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 Affordable Care Act was signed into law 14 years ago this week, and Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra joined KFF Health News’ Julie Rovner on this week’s “What the Health?” podcast to discuss its accomplishments so far — and the challenges that remain for the health law.

Meanwhile, Congress appears on its way to, finally, finishing the fiscal 2024 spending bills, including funding for HHS — without many of the reproductive or gender-affirming health care restrictions Republicans had sought.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Tami Luhby of CNN, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments next week in a case that could decide whether the abortion pill mifepristone will remain easily accessible. The case itself deals with national restrictions rather than an outright ban. But, depending on how the court rules, it could have far-reaching results — for instance, preventing people from getting the pills in the mail and limiting how far into pregnancy the treatment can be used.
• The case is about more than abortion. Drug companies and medical groups are concerned about the precedent it would set for courts to substitute their judgment for that of the FDA regarding drug approvals.
• Abortion-related ballot questions are in play in several states. The total number ultimately depends on the success of citizen-led efforts to collect signatures to gain a spot. Such efforts face opposition from anti-abortion groups and elected officials who don’t want the questions to reach the ballot box. Their fear, based on precedents, is that abortion protections tend to pass.
• The Biden administration issued an executive order this week to improve research on women’s health across the federal government. It has multiple components, including provisions intended to increase research on illnesses and diseases associated with postmenopausal women. It also aims to increase the number of women participating in clinical trials.
• This Week in Medical Misinformation: The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case Murthy v. Missouri. At issue is whether Biden administration officials overstepped their authority when asking companies like Meta, Google, and X to remove or downgrade content flagged as covid-19 misinformation.

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 “Arizona Lawmaker Tells Her Abortion Story to Show ‘Reality’ of Restrictions,” by Praveena Somasundaram. (Full speech here.)

Alice Miranda Ollstein: CNN’s “Why Your Doctor’s Office Is Spamming You With Appointment Reminders,” by Nathaniel Meyersohn.

Tami Luhby: KFF Health News’ “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Costing Taxpayers Millions Despite Low Enrollment,” by Andy Miller and Renuka Rayasam.

Mary Agnes Carey: The New York Times’ “When Medicaid Comes After the Family Home,” by Paula Span, and The AP’s “State Medicaid Offices Target Dead People’s Homes to Recoup Their Health Care Costs,” by Amanda Seitz.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• NPR’s “Standard Pregnancy Care Is Now Dangerously Disrupted in Louisiana, Report Reveals,” by Rosemary Westwood.
• The Washington Post’s “As the Cost of Storing Frozen Eggs Rises, Some Families Opt to Destroy Them,” by Amber Ferguson.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The ACA Turns 14

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 21, 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: Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Hello.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Mary Agnes Carey.

Mary Agnes Carey: It’s great to be here.

Rovner: Later in this episode to mark the 14th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, we’ll have my interview with Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra, but first, this week’s news. So it appears our long national nightmare following the progress of the fiscal 2024 spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services is nearly over, nearly halfway through the fiscal year. The White House, House, and Senate have, as far as we can tell, reached a compromise on the last tranche of spending bills, which is a good thing because the latest temporary spending bill runs out at midnight Friday. Funding for the Department of Health and Human Services, from what I’ve seen so far, is basically flat, which is a win for the Democrats because the Republicans had fought for a cut of something in the neighborhood of 22%.

Now, assuming this all happens, the House is scheduled to vote, as we speak now, on Friday at 11 a.m., leaving the Senate not very much time to avert a possible partial shutdown. Democrats seem also to have avoided adding all manner of new restrictions on reproductive and gender-affirming health care to the HHS part of the bill. It’s the last big train leaving the station likely until after the election. So Alice, we’ll get to the add-ons in a minute, but have you seen anything in the HHS funding worthy of note or did they manage to fend off everything that would’ve been significantly newsworthy?

Ollstein: Like you said, it is basically flat. It’s a small increase, less than 1% overall for HHS, and then a lot of individual programs are just completely flat, which advocacy groups argue is really a cut when you factor in inflation. The cost of providing services and buying medications and running programs and whatnot goes up. So flat funding is a cut in practice. I’m hearing that particularly from the Title X family planning folks that have had flat funding for a decade now even as demand for services and costs have gone up.

So I think that in the current environment, Democrats are ready to vote for this. They don’t want to see a shutdown. And in the House, the bill passage will depend on those Democratic votes because they are likely to lose a lot of Republicans. Republicans are mad that there weren’t deeper cuts to spending and, as you alluded to, they’re mad that they didn’t get these policy rider wins they were banking on.

Rovner: As I’ve mentioned, since this is a must-pass bill, there are always the efforts to add non-spending things to it. And on health care, apparently, the effort to add the PBM, pharmacy benefit regulation bill we’ve talked about so much failed, but lawmakers did finally get a one-year deal to extend PEPFAR, the international AIDS/HIV program. Alice, you’ve been dutifully following this since it expired last year. Remind us why it got held up and what they finally get.

Ollstein: What happened in the end is it is a one-year reauthorization that’s a so-called clean reauthorization, meaning they are not adding new anti-abortion restrictions and provisions that the Republicans wanted. So what we reported this week is, like any compromise, no one’s happy. So Republicans are upset that they didn’t get the anti-abortion restrictions they wanted, and I’ll explain more on that in a second, and Democrats are upset that this is just a one-year reauthorization. It’s the first reauthorization that’s this sort of short-term stopgap length. In the program’s decades of history, it’s always been a full five-year reauthorization up until now. But the fight over abortion and accusations that program funds were flowing to abortion providers really split Congress on this.

Even though you had mainstream leadership Republicans who were saying, “Look, we just want to reauthorize this as-is,” you had a small but very vocal contingent of hard-line anti-abortion lawmakers backed by some really influential groups like the Heritage Foundation and SBA [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America] who were saying, “No, we have to insist on a shorter-term reauthorization,” so that they hope Trump will be in office next year and can impose these exact same anti-abortion restrictions through executive action. So they’re basically trying to punt control of the program into what they hope is a more favorable environment, where either they’ll have the votes in Congress to make these changes and restrictions to the program or they can do it through the White House.

Rovner: So basically, the fight over PEPFAR, not over. So as I already mentioned, Saturday is the 14th anniversary of the Affordable Care Act, which you’ll hear more about in my interview with HHS Secretary Becerra, but I wanted to pose to you guys one of the questions that I posed to him. As Nancy Pelosi famously predicted, at least according to public opinion polls, the more people learned about the health law, indeed, the more they are liking it. But it still lacks the popularity and branding of big government health programs, like Medicare and Medicaid, and I think lots of people still don’t know that lots of the provisions that they like, things like letting your adult children stay on your health plan until they’re 26 or banning preexisting condition exclusions, those were things that came from the Affordable Care Act. Any theories as to why it is still so polarizing? Republicans didn’t love Medicare and Medicaid at the beginning either, so I don’t think it’s just that Republicans still talk about it.

Luhby: Part of it I think is because there are so many provisions and they’re not labeled the Affordable Care Act like Medicare is. Actually to some extent, Medicaid may not be as well known in some states because states have different Medicaid programs and different names and so do the ACA exchanges. So that’s part of it, but also, things like why do you get a free mammogram and why you get to go for a routine checkup every year; that’s not labeled as an Affordable Care Act provision, that’s just the preventive services. So I think that it would be difficult now after 14 years to bring all of that into the everyday branding by doctors and health providers. But that’s certainly what the administration and advocates are trying to do by sending out a lot of messages that list all of the benefits of the ACA.

Rovner: I will say this is the biggest full-court press I’ve seen an administration do on the ACA in quite a while. Obviously, it’s a presidential election year and it’s something that the Biden administration is proud of, but at least I would think that maybe just all the publicity might be part of their strategy. Mac, you wanted to say something.

Carey: No, absolutely. It’s going to be part of the Biden reelection campaign. They’re going to be pushing it, talking a lot about it. We have to remember we’ve had this ringside seat to all the Republican opposition to the Affordable Care Act. All the conversation about we’re going to repeal it and put something better in, former President Trump is still sending that message out to the electorate. I don’t know how much confusion, if any confusion, it creates, but to Tami’s point, you’ve got millions of people that have gotten coverage under the Affordable Care Act but millions more have benefited by all these provisions we’re talking about: the preventive care provisions, leaving adult kids up to 26 on your health insurance plan, that kind of thing.

Also, give it time. Fourteen years is a long time, but it’s not the time of Medicare, which was created in 1965, and Medicaid. So I think over time, the Affordable Care Act is part of the fabric and it will continue to be. But absolutely, for sure, President Biden is going to run on this, like you said, Julie, full-court press, talk extensively about it in the reelection campaign.

Ollstein: It makes sense that they’re leaning really hard on Obamacare as a message because, even if everyone isn’t familiar with it, a lot more people are familiar with it and like it than, polling shows, on the Biden administration’s other big health care accomplishment, which is drug price negotiation, which polling shows that most people, and even most seniors, who are the ones who are set to benefit the most, aren’t aware that it exists. And that makes sense because they’re not feeling the impact of the lower prices yet because this whole thing just started and it won’t be until 2026 that they’ll really actually experience cheaper medications. But people are already feeling the direct impact of Obamacare on their lives, and so it does make sense that they’re going to lean really hard on this.

Rovner: Of course, we went through the same thing with Obamacare, which also didn’t take full effect until, really, this is really the 10th anniversary of the full effect of the Affordable Care Act because it didn’t take effect until 2014. Tami, you wanted to add something.

Luhby: No, I was going to say it’s also the seventh anniversary of the Trump administration and congressional Republicans trying to tear apart the Affordable Care Act and repeal and replace it, which is the messaging that you’re seeing now is very similar to what you saw in 2017. It’s just surprising to me that with very intensive messaging on both sides at that time about what the Republicans saying what the problems are and the Democrats saying what all of the benefits are, — including the protections for people with preexisting conditions and the other things we’ve mentioned — that more people don’t associate those provisions with the ACA now. But the Biden administration is trying to revive all of that and remind people, as they did in 2018 in the successful midterm elections for the Democrats, that the ACA does provide a lot of the benefits that they are taking advantage of and appreciate.

Rovner: I think, in some ways, the 2017 fight was one of the best things that ever happened to the ACA in terms of helping people understand what actually was in it, because the Democrats managed to frighten people about things that they liked being taken away. Here we go again. All right, let us turn to abortion. There’s a new report out from the Guttmacher Institute that finds a dramatic jump in the use of medication abortion in 2023, the first full year since the Supreme Court reversed the nationwide right to abortion in the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] case, more than 60% of abortions use medication rather than a procedure last year. This news comes as the Supreme Court next week prepares to hear oral arguments in a case that could dramatically restrict availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. Alice, remind us what’s at stake in this case. It’s no longer whether they’re going to just outright cancel the approval.

Ollstein: That’s right. So the Supreme Court is taking up the narrowed version of this from the 5th Circuit. So what’s at stake are national restrictions on abortion pills, but not a national outright ban like you mentioned. But those restrictions could be really sweeping and really impactful. It would prevent people from getting the pills through the mail like they currently do. It would prevent people from potentially getting them in any other way other than directly from a doctor. So this would apply to red states and blue states alike. It would override abortion rights provisions in blue states that have done a lot to increase access to the pills. And it would also restrict their use back to the first seven weeks of pregnancy instead of 10, which is a big deal because people don’t often find out they’re pregnant until getting close to that line or beyond.

So this is a really big deal, and I think you can really see, especially from the flurry of amicus briefs have been filed, that anxiety about this case in the medical community and the pharmaceutical community, the scientific community, it goes way beyond the impact just on abortion. People are really worried about setting a precedent where the FDA’s scientific judgment is second-guessed by courts, and they worry that a win for the anti-abortion groups in this case would open the door to people challenging all kinds of other medications that they have an issue with: contraception, covid vaccines, HIV drugs, the list goes on and on, gender-affirming care medications, all sorts of things. So there are the bucket of potential impacts on abortion specifically, which are certainly significant, and then there’s the bigger slippery slope fears as well.

Rovner: Also, this is obviously still way political. More than just the abortion pill. It’s been a while since we’ve talked about state ballot measures. We, I think, feel like we spent all of last year talking about abortion state ballot measures. Alice, catch us up real quick on where we are. How many states have them? And what is this campaign against, by the anti-abortion people, to try to prevent them from getting on the ballot?

Ollstein: Check me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe we know for sure about, especially the states that have citizen-led ballot initiatives where people are gathering signatures. So Florida had one of the earliest deadlines and they did meet their signature threshold. But they are now waiting on the state Supreme Court to say whether or not they have a green light to go forward this fall. A lot of other states are still collecting signatures. I think the only states we know for sure are the ones where the state legislature is the one that is ordering it to be put on the ballot, not regular citizens gathering signatures.

We still don’t know, but things are moving forward. I was just in Arizona reporting on their efforts. Things are moving forward there. Things are moving forward in Montana. They just got a court ruling in their favor to put something on the ballot. And things are moving forward in Missouri, a lot of places. So this could be really huge. Of course, like you mentioned, anti-abortion groups and anti-abortion elected officials are doing a lot of different things to try to prevent this from going on the ballot.

It’s interesting, you heard arguments over the last couple years against this being more along the lines of, “Oh, this is allowing these out-of-state big-money groups to swoop in and mislead and tell us what to do,” and those were the anti-abortion arguments against allowing people to vote on this directly. Now, you’re hearing, I’m hearing, more arguments along the lines of, “This shouldn’t be something subject to a popular vote at all. We shouldn’t put this up for a vote at all.” They consider this a human rights issue, and so I think that’s a really interesting evolution as well, particularly when the fall of Roe [v. Wade] was celebrated for returning the question of abortion access to the people, but maybe not these people specifically.

Rovner: I’ve been interested in seeing some of these anti-abortion groups trying to launch campaigns to get people not to put signatures on petitions. That’s moving it back a step I don’t think I’d ever seen. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a campaign to say, “Don’t sign the petition that would put this on the ballot to let people vote on it.” But that’s what we’re seeing, right?

Ollstein: Well, that’s what I went to Arizona to see firsthand is how that’s working, and it’s fascinating. They really worry that if it gets on the ballot, it’ll pass. It has in every state so far, so it’s reasonable for them to assume that. So they’re trying to prevent it from getting on the ballot. The way they’re doing that is they’re tracking the locations of signature gatherers and trying to go where they are and trying to intervene and hold up signs. I saw this firsthand. I saw it at a street fair. People were gathering signatures and several anti-abortion demonstrators were standing right in front of them with big signs and trying to argue with people and deter them from signing. It was not working, from what I observed. And from the overall signature count statewide, it was not working in Arizona. But it’s fascinating that they’re trying this.

Carey: I was going to say just our reporting from our KFF Health News colleagues found that 13 states are weighing abortion-related ballot measures, most of which would protect abortion rights. To your point, the scope is pretty extensive. And for all the reasons Alice just discussed, it’s quite the issue.

Rovner: Yeah, and we will obviously talk more about this as the election gets closer. I know we talk about Texas a lot on this podcast, but this week, I want to highlight a study from next door in Louisiana, also a very strong anti-abortion state. A new report from three groups, all of which support abortion rights, charges that, as in Texas, women with pregnancy complications are being forced to wait for care until their conditions become critical. And in some cases, women with nonviable pregnancies are being forced to have C-section surgery because their doctors don’t dare use medication or other less-risky procedures in case they could be accused of performing an abortion.

At some point, you have to think that somebody is going to have a malpractice case. Having a C-section because your doctor is afraid to terminate a nonviable pregnancy seems like pretty dangerous and rather aggressive way to go. This is the first I’ve ever heard of this. Alice, have you heard anything about this?

Ollstein: Not the C-section statistics specifically, but definitely the delays in care and some of the other impacts described in that report have absolutely been reported in other states and in legal challenges that have come up in Texas, in Oklahoma, in Tennessee, in Idaho by people who were denied abortions and experienced medical harms because of it. So I think that fits into the broader pattern. And it’s just more evidence about how this is having a chilling effect on doctors. And the exact letter of the law may be one thing, and you have elected officials pointing to exemptions and provisions in the law, but the chilling effect, the fear and the confusion in the medical community, is something in addition to that.

Rovner: As we put it out before, doctors have legitimate fears even if they don’t want to get dragged into court and have to hire lawyers and take time off — even if they’re innocent, even if they have what they consider to be pretty strong evidence that whatever it was that they did was legitimate under the law in terms of taking care of pregnant women. A lot of them, they don’t want to come under scrutiny, let’s put it that way, and it is hard to blame them about that.

Meanwhile, the backlash over the Alabama Supreme Court decision that fertilized embryos for IVF have legal rights is continuing as blue states that made themselves safe spaces for those seeking abortion are now trying to welcome those seeking IVF. Anybody think this is going to be as big a voting issue as abortion this fall? It’s certainly looking like those who support IVF, including some Republicans, are trying to push it.

Carey: I would think yes, it absolutely will be because it has been brought into the abortion debate. The actual Alabama issue is about an Alabama law and whether or not this particular, the litigants who sued were … it was germane and covered by the law, but it’s been brought into the abortion issue. The whole IVF thing is so compelling, about storage of the embryos and what people have to pay and all the restrictions around it and some of the choices they’re making. I guess that you could say more people have been touched by IVF perhaps than the actual abortion issue. So now, it’s very personal to them and it’s been elevated, and Republicans have tried to get around it by saying they support it, but then there’s arguments that whether or not that’s a toothless protection of IVF. It came out of nowhere I think for a lot of politicians and they’ve been scrambling and trying to figure it out. But to your point, Julie, I do wonder if it will be elevated in the election. And it was something they didn’t think they’d have to contend with, rather, and now they do.

Rovner: Obviously, it’s an issue that splits the anti-abortion community because now we’ve had all these very strong pro-lifers like Mike Pence saying, “I created my family using IVF.” Nikki Haley. There are a lot of very strong anti-abortion Republicans who have used IVF. So you’ve got some on the far … saying, “No, no, no, you can’t create embryos and then destroy them,” and then you’ve got those who are saying, “But we need to make sure that IVF is still available to people. If we’re going to call ourselves pro-life, we should be in favor of people getting pregnant and having babies, which is what IVF is for.” Alice, I see you nodding your head.

Ollstein: Yeah. So we’re having sort of a frustrating discourse around this right now because Democrats are saying, “Republicans want to ban IVF.” And Republicans are saying, “No, we don’t. We support IVF. We love IVF. IVF is awesome.” And neither is totally accurate. It’s just missing a lot of nuance. Republicans who say they support IVF also support a lot of different kinds of restrictions on the way it’s currently practiced. So they might correctly argue that they don’t want to ban it entirely, but they do want it practiced in a different way than it is now, such as the production of many embryos, some of which are discarded. So I think people are just not being asked the right questions right now. I think you got to get beyond, “Do you support IVF?” That gives people a way to dodge. I think you really have to drill into, “OK. How specifically do you want this regulated and what would that mean for people?”

Carey: Right, and the whole debate with some of the abortion rights opponents, some of them want the federal government to regulate it. Mike Johnson, speaker of the House, has come out and said, “No, no, that can be done at the state level.” So they’ve got this whole split internally in the party that is, again, a fight they didn’t anticipate.

Rovner: Well, Mac, something that you alluded to that I was struck by was a piece in The Washington Post this week about couples facing increasing costs to store their IVF embryos, often hundreds of dollars a year, which is forcing them to choose between letting the embryos go or losing a chance to possibly have another child. It’s obviously a big issue. I’m wondering what the anti-IVF forces think about that. As we’ve seen in Alabama, it’s not like you can just pick your embryos up in a cooler and move them someplace else. Moving them is actually a very big deal.

I don’t wish to minimize this, but I remember you have storage units for things, not obviously for embryos. One of the ways that they make money is that they just keep raising the cost because they think you won’t bother to move your things, so that you’ll just keep paying the increased cost. It feels like that’s a little bit of what’s happening here with these stored embryos, and at some point, it just gets prohibitively expensive for people to keep them in storage. I didn’t realize how expensive it was.

Carey: They’re all over the place. In preparing for this discussion, I’ve read things about people are paying $600 a year, other people are paying $1,200 a year. There’s big jumps from year to year. It can be an extremely expensive proposition. Oh, my goodness.

Rovner: IVF itself, I think as we’ve mentioned, is also extremely expensive and time-consuming, and emotionally expensive. It is not something that people enter into lightly. So I think we will definitely see more as we go. There’s also women’s health news this week that doesn’t have to do with reproduction. That’s new. Earlier this week, President Biden issued an executive order attempting to ensure that women are better represented in medical research. Tami, what does this order do and why was it needed?

Luhby: Well, it’s another attempt by the Biden administration, as we’ve discussed, to focus on reproductive health and reproductive rights. During the State of the Union address earlier this month, Biden asked Congress to invest $12 billion in new funding for women’s health research. And there are actually multiple components to the executive order, but the big ones are that it calls for supporting research into health and diseases that are more likely to occur midlife for women after menopause, such as rheumatoid arthritis, heart attacks, osteoporosis, and as well as ways to improve the management of menopause-related issues.

We are definitely seeing that menopause care is of increasing focus in a multitude of areas including employer health insurance, but the executive order also aims to increase the number of women participating in clinical trials since they’re poorly represented now. We know that certain medications and certain treatments have different effects on women than men, but we don’t really know that that well because they’re not as represented in these clinical trials. Then it also directs agencies to develop and strengthen research and data standards on women’s health across all of the relevant research and funding opportunities in the government.

Rovner: I’ll say that this is an issue I have very strong feelings about because I covered the debate in 1992 about including women in medical research. At the time, doctors didn’t want to have women in clinical trials because they were worried about hormones, and they might get pregnant, and we wouldn’t really know what that meant for whatever it was that we were testing. Someone suggested that “If you’re going to use these treatments and drugs on women, maybe you should test them on women too.” Then I won an award in 2015 for a story about how they still weren’t doing it, even though it was required by laws.

Carey: And here we are, 2024.

Rovner: Yeah, here we are. It just continues, but at least they’re trying. All right, finally, this week in medical misinformation, we travel to the Supreme Court, where the justices heard oral arguments in a case brought by two Republican state attorneys general charging that the Biden administration, quote, “coerced” social media platforms, Google, Meta, and X, into downgrading or taking down what public health officials deemed covid disinformation. I didn’t listen to the arguments, but all the coverage I saw suggested that the justices were not buying what the attorneys general were selling.

Yet another public-health-adjacent case to watch for a decision later this spring, but I think this is really going to be an important one in terms of what public officials can and cannot do using their authority as public health officials. We’re obviously in a bit of a public health trust crisis, so we will see how that goes.

All right, that is the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with HHS Secretary Xavier Becerra, then we will be back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra. I’ve asked him to join us to talk about the Affordable Care Act, which was signed into law 14 years ago this weekend. Mr. Secretary, thanks so much for coming back.

Xavier Becerra: Julie, great to be with you on a great week.

Rovner: So the Affordable Care Act has come a long way, not just in the 14 years since President Obama signed it into law, but in the 10 years since the healthcare.gov website so spectacularly failed to launch, but this year’s enrollment setting a record, right?

Becerra: That’s right, and you should have said, “You’ve come a long way, baby.”

Rovner: So what do we know about this year’s enrollment numbers?

Becerra: Another record breaker. Julie, every year that President Biden has been in office, we have broken records. Today, more Americans have health insurance than ever in the history of the country. More than 300 million people can now go to a doctor, leave their child in a hospital and know they won’t go bankrupt because they have their own health insurance. That’s the kind of peace of mind you can’t buy. Some 21.5 million Americans today look to the marketplace on the Affordable Care Act to get their coverage. By the way, the Affordable Care Act overall, some 45 million Americans today count on the ACA for their health care insurance, whether it’s through the marketplace, through Medicaid, or some of these basic plans that were also permitted under the ACA.

Rovner: Obviously, one of the reasons for such a big uptake is the expanded subsidies that were extended by the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, but those expire at the end of next year, the end of 2025. What do you think would happen to enrollment if they’re not renewed?

