs, I think, is something that really weighs on people. And we’ve seen in these last few years that making insurance cheaper has just made it much more appealing, much more accessible for people. There’s lots more Americans who have health insurance now, and that’s at risk of going away.

Rovner: Well, also on the list of things that are likely to come up, probably not in the presidential race, but certainly lower down on the ballot, is gender-affirming care. Republicans are right now are all about parental control over what books their children read and what they’re taught in school, but not apparently about medical care for their children.

They want that to be determined by lawmakers. This is very much a wedge issue, but I’m wondering for which side. I mean, traditionally, it would’ve been the conservatives and the evangelicals sort of pushing on this. But as abortion has sort of flip-flopped in importance among voters, I’m wondering where this kind of falls into that.

Raman: I think that the messaging that I’ve seen so far has still prominently been from Republicans on this issue. Whether or not it’s bills that they’ve been introducing and kind of messaging on in Congress or just even in the ads, there’s still been a lot of parental safeguards and the language related to that with relation to gender-affirming care. I have not actually seen as many Democratic ads going super into this. I think they have been way more focused on abortion.

I’m thinking back to, I saw a statistic that 1 in 4 Democratic ads go into abortion, which is really high compared to previous years. And so I don’t know that it will be as big of an issue. I even see some people kind of playing it down because the more attention it gets, sometimes it rallies people up, and they don’t… It’s kind of the flip of Republicans not wanting to bring attention to the abortion issue. And I think a lot of Democrats are trying to shy away so that some of these things aren’t elevated, that we aren’t talking about some of the talking points and the messaging that Republicans are bringing up on the same thing.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it feels to me almost like a mirror image of the abortion issue in the sense that the Democrats have this challenge where their activists are out in front of their voters. There clearly are parts of the Democratic coalition that are really concerned about transgender rights and wanting to protect them and are very opposed to some of the action that we’re seeing at the state and local level, both in terms of what’s happening in schools, but also regulation of medical care. But I think voters I think are less comfortable with transgender rights.

Even Democratic voters, you see sort of there’s more of a generational split on this issue than on some of these other issues where I think older voters are just a little bit less comfortable. And so I do think that it is an issue where — particularly certain parts of it like transgender athletes — that seems to be an area where you see the Republican message really getting more traction among certain subsets of Democratic voters. And I think it’s a hard issue for Democrats except in the places where there’s really broad acceptance.

Rovner: So I want to move on to the things that are less likely to come up, but probably should. We’re going to start with Medicaid. During the pandemic, it grew to cover over 90 million Americans. That’s like a third more than Medicare, which most people still think of as the largest government health program.

But as states pare back their roles after the expiration of the public health emergency, it seems that lots of people — particularly children, who are still eligible — are getting dropped nonetheless. During the fight over repealing the Affordable Care Act in 2017, it was the fate of Medicaid in large part that saved the program.

Suddenly, people realized that their grandmother was getting Medicaid and that one out of every three births, maybe one of every two births, is paid for by Medicaid. But now it seems not so much. Has Medicaid gotten invisible again in national politics?

Raman: I think, in a way, it has. I mean, it doesn’t mean that it’s any less important, but I haven’t seen as big of a push on it, as many people talking about it. And I think it is more of a tricky thing to message on at this point, given that if you look at where the states that have been disenrolling a lot of people, a lot of the ones that are near the top, are blue states.

California is a bigger population, but it’s also the one where they’ve disenrolled the most people. And so messaging on this is going to be difficult. It’s a harder thing to kind of attack your opponent on if this is something that is also being … been difficult in your state. It’s something that states have been grappling with even before we even got to this point.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is another issue where, I think, the stakes of the election are actually quite high. I do think it’s relatively invisible as an issue. I think part of the reason is that we don’t really see the Republicans talking about it, and I think the Democrats don’t really know how to message on it. I think they were really good at, “We’re going to protect you. We’re going to prevent the Republicans from taking this away from you.” But I think they don’t have a good affirmative message about, “How we love this program and we want to support and extend it.”

I don’t think voters are really responding to that. But if you look at what President Trump did in his first administration, he had budgets every single year that proposed savage cuts to Medicaid, big changes to the structure and funding of the program. Those did not get enacted into law. But even after Obamacare repeal was abandoned, you did not see the Trump budgets and the Trump administration, economic officials and health officials, abandoning those plans to make significant cuts to Medicaid.

And I think there are quite a lot of people in the Republican health policy world who think that Medicaid is sort of a bloated and wasteful program that needs to be rethought in a kind of fundamental way, needs to be handed back to the states to give them more fiscal responsibility and also more autonomy to run the program in their own way. I think we will see that again. I also think it’s very hard to know, of course, I feel like anytime… whoever’s in power is always less concerned about the deficit than they are when they are running for election.

But something we haven’t talked about because it’s not a health care issue, is that the expiration of the Trump tax reform bill is going to come up next year, and all of our budget projections that we rely on now assume that those tax cuts are going to expire. I think we all know that most of them probably are not going to expire regardless of who is elected. But I think if Trump and the Republicans take power again, they’re going to want to do certainly a full renewal and maybe additional tax cuts.

And so I think that does put pressure, fiscal pressure on programs like Medicaid because that’s one of the places where there’s a lot of dollars that you could cut if you want to counterbalance some of the revenues that you’re not taking in when you cut taxes. I think Medicaid looks like a pretty ripe target, especially because Trump has been so clear that he does not want to make major cuts to Medicare or to Social Security, which are kind of the other big programs where there’s a lot of money that you could find to offset major tax cuts if you wanted to.

Rovner: Yet, the only big program left that he hasn’t promised not to cut, basically. I guess this is where we have to mention Project 2025, which is this 900-page blueprint for what could happen in a second Trump term that the Trump campaign likes to say, whenever something that’s gets publicized that seems unpopular, saying, “It doesn’t speak for us. That’s not necessarily our position.”

But there’s every suggestion that it would indeed be the position of the Trump administration because one of the pieces of this is that they’re also vetting people who would be put into the government to carry out a lot of these policies. This is another one that’s really hard to communicate to voters but could have an enormous impact, up and down, what happens to health.

Sanger-Katz: And I think this is true across the issue spectrum that I think presidential candidates, certainly congressional candidates and voters, tend to focus on what’s going to happen in Congress. What’s the legislation that you’re going to pass? Are you going to pass a national abortion ban, or are you going to pass a national protect-abortion law? But actually, most of the action in government happens in regulatory agencies. There’s just a ton of power that the executive branch has to tweak this program this way or that.

And so on abortion, I think there’s a whole host of things that are identified in that Project 2025 report that if Trump is elected and if the people who wrote that report get their way, you could see lots of effects on abortion access nationwide that just happened because the federal agencies change the rules about who can get certain drugs or how things are transported across state lines. What happens to members of the military? What kind of funding goes to organizations that provide contraception coverage and other related services?

So, in all of these programs, there’s lots of things that could happen even without legislation. And I think that always tends to get sort of undercovered or underappreciated in elections because sort of hard to explain, and it also feels kind of technical. I think, speaking as a journalist, one thing that’s very hard is that this Project 2025 effort is kind of unprecedented in the sense that we don’t usually have this detailed of a blueprint for what a president would do in all of these very detailed ways. They have, I mean, it’s 100…

Rovner: Nine-hundred …

Sanger-Katz: … 900-page document. It’s like every little thing that they could do they’ve sort of thought about in advance and written down. But it’s very hard to know whether this document actually speaks for Trump and for the people that will be in leadership positions if he’s reelected and to what degree this is sort of the wish casting of the people who wrote this report.

Rovner: We will definitely find out. Well, kind of like Medicaid, the opioid crisis is something that is by no means over, but the public debate appears to have just moved on. Do we have short attention spans, or are people just tired of an issue that they feel like they don’t know how to fix? Or the fact that Congress threw a lot of money at it? Do they feel like it’s been addressed to the extent that it can be?

Raman: I think this is a really difficult one to get at because it’s — at the same time where the problem has been so universal across the country — it has also become a little fragmented in terms of certain places, with different drugs becoming more popular. I think that, in the past, it was just so much that it was the prescription opioids, and then we had heroin and just different things. And now we have issues in certain places with meth and other drugs. And I think that some of that attention span has kind of deviated for folks. Even though we are still seeing over 100,000 drug-related deaths per year; it hasn’t dipped.

And the pandemic, it started going up again after we’d made some progress. And I’m not sure what exactly has shifted the attention, if it’s that people have moved on to one of these other issues or what. But even in Congress, where there have been a lot of people that were very active on changing some of the preventative measures and the treatment and all of that, I think some of those folks have also left. And then when there’s less of the people focused on that issue, it also just slowly trickles as like a less-hyped-up issue in Congress.

Sanger-Katz: I think it continues to be an issue in state and local politics. In certain parts of the country I think this is a very front-of-mind issue, and there’s a lot of state policy happening. There’s a lot also happening at the urban level where you’re seeing prosecutors, mayors, and others really being held accountable for this really terrible problem. And also with the ancillary problems of crime and homelessness associated with people who are addicted to drugs. So, at the federal level, I agree, it’s gotten a little bit sleepy, but I think in certain parts of the country, this is still a very hot issue.

And I do think this is a huge, huge, huge public health crisis that we have so many people who are dying of drug overdoses and some parts of the country where it is just continuing to get worse. I will say that the latest data, which is provisional, it’s not final from the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], but it does look like it’s getting a little bit better this year. So it’s getting better from the worst ever by far. But it’s the first time in a long time that overdoses seem to be going down even a little. So I do think there’s a glimmer of hope there.

Raman: Yeah. But then the last time that we had that, it immediately changed again. I feel like everyone is just so hesitant to celebrate too much just because it has deviated so much.

Sanger-Katz: It’s definitely, it’s a difficult issue. And even the small improvements that we’ve seen, it’s a small improvement from a very, very large problem, so.

Rovner: Well, speaking of public health, we should speak of public health. We’re still debating whether or not covid came from a wet market or from a lab leak, and whether Dr. [Anthony] Fauci is a hero or a villain. But there seems to be a growing distrust in public health in general. We’ve seen from President Trump sort of threatened to take federal funds away from schools with vaccine mandates.

The context of what he’s been saying suggests he’s talking about covid vaccines, but we don’t know that. This feels like one of these issues that, if it comes up at all, is going to be from the point of view of do you trust or do you not trust expertise? I mean, it is bigger than public health, right?

Raman: Yeah. I think that… I mean, the things that I’ve seen so far have been largely on the distrust of whether vaccines are just government mandates and just ads that very much are aligning with Trump that I’ve seen so far that have gone into that. But it does, broader than expertise.

I mean, even when you go back to some of the gender-affirming care issues, when we have all of the leading medical organizations that are experts on this issue speaking one way. And then we having to all of the talking points that are very on the opposite spectrum of that. It’s another issue where even if there is expertise saying that this is a helpful thing for a lot of folks that it’s hard to message on that.

Sanger-Katz: And we also have a third-party candidate for the presidency who is, I think, polling around 10% of the electorate — and polling both from Democratic and Republican constituencies — whose kind of main message is an anti-vaccine message, an antipublic health message.

And so I think that reflects deep antipublic health sentiments in this country that I think, in some ways, were made much more prominent and widespread by the covid pandemic. But it’s a tough issue for that reason.

I think there is a lot of distrust of the public health infrastructure, and you just don’t see politicians really rushing into defend public health officials in this moment where there’s not a crisis and there’s not a lot of political upside.

Rovner: Finally, I have a category that I call big-picture stuff. I feel like it would be really refreshing to see broad debates over things like long-term care. How we’re going to take care of the 10,000 people who are becoming seniors every day. The future solvency of Medicare. President Trump has said he won’t cut Medicare, but that’s not going to help fix the financial issues that still ail at end, frankly, the structure of our dysfunctional health care system.

Everything that we’ve talked about in terms of drug prices and some of these other things is just… are all just symptoms of a system that is simply not working very well. Is there a way to raise these issues, or are they just sort of too big? I mean, they’re exactly the kinds of things that candidates should be debating.

Raman: That is something that I have been wondering that when we do see the debate next week, if we already have such a rich background on both of these candidates in terms of they’ve both been president before, they have been matched up before, that if we could explore some of the other issues that we haven’t had yet. I mean, we know the answers to so many questions. But there are certain things like these where it would be more refreshing to hear some of that, but it’s unclear if we would get any new questions there.

Rovner: All right. Well, I have one more topic for the panel, and then I’m going to turn it over to the audience. There are folks with microphones, so if you have questions, be thinking of them and wait until a microphone gets to you.

One thing that we haven’t really talked about very much, but I think it’s becoming increasingly important, is data privacy in health care. We’ve seen all of these big hacks of enormous storages of people’s very personal information. I get the distinct impression that lawmakers don’t even know what to do. I mean, it’s not really an election issue, but boy, it almost should be.

Sanger-Katz: I did some reporting on this issue because there was this very large hack that affected this company called Change Healthcare. And so many things were not working because this one company got hacked. And the impression I got was just that this is just an absolute mess. That, first of all, there are a ton of vulnerabilities both at the level of hospitals and at the level of these big vendors that kind of cut across health care where many of them just don’t have good cybersecurity practices.

And at the level of regulation where I think there just aren’t good standards, there isn’t good oversight. There are a lot of conflicting and non-aligned jurisdictions where this agency takes care of this part, and this agency takes care of that part. And I think that is why it has been hard for the government to respond, that there’s not sort of one person where the buck stops there. And I think the legislative solutions actually will be quite technical and difficult. I do think that both lawmakers and some key administration officials are aware of the magnitude of this problem and are thinking about how to solve it.

It doesn’t mean that they will reach an answer quickly or that something will necessarily pass Congress. But I think this is a big problem, and the sense I got from talking to experts is this is going to be a growing problem. And it’s one that sounds technical but actually has pretty big potential health impacts because when the hospital computer system doesn’t work, hospitals can’t actually do the thing that they do. Everything is computerized now. And so when there’s a ransomware attack on a main computer electronic health record system, that is just a really big problem. That there’s documentation has led to deaths in certain cases because people couldn’t get the care that they need.

Rovner: They couldn’t … I mean, couldn’t get test results, couldn’t do surgeries. I mean, there was just an enormous implications of all this. Although I did see that there was a hack of the national health system in Britain, too. So, at least, that’s one of the things that we’re not alone in.

Sanger-Katz: And it’s not just health care. I mean, it’s like everything is hackable. All it takes is one foolish employee who gives away their password, and you think, often, the hackers can get in.

Raman: Well, that’s one of the tricky parts is that we don’t have nationally, a federal data privacy law like they do in the E.U. and stuff. And so it’s difficult to go and hone in on just health care when we don’t have a baseline for just, broadly … We have different things happening in different states. And that’s kind of made it more difficult to get done when you have different baselines that not everyone wants to come and follow the model that we have in California or some of the other states.

Rovner: But apparently Change Healthcare didn’t even have two-factor authentication, which I have on my social media accounts, that I’m still sort of processing that. All right, so let’s turn it over to you guys. Who has a question for my esteemed panel?

[Audience member]: Private equity and their impact on health care.

Rovner: Funny, one of those things that I had written down but didn’t ask.

Sanger-Katz: I think this is a really interesting issue because we have seen a big growth in the investment of private equity into health care, where we’re seeing private equity investors purchasing more hospitals, in particular, purchasing more doctors’ practices, nursing homes. You kind of see this investment across the health care sector, and we’re just starting to get evidence about what it means. There’s not a lot of transparency currently. It’s actually pretty hard to figure out what private equity has bought and who owns what.

And then we really don’t know. I would say there’s just starting to be a little bit of evidence about quality declines in hospitals that are owned by private equity. But it’s complicated, is what I would say. And I think in the case of medical practices, again, we just don’t have strong evidence about it. So I think policymakers, there are some who are just kind of ideologically opposed to the idea of these big investors getting involved in health care. But I think there are many who are… feel a little hands-off, where they don’t really want to just go after this particular industry until we have stronger evidence that they are in fact bad.