Becerra: Well, and that’s the big question. The fact that the president made health care affordable was the big news. Because having the Affordable Care Act was great, but if people still felt it was unaffordable, they wouldn’t sign on. They now know that this is the best deal in town and people are signing up. When you can get health insurance coverage for $10 or less a month in your premiums, that’s a great deal. You can’t even go see a movie at a theater today for under $10. Now, you can get health care coverage for a full month, Julie. Again, as I always tell people, that doesn’t even include the popcorn and the refreshment at the movie theater, and so it’s a big deal. But without the subsidies, some people would still say, “Ah, it’s still too expensive.” So that’s why the president in his budget calls for extending those subsidies permanently.

Rovner: So there are still 10 states that haven’t taken up the federal government’s offer to pay 90% of the costs to expand Medicaid to all low-income adults in their states. I know Mississippi is considering a bill right now. Are there other states that you expect could join them sometime in the near future? Or are any of those 10 states likely to join the other 40?

Becerra: We’re hoping that the other 10 states join the 40 that have come on board where millions of Americans today have coverage. They are forsaking quite a bit of money. I was in North Carolina recently where Gov. [Roy] Cooper successfully navigated the passage of expansion for Medicaid. Not only was he able to help some 600,000-plus North Carolinians get health coverage, but he also got a check for $1.6 billion as a bonus. Not bad.

Rovner: No, not bad at all. So many years into this law, I feel like people now understand a lot of what it did: let adult children stay on their parents’ health plans until the age of 26; banning most preexisting condition exclusions in health coverage. Yet most people still don’t know that those provisions that they support were actually created by Obamacare or even that Obamacare and the Affordable Care Act are the same thing. Medicare has had such great branding success over the years. Why hasn’t the ACA?

Becerra: Actually, Julie, I think that’s changing. Today, about two-thirds of Americans tell you that they support the marketplaces in the Affordable Care Act. I think we’re actually now beginning an era where it’s no longer the big three, where you had Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and everyone protects those. Today, I think it’s the big four, the cleanup hitter being marketplace. Today, you would find tens of millions of Americans who would say, “Keep your dirty, stinking hands off of my marketplace.”

Rovner: Well, we will see as that goes forward. Obviously, President Biden was heavily involved in the development of the Affordable Care Act as vice president, as were you as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee at the time. What do you hope is this administration’s biggest legacy to leave to the health law?

Becerra: Julie, I think it’s making it affordable. The president made a commitment when he was first running to be president. He said on health care he was going to make it more affordable for more Americans with better benefits, and that’s what he’s done. The ACA is perfect proof. And Americans are signing up and signaling they agree by the millions. To go from 12 million people on the Affordable Care Act marketplace to 21.5 million in three years, that’s big news.

Rovner: So if I may, one question on another topic. Next week, the Supreme Court’s oral arguments occur in the case it could substantially restrict the availability of the abortion pill mifepristone. Obviously, this is something that’s being handled by the Justice Department, but what is it about this case that worries you most as HHS secretary, about the potential impact if the court rolls back FDA approval to the 2016 regulations?

Becerra: Well, Julie, as you well know from your years of covering health care, today there are Americans who have less protection, fewer rights, than many of us growing up. My daughters, my three daughters today, have fewer protections and access to health care than my wife had when she was their age. That’s not the America most of us know. To see another case where, now, medication abortion, which is used by millions of Americans — in fact, it’s the most common form of care that is received by a woman who needs to have abortion services — that is now at stake. But we believe that if the Supreme Court believes in science and it believes in the facts, because mifepristone has been used safely and effectively publicly for more than 20 years, that we’re going to be fine.

The thing that worries me as much, not just in the reduction of access to care for women in America, is the fact that mifepristone went through a process at the FDA similar to scores and scores of other medications that Americans rely on, that have nothing to do with abortion. And if the process is shut down by the Supreme Court for mifepristone, then it’s probably now at risk for all those other drugs, and therefore those other drugs that Americans rely on for diabetes, for cancer, who knows what, might also be challenged as not having gone through the right process.

Rovner: I know the drug industry is very, very worried about this case and watching it closely, and so will we. Mr. Secretary, thank you so much for joining us.

Becerra: Always good to be with 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. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK, my extra credit this week is an article about Georgia’s unique Medicaid program from KFF Health News’ Andy Miller and Renuka Rayasam. It’s titled “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Costing Taxpayers Millions Despite Low Enrollment.” And I’m really glad they did this story. I and many others wrote about Georgia launching this program initially but haven’t done follow-up. So I was very happy to see this story.

As many of our listeners probably know, the Trump administration allowed multiple states to impose work requirements in Medicaid for the first time in the program’s history in 2018. But the efforts were eventually stopped by the courts in all states except Georgia. Georgia was allowed to proceed with adding its work requirement to Medicaid because it was actually going to expand coverage to allowing adults with incomes up to 100% of the poverty line to qualify. So the Georgia Pathways to Coverage initiative began last June.

Andy and Renuka took a look at how it’s faring, and the answer is actually not so well. Only about 3,500 people have signed up, far short of the 25,000 that the state projected for the first year. What’s more, the program has cost taxpayers at least $26 million so far, with more than 90% of that going towards administrative and consulting costs rather than actual medical care for low-income people.

By contrast, expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act to people with 138% of the poverty line would make at least 359,000 uninsured Georgia residents newly eligible for coverage and reduce state spending by $710 million over two years. That’s what the advocates are pushing. So we’ll see what happens in coming months. One thing that’s also noted in the story is that about 45% of Pathways applications were still waiting to be processed.

Rovner: I will point out that we did talk a couple of weeks ago about the low enrollment in the Georgia program. What we had not seen was how much it’s actually costing the states per enrollee. So it is really good story. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Yeah, so I have some very relatable news from CNN. It’s called “Why Your Doctor’s Office Is Spamming You With Appointment Reminders.” It’s about why we all get so many obnoxious repeat reminders for every medical appointment. It both explains why medical practices that operate on such a tiny profit margin are so anxious about no-shows and last-minute cancellations, and so that’s part of it. But also part of it is that there are all these different systems that don’t communicate with one another. So the prescription drug system and the electronic medical records system and the doctor’s office’s own system are all operating in parallel and not coordinating with one another, and that’s why you get all these annoying multiple reminders. The medical community is becoming aware that it’s backfiring because the more you get, the more you start tuning them out and you don’t pay attention to which ones might be important. So they are working on it. So a somewhat hopeful piece of news.

Rovner: Raise your hand if you have multiple patient portals that you have to deal with for your multiple …

Ollstein: Oh, my God, yes.

Rovner: I will note that everybody’s hands go up. Mac?

Carey: I have not one but two stories on a very important issue: Medicaid estate recovery. The first is from Paula Span at The New York Times. The headline says it all, “When Medicaid Comes After the Family Home.” And the second story is an AP piece by Amanda Seitz, and that’s titled “State Medicaid Offices Target Dead People’s Homes to Recoup Their Health Care Costs.” Now, these stories are both about a program that’s been around since 1993. That’s when Congress mandated Medicaid beneficiaries over the age of 55 that have used long-term care services, and I’m talking about nursing homes or home care, that states must try to recover those expenses from the beneficiaries’ estates after their deaths.

As you can imagine, this might be a problem for the beneficiaries. They might have to sell a family home, try to find other ways to pay a big bill from Medicaid. Rep. Jan Schakowsky, she’s a Democrat of Illinois, has reintroduced her bill. It’s called the Stop Unfair Medicaid Recoveries Act. She’s trying to end the practice. She thinks it’s cruel and harmful, and her argument is, in fact, the federal and state governments spend way more than what they collect, and these collections often go after low-income families that can’t afford the bill anyway.

So even though it’s been around, it’s important to read up on this. A critical point in the stories was do states properly warn people that assets were going to be recovered if they enroll a loved one in Medicaid for long-term care and so on. So great reading, people should bone up on that.

Rovner: This is one of those issues that just keeps resurfacing and doesn’t ever seem to get dealt with. Well, my story this week is from The Washington Post, although I will say it was covered widely in dozens of outlets. It’s called “Arizona Lawmaker Tells Her Abortion Story to Show ‘Reality’ of Restrictions.” On Monday, Arizona State Sen. Eva Birch stood up on the Senate floor and gave a speech unlike anything I have ever seen. She’s a former nurse at a women’s health clinic. She’s also had fertility issues of her own for at least a decade, having both had a miscarriage and an abortion for a nonviable pregnancy in between successfully delivering her two sons.

Now, she’s pregnant again, but with another nonviable pregnancy, which she plans to terminate. Her point in telling her story in public on the Senate floor, she said, was to underscore how cruel — her words — Arizona’s abortion restrictions are. She’s been subject to a waiting period, required to undergo an invasive transvaginal ultrasound to obtain information she and her doctor already knew about her pregnancy, and to listen to a lecture on abortion, quote, “alternatives,” like adoption, which clearly don’t apply in her case.

While she gave the speech on the floor, several of her Democratic colleagues stood in the camera shot behind her, while many of the Republicans reportedly walked out of the chamber. I will link to the story, but I will also link to the entire speech for those who want to hear it.

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 fill-in editor for today, 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, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Mary Agnes, where are you hanging out these days?

Carey: I’m hanging out on X, @MaryAgnesCarey.

Rovner: Alice?

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

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: The best place to find me is at cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. 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 general election campaign for president is (unofficially) on, as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have each apparently secured enough delegates to become his respective party’s nominee. And health care is turning out to be an unexpectedly front-and-center campaign issue, as Trump in recent weeks has suggested he may be interested in cutting Medicare and taking another swing at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the February cyberattack of Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of insurance giant UnitedHealth Group, continues to roil the health industry, as thousands of hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and other providers are unable to process claims and get paid.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It is unclear exactly what Trump meant in his recent remarks about possible cuts to Medicare and Social Security, though his comments provided an opening for Biden to pounce. By running as the candidate who would protect entitlements, Biden could position himself well, particularly with older voters, as the general election begins.
• Health care is shaping up to be the sleeper issue in this election, with high stakes for coverage. The Biden administration’s expanded subsidies for ACA plans are scheduled to expire at the end of next year, and the president’s latest budget request highlights his interest in expanding coverage, especially for postpartum women and for children. Plus, Republicans are eyeing what changes they could make should Trump reclaim the presidency.
• Meanwhile, Republicans are grappling with an internal party divide over access to in vitro fertilization, and Trump’s mixed messaging on abortion may not be helping him with his base. Could a running mate with more moderate perspectives help soften his image with voters who oppose abortion bans?
• A federal appeals court ruled that a Texas law requiring teenagers to obtain parental consent for birth control outweighs federal rules allowing teens to access prescription contraceptives confidentially. But concerns that if the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case a conservative-majority ruling would broaden the law’s impact to other states may dampen the chances of further appeals, leaving the law in effect. Also, the federal courts are making it harder to file cases in jurisdictions with friendly judges, a tactic known as judge-shopping, which conservative groups have used recently in reproductive health challenges.
• And weeks later, the Change Healthcare hack continues to cause widespread issues with medical billing. Some small providers fear continued payment delays could force them to close, and it is possible that the hack’s repercussions could soon block some patients from accessing care at all.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kelly Henning of Bloomberg Philanthropies about a new, four-part documentary series on the history of public health, “The Invisible Shield.”

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 “Navy Demoted Ronny Jackson After Probe Into White House Behavior,” by Dan Diamond and Alex Horton.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Frigid Offices Might Be Killing Women’s Productivity,” by Olga Khazan.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Stat’s “Rigid Rules at Methadone Clinics Are Jeopardizing Patients’ Path to Recover From Opioid Addiction,” by Lev Facher.

Anna Edney: Scientific American’s “How Hospitals Are Going Green Under Biden’s Climate Legislation,” by Ariel Wittenberg and E&E News.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Energy-Hog Hospitals: When They Start Thinking Green, They See Green,” by Julie Appleby.
• Stat’s “The War on Recovery: How the U.S. Is Sabotaging Its Best Tools to Prevent Deaths in the Opioid Epidemic,” by Lev Facher.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Maybe It’s a Health Care Election After All

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 14, at 10 a.m. Happy Pi Day, everyone. 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 Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Dr. Kelly Henning, head of the public health program at Bloomberg Philanthropies. She’ll give us a preview of the new four-part documentary series on the history of public health called “The Invisible Shield;” It premieres on PBS March 26. But first this week’s news. We’re going to start here in Washington with the annual State of the Union / budget dance, which this year coincides with the formal launch of the general election campaign, with both President Biden and former President Donald Trump having clinched their respective nominations this week.

Despite earlier claims that this year’s campaign would mostly ignore health issues, that’s turning out not so much to be the case. Biden in his speech highlighted reproductive health, which we’ll talk about in a minute, as well as prescription drug prices and the Affordable Care Act expansions. His proposed budget released on Monday includes suggestions of how to operationalize some of those proposals, including expanding Medicare’s drug negotiating powers. Did anything in particular in the speech or the budget jump out at any of you? Anything we weren’t expecting.

Edney: I wouldn’t say there was anything that I wasn’t expecting. There were things that I was told I should not expect and that I feel like I’ve been proven right, and so I’m happy about that, and that was the Medicare drug price negotiation. I thought that that was a win that he was going to take a lap on during the State of the Union, and certainly he did. And he’s also talking about trying to expand it, although that seems to face an extremely uphill battle, but it’s a good talking point.

Rovner: Well, and of course the expanded subsidies from the ACA expire at the end of next year. I imagine there’s going to be enough of a fight just to keep those going, right?

Edney: Yeah, certainly. I think people really appreciate the subsidies. If those were to go away, then the uninsured rate could go up. It’s probably an odd place in a way for Republicans, too, who are talking about, again, still in some circles, in some ways, getting rid of Obamacare. We’re back at that place even though I don’t think anyone thinks that’s entirely realistic.

Rovner: Oh, you are anticipating my next question, which is that former President Trump, who is known for being all over the place on a lot of issues, has been pretty steadfast all along about protecting Medicare and Social Security, but he’s now backing away from even that. In an interview on CNBC this week, Trump said, and I’m quoting, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting” — which his staff said was referring to waste and fraud, but which appears to open that up as a general election campaign issue. Yes, the Biden people seem to be already jumping on it.

Sanger-Katz: Yes. They could not be more excited about this. I think this has been an issue that Biden has really wanted to run on as the protector of these programs for the elderly. He had this confrontation with Congress in the State of the Union last year, as you may remember, in which he tried to get them to promise not to touch these programs. And I think his goal of weaponizing this issue has been very much hindered by Trump’s reluctance to take it on. I think there are Republicans, certainly in Congress, and I think that we saw during the presidential primary some other candidates for president who were more interested in rethinking these programs and concerned about the long-term trajectory of the federal deficit. Trump has historically not been one of them. What Trump meant exactly, I think, is sort of TBD, but I think it does provide this opening. I’m sure that we’ll see Biden talking about this a lot more as the campaign wears on and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see this clip in television ads and featured again and again.

Kenen: So it’s both, I mean, it’s basically, he’s talked about reopening the repeal fight as Julie just mentioned, which did not go too well for the Republicans last time, and there’s plenty to cut in Medicare. If you read the whole quote, he does then talk about fraud and abuse and mismanagement, but the soundbite is the soundbite. Those are the words that came out of his mouth, whether he meant it that way or not, and we will see that campaign ad a lot, some version of it.

Rovner: My theory is that he was, and this is something that Trump does, he was on CNBC, he knew he was talking to a business audience, and he liked to say what he thinks the audience wants to hear without — you would think by now he would know that speaking to one audience doesn’t mean that you’re only speaking to that one audience. I think that’s why he’s all over the place on a lot of issues because he tends to tailor his remarks to what he thinks the people he is speaking directly to want to hear. But meanwhile, Anna, as you mentioned, he’s also raised the specter of the Affordable Care Act repeal again.

Sanger-Katz: I do think the juxtaposition of the Biden budget and State of the Union and these remarks from Trump, who now is officially the presumptive nominee for president, I think it really does highlight that there are pretty high stakes in health care for this election. I think it’s not been a focus of our discussion of this election so far. But Julie, you’ve mentioned the expiration of these subsidies that have made Affordable Care Act plans substantially more affordable for Americans and substantially more appealing, nearly doubling the number of people who are enrolled in these plans.

That is a policy that is going to expire at the end of next year. And so you could imagine a scenario, even if Trump did not want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which he does occasionally continue to make noises about, where that could just go away through pure inertia if you didn’t have an administration that was actively trying to extend that policy and you could see a real retrenchment: increases in prices, people leaving the market, potentially some instability in the marketplace itself, where you might see insurers exiting or other kinds of problems and a situation much more akin to what we saw in the Trump administration where those markets were “OK, but were a little bit rocky and not that popular.”

I think similarly for Medicare and Medicaid, these big federal health programs, Biden has really been committed to, as he says, not cutting them. The Medicare price negotiation for drugs has provided a little bit more savings for the program. So it’s on a little bit of a better fiscal trajectory, and he has these additional proposals, again, I think long shots politically to try to shore up Medicare’s finances more. So you see this commitment to these programs and certainly this commitment to — there were multiple things in the budget to try to liberalize and expand Medicaid coverage to make postpartum coverage for women after they give birth, permanently one year after birth, people would have coverage.

Right now, that’s an option for states, but it’s not required for every state. And additionally to try to, in an optional basis, make it a little easier to keep kids enrolled in Medicaid for longer, to just allow states to keep kids in for the first six years of life and then three years at a time after that. So again, that’s an option, but I think you see the Biden administration making a commitment to expand and shore up these programs, and I do think a Trump administration and a Republican Congress might be coming at these programs with a bit more of a scalpel.

Rovner: And also, I mean, one of the things we haven’t talked about very much since we’re on the subject of the campaign is that this year Trump is ready in a way that he was not, certainly not in 2016 and not even in 2020. He’s got the Heritage Foundation behind him with this whole 2025 blueprint, people with actual expertise in knowing what to turn, what to do, actually, how to manipulate the bureaucracy in a way that the first Trump administration didn’t have to. So I think we could see, in fact, a lot more on health care that Republicans writ large would like to do if Trump is reelected. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: Yeah, I mean, we all didn’t see this year as a health care election, and I still think that larger existential issues about democracy, it’s a reprise. It’s 2020 all over again in many ways, but abortion yes, abortion is a health care issue, and that was still going …

Rovner: We’re getting to that next.

Kenen: I know, but I mean we all knew that was still going to be a ballot driver, a voter driver. But Trump, with two remarks, however, well, there’s a difference between the people at the Heritage Foundation writing detailed policy plans about how they’re going to dismantle the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] as we currently know it versus what Trump says off the cuff. I mean, if you say to a normal person on the street, we want to divide the CDC in two, that’s not going to trigger anything for a voter. But when you start talking about we want to take away your health care subsidies and cut Medicare, so these are sort of, some observers have called them unforced errors, but basically right now, yeah, we’re in another health care election. Not the top issue — and also depending on what else goes on in the world, because it’s a pretty shaky place at the moment. By September, will it be a top three issue? None of us know, but right now it’s more of a health care election than it was shaping up to be even just a few weeks ago.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, one thing, as you said, that we all know will be a big campaign issue this fall is abortion. We saw that in the State of the Union with the gallery full of women who’d been denied abortion, IVF services, and other forms of reproductive health care and the dozens of Democratic women on the floor of the House wearing white from head to toe as a statement of support for reproductive health care. While Democrats do have some divides over how strongly to embrace abortion rights, a big one is whether restoring Roe [v. Wade] is enough or they need to go even further in assuring access to basically all manner of reproductive health care.

It’s actually the Republicans who are most on the defensive, particularly over IVF and other state efforts that would restrict birth control by declaring personhood from the moment of fertilization. Along those lines, one of the more interesting stories I saw this week suggested that Donald Trump, who has fretted aloud about how unpopular the anti-abortion position is among the public, seems less likely to choose a strong pro-lifer as his running mate this time. Remember Mike Pence came along with that big anti-abortion background. What would this mean? It’s not like he’s going to choose Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or some Republican that we know actually supports abortion rights. I’m not sure I see what this could do for him and who might fit this category.

Kenen: Well, I think there’s a good chance he’ll choose a woman, and we all have names at the tip of our tongues, but we don’t know yet. But yeah, I mean they need to soften some of this stuff. But Trump’s own attempt right now bragging about appointing the justices that killed Roe, at the same time, he’s apparently talking about a 15-week ban or a 16-week ban, which is very different than zero. So he’s giving a mixed message. That’s not what his base wants to hear from him, obviously. I mean, Julie, you’ll probably get to this, but the IVF thing is also pitting anti-abortion Republican against anti-abortion Republican, with Mike Pence, again, being a very good example where Mike Pence’s anti-abortion bona fides are pretty clear, but he has been public about his kids are IVF babies? I’m not sure if all of them are, but at least some of them are. So he does not think that two cells in a freezer or eight cells or 16 cells is the same to child. In his view, it’s a potential child. So yeah.

Edney: I think you can do a lot with a vice president. We see Biden has his own issues with the abortion issue and, as people have pointed out, he demurred from saying that word in the State of the Union and we see just it was recently announced that Vice President Kamala Harris is going to visit an abortion clinic. So you can appease maybe the other side, and that might be what Trump is looking to do. I think, as Joanne mentioned, his base wants him to be anti-abortion, but now you’re getting all of these fractures in the Republican Party and you need someone that maybe can massage that and help with the crowd that’s been voting on the state level, voting on more of a personal level, to keep reproductive rights, even though his base doesn’t seem to be that that’s what they want. So I feel like he may be looking to choose someone who’s very different or has some differences that he can, not acknowledge, but that they can go out and please the other side.

Rovner: Of course, the only person who really fits that bill is Nikki Haley, who is very, very strongly anti-abortion, but at least tried, not very well, but tried to say that there are other people around and they believe other things and we should embrace them, too. I can’t think of another Republican except for Nikki Haley who’s really tried to do that. Margot, you wanted to say something?

Sanger-Katz: Oh, I was just going to say that if this reporting is correct, I think it does really reflect the political moment that Trump finds himself in. I think when he was running the last time, I think he really had to convince the anti-abortion voter, the evangelical voter, to come along with him. I think they had reservations about his character, about his commitment to their cause. He was seen as someone who maybe wasn’t really a true believer in these issues. And so I think he had to do these things, like choosing Mike Pence, choosing someone who was one of them. Pre-publishing a list of judges that he would consider for the Supreme Court who were seen as rock solid on abortion. He had to convince these voters that he was the real deal and that he was going to be on their side, and I just don’t think he really has that problem to the same degree right now.

I think he’s consolidated support among that segment of the electorate and his bigger concern going into the general election, and also the primaries are over, and so his bigger concern going into the general election is how to deal with more moderate swing voters, suburban women, and other groups who I think are a little bit concerned about the extreme anti-abortion policies that have been pursued in some of these states. And I think they might be reluctant to vote for Trump if they see him as being associated with those policies. So you see him maybe thinking about how to soften his image on this issue.

Rovner: I should point out the primaries aren’t actually over, most of states still haven’t had their primaries, but the primaries are effectively over for president because both candidates have now amassed enough delegates to have the nomination.

Sanger-Katz: Yes, that’s right. And it’s not over until the convention, although I think the way that the Republicans have arranged their convention, it’s very hard to imagine anyone other than Trump being president no matter what happens.

Rovner: Yes.

Sanger-Katz: Or not being president. Sorry, being the nominee.

Rovner: Being the nominee, yes, indeed. Well, we are only two weeks away from the Supreme Court oral arguments in the abortion pill case and a little over a month from another set of Supreme Court oral arguments surrounding whether doctors have to provide abortions in medical emergencies. And the cases just keep on coming in court this week. A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in part a lower court ruling that held that Texas’ law requiring parents to provide consent before their teenage daughters may obtain prescription birth control, Trump’s federal rules requiring patient confidentiality even for minors at federally funded Title X clinics.

Two things about this case. First, it’s a fight that goes all the way back to the Reagan administration and something called the “Squeal Rule,” which I did not cover, I only read about, but it’s something that the courts have repeatedly ruled against, that Title X is in fact allowed to maintain patient privacy even for teenagers. And the second thing is that the lower court ruling came from Texas federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who also wrote the decision attempting to overturn the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. This one, though, we might not expect to get to the Supreme Court.

Kenen: But we’re often wrong on these kinds of things.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true.

Kenen: I mean, things that seem based on the historical pathway that shouldn’t have gotten to the court are getting to the court and the whole debate has shifted so far to the right. An interesting aside, there is a move, and I read this yesterday, but now I’m forgetting the details, so one of you can clarify for me. I can’t remember whether they’re considering doing this or the way they’ve actually put into place steps to prevent judge-shopping.

Rovner: That’s next.

Kenen: OK, I’m sorry, I’m doing such a good job of reading your mind.

Rovner: You are such a good job, Joanne.

Kenen: But I mean so many in these cases go back to one. If there was a bingo card for reproductive lawsuits, there might be one face in it.

Rovner: Two, Judge [Reed] O’Connor, remember the guy with the Affordable Care Act.

Kenen: Right. But so much of this is going back to judge-shopping or district-shopping for the judge. So a lot of these things that we thought wouldn’t get to the court have gotten to the court.

Rovner: Yeah, well, no, I was going to say in this case, though, there seems to be some suggestion that those who support the confidentiality and the Title X rules might not want to appeal this to the Supreme Court because they’re afraid they’ll lose. That this is the Supreme Court that overturned Roe, it would almost certainly be a Supreme Court that would rule against Title X confidentiality for birth control, that perhaps they want to just let this lie. I think as it stands now it only applies to the 5th Circuit. So Texas, Louisiana, and I forget what else is in the 5th Circuit, but it wouldn’t apply around the country and in this case, I guess it’s just Texas because it’s Texas’ law that conflicts with the rules.

Kenen: Except when one state does something, it doesn’t mean that it’s only Texas’ law six months from now.

Rovner: Right. What starts in Texas doesn’t necessarily stay in Texas.

Kenen: Right, it could go to Nevada. They may decide that they have a losing case and they want to wait 20 years, but other people end up taking things — I mean, it is very unpredictable and a huge amount of the docket is reproductive health right now.

Rovner: I would say the one thing we know is that Justice Alito, when he said that the Supreme Court was going to stop having to deal with this issue was either disingenuous or just very wrong because that is certainly not what’s happened. Well, as Joanne already jumped ahead a little bit, I mentioned Judge Kacsmaryk for a specific reason. Also this week, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which makes rules for how the federal courts work, voted to make it harder to judge-shop by filing cases in specific places like Amarillo, Texas, where there’s only one sitting federal judge. This is why Judge Kacsmaryk has gotten so many of those hot-button cases. Not because kookie stuff happens all the time in Amarillo, but because plaintiffs have specifically filed suit there to get their cases in front of him. The change by the judicial conference basically sets things back to the way they used to be, right, where it was at least partly random, which judge you got when you filed a case.

Kenen: But there are also some organizations that have intentionally based themselves in Amarillo so that they’re there. I mean, we may also see, if the rules go back to the old days, we may also still say you have a better case for filing in where you actually operate. So everybody just keeps hopping around and playing the field to their advantage.

Rovner: Yeah. And I imagine in some places there’s only a couple of judges, I think it was mostly Texas that had these one-judge districts where you knew if you filed there, you were going to get that judge, so — the people who watch these things and who worry about judge-shopping seem to be heartened by this decision by the judicial conference. So I’m not someone who is an expert in that sort of thing, but they seem to think that this will deter it, if not stop it entirely.

Moving on, remember a couple of weeks ago when I said that the hack of UnitedHealth [Group] subsidiary Change Healthcare was the most undercovered story in health? Clearly, I had no idea how true that was going to become. That processes 15 billion — with a B — claims every year handles one of every three patient records is still down, meaning hospitals, doctor’s offices, nursing homes, and all other manner of health providers still mostly aren’t getting paid. Some are worrying they soon won’t be able to pay their employees. How big could this whole mess ultimately become? I don’t think anybody anticipated it would be as big as it already is.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s affecting a number of federal programs, too, that rely on this data, like quality measurement. And it really is a reflection, first of all, obviously of the consolidation of all of this, which I know that you guys have talked about on the podcast before, but also just the digitization and interconnectedness of everything. All of these programs are relying on this billing information, and we use that not just to pay people, but also to evaluate what kind of health care is being delivered, and what quality it is, and how much we should pay people in Medicare Advantage, and on all kinds of other things. So it’s this really complex, interconnected web of information that has been disrupted by this hack, and I think there’s going to be quite a lot of fallout.

Edney: And the coverage that I’ve read we’re potentially, and not in an alarmist way, but weeks away from maybe some patients not getting care because of this, particularly at the small providers. Some of my colleagues did a story yesterday on the small cancer providers who are really struggling and aren’t sure how long they’re going to be able to keep the lights on because they just aren’t getting paid. And there are programs now that have been set up but maybe aren’t offering enough money in these no-interest loans and things like that. So it seems like a really precarious situation for a lot of them. And now we see that HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] is looking into this other side of it. They’re going to investigate whether there were some HIPAA violations. So not looking exactly at the money exchange, but what happened in this hack, which is interesting because I haven’t seen a lot about that, and I did wonder, “Oh, what happened with these patients’ information that was stolen?” And UnitedHealth has taken a huge hit. I mean, it’s a huge company and it’s just taken a huge hit to its reputation and I think …

Rovner: And to its stock price.

Edney: And it’s stock price. That is very true. And they don’t know when they’re actually going to be able to resolve all of this. I mean, it’s just a huge mess.

Rovner: And not to forget they paid $22 million in ransom two weeks ago. When I saw that, I assumed that this was going to be almost over because usually I know when a hospital gets hacked, everybody says, don’t pay ransom, but they pay the ransom, they get their material back, they unlock what was locked away. And often that ends it, although it then encourages other people to do it because hey, if you do it, you can get paid ransom. Frankly, for UnitedHealthcare, I thought $22 million was a fairly low sum, but it does not appear — I think this has become such a mess that they’re going to have to rebuild the entire operation in order to make it work. At least, not a computer expert here. But that’s the way I understand this is going on.

Kenen: But I also think this, I mean none of us are cyber experts, but I’m also wondering if this is going to lead to some kind of rethinking about alternative ways of paying people. If this created such chaos, and not just chaos, damage, real damage, the incentive to do something similar to another, intermediate, even if it’s not quite this big. It’s like, “Wait, no one wants to be the next one.” So what kind of push is there going to be, not just for greater cybersecurity, but for Plan B when there is a crisis? And I don’t know if that’s something that the cyberexperts can put together in what kind of timeline — if HHS was to require that or whether the industry just decides they need it without requirements that this is not OK. It’s going to keep happening if it’s profitable for whoever’s doing it.

Rovner: I remember, ruefully, Joanne and I were there together covering HIPAA when they were passing it, which of course had nothing whatsoever to do with medical privacy at the time, but what it did do was give that first big push to start digitizing medical information. And there was all this talk about how wonderful it was going to be when we had all this digitally and researchers could do so much with it, and patients would be able to have all of their records in one place and …

Kenen: You get to have 19 passwords for 19 different forums now.

Rovner: Yes. But in 1995 it all seemed like a great, wonderful new world of everything being way more efficient. And I don’t remember ever hearing somebody talking about hacking this information, although as I point out the part of HIPAA that we all know, the patient medical records privacy, was added on literally at the last minute because someone said, “Uh-oh, if we’re going to digitize all this information, maybe we better be sure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.” So at least somebody had some idea that we could be here. What are we 20, 30 … are we 30 years later? It’s been a long time. Anyway, that’s my two cents. All right, next up, Mississippi is flirting with actually expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It’s one of only 10 remaining states that has not extended the program to people who have very low incomes but don’t meet the so-called categorical eligibility requirements like being a pregnant woman or child or person with a disability.

The Mississippi House passed an expansion bill including a fairly stringent work requirement by a veto-proof majority last week, week before.

Kenen: I think two weeks ago.

Rovner: But even if it passed the Senate and gets signed by the governor, which is still a pretty big if, the governor is reportedly lobbying hard against it. The plan would require a waiver from the Biden administration, which is not a big fan of work requirements. On the other hand, even if it doesn’t happen, and I would probably put my money at this point that it’s not going to happen this year, does it signal that some of the most strident, holdout states might be seeing the attraction of a 90% federal match and some of the pleas of their hospital associations? Anna, I see you nodding.

Edney: Yeah, I mean it was a little surprising, but this is also why I love statehouses. They just do these unexpected things that maybe make sense for their constituents sometimes, and it’s not all the time. I thought that it seemed like they had come around to the fact that this is a lot of money for Mississippi and it can help a lot of people. I think I’ve seen numbers like maybe adding 200,000 or so to the rolls, and so that’s a huge boost for people living there. And with the work requirement, is it true that even if the Biden administration rejects it, this plan can still go into place, right?

Kenen: The House version.

Edney: The House version.

Kenen: Yes.

Edney: Yeah.

Rovner: My guess is that’s why the governor is lobbying so hard against it. But yeah.

Kenen: I mean, I think that we had been watching a couple of states, we keep hearing Alabama was one of the states that has been talking about it but not doing anything about it. Wyoming, which surprised me when they had a little spurt of activity, which I think has subsided. I mean, what we’ve been saying ever since the Supreme Court made this optional for states more than 10 years ago now. Was it 2012? We’ve been saying eventually they’ll all do it. Keeping in mind that original Medicaid in [19]65, it took until 1982, which neither Julie nor I covered, until the last state, which was Arizona, took regular Medicare, Medicaid, the big — forget the ACA stuff. I mean, Medicaid was not in all states for almost 20 years. So I think we’ve all said eventually they’re going to do it. I don’t think that we are about to see a domino effect that North Carolina, which is a purple state, they did it a few months ago, maybe a year by now.

There was talk then that, “Oh, all the rest will do it.” No, all the rest will probably do it eventually, but not tomorrow. Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country. It has one of the lowest health statuses of their population, obesity, diabetes, other chronic diseases. It has a very small Medicaid program. The eligibility levels are even for very, very, very poor childless adults, you can’t get on their plan. But have we heard rural hospitals pushing for this for a decade? Yes. Have we heard chambers of commerce in some of these states wanting it because communities without hospitals or communities without robust health systems are not economically attractive? We’ve been hearing the business community push for this for a long time. But the holdouts are still holdouts and I do think they will all take it. I don’t think it’s imminent.

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s probably a fair assessment.

Kenen: It makes good economic sense, I mean, you’re getting all this money from the federal government to cover poor people and keep your hospitals open. But it’s a political fight. It’s not just a …

Rovner: It’s ideology.

Kenen: Yes, it’s not a [inaudible]. And it’s called Obamacare.

Edney: And sometimes things just have to fall into place. Mississippi got a new speaker of the House in their state government, so that’s his decision to push this as something that the House was going to take up. So whether that happens in other places, whether all those cards fall into places can take more time.

Kenen: Well, the last thing is we also know it’s popular with voters because we’ve seen it on the ballot in what, seven states, eight states, I forgot. And it won, and it won pretty big in really conservative states like Idaho and Utah. So as Julie said, this is ideology, it’s state lawmakers, it’s governors, it’s not voters, it’s not hospitals, it’s not chambers of commerce. It’s not particularly rural hospitals. A lot of people think this makes sense, but their own governments don’t think it makes sense.

Rovner: Yes. Well, another of those stories that moves very, very slowly. Finally, “This Week in Medical Misinformation”: I want to call out those who are fighting back against those who are accusing them of spreading false or misleading claims. I know this sounds confusing. Specifically, 16 conservative state attorneys general have called on YouTube to correct a, quote, “context disclaimer” that it put on videos posted by the anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom claiming serious and scientifically unproven harms that can be caused by the abortion pill mifepristone.

Unfortunately, for YouTube, their context disclaimer was a little clunky and conflated medication and surgical abortion, which still doesn’t make the original ADF videos more accurate, just means that the disclaimer wasn’t quite right. Meanwhile, more anti-abortion states are having legal rather than medical experts try to “explain” — and I put explain in air quotes — when an abortion to save the life of a woman is or isn’t legal, which isn’t really helping clarify the situation much if you are a doctor worried about having your license pulled or, at best, ending up having to defend yourself in court. It feels like misinformation is now being used as a weapon as well as a way to mislead people. Or am I reading this wrong?

Edney: I mean, I had to read that disclaimer a few times. Just the whole back-and-forth was confusing enough. And so it does feel like we’re getting into this new era of, if you say one wrong thing against the disinformation, that’s going to be used against you. So everybody has to be really careful. And the disclaimer, it was odd because I thought it said the procedure is [inaudible]. So that made me think, oh, they’re just talking about the actual surgical abortion. But it was clunky. I think clunky is a good word that you used for it. So yeah.

Rovner: Yeah, it worries me. I think I see all of this — people who want to put out misinformation. I’m not accusing ADF of saying, “We’re going to put out misinformation.” I think this is what they’ve been saying all along, but people who do want to put out misinformation for misinformation’s sake are then going to hit back at the people who point out that it’s misinformation, which of course there’s no way for the public to then know who the heck is right. And it undercuts the idea of trying to point out some of this misinformation. People ask me wherever I go, “What are we going to do about this misinformation?” My answer is, “I don’t know, but I hope somebody thinks of something.”

Kenen: I mean, if you word something poorly, you got to fix it. I mean, that’s just the bottom line. Just like we as journalists have to come clean when we make a mistake. And it feels bad to have to write a correction, but we do it. So Google has been working on — there’s a group convened by the Institute of Medicine [National Academy of Medicine] and the World Health Organization and some others that have come out with guidelines and credible communicators, like who can you trust? I mean, we talked about the RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] story I did a few weeks ago, and if you Google RSV vaccine on and you look on YouTube or Google, it’s not that there’s zero misinformation, but there’s a lot less than there used to be. And what comes up first is the reliable stuff: CDC, Mayo Clinic, things like that. So YouTube has been really working on weeding out the disinformation, but again, for their own credibility, if they want to be seen as clean arbiters of going with credibility, if they get something mushy, they’ve got to de-mush it at the end.

Rovner: And I will say that Twitter of all places — or X, whatever you want to call it, the place that everybody now is like, “Don’t go there. It’s just a mess” — has these community notes that get attached to some of the posts that I actually find fairly helpful and it lets you rate it.

Kenen: Some of them, I mean overall, there’s actually research on that. We’ll talk about my book when it comes out next year, but we have stuff. I’m in the final stages of co-authoring a book that … it goes into misinformation, which is why I’ve learned a lot about this. Community Notes has been really uneven and …

Rovner: I guess when it pops up in my feed, I have found it surprisingly helpful and I thought, “This is not what I expect to see on this site.”

Kenen: And it hasn’t stopped [Elon] Musk himself from tweeting misinformation about drugs …

Rovner: That’s certainly true.

Kenen: … drugs he doesn’t like, including the birth control pill he tells people not to use because it promotes suicide. So basically, yeah, Julie, you’re right that we need tools to fight it, and none of the tools we currently have are particularly effective yet. And absolutely everything gets politicized.

Sanger-Katz: And it’s a real challenge I think for these social media platforms. You know what I mean? They don’t really want to be in the editorial business. I think they don’t really want to be in the moderation business in large part. And so you can see them grappling with the problem of the most egregious forms of misinformation on their platforms, but doing it clumsily and anxiously and maybe making mistakes along the way. I think it’s not a natural function for these companies, and I think it’s not a comfortable function for the people that run these companies, who I think are much more committed to free discourse and algorithmic sharing of information and trying to boost engagement as opposed to trying to operate the way a newspaper editor might be in selecting the most useful and true information and foregrounding that.

Kenen: Yeah, I mean that’s what the Supreme Court has been grappling with too, is another [inaudible] … what are the rules of the game? What should be legally enforced? What is their responsibility, that the social media company’s responsibilities, to moderate versus what is just people get to post? I mean, Google’s trying to use algorithms to promote credible communicators. It’s not that nothing wrong is there, but it’s not what you see first.

Rovner: I think it’s definitely the issue of the 2020s. It is not going away anytime soon.

Kenen: And it’s not just about health.

Rovner: Oh, absolutely. I know. Well, that is the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with Dr. Kelly Henning of Bloomberg Philanthropies, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Kelly Henning, who heads the Bloomberg Philanthropies Public Health program. She’s here to tell us about a new documentary series about the past, present, and future of public health called “The Invisible Shield.” It premieres on PBS on March 26. Dr. Henning, thank you so much for joining us.

Kelly Henning: Thank you for having me.

Rovner: So the tagline for this series is, “Public health saved your life today, and you don’t even know it.” You’ve worked in public health in a lot of capacities for a lot of years, so have I. Why has public health been so invisible for most of the time?

Henning: It’s a really interesting phenomenon, and I think, Julie, we all take public health for granted on some level. It is what really protects people across the country and across the world, but it is quite invisible. So usually if things are working really well in public health, you don’t think about it at all. Things like excellent vaccination programs, clean water, clean air, these are all public health programs. But I think most people don’t really give them a lot of thought every day.

Rovner: Until we need them, and then they get completely controversial.

Henning: So to that point, covid-19 and the recent pandemic really was a moment when public health was in the spotlight very much no longer behind an invisible shield, but quite out in front. And so this seemed like a moment when we really wanted to unpack a little bit more around public health and talk about how it works, why it’s so important, and what some of the opportunities are to continue to support it.

Rovner: I feel like even before the pandemic, though, the perceptions of public health were changing. I guess it had something to do with a general anti-science, anti-authority rising trend. Were there warning signs that public health was about to explode in people’s consciousness in not necessarily a good way?

Henning: Well, I think those are all good points, but I also think that there are young generations of students who have become very interested in public health. It’s one of the leading undergraduate majors nowadays. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has more applications than ever before, and that was occurring before the pandemic and even more so throughout. So I think it’s a bit of a mixed situation. I do think public health in the United States has had some really difficult times in terms of life expectancy. So we started to see declines in life expectancy way back in 2017. So we have had challenges on the program side, but I think this film is an opportunity for us to talk more deeply about public health.

Rovner: Remind people what are some of the things that public health has brought us besides, we talk about vaccines and clean water and clean air, but there’s a lot more to public health than the big headlines.

Henning: Yeah, I mean, for example, seat belts. Every day we get into our vehicle, we put a seat belt on, but I think most people don’t realize that was initially extremely controversial and actually not so easy to get that policy in place. And yet it saved literally tens of hundreds of thousands of lives across the U.S. and now across the world. So seat belts are something that often come to mind. Similar to that are things like child restraints, what we would call car seats in the U.S. That’s another similar strategy that’s been very much promoted and the evidence has been created through public health initiatives. There are other things like window guards. In cities, there are window guards that help children not fall out of windows from high buildings. Again, those are public health initiatives that many people are quite unaware of.

Rovner: How can this documentary help change the perception of public health? Right now I think when people think of public health, they think of people fighting over mask mandates and people fighting over covid vaccines.

Henning: Yeah, I really hope that this documentary will give people some perspective around all the ways in which public health has been working behind the scenes over decades. Also, I hope that this documentary will allow the public to see some of those workers and what they face, those public health front-line workers. And those are not just physicians, but scientists, activists, reformers, engineers, government officials, all kinds of people from all disciplines working in public health. It’s a moment to shine a light on that. And then lastly, I hope it’s hopeful. I hope it shows us that there are opportunities still to come in the space of public health and many, many more things we can do together.

Rovner: Longtime listeners to the podcast will know that I’ve been exploring the question of why it has been so difficult to communicate the benefits of public health to the public, as I’ve talked to lots of people, including experts in messaging and communication. What is your solution for how we can better communicate to the public all of the things that public health has done for them?

Henning: Well, Julie, I don’t have one solution, but I do think that public health has to take this issue of communication more seriously. So we have to really develop strategies and meet people where they are, make sure that we are bringing those messages to communities, and the messengers are people that the community feels are trustworthy and that are really appropriate spokespeople for them. I also think that this issue of communications is evolving. People are getting their information in different ways, so public health has to move with the times and be prepared for that. And lastly, I think this “Invisible Shield” documentary is an opportunity for people to hear and learn and understand more about the history of public health and where it’s going.

Rovner: Dr. Kelly Henning, thank you so much for joining us. I really look forward to watching the entire series. 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. Joanne, you have everybody’s favorite story this week. Why don’t you go first?

Kenen: I demanded the right to do this one, and it’s Olga, I think her last name is pronounced Khazan. I actually know her and I don’t know how to pronounce her name, but Olga Khazan, apologies if I’ve got it wrong, from The Atlantic, has a story that says “Frigid Offices Might Be Killing Women’s Productivity.” Well, from all of us who are cold, I’m not sure I would want to use the word “frigid,” but of all of us who are cold in the office and sitting there with blankets. I used to have a contraband, very small space heater hidden behind a trash basket under my desk. We freeze because men like colder temperatures and they’re wearing suits. So we’ve been complaining about being cold, but there’s actually a study now that shows that it actually hurts our actual cognitive performance. And this is one study, there’s more to come, but it may also be one explanation for why high school girls do worse than high school boys on math SATs.

Rovner: Did not read that part.

Kenen: It’s not just comfort in the battle over the thermostat, it’s actually how do our brains function and can we do our best if we’re really cold?

Rovner: True. Anna.

Edney: This is a departure from my normal doom and gloom. So I’m happy to say this is in Scientific American, “How Hospitals Are Going Green Under Biden’s Climate Legislation.” I thought it was interesting. Apparently if you’re a not-for-profit, there were tax credits that you were not able to use, but the Inflation Reduction Act changed that so that there are some hospitals, and they talked to this Valley Children’s in California, that there had been rolling blackouts after some fires and things like that, and they wanted to put in a micro-grid and a solar farm. And so they’ve been able to do that.

And health care contributes a decent amount. I think it’s like 8.5% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And Biden had established this Office of Climate Change [and Health Equity] a few years ago and within the health department. So this is something that they’re trying to do to battle those things. And I thought that it was just interesting that we’re talking about this on the day that the top story, Margot, in The New York Times is, not by you, but is about how there’s this huge surge in energy demand. And so this is a way people are trying to do it on their own and not be so reliant on that overpowered grid.

Rovner: KFF Health News has done a bunch of stories about contribution to climate change from the health sector, which I had no idea, but it’s big. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to highlight the second story in this Lev Facher series on treatment for opioid addiction in Stat called “Rigid Rules at Methadone Clinics Are Jeopardizing Patients’ Path to Recovery From Opioid Addiction,” which is a nice long title that tells you a lot about what is in the story. But I think methadone treatment is a really evidence-based treatment that can be really helpful for a lot of people who have opioid addiction. And I think what this story highlights is that the mechanics of how a lot of these programs work are really hard. They’re punitive, they’re difficult to navigate, they make it really hard for people to have normal lives while they’re undergoing methadone treatment and then, in some cases, arbitrarily so. And so I think it just points out that there are opportunities to potentially do this better in a way that better supports recovery and it supports the lives of people who are in recovery.

Rovner: Yeah, it used the phrase “liquid handcuffs,” which I had not seen before, which was pretty vivid. For those of you who weren’t listening, the Part One of this series was an extra credit last week, so I’ll post links to both of them. My story’s from our friend Dan Diamond at The Washington Post. It’s called “Navy Demoted Ronnie Jackson After Probe Into White House Behavior.” Ronnie Jackson, in case you don’t remember, was the White House physician under Presidents [Barack] Obama and Trump and a 2021 inspector general’s report found, and I’m reading from the story here, quote, “that Jackson berated subordinates in the White House medical unit, made sexual and denigrating statements about a female subordinate, consumed alcohol inappropriately with subordinates, and consumed the sleep drug Ambien while on duty as the president’s physician.” In response to the report, the Navy demoted Jackson retroactively — he’s retired —from a rear admiral down to a captain.

Now, why is any of this important? Well, mainly because Jackson is now a member of Congress and because he still incorrectly refers to himself as a retired admiral. It’s a pretty vivid story, you should really read it.

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. Margot, where are you these days?

Sanger-Katz: I’m at all the places @Sanger-Katz, although not particularly active on any of them.

Rovner: Anna.

Edney: On X, it’s @annaedney and on Threads it’s @anna_edneyreports.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: I’m Threads @joannekenen1, and I’ve been using LinkedIn more. I think some of the other panelists have said that people are beginning to treat that as a place to post, and I think many of us are seeing a little bit more traction there.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The State of the Union Is … Busy

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman, of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: I have that on a T-shirt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Alice.

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

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and on Blue Sky.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Alabama Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling last week that frozen embryos have legal rights as people has touched off a national debate about the potential fallout of the “personhood” movement. Already the University of Alabama-Birmingham has paused its in vitro fertilization program while it determines the ongoing legality of a process that has become increasingly common for those wishing to start a family. 