Rovner: Oh, there’ve been some pretty horrendous cases of private equity buying up hospital groups, selling off the underlying real estate. So now that the… now the hospital is paying rent, and then the hospitals are going under. I mean, we’ve now seen this.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, there’s… No, there’s… There have clearly been some examples of private equity investments in hospitals and in nursing homes that have led to really catastrophic results for those institutions and for patients at those places. But I think the broader question of whether private equity as a structure that owns health care entities is necessarily bad or good, I think that’s what we don’t know about.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, there’s an argument that you can have the efficiencies of scale, and that there may be, and that they can bring some business acumen to this. There are certainly reasons that it made sense when it started. The question is what the private equity is in it for.

Is it there to try to support the organization? Or is it there to do what a lot of private equity has done, which is just sort of take the parts, pull as much value as you can out of them, and discard the rest, which doesn’t work very well in the health care system.

Sanger-Katz: I also think one thing that’s very hard in this issue — and I think in others that relate to changes in the business structure of health care — is that it’s, like, by the time we really know, it’s almost too late. There’s all of this incredible scholarship looking at the effects of hospital consolidation, that it’s pretty bad that when you have too much hospital concentration; particularly in individual markets, that prices go up, that quality goes down. It’s really clear. But by the time that research was done so many markets were already highly consolidated that there wasn’t a way to go back.

And so I think there’s a risk for private equity investment of something similar happening that when and if we find out that it’s bad, they will have already rolled up so much of medical practice and changed the way that those practices are run that there’s not going to be a rewind button. On the other hand, maybe it will turn out to be OK, or maybe it will turn out to be OK in certain parts of the health care system and not in others. And so there is, I think, a risk of over-regulating in the absence of evidence that it’s a problem.

Raman: Yeah. And I would just echo one thing that you said earlier is that about the exploratory stages. Everything that I can rack my brain and think of that Congress has done on this has been very much like, “Let’s have a discussion. Let’s bring in experts,” rather than like really proposing a lot of new things to change it. I mean, we’ve had some discussion in the past of just changing laws about physician-owned practices and things like that, but it hasn’t really gone anywhere. And some of the proponents of that are also leaving Congress after this election.

Rovner: And, of course, a lot of this is regulated at the state level anyway, which is part of the difficulty.

Sanger-Katz: And there is more action at the state level. There are a bunch of states that have passed laws that are requiring more transparency and oversight of private equity acquisitions in health care. That seems to be happening faster at the state level than at the federal level.

Raman: And so many times, it trickles from the state level to the federal level anyway, too.

Rovner: Maybe the states can figure out what to do.

Sanger-Katz: Yes.

Rovner: More questions.

[Audience member]: Oh, yeah. I have a question about access to health care. It seems that for the past few years, maybe since covid, almost everybody you talked to says, “I can’t get an appointment with a doctor.” They call, and it’s like six months or three months. And I’m curious as to what you think is going on because … in this regard.

Raman: I would say part of it is definitely a workforce issue. We definitely have more and more people that have been leaving due to age or burnout from the pandemic or from other issues. We’ve had more antagonism against different types of providers that there’ve been a slew of reasons that people have been leaving while there’s been a greater need for different types of providers. And so I think that is just part of it.

Rovner: I feel like some of this is the frog in the pot of water. This has been coming for a long time. There have been markets where people have… people unable to get in to see specialists. You break your leg, and they say, “We can see you in November.” And I’m not kidding. I mean, that’s literally what happens. And now we’re seeing it more with primary care.

I mean that the shortages that used to be in what we called underserved areas, that more and more of the country is becoming underserved. And I think because we don’t have a system. Because we’re all sort of looking at these distinct pieces, I think the health care workforce issue is going kind of under the radar when it very much shouldn’t be.

Sanger-Katz: There’s also, I think, quite a lot of regional variation in this problem. So I think there are some places where there’s really no problem at all and certain specialties where there’s no problem at all. And then there are other places where there really are not enough providers to go around. And rural areas have long had a problem attracting and retaining a strong health care workforce across the specialties.

And I think in certain urban areas, in certain neighborhoods, you see these problems, too. But I would say it’s probably not universal. You may be talking to a lot of people in one area or in a couple of areas who are having this problem. But, as Julie said, I think it is a problem. It’s a problem that we need to pay attention to. But I think it’s not a problem absolutely everywhere in the country right now.

Rovner: It is something that Congress… Part of this problem is because Congress, in 1997, when they did the Balanced Budget Act, wanted to do something about Medicare and graduate medical education. Meaning why is Medicare paying for all of the graduate medical education in the United States, which it basically was at that point? And so they put in a placeholder. They capped the number of residences, and they said, “We’re going to come back, and we’re going to put together an all-payer system next year.”

That’s literally what they said in 1997. It’s now 27 years later, and they never did it, and they never raised the cap on residencies. So now we’ve got all these new medical schools, which we definitely need, and we have all of these bright, young graduating M.D.s, and they don’t have residencies to go to because there are more graduating medical school seniors than there are residency slots. So that’s something we’re… that just has not come up really in the past 10 years or so. But that’s something that can only be fixed by Congress.

Raman: And I think even with addressing anything in that bubble we’ve had more difficulty of late when we were… as they were looking at the pediatric residency slots, that whole discussion got derailed over a back-and-forth between members of Congress over gender-affirming care.

And so we’re back again to some of these issues that things that have been easier to do in the past are suddenly much more difficult. And then some of these things are felt down the line, even if we are able to get so many more slots this year. I mean, it’s going to… it takes a while to broaden that pipeline, especially with these various specialized careers.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re on a trajectory for this to get worse before it gets better. There’s a question over here.

[Audience member]: Hi. Thanks so much. I feel like everybody’s talking about mental health in some way or another. And I’m curious, it doesn’t seem to be coming at the forefront in any of the election spaces. I’m curious for your thoughts.

Raman: I think it has come up some, but not as much as maybe in the past. It has been something that Biden has messaged on a lot. Whenever he does his State of the Union, mental health and substance use are always part of his bipartisan plan that he wants to get done with both sides. I think that there has been less of it more recently that I’ve seen that them campaigning on. I mean, we’ve done a little bit when it’s combined with something like gun violence or things like that where it’s tangentially mentioned.

But front and center, it hasn’t come up as much as it has in the past, at least from the top. I think it’s still definitely a huge issue from people from the administration. I mean, we hear from the surgeon general like time and time again, really focusing on youth mental health and social media and some of the things that he’s worried about there. But on the top-line level, I don’t know that it has come up as much there. It is definitely talked about a lot in Congress. But again, it’s one of those things where they bring things up, and it doesn’t always get all the way done, or it’s done piecemeal, and so …

Rovner: Or it gets hung up on a wedge issue.

Raman: Yep.

Sanger-Katz: Although I do think this is an issue where actually there is a fair amount of bipartisan agreement. And for that reason, there actually has been a fair amount of legislation that has passed in the last few cycles. I think it just doesn’t get the same amount of attention because there isn’t this hot fight over it. So you don’t see candidates running on it, or you don’t see people that…

There’s this political science theory called the Invisible Congress, which is that sometimes, actually, you want to have issues that people are not paying attention to because if they’re not as controversial, if they’re not as prominent in the political discourse, you can actually get more done. And infrastructure, I think, is a kind of classic example of that, of something like it’s not that controversial. Everybody wants something in their district. And so we see bipartisan cooperation; we got an infrastructure bill.

And mental health is kind of like that. We got some mental health investments that were part of the pandemic relief packages. There was some mental health investment that was part of the IRA, I believe, and there was a pretty big chunk of mental health legislation and funding that passed as part of the gun bill.

So I do think there’s, of course, more to do it as a huge problem. And I think there are probably more creative solutions even than the things that Congress has done. But I think just because you’re not seeing it in the election space doesn’t mean that there’s not policymaking that’s happening. I think there has been a fair amount.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny. This Congress has been sort of remarkably productive considering how dysfunctional it has been in public. But underneath, there actually has been a lot of lawmaking that’s gone on, bipartisan lawmaking. I mean, by definition, because the House is controlled by Republicans and the Senate by Democrats. And I think mental health is one of those issues that there is a lot of bipartisan cooperation on.

But I think there’s also a limit to what the federal government can do. I mean, there’s things that Congress could fix, like residency slots, but mental health is one of those things where they have to just sort of feed money into programs that happen. I think at the state and local level, there’s no federal… Well, there is a federal mental health program, but they’re overseeing grants and whatnot. I think we have time for maybe one more question.

[Audience member]: Hi. To your point of a lot of change happens at the regulatory level. In Medicaid one of the big avenues for that is 1115 waivers. And let’s take aside block granting or anything else for a minute. There’s been big bipartisan progress on, including social care and whole-person care models. This is not just a blue state issue. What might we expect from a Trump administration in terms of the direction of 1115s, which will have a huge effect on the kind of opportunity space in states for Medicaid? And maybe that we don’t know yet, but I’m curious. Maybe that 900-page document says something.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, I think that’s an example of we don’t know yet because I think the personnel will really matter. From everything that I know about President Trump, I do not think that the details of Medicaid 1115 waiver policy are something that he gets up in the morning and thinks about or really cares that much about. And so I think …

Rovner: I’m not sure it’s even in Project 2025, is it?

Sanger-Katz: I think work requirements are, so that was something that they tried to do the last time. I think it’s possible that we would see those come back. But I think a lot really depends on who is in charge of CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and Medicaid in the next Trump administration and what are their interests and commitments and what they’re going to say yes and no to from the states. And I don’t know who’s on the shortlist for those jobs, frankly. So I would just put that in a giant question-mark bin — with the possible exception of work requirements, which I think maybe we could see a second go at those.

Raman: I would also just point to his last few months in office when there were a lot of things that could have been changed had he been reelected; where they wanted to change Medicaid drug pricing. And then we had some things with block grants and various things that had we had a second Trump presidency we could have seen some of those waivers come to a fruition. So I could definitely see a push for more flexibility in asking states to come up with something new that could fall for under one of those umbrellas.

Rovner: Well, I know you guys have more questions, but we are out of time. If you enjoyed the podcast tonight, I hope you will subscribe. Listen to “What the Health?” every week. You can get it wherever you get your podcast. So good night and enjoy the rest of the festival. Thanks.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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 unanimous Supreme Court turned back a challenge to the FDA’s approval and rules for the abortion pill mifepristone, finding that the anti-abortion doctor group that sued lacked standing to do so. But abortion foes have other ways they intend to curtail availability of the pill, which is commonly used in medication abortions, which now make up nearly two-thirds of abortions in the U.S.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is proposing regulations that would bar credit agencies from including medical debt on individual credit reports. And former President Donald Trump, signaling that drug prices remain a potent campaign issue, attempts to take credit for the $35-a-month cap on insulin for Medicare beneficiaries — which was backed and signed into law by Biden.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News, and Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

@emmarieDC

Read Emmarie's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• All nine Supreme Court justices on June 13 rejected a challenge to the abortion pill mifepristone, ruling the plaintiffs did not have standing to sue. But that may not be the last word: The decision leaves open the possibility that different plaintiffs — including three states already part of the case — could raise a similar challenge in the future, and that the court could then vote to block access to the pill.
• As the presidential race heats up, President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump are angling for health care voters. The Biden administration this week proposed eliminating all medical debt from Americans’ credit scores, which would expand on the previous, voluntary move by the major credit agencies to erase from credit reports medical bills under $500. Meanwhile, Trump continues to court vaccine skeptics and wrongly claimed credit for Medicare’s $35 monthly cap on insulin — enacted under a law backed and signed by Biden.
• Problems are compounding at the pharmacy counter. Pharmacists and drugmakers are reporting the highest numbers of drug shortages in more than 20 years. And independent pharmacists in particular say they are struggling to keep drugs on the shelves, pointing to a recent Biden administration policy change that reduces costs for seniors — but also cash flow for pharmacies.
• And the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation’s largest branch of Protestantism, voted this week to restrict the use of in vitro fertilization. As evidenced by recent flip-flopping stances on abortion, Republican candidates are feeling pressed to satisfy a wide range of perspectives within even their own party.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF president and CEO Drew Altman about KFF’s new “Health Policy 101” primer. You can learn more about it here.

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

Julie Rovner: HuffPost’s “How America’s Mental Health Crisis Became This Family’s Worst Nightmare,” by Jonathan Cohn.

Anna Edney: Stat News’ “Four Tops Singer’s Lawsuit Says He Visited ER for Chest Pain, Ended Up in Straitjacket,” by Tara Bannow.

Rachana Pradhan: The New York Times’ “Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts,” by Emily Schmall and Sapna Maheshwari.

Emmarie Huetteman: CBS News’ “As FDA Urges Crackdown on Bird Flu in Raw Milk, Some States Say Their Hands Are Tied,” by Alexander Tin.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Bloomberg News’ “Dozens of CVS Generic Drug Recalls Expose Link to Tainted Factories,” by Anna Edney and Peter Robison.
• KFF Health News’ “Biden Plan To Save Medicare Patients Money on Drugs Risks Empty Shelves, Pharmacists Say,” by Susan Jaffe.
• KFF Health News’ “More States Legalize Sales of Unpasteurized Milk, Despite Public Health Warnings,” by Tony Leys.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: SCOTUS Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge — For Now

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘SCOTUS Rejects Abortion Pill Challenge — For Now’Episode Number: 351Published: June 13, 2024

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 13, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Rachana Pradhan: Hello.

Rovner: And Emmarie Huetteman, also of KFF Health News.

Emmarie Huetteman: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF President and CEO Drew Altman, who I honestly can’t believe hasn’t been on the podcast before. He is here to talk about “Health Policy 101,” which is KFF’s all-new, all-in-one introductory guide to health policy. But first, this week’s news.

So, as we tape, we have breaking news from the Supreme Court about that case challenging the abortion pill mifepristone. And you know how we always say you can’t predict what the court is going to do by listening to the oral arguments? Well, occasionally you can, and this was one of those times the court watchers were correct. The justices ruled unanimously that the anti-abortion doctors who brought the suit against the pill lack standing to sue. So the suit has been dismissed, wrote Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh, who wrote the unanimous opinion for the court: “A plaintiff’s desire to make a drug less available for others does not establish standing to sue.” So, might anybody have standing? Have we not maybe heard the end of this case?

Edney: Yeah, I think certainly there could be someone else who could decide to do that. I mean, just quickly looking around when this came out, it seems like maybe state AGs [attorneys general] could take this up, so it doesn’t seem like it’s the last of it. I also quickly saw a statement from Sen. [Bill] Cassidy, a Republican, who mentioned this wasn’t a ruling on the merits exactly of the case, but just that these doctors don’t have standing. So it does seem like there would be efforts to bring it back.

Rovner: This is not going to be the last challenge to the abortion pill.

Edney: Yeah.

Pradhan: Just looking in my inbox this morning after the decision, I mean it’s clear the anti-abortion groups are really not done yet. So I think there’s going to be a lot of pressure, of course, from them. It is an election year, so they’re trying to get, notch wins as far as races go, but also to get various AGs to keep going on this.

Rovner: And if you listen to last week’s podcast, there are three AGs who are already part of this case, so they may take it back with the district court judge in Texas. We shall see. Anyway, more Supreme Court decisions to come.

But moving on to campaign 2024 because, and this seems impossible, the first presidential debate is just two weeks away.President [Joe] Biden is still struggling to convince the public that he’s doing things that they support. Along those lines, this week the administration proposed rules that would ban medical debt from being included in calculating people’s credit scores. I thought that had happened already. What would this do that hasn’t already been done?