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump is reportedly leaning toward endorsing a national, 16-week abortion ban. At the same time, former aides are planning a long agenda of reproductive health restrictions should Trump win a second term.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision on embryonic personhood could have wide-ranging implications beyond reproductive health care, with potential implications for tax deductions, child support payments, criminal law, and much more.
• Donald Trump is considering a national abortion ban at 16 weeks of gestation, according to recent reports. It is unclear whether such a ban would go far enough to please his conservative supporters, but it would be far enough to give Democrats ammunition to campaign on it. And some are looking into using a 19th-century anti-smut law, the Comstock Act, to implement a national ban under a new Trump presidency — no action from Congress necessary.
• New reporting from KFF Health News draws on many interviews with clinicians at Catholic hospitals about how the Roman Catholic Church’s directives dictate the care they may offer patients, especially in reproductive health. It also draws attention to the vast number of religiously affiliated hospitals and the fact that, for many women, a Catholic hospital may be their only option.
• Questions about President Joe Biden’s cognitive health are drawing attention to ageism in politics — as well as in American life, with fewer people taking precautions against the covid-19 virus even as it remains a serious threat to vulnerable people, especially the elderly. The mental fitness of the nation’s leaders is a valid, relevant question for many voters, though the questions are also fueled by frustration with a political system in which many offices are held by older people who have been around a long time.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “New CMS Rules Will Throttle Access Researchers Need to Medicare, Medicaid Data,” by Rachel M. Werner.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “They Take Kratom to Ease Pain or Anxiety. Sometimes, Death Follows,” by David Ovalle.

Rachana Pradhan: Politico’s “Red States Hopeful for a 2nd Trump Term Prepare to Curtail Medicaid,” by Megan Messerly.

Victoria Knight: ProPublica’s “The Year After a Denied Abortion,” by Stacy Kranitz and Kavitha Surana.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Trump Privately Expresses Support for a 16-Week Abortion Ban,” by Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, and Lisa Lerer.
• The New York Times’ “Trump Allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions,” by Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias.
• Politico’s “Trump Allies Prepare to Infuse ‘Christian Nationalism’ in Second Administration,” by Alexander Ward and Heidi Przybyla.
• KFF Health News’ “The Powerful Constraints on Medical Care in Catholic Hospitals Across America,” by Rachana Pradhan and Hannah Recht.
• The Washington Post’s “Tax Records Reveal the Lucrative World of Covid Misinformation,” by Lauren Weber.
• KFF Health News’ “Do We Simply Not Care About Old People?” by Judith Graham.
• Stat’s “A Neuropsychologist Clarifies Science on Aging and Memory in Wake of Biden Special Counsel Report,” by Annalisa Merelli.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Alabama Court Rules Embryos Are Children. What Now?

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Alabama Court Rules Embryos Are Children. What Now?Episode Number: 335Published: Feb. 22,2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 22, 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 Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Hi, there. Good to be back.

Rovner: Congress is out this week, but there is still tons of news, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with abortion because there is lots of news there. The biggest is out of Alabama, where the state Supreme Court ruled last week that frozen embryos created for IVF [in vitro fertilization] are legally children and that those who destroy them can be held liable. In fact, the justices called the embryos “extrauterine children,” which, in covering this issue for 40 years, I never knew was a thing. There are lots of layers to this, but let’s start with the immediate, what it could mean to those seeking to get pregnant using IVF. We’ve already heard that the University of Alabama’s IVF clinic has ceased operations until they can figure out what this means.

Pradhan: I think that that is the immediate fallout right now. We’ve seen Alabama’s arguably flagship university saying that they are going to halt. And I believe some of the coverage that I saw, there was even a woman who was about to start a cycle or was literally about to have embryos implanted and had to encounter that extremely jarring development. Beyond the immediate, and of course, Julie, I’m sure we’ll talk about this, a bit about the personhood movement and fetal rights movement in general, but a lot of the country might say, “Oh, well, it’s Alabama. It’s only Alabama.” But as we know it, it really just takes one state, it seems like these days, to open the floodgates for things that might actually take hold much more broadly across the country. So that’s what I’m …

Rovner: It’s funny, the first big personhood push I covered was in 2011 in Mississippi, so next door to Alabama, very conservative state, where everybody assumed it was going to win. And one of the things that the opposition said is that this would ban most forms of birth control and IVF, and it got voted down in Mississippi. So here we are, what, 13 years later. But I mean, I think people don’t quite appreciate how IVF works is that doctors harvest as many eggs as they can and basically create embryos. Because for every embryo that results in a successful pregnancy, there are usually many that don’t.

And of course, couples who are trying to have babies using IVF tend to have more embryos than they might need, and, generally, those embryos are destroyed or donated to research, or, in some cases — I actually went back and looked this up — in the early 2000s there was a push, and it’s still there, there’s an adoption agency that will let you adopt out your unused embryos for someone else to carry to term. And apparently, all of this, I guess maybe not the adoption, but all the rest of this could theoretically become illegal under this Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

Pradhan: And one thing I just want to say, too, Julie, piggybacking on that point too is not just in each cycle that someone goes through with IVF — as you said, there are multiple embryos — but it often takes two people who want to start a family, it often takes multiple IVF cycles to have a successful pregnancy from that. It’s not like it’s a one-time shot, it usually takes a long time. And so you’re really talking about a lot of embryos, not just a one-and-done situation.

Rovner: And every cycle is really expensive. I know lots of people who have both successfully and unsuccessfully had babies using IVF and it’s traumatic. The drugs that are used to stimulate the extra eggs for the woman are basically rough, and it costs a lot of money, and it doesn’t always work. It seems odd to me that the pro-life movement has gotten to the point where they are stopping people who want to get pregnant and have children from getting pregnant and having children. But I guess that is the outflow of this. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to chime in on that. I mean, I think we’re really going to see a lot of potential political ramifications from this. I mean, after this news came down, and just to put in context, the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] reported in 2021 that there were 91,906 births via IVF. So that’s almost 92,000 families in 2021 alone. You have a political constituency of hundreds of thousands of parents across the U.S. that feel very strongly about this because they have received children that they paid a lot of money for and worked very hard to get. And it was interesting after this news came down — I will admit, I follow a lot of preppy Southern influencers who are very apolitical and if anything conservative, who all were very aggressively saying, “The only reason I could have my children is through this. We have to make a stand.”

I mean, these are not political people. These are people that are — you could even argue, veering into tradwife [traditional wife] territory in terms of social media. I think we’re really going to see some political ramifications from this that already are reflected in what Donald Trump has recently been reported as feeling about how abortion limits could cost him voters. I do wonder if IVF limits could really cause quite an uproar for conservative candidates. We’ll see.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, Nikki Haley’s already gotten caught up in this. She’s very pro-life. On the other hand, she had one of her children using IVF, which she’s been pretty frank about. She, of course, got asked about this yesterday and her eyes had the deer-in-the-headlights look, and she said, “Well, embryos are children,” and it’s like, “Well, then what about your extra embryos?” Which I guess nobody asked about. But yeah, I mean clearly you don’t have to be a liberal to use IVF to have babies, and I think you’re absolutely right. I want to expand this though, because the ruling was based on this 2018 constitutional amendment approved by voters in Alabama that made it state policy to, quote, “Recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children.”

I should point out that this 2018 amendment did not directly try to create fetal personhood in the way that several states tried — and, as I mentioned, failed — in the 2010s, yet that’s how the Alabama Supreme Court interpreted it. Now, anti-abortion advocates in other states, Rachana, you mentioned this, are already trying to use this decision to apply to abortion bans and court cases there. What are the implications of declaring someone a person at the moment of fertilization? It obviously goes beyond just IVF, right?

Knight: Well, and I think you mentioned already, birth control is also the next step as well. Which basically they don’t want you to have a device that will stop a sperm from reaching an egg. And so I think that could have huge ramifications as well. So many young women across the U.S. use IUDs or other types of birth control. I know that’s one application that people are concerned about. I don’t know if there are others.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve seen things like, if you’re pregnant, can you now drive in the HOV [high-occupancy vehicle] lane because you have another person?

Pradhan: I think that’s one of the more benign, maybe potential impacts of this. But I mean, if an embryo is a child, I mean it would affect everything from, I think, criminal laws affecting murder or any other … you could see there being criminal law impacts there. I think also, as far as child support, domestic laws, involving families, what would you — presumably maybe not everyone that I imagine who are turning to fertility treatments to start a family or to grow a family may not have a situation where there are two partners involved in that decision. I think it could affect everything, frankly. So much of our tax estate laws are impacted by whether people have children or not, and so …

Rovner: And whether those children have been born yet.

Pradhan: … tax deductions, can you claim an embryo as a dependent? I mean, it would affect everything. So I think they’re very wide, sweeping ramifications beyond the unfortunate consequences that some people might face, as Lauren said, which is that they’re just trying to start a family and now that’s being jeopardized.

Rovner: I think Georgia already has a law that you can take a tax deduction if you’re pregnant. I have been wondering, what happens to birthdays? Do they cease to mean anything? It completely turns on its head the way we think about people and humans, and I mean obviously they say, “Well, yeah, of course it is a separate being from the moment of fertilization, but that doesn’t make it a legal person.” And I think that’s what this debate is about. I did notice in Alabama — of course, what happened, what prompted this case was that some patient in a hospital got into the lab where the frozen embryos were kept and took some out and literally just dropped them on the floor and broke the vial that they were in. And the question is whether the families who belong to those embryos could sue for some kind of recourse, but it would not be considered murder because, under Alabama’s statutes, it has to be a child in utero.

And obviously frozen embryos are not yet in utero, they’re in a freezer somewhere. In that sense it might not be murder, but it could become — I mean, this is something that I think people have been thinking about and talking about obviously for many years, and you wonder if this is just the beginning of we’re going to see how far this can go, particularly in some of the more conservative states. Well, meanwhile, The New York Times reported last week that former President Trump, who’s literally been on just about every side of the abortion debate over the years, is leaning towards supporting a 16-week ban — in part, according to the story, because it’s a round number. Trump, of course, was a supporter of abortion rights until he started running for president as a Republican.

And, in winning the endorsement of skeptical anti-abortion groups in 2016, promised to appoint only anti-abortion judges and to reimpose government restrictions from previous Republican administrations. He did that and more, appointing the three Supreme Court justices who enabled the overturn of Roe v. Wade. But more recently, he’s seen the political backlash over that ruling and the number of states that have voted for abortion rights, including some fairly red states, and he’s been warning Republicans not to emphasize the issue. So why would he fail to follow his own advice now, particularly if it would animate voters in swing states? He keeps saying he’s not in the primaries anymore, that he’s basically running a general-election campaign.

Knight: I mean, I think to me, it seems like he’s clearly trying to thread the needle here. He knows some of the more social conservative of his supporters want him to do something about abortion. They want him to take a stand. And so he decided on allegedly 16 weeks, four months, which is less strict than some states. We saw Florida was 10 weeks. And then some other states …

Rovner: I think Florida is six weeks now.

Knight: Oh, sorry, six weeks. OK.

Rovner: Right. Pending a court decision.

Knight: Yeah. And then other states, in Tennessee, complete abortion ban with little room for exceptions. So 16 weeks is longer than some other states have enacted that are stricter. Roe v. Wade was about 24 weeks. So to me, it seems like he’s trying to find some middle ground to try to appease those social conservatives, but not be too strict.

Rovner: Although, I mean, one of the things that a 16-week ban would not do is protect all the women that we’ve been reading about who are with wanted pregnancies, who have things go wrong at 19 or 20 or 21 weeks, which are before viability but after 16 weeks. Well, unless they had — he does say he wants exceptions, and as we know, as we’ve talked about every week for the last six months, those exceptions, the devil is in the details and they have not been usable in a lot of states. But I’m interested in why Trump, after saying he didn’t want to wade into this, is now wading into this. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I wanted to echo your point because I think it’s important to note that 16 weeks is not based, it seems like, on any scientific reason. It sounds like to me, from what I understand from what’s out there, that 20 weeks is more when you can actually see if there’s heart abnormalities and other issues. So it sounds like from the reporting the Times did, was that he felt like 16 weeks was good as,  quote, “It was a round number.” So this isn’t exactly, these weak timing of bans, as I’m sure we’ve discussed with this podcast, are not necessarily tied towards scientific development of where the fetus is. So I think that’s an important thing to note.

Rovner: Yes. Rachana.

Pradhan: I mean, I think, and we’ve talked about this, but it’s the perennial danger in weighing in on any limit, and certainly a national limit, but any limit at all, is that 16 weeks, of course as the anti-abortion movement and I think many more people know now, the CDC data shows that the vast majority of abortions annually occur before that point in pregnancy. And so there are, of course, some anti-abortion groups that are trying to thread the needle and back a more middle-ground approach such as this one, 15 weeks, 16 weeks, banning it after that point. But for many, it’s certainly not anywhere good enough. And I think if you’re going to try to motivate your conservative base, I still have a lot of questions about whether they would find that acceptable. And I think it depends on how they message it, honestly.

If they say, “This is the best we can do right now and we’re trying,” that might win over some voters. But on the flip side, it’s still enough for Democrats to be able to run with it and say any national ban obviously is unacceptable to them, but it gives them enough ammunition, I think, to still say that former President Trump wants to take your rights away. And I think, as Lauren noted, genetic testing and things these days of course can happen and does happen before 16 weeks. So there might be some sense of whether there might be, your child has a lethal chromosomal disorder or something like that, that might make the pregnancy not viable. But the big scan that happens about midway through pregnancy is around 20 weeks, and that’s often when you, unfortunately, some people find out that there are things that would make it very difficult for their baby to survive so …

Rovner: Well, it seems that no matter what Trump does or says he will do if he’s elected in November, it’s clear that people close to him, including former officials, are gearing up for a second term that could go way further than even his very anti-abortion first term. According to Politico, a plan is underway for Trump to govern as a, quote, “Christian nationalist nation,” which could mean not just banning abortion, but, as Victoria pointed out, contraception, too, or many forms of contraception. A separate planning group being run out of the Heritage Foundation is also developing far-reaching plans about women’s reproductive health, including enforcement of the long-dormant 19th century Comstock Act, which we have talked about here many times before. But someone please remind us what the Comstock Act is and what it could mean.

Weber: I feel like you’re the expert on this. I feel like you should explain it.

Rovner: Oh boy. I don’t want to be the expert on the Comstock Act, but I guess I’ve become it. It’s actually my favorite tidbit about the Comstock Act is that it is not named after a congressman. It is named after basically an anti-smut crusader named Anthony Comstock in the late 1800s. And it bans the mailing of, I believe the phrase is “lewd or obscene” information, which in the late 1880s included ways to prevent pregnancy, but certainly also abortion. When the Supreme Court basically ruled that contraception was legal, which did not happen until the late 1960s — and early 1970s, actually —, the Comstock Act sort of ceased to be. And obviously then Roe v. Wade, it ceased to be.

But it is still in the books. It’s never been officially repealed, and there’s been a lot of chatter in anti-abortion movements about starting to enforce it again, which could certainly stop if nothing else, the distribution of the abortion pill in its tracks. And also it’s anything using the mail. So it could not just be the abortion pill, but anything that doctors use to perform abortions or to make surgical equipment — it seems that using Comstock, you could implement a national ban without ever having to worry about Congress doing anything. And that seems to be the goal here, is to do as much as they can without even having to involve Congress. Yes.

Pradhan: Julie, I’m waiting for the phrase “anti-smut crusader” to end up on a campaign sign or bumper sticker, honestly. I feel like we might see it. I don’t think this election has gotten nearly weird enough yet. So we still have nine months to go.

Rovner: Yeah. I’m learning way more about the Comstock Act than I really ever wanted to know. But meanwhile, Rachana, it does not take state or federal action to restrict access to reproductive health care. You have a story this week about the continuing expansion of Catholic hospitals and what that means for reproductive health care. Tell us what you found.

Pradhan: Well, yes, I would love to talk about our story. So myself and my colleague Hannah Recht, we started reporting the story, just for background, before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, obviously anticipating that that is what was going to happen. And our story really digs into, based on ample interviews with clinicians, other academic experts, reading lots of documents about what the ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care services, which is what all, any health facility, a hospital, a physician’s office, anything that deems itself Catholic, has to abide by these directives for care, and they follow church teaching. Which we were talking about fertility treatments and IVF earlier actually, so in vitro fertilization is also something that the Catholic Church teaches is immoral. And so that’s actually something that they oppose, which many people may not know that.

But other things that the ERDs [ethical and religious directives] so to speak, impact are access to contraception, access to surgeries that would permanently prevent pregnancy. So for women that would be removing or cinching your fallopian tubes, but also, for men, vasectomies. And then, of course, anything that constitutes what they would call a direct abortion. And that affects everything from care for ectopic pregnancies, how you can treat them, to managing miscarriages. The lead story or anecdote in our story is about a nurse midwife who I spoke with, who used to work at a Catholic hospital in Maryland and talked to me about, relayed this anecdote about, a patient who was about 19 or 20 weeks pregnant and had her water break prematurely.

At that point, her fetus was not viable and that patient did not want to continue her pregnancy, but the medical staff there, what they would’ve done is induce labor with the intent of terminating the pregnancy. And they were unable to do that because of ERDs. And so, we really wanted to look at it systemically, too. So we looked at that combined with state laws that protect, shield hospitals from liability when they oppose providing things like abortions or even sterilization procedures on religious grounds. And included fresh new data analysis on how many women around the country live either nearby to a Catholic hospital or only have Catholic hospitals nearby. So we thought it was important.

Rovner: That’s a little bit of the lead because there’s been so much takeover of hospitals by Catholic entities over the last, really, decade and a half or so, that women who often had a choice of Catholic hospital or not Catholic hospital don’t anymore. That Catholic hospital may be the only hospital anywhere around.

Pradhan: Right and if people criticize the story, which we’ve gotten some criticism over it, one of the refrains we’ll hear is, “Well, just go to a different hospital.” Well, we don’t live in a country where you can just pick any hospital you want to go to — even when you have a choice, insurance will dictate what’s in-network versus what’s not. And honestly, people just don’t know. They don’t know that a hospital has a religious affiliation at all, let alone that that religious affiliation could impact the care that you would receive. And so there’s been research done over the years showing the percentage of hospital beds that are controlled by Catholic systems, et cetera, but Hannah and I both felt strongly that that’s a useful metric to a point, but beds is not relatable to a human being. So we really wanted to boil it down to people and how many people we’re talking about who do not have other options nearby. How many births occur in Catholic hospitals so that you know those people do not have access to certain care if they deliver at these hospitals, that they would have in other places.

Rovner: It’s a continuing story. We’ll obviously post the link to it. Well, I also want to talk about age this week. Specifically the somewhat advanced age of our likely presidential candidates this year. President [Joe] Biden, currently age 81, and former President Trump, age 77. One thing voters of both parties seem to agree on is that both are generically too old, although voters in neither party seem to have alternative candidates in mind. My KFF Health News colleague Judy Graham has a really interesting piece on increasing ageism in U.S. society that the seniors we used to admire and honor we now scorn and ignore. Is this just the continuing irritation at the self-centeredness of the baby boomers or is there something else going on here that old people have become dispensable and not worth listening to? I keep thinking the “OK, boomer” refrain. It keeps ringing in my ears.

Weber: I mean, I think there’s a mix of things going on here. I mean, her piece was really fascinating because it also touched upon the fact — which all of us here reported on; Rachana and I wrote a story about this back in 2021 — on how nursing homes really have been abandoned to some extent. I mean, folks are not getting the covid vaccine. People are dying of covid, they die of the flu, and it’s considered a way of life. And there is almost an irritation that there would be any expectation that it would be any differently because it’s a “Don’t infringe upon my rights” thought. And I do think her piece was fascinating because it asks, “Are we really looking at the elderly?”

I mean, I think that’s very different when we talk about politicians. I mean, the Biden bit is a bit different. I mean, I think there is some frustration in the American populace with the age of politicians. I think that reached a bit of a boiling point with the Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein issue, that I think is continuing to boil over in the current presidential election. But that said, we’re hurtling towards an election with these two folks. I mean, that’s where we’re at. So I think they’re a bit different, but I do think there is a national conversation about age that is happening to some degree, but is not happening in consideration to others.

Well, I was going to say, I think the other aspect is that these people are in the public all the time, or they’re supposed to be. President Biden is giving speeches. Potential candidate President Trump, GOP main candidate, he’s in the spotlight all the time, too. And so you can actually see when they mess up sometimes. You can see potentially what people are saying is signs of aging. And so I think it’s different when they’re literally in front of your eyes and they’re supposed to be making decisions about the direction of this country, potentially. So I think it’s somewhat a valid conversation to have when the country is in their hands.

Rovner: Yeah, and obviously the presidency ages you. [Barack] Obama went in as this young, strong-looking guy and came out with very gray hair, and he was young when he went in. Bill Clinton, too, was young when he was elected and came out looking considerably older. And so Biden, if people have pointed out, looks a lot older now than he did when he was running back in 2020. But meanwhile, despite what voters and some special councils think — including the one who said that Biden was what a kindly old man with a bad memory — neuroscientists say that it’s actually bunk that age alone can determine how mentally fit somebody is, and that even if memory does start to decline, judgment and wisdom may improve as you age. Why is nobody in either party making this point? I mean, the people supporting Biden are just saying that he’s doing a good job and he deserves to continue doing a good job. I mean, talk about the elephant in the room and nobody’s talking about it at all with Trump.

Pradhan: Yeah, I mean, I think probably the short answer is that it’s not really as politically expedient to talk about those things. I thought it was really interesting. Yeah, I really appreciated Stat News had this really interesting Q&A article. And then also there was this opinion piece in The New York Times that, this line struck me so much about, again, both about Biden’s age and his memory. And this line I thought was so fascinating because it just is telling how people’s perceptions can change so much depending on the discourse. So it pointed out that Joe Biden is the same age as Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney, Martin Scorsese. He’s younger than Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who is considered to be one of the shrewdest and smartest investors, I think, and CEOs of modern times. And no one is saying, “Well, they’re too old to be doing their jobs” or anything. I’m not trying to suggest that people who have concerns about both candidates’ age[s] are not valid, but I think we sometimes have to double-check why we might be being led to think that way, and when it’s not really the same standards are not applied across the board to people who are even older than they are.

Rovner: I do think that some of the frustration, I think, Lauren, you mentioned this, is that in recent years, the vast majority of leadership positions in the U.S. government have been held by people who are, shall we say, visibly old. I mean Nancy Pelosi is still in Congress, but she at least figured out that she needed to step down from being speaker because I think the three top leaders in the House were all in their either late 70s or early 80s. The Senate has long been the land of very old people because you get elected to a six-year term. I mean, Chuck Grassley is 90 now, is he not? Feinstein wasn’t even, I don’t think, the oldest member of the Senate. So I think it’s glaring and staring us in the face. Rachana, you wanted to add something before we moved on.

Pradhan: Well, I think probably, and a lot of that too is just I think probably a reflection of voters’ broader gripes or concerns about the fact that we have people who hold office for an eternity, to not exaggerate it. And so people want to see new leadership, new energy, and when you have public officeholders who hold these jobs for … they’re career politicians, and I think that that is frustrating to a lot of people. They want to see a new generation, even regardless of political party, of ideas and energy. And then when you have these octogenarians holding onto their seats and run over and over and over again, I think that that’s frustrating. And people don’t get energized about those candidates, especially when they’re running for president. They just don’t. So it’s a reflection of just, I think, broader concerns.

Knight: And I think one more thing too was, I mean, Sen. Feinstein died while she was in office. I mean, people also may be referencing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, and it’s the question of, should you be holding onto a position that you may die in it, and not setting the way for the new person to take over and making that path available for the next people? Is that the best way to lead in whatever position you’re in? I think, again, Rachana said that’s frustrating for a lot of people.

Rovner: And I think what both parties have been guilty of, although I think Democrats even more than Republicans, is preparing people, making sure that that next generation is ready, that you don’t want to go from these people with age and wisdom and experience to somebody who knows nothing. You need those people coming up through the ranks. And I think there’s been a dearth of people coming up through the ranks lately, and I think that’s probably the big frustration.