Huetteman: Well, last year the big credit agencies volunteered to cut medical debt that’s below $500 from people’s credit reports. Of course, there’s a lot of evidence that shows that that’s not really the way that people get hurt with their credit scores, they get hurt when they have big medical bills. So this addresses a major concern that a lot of Americans have with paying for health care in the United States.

I oversee our “Bill of the Month” project with NPR and I can say that a lot of Americans will pay their medical bills without question, even for fear of harm to their credit score, even if they think that their bill might be wrong. Also, it’s worth noting also that researchers have found that medical debt does not accurately predict whether an individual is credit-worthy, actually, which is unlike other kinds of debt that you’d find on credit scores.

Rovner: So yeah, not paying your car payment suggests what you might or might not be able to do with a mortgage or a credit card. But not paying your surprise medical bill, maybe not so much?

Huetteman: Yes, exactly. Really, we can all end up in the emergency room with a big bill. You don’t get a big bill just because you have trouble meeting your credit card bills or you have trouble meeting your car payments, for example.

Rovner: We’ll see if this one resonates with the public because a lot of the things that the administration has done have not. Meanwhile, President [Donald] Trump, who presided over one of the most rapid and successful vaccine development projects ever, for the covid vaccine, now seems to be moving more firmly into the anti-vax camp, and it’s not just apparently anti-covid vaccine. Trump said at a rally last month that he would strip federal funding from schools with vaccine mandates — any vaccines apparently, like measles and mumps and polio — and he says he would do it by executive order. No legislation required. This feels like it could have some pretty major consequences if he followed through on this. Anna, I see you nodding. You have a toddler.

Edney: Right, right. I was just thinking about that going into kindergarten, what that could mean, and there’s just so many … I mean, even kids don’t have to get chickenpox nowadays. That seems like a really great thing. I don’t know. I mean, I had chickenpox. I think that it could take us backwards, obviously, into a time that we’re seeing pockets of as measles crops up in certain places and things like that. I’d be curious. What I don’t know is how much federal funding supports a lot of these schools. I know there’s state funding, county funding, how much that’s actually taking away if it would change the minds of certain ones. But I guess if you’re in maybe a state that doesn’t like vaccines in the first place, it’s a free-for-all to go ahead and do that.

Pradhan: One of the questions I have, too, is through the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] we have the Vaccines for Children Program, which provides free immunizations to children for a lot of these infectious diseases, for children who are either uninsured or underinsured or low-income. And so that’s been a really long-standing program and I’m very curious as to whether they would try to maybe reduce or eliminate a bunch of the vaccines that are provided through that, which obviously could affect a significant number of children nationwide.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s funny, the anti-vax movement has been around for, I don’t know, 20, 25 years; whenever that Lancet piece that later got rescinded came out that connected vaccines to autism. It seems it’s getting a boost and, yes, that’s an intended pun right now. I guess covid, and the doubts about covid, is pushing onto these other vaccines, too.

Edney: I think that we’ve certainly seen that. Before covid, at least my understanding of a lot of the concerns around the behavioral issues and autism linked to vaccines or things like that was more of the left-wing, maybe crunchier people who were seeing it as not wanting to put, in their words, poison in their bodies. But now we’re seeing this also right-wing opposition to it, and I think that’s certainly linked to covid. Any mandate at this point from the government is pushed back against more so than before.

Rovner: Well, we have lots of news this week on drugs and drug prices. Anna, you have quite the story about how trying to save money by buying generic might not always be the best move? As I describe it: the scary story of the week. Tell us about it.

Edney: Yes. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, I did this data dive looking into store-brand medication. So when you go into CVS or Walgreens, for example, you can see the Tylenol brand name there, but next to it you’ve got one that looks a lot like it, but it’s got CVS Health or Walgreens on the name and it costs usually a few dollars less. What I found is that of those store brands, CVS has a lot more recalls than the rest, even though they’re selling these same store-brand drugs. So they have two to three times more recalls than Walgreens and Walmart. And what’s happening is they are more often going to shady contract manufacturers to make their generic products that they’re selling over the counter. I found one that was making kids’ medication with contaminated water. And then the really disturbing one that was nasal sprays for babies on the same machines that this company was using to make pesticides. And just wrote about a whole litany of these kinds of companies that CVS is hiring at a higher rate than the other two — Walgreens and Walmart — that I was able to do the data dive on.

And interestingly, these store brands have a loophole, so they’re not responsible for the quality of those medications, even though their name’s on it. They can just walk away and say, “Well, we put it on the shelves. We agree with that, but it’s up to these companies that are making it to verify the quality.” And so, that’s usually not how this works. Even if there’s contract manufacturers, which a lot of drugmakers use, they usually have to also verify the quality. But store brands are considered just distributors, and so there’s this separation of who even owns the responsibility for this drug.

Pradhan: Yeah, I think a collective reaction reading this. I know, how many people did I text your story to Anna, saying, “Yikes! … FYI.”

Rovner: So on the one hand, you get what you pay for. On the other hand, price is not the only problem that we find with drugs. A new study from the University of Utah Drug Information Service just found that pharmacists are reporting the largest number of drugs in shortage since the turn of the century. And my colleague Susan Jaffe has a story on how some shortages are being exacerbated at the pharmacy level by a new Medicare rule that was intended to lower prices for patients at the counter.

Anna, how close are we to the point where the drug distribution system is just going to collapse in on itself? It does not seem to be working very well.

Edney: Yeah, it does feel that way because I always think of that example of the long balloon and when you squeeze it at one end the other end gets bigger. Because when you’re trying to help patients at the counter, somebody’s taking that hit, that money isn’t just appearing out of thin air in their pockets. So the pharmacists are saying — and particularly smaller pharmacies, but also some of the bigger ones — are saying the way that these drugs are now being reimbursed, how that’s working under this new effort, is they don’t have as much cash on hand, so they’re having trouble getting these big brand-name drugs. It was a really interesting story that Susan wrote. Just shows that you can’t fix one end of it, you need to fix the whole thing somehow. I don’t know how you do that.

And shortages are another issue just of other kinds, whether it’s quality issues or whether it’s the demand is growing for a lot of these drugs, and depending even on the time of year. So I think we’re all seeing it just appear to be disintegrating and hoping that there’s just no tragedy or big disaster where we really need to rely on it.

Rovner: Yeah, like, you know, another pandemic.

Edney: Exactly.

Rovner: There’s also some good news on the drug front. An FDA [Food and Drug Administration] advisory committee this week recommended approval for yet another potential Alzheimer’s drug, donanemab, I think I’m pronouncing that right. I guess we’ll learn more as we go on. The drug appears to have better evidence that it actually slows the progression of the disease without the risks of Aduhelm, the controversial drug approved by the FDA that’s been discontinued by its manufacturer. This would be the second promising drug to be approved following Leqembi last year. When we first started talking about Aduhelm — what was that, two years ago — we talked about how it could break Medicare financially because so many people would be eligible for such an expensive drug. So now we’re looking at maybe having two drugs like this and I don’t hear people talking about the potential costs anymore.

Is there a reason why or are we just worried about other things?

Edney: Well, I think there’s a benefit that they seem to have proven more than Aduhelm. But there’s also still a risk of brain swelling and bleeding, and that I’m sure would factor into someone’s decision of whether they want to try this. So maybe people aren’t exactly flocking in the same way to want to get these drugs. As they’re used more, maybe that changes and we see more of “Can you spot the swelling? Can you stop it?” And things like that. But I think that there just seems to be a lot of questions around them. Also, Aduhelm was the biggest one, which obviously Medicare didn’t cover, and then they’re not even trying to sell anymore. But I think that there’s just always questions about how they’re tested, how much benefit really there is. Is a few months worth that risk that you could have a major brain issue?

Rovner: While we are on the subject of drugs and drug prices, we have “This Week in Misinformation” from former President Trump, who as we all know, likes to take credit for things that are not his and deflect blame from things that are. Now in a post on his Truth Social platform, he says that he is the one who lowered insulin copayments to $35 a month, and that President Biden “had nothing to do with it.” Yes, the Trump administration did offer a voluntary $35 copayment program for Medicare Part D plans, but it was limited. It was time-limited and not all the plans adopted it. President Biden actually didn’t do the $35 copay either, but he did propose and sign the law that Congress passed that did it. It was part of the Inflation Reduction Act. Ironically, President Biden didn’t get all he wanted either. The intent was to limit insulin copayments for all patients, but so far, it’s only for those on Medicare. I would guess that Trump is saying this to try to neutralize one of the few issues that maybe is getting through to the public about something that President Biden did.

Pradhan: Well, I mean, I think even during President Trump’s first term, I mean lowering drug prices, he made it very clear that that was something that was important to him. He certainly wasn’t following the traditional or older Republican Party’s friendliness to the pharmaceutical industry. I mean, he was openly antagonizing them a lot, and so it’s certainly something that I think he understands resonates with people. And it’s a pocketbook issue similar to what’s going on on medical debt that we talked about earlier, right? These new regulations that are being proposed — they may not be finalized, we’ll have to see about that because of the timing — but these are things that are, I think at the end of the day, of course, are very relatable to people. Unlike, perhaps, abortion is a big campaign issue, but it’s not necessarily going to resonate with people in the same way and certainly not potentially men and women in the same way. But I think that there’s much more broad-based understanding of having to pay a lot for medications and potentially not being able to afford it. Obviously, insulin is probably the best poster child for a lot of reasons for that. So no surprise he wants to take credit for it, and also perhaps that it’s not really what happened, so …

Rovner: If nothing else, I think it signals that drug prices are still going to be a big issue in this campaign.

Pradhan: For sure. And I mean Joe Biden has made it very clear. I mean the Inflation Reduction Act of course included other measures to lower people’s out-of-pocket costs for drugs, which he’s very eagerly touting on the trail right now to shore up support.

Rovner: Let’s move on from drugs to abortion via the FDA spending bill on Capitol Hill this week. The annual appropriations bills are starting to move in House committees, which is notable itself because this is when they are supposed to start moving if they’re going to get done by Oct. 1, the start of the next fiscal year. We haven’t seen that in a long time. So last year Republicans got hung up because they wanted their leaders to attach all manner of policy riders to the spending bills, most of them aimed at abortion, which can’t get through the Senate. Well in a big shift, Republicans appear to be backing off of that, and the current version of the bill that funds the Department of Agriculture, as well as the FDA, does not include language trying to ban or further restrict the abortion pill mifepristone. Of course, that could still change, but my impression is that the new [House] Appropriations chairman, [Rep.] Tom Cole, who’s very much a pragmatist, wants to get his bills signed into law.

Pradhan: I do wonder, though, if because of the Supreme Court decision that just came out today, whether that will change the calculation, or at the very least, the pressure that he is under to include something in the FDA bill. But as you know, there’s plenty of time for abortion riders to make it in or out. I feel like this is, it’s like Groundhog Day. Usually something related to abortion policy will upend various pieces of legislation. So I’ll be curious to be on the lookout for that, whether it changes anything.

Rovner: Anna, were you surprised that they left it out, at least at the start?

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re just what we’ve seen with all of the rancor around abortion and abortion-related issues, I guess a little surprised. But also maybe it makes sense in just the sense that there are Republicans who are struggling with that issue and don’t want to have to keep talking about it or voting on it in the same way.

Rovner: Well, that leads right to my next subject, which is that the Senate is voting this afternoon, after we tape, on a bill that would guarantee access to IVF. Republicans are expected to block it as they did last week on the bill to guarantee access to contraception. But as of Wednesday, it’s going to be harder for Republicans to say they’re voting against the bill because no one is threatening to block IVF. That’s because the influential Southern Baptist Convention, one of the nation’s largest evangelical groups, voted, if not to ban IVF, at least to restrict the number of embryos that can be created and ban their destruction, which doctors say would make the treatments more expensive and less successful. It sounds like the rift among conservatives over contraception and IVF is a long way from getting settled here.

Huetteman: That certainly seems to be true. It’s also worth noting that there are a lot of influential members of Congress who are Baptist, of course, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. And I was refreshing my memory of the religious background of the current Congress with a Pew report: They say 67 members of this Congress are Baptist. Of course, Southern Baptist is the largest piece of that. And 148 are Catholic, which of course is another denomination that opposes IVF as well. So that’s a pretty big constituency that has their churches telling them that they oppose IVF and should, too.

Rovner: Yeah, everybody says they’re not coming for contraception, they’re not coming for IVF. I think we’re going to see a very spirited and continued debate over both of those things.

Well, speaking of the rift over reproductive health, former President Trump is struggling to please both sides and not really succeeding at it. He made a video address last week to the evangelical group, The Danbury Institute, which is a conservative subset of the aforementioned Southern Baptist Convention, in which former President Trump didn’t use the word abortion and skirted the issue. That prompted some grumbling from some of the attendees, reported Politico. Even as Democrats called him an anti-abortion radical for even speaking to the group, which has labeled abortion “child sacrifice.”

So far, Trump has gotten away with telling audiences what they want to hear, even if he contradicts himself regularly. But I feel like abortion is maybe the one issue where that’s not going to work.

Pradhan: Well, I think the struggle really is even if people are more forgiving of him saying different things, it puts a lot of down-ballot candidates in a really difficult position. And I know, Julie, you’d wanted to talk about this, but Republican candidates for U.S. Senate, I mean just how they have to thread the needle, and I don’t know that voters will be as forgiving about changes in their position. So I think they say it’s like, it’s not just about you. It’s like when two people get married, they’re like, “It’s not just about the two of you. It’s like your whole family.” This is like the family is your party and everyone down-ballot who has to now figure out what the best message is, and as we’ve seen, they’ve really struggled with “We’ve shifted now from being many candidates and Republican officeholders supporting basically near-total abortion bans, if not very early gestational limits, to the 15-week ban being a consensus position.” And now saying, well, Trump’s saying he’s not going to sign a national abortion ban, so let’s leave it to the states. I mean, it keeps changing, and I think obviously underscores the difficulty that they’re all having with this. So I don’t think it helps for him to be saying inconsistent things all the time because then these other candidates for office really struggle, I think, with explaining their positions also.

Rovner: So as I say every week, I’ve been covering abortion for a very long time, and before Roe [v. Wade] was overturned the general political rule is you could change positions on abortion once. If you were anti-abortion you could become pro-choice, and we’ve seen that among a lot of Democrats, Sen. [Bob] Casey in Pennsylvania, sort of a notable example. And if you supported abortion rights, you could become anti-abortion, which Trump kind of did when he was running the first time. Others have also as, there are … and again we’re seeing this more among Republicans, but not exclusively.

But people who try to change back usually get hammered. And as I say, Trump has violated every political rule about everything. So not counting him, I’m wondering about, as you say, Rachana, some of these Senate candidates, some of these down-ballot candidates who are struggling to really rationalize their current positions with maybe what they’d said before is something I think that bears watching over the next couple of months.

Huetteman: Absolutely. And we’re seeing candidates who will change their tone within weeks of saying something or practically days at this point. They’re really banking on our attention being pretty low as a public.

Rovner: Yeah. Although they may be right about that part.

Pradhan: Yeah, that’s true. And there’s a lot of time between now and November, but I think even the … just all the things, even this week of course, between now and November is an eternity. But we just talked about the Southern Baptist Convention stance on IVF. Of course, usually when these things happen, it prompts a lot of questions to lawmakers about whether they support that decision or not, whether they agree with it. And I think these court decisions … the Supreme Court, of course, will be out by the end of June, and so right now it might be fresh on people’s minds. But it’s hard to know whether September or October is the dominant or very prominent campaign issue in the same way.

Rovner: At the same time, we have a long way to go and a short way to go, so we will actually all be watching.

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

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Drew Altman, president and CEO of KFF, and of course my boss. But lest you think that this is going to be a suck-up interview, you will see in a moment it’s also a shameless self-promotion interview. Drew, thank you so much for joining us.

Drew Altman: It’s great to be on “What the Health?” Thank you.

Rovner: I asked you here to talk about KFF’s new “Health Policy 101” project which launched last month, as a resource to help teach the basics of health policy. I know this is something you’ve been thinking about for a while. Tell us what the idea was and who’s the target audience here.

Altman: Well, since the Bronze Era, when I started KFF, faculty and students found their way to our stuff and they found it useful. It might’ve been a fact sheet about Medicaid or a policy brief about Medicare or a bunch of charts that we produced. But they’ve had to hunt and peck to find what they wanted and someone would find something on Medicaid or Medicare or the ACA [Affordable Care Act] or health care costs or women’s health policy or international comparisons or whatever it was. And for a very long time, I have wanted to organize our material about health policy for their world so that it was easy to find. It was one stop, and you could find all the basic materials that you wanted on the core stuff about health policy as a service to faculty and students interested in health policy because we don’t just analyze it and poll about it and report on it. We have a deep commitment. We really care about health policy and health policy education.

Rovner: You said those are the main topics covered. I assume that other topics could be added in the future? I mean, I could see a chapter on AI and health care.

Altman: Yes, and we’re starting with an introduction for me. There’s a chapter by Larry Levitt about challenges ahead. There’s a chapter by somebody named Julie Rovner on Congress and the agencies, who also wrote a book about all of that stuff, which is still available, folks.

Rovner: It desperately needs updating. So I’m pleased to be contributing to this.

Altman: But this is just the first year. And there were 13 chapters on the issues that I ticked off a moment ago and many more issues. And we’re starting the process of adding chapters. So the next chapter will probably be on LGBTQ issues, and then, though it’s not exactly the same thing as health policy, by popular demand, we will have a chapter on the basics of public health and what is the public health system, and spending on public health.

And I will admit, some of this also has origins in my own personal experience because before I was in government or in the nonprofit world or started and ran KFF, I was an academic at MIT [Massachusetts Institute of Technology] and I was fine when it came to big thoughts. And there I was and I’d written a book about health cost regulation. But what I didn’t know much about was how stuff really worked and the basics. And if I really needed to understand what was happening with regulation of private health insurance or the Medicaid program or the Medicare program, I didn’t really have any place to go to get basic information about the history of the program, or the details of the program, or a few charts that would give me the facts that I needed, or what are the current challenges. And when it really sunk in was when I left MIT and I went to work in what is now CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and then was called the HCFA [Health Care Financing Administration], and boy on the first day did I realize what I did not know. It was only when I entered the real world of health policy that I understood how much I had to learn. So I wanted to bridge the two worlds a little bit by making available this basic “Health Policy 101.”

Rovner: I confess, I’m a little bit jealous that this hadn’t existed when I started to learn health policy because, like you, I had to ferret it all out, although thankfully KFF was there through most of it and I was able to find most of it along the way.

Altman: Exactly, and I think there’ll be other audiences for this because if you’re working on the Hill — but you don’t work full time on health — if you’re working in an association, if you’re working anywhere in the health care system, there’s lots of times when you really just need to understand. I just read about an 1115 waiver. What is that? Or what really is the difference between traditional Medicare and the Medicare Advantage plan? How is it that you get your drugs covered in the Medicare program? It seems to be lots of different ways. And just I’m confused. How does this actually work?

I’ll admit to you, also, I personally have an ulterior motive in all of this. And my ulterior motive is that it is my feeling now, and this has been a slowly creeping problem, that there isn’t enough what I would call health policy in health policy education. So that over time it has become more about what is fashionable now, which is delivery and quality and value.

And I won’t name names, but I spent a couple of days advising a health policy center at a renowned medical school about their curriculum in what they called health policy. And the draft of it had nothing in it that I recognized as health policy. Some of this is understandable. It’s because if you’re faculty with a disciplinary base — economics, political science, sociology, whatever — there’s no reason you would know a lot about what we recognize as the core of health policy. There has been a serious decline in faith in government, in young people taking jobs in certainly the federal government, but a little bit in state government as well. So the jobs now are all in the health care industry, they’re in tech, they’re in consulting firms. And so I think there’s just less of an incentive to learn a lot about Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, the federal agencies, because you’re not going to go work in the federal agencies, at least as frequently as students did in my time. And so just to be blunt about it, I am, in my mind, trying to get more health policy back into health policy education.

Rovner: Well, as you know, I endorse that fully because that’s what we’re trying to do, too. One more question since I have you. I’ve been thinking about this a lot. When I started covering health policy shortly after you left HCFA, the big issue was people without insurance. And then throughout the early 2000s the big issue was spiraling costs. I feel like now the big issue is people who simply cannot navigate the system. The system has become so byzantine and complicated that, well, now there’s a “South Park” about it. I mean, it’s really to get even minor things dealt with is a major undertaking. I mean, what do you see as the biggest issue in policy for the next five or 10 years?

Altman: Well, I think the big issue for health care people used to be access to care. Now only about 8% of the population is uninsured. The big issue now is affordability, in my mind, and the struggles Americans are having paying their health care bills. It is an especially acute problem, virtually a crisis, for people with severe illnesses or people who are chronically ill. Fifty[%], 60% of those people really struggle to pay their medical bills. The crisis or the problem that isn’t discussed enough — because it isn’t a single problem it rears its head in so many ways — is the one you’re talking about: that is the complexity of the health care system. Just the sheer complexity of it; how difficult it is to navigate and to use for people who have insurance or don’t have insurance. Larry Levitt and I wrote a piece in JAMA about this, and we, all of us at KFF, are trying to focus more attention on that problem. Need to do more work on that problem and the many parts of it. It’s partly why we set up an entire program a couple of years ago on consumer and patient protection, where we intend to focus more on just this issue of the complexity of the system makes it hard to make it work for people. But especially for patients who are people who encounter the system because they need it.

Rovner: Well, we will both continue to try to keep explaining it as it keeps getting more byzantine. Drew Altman, thank you so much for joining us.

Altman: Thank you, Julie, very much.

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

Huetteman: Sure. My story comes from CBS [News]. The headline is “As FDA Urges Crackdown on Bird Flu in Raw Milk, Some States Say Their Hands Are Tied.” So the story says that there are three more states that have had their first reported cases of bird flu in the last month. And two of them don’t really have a way to conduct increased oversight of dairy cows and the industry that seems to be particularly having problems here. Wyoming and Iowa are those two states. Basically, these are states where raw milk is unregulated, so there’s no way for them to implement surveillance and restrictions on raw milk that might protect people from the fact that pasteurization appears to kill bird flu. But you don’t have pasteurization with raw milk, of course, that’s the definition.

Actually, this leads me to an extra, extra credit. KFF Health News’ Tony Leys wrote about the raw milk change in Iowa last year, and he was reporting on how Iowa only just changed their law, allowing legal sales of raw milk. And his story, among other things, pointed out that pasteurization helped rein in many serious illnesses in the past, including tuberculosis, typhoid, and scarlet fever. So unfortunately, this is a public health issue that’s been going on for a century or more, and we’ve got a method to deal with this, but not if you’re drinking raw milk. So that’s my story this week.

Rovner: Now people are going to drink raw milk and not get childhood vaccines. We’ll see how that goes. Sorry. Anna, you go next.

Edney: Yeah, mine is from Stat and it’s “Four Tops Singer’s Lawsuit Says He Visited ER for Chest Pain, Ended Up in Straitjacket.” It’s really scary, and maybe not totally surprising, unfortunately, that this is how an older Black man was treated when he went to the hospital. But this is Alexander Morris, a member of the Motown group The Four Tops. These are in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame, The Four Tops, and he had chest pain and problems breathing and went to the hospital in Detroit and was immediately just assumed he was mentally ill, and he ended up quickly in a straitjacket. So he is suing this hospital. And I think he brought up in this article he’d seen people talk about driving while Black or walking while Black, and he essentially had become sick while Black. And he was able to prove he was a famous person and they took him out of the straitjacket. But how many other people haven’t had that ability, and just been assumed, because of the color of their skin, to not be having a serious health issue? So I think it’s worth a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it was quite a story. Rachana.

Pradhan: This week, I will take a story from The New York Times that is headlined “Abortion Groups Say Tech Companies Suppress Posts and Accounts.” It is basically an examination of how TikTok, Instagram, and others, how they moderate/remove content about abortion. What’s interesting about this is, so this is being told from the perspective of individuals who support access to abortion services. And it recounts some examples of Instagram suspending one group, it was called Mayday Health, which provides information about abortion pill access. There’s a telemedicine abortion service called Hey Jane, where TikTok briefly suspended them. What I thought was really interesting about this is anti-abortion groups have said for longer, actually, that technology companies have suppressed or censored information about crisis pregnancy centers, for example, that designed to dissuade women from having abortions. But I think it’s concerns about, broadly speaking, just what the policies are of some of these social media companies and how they decide what information is acceptable or not. And it details these examples of, again, women who support abortion access or posting TikToks that maybe spell abortion phonetically. Like “tion” is, instead of T-I-O-N, it’s S-H-U-N. Or they’ll put a zero instead of an O, and so it doesn’t get flagged in the same way. So yeah, definitely an interesting read.

Rovner: The fraughtness of social media moderation on this issue and many others. Well, my extra credit this week is from my fellow Michigan fan and sometime podcast guest Jonathan Cohn of HuffPost, and it’s called “How America’s Mental Health Crisis Became This Family’s Worst Nightmare.” And it’s basically the story of the entire mental health system in the United States over the last century, as told through the eyes of one middle-class American family, about one patient whose trip through the system came to a tragic end. Even if you think you know about this country’s failure to adequately treat people with mental illness, even if you do know about this country’s failures on mental health, you really do need to read this story. It is that good.

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

Edney: @annaedney.

Rovner: Rachana?

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Emmarie?

Huetteman: I’m lurking on X @EmmarieDC.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed next week. Actually, we’ll be coming to you from Aspen next week. But until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Nursing Home Staffing Rules Prompt Pushback

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer, and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call to action. I’m Mila Atmos, and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast, Future Hindsight, we take big ideas about civic life and democracy and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 6, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Right.

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

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

Rovner: Right, which they have done all along.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: In many states.

Rovner: … right? …

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: … when they can intervene.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bram Sable-Smith: Thanks for having me.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Wild pigs, right?

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

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

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

Rovner: And how much was it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sable-Smith: Always a pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The national abortion landscape was shaken again this week as Florida’s six-week abortion ban took effect. That leaves North Carolina and Virginia as the lone Southern states where abortion remains widely available. Clinics in those states already were overflowing with patients from across the region.

Meanwhile, in a wide-ranging interview with Time magazine, former President Donald Trump took credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe v. Wade, but he steadfastly refused to say what he might do on the abortion issue if he is returned to office.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Florida’s new, six-week abortion ban is a big deal for the entire South, as the state had been an abortion haven for patients as other states cut access to the procedure. Some clinics in North Carolina and southern Virginia are considering expansions to their waiting and recovery rooms to accommodate patients who now must travel there for care. This also means, though, that those traveling patients could make waits even longer for local patients, including many who rely on the clinics for non-abortion services.
• Passage of a bill to repeal Arizona’s near-total abortion ban nonetheless leaves the state’s patients and providers with plenty of uncertainty — including whether the ban will temporarily take effect anyway. Plus, voters in Arizona, as well as those in Florida, will have an opportunity in November to weigh in on whether the procedure should be available in their state.
• The FDA’s decision that laboratory-developed tests must be subject to the same regulatory scrutiny as medical devices comes as the tests have become more prevalent — and as concerns have grown amid high-profile examples of problems occurring because they evaded federal review. (See: Theranos.) There’s a reasonable chance the FDA will be sued over whether it has the authority to make these changes without congressional action.
• Also, the Biden administration has quietly decided to shelve a potential ban on menthol cigarettes. The issue raised tensions over its links between health and criminal justice, and it ultimately appears to have run into electoral-year headwinds that prompted the administration to put it aside rather than risk alienating Black voters.
• In drug news, the Federal Trade Commission is challenging what it sees as “junk” patents that make it tougher for generics to come to market, and another court ruling delivers bad news for the pharmaceutical industry’s fight against Medicare drug negotiations.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “A Doctor at Cigna Said Her Bosses Pressured Her To Review Patients’ Cases Too Quickly. Cigna Threatened To Fire Her,” by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum, and David Armstrong, ProPublica.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “Dozens of Deaths Reveal Risks of Injecting Sedatives Into People Restrained by Police,” by Ryan J. Foley, Carla K. Johnson, and Shelby Lum.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Atlantic’s “America’s Infectious-Disease Barometer Is Off,” by Katherine J. Wu.

Rachana Pradhan: The Wall Street Journal’s “Millions of American Kids Are Caregivers Now: ‘The Hardest Part Is That I’m Only 17,” by Clare Ansberry.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Time’s “How Far Trump Would Go,” by Eric Cortellessa.
• NPR’s “Why Is a 6-Week Abortion Ban Nearly a Total Ban? It’s About How We Date a Pregnancy,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
• NPR’s “’Sicko’s’ Peeno Sees Few Gains in Health Insurance,” by Julie Rovner.
• CNN’s “Walmart Will Close All of Its Health Care Clinics,” by Nathaniel Meyersohn.

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Abortion Access Changing Again in Florida and Arizona

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

Mila Atmos: The future of America is in your hands. This is not a movie trailer, and it’s not a political ad, but it is a call-to-action. I’m Mila Atmos, and I’m passionate about unlocking the power of everyday citizens. On our podcast “Future Hindsight,” we take big ideas about civic life and democracy, and turn them into action items for you and me. Every Thursday, we talk to bold activists and civic innovators to help you understand your power and your power to change the status quo. Find us at futurehindsight.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 2, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Hello.

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news to make up for it, so we will dig right in. We will start, again, with abortion. On Wednesday, Florida’s six-week abortion ban took effect. Alice, what does this mean for people seeking abortions in Florida, and what’s the spillover to other states?

Ollstein: Yeah, this is a really huge deal not only because Florida is so populous, but because Florida, somewhat ironically given its leadership, has been a real abortion haven since Roe vs. Wade was overturned. A lot of its surrounding states had near-total bans go into effect right away. Florida has had a 15-week ban for a while, but that has still allowed for a lot of abortions to take place, and so a lot of people have been coming to Florida from Alabama, Louisiana, those surrounding states for abortions. Now, Florida’s six-week ban is taking effect and that means that a lot of the patients that had been going there will now need to go elsewhere, and a lot of Floridians will have to travel out of state.

And so there are concerns about whether the closest clinics they can get to, in North Carolina and southern Virginia, will have the capacity to handle that patient overload. I talked to some clinics that are trying to staff up. They’re even thinking about physical changes to their clinics, like building bigger waiting rooms and recovery rooms. This is going to cause a real crunch, in terms of health care provision. That is set to not only affect abortion, but with these clinics overwhelmed, that takes up appointments for people seeking other services as well. My colleagues and I have been talking to people in the sending states, like Alabama, who worry that the low-income patients they serve who were barely able to make it to Florida will not be able to make it even further. Then, we’ve talked to providers in the receiving states, like Virginia, who are worried that there just are simply not enough appointments to handle the tens of thousands of people who had been getting abortions in Florida up to this point.

Rovner: Of course, what ends up happening is that, if people have to wait longer, it pushes those abortions into later types of abortions, which are more complicated and more dangerous and more expensive.

Ollstein: Yes. While the rate of complication is low, the later in pregnancy you go, it does get higher. That’s another consideration as well.

I will flag, though, that restrictions on abortion pills in North Carolina, which is now one of the states set to receive a lot of people, those did get a little bit loosened by a court ruling this week so people will not have to have a mandatory in-person follow-up appointment for abortion pills like they used to have to have. That could help some patients who are traveling in from out of state, but a lot of restrictions remain, and it’ll be tough for a lot of folks to navigate.