Pradhan: I’m not sure if this is still true now, but I certainly remember, I think when Paul Ryan was speaker of the House, I remember the average age of the House Republican conference was significantly younger than that of Democrats. And they would highlight that. They would say, “Look, we are electing a new generation of leaders and look at these aging Democrats over here.” And that might still be true, but I certainly remember that that was something that they tried to capitalize on, oh-so-long ago.

Rovner: As we talked about last week, there are now a lot of those not-so-young Republicans, but not really old, who are just getting out because it is no fun anymore to be in Congress. Which is a good segue because … oh, go ahead.

Knight: Oh, I was just saying one thing Republicans do do in the House, at least they do have term limits on the chairmanships to ensure people do not hold onto those leadership positions forever. And Democrats do not have that. That’s at least in the House.

Rovner: But then you get the expertise walking out the door. It’s a double-edged sword.

Knight: Which is, not all the ones that are leaving have reached their term limits, which is the interesting thing actually. But yes, that expertise can walk out the door.

Rovner: Well, speaking of Congress, here in Washington, as I mentioned at the top, Congress is in recess, but when they come back, they will have I believe it is three days before the first raft of temporary spending bills expire. Victoria, is this the time that the government’s going to actually shut down, or are we looking at yet another round of short-term continuing resolutions? And at some point automatic cuts kick in, right?

Knight: Yeah, the eternal question that we’ve had all of this Congress, I think both sides do not want to shut down. I saw some reporting this morning that was saying [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer is talking to [House Speaker] Mike Johnson, but he also, Schumer did not want to commit to a CR [continuing resolution] yet either. So it’s possible, but we said that every time and they’ve pulled it off. I think they just know a shutdown is so, not even maybe necessarily politically toxic, but potentially —because I don’t know how much the public understands what that means …

Rovner: Because they don’t understand who’s at fault.

Knight: Right. Who’s at fault …

Rovner: … when it does shut down. They just know that the Social Security office is closed.

Knight: Right, but I just know they know it’s dysfunctional or it just can make things messy when that happens; it’s harder for agencies and things like that. So we’ll see. So the deadline is next Friday for the first set of bills. It’s just four bills then, and then the next deadline is March 8 for the other eight bills. There’s some talk that we may see a package over the weekend, but it’s Mike Johnson’s deciding moment. Again, he’s getting pressure from the House Freedom Caucus to push for either spending cuts or policy riders that include anti-abortion riders, anti-gender-affirming care, a lot. There’s a whole list of things that they sent yesterday they want in bills, and so he’s going to have to …

Rovner: Culture wars is the shorthand for a lot of those.

Knight: Yes, exactly. And so House Freedom Caucus sent a letter yesterday, and so Mike Johnson’s going to have to decide does he want to acquiesce to any House Freedom Caucus demands or does he want to work? But if he doesn’t want to do that, then he’s going to have to pass any funding bills with Democratic votes because he does not have enough votes with the Republicans alone, if Freedom Caucus people and people aligned in that direction don’t vote for any funding bills. If he does that, if he works with Democrats, then there is talk that they might file a motion to vacate him out of the speakership. So it’s the same problem that Kevin McCarthy had. The one thing going for Johnson is that he doesn’t have the baggage that Kevin McCarthy had, a lot of political baggage. A lot of people had ill will towards him, just built up over the years. Johnson doesn’t seem to have that as much, and also Republicans, do they want to be leadership-less again?

Rovner: Because that worked so well the first two times.

Knight: Right, so he has got to decide again who he wants to work with. And it doesn’t seem like we know yet how that’s going to go, and that will determine whether the government shuts down or not.

Rovner: But somebody also reminded me that on April 1, if they haven’t done full-year funding, that automatic cuts kick in. I had forgotten that. So I mean, they can’t just keep rolling these deadlines indefinitely. This presumably is the last time they can roll a deadline without having other ramifications.

Knight: Absolutely. And Freedom Caucus, actually, I think that’s partly why they don’t want to agree to something, because they want the 1% cuts across the board. So that was part of the deal made last year under Kevin McCarthy was, if they don’t come up with full funding bills by April 1, there will be a 1% cut put into place. And so the more hard-liners [are] like, “Great, we’re going to cut funding, so we want to do that.” And then Democrats don’t want that to happen. And so yeah, it’s the last time that they can potentially do a CR before that.

Rovner: Yeah, just a reminder, for those who are not keeping track, that April 1 is six months, halfway through the fiscal year for them to have not finished the fiscal year spending bills.

Knight: And one more note is that usually they’re starting on this coming year spending bills by this point in Congress. So we’re still working on FY24 bills. We should be working on FY25 bills already. So they’re already behind. It’s dysfunctional.

Rovner: I think it’s fair to say the congressional budget process has completely broken down. Well, moving on to “This Week in Medical Misinformation,” we have a case of doing well by doing no good. Lauren, tell us about your story looking into the profits that accrued to anti-vaccine and anti-science groups during the pandemic.

Weber: So I took a look at a bunch of tax records, and what I found is that four major nonprofits that rose to prominence during the covid pandemic by capitalizing on the spread of misinformation collectively gained more than $118 billion from 2020 to 2022. And were able to deploy that money to gain influence in statehouses, courtrooms, and communities across the country. And it’s a pretty staggering figure to tabulate all together. And what was particularly interesting is there was four of these different groups that I was directed to look at by experts in the field, and one of them includes Children’s Health Defense, which was founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and they received, in 2022, $23.5 million in contributions, grants, and other revenue. That was eight times what they got before the pandemic. And that kind of story was reflected in these other groups as well. And it just shows that the fair amount of money that they were able to collect during this time as they were promoting content and other things.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean literally misinformation pays. While we’re on this subject, I would also note that this week there’s a huge multinational study of 99 million people vaccinated against covid that confirmed previous studies showing an association between being vaccinated and developing some rare complications. But a number of stories, at least I thought, overstated the risks of the study that it actually identified. Most failed to include the context that almost every vaccine has the possibility of causing adverse reactions in some very small number of people. The question of course, when you’re evaluating vaccines, is if the benefit outweighs the benefit of protecting against whatever this disease or condition outweighs the risk of these rare side effects.

I would also point out that this is why the U.S. actually has something called the [National] Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps provide for people, particularly children, who experience rare complications to otherwise mandatory vaccines. Anyway, that is the end of my rant. I was just frustrated by the idea that yes, yes, we know vaccines sometimes have side effects. That’s the nature of vaccines. That’s one of the reasons we study them.

All right, anyway, that is the news for this week. 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: So my extra credit this week is a story in ProPublica called “The Year After a Denied Abortion.” It’s by [photographer] Stacy Kranitz and [reporter] Kavitha Surana. And it was a very moving photo essay and story about a woman who was denied an abortion in Tennessee literally weeks to a month after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, and this was in July 2022. She got pregnant and was denied an abortion. And so it followed her through the next year of her life after that happened. And in Tennessee, it’s one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation. Abortion is banned and there are very rare exceptions. And so this woman, Mayron Michelle Hollis, she already had some children that had been taken out of her care by the state, and so she was already fighting custody battles and then got pregnant. And Tennessee is also a state that doesn’t have a very robust safety-net system, so it follows her as she has a baby that’s born prematurely, has a lot of health issues, doesn’t have a lot of state programs to help her.

She was afraid to go through unemployment because she had had issues with that before. The paperwork situation’s really tough. There’s just so much stress involved also with the situation. She eventually ends up kind of relapsing, starting drinking too much alcohol, and she ends up in jail at the end of the story. And so it just talks about how if there is not a robust safety net in a state, if you’re kind of forced to have a pregnancy that you maybe are not able to take care of, it can be really tough financially and psychologically and tough for the mother and the child. So it was a really moving story and there were photos following her through that year.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: I wanted to shout out my colleague who I actually sit next to, David Ovalle, who is wonderful at The Washington Post. He wrote an article called “They Take Kratom to Ease Pain or Anxiety. Sometimes, Death Follows.” And, as our addiction reporter for the Post, he did a horribly depressing but wonderful job actually calculating how many kratom deaths or deaths associated with kratom have happened in recent years. And what he found through requests is that at least 4,100 deaths in 44 states and D.C. were linked to kratom between 2020 and 2022, which is public service journalism at its best. I mean, I think people are clear that there is more risks with this, but I think that it’s emerging actually how those risks are. And he catalogs through the hard numbers, which is often what it requires for folks to pay attention, that this is something that is interactive with other medications which is causing death, in some cases, on death certificates. So pretty moving story, he talked to a lot of the families of folks that have died and it really makes you wonder about the state of regulation around kratom.

Rovner: Yeah, and then, I mean, all food diet supplements that are basically unregulated by the FDA because Congress determined in the 1990s that they should be unregulated because the supplement industry lobbied them very heavily and we will talk about that at some other time. Rachana.

Pradhan: My extra credit is a story in Politico by Megan Messerly. It’s titled “Red States Hopeful for a 2nd Trump Term Prepare to Curtail Medicaid.” The short version is work requirements are in, again. There was an effort previously that Republicans wanted to impose employment as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits, and then they were very quickly, a couple of states, were sued. Only one program really got off the ground, Arkansas. And what happened as a result is because of the paperwork burdens and other things, thousands of people lost coverage. So currently the Biden administration, of course, is not OK at all with tying any type of work, volunteer service, you name it, to Medicaid benefits. But I think Republicans would be — the story talks about how Republicans would be eager to go and pursue that policy push again and curtail enrollment as a result of that.

So I thought that was, it’s an interesting political story. One thing it did make me wonder though, just as an aside is, there’s also been discussion on the flip side, the states in the story, which focus on South Dakota and Louisiana, states that many of them have already expanded coverage to cover the ACA [Affordable Care Act] population, but there are also still states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA’s income thresholds. And those conservative states might find it slightly more palatable to do so if you allow them to impose these types of conditions on the program. And so I think we will see what happens.

Rovner: Although, as we talked about not too long ago, Georgia, one of the states that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act now has a work requirement for Medicaid. And they’ve gotten something in the neighborhood, I believe, of like 2,700 people who’ve signed up out of a potential 100,000 people who could be covered if they actually expanded Medicaid. So another space that we will watch.

Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat News and, warning, it’s super nerdy. It’s called “New CMS Rules Will Throttle Access Researchers Need to Medicare, Medicaid Data.” It’s by Rachel Werner, who’s a physician researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, and it’s about a change recently announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will make it more difficult and more expensive for researchers to work with the program’s data, of which there is a lot. Since the new policy was announced earlier this month, according to CMS, in response to an increase in data breaches, I’ve heard from a lot of researchers who are worried that critical research won’t get done and that new researchers won’t get trained if these changes are implemented because only certain people will have access to the data because you’ll have to pay every time somebody else gets access to the data. Again, it’s an incredibly nerdy issue, but also really important. So the department is taking comment on this and we’ll see if they actually follow through.

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?

Pradhan: Still on X, hanging on, @rachanadpradhan.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m also on X @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still on X @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: I think people have come sort of slithering back. 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).

Last year alone, David Mitchell paid $16,525 for 12 little bottles of Pomalyst, one of the pricey medications that treat his multiple myeloma, a blood cancer he was diagnosed with in 2010.

The drugs have kept his cancer at bay. But their rapidly increasing costs so infuriated Mitchell that he was inspired to create an advocacy movement.

Patients for Affordable Drugs, which he founded in 2016, was instrumental in getting drug price reforms into the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. Those changes are kicking in now, and Mitchell, 73, is an early beneficiary.

In January, he plunked down $3,308 for a Pomalyst refill “and that’s it,” he said. Under the law, he has no further responsibility for his drug costs this year — a savings of more than $13,000.

The law caps out-of-pocket spending on brand-name drugs for Medicare beneficiaries at about $3,500 in 2024. The patient cap for all drugs drops to $2,000 next year.

“From a selfish perspective, I feel great about it,” he said. But the payment cap will be “truly life-changing” for hundreds of thousands of other Medicare patients, Mitchell said.

President Joe Biden’s battle against high drug prices is mostly embodied in the IRA, as the law is known — a grab bag of measures intended to give Medicare patients immediate relief and, in the long term, to impose government controls on what pharmaceutical companies charge for their products. The law represents the most significant overhaul for the U.S. drug marketplace in decades.

With Election Day on the horizon, the president is trying to make sure voters know who was responsible. This month, the White House began a campaign to get the word out to seniors.

“The days where Americans pay two to three times what they pay for prescription drugs in other countries are ending,” Biden said in a Feb. 1 statement.

KFF polling indicates Biden has work to do. Just a quarter of adults were aware that the IRA includes provisions on drug prices in July, nearly a year after the president signed it. He isn’t helped by the name of the law, the “Inflation Reduction Act,” which says nothing about health care or drug costs.

Biden’s own estimate of drug price inflation is quite conservative: U.S. patients sometimes pay more than 10 times as much for their drugs compared with people in other countries. The popular weight loss drug Wegovy lists for $936 a month in the U.S., for example — and $83 in France.

Additional sections of the law provide free vaccines and $35-a-month insulin and federal subsidies to patients earning up to 150% of the federal poverty level, and require drugmakers to pay the government rebates for medicines whose prices rise faster than inflation. But the most controversial provision enables Medicare to negotiate prices for certain expensive drugs that have been on the market for at least nine years. It’s key to Biden’s attempt to weaken the drug industry’s grip.

Responding to Pressure

The impact of Medicare’s bargaining over drug prices for privately insured Americans remains unclear. States have taken additional steps, such as cutting copays for insulin for the privately insured.

However, insurers are increasing premiums in response to their higher costs under the IRA. Monthly premiums on traditional Medicare drug plans jumped to $48 from $40 this year, on average.

On Feb. 1, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services sent pharmaceutical makers opening bids for the first 10 expensive drugs it selected for negotiation. The companies are responding to the bids — while filing nine lawsuits that aim to kill the negotiations altogether, arguing that limiting their profits will strangle the pipeline of lifesaving drugs. A federal court in Texas dismissed one of the suits on Feb. 12, without taking up the substantive legal issue over constitutionality.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office predicted the IRA’s drug pricing elements would save the federal government $237 billion over 10 years while reducing the number of drugs coming to market in that period by about two.

If the government prevails in the courts, new prices for those 10 drugs will be announced by September and take effect in 2026. The government will negotiate an additional 15 drugs for 2027, another 15 for 2028, and 20 more each year thereafter. CMS has been mum about the size of its offers, but AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soriot on Feb. 8 called the opening bid for his company’s drug Farxiga (which earned $2.8 billion in U.S. sales in fiscal year 2023) “relatively encouraging.”

Related Biden administration efforts, as well as legislation with bipartisan support, could complement the Inflation Reduction Act’s swing at drug prices.

The House and Senate have passed bills that require greater transparency and less self-serving behavior by pharmacy benefit managers, the secretive intermediaries that decide which drugs go on patients’ formularies, the lists detailing which prescriptions are available to health plan enrollees. The Federal Trade Commission is investigating anti-competitive action by leading PBMs, as well as drug company patenting tricks that slow the entry of cheaper drugs to the market.

‘Sending a Message’

Months after drug companies began suing to stop price negotiations, the Biden administration released a framework describing when it could “march in” and essentially seize drugs created through research funded by the National Institutes of Health if they are unreasonably priced.

The timing of the march-in announcement “suggests that it’s about sending a message” to the drug industry, said Robin Feldman, who leads the Center for Innovation at the University of California Law-San Francisco. And so, in a way, does the Inflation Reduction Act itself, she said.

“I have always thought that the IRA would reverberate well beyond the unlucky 10 and others that get pulled into the net later,” Feldman said. “Companies are likely to try to moderate their behavior to stay out of negotiations. I think of all the things going on as attempts to corral the market into more reasonable pathways.”

The IRA issues did not appear to be top of mind to most executives and investors as they gathered to make deals at the annual J.P. Morgan Healthcare Conference in San Francisco last month.

“I think the industry is navigating its way beyond this,” said Matthew Price, chief operating officer of Promontory Therapeutics, a cancer drug startup, in an interview there. The drugs up for negotiation “look to be assets that were already nearing the end of their patent life. So maybe the impact on revenues is less than feared. There’s alarm around this, but it was probably inevitable that a negotiation mechanism of some kind would have to come in.”

Investors generally appear sanguine about the impact of the law. A recent S&P Global report suggests “healthy revenue growth through 2027” for the pharmaceutical industry.

Back in Washington, many of the changes await action by the courts and Congress and could be shelved depending on the results of the fall election.

The restructuring of Medicare Part D, which covers most retail prescription drugs, is already lowering costs for many Medicare patients who spent more than $3,500 a year on their Part D drugs. In 2020 that was about 1.3 million patients, 200,000 of whom spent $5,000 or more out-of-pocket, according to KFF research.

“That’s real savings,” said Tricia Neuman, executive director of KFF’s Medicare policy program, “and it’s targeted to people who are really sick.”

Although the drug industry is spending millions to fight the IRA, the Part D portion of the bill could end up boosting their sales. While it forces the industry to further discount the highest-grossing drugs, the bill makes it easier for Medicare patients to pick up their medicines because they’ll be able to afford them, said Stacie Dusetzina, a Vanderbilt University School of Medicine researcher. She was the lead author of a 2022 study showing that cancer patients who didn’t get income subsidies were about half as likely to fill prescriptions.

States and foundations that help patients pay for their drugs will save money, enabling them to procure more drugs for more patients, said Gina Upchurch, the executive director of Senior PharmAssist, a Durham, North Carolina-based drug assistance program, and a member of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission. “This is good news for the drug companies,” she said.

Relief for Patients

Lynn Scarfuto, 73, a retired nurse who lives on a fixed income in upstate New York, spent $1,157 for drugs last year, while most of her share of the $205,000 annual cost for the leukemia drug Imbruvica was paid by a charity, the Patient Access Network Foundation. This year, through the IRA, she’ll pay nothing because the foundation’s first monthly Imbruvica payment covered her entire responsibility. Imbruvica, marketed jointly by AbbVie and Janssen, a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, is one of the 10 drugs subject to Medicare negotiations.

“For Medicare patients, the Inflation Reduction Act is a great, wonderful thing,” Scarfuto said. “I hope the negotiation continues as they have promised, adding more drugs every year.”

Mitchell, a PR specialist who had worked with such clients as the Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids and pharmaceutical giant J&J, went to an emergency room with severe back pain in November 2010 and discovered he had a cancer that had broken a vertebra and five ribs and left holes in his pelvis, skull, and forearm bones. He responded well to surgery and treatment but was shocked at the price of his drugs.

His Patients for Affordable Drugs group has become a powerful voice in Washington, engaging tens of thousands of patients, including Scarfuto, to tell their stories and lobby legislatures. The work is supported in part by millions in grants from Arnold Ventures, a philanthropy that has supported health care policies like lower drug prices, access to contraception, and solutions to the opioid epidemic.

“What got the IRA over the finish line in part was angry people who said we want something done with this,” Mitchell said. “Our patients gave voice to that.”

Arnold Ventures has provided funding for KFF Health News.

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 federal judge in Texas has turned back the first challenge to the nascent Medicare prescription-drug negotiation program. But the case turned on a technicality, and drugmakers have many more lawsuits in the pipeline.

Meanwhile, Congress is approaching yet another funding deadline, and doctors hope the next funding bill will cancel the Medicare pay cut that took effect in January.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), chair of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee, announced she would retire at the end of the congressional session, setting off a scramble to chair a panel with significant oversight of Medicare, Medicaid, and the U.S. Public Health Service. McMorris Rodgers is one of several Republicans with significant health expertise to announce their departures.
• As Congress’ next spending bill deadline approaches, lobbyists for hospitals are feverishly trying to prevent a Medicare provision on “site-neutral” payments from being attached.
• In abortion news, anti-abortion groups are joining the call for states to better outline when life and health exceptions to abortion bans can be legally permissible.
• Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is asking the Federal Trade Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission to investigate a company that collected location data from patients at 600 Planned Parenthood sites and sold it to anti-abortion groups.
• And in “This Week in Health Misinformation”: Lawmakers in Wyoming and Montana float bills to let people avoid getting blood transfusions from donors who have been vaccinated against covid-19.

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

Julie Rovner: Stateline’s “Government Can Erase Your Medical Debt for Pennies on the Dollar — And Some Are,” by Anna Claire Vollers.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “‘There Was a Lot of Anxiety’: Florida’s Immigration Crackdown Is Causing Patients to Skip Care,” by Arek Sarkissian.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “FTC Doubles Down in Welsh Carson Anesthesia Case to Limit Private Equity’s Physician Buyouts,” by Bob Herman. And Modern Healthcare’s “Private Equity Medicare Advantage Investment Slumps: Report,” by Nona Tepper.

Lauren Weber: The Wall Street Journal’s “Climate Change Has Hit Home Insurance. Is Health Insurance Next?” by Yusuf Khan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “U.S. Investigates Alleged Medicare Fraud Scheme Estimated at $2 Billion,” by Dan Diamond, Lauren Weber, and Dan Keating.
• Super Bowl ads from Pfizer, Power to the Patients, and the American Values 2024 super PAC.
• KFF Health News’ “Rapper Fat Joe Says No One Is Making Sure Hospitals Post Their Prices,” by Julie Appleby.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Biden Wins Early Court Test for Medicare Drug Negotiations

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Biden Wins Early Court Test for Medicare Drug NegotiationsEpisode Number: 334Published: Feb. 15, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 15, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but we do have a special Valentine’s Day surprise. But first, the news. We’re going to start this week in federal district court, where the drug industry has lost its first legal challenge to the Biden administration’s Medicare drug price negotiation program, although on a technicality. Rachel, which case was this, and now what happens?

Cohrs: This was the capital “P” PhRMA trade association. And this case was a little bit of a stretch, anyways, because they were trying to find some way to get a judge in Texas to hear it. Because the broader strategy is for companies and trade groups to spread out across the country and try to get conflicting decisions from these lower courts.

Rovner: Which would force the Supreme Court to take it?

Cohrs: Exactly, yes. Or make it more likely. So PhRMA, in this case, they had recruited, there’s a national group that represents infusion centers and that was headquartered in Texas. The judge ultimately ended up ruling that this association didn’t follow the right procedure to qualify for judicial review and threw them off the case. And then they were like, well, if you throw them off the case, then there’s nobody in Texas, you can’t hear this here. So that was the ultimate decision there, but this could come back up. It was dismissed without prejudice. So this isn’t the end of the road for this lawsuit.

And it’s important to keep in mind that this wasn’t a ruling on any of the substance of the arguments. And trade groups generally are going to have less of an argument for standing, or it’s going to be a harder argument than the companies themselves that actually have drugs up for negotiation.

Rovner: And they’re suing too, the drug companies?

Cohrs: They are suing too. Yeah, just for everybody to keep on your calendars, there’s a judge in New Jersey who is hoping to have a quadruple oral argument on four of these cases, so stay tuned. That could be coming early next month. But these are very much moving. I think we are going to get insight on some of these arguments pretty soon, but this case is not quite that test case yet.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ll get to it eventually. Well, moving on to Capitol Hill. When we were taping last week, Sen. Bernie Sanders was holding his much-publicized hearing to grill drug company CEOs about their too-high prices. Rachel, you were there. Did anything significant happen?

Cohrs: I think it was kind of expected. I don’t think we were trying to find any innovative legislative solutions here. Honestly, it seemed, just from a candid take, that a lot of these lawmakers were not very well-prepared for questioning. There were a couple of notable exceptions, but we didn’t learn a whole lot new about why drug prices are high in the United States, how our system works differently from other countries.

I did find some useful nuggets in the CEO’s testimony about how low the net prices are for some of their medications, that they’re already offering a 70% discount, a 90% discount, which to me just kind of put into perspective some of the discounts we could be hearing in the Medicare negotiation program. That oh, even if it’s a 90% discount, that might not even be different from what they’re paying now. So just interesting to file a way for the future, but I think it was mostly a non-event for the CEOs who, for some reason, had to, under the threat of subpoena, come make these arguments. So it seemed like much ado about not a whole lot of substance.

Rovner: That was sort of my theory going in, but you always have to watch just in case. Well, also on Capitol Hill, the chairman of the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee announced she will retire at the end of the Congress. Cathy McMorris Rodgers, who’s a Republican from Washington, was in her first term as chair of the committee that oversees parts of Medicare, all of Medicaid, as well as the entire U.S. Public Health Service.

I imagine this is going to set off a good bit of jockeying to take her place. And why would somebody step down early from such a powerful position? Do we have any idea?

Cohrs: Have you seen …? Oh, go ahead.

Ollstein: Facing Congress is what you say? Yes. This is part of a wave of retirements we’ve been seeing recently, including from some other committee chairs who could have theoretically continued to be powerful committee chairs for several years to come. People are taking this as part of the bad sign for Republicans. Either a sign that they don’t believe they’re going to hold the majority after this November’s election, or they’re just so fed up with the struggles they’ve had governing over the last few years and the inability to get anything done. And people are thinking, well, maybe I can get something done in a different role, not in Congress, because certainly, we’re not doing too much here to be proud of.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like Cathy McMorris Rodgers is kind of this poster child for a very conservative Republican who’s not the far-right-wing MAGA type, who actually wants to do legislation. She just wants to do Republican legislation, and that seems to be getting harder in the House.

Ollstein: Right, right. And there’s a concern that, particularly on the right within Republicans, that we’re losing a health policy brain trust. We’re losing the people that have been really integral to a lot of the nitty-gritty policy work over the years, and they’re not being replaced with people who have that interest. They’re being replaced with people who are more focused on culture wars and other things. And so there’s concern in the future about the ability to cobble together things like Medicare reimbursement rates, or these technical things that aren’t really part of the culture wars.

Rovner: Yeah, I think we mentioned at some point that Mike Burgess is also retiring, also high up on the Energy and Commerce Committee. And he’s a doctor who’s really had his hands into some of this really nerdy stuff, like on Medicare physician reimbursement. And that will be obviously just a big loss of institutional memory there.

Cohrs: For the future of the committee, I know congressman Brett Guthrie has kind of thrown his hat in the ring to succeed her. Unclear who exactly is going to win this race, but he is the chairman of the health subcommittee, does bring some health expertise. So the E&C committee deals with a lot of different priorities, but if he were to succeed her, then I think we would see, at least at the top of the committee, some of the expertise remain.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, in all of this jockeying, the next round of temporary government funding bills expires on March 1 and March 8, respectively, which is getting pretty close. And that brings back efforts to cancel the 3.4% pay cut that doctors got for Medicare patients in January. Where are we on funding, and are any of these health issues that people are out lobbying on going to make it into this next round? Is there going to be a next round?

Cohrs: Yeah, we don’t know if there’s going to be a next round, I don’t think. But at least the sources I’ve talked to have said that a full cancellation of the 3.4% cut for Medicare or payments to doctors is off the table at this point. They are hoping to do some sort of partial relief. They haven’t decided on percentages for that yet. And it’s unclear how much money will be available from pay-fors. It is still very much squishy, not finalized, two, three weeks out from the deadline, but I think …

Rovner: Two weeks.

Cohrs: There is some agreement on some relief, which has not been the case thus far for doctors. So I think that’s a positive sign.

Ollstein: Yeah. Overall, the chatter is about the need for yet another CR [continuing resolution] because the work is not getting done in time to meet these deadlines. That seems to be where we’re headed. Obviously, that will piss off a lot of members on the right who don’t want another CR, who didn’t want the last couple CRs. And so once again, we are staring down a possible shutdown.

Rovner: And I had forgotten, somebody reminded me, that even if they get another temporary funding bill, starting in April, there are automatic cuts if they’re not finished with this year’s funding bills. Which, I don’t know, is there any indication that they’re going to be finished with them by April either? I have not seen a lot of progress here. They’ve been fighting over other things, which is fine to fight over other things, but I’m not noticing a lot happening on the spending bills.

I’m seeing a lot of shaking heads. I guess nobody else is noticing either. Well, we will obviously keep watching that space because next week, we will only be one week away.

Well, another Medicare policy that supporters are hoping to get into one or another of these spending bills is creating something called more site-neutral payments in Medicare. Currently, Medicare pays hospitals and hospital outpatient departments, and sometimes even hospital-owned physician practices, more than it pays non-hospital affiliated providers for the exact same service.

The theory is that hospitals need higher payments because they have higher fixed costs, like keeping emergency rooms open 24/7. But it costs Medicare many billions of taxpayer dollars for this differential in payments. And this has become quite the lobbying frenzy for the hospital industry, yes?

Cohrs: Yes. I think it’s something that they can all get on board with hating, and I think they view it similarly to the drug pricing debate as a slippery slope. The policy Congress really is looking at now is a $3 billion, very small slice of all the services that could potentially be subjected to site-neutral payments. But the whole pie here is $150 billion potentially for Medicare.

We’re talking hundreds of billions of dollars for commercial payments. So I think they are really pushing to get to lawmakers, especially, from what I’ve talked to Senate Republicans, they are just not on board with it, they’re worried about the rural hospitals. And if they can connect to those things, which they have been successful in doing so far, they’re just not going to get very far.

I mean, if you look at the Senate Finance Committee, you have Mike Crapo from Idaho, Republican leadership. You have [John] Barrasso from Wyoming. There’s really just so many rural states that even Chuck Grassley, who is a moderate on a lot of health policy issues, talked about his rural hospitals in Iowa as soon as I asked him about this. So they’re not there yet right now, but I think hospitals are trying to keep it that way.

Rovner: And it was ever thus that the Senate is much more rural-focused than the House because pretty much every single senator has at least part of a rural area that they represent. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I always find it funny when rural hospitals come up as a cudgel by the big hospital associations, who don’t seem to look out for them the vast majority of the time when they’re closing. But as you pointed out, the Senate is much more rural-focused. So I do agree with all of you all, that I question whether or not this will have much ground to gain.

Rovner: Yeah. And the other thing that I keep wanting to point out is that there’s all this talk on Capitol Hill among Republicans of cutting the spending bills, the appropriations, and we’re going to balance the budget. Well, there’s just not enough money in the appropriation bills to do anything to the deficit. The money is in things like Medicare. I mean, that’s where, if you really want to make a dent in the deficit, you’re going to do it. And, as we’re seeing with this particular fight, every time they want to do something that’s going to save money, it’s going to hurt somebody. And I mean, there are obviously legitimate concerns about rural hospitals that are in trouble, particularly in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid, but that’s one of the reasons. It’s not so much the spending bills that make it hard to do anything about the deficit. It’s fights like these.

Meanwhile, for better or worse, another reason that Medicare costs so much is that it’s subject to a lot of fraud. Lauren, I have seen a lot of Medicare fraud stories over the years, but you’ve got one that was discovered in a pretty novel way. So tell us about it.

Weber: Yeah, my colleagues Dan Diamond, Dan Keating, and I found out early last week — we got a tip from the National Association of ACOs [Accountable Care Organizations] saying that they had seen this massive spike in catheter billing. When we did some digging into the companies they had identified — and to be clear, that spike of catheter billing was worth an alleged $2 billion in billings to Medicare. So when we talk about site-neutral payments, that’s almost what you would get for site-neutral payments: the $2 billion in Medicare fraud, but regardless.

So my colleagues and I dug in. So Dan, Dan, and I called around, and we found links between the seven companies that were charging Medicare for catheters that folks never received. I want to point out, I spoke to this lovely woman in Ponta Vedra Beach, Florida. She’s 74, Aileen Hatcher, who spotted this diligently going through her Medicare form, but as she said, she went to her — literally, these are her words — she’s like, “I went to my old lady luncheon and told them all this was on my Medicare statement.” And they said, “Oh, we don’t read those because we don’t pay Medicare the money. So we don’t read the explanation of benefits to see what we’ve been charged.”

And, unfortunately, I think that is what happens a lot of times with Medicare fraud. It goes unnoticed because folks aren’t the ones paying the dollars. But the bottom line is this was so large and so many people called into Medicare that Dan and I discovered that there is an ongoing federal investigation. Three of the companies, former owners that I called, confirmed to me that FBI had interviewed them or was talking to them about these folks that had taken over the companies and started charging Medicare this much money. And Dan also got some sources on that front as well.

So, I mean, it’s a pretty massive Medicare fraud scheme. I’ll give a call-out here. If anyone here has been affected by catheter and Medicare fraud, please give me an email. We’d love to hear more. I think it speaks to the fact that Medicare fraud — we all know this because we cover this — Medicare fraud is as old as time. It continues to happen, especially durable medical equipment Medicare fraud. But this is so much money. And it is wild that even though we talked to so many people that called Medicare over and over and over again, these folks were able to get away with billing for a very long time.

Rovner: What I found really fascinating about the story, though, is that it was the doctors in the ACOs that spotted it because — we’ve talked about these accountable care organizations — they’re accountable for how much it costs to take care of their patients.

The patients aren’t paying for it, as they point out, but these doctors, it’s coming right out of their bonuses and what they’re charged and how much they get for Medicare. So there’s finally somebody with a real incentive to spot this kind of fraud, because, basically, it was taking money from them. Right?

Weber: That’s exactly right. I think that’s why they were so hot to have some movement on this because, as they pointed out, they could lose millions of dollars in bonuses for better taking care of their patients.

It’s wild that it gets to this point. Like I said, we had all these people that called in to Medicare and many fraud lawyers we talked to said, “Look, why aren’t the NPIs [National Provider Identifiers] turned off?” Great question.

Rovner: Yeah. Anyway, I was fascinated by this story, and as I told Lauren earlier, I’m not a big fan of Medicare fraud stories just because there are so many of them. But this one is like, oh, maybe we finally have somebody … the ACOs can become bounty hunters for Medicare fraud, which would not be a bad thing.

All right, well, moving on to abortion this week, we have spent a lot of time talking about how doctors who perform abortions and patients who need them in emergencies have been trying to get state officials to spell out when the exceptions to state bans apply. Well, now it seems that it’s the other side looking for clarification.

Stat News reports that several anti-abortion groups have joined doctors and patients in urging the Texas Medical Board to spell out which conditions would qualify for the exception to the ban, and not subject doctors who guess wrong to potential prison terms and loss of their medical licenses.

Meanwhile, legislation moving through the House in South Dakota, endorsed by multiple anti-abortion groups, would require the state to make a video explaining how its ban works and under what circumstances. Alice, what’s going on here?

Ollstein: I think it’s this interesting confluence and it’s an interesting development because, at first, anti-abortion groups were insisting that the laws were perfectly clear. And that doctors were either willfully or mistakenly misinterpreting them. As more and more stories came forward of women being turned away while experiencing a medical emergency and suffering harm as a result, a lot of those women are part of lawsuits now.

They were saying the law is fine. In some cases, these anti-abortion groups wrote the laws themselves or advised on them saying, your interpretation is what’s wrong. The law is fine. But I think as so many of these stories are coming out, that’s not proving enough. And now they’re going back and saying, OK, well, maybe there do need to be some clarifications. They don’t want changes. There’s different camps because some people do want changes. Some people say, OK, we need more exceptions. We need more carve-outs to avoid these painful stories. Whereas other anti-abortion forces and elected officials say, no, we don’t need to change the law. We just need to clarify it and explain it. And so I think that’s going to be an ongoing tension.

Rovner: Yeah, I know one of the big themes earlier in this whole fight — I won’t say earlier this year, it was mostly last year — was redefining things as not abortions. That if you’re terminating an ectopic pregnancy, that’s not an abortion. Well, that is an abortion.

Ollstein: Medically, yes.

Rovner: So apparently, the … right. The renaming has not worked so far. So now I guess they’re trying to clarify things. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, when you kick things to the medical board, I think people see that as an unbiased unpolitical organization. But medical boards are often appointed by the governor. So, in this case, Gov. [Greg] Abbott. And also take Ohio, for example: I believe that one of their medical board leaders is the head of the right-to-life movement.

I haven’t looked at Texas’. But kicking it to the medical board to make a decision — putting aside the fact that most medical boards are incredibly inadequate at their actual job, which is disciplining doctors, they’re not necessarily known for their competence — is that you also deal with some of the politics involved in this as well.

Rovner: So in South Dakota, it would kick this to the South Dakota Department of Health, which, of course, is controlled by the governor, who’s a Republican and pro-lifer. And so it’s hard to imagine what sort of doing a video explaining this is going to do to clarify things any further than they already think the law has gone. But at least … I’m fascinated by the effort here, that this is going on in multiple states. Speaking of state legislators, in Missouri, they’re working on a bill to create an abortion ban exception for children 12 and under — obviously thinking of the 10-year-old in Ohio in 2022 [who] had to go to Indiana to get a pregnancy terminated. But one Republican state senator complained that “a 1-year-old could get an abortion under this.” This is a serious question: Should legislators have to pass a basic biology test to make laws about reproductive health? As we know, 1-year-olds cannot get pregnant.

Ollstein: I mean, this was a more glaring example. We see this over and over in a lot more subtle ways, too, where doctors and medical societies are pointing out that these laws are drafted using language that is not medically accurate at all. And it can be small things in terms of when someone should qualify for a medical exemption to an abortion ban. Some states have language around if it would cause “irreversible damage.” That’s not a term doctors use in that circumstance, things like that. Or a major bodily function would be impaired if they don’t get an abortion. Well, what is a major bodily function? That’s not defined. And so, yes, this was an almost laughable example of this, but I think that it’s a sign of something more pervasive and maybe less obvious.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I have listened to a lot of state debates with a lot of legislators saying things that are, as I say, kind of laughably inaccurate. Sorry, Lauren.

Weber: Oh, I would just say as a Missourian and as someone who lived in Missouri until a year ago, this gentleman, in particular, it does seem like has a history of making somewhat inflammatory statements that he knows will be picked up by the media. I mean, I think he brought a flamethrower to an event. I mean, I think that’s part of the shtick. But welcome to Missouri politics. You never know what you’re going to get.

Ollstein: And of course, we have the famous assertion that people can’t get pregnant as a result of rape because the body knows how to shut it down, which is obviously not …

Rovner: Which happened in a Missouri Senate race.

Ollstein: Yes. Yep. Exactly. So Missouri, once again, covering itself in glory.

Rovner: All right, well, something we haven’t talked about a lot recently are crisis pregnancy centers, which are usually storefronts for anti-abortion organizations that often lure women seeking abortions by offering free pregnancy tests and ultrasounds so that they can then talk them into carrying their pregnancies to term. The centers are getting more and more public support from states. One estimate is that government support totaled some $344 million in fiscal 2022. So that was a couple of years back. And increasingly as abortion clinics close in states with bans, crisis pregnancy centers, which typically don’t have medical professionals on staff and aren’t technically medical facilities, may be the only resource available to pregnant women. It seems that could have some pretty serious ramifications. Yes?

Ollstein: I mean, I think people don’t realize just how vast the network of these centers are. They outnumber abortion clinics by a lot in a lot of states, including states that support abortion rights. They’re very, very pervasive. And this is becoming a huge focus for the anti-abortion movement. It was basically the theme of this year’s March for Life, was these sort of resources. In part, it is an attempt to show a kinder face of the movement and change public opinion. Obviously, like we discussed, there are all these painful stories coming out about people being denied care. And so promoting these stories of places that provide some form of something, some services, it’s not necessarily medical care, but …

Rovner: They provide diapers and strollers and car seats. I mean, they do actually … many of them actually provide services for babies once they’re born.

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. And so I think there is going to be a huge focus on this in the policy space, both in terms of directing more taxpayer funding to these centers, which progressives vehemently oppose.

And so I think this is going to be a big focus going forward. It already has in Texas. Texas has directed a lot of money towards what they call alternatives to abortion, which include these centers. And so I think it’s going to be a big focus going forward.

Rovner: Well, one other thing about crisis pregnancy centers, because they are not medical facilities, they are not subject to HIPAA medical privacy rules. And it turns out that is important. According to an investigation by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden, a company gathered and sold location data for people whose phones were in or around 600 separate Planned Parenthood locations, without the patients’ consent, to use an anti-abortion advertising.

Wyden is asking the SEC and the FTC to investigate the company, but this raises broader questions about information privacy, particularly in the reproductive health space. I remember right after Roe v. Wade was overturned, there were lots of warnings to women who were using period-tracking apps and other things about the concern about people who you may not want to know your private medical situation being able to find out your private medical situations. Is there any indication that there’s any way from the federal government point of view to crack down on this?

Ollstein: So I don’t know about that specifically, but there is a bigger effort on privacy and digital privacy and how it relates to abortion. We’re still waiting on the release of the final HIPAA rule from the Biden administration, which will extend more protections around abortion data, I think. But, because it’s HIPAA, it does only apply to certain entities and these centers are not among them. Another area I’ve been hearing concern about is research. A researcher at a university who is studying people who have abortions or don’t have abortions, their data is not protected. And so they are very stressed out about that, and that’s compromising medical research right now. So there’s a lot of these different areas of concern. And as we so often see, technology evolves a hell of a lot faster than government evolves to regulate it and address it. And that is just an ongoing concern.

Rovner: Yes, it is. And at some point, we’ll talk about artificial intelligence, but not today. Actually, right now, I want to turn to the Super Bowl. Yes, the Super Bowl. In between all the ads for blockbuster movies, beer, cars, and snack foods, and, right, a football game, there were three ads aimed directly at health policy issues.

In one, the nonprofit price transparency advocacy group Power to the Patients got musicians Jelly Roll, Lainey Wilson, and Valerie June to basically call hospitals and insurance companies greedy. It’s not clear to me if this was a free PSA or if this group paid for it, but I suspect the latter.

Does anybody know who this group is? They seem to have lots of access to big names for what seems to be a kind of obscure health issue. I mean, everybody’s for transparency, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Super Bowl ad about it.

Cohrs: This is not their first Super Bowl. It’s backed by Cynthia Fisher who is married to the CEO of Sam Adams, parent company. And he’s also a member of the Koch family. But she has been passionate about health care price transparency for years. I mean, was in President [Donald] Trump’s ear, has made the legal argument that the authority existed under the Affordable Care Act. Lobbied to get these regulations passed. And she has definitely employed unusual or unorthodox techniques, like Super Bowl ads, like painting murals, like hosting parties and concerts for health staff and health policy people in D.C. And I think she’s also lobbying for the codification of these transparency regulations.

And it is a little wonky, but I think her frustration is that she lobbied so hard to get these price transparency regulations and everyday people don’t even know that it should be available for them. And obviously academics disagree over how useful that information is for everyday people. But I think she has just taken it upon herself to do the PR campaign for these regulations that she believes could help people make more educated decisions about care that isn’t necessarily emergency care, like MRIs, that kind of thing. So she’s been around for years and has been very active.

I think Fat Joe is another celebrity that she’s brought onto the case. Jelly Roll — I hadn’t seen him do an event with her before or an ad. But I think there’s an ever-expanding cast of celebrities where this is just … it seems like a pretty noncontroversial issue. So I mean, Busta Rhymes, like French Montana, there’s been a lot of people involved in this campaign and I expect it to be ongoing.

Rovner: I feel like she’s kind of the Mark Cuban of price transparency, where Mark Cuban is all into drug prices. Alice, you want to add something?

Ollstein: Well, it’s just funny to me because, as we’ve discussed many, many times on this podcast, transparency goes not very far in helping actual patients. And so it’s funny that a group called Power to the Patients is going all in on this issue when, as we know, the vast majority of health care people need they cannot shop around for and, even when they can, it’s not something people are always able or willing to do.

And so transparency gets a lot of bipartisan support and sounds good in theory, but we’ve seen in terms of what’s been implemented so far in terms of hospital prices, et cetera, that it doesn’t do that much to bring down prices or empower people.

Rovner: Although, I don’t know, getting famous people to care about health policy can’t be a terrible thing. Lauren, did you want to add something too?

Weber: No, I just wanted to say, I mean, I will say as much as we’re all clear on price transparency, what this all means, the Super Bowl is a new audience. So, I mean, if you’re going to spend your money, at least you’re spending it — and that was the most watched TV program, I believe, of all time — so you’re spending it in a way that you’re getting some eyeballs on it.

Rovner: All right, well, that was not the only ad. Next, a company that clearly did pay for its ad was Pfizer, which used a soundtrack by Queen and talking paintings and statues to celebrate science and declare war on cancer. This is also one I don’t think I had seen before. I mean, what is Pfizer up to here? I mean, obviously, Pfizer can afford a Super Bowl ad. There’s no question about that, but why would they want to?

Cohrs: I mean, Pfizer has not been performing great financially lately. And I think they pulled out of the lobbying organization biome and chose to spend money on a Super Bowl ad, which I think is a really interesting choice. I mean, I don’t know what the dues are, but a Super Bowl ad is an expensive thing.

And I think there has been this attack on science, as a whole, and I think there’s an outstanding question of how to rebuild trust. And I think that this was Pfizer’s unorthodox tactic of trying to equate themselves with more credible, historical scientists who are less controversial. Yeah, my colleague did a good story on it.

Rovner: Yeah, like Einstein.

Cohrs: Right.

Rovner: Well, we’ll link to all of these ads. If you haven’t seen them there, they’re definitely worth watching. Well, finally, and in keeping with the occasional politics that does creep into Super Bowl ads, the super PAC supporting the presidential candidacy of independent anti-vaxxer Robert F. Kennedy Jr. paid $7 million for an ad that was basically a remake of the 1960 ad for his uncle John F. Kennedy, when he was running for president, which provoked an outcry from several of his Kennedy cousins who have repeatedly disavowed RFK Jr.’s candidacy and his causes.

For his part, the candidate apologized to his family members and said he didn’t have anything to do with the ad directly, because it was the super PAC. But then he pinned it to his Twitter profile, where he has more than 2½ followers. I can’t help but wonder if they’re going after football fans who actually believe the whole Taylor Swift-Travis Kelsey thing is a conspiracy.

No comment on Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and pissing off his entire family? We will move ahead then.

Speaking of conspiracy theories, in “This Week in Health Misinformation,” we have — drum roll — blood transfusions. Seems that there are a significant number of people who believe that getting blood from someone who has been vaccinated against covid, using the mRNA vaccines, will somehow change their DNA or otherwise harm them. And state legislators are listening.

In Wyoming, a state representative has introduced a bill that would require the labeling of blood from a covid-vaccinated donor. So prospective recipients could refuse it, at least in nonemergency situations. And in Montana, there’s a bill that would go even further, banning blood donations from the covid-vaccinated. That one appears to not be going anywhere, but this could have serious implications. It would create blood shortages, I imagine, even in rural areas where fewer people are vaccinated than in some of the urban areas. But I mean, this strikes me as not an insignificant kind of movement.

Ollstein: Well, it seems troubling on two fronts. One, we already have blood shortages and we already have dangerously low vaccination rates and not just covid vaccination rates. The hesitancy and anti-vax sentiment is spilling over into routine childhood vaccinations and all kinds of things.

And so I think anything that appears to give that sort of stigma and conspiracy a veneer of credibility, like state law for instance, threatens to further entrench those trends.

Rovner: All right, well, that is this week’s news. We will do our extra credits in a minute, but first, as promised, we have the winners of the KFF Health News “Health Policy Valentines” contest. This year’s winner, and we will post the link to the poem and its accompanying illustration, is from Jennifer Reck.

It goes, “Darling, this Valentine’s Day, let’s grab our passports and fly away to someplace where the same drugs cost a fraction of what they do in the States.” I have asked the panel to each choose a finalist of their own to read. So, Lauren, why don’t you start?

Weber: “The paperwork flirts with my affections, a dance of denials, full of rejections. My heart yearns for you, my sweet medication, but insurance insists on prior authorization.”

Rovner: And who’s that from?

Weber: That’s from Sally Nix. Excellent work, Sally.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: OK, I have one from Kara Gavin. It’s “My love for you, darling, is blinding / Like a clinical trial pre-findings / But I fear we shall part / And I’ll lose my heart/ Because of Medicaid unwinding!” Very topical.

Rovner: Very. Rachel.

Cohrs: OK, this is from Andrea Ferguson. “Parental love is beautiful and guess what makes it stronger? A paid parental leave policy to stay with baby longer.”