Rovner: While we think of that, well there’s at least, you can get abortions up to six weeks, my friend Selena Simmons-Duffin over at NPR had a really good explainer about why six weeks isn’t really six weeks, because of the way that we measure pregnancy, that six weeks is really two weeks. It really is a very, very small window in which people will be able to get abortions in Florida. It’s not quite a full ban, but it is quite close to it.

Well, speaking of full bans, after several false starts, the Arizona Senate Wednesday voted to repeal the 1864 abortion ban that its Supreme Court ruled could take effect. The Democratic governor is expected to sign it. Where does that leave abortion law in the very swing state of Arizona? It’s kind of a muddle, isn’t it?

Ollstein: It is. The basics are that a 15-week ban is already in place and will continue to be in place once this repeal takes effect. What we don’t know is whether the total ban from before Arizona was even a state will take effect temporarily, because of the weird timing of the court’s implementation of that old ban, and the new repeal bill that just passed that the governor is expected to sign very soon. The total ban could go into effect, at least for a little bit over the summer. Planned Parenthood is positioning the court to not let that happen, to stay the implementation until the repeal bill can take effect. All of this is very much in flux. Of course, as we’ve seen in so many states, that leads to patients and providers just being very scared, and not knowing what’s legal and what’s not, and folks being unable to access care that may, in fact, be legal because of that. Of course, this is all in the context of Arizona, as well as Florida, being poised to vote directly on abortion access this fall. If the total ban does go into effect temporarily, it’s sure to pour fuel on that fire and really rile people up ahead of that vote.

Rovner: Yeah, I was going to mention that. Well, now that we’re talking about politics. This week, we heard a little bit more about how former President Trump wants to handle the abortion issue, via a long sit-down interview with Time magazine. I will link to that interview in the show notes. The biggest “news” he made was to suggest that he’d have an announcement soon about his views on the abortion pill. But he said that would come in the next two weeks, the interview was of course more than two weeks ago. They did a follow-up two weeks later and he still said it was coming. In the follow-up interview, he said it would be next week, which this has already passed. Do we really expect Trump to say something about this, or was that just him deflecting, as we know he is wont to do?

Pradhan: Well, I’m sure that he’s getting pressure to say something, because as people have noted now quite widely, regardless of individual state laws, there are certainly conservatives that are pushing for him and his future administration to ban the mailing of abortion pills using the Comstock Act from the 1800s, which would basically annihilate access to that form of terminating pregnancies.

Rovner: There are also some who want him to just repeal the FDA approval, right?

Ollstein: Right. Of course, the Biden administration has made it easier for folks to get access to those, to mifepristone, in particular, one of two pills that are used in medication abortion. But yeah, will it be two weeks? I think he obviously knows that this is a potential political liability for him, so whether he’ll say something, I’m sure he will get competing advice as to whether it’s a good idea to say something at all, so we’ll have to see.

Rovner: Well, speaking of Trump deflecting, he seemed to be pretty disciplined about the rest of the abortion questions — and there were a lot of abortion questions in that interview — insisting that, while he takes credit for appointing the justices who made the majority to overturn Roe, everything else is now up to the state. But by refusing to oppose some pretty-out-there suggestions of what states might do, Trump has now opened himself up to apparently accepting some fairly unpopular things, like tracking women’s menstrual periods. Lest you think that’s an overstatement, the Missouri state health director testified at a hearing last week that he kept a spreadsheet to track the periods of women who went to Planned Parenthood, which, according to The Kansas City Star, “helped to identify patients who had undergone failed abortions.” Yet, none of these things ever seem to stick to Trump. Is any of this going to matter in the long run? He’s clearly trying to walk this line between not angering his very anti-abortion base and not seeming to side too much with them, lest he anger a majority of the rest of the people he needs to vote for him.

Ollstein: Well, he’s also not been consistent in saying it’s totally up to states, whatever states want to do is fine. He’s repeatedly criticized Florida’s six-week ban. He refused to say how he would vote on the referendum to override it. He has criticized the Arizona ruling to implement the 1864 ban. This isn’t a pure “whatever states do is fine” stance, this is “whatever states do, unless it’s something really unpopular, in which case I oppose it.” That is a tough line to walk. The Biden administration and the Biden campaign have really seized on this and are trying to say, “OK, if you are going to have a leave-it-to-states stance, then we’re going to try to hang on you every single thing states do, whether it’s the legislature, or a court, or whatever, and say you own all of this.” That’s what’s playing out right now.

Rovner: I highly recommend reading the interview, because the interviewer was very skilled at trying to pin him down. He was pretty skilled at trying to evade being pinned down. Well, meanwhile, Republican attorneys general from 17 states are suing the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from including abortion in a list of conditions that employers can’t discriminate against and must provide accommodations for, under rules implementing the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act. The new rules don’t require anyone to pay for anything, but they could require employers to provide leave or other accommodations to people seeking pregnancy-related health care. The EEOC has included abortion as pregnancy-related health care. This is yet another case that we could see making its way to the Supreme Court. Ironically, the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act was a very bipartisan bill, so there are a lot of anti-abortion groups that are extremely angry that this has been included in the regulation. This is one of those abortion-adjacent issues that tends to drag abortion in, even when it was never expected to be there. And we’re going to see more of these. We’re going to get back into the spending bills, as Congress tries to muddle its way through another session.

Pradhan: I think, when I think about this, even though there’s a regulatory battle and a legal one now, too, like in the immediate aftermath of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, when there were employers, I think about it more practically. Which is that there were employers that were saying, “We would cover expenses.” Or they would pay for people to travel out of state if that was something that they needed. I wonder how many people would actually do it, even if it exists, because that’s a whole other … Getting an abortion, or even things related to pregnancy, are incredibly private things, so I don’t know how many women would be willing to stand up and say, “Hey, I need this accommodation and you have to give it to me under federal regulations.” In a way, I think it’s notable both that the EEOC put out those regulations and that there’s litigation over it, but I wonder if it, practically speaking, just how much of an impact it would really have, just because of those privacy and practical hurdles associated with divulging information in that regard.

Rovner: As we were just talking about, somebody in Alabama, the closest place they can go to get an abortion is in North Carolina or Virginia, and go, “Hey, I need three days off so I can drive halfway across the country to get an abortion because I can’t get one here.” I see that might be an awkward conversation.

Pradhan: Just like any sensitive medical- or health-related needs, it’s not like people are rushing to tell their employers necessarily that it’s something that they’re dealing with.

Rovner: That’s true. It doesn’t have anything to do with privacy. Most people are not anxious to advertise any health-related issues that they are having. Speaking of people and their sensitive medical information, that Change Healthcare hack that we’ve been talking about since February, well the CEO of Change’s owner, UnitedHealth Group, was on Capitol Hill on Wednesday, taking incoming from both the Senate Finance Committee in the morning, and the House Energy and Commerce Committee in the afternoon. Among the other things that Andrew Witty told lawmakers was that the portal that was hacked did not have multifactor authentication and he confirmed that United paid $22 million in bitcoin to the hackers, although as we discussed last week, they might not have paid the hackers who actually had possession of the information. Nobody actually seemed to follow up on that, which I found curious. My favorite moment in the Senate hearing was when North Carolina Republican Thom Tillis offered CEO Witty a copy of the book “Hacking For Dummies.” Is anything going to result from these hearings? Other than what it seemed a lot of lawmakers getting to express their frustration in person.

Pradhan: Can I just say how incredible it is to me that a company that their net worth is almost $450 billion, one of the largest companies in the world, apparently does not know how to enforce rules on two-factor authentication, which is something I think that is very routine and commonplace among the modern industrialized workforce.

Rovner: I have it for my Facebook account!

Pradhan: Right. I think everyone, even in our newsroom, knows how to do it or has been told that this is necessary for so many things. I just find it absolutely unbelievable that the CEO of United would go to senators and say this, and think that it would be well-received, which it was not.

Rovner: I will say his body language seemed to be very apologetic. He didn’t come in guns blazing. He definitely came in thinking that, “Oh, I’m going to get kicked around, and I’m just going to have to smile and take it.” But obviously, this is still a really serious thing and a lot of members of Congress, a lot of the senators and the House members, said they’re still hearing from providers who still can’t get their claims processed, and from people who can’t get their medications because pharmacies can’t process the claims. There’s a lot of dispute about how long it’s going to take to get things back up and running. One of the interesting tidbits that I took away is that, as much of health care that goes through Change, it’s like 40% of all claims, it’s actually a minimum part of United’s health claims. United doesn’t use Change for most of its claims, which surprised me. Which is maybe why United isn’t quite as freaked out about this as a lot of others are. Is there anything Congress is going to be able to do here, other than say to their constituents, “Hey, I took your complaints right to the CEO?”

Karlin-Smith: I think there’s two things they may focus on. One is just cybersecurity risks in health care, which is broader than just these incidents. In some ways, it could be much worse, if you think about hospitals and medical equipment being hacked where there could be direct patient impacts in care because of it. The other thing is, United is such a large company and the amount of Americans impacted by this, but also the amount of different parts of health care they have expanded into, is really under scrutiny. I think it’s going to bring a light onto how big they’ve become, the amount of vertical integration in our health system, and the risks from that.

Rovner: We went through this in the ’90s. Vertical integration would make things more efficient, because everybody would have what they called aligned incentives, everybody would be working towards the same goal. Instead, we’ve seen that vertical integration has just created big, behemoth companies like United. I don’t know whether Congress will get into all of that, but at least it brought it up into their faces.

There’s lots of regulatory news this week. I want to start with the FDA, which finalized a rule basically making laboratory-developed tests medical devices that would require FDA review. Sarah, this has been a really controversial topic. What does this rule mean and why has there been such a big fight?

Karlin-Smith: This rule means that diagnostic tests that are developed, manufactured, and then actually get processed, and the results get processed at the lab, will now no longer be exempted from FDA’s medical device regulations and they’ll have to go through the process of medical devices. The idea is to basically have more oversight over them, to ensure that these tests are actually doing what they’re supposed to do, you’re getting the right results and so forth. Initially, over the years, the prevalence of these tests has grown, and what they’re used for, I think, has changed and developed where FDA is more concerned about the safety and the types of health decisions people may be making without proper oversight of the tests. One, I think, really infamous example that maybe can people use to understand this is Theranos was a company that was exempted from a lot of regulations because of being considered an LDT. The initial impact is going to be interesting because they’re actually basically exempting all already-on-the-market products. There’s also going to be some other exemptions, such as for tests that meet an unmet medical need, so I think that will have to be defined. There is a reasonable chance that there’s going to be lawsuits challenging whether FDA can do this on their own or need Congress to write new legislation. There have been battles over the years for Congress to do that. FDA, I think, has finally gotten tired of waiting for them to lead. I think initially, we’re going to see a lot of battles going forth and FDA also just has limited capacity to review some of this stuff.

Rovner: We already know that FDA has limited capacity on the medical device side. I was amused to see, oh, we’re going to make these medical devices, where there’s already a huge problem with FDA either exempting things that shouldn’t really be exempt, or just not being able to look at everything they should be looking at.

Karlin-Smith: Right. They’re going to take what they call a risk-based approach, which is a common terminology used at the FDA, I think, to focus on the things where they think there’s the most risk of something problematic happening to people’s health and safety if something goes wrong. It’s also an admission, to some extent, of something that’s not necessarily their fault, which is they only have so much budget and so many people, and that really comes down to Congress deciding they want to fix it. Now, FDA has user-fee programs and so forth, so perhaps they could convince the industry to pony up more money. But as you alluded to early on, one of the fights over this has been their different segments of companies that make these tests that have different feelings about the regulations. Because you have more traditional, medical device makers that are used to dealing with the FDA that probably feel like they have this leg up, they know how to handle a regulatory agency like FDA and get through. Then you have other companies that are smaller, and do not have that expertise, maybe don’t feel like they have the manpower and, just, money to deal with FDA. I think that’s where you get into some of these business fights that have also kept this on the sidelines for a while.

Pradhan: Well, also I wonder, hospitals also use laboratory developed tests, too, and they develop them. I feel like, and Sarah, correct me if I’m wrong, but I think previously when there was debate over whether FDA was going to do this, I think hospitals were pretty critical of any move of FDA to start regulating these more aggressively, right? Because they said for tests used for cancer detection or other health issues, I think that they were not thrilled at the idea. I don’t know that they’ve had to really deal with FDA in this regard either when it comes to devices.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I know one big exemption that people were looking for was whether they were going to exempt academic medical centers, and they did not. We’ll see what happens with that moving forward. But obviously, again, the older ones will have this exemption.

Rovner: Well, speaking of controversial regulations, the administration has basically decided that it’s not going to decide about the potential menthol ban that we’ve been talking about on and off. There was a statement from HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] last week that just said, “We need to look at this more.” Somebody remind us why this is so controversial. Obviously, health interests say, really, we should ban menthol, it helps a lot of people to continue smoking and it’s not good for health. Why would the administration not want to ban menthol?

Pradhan: It’s controversial because, I’ll just say, that it’s an election year and they are worried about backlash from Black voters not supporting President Biden in his reelection campaign, because they do this.

Karlin-Smith: It’s a health versus criminal justice issue, because the concern is that yes, in theory, if Black people make up the majority of people who use menthol cigarettes, you’re obviously protecting their health by not having it. But the concern has been among how this would be enforced in practice and whether it would lead to overpolicing of Black communities and people being charged or facing some kind of police brutality for what a lot of people would consider a minor crime. That’s where the tension has been. Although notably, some groups like the NAACP and stuff have been gotten on board with banning menthol. It’s an interesting thing where we’re trying to solve a policing or criminal justice problem through a health problem, rather than just solving the policing problem.

Ollstein: Like Sarah said, you have civil rights groups lined up on both sides of this fight. You have some saying that banning menthol cigarettes would be racist because they’re predominantly used by the Black population. But then you have people saying, well it’s racist to continue letting their health be harmed, and pointing out that those flavored cigarettes have been targeted in their marketing towards Black consumers, and that being a racist legacy that’s been around for a while. There’s these accusations on both sides and it seems like the politics of it are scaring the administration away a little bit.

Rovner: Well, just speaking of things that are political and that people smoke, the Drug Enforcement Administration announced its plan to downgrade the classification of marijuana, which until now has been included in the category of most dangerous drugs, like heroin and LSD, to what’s called Schedule III, which includes drugs with medicinal use that can also be abused, like Tylenol with codeine. But apparently, it could be awhile before it takes effect. This may not happen in time for this year’s election, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. They have to release a proposed rule, you got to do comments, you got to get to the final rule. OMB [Office of Management and Budget] even. It’s supposedly at OMB now. OMB could hold it up for a while if they want to. As anybody who follows health policy in [Washington] D.C. knows, nothing moves fast here when it comes to regulations.

Rovner: Yes. A regulation that we thought was taken care of, but that actually only came out last week would protect LGBTQ+ Americans from discrimination in health care settings. This was a provision of the Affordable Care Act that the Trump administration had reversed. The Biden administration announced in 2021 that it wouldn’t enforce the Trump rules. But this is still a live issue in many courts and it’s significant to have these final regulations back on the books, yes?

Pradhan: It is. I think this is one of the ACA regulations that has ping-ponged the most, ever since the law was passed, because there have been lawsuits. I want to say it took the Obama administration years to even issue the first one, I think knowing how controversial it was. I believe it was the second, I think it was his second term and it was when there was no fear of repercussions for his reelection. Yeah, it’s been a very, very long-fought battle and I imagine this is also not the end of it. But no, it is very significant, the way that they defined the regulations.

Rovner: I confess, I was surprised when they came out because I thought it had already happened. I’m like, “Oh, we were still kicking this around.” So, now they appear to be final.

Well, finally this week, lots of news in health business. First, an update from last week. The Federal Trade Commission is challenging so-called junk patents from some pretty blockbuster drugs, charging that the patents are unfairly blocking generic competition. Sarah, what is this and why does it matter?

Karlin-Smith: FDA has what’s known as an orange book, as a part of a very complicated process set up by the 1984, I believe, Hatch-Waxman Act that was a compromise between the brand and the generic drug industries to get generic drugs to market a bit faster. FTC has been accusing companies of improperly listing patents in the orange book that shouldn’t be there, and thus making it harder to get generic products on the market. In particular, they’ve been actually going against drugs that have a device component, basically saying these components’ patents are not supposed to be in the orange book. They are basically asking the companies to delist the patents. They actually have gotten some concessions so far, from some of the other products they’ve targeted.

The idea would be this should help speed some of the generic entrants. It’s not quite as simple, because you do have lots of patents covering these drugs, so it does make it a little bit easier, but it’s not like it automatically opens the door. But it is unique and interesting that they have focused in on these targets because, typically, what are sometimes known as complex generics, are a lot harder for companies to make and get into the market because of the devices. Because for safety reasons FDA wants the devices to be very similar. If you pick up your product at the pharmacy, you have to be able to just know how to use it, really, without thinking about it, even if it’s a …

Rovner: Obviously, this covers things like inhalers and injectables.

Karlin-Smith: Right. The new weight loss drugs everybody is focused on, inhalers has been a big one as well. Things like an EpiPen, or stuff like that.

I think it’s been interesting because it does seem like FTC’s had more immediate results, I guess, than you sometimes see in Washington. [Sen.] Bernie Sanders has piggybacked on what they’re doing and targeted these companies and products in other ways, and gotten some small pricing cost concessions for consumers as well. But it will take a little bit of time for, even if patents get delisted, for generic drugmakers to actually then go through the whole rigamarole of getting cheaper products to market.

Rovner: Yes. This is part of what I call the “30 Years War,” to do something about drug prices. Before we leave drug prices, we’re still fighting in court about the Medicare drug negotiation, right? There, the drug industry continues to lose. Is that where we are?

Karlin-Smith: Correct. They have their fourth negative ruling this week. Basically, in this case, the judge ruled on two main arguments the industry was trying to push forward. One is that the drug negotiation program would constitute a takings violation under the Fifth Amendment. One of the main reasons the judge in this district in New Jersey said no is because they’re saying basically participation in Medicare and this drug price negotiation program are voluntary, the government is not forcibly taking any of your property, you don’t have to participate.

Another big ruling from this judge was that this program does not constitute First Amendment violations. What’s happening here is a regulation of conduct, not speech. One of the more amusing things in the decision to me, that I enjoyed, is the industry has argued that they’re basically being forced under this program to say, “Oh, this is … when CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]” … and then work out a price, that the price they work out is the maximum fair price because that’s the technical terminology used in the law, that they’re then somehow making an admission that any other price that they’ve charged has not been fair. The judge basically said, “Well, this is a public relations problem, not a constitutional problem. Nobody is telling you you can’t go out and publicly disagree with CMS about this program and about their prices that you end up having to enter into.”

It’s another blow. They have a lot of different legal arguments they’re trying out in different cases. As I said, they’ve thrown a lot of spaghetti at the wall. So far, other arguments have failed. Some of the cases are stalled on more technicalities, like the districts they’ve filed in. There was another case that was heard, an appeal was heard yesterday, in PhRMA, the main trade group’s case, where they’re trying to push on because of that. There’s going to be a lot of more action, but so far, looks good for the government.

Pradhan: When this was first rolling out, including when CMS announced the initial 10 drugs that would first be on the list, lawyers that I talked with at the time said that the arguments that the industry was making, it was a reach, to be diplomatic about it. I don’t think anyone really thought that they would be successful and it seems like that is, at least to date, that’s how it’s playing out.

Rovner: I’ll repeat, it’s a good time to be a lawyer for the drug industry, at least you’re very busy.

All right, well, finally this week, we spend so much time talking about how big health care is getting, Walmart this week announced that it’s basically getting out of the primary care business. It’s closing down its two dozen clinics and ending its telehealth programs. This feels like another case of that, “Wow, it looked so easy to make money in health care.” Until you discover that it’s not.

Pradhan: Right. I think making money in primary care, certainly that’s not where the people say, “Oh, that’s a real big cash cow, let’s go in there.” It’s other parts of the health care industry.

Karlin-Smith: One thing that struck me about a quote in a CNN article from Walmart was how they were focusing on they wanted to do this, but they found it wasn’t a sustainable business model. To me, that then just brings up the question of “Should health care be a business?” and the problems. There’s a difference between being able to operate primary care and make enough money to pay your doctors and cover all your costs, and a big company like Walmart that wants to be able to show big returns for their investors and so forth. There’s also that distinction that something that’s not attractive for a business model like that can still be viable in the U.S.

Rovner: This reminds me a lot of ways of the ill-fated Haven Healthcare, which was when Amazon and JPMorgan Chase and Berkshire Hathaway all thought they could get together because they were big, smart companies, could solve health care. They hired Atul Gawande, he was one of the biggest brains in health care, and it didn’t work out. We shall continue.

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

Rachana, why don’t you go first this week?

Pradhan: This story that I’m going to suggest, [“Millions of American Kids Are Caregivers Now: ‘The Hardest Part Is That I’m Only 17.”] it’s in The Wall Street Journal, depressing like most health care things are. It’s about how millions of children, I think it’s over 5 million children under the age of 18, are providing care to siblings, grandparents, and parents with chronic medical needs, and how they are becoming caregivers at such young ages. In part, because it is so hard to find and afford in-home care for people. That is my extra credit.

Rovner: Right, good story. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a piece in The Atlantic by Katherine J. Wu, “America’s Infectious-Disease Barometer Is Off.” It’s focused on our initial response in this country to bird flu, and maybe where the focus should and shouldn’t be. It has some interesting points about repeat mistakes we seem to be making, in terms of inadequate testing, inadequate focus on the most vulnerable workers, and what we need to do to protect them in this crisis right now.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I chose [“Dozens of Deaths Reveal Risks of Injecting Sedatives Into People Restrained by Police“] an AP investigation, collaborating with Frontline, about the use of sedatives when police are arresting someone. This is supposed to be a way to safely restrain someone who’s combative, or maybe they’re on drugs, or maybe they’re having a mental health episode, and this is supposed to be a nonlethal way to detain someone. It has led to a lot of deaths, nearly 100 over the past several years. These drugs can make someone’s heart stop. The reporting shows it’s not totally clear if just the drugs themselves are what is killing people, or if it’s in combination with other drugs they might be on, or it’s because they’re being held down in a way by the cops that prevent them from breathing properly, or what. But this is a lot of deaths of people who have received these injections and is leading to discussions of whether this is a best practice. Pretty depressing stuff, but important.

Rovner: Yeah. It was something that was supposed to help and has not so much in many cases. My story this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “A Doctor at Cigna Said Her Bosses Pressured Her To Review Patients’ Cases Too Quickly. Cigna Threatened To Fire Her.” It’s by Patrick Rucker and David Armstrong. It’s about exactly what the headline says. A doctor who spent too much time reviewing potential insurance denials because she wanted to be sure the cases were being decided correctly. It’s obviously not the first story of this kind, but I chose it because it so reminded me of a story that I did in 2007, which was about a physician who worked for a managed-care company, it was Humana in that case, who was pushed to deny care and first testified to Congress about it in 1996. I honestly can’t believe that, 28 years later, we are still arguing about pretty much the exact same types of practices at insurance companies. At some point you would think we would figure out how to solve these things, but apparently not yet.

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

Rachana, where are you hanging these days?

Pradhan: I am also on X, @rachanadpradhan.

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith on Bluesky.

Rovner: Alice?

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

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.

Florida this week became a major focus for advocates on both main sides of the abortion debate. The Florida Supreme Court simultaneously ruled that the state’s 15-week ban, passed in 2022, can take effect immediately before a more sweeping, six-week ban replaces it in May and that voters can decide in November whether to create a state right to abortion.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden, gearing up for the general election campaign, is highlighting his administration’s health accomplishments, including drug price negotiations for Medicare.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University schools of nursing and public health, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Florida Supreme Court’s decisions this week will affect abortion access not only in the state, but also throughout the region. Florida’s six-week ban, which takes effect on May 1, would leave North Carolina and Virginia as the only remaining Southern states offering the procedure beyond that point in pregnancy — and, in North Carolina, abortion is banned at 12 weeks after a woman’s last menstrual period.
• Since the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to an abortion in 2022, six states have voted on their own constitutional amendments related to abortion access. In every case, the side favoring abortion rights has won. But Florida’s measure this fall will appear on the ballot with the presidential race. Could the two contests, waged side by side, boost turnout and influence the results?
• Former President Donald Trump made many attempts during his term to undermine the Affordable Care Act, and this week the Biden administration reversed another one of those lingering attempts. Under a new regulation, the use of short-term insurance plans will be limited to four months — down from 36 months under Trump. The plans, which Biden officials call “junk plans” due to their limited benefits, will also be required to provide clearer explanations of coverage to consumers.
• In other Biden administration news, March has come and gone without the release of an anticipated ban on menthol flavoring in tobacco, and anti-tobacco groups are suing to force administration officials to finish the job. Menthol cigarettes are particularly popular in the Black community, and — like Trump’s decision as president to punt a ban on vaping to avoid alienating voters in 2020 — the Biden administration may be loath to raise the issue this year. Activists say, however, that it may be at the expense of Black lives.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” looks at an article from PolitiFact about the health misinformation that persists even with the pandemic mostly in the rearview mirror.

Also this week, Rovner interviews health care analyst Jeff Goldsmith about the growing size and influence of UnitedHealth Group in the wake of the Change Healthcare hack.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “Republicans Are Rushing to Defend IVF. The Anti-Abortion Movement Hopes to Change Their Minds,” by Megan Messerly and Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Tami Luhby: The Washington Post’s “Biden Summons Bernie Sanders to Help Boost Drug-Price Campaign,” by Dan Diamond.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Bird Flu Detected in Dairy Worker Who Had Contact With Infected Cattle in Texas,” by Lena H. Sun and Rachel Roubein.  

Joanne Kenen: The 19th’s “Survivors Sidelined: How Illinois’ Sexual Assault Survivor Law Allows Hospitals to Deny Care,” by Kate Martin, APM Reports.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “ACA Plans Are Being Switched Without Enrollees’ OK,” by Julie Appleby.
• KFF Health News’ “Your Doctor or Your Insurer? Little-Known Rules May Ease the Choice in Medicare Advantage,” by Susan Jaffe.
• Health Affairs’ “Will the Change Healthcare Incident Change Health Care?” by Jeff C. Goldsmith.
• The Health Care Blog’s “Optum: Testing Time for an Invisible Empire,” by Jeff Goldsmith.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Florida Limits Abortion — For Now

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Florida Limits Abortion — For NowEpisode Number: 341Published: April 4, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 4, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University Schools of Nursing and Public Health and Politico magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Lauren Weber, the Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have an interview with Health Policy Analyst and Consultant Jeff Goldsmith about the continuing fallout from the Change Healthcare hack. But first, this week’s news. One of these weeks, we won’t have to lead with abortion news, but this is not that week. On Monday, the Florida Supreme Court ruled separately, but at the same time, that state voters could decide this November whether to make a right to abortion part of the state’s constitution and that the state’s constitution currently does not guarantee that right.

So the state’s 15-week abortion ban signed by Gov. Ron DeSantis in April of 2022 can take immediate effect. But wait, there’s more. First, the decision on the 15-week ban overruled years of precedent that Florida’s Constitution did, in fact, protect the right to abortion. And second, allowing the 15-week ban to take effect automatically triggers an even more sweeping six-week ban that Gov. DeSantis signed in 2023. That will take effect May 1. That’s the one he signed in the middle of the night without an audience people may remember. And this is going to affect far more people than just the population of Florida, right?

Kenen: The whole South. This is it. If you count the South as North Carolina and what we think of as the South, North Carolina is the only state that still has legal abortion, and that is only up to 12 weeks. And there are some conditions and hurdles, but you can still get an abortion in North Carolina.

But to get from a place, people were going to Florida, it’s easier to get from Alabama to Florida than it is from Alabama to even Charlotte. I think I read it’s a 17-hour drive from Florida or something like that. I don’t remember. It’s long. So it’s not just people who live within Florida, but people who live in 11 or 12 states in the American South have far fewer options.

Rovner: And even though the Florida ban feels less than a complete ban because it allows abortions up to six weeks, the fine print actually makes this one of the most restrictive bans in the country. It looks, in effect, like most people won’t be able to get abortions in Florida at all.

Weber: I would say that’s right, Julie. And just to reiterate what Joanne said, 80,000 women get abortions in Florida every year. That’s about one in 12 women in America that get abortions per year, and they will no longer have that kind of access because, at six weeks, a lot of women don’t know they’re pregnant. So, I mean, that’s a very restrictive abortion ban.

Rovner: Remember that six weeks isn’t really six weeks of having been pregnant. Six weeks is six weeks since your last menstrual period, which can be as little as two weeks in some cases.

Kenen: And I also think that even if you do know within six weeks, getting an appointment, given how few places there are in the entire South, even if you know and you get on the phone right away, can you get an appointment before your six weeks is an additional challenge because access is really limited …

Rovner: Right.

Kenen: … intentionally.

Rovner: Yes, and we’ve seen this with other six-week bans. We should point out that some people consider Virginia the South still, and you can go to Virginia, but that’s basically the last place that a good chunk of the country, geographically, if not population-wise, would need to turn to in order to get an abortion.

Well, if that’s not all confusing enough, even if voters do approve the ballot measure in November, the Florida Supreme Court suggested it could still strike down a right to abortion based on a majority of justices findings that the state’s constitution could include personhood rights for fetuses.

I’m having trouble wrapping my head around why the justices would allow a vote whose results they might then overturn. But I guess this is part of the continuing evolution, if you will, to use that word, of this concept of personhood for fetuses and embryos, and what has us talking about IVF, right?

Weber: Yeah, absolutely. I think, as many conservative Christian groups will say, this is the natural line that pro-life is. I mean, they argue, and while they’re pushing this view is not necessarily held by the majority of constituents, but this is their argument that a fetus, an embryo, such as one that could be used in IVF, is a person.

And so, I mean, I think that’s kind of the natural conclusion of pro-life ideology as we’re seeing it right now. And I think it will have a lot of political effects going forward because that IVF is obviously much more popular than abortion. I think we’ll see a lot of voting firepower potentially used on that.

Rovner: Well, I’m so glad you said that because I want to turn to politics. Some Democrats are suggesting that this could boost turnout for Democrats and help, if not put Florida in play for president, maybe the Democrat running to unseat Senator Rick Scott, the Republican.

On the other hand, while abortion ballot questions have done very well around the country, as we know, even in states redder than Florida, there is evidence that some Republicans vote for abortion rights measures and then turn around and vote at the same time for Republicans who would then vote to overturn them.

There are in fact Florida abortion rights advocates who don’t want Democrats to make this issue partisan because they want Republicans to come and vote for the ballot measure, which needs a 60% majority to pass, even if those Republicans then go on to vote for other Republicans. So, who really is helped by this entire mess, or is it impossible to tell at this point?

Weber: I think it’s impossible to tell, but I do think what is complicating is we haven’t seen the presidential race thrown into these abortion ballots. I mean, what we’re looking at is two candidates who potentially are facing a lot of low turnout due to lack of enthusiasm in their bases for both of them. And I am curious if the abortion ballot measures could have much more of an impact on the presidential race than maybe some of these other lower-office races that we’ve seen. I think that’s the main question that I guess we’ll see in November.

Rovner: As we have spoken about many times, President Biden is not super comfortable talking about this issue. He’s an 81-year-old Catholic. It does not come naturally to him to be in favor of abortion rights, which he now is. But Vice President Harris has been sent out. She’s sort of become the standard-bearer for this administration on reproductive health issues, and she’s been very active. And Joanne, you wanted to say something?