Rovner: Very nice. Thank you all who entered. And we’ll do this again next year. All right, 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. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: I have a piece from my colleague Arek Sarkissian, down in Florida, and it is about how the state’s immigration law is deterring immigrants from seeking health care. And one of the areas they’re most concerned about is maternal health care. We already are in a maternal health crisis and the law requires hospitals that receive Medicaid funding to ask people about their immigration status when they come in for care. What a lot of people don’t know is that they don’t have to answer, but this fear of being asked and potentially being flagged for deportation enforcement, et cetera, is making people avoid care. And so there’s just a lot of concern about this and a lot of attempts to educate folks in the immigrant community. Obviously, Florida has a very large immigrant community. And it just reminded me of the fears that were happening early in the pandemic when the public charge rule under Trump was in effect and it was deterring immigrants from seeking care.

And in the middle of a pandemic, when we’re dealing with an infectious disease that doesn’t care if you have citizenship or not, having a large segment of the population avoid care is dangerous for everyone.

Rovner: Indeed. Lauren.

Weber: So I chose an article titled “Climate Change Has Hit Home Insurance. Is Health Insurance Next?” by Yusuf Khan in The Wall Street Journal. And, I mean, look, the insurers are — they’re looking out for their bottom line. And the bottom line is that climate change does have health impacts. So the question is, will that start to hit premiums? The sad answer, in part of this article, is that, unfortunately, the people often most affected by climate change don’t have health insurance. So that may not affect premiums as much as we expect, but I think this is a really fascinating test case of how when climate change comes for your money, you’ll start to see it validated more. So I’ll be curious to see how this plays out with the various health insurers.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously, we’re already seeing people not being able to get home insurance in places like Florida and California because of increasing fires and increasing hurricanes and increasing flooding in some places. Rachel?

Cohrs: So mine is a package deal. It’s two stories related to private equity investment in health care. The first is a piece in Modern Healthcare by Nona Tepper on a Medicare Advantage report by the Private Equity Stakeholder Project. And it just kind of highlighted the downturn in investment in Medicare Advantage, like marketing companies and brokers, consultants.

And I thought it was an interesting take because, I think so often, we see reporting about how private equity is expanding its investment in a certain sector. But this, I think, was an interesting indicator where, oh, it’s turning downward so dramatically. And I think that it’s interesting to track the tail end of more regulation or whatever rule comes out. How does that impact investment? And we talk a lot about that in the pharmaceutical space. But I thought this was a great interesting creative take on the Medicare Advantage side of things.

And also just highlighting some reporting from my colleague Bob Herman about the FTC doubling down on the Welsh Carson’s anesthesia case to limit private equity’s physician buyouts. So the FTC is taking on Welsh Carson, a powerful private equity firm, and other private equity firms asked for the case to be dismissed. And Bob does a great job breaking down these really complicated arguments by the FTC as to why they’re not backing down. They’re not going to cut a deal, they want this case to go forward.

So it will be interesting to watch as this develops, but I think Bob makes a great argument. There are applications for other cases as well and for the FTC and being able to attack these complex corporate arrangements where they’re using subsidiaries to drive prices up for physician services and other things. So definitely worth a read from Bob.

Rovner: Yes, another theme of the Federal Trade Commission getting more and more involved in health care in general and private equity in health care in particular. My extra credit this week is from Stateline by Anna Claire Vollers, and it’s called “Government Can Erase Your Medical Debt for Pennies on the Dollar — And Some Are.” It’s about how a growing number of states and cities are buying up and forgiving medical debt for their residents. Backers of the plans point out that medical debt is a societal problem that deserves a societal solution. And that relieving people’s debt burdens can actually add to economic growth. So it’s a good return on a small investment. It’s obviously not going to solve the medical debt problem, but it may well buy some government goodwill for some of the people of these states and cities.

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 to Stephanie Stapleton, filling in this week as our editor. 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. Lauren, where are you these days?

Weber: Still just on Twitter @LaurenWeberHP, or X, I guess.

Rovner: Alice.

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

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and also getting more engaged on LinkedIn lately. So feel free to follow me there.

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 Supreme Court this week took up a case brought by two herring fishing companies that could shake up the way the entire executive branch administers laws passed by Congress. At stake is something called “Chevron deference,” from the 1984 case Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. The ruling in that case directs federal judges to accept any “reasonable” interpretation by a federal agency of a law that’s otherwise ambiguous. Overturning Chevron would give the federal judiciary much more power and executive branch agencies much less.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration is struggling with whether to ban menthol-flavored cigarettes. Among smokers, African Americans consume the product at the highest rate, and the African American community is split, with some groups arguing that a ban would improve public health and others worried that making the product illegal would give police another excuse to harass black people.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, and Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress looks ready to pass yet another temporary spending bill to keep the federal government running — this one extending to March. But it’s unclear whether all the health policies that have been attached to previous temporary “continuing resolutions” will continue to make the cut while lawmakers struggle with full-year funding issues.
• A grand jury in Ohio declined to indict Brittany Watts, who was charged by authorities with “abuse of a corpse” after having a miscarriage at home. The case underscores how women can be at legal risk for their pregnancy outcomes even in states where abortion remains legal.
• Also in Ohio, state pharmacy officials are moving to fine and place on probation a CVS store in Canton after inspectors determined that understaffing was threatening patient safety. In at least one case a patient was given a drug other than the one prescribed, and waits to fill some prescriptions stretched to a month. Ohio is also investigating other CVS locations in the state to ensure staffing is adequate.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Darius Tahir, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about a lengthy fight over a bill for a quick telehealth visit. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Pumping Milk at JPM Was a Nightmare. It’s Part of a Bigger Problem in the Industry,” by Tara Bannow.

Joanne Kenen: Undark’s “Why Incentives to Attract Doctors to Rural Areas Haven’t Worked,” by Arjun V.K. Sharma.

Lauren Weber: The Guardian’s “Majority of Debtors to US Hospitals Now People With Health Insurance,” by Jessica Glenza.

Rachel Cohrs: The Washington Post’s “Republican Governors in 15 States Reject Summer Food Money For Kids,” by Annie Gowen.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “White House Weighs Menthol Ban Amid Dueling Health, Political Pressures,” by Dan Diamond and Tyler Pager.
• The Ohio Capital Journal’s “Ohio Attorney General Asks That CVS Store Be Put on Probation ‘for a Period of Years,’” by Marty Schladen.
• The Atlantic’s “The Supreme Court Is Making America Ungovernable,” by Lisa Heinzerling.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Supreme Court vs. the Bureaucracy

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Supreme Court vs. the BureaucracyEpisode Number: 330Published: Jan. 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, Jan. 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 Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my colleague Darius Tahir, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” about an unexpectedly large bill for a simple telehealth appointment. But first, this week’s news. So we’re a day away from the next deadline for Congress to pass a spending bill or else big chunks of the federal government shut down. In other words, the “let’s kick the can down the road a few more weeks and see how many spending bills we can get done” deadline is now here, again. So how many spending bills did Congress get done between — what, the end of November, the last time we did this — and now? Rachel, I see your eyes are rolling.

Cohrs: Yeah, I don’t think we have any actual appropriations in that time frame. I think there was just a lot of back-and-forth, not a lot of actual progress. So I think they’ve decided to kick the can down to March. As we’re taping in the morning, the Senate is scheduled to pass the CR [continuing resolution] to keep that two-pronged approach moving into early March, but extensions of health care programs in Medicaid and Medicare have been pushed now to the second March deadline, so those are expected to come up on March 8, right now.

Rovner: So remind us what those are. I saw you very helpfully have a story about it this morning.

Cohrs: I do, yes. Fresh from the trenches on that. So there were a number of health care programs that expired at the end of 2023, including payments for safety-net hospitals, including pandemic-era bonuses for doctors, for their Medicare pay. We also have funding for community health centers and multiple demonstration projects, programs for diabetes and other public health issues. So those are commonly known as extenders. They do just expire on a regular basis. We had a three-year term, but now we’re at the end of it.

Rovner: And they need to be extended. Hence, they’re called extenders.

Cohrs: They do need to be extended, yes. So Congress did take care of most of those items in the CR from September time frame, but they did not extend the bonus payments for doctors. So there were some very tense negotiations late last week where Republicans were really pushing to add those payments back into the extenders package as it sits right now, but those negotiations broke down and so what we’re seeing today, tomorrow, is just an extension of the same baseline and doctors are still without those increased payments.

Rovner: Right. That’s the Medicare cut that we talked about last week, actually, with the head of the AMA [American Medical Association].

Cohrs: Yeah, it’s controversial because it was … long story, but …

Rovner: There’s also a 3.7% actual cut and that’s still in effect, right? That’s not being taken care of?

Cohrs: No, that’s not being taken care of. I think if Congress doesn’t fix things, to my understanding, some specialties will see a cut, other specialties will see an increase, and there’s an across-the-board cut, though, because in the middle of the pandemic, Congress did not want to cut any doctors’ payments, so that was an increase on top of the kind of baseline amount. So when you’re saying cut, they’re kind of going back to the normal baseline for some physicians. Others are seeing that deeper cut because of some Trump-era rules and the conversion factors there.

Rovner: Yes. Medicare doctor payment, we’ll spend a whole episode on this at some point, but not today because we have something else confusing to take on. The award for incomprehensible health policy this week goes to the Supreme Court, who heard arguments Wednesday in two cases, Relentless Inc. v. the Department of Commerce and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, i.e., Gina Raimondo, the secretary of Commerce. What is at stake here is not the merits of these cases — they are about fees paid by herring fishing boats — but whether the court should overrule something called Chevron deference, which is the policy that courts should defer to executive branch agency interpretations of ambiguous laws as long as that interpretation is reasonable. I know this sounds wonky, and it is wonky, but if the court overrules Chevron, it could have enormous ramifications for health policy, yes?

Kenen: Pretty much anything that has ever been regulated. That’s only a slight exaggeration. I mean, we don’t know what the court is going to do. We can expect that the court will trim, at least, Chevron, but we don’t know how far the court will go.

Rovner: Right. They didn’t have to take this case and the fact that they took it suggests they want to do something.

Kenen: They’ve been more than chipping away. We sort of get to that in a minute, but basically the question is when Congress doesn’t have the expertise that civil servants and agencies have, or in some cases, political appointees and agencies have. They are professionals who work in health care or the environment or herring fishing. They know more than even the smartest Congress person about their field of expertise, and traditionally Congress makes laws and tells the agencies to fill in the blanks, to do the regulations, to work out the details, figure out how this is going to work in the real world, and then everybody sues everybody else.

Chevron has basically said yes, the agencies can make up the rules. There are thousands of court cases and rules. It’s throughout the government, everything federal, so it’s not very hard to guess that Chevron will be changed. The question is: Will it be gutted? And who writes the regs? Or can Congress just put in language saying, “And we explicitly authorize the EPA or HHS or CMS, whatever, to fill in the blanks.” We don’t know how this plays out, but it’s messy.

Rovner: Obviously there are lawsuits that happen all the time anyway, even with Chevron, it’s just that Chevron is supposed to say when a judge gets a complaint in front of him saying “this regulation is contrary to what the law said,” the judge gets to decide whether or not it’s a reasonable interpretation. So it’s not like judges can’t overrule the agencies. It just says, in general, the weight should go towards the agency. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say I think this is relevant to the conversation we had just before this, because what this is aimed at doing is putting the power back in the hands, both of the courts and the Congress, but as we’ve just discussed, Congress is having a hard time passing things. So this is all part of the movement, in general, by conservatives to strip the administrative state, as they like to call it. And as Joanne pointed out, it’ll be quite interesting to see how this all plays out.

Rovner: Yes, and my favorite factoid about this case is that the lawyers who are representing the herring fishermen are being paid indirectly by Americans for Prosperity, the Koch Brothers, interest group that’s basically aimed at weakening the power of the regulatory state. It isn’t even very subtle here. Yes, Joanne?

Kenen: There’s been a lot of focus on Chevron, but there’ve been a number of cases that have already weakened Chevron without calling it weakening Chevron. I interviewed a lawyer, a law professor at Georgetown about a year ago, and she also wrote about a year ago a very good piece in The Atlantic that Julie couldn’t put on the notes. Her name is Lisa Heinzerling, I think it’s Heinzerling, and basically she said they’ve already really gutted Chevron. And the three cases, one was the EPA clean air case, power to regulate, and two were covid-related. One of them was the vaccine mandates for the workplace, and the court basically ruled that the agencies didn’t have the right to make those decisions.

What professor Heinzerling said, it’s called the major decision [questions] doctrine, that if it’s a really big thing, the agency can’t do it. Congress has to or the courts have to, and those big things include things like clean air. So, in her view, the major [questions] doctrine has already really gutted the agency’s power and made it harder to govern because, as she pointed out, it takes years to get a rule passed. She worked at the EPA, and it’s a very complicated, careful, long process and she basically said it’s another way of making the country ungovernable at a time when we have lots of things that need governing.

Rovner: To give myself a little plug here, I did basically a policy tracker at the beginning of the Biden administration tracking how long it was going to take [President Joe] Biden to undo a lot of the regulations and policies that the Trump administration put in, and I just updated it again last week when we talked about the conscience rule. It literally does take years for these things to happen. I mean, one presidential term is barely enough time to change the policies of the previous president, and I will link to my regulation tracker because somebody should look at it.

All right, well, moving on. I want to talk about an issue I’ve had on my podcast rundown since sometime last fall, but have never managed to get to, which is a proposed ban on menthol-flavored cigarettes. From a public health perspective, this is kind of a no-brainer. Menthol makes cigarettes smoke more palatable to smokers and, therefore, smokers smoke more, but it turns out to be super sensitive politically because African Americans are far more likely to smoke menthol cigarettes than any other group, and African American leaders themselves are split on whether such a ban would help or hurt. What are the arguments for and against this? Lauren, you’ve been kind of watching this, yes?

Weber: Yeah. Shoutout to my colleagues Dan Diamond and Tyler Pager who wrote a great story on this last week, but essentially the arguments for and against is menthol cigarettes are a leading cause of death for Black Americans. They’ve been historically marketed to the Black American community. What menthol does is it has a cooling effect when you smoke, so it makes it more enjoyable. As a smoking issue, you saw similar regulation issues come up when we talked about vaping regulation to different flavors, which also had similar backlashes when Donald Trump considered it, and actually when I was at KHN [KFF Health News], I got to write a story with Rachel Bluth about this where we talked about how Donald Trump really got gun-shy on this to some extent because he was worried about the voter implications. And we’re seeing that play out again right now because what is happening is that the tobacco lobby is telling Biden that he’s going to lose a large chunk of Black voters, which, as we are very clear, the 2024 election looks like it’s going to be quite tight, so that has real ramifications.

What’s interesting is that lobbying effort is obviously led by the tobacco companies, which have had a history of tactics and propaganda when it comes to preventing regulations that we’re all very well aware of, but they have rallied up quite a few folks in their favor, including some Black congressmen who have cited what the tobacco companies are telling them, which is that they’re concerned that this is targeting Black Americans, because why aren’t we just killing all cigarettes? Why are we just killing menthol cigarettes? That it also could lead to over-policing, which could lead to violence against Black Americans. This is the argument that the tobacco companies and their advocates are making. But the bottom line is really what this boils down to is I think the most effective argument that they’re making to the Biden administration is it could hurt your reelection chances.

To look ahead, the real deadline on this taking effect that all the advocates have been pointing to is Jan. 20, which, if you look at your calendar, is Saturday. So it’s not looking great for the promises to the advocates that this could happen in the Biden term. It’s unclear, still a toss-up. Dan Diamond reported that while the administration sees it as a toss-up, Robert Califf, who’s head of the FDA, is pretty resigned to it not happening, which to me seems to indicate, considering we are almost to the 20th, that it may not happen, but by the time this podcast airs, I could be wrong. So we will see how this plays out.

Cohrs: I just wanted to say that I think if you look at the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] regulatory schedule, they do have meetings on this rule scheduled out through mid-February, so could they cancel this tomorrow? Sure, and put it out, but at least what they’re saying publicly, it looks like they’re not planning to put that out tomorrow.

Rovner: Right, and I would say the deadline, it’s not technically a deadline, but what the agency has said is that it will take a year to basically, as we were just talking about, it takes a long time for regulations to become final, and Jan. 20 of 2025 is Inauguration Day. So if Biden were to not get reelected and they were to start this, it would be very easy for Trump or whoever else gets elected to stop it. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: One point, though: This is an issue that’s been on the back burner, front burner, back burner, but it’s been 20, 30 years now, 20, 25-ish maybe? There has been a shift in that, I don’t remember whether it’s an official Black Caucus stance or just an informal … where the Black lawmakers in Congress had been opposed to the ban for the reasons, discriminatory, black market, it would hurt people as well as hurt some, help others. There’s now a split and that is a change. So whether there’s action this week, there is movement on it and, like we said, everything takes a long time, 25 years, but there has been movement on it, and it’s also a little bit more vivid who’s using tobacco dollars and who isn’t. So the public health needle has moved, maybe not in time for this year, but let’s see what happens next year. I mean, if it goes away now, it doesn’t go away for good.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: I think that’s a great point by Joanne that I just want to echo. This reminds me a lot … there was a story that The Post did in December where Peter Wallsten interviewed all of these lawmakers who voted against the AR-15 ban, and they talked all about how, if they could go back in time, they wished they had voted for it. They regret that political decision that they made due to the voter piece of this, and I do wonder if Biden is grappling with that similar longevity of, like, this would be a landmark public health ruling, this would be quite something that really would be protecting lives, but is it worth the voter cost? I think that, to me, is where this lies. But as Joanne said, I mean, this is not dead forever if this dies this week. It certainly has made progress.

Rovner: It’s a really interesting issue though. All right, well, speaking of smoking, the Department of Health and Human Services is recommending that marijuana be removed from the DEA’s [Drug Enforcement Administration’s] list of drugs with no medical use and a high potential for abuse, the so-called Schedule 1 drug. Instead, the department is saying it should be placed on Schedule 3, which are with drugs that can be abused but can also be helpful, like anabolic steroids and ketamine. Given that medical marijuana is now legal in 38 states and recreational marijuana is legal in 24, isn’t this just kind of recognizing reality?

Kenen: I mean there’s been pressure for years. I mean, Schedule 1 is heroin. It’s hard to make the case now that marijuana is as harmful as heroin or other Schedule 1 drugs. The FDA isn’t ready to say it should be completely unscheduled and just do whatever you like, but there’s a big difference between a 1 and a 3, and there’s a lot of gaps between federal law, including things that involve financing for the marijuana industry or the cannabis industry. So there’s a lot of gaps still between state law and federal law, but this is a partial closure of one of those many gaps. And it’s a recognition that, not just a political and social reality, but also a science reality. I mean, even if you’re not crazy, if you’re not that sanguine about marijuana, it’s still hard to make a case that it’s as dangerous as heroin. It’s not.

Rovner: “Reefer Madness” was a long time ago.

Kenen: Yeah, but it had a long tail.

Rovner: It did. Well, among the recognized uses for marijuana are to help combat nausea caused by chemotherapy and for stimulating appetite in patients with AIDS. Meanwhile, a kind of provocative study out this week from the University of Colorado found that weed can actually motivate people to exercise, which seems kind of the polar opposite of the idea that it just turns people into slackers and couch potatoes. Now that we have drugs that can help make people not hungry, how big a deal would it be to have another one that actually helps people exercise? I mean, I assume that there are a lot of things about marijuana that we don’t know, both good and bad.

Kenen: Julie, after you sent that around yesterday, I read that article, and there’s a lot of problems with that study. I mean, it was all people who smoke marijuana when they run or ingest it. So it wasn’t a scientific gold standard. I mean, if you ask a bunch of people, “Oh, do you like running high?” and they say “Yes,” and then say, “OK, do you want to be in our study about running high?” [laughs]

Rovner: In Colorado, where recreational marijuana has been legal for several years.

Kenen: I mean, there’s still a lot of unknowns. If you talk to the proponents of medical marijuana, they’ll tell you it cures everything. And I think all of us would be somewhat skeptical that marijuana cures everything. I’m not convinced that exercise motivation thing is … I mean, I could be persuaded, but that study didn’t persuade me.

Rovner: My point, though, is that, I mean one of the things that had been difficult over the years is that it had been hard to actually get marijuana to do medical studies like this. There was only one place that grew it. I think it was in Mississippi.

Kenen: In Mississippi, and it was really poor quality.

Rovner: Right. So I mean now we can at least presumably have better-quality studies on these kinds of things, right?

Kenen: I don’t think it’s great. I think it’s better.

Rovner: I said we can have, not that we do have.

Kenen: I mean someone else might know more. I read about this and I can’t remember the details now and maybe Lauren or Rachel remembers better than I do, but it’s not just from Mississippi, but it’s not from everywhere. There’s more supplies for medical, but I don’t think it’s abundant and perfect.

Rovner: But I think that’s one of the things that changing the schedule would actually help fix that, actually taking it off of Schedule 1 with heroin, as you point out, and putting it on Schedule 3 with other things that have been studied and have been found to have some medical uses. So another thing that we shall watch. Well, turning to abortion, a grand jury in Ohio decided not to indict Brittany Watts, who miscarried at home after being turned away from the hospital only to have one of the nurses there call the police. Officials in Warren, Ohio, wanted to try her for a crime called “abuse of a corpse.” We talked about this the last two episodes. Mind you, Ohio is a state that just voted to enshrine abortion rights in its constitution, and this was not an abortion. But I imagine this goes down in the “no matter where you live, you’re at legal risk for pregnancy loss” column, right? I mean, it does seem to be kind of ominous that there are still officials who still want to criminalize basically pregnancy loss, however it happens.

Weber: Yeah, I mean, I’ll chime in on this. I mean, this case has been watched by folks not only in this country but around the world because, just to remind the audience, Brittany Watts, she was miscarrying and was sent home from the hospital and what happened is that she miscarried into a toilet at home and law enforcement took the drastic steps of retrieving the fetus from the toilet to then charge her with this “abuse of a corpse” law statute after the hospital, by the way, had also clearly consulted with its legal team over what the appropriate action to cover the hospital was. Not to cover the patient but to cover the hospital.

So she miscarried at home. Then this very ancient law statute was pulled out, and I mean, we don’t know how many law statutes like this over what’s called “abuse of a corpse” exist. Legally, it’s also “Is a fetus a corpse?” — was that debate as well in this case? I mean, I think we’ll see what happens across the country, but yes, Julie, I think you’re correct that this is very concerning for women across the country who could have a miscarriage at home. Could you be legally liable for not handling that as some activist prosecution would prefer that you do?

Kenen: Right. I think in this case, she’d been into the ER and out a couple of times, and I think the last time she wasn’t discharged, she just left. But most miscarriages are very early in pregnancy and it’s an embryo. It’s not even a fetus yet, and it’s tiny. So how do you even define what a corpse is? Do you even know that you were pregnant? Losing a pregnancy is a trauma. It’s a medical condition and it’s a trauma. What happened to her, she lost a pregnancy. She had been in and out of the hospital. She didn’t feel like her needs were being met there. That’s why she left. There was a lot of confusion about what to do. There was no confusion that this was a naturally occurring miscarriage, a premature rupturing of her membranes. Nobody, including the nurse who called the cops, nobody said that she’s trying to do a self-abortion or that she’s doing anything illegal. She had a pregnancy loss.

Rovner: There was a medical examiner report that said …

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: … this was a stillborn.

Kenen: Right. I don’t think people necessarily know what to do if you …

Rovner: Nor can you imagine should they know what to do. I mean, it’s not like she didn’t follow standard procedure. There is no standard procedure for this. Speaking of people in states where abortion is still legal, still having to pay attention, in Texas, the district court judge who tried to overturn the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill, mifepristone, granted a motion allowing Idaho and Missouri to intervene in the case, which the Supreme Court agreed to hear last month. This could be a big deal because it means that even if the original plaintiffs in the case, which is a group representing anti-abortion obstetrician-gynecologists is found not to have standing, which seems likely, according to most experts, it’s not clear that they are harmed in any way by mifepristone. The states will still be there to keep the case active. Although how the states are harmed by mifepristone is also kind of a stretch. I feel like the anti-abortion forces in these states just aren’t paying attention to the voters, and I guess they don’t have to. I mean, I think this and the Brittany Watts case sort of suggests that even if abortion is legal, even if the voters have spoken, there are still officials who think that it is their obligation to push their anti-abortion views as far as they can.