Kenen: There are a couple of points. In addition to the abortion ballot initiative. There’s also a marijuana legalization. I think we will see higher turnout and particularly among younger people who have been pretty disaffected this election. So that’s one, whether it affects the presidential race, whether it affects the Senate race. I mean, just as Democrats feel really strong about abortion, Republicans feel really strong about immigration. We don’t know what’s going to happen in November, but I do think this boosts turnout. The second thing to remember, though, is in terms of abortion ballot initiatives have passed every time they’ve come up since the fall of Roe [v. Wade].

This is a 60% threshold, and I do not believe that any state has reached that. I think the highest was about 57%. So even though it may get well over 50, it could get 59.9, the Florida ballot initiative needs 60%. That is a tall order. So you might end up seeing a big turnout, a big pro-abortion rights vote, maybe a big legal weed vote, and the abortion measure could still fail. But I do think it definitely changes the dynamics of Florida from the presidential race on down the ballot. I do think it is a different race than we would’ve seen beforehand.

Rovner: And I will point out, since she didn’t, that Joanne has spent time covering Florida and covering the politics in Florida. So you know where of you speak on this.

Kenen: Well, I lived there for a while, though it was a while ago. The state has, in fact, changed like everything else, including me, right? But I’m somewhat familiar with Florida. I was just there a few weeks ago in fact.

Rovner: And I want to underscore something that Lauren said, which is that we’ve seen all of these ballot measures since Roe was overturned, but we have not seen these ballot measures stacked on top of the presidential race. So I think that will be interesting to watch as we go forward this year.

Well, back here in D.C., the Biden administration issued a long-awaited rule reigning in the use of those short-term health plans that Democrats like to call junk insurance and that President Trump had expanded when he was in office. Tami, what is the new rule, and what will it do?

Luhby: Well, it’s actually curtailing the short-term plans and pretty much reversing the Trump administration rule. So it’s the latest move by the president to contrast his approach to health care with that of former President Donald Trump. Trump extended the duration of the short-term health insurance plans to just under a year and allowed them to be renewed for a total of 36 months. And it was seen as an effort to weaken the Affordable Care Act, draw out younger people, make it more difficult for the marketplace, probably send the older, sicker people there, which would raise premiums, basically cause more chaos in the marketplace.

Rovner: Yeah. And remind us why these plans can be problematic.

Luhby: I will tell you that the short-term plans do not have to adhere to Obamacare’s consumer protections, which is the big difference. For instance, they’re not required to provide comprehensive coverage, and they can discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions, charge them more, deny them, et cetera. As I’d said, the Trump administration heralded them as a cheaper alternative because since they can underwrite, they have typically cheaper premiums. But they also have very limited benefits, or they can have limited benefits depending on the patient or the consumer.

So the Biden rule, which was proposed last month as a series of actions aimed at lowering health care costs, limits the duration of new sales of these controversial plans to three months, with the option of renewal for a maximum of four months. So it’s going on these new plans from 36 months potentially to four months, which was the original idea of these plans because originally they were thought to be for people who might be switching jobs or have a temporary lapse in coverage. They were not intended to be a substitute for full insurance. And it also requires, notably, that the plans provide consumers with a clear explanation of their benefits and inform them of how to find more comprehensive coverage.

Rovner: And obviously this will continue to be controversial, but I think the Democrats, in general, who support the Affordable Care Act feel pretty strongly that this is something that’s going to help them. And as we talked about, we’re not sure yet how the administration is going to play the abortion issue in the campaign, but it is pretty clear that they are doubling down on health care.

One problem for the administration, as we have talked about, is that particularly on really popular things like Medicare drug price negotiations, lots of the public has no idea that that’s happened or if it’s happened that it’s because the Democrats did it. So, in part of an effort to overcome that, Biden invited Bernie Sanders to the White House this week. What was that about?

Luhby: Well, that’s my extra credit. Would you like me to discuss that now?

Rovner: Sure, let’s do that now.

Luhby: OK. So my extra credit is a Washington Post story titled “Biden Summons Bernie Sanders to Help Boost Drug-Price Campaign,” by Dan Diamond. And I have to admit, I hope I can do that here, that I am a fangirl of Dan Diamond’s stories, and even more so now because apparently, the Biden administration gave Dan a heads-up in advance, that since he published a pretty in-depth story an hour before the embargo lifted for the rest of us who were only given a few tidbits of information about what this meeting or what this speech was going to be about at the uncharacteristically late hour of 8:30 at night.

So Dan’s story looked at how the two former rivals, Joe Biden and [Sen.] Bernie Sanders, who were rivals in the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, how they had very different views on how the nation’s health care system should operate and Dan’s story looked at how they were uniting to improve awareness of Biden’s efforts to lower drug prices and improve his chances in November. Biden invited Sanders to the White House to discuss the administration’s actions on drug prices, including the latest effort to reduce the out-of-pocket cost of inhalers, which really hasn’t gotten a lot of press.

Sanders brings his progressive credentials and his two-decade-plus track record of fighting for lower drug prices and, “naming and shaming individual pharmaceutical companies and executives.” He’s known to be pretty outspoken and fiery. So the story’s a good example of policy meets politics in an election year. It relays that most Americans still don’t know about the administration’s efforts despite the numerous speeches, news releases, and officials’ trips around the country, hence the need to tap Sanders, and it also provides a nice walk down memory lane, revisiting the duo’s battles in the 2020 primary as well as some of former President Trump’s drug price efforts.

Rovner: Yeah. And a little peek behind the journalistic curtain. I think we all got this sort of mysterious note from Sanders’ press people the night before saying, “If you’ll agree to our embargo, we’ll tell you about this secret thing that’s going to happen,” followed by an advisory from the White House saying that Bernie Sanders was coming to the White House to talk about drugs. [inaudible 00:13:30] …

Luhby: Right. And also, uncharacteristically, when I asked for a comment from Sanders directly, they said tomorrow, which is not like Sanders at all.

Kenen: Sanders and Biden were obviously opponents in the primary, but Sanders has really been very supportive of Biden. I think he’s really sort of highlighted the progressive things that Biden has done and stayed quiet about the more centrist things that Biden has done. He’s been a real ally, and he still has a lot of credibility, and I think they sort of like each other in a funny way. You can sort of see it, but that’s their issue.

Luhby: Biden has also been able to do things that other people have not been able to do with the congressional Democrats. Biden has been able to do things that congressional Democrats have tried to for years and have not been able to, and they may not be the extent to which the Democrats would like. If you remember the 2019 Medicare Drug Negotiation bill, I think, was 250 drugs a year. What ended up passing in the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] was 10 drugs and ramping up, but at least it’s something.

Kenen: And it’s more than 20 years in the making. I mean, this goes way, way back.

Luhby: Mm-hmm.

Rovner: And I was going to underscore something that Joanne said earlier about Florida, which is that both sides are trying to gin up their base, and young people are really fond of Bernie Sanders in a lot of the things that he says, and this may be a way that Biden can ironically use the Medicare drug price negotiation issue to stir up his young person base to get them out to vote. So I was interested in the combination.

Kenen: So it’s Bernie Sanders and legal weed.

Rovner: That’s right. It’s Bernie Sanders and legal weed, at least in Florida.

Kenen: I’m not implying anything about Bernie Sanders’ use of it. It’s just the dynamic for the young voters.

Rovner: Yes. Things to draw young people out to the polls in November. Well, while the Biden administration is doing lots of things using its regulatory power, one thing it is not doing, at least not yet, is banning menthol flavoring in tobacco.

This is a regulation that’s now been sitting around for nearly two years and that officials had promised to finalize by the end of March, which of course was last week and which didn’t happen. So now three anti-tobacco groups have sued to try to force the regulation over the finish line. Somebody remind us why banning menthol is so very controversial.

Weber: It’s controversial in part because a lot of industry will say that banning menthol will lead to over-policing in Black communities. The jury is very much out on if that is an accurate representation or part of the cigarette playbook to keep cigarettes on the market. Look, a presidential election year and things to do with smoking is not new.

When I was at KFF Health News with Rachel Bluth back in the day, we wrote a story about how Trump postponed a vape ban to some extent because he was worried about vaping voters. So I mean, I think what you’re seeing is a pretty clear political calculus by the Biden folks to push this off into the new year, but as activists and public health advocates will say, it’s at the expense of, potentially, Black lives.

Rovner: That’s right.

Weber: So banning menthol cigarettes would really… what it would do is statistically save Black Americans who die from, predominantly from smoking these types of cigarettes. So it’s a pretty weighty decision to put off with a political calculus.

Rovner: He’s taking incoming from both sides. I mean, obviously, there are members of the Black community who say, as you point out, this could lead to an unnecessary crackdown on African American smokers who use menthol more statistically than anybody else does. Although, there’s some young people who use it too. On the other hand, you have people representing public health for the Black community saying, “We want you to ban this” because, as you point out, people are dying from smoking-related illnesses by using this product. So it’s a win-win, lose-lose here that is continuing on. We’ll be interested to see what, if the lawsuit can produce anything.

Well, speaking of things that are controversial, we also have Medicare Advantage. The private plan alternative to traditional Medicare now enrolls more than half of those in the program, many who like the extra benefits that often come with the plans and others who feel that they can’t afford traditional Medicare’s premiums and other cost-sharing. Except one reason those extra benefits exist is because the government is overpaying those Medicare Advantage plans. That’s a vestige of Republican plans to discourage enrollment in original Medicare that date back to the early part of this century.

So now taxpayers are footing more of the Medicare bill than they should. This week’s news is that the federal government is effectively trimming back some of those overpayments. And investors in the insurance companies, who make money from the overpayments, are going crazy. This is the subhead on a story from the Wall Street Journal, “Managed care stocks are set to fall due to disappointment with the government’s decision not to revise the 2025 Medicare payment proposal.” How is this ever going to get sorted out? Somebody always is going to be a loser in this game, either the patients or the insurance companies or the taxpayers. Everybody cannot win here.

Luhby: Right. And Humana got hit really hard when the rule came out because it is really focused on Medicare Advantage. So yeah, the insurers were hit, but as everything with the market, it’s not forever.

Rovner: I’m continually puzzled by … if the payments were equivalent, which was what they were originally supposed to be. Originally, originally back in the 1980s, insurance companies came to Congress and said, “We can provide managed care and Medicare cheaper, so you can pay us 95% of the average that you pay for a fee for service patient. We can make a profit on that.”

Well, that is long since gone. The question is how much more they will make. And as I point out, when they get overpaid, they do have to rebate those back effectively to the patients in terms of higher benefits. And that’s why many of them offer dental coverage and eyeglasses coverage and other types of, quote-unquote, extra benefits that Medicare doesn’t offer.

But also you get this lack of choice, and so we see when people try to leave these plans and go back to traditional Medicare, they can’t, which is only one of the sort of things that I think a lot of people don’t know about how Medicare Advantage works. Another place with an awful lot of small print.

Weber: It’s a lot of small print under a very good marketing name. The name itself implies that you’re making a better choice, but that isn’t necessarily what the small print would say.

Kenen: And there are people who are very satisfied with it and who get great care. I mean, it’s not monolithic. I mean, it is popular. It is growing and growing and growing. It’s partly economic, and there’s some plans that patients like, and there’s word of mouth or that were negotiated as part of union agreements and are actually pretty strong benefits. But they’re also people who are really encountering a lot of trouble with prior authorization, and limited networks, and your doctor’s no longer in it, et cetera, et cetera.

I think that those things, I actually checked with somebody about the provider networks, what we know about who’s dropping out, and I don’t think there’s really up-to-date data, but there is a perception, and you’re hearing it and seeing it online. But they do an incredible amount of marketing, an incredible amount of marketing. And if you’re in it and you like it and you save money and you’re getting great health care, terrific. You’re going to stay in it.

If you’re in it and you don’t like it and you’re not getting great health care and a lot of hassles or you can’t see the right doctors, it’s hard to get out and get back into it depending on what state you’re living … It’s not monolithic. But I think we might be between the financial pressures from the government and some of the debates about some of these things they’re doing there may be some reconsideration. But they have strong backers in Congress and not just Republicans.

Rovner: Oh, yeah. I mean, and as you point out, more than half of the people in Medicare are now on Medicare Advantage. I did want to sort of highlight my colleague Susan Jaffe, who has a story this week about the fact that patients can’t change plans in the middle of the year, but plans can drop providers in the middle of the year, so people may sign up for a health plan because their doctor or their hospital is in it and then suddenly find out mid-year that their doctor and their hospital is no longer in it.

There are occasionally, if you’re in the middle of treatment, there are opportunities sometimes to change, but often there aren’t. People do end up in these plans, and they can be happy for, basically, until they’re not, that there are trade-offs when you do it. And I think, as we point out, there’s so much marketing, and the marketing somehow doesn’t ever talk about the trade-offs that you make when you go into Medicare Advantage.

Luhby: Well, one also thing is that this is the peak 65 year, where the most baby boomers, and where are they coming from? They’re coming from private commercial insurance, so they’re familiar with it, and they were like, “Oh, OK, that’s seemingly very much like my employer plan. Sure, that sounds great. I know how to deal with that.” So that’s one of the things. And one cudgel that the insurers have is they say, “Oh, government, you’re going reduce our payments. We’re going to reduce the benefits and increase the premiums because we’re not going to have all of that extra government funding.” And that can scare the government because they don’t want the insurers to tell their patients, who are older patients who vote, “Oh, because of the government, we can no longer offer you all of these benefits, or we’ve had to raise your premium because of that.” So we’ll see if they actually do that.

Kenen: Joe Biden took away your gym, right?

Luhby: Exactly.

Rovner: [inaudible 00:22:11].

Luhby: And your dental benefits. So that’s always the threat that the insurers roll out. That’s the first thing that they say often, but we’ll see what happens. We don’t know yet until the fall, when enrollment starts, what will actually happen?

Rovner: We saw exactly that in the late ’90s after Congress balanced the budget. They took a big whack out of the payments for what was then, I think, called Medicare Plus Choice. It was the previous version of Medicare Advantage, and a lot of the companies just completely dropped out of the program. And a lot of the people, who as Joanne said, had been in those plants had been very happy, threw a fit and came to Congress to complain, and lo and behold, a lot of those payments got increased again. In fact, that was what led to the big increase in payments in 2003 was the huge cut that they made to payments, which drove a lot of the insurers out of the program. So we do know that the insurers will pack up and leave if they’re not paid what they consider to be enough to stay in the program.

Moving on. One of the things that Jeff Goldsmith talks about in this week’s interview is that our health system has become one of deep distrust between patients, providers, and insurers. Speaking of Medicare Advantage. That is sad and dysfunctional, except that sometimes there are good reasons for that distrust. One example comes this week from my KFF Health News colleague Julie Appleby. It seems that unscrupulous insurance brokers are disenrolling people in Obamacare plans from their health plans and putting them in different plans, which is unbeknownst to them until they find their doctor is no longer in their network or their drug isn’t covered.

The brokers who are doing this can earn bigger commissions. But patients can end up not just having to pay for their own medical care but owing the government money because suddenly they’re in plans getting subsidies that don’t match their incomes. It is a big mess. And it seems that the obvious solution, which would be making it harder for agents to access people’s enrollment information so they can switch them, would delay legitimate enrollment. It has to be easy for agents to basically manipulate people’s applications. So how do you guard against bad actors without inconveniencing everyone? This seems to be the question here and the question for Medicare Advantage, Lauren.

Weber: I was going to say, I mean, I think that’s the question Medicare itself has been dealing with for years. I mean, there’s a reason that many federal prosecutors call this a pay-and-chase situation in which there is rampant Medicare fraud. They prioritize the ease of patients accessing care to the disadvantage of some folks, or in this case, the American taxpayer, in this case, actual patients, being swindled.