Kenen: I mean, we see how the elections have gone in every state that’s had a ballot initiative, and we haven’t seen the anti-abortion forces say, whoops, we lost and go home. I mean, they still have the Supreme Court ruling. They still have plenty of momentum. They’ve got a federal election, they’ve got a presidential election coming up, and it’s not going away, and they’re not the will of the voters. I mean, to be fair, many of them do believe that this is murder and that they’re morally obligated to keep fighting. I mean, if you want to acknowledge that, that that’s the belief for many, not necessarily all people on the … there are people who are doing it for political reasons too, but there are people who sincerely believe that they’re morally obligated to keep fighting this even if the voters have not been enlightened to the truth.

Rovner: All right. Well, finally this week, a continuing story out of Ohio that speaks to some of the serious issues with the health care workforce. The state Board of Pharmacy is recommending that a CVS pharmacy in Canton be fined and put on probation after inspections found dangers to patients from understaffing. According to the Ohio Capital Journal, which has been following this story pretty closely, inspectors found the understaffing so severe that it was taking two weeks for prescriptions to be filled and in at least one case a prescription was filled for the wrong medication. During an on-site inspection, the inside counter was closed, medications hadn’t been shelved, and it took an inspector 20 minutes just to get a staffer’s attention.

The Canton store is one of eight CVS pharmacies in the state to have been cited by the board. Now, we’ve heard similar stories, not just about CVS and not just about CVS in Ohio, but about Walgreens and other chain drugstores. Are regulators finally catching up with some of the anecdotal reports that we’ve been seeing about the stress that’s happening at the pharmacy counter?

Cohrs: I think this was a good example of a response to that, and Ohio has been on the front end of looking into pharmacies and the drug supply chain, so I think they are pretty well equipped to look into an issue like this. But I think it starts to quantify and just build the case that this does have patient impacts. It’s not just a little bit of a longer line. I mean some of the wait times for these medications — two weeks, a month. Just imagine going to the pharmacy and being told to wait a month for medication. It can be really problematic for patients. So I think, certainly, it’s not surprising to me that Ohio is kind of on the front end of this and it certainly could be the beginning of more enforcement if officials have the bandwidth to do it.

Rovner: I know. I guess the issue here is the pharmacists said during the pandemic that obviously it was a pandemic, they were having trouble getting people. They were being asked to do other things, which they still are, like give vaccines. And not just covid vaccines, it’s “now go get your shingles shot, go get your flu shot.” Everybody’s being pushed to these pharmacies and they’re not necessarily increasing staff to deal with the increasing workload. There is a point at which it starts to endanger patients, and we’re starting to see that point.

Kenen: Also they get paid for some of that, right? I mean they get paid for doing shots. And it’s not super, super labor-intensive. You have your technicians who know how to do it, you can do it pretty fast. And one reason that pharmacies do want to give shots is when you come in and you get your shot, you also end up picking up shampoo or whatever. So I mean it’s a way of getting people in the stores. There’s sort of different issues with pharmacies. I mean, I personally have had more than one time where I’ve been given the wrong medication. I look, and not only that, I don’t want to identify which pharmacy, they gave me the wrong one and I said, “This is the wrong one,” and they said, “Whoops, sorry, come back in an hour,” and I came back in an hour and they gave me the same wrong one. So I’ve never walked back in there again. I think there’ve been a number of reports, not as egregious as Ohio and CVS, about the pressure on the pharmacy techs and that they’re not enough of them, and I don’t know enough about the insides of that. Is it that there are not enough of them to hire because there’s a shortage or are the company’s not hiring enough of them and it’s working them to death? Not literally, but squeezing as much.

Rovner: Doing it for the bottom line.

Kenen: I mean we all probably have our theories. This is a relatively newish problem of the pharmacies being this overworked and we’ll be hearing more of it.

Weber: Yeah, I just want to add, I mean, Julie, you talked about the bottom line, and we’ve talked about on this podcast, I think two weeks ago, that study that came out about how private equity-run hospitals have less staffing and have higher patient errors. You can’t help but wonder if there’s some parallels here in the pursuit of profits possibly over patients.

Rovner: We’ve seen pharmacists at some of these chain stores basically say that, the ones who are there. Well, while we were talking about health workforce woes, Joanne, your extra credit speaks to this. So why don’t you go ahead and do it right now?

Kenen: Mine is an essay in Undark by a physician named Arjun Sharma and it’s called “Why Incentives to Attract Doctors to Rural Areas Haven’t Worked.” All of us know that there’s still a shortage of physicians and other health care workers, nurses, and everything else, probably pharmacists, in rural areas. I didn’t realize that the problem had actually been identified as far back as Teddy Roosevelt’s administration. Most of the efforts to resolve it actually were around 1965, when Medicare was passed and there was an official designation of these underserved areas. Basically, nothing has really worked, and this physician, Dr. Arjun Sharma, talked about the incentives. It’s not about money. That giving people loan forgiveness or extra pay to move off to this unknown rural life, temporarily or permanently, we know it doesn’t work because we’ve been doing it for 50, 60 years and it doesn’t work. He said his own experiences of having gone to a rural area is that he ended up loving the practice of medicine. He loved seeing patients in his community. He loved the different kind of interactions, and that he thought that was the way you might be able to pay someone to quit smoking, but getting somebody to go practice out in the middle of nowhere, you have to talk about why it’s wonderful and satisfying. And that the misconception is not that you’ll get money for going to the rural areas. The correct approach should be you’ll get satisfaction from practicing in a rural area.

Rovner: This is obviously another of the continuing mismatches in the U.S. health care system, such as it is. All right, well that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Darius Tahir about the “Bill of the Month” and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my colleague Darius Tahir, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Darius, thanks for joining us.

Darius Tahir: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, this month’s patient did what a lot of us do in her situation. She didn’t feel well, thought she needed a professional consult, but it wasn’t really an emergency and, fearing it was covid or something else contagious, she booked a telehealth visit. Tell us some of the particulars of what happened here.

Tahir: So in fall of 2022, Elyse Greenblatt, a Queens, New York, resident, came back from a trip in Rwanda with a little sinus trouble. She thought it was covid but couldn’t rule it out, and so she’s like, “Why don’t I book a telehealth visit through my usual health system, Mount Sinai in New York City, just see what a professional opinion is like?” She had a very quick visit, as she remembers, and simply got prescribed some Flonase and some antibiotics. Sort of left it at that for a while.

Rovner: Which seems typical for …

Tahir: Very typical.

Rovner: So then as we say, the bill came. Now lots of insurers recommend telehealth, and lots of telehealth services compete on price. But that’s not what happened here, right?

Tahir: Right, absolutely. She looked in and saw that the app that she booked through, Mount Sinai’s personal record app, estimated a cost of $60 for a visit. That’s a competitive cost for a telehealth visit, I would say, an urgent care visit, but as it turned out, the doctor was out of network according to her insurer, Empire BlueCross BlueShield, and she ended up getting a bill of $660, which is way outside the average of this kind of telehealth urgent care visit.

Rovner: And this wasn’t anything fancy, right? This wasn’t like the doctor had to take this full medical history or anything?

Tahir: No, it was just, as she remembers, a very quick five-minute, 10-minute type visit and turned out to be very expensive because of the out-of-network nature of the visit.

Rovner: And, of course, this is exactly what the No Surprises bill was for — when you go to an in-network hospital and get a bill from an out-of-network doctor. Shouldn’t this have been considered a surprise medical bill?

Tahir: That’s a great question. So, as you mentioned, there was the [No] Surprises Act, which is a law that prevents patients from getting bills that are surprises to them, right? If you’re in a hospital, you kind of assume everybody’s in network, but maybe the anesthesiologist is out of network, in this case, Greenblatt usually goes to Mount Sinai and, usually, those doctors are in network. The problem is the specific doctor she saw in telehealth, who was provided to her luck of the draw, is out of network. So she gets hit with a big bill, $660, and goes on to protest it with the medical system. They’re kind of giving her the runaround.

Eventually, I hear about this story, and I’m like, OK, well I’ll ask some questions with Mount Sinai’s PR people. They eventually provide me with a form, a consent form, that consents to out-of-network charges. What’s kind of curious about this bill, and it’s both kind of legally curious and we’ll say ethically curious, is that both the bill and her medical record have time stamps about when the activity occurred. So she signs it one time, the medical record says another time, slightly earlier, than when the visit occurred. So you would think on its face that the consent was signed after the visit occurred. Now that’s a little weird that you’re suddenly getting a form after everything in the visit is happening.

Rovner: I mean, the bottom line here is that you’re supposed to consent in advance, not after the fact.

Tahir: In advance, exactly, yeah. It’s not just something that strikes you as normal, this is how business should be done, but it’s an interesting legal distinction as well. As you mentioned, you’ve got the No Surprises Act, which is a bill that’s supposed to protect us from surprise bills that we don’t expect, and one of the requirements of the bill is that if you do do this consent, it’s provided in a timely fashion. The other one is that if you go through a hospital where you’re covered, then there should also be coverage there because sometimes the hospital is covered, but the doctors within the hospital are not necessarily covered. And in this case, the doctor was not necessarily covered, even though she goes to the hospital system quite regularly and her services are generally covered there.

Rovner: Also, doesn’t the law say if you’re going to get out-of-network care, they have to tell you before you get the care?

Tahir: Precisely. So that is one of the requirements of the No Surprises Act, and the Mount Sinai PR person I spoke to said this is a little non-standard. This is kind of an exception, if it did happen. So, still, there’s a little bit of a loophole in the No Surprises Act. I spoke to a lawyer who was an expert in the No Surprises Act, and one of the things she pointed out about the bill is that you can’t really tell necessarily who’s putting in the bill, what entity, right? Is it the hospital? Is it some other entity? The No Surprises Act covers this laundry list of entities, including hospitals, including some outpatient facilities, but in this case, she couldn’t really tell what entity was billing Greenblatt and therefore couldn’t tell how that fit into the No Surprises Act scheme.

Rovner: And whether that entity was actually covered by the No Surprises Act.

Tahir: Precisely. So that’s kind of where we’re left.

Rovner: What eventually happened with the bill?

Tahir: It’s kind of still unpaid and unresolved more than a year after the actual service was rendered, so it’s kind of still in limbo.

Rovner: After a year. What can patients do to prevent this from happening to them? I mean, it sounds like this patient did everything right.

Tahir: Right. I guess you got to check and see that your doctors are always in network, as amazing as that sounds. Check the forms that you get, even though they’re often tons of them, there’s a HIPAA form, there are all these forms you get. I guess you’ve just got to be careful what you sign and pay attention to what you sign. Even though oftentimes when you’re going to the doctor, it’s an incredibly stressful time, yourself might be sick, a loved one might be sick, it’s tough to say, but you’ve got to pay attention to the fine print when you’re going ahead with this care, as incredible as that sounds.

Rovner: It’s not like it used to be. Darius Tahir, thank you so much.

Tahir: 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. Joanne, you’ve already done yours. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: Yeah. Mine is a piece in The Guardian by Jessica Glenza titled “Majority of Debtors to US Hospitals Now People With Health Insurance.” I think this is something that everyone on this panel knows, but I think it’s just a striking, if you take a step back and look at it, the concept of insurance for the average American would seem to think that would insure you from bad debts and from hospital debt. I think studies like this and stories like this are a good 10,000-foot-step-back reminder that this system is very broken and not working the way it should. So I think it’s just helpful to continue to realize, because this is a sea change from when only 1 in 10 folks that were insured had debt. I mean, so very much we are seeing a shift, and I think that’s important to consider as we talk about insurance issues throughout this podcast and throughout our coverage.

Rovner: It was in the early 2000s, I think, when standard deductibles started being in the four figures instead of the three figures. I mean, originally they were like $1,000, $1,500. Now people have $4,000 and $5,000 deductibles, but we know that people don’t have $4,000 and $5,000 in savings. So, of course, they’re in debt if they’re going to go get medical care. They do not have or any way to get the amount of money that they are expected to cough up before their insurance takes over, and how no one saw this coming, I can’t imagine because it’s been blaring in huge lights the whole time. Sorry, Rachel, go ahead.

Cohrs: My extra credit is a piece in The Washington Post. The headline is “Republican Governors in 15 States Reject Summer Food Money For Kids,” by Annie Gowen. And this published a week ago, I think, but it definitely flew under the radar for me. And I think it’s a great example of outside-of-D.C. journalism reporting on the consequences of state uptake on some of these optional policies that Congress passes. And I think the part that stood out most was a couple quotes, one from Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds that said she opposed food assistance for low-income youth because childhood obesity has become an epidemic, and another where the governor of Nebraska was saying that he just doesn’t believe in welfare, so they’re not taking this money. Obviously, there is precedent for Republican governors not taking money that could help offer more services, make residents healthier, but this was just a pretty striking example, I think, because it does deal with kids and food insecurity. So I thought it was great accountability work for outside the Beltway.

Rovner: Basically, this is the summer school lunch program for kids because they’re not in school and they don’t necessarily get their lunch at school in the summer, so this is how they can get lunch, but apparently some governors say they don’t want to do that. Well, my extra credit this week is from Rachel’s colleague, Tara Bannow at Stat, and it’s called “Pumping Milk at JPM Was a Nightmare. It’s Part of a Bigger Problem in the Industry.” And in case there are listeners who don’t know, last week was the big J.P. Morgan Health[care] Conference in San Francisco, which each year draws the big money of health care to a hotel to chat each other up basically. Well, Tara Bannow, who does an awesome job covering the industry, is also back from parental leave and still breastfeeding, which means she needs a private place to pump on a regular basis.

The folks at JPM told her she would have access to a space, but turned out it was locked almost every time she needed it, and she ended up pumping in a bathroom stall, which is, and I won’t get into the details here, not ideal. Calls to other big health conferences suggested such problems would not happen there, but the suggestion of also that if there were more women in high places at these conferences, it wouldn’t be such an afterthought. It was a really, really good, thoughtful piece and good job.

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. Joanne, where are you these days?

Kenen: I’m mostly on threads, @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still on X @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs: Still on X, @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As this election year begins in earnest, making it harder for Congress to pass bills, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are still struggling to fund the government for the fiscal year that began last October. And many health priorities hang in the balance.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is again wading into the abortion debate, accepting a case out of Idaho that pits a federal law requiring emergency care, including for pregnant women, against the state’s strict abortion ban.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• In Washington, lawmakers have reportedly reached a deal that could pave the way for passing necessary government spending bills. But it is unlikely they will pass a full package before the current extensions end, leaving many federal health programs hanging. And ahead of next week’s Iowa caucuses, it bears asking what Republicans would do in health if the party reclaims the White House.
• The Supreme Court is again stepping into the fray over abortion rights, choosing to review the conflict between Idaho’s abortion ban and a federal law requiring emergency medical care. It is notable that justices did not have to take this case and, by swooping in now, are setting up another major abortion ruling before the 2024 election.
• The Biden administration announced it will scale back so-called conscience protections for health providers that the Trump administration sought to beef up. The back-and-forth over the policy — which was created during the George W. Bush administration — reinforces the importance of pressing presidential candidates about what they would do administratively on abortion policy, rather than asking what bills they might sign into law.
• News out of Florida this week: Newly introduced legislation there would, among other things, classify abortion as a felony and penalize those outside the state involved in the sale or distribution of abortion pills if they are “likely to be used in Florida” — a concerning example of a state effort to regulate access to abortion nationwide.
• And the FDA approved Florida’s request to import drugs from Canada, a change for which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking credit — though both President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump could also claim some of that credit. But there are a lot of hurdles left before the state receives its first shipments, and due to the way the policy will be implemented, it may not save the state much money anyway.

“This Week in Health Misinformation” highlights Olympic gold medalist and medical crowdfunding beneficiary Mary Lou Retton, who said this week she could not afford health insurance before her headline-grabbing bout of pneumonia because her preexisting conditions made having insurance too expensive. But a decade into the existence of the Affordable Care Act, the fact is that patients can no longer be penalized on the insurance market for preexisting conditions — and, as the record 20 million Americans who enrolled in ACA coverage this year may attest, there are plenty of federal subsidies available to help afford insurance, too.

Also this week, Rovner interviews American Medical Association President Jesse Ehrenfeld, whose focus is helping the nation’s physicians navigate a rapidly changing health care system.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says,” by Sandee LaMotte. Also, ScienceAlert’s “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too,” by Carly Cassella. Also, The Washington Post’s “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products,” by Michael J. Coren.

Tami Luhby: KFF Health News’ “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by Phil Galewitz.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University,” by Rachel Cohrs.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: All About the (Government) Funding

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 329Episode Number: All About the (Government) FundingPublished: Jan. 11, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 11, 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 Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Jesse Ehrenfeld, this year’s president of the American Medical Association. It’s a bumpy time to be a doctor, and the AMA is more relevant than it’s been for quite a few years. But first, this week’s news. So we heard over the weekend that House and Senate negotiators reached a deal on top-line spending ceilings for defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

Actually, they were kind of the top lines, I believe, that they agreed to last summer, and then the House Republicans tried to change. That is all well and good, and it is definitely a prerequisite for passing full-year appropriations bills, but that’s not going to happen between now and Jan. 19, when the first of two temporary spending bills expires. So what do we expect to happen?

Ollstein: I was up on the Hill yesterday, and it’s a very “what they’re saying vs. what they’re doing” situation. They’re talking a lot about, “We got this top line. We’re moving forward. People are somewhat warming to the idea of another short-term CR [continuing resolution] to give them a little breathing room to get this done.” But then Republicans who were pissed about the entire process voted down an unrelated rule on an unrelated bill just to say, “We’re mad.” So that’s obviously not a good sign for getting big things done quickly in the next few weeks.

An issue I’m tracking is also conservatives who are disgruntled about the level of spending being higher than they wanted, saying, “Well, if we’re going to agree to this, we might as well get some policy wins out of it.” And they’re digging in harder on some of these anti-abortion provisions, other culture war things. I think the health care ones are being somewhat overshadowed right now by the immigration border stuff, but the health care things are still in the mix, for sure.

Rovner: Yeah. The CR that expires first also includes continuing authorizations for a bunch of health programs like community health centers and a delay of a bunch of scheduled Medicare payment cuts. Tami, you’re following WIC [Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program], I know, and food stamps. Do we have any idea what the fate is going to be of these things that will also expire when that first CR expires? Do we expect they’ll continue until Congress decides what to do?

Luhby: Well, actually things are looking a little better for WIC participants in terms of a shutdown, not necessarily in terms of full-year funding. But if the government had shut down in October, the USDA warned that it actually only had a few days left of money to provide for WIC. But if the government does shut down next week, then the USDA has told me that SNAP participants, food stamp participants, and WIC participants can expect to continue to get their benefits for food stamps January and February and for WIC January, February, March.

But separate from that, one of the issues that WIC participants have — and WIC, by the way, is the program that provides funding for pregnant women, new moms, infants, and young children to buy groceries. The WIC program is underfunded because there’s actually a big growth in enrollment. And so, even though the Senate provided some more money in their initial bill, they actually need more than a billion dollars more to continue the program at the current participation levels.

And a lot of folks are warning that if Congress doesn’t provide more money, there could actually be waiting lists for the first time in decades. So it’s a big issue that’s continuing because, as we know, the Republicans are not looking to add more money to nutrition assistance.

Rovner: Jumping ahead, it’s a little bit to the abortion debate. This is the argument that if you’re basically going to force women to have babies, you’re going to need to help support them if the women otherwise would’ve had an abortion because they couldn’t afford it. I think where we are with WIC, I think, is sort of the leading edge of this.

Luhby: And WIC is actually very important to that because it also provides breastfeeding assistance and guidance as well as other supports for new moms.

Rovner: So there were things, though, that didn’t even make it into the CR. One of them is the 3.4% cut in Medicare doctor pay. That took effect Jan. 1. Doctors I know would like to get that rolled back. There’s other things that are hoping to catch a ride on whatever the next vehicle is, right?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, one thing I had been watching is PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform. There seemed like there was some bipartisan and bicameral momentum to try and tack that on to the next big moving package. And one positive thing for that is that it does offer some amount of savings that then could be applied to other areas like spending, including potentially helping maybe with some of the Medicare cuts. So that’s something in the mix to look for.

Rovner: Yeah. Something that actually is proceeding on a separate track, right? We don’t expect that to be folded into the appropriations — unless we do. My impression was that was proceeding on its own, at least for the moment.

Karlin-Smith: I think it was proceeding on its own, but there’s been talk of could they fold it into any deal that struck to fund the government, because I think the likelihood that it really does fully clear both the House and Senate on their own is small.

Rovner: Yes, it is an election year. It is harder for Congress to get anything done. Speaking of which, on the campaign trail, the Iowa caucus is next week. Boy, that sort of snuck up on us. Former President [Donald] Trump still seems very likely to win, and he’s once again vowing to undo the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, hit an all-time enrollment record of 20 million this week. And open enrollment isn’t even quite over. Tami, do we know what Trump would do instead? That seems to be the part. He doesn’t ever say.

Luhby: No. It’s pretty much the same plan that he probably has from 2016 and 2017, which we never really fully learned about. So, no, it’s just going to be replaced with a “better plan” because, in his view, Obamacare is failing, and as we know, [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis also jumped on the same bandwagon, saying that he would actually also come up with a better plan, but he needs a few months to think about it.

Rovner: Because it’s always been right about to happen, of course.

Luhby: Well, as you may have heard, health care is complicated.

Rovner: And we’ll see something in two weeks.

Luhby: Right. Along with his block grant proposal for Medicaid that he mentioned at last night’s CNN debate.

Rovner: Yes. I was sort of taken by the comments of how they would fix health care in that debate, because Nikki Haley says, “We can fix it with tort reform and transparency.”

Luhby: Transparency. Yes.

Rovner: Right. Which are nice things, and as we say, almost every week, Congress is working on those things, but they are not going to solve what ails the health care system. All right, let us turn to abortion. Remember last week when I said we were still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the emergency petition from Idaho regarding the conflict between its state abortion ban and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act, EMTALA?

Well, on Friday, the court not only took the case, it overturned the stay of Idaho’s ban. So, at least for now, doctors cannot even provide abortions in medical emergencies unless the woman is at immediate risk of death. Alice, I assume that gives us a hint of where the court might be going with this case, and I imagine also that similar case out of Texas.

Ollstein: Yeah. So again, with the Supreme Court, you kind of have to read the tea leaves and make educated guesses. They’re obviously very secretive. But people who are following this case closely that I’ve spoken to, they think that both the stay of the lower-court ruling and the fact that they took this case at all is the sign that they’re really gunning for ruling on the side of the state abortion restrictions. Because this is really about the state-federal clash. When state abortion bans run into federal protections for patients in emergency circumstances, and which will prevail in that circumstance. So they didn’t have to take this case. The thinking was there is eventually going to be a circuit split on this issue between the 9th Circuit and the 5th Circuit. But the 9th Circuit hasn’t had a chance to rule yet. And so they could have waited, let this play out, allowed the 9th Circuit to hear the case and issue a decision, that would’ve probably punted this case until after the election. So it’s really interesting that they instead wanted to swoop in, allow Idaho to leapfrog the 9th Circuit, and also insert themselves into this really politically volatile case, and now they’re poised to issue a ruling right before the 2024 election that could have major implications for the whole country.

Rovner: They’re going to hear the mifepristone case before this summer too, right?

Ollstein: Absolutely. And so even people who had sort of assumed on the mifepristone case like, “Oh, the Supreme Court’s going to kind of punt. They’re going to dismiss on standing.” Now, because of how aggressive they’re being in this other case, I have experts telling me, “Well, now I’m not so sure about the mifepristone case. Maybe they don’t care about optics as much as they used to.”

Rovner: Well, also, I think this is this Supreme Court’s theme, of “let states do whatever they want.” Even though federal law is supposed to trump state law, they seem to be reversing that in a rather aggressive fashion.

Ollstein: Yes. A big theme is definitely skepticism of federal rulemaking power. This falls under that same category as well.

Rovner: Well, speaking of federal rulemaking power, those who follow abortion policy in D.C. know that every time an administration changes parties, the so-called Mexico City policy that bans funding to international groups that support abortion rights gets either canceled or restored, depending on which party is in power. Well, now we have another policy that seems to be flip-flopping every time an administration changes. It was a rule first issued at the end of the George W. Bush administration. The so-called conscience rule made it easier for medical professionals and others in health care to decline to provide care that violates their religious or moral beliefs. So not just abortion