But I don’t have an answer. I don’t think anyone really has an answer, considering we’re seeing things like the $2 billion catheter fraud that we’ve talked about here. So I think again, this is one of these things where the government’s been left a little flat-footed in trying to protect against bad actors.

Rovner: Yeah, well, the health sector is what a fifth of the economy now, so I guess it shouldn’t come as much of a surprise that you have not just bad actors, people who are making a lot of money from doing illegal things and find it to be worth their while and that some of them get caught, but presumably most of them don’t. I guess that’s what happens when you have that much money in one place, you need sort of better watchdogs. All right. Well, finally, this week in medical misinformation comes from PolitiFact in a story called “Four Years After Shelter-in-Place, Covid-19 Misinformation Persists.” That’s an understatement.

That last part was mine. At the top of the list says, “We have discussed before is growing resistance to vaccines in general, not just the covid vaccine,” which is not all that surprising considering how many people now believe fictitious stories about celebrities dropping dead immediately after receiving vaccines. There’s even a movie called “Died Suddenly.” Or that government leaders and the superrich orchestrated the pandemic. That’s another popular story that goes around. Or that Dr. Tony Fauci brought the virus to the United States a year before the pandemic. Lauren, health misinformation is your beat. Is it getting any better now that the pandemic is largely behind us, or is it just continuing unabated?

Weber: No, I would argue it’s possibly getting worse because the trust in institutions is at an all-time low. Social media has allowed for fire hose. I mean, it’s made everything … it’s made the public square that used to be more limited, all corners of the country.

I would say that misinformation has led to mistrust about basic medical things, including childhood vaccinations, but also other medical treatment and care. And I think you’re really seeing this kind of post-truth world post-covid, this distrust, this misinfo is going to continue for some time. And there’s too much to cover on my beat. There’s constantly stories around the bend, and I don’t expect that improving anytime soon.

Kenen: Every single time a celebrity, not just dies, because it’s always no matter what happens, it’s blamed on the covid vaccine, but also gets sick. I mean, Princess Kate. We don’t know everything about her health, but I mean, all of us know it wasn’t. Whatever it is, it’s not because the covid vaccine. But if you go online, you hear that that’s whatever she has it’s because she’s vaccinated.

And the other thing is it’s fed into this general vaccine mistrust. So when I wrote about the RSV vaccine, which we talked about a few weeks ago, it wasn’t so much that there’s a campaign against the RSV vaccine. There is somewhat of that. But it’s just this massive, “vaccines are bad.” So it’s spilling over into anything with a needle attached is part of this horrible plot to kill us all. So it’s just sort of this miasma of anti-vaccination that’s hovering over a lot of health care.

Rovner: Well, at the risk of getting a little too bleak, that will be the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with Jeff Goldsmith, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Jeff Goldsmith, one of my favorite big-picture health system analysts. Jeff has been writing of late about the Change Healthcare hack and the growing size and influence of its owner, UnitedHealth Group, and what that means for the country’s entire health enterprise. Jeff, thanks for joining us again.

Jeff Goldsmith: You bet.

Rovner: So the lead of your latest piece gives a pretty vivid description of just how big United has become, and I just want to read it. “Years ago, the largest living thing in the world was thought to be the blue whale. Then someone discovered that the largest living thing in the world was actually the 106-acre, 47,000-tree Pando aspen grove in central Utah, which genetic testing revealed to be a single organism.

With its enormous network of underground roots and symbiotic relationship with a vast ecosystem of fungi, that aspen grove is a great metaphor for UnitedHealth Group. United, whose revenues amount to more than 8% of the U.S. health system, is the largest health care enterprise in the world.” Let’s pick up from there for people like me who haven’t been paying as much attention as maybe they should have, and still think that United is mainly a health insurance company. That is not true and hasn’t been for some time, has it?

Goldsmith: The difference between United and a health insurance company is that it also has $226 billion worth of care system revenues in it, some of which are services rendered to United and other, believe it or not, services rendered to United competitors. So, there isn’t anything remotely that size in the health insurance world. That $226 billion is more than double the size of Kaiser. Just to give you an idea of the scale.

Rovner: Which, of course, is the other companies that are both insurers and providers. That’s pretty much the only other really big one, right?

Goldsmith: Yes. I have a graphic in the piece that shows the Optum Health part, which is the care delivery part of Optum, is just about the same size as Kaiser, but it generates six and a half billion dollars in profit versus Kaiser’s $323 million. So it dwarfs Kaiser in terms of profitability even though it’s about the same size top line.

Rovner: So split it up for people who don’t know. What are sort of the main components that make up UnitedHealth Group?

Goldsmith: Well, there’s a very large health insurance business, $280 billion health insurance business. Then, there is a care system called Optum Health, which is about $95 billion. It has 90,000 affiliated or employed docs, a huge chain of MedExpress urgent care centers, surgery centers, a couple of very large home health care agencies. So that’s the care delivery part of United.

There’s Optum Insight, which is about $19 billion. That’s the part that Change Healthcare was inside of. It’s a business intelligence and corporate services business, and consulting business, that also manages care systems financials. And then, finally, there’s Optum Rx, which is about $116 billion, so a little bit more than half of Optum’s total, and that is a pharmacy benefit management company. Believe it or not, the third-largest one. So there are bigger pharmacy benefits management companies than Optum, but those are the three big pieces.

Rovner: I feel like this is almost as big as a lot of the government health programs, isn’t it?

Goldsmith: Yeah. I mean, I can’t remember top line how big the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] is these days, but it’s VA scale, but it’s in a bunch of little pieces scattered all over the United States. I mean, that’s the big part of all of this. The care system is in at least 30 states. I have a map showing where some of the locations are. That map took me months to find. There isn’t a real registry of what the company owns, but it is a vast enterprise. And they’re great assets, if you’ll pardon a financial term for them.

Some of the finest risk-bearing multispecialty group practices in the United States are a part of Optum: Healthcare Partners based in Los Angeles; The Everett Clinic; the former Fallon Clinic, and Atrius in New England, which are the two finest risk-bearing, multispecialty physician groups in the Northeast. They weren’t dredging the bottom here at all. They got a tremendous number of high-quality groups that they’ve pulled together in the organization. The issue is it really an organization or is it a collection of assets that have been acquired at a very rapid pace over a period of the last 15 years.

Rovner: One of the things that I think the Change Healthcare hack proved for a lot of people is that nobody realized what a significant percentage of claims processing could go through one company. You have to wonder, have regulators, either at the state or federal level, kind of fallen down on this and sort of let this happen so that when somebody hacks into it, half the system seems to go down?

Goldsmith: The federal government challenged the Change acquisition and basically lost in court. They were unable to make the case. They were arguing that Change controlling all of these transactions of not only United but a lot of other insurers gave them access to information that enabled United to have some type of unfair competitive advantage. It was a difficult argument to make that didn’t make it. But the result of the Change acquisition was that about a third of the U.S. health system’s money flowed through one company’s leaky pipes.

And what we’re sort of learning as we learn more about Change is that there were something like a hundred separate programs inside Change, all of which somehow were vulnerable to this hack. And I think that’s one of the things that I think when [Sen.] Ron Wyden and [Sen.] Mark Warner get around to getting some facts about this, they’re going to wonder how did that happen. How could you have that many applications, that loosely tied together, that they were vulnerable to something like this?

And what my spies tell me is that a hacker, and it could have been a single hacker, not a country, but one guy was able to drop down into all of those data silos, vacuum out the data, and then delete the backups, so that United was basically left with no claims trail, no provider directories, nothing, and has had to reconstruct them; panicky reconstruction here in the last six weeks.

Rovner: Which I imagine is what’s taking so long for some of these providers to get back online.

Goldsmith: Julie, the part I don’t understand, is if it is true that that Change was processing a trillion and a half dollars worth of claims a year, a month interruption is $125 billion. That’s $125 billion that didn’t get paid to providers of care after the fact of them rendering the care. So the extent of the damage done by this is difficult to comprehend.

I mean, I have a lot of provider contacts and friends. Some of them, believe it or not, had no Change exposure at all because their main payers didn’t use Change. Some of them, it was all their payers used, and cash flow just ceased, and they had to go to the bank and borrow money to make their payrolls. None of this, for some reason, has made it in its full glory out into the press, and it isn’t that there aren’t incredibly high-quality business reporters in this field. There are.

Rovner: I know. I live in Maryland. I’ve driven over the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore. I know what it means. I mean, basically took apart the Baltimore Beltway. I mean, no longer goes in a circle. And I know how big the Port of Baltimore is, and I feel like everybody can understand that because it’s visceral. You can see it. There’s video of the bridge falling down. There isn’t video of somebody hacking into Change Healthcare and stopping a lot of the health system in its tracks.

Goldsmith: The metaphor that occurred to me, as you know, I’m a metaphor junkie, was actually Deepwater Horizon, and of course, we had a camera on that gushing well the whole time. This is like a gusher of red ink, a Deepwater Horizon-sized gusher of red ink that went on for a month. From what I’m able to understand, people are able to file the claims now. How many people have actually been paid for the month or six weeks’ worth of work they’ve done is elusive. And I still don’t have access to really good facts on how much of what they owed people they’ve actually paid.

I do know a lot of my investor analyst friends are waiting for United’s first-quarter financials to drop, which will probably show a four- or five-day drop in their medical loss ratio because of all the claims they were not able to pay, and therefore money was sitting in their coffers earning, what, 5% interest. That’s going to be kind of a festival when the first-quarter financials drop. And, of course, it isn’t just United, Humana, the Elevance, Cigna, all the rest of them. A lot of these folks use Change to process their claims. So there’s going to be a swollen offer here on the health insurance side from a month of not paying their bills.

Rovner: Well, is it the next Standard Oil? Is it going to have to be taken apart at some point?

Goldsmith: Yeah, but I mean, the question is, on what basis? Our health care system is so vast and fragmented, even a generous interpretation of antitrust laws, you’d have trouble finding a case. The Justice Department or FTC [Federal Trade Commission] is going to try again. But I’ll tell you, I think they’ve got their work cut out for them. I think the real issue isn’t anti-competitiveness, it’s a national security issue. If you have a third of the health systems dollars flowing through one company’s leaky pipes, that’s not an antitrust problem. It’s a national security problem, and I think there are some folks in the U.S. Senate that are righteously pissed about this.

There’s a lot of fact-finding that needs to happen here and a lot of work that needs to be done to make this system more secure. And I’ve also argued to make it simpler. Change was processing 15 billion transactions a year. That’s 44 transactions for every man, woman, and child in the country, and that was only a third of them. What are we doing with 100 billion transactions? What’s up with that? It beggars the imagination to believe that we to minutely manage every single one of those transactions. That is just an astonishing waste of money. It’s also an incredible insult to our care system. The assumption that there at any moment, every one of those folks could potentially be ripping us off, and we can’t have that.

Rovner: So we’re spending all of this money to try and not be ripped off for presumably less money.

Goldsmith: Hundreds of billions of dollars, but who’s counting?

Rovner: It’s kind of a depressing picture of what our health system is becoming, but I feel like it is kind of an apt picture for what our health system has become.

Goldsmith: It’s the level of mistrust. The idea that every one of his patients is trying to get a free lunch, and every doctor is trying to pad his income. We’ve built a system based on those twin assumptions. And when you think about them for a minute, they really are appalling assumptions. Most of what motivated me when I had cancer was fear.

I wasn’t trying to get stuff I wasn’t entitled to or didn’t need. I wanted to figure out a way to not be killed by the thing in my throat. And my doctors were motivated by a fear that if they let me go, maybe my heirs would sue them. I guess this idea that we are just helpless pawns of a behaviorist model of incentives, I think the economists ran wild with this thesis. And I think it’s given us a system that doesn’t work for anybody.

Rovner: Is there a way to fix it?

Goldsmith: I think we ought to cut the number of transactions in half. We ought to go and look at how many prior authorizations are really needed. Is this a model we really want to continue with, effectively universal surveillance of every clinical decision? We ought to be paying in bundles. We ought to pay our primary care physicians monthly for every patient that they see that’s a continuing patient and not chisel them over every single thing they do. We ought to pay for complex care in bundles where a cancer treatment is basically one transaction instead of hundreds.

I think we could get a long way to simplifying and reducing the absurd administrative overburden by doing those things. I also think that the idea that we have 1,100 health insurers. United’s the biggest, but it’s not by any means the only health insurer. There’s 1,100 rule sets that determine what data you need in order to pay a claim and whether a claim is justified or not. I think that’s a crazy level of variation. So I think we need to attack the variation. We’ve had health policy conversations about this for years and not done anything, and I think it’s really time to do it.

Rovner: Maybe this will give some incentive to some people to actually do something. Jeff Goldsmith, thank you so much.

Goldsmith: Julie. It’s good talking to you.

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

Weber: Yeah. I think we’re all keeping an eye on this in this podcast, but the title of this story is “Bird Flu Detected in Dairy Worker Who Had Contact With Infected Cattle in Texas,” which was written by my colleagues, Lena Sun and Rachel Roubein. Also, great pieces by Helen Branswell in the Texas Tribune on this as well.

But, essentially, just so listeners know, there has been a case of human bird flu detected, which is very concerning. As all of us on this podcast know, avian human flu is one of the worst-case scenarios in terms of a pathogen and infectiousness. As of right now, this is only one person. It seems to be isolated. We don’t know. We’ll see how this continues to mutate, but definitely something to keep an eye on for potential threat risk. TBD.

Rovner: Yeah. It is something I think that every health reporter is watching with some concern. Although, as you point out, we really don’t know very much yet. And so far, we have not seen. I think what the experts are watching for is human-to-human transmission, and we haven’t seen that yet.

Kenen: And this person seems to have a mild case, from the limited information we have, which is also a good sign for both that individual and everybody else in terms of spreadability.

Rovner: But we will continue to watch that space. Joanne.

Kenen: Well, you said enough bleak, but I’m afraid this is somewhat bleak. This is a piece by Kate Martin from APM Reports, which is part of American Public Media, and it was published in cooperation with The 19th, and the headline is “Survivors Sidelined: How Illinois’ Sexual Assault Survivor Law Allows Hospitals to Deny Care.” So there’s a very, very strong sort of everybody points to it as great law in Illinois saying that what kind of care hospitals have to provide to sexual assault victims and what kind of testing and counseling and everything. This whole series of services that legally they must do, and they’re not doing it. Even in cases of children being assaulted, they’re sending people 40 miles away, 80 miles away, 40 miles away. They’re not doing rape kits. They’re not connecting them to the counselors, et cetera. It is a pretty horrifying story. It begins with a story of a 4-year-old because they didn’t do what they were supposed to do. The father was the suspected perpetrator, and because the hospital didn’t do what they should have done he still has joint custody of this little girl.

Rovner: My story this week is from our podcast colleague, Alice [Miranda] Ollstein, and her Politico colleague, Megan Messerly, and it’s called “Republicans Are Rushing to Defend IVF. The Anti-Abortion Movement Hopes to Change Their Minds.” And it’s about the fact that while maybe not trying to outlaw IVF entirely, the anti-abortion movement does want to dramatically change how it’s practiced in the U.S.

For example, they would like to decrease the number of embryos that can be created and transplanted, both of which would likely make the already expensive treatment even more expensive still. Anti-abortion activists also would like to ban pre-implantation genetic testing so that, “Defective embryos can’t be discarded.” Except that couples with genes for deadly diseases often turn to IVF exactly because they don’t want to pass those diseases on to their children, and they would like to test them before they are implanted.

In other words, the anti-abortion movement may or may not be coming for contraception, but it definitely is coming for IVF. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Tami, where can we find you?

Luhby: I’m at cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on X, and @joannekenen1 on Threads. 

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP 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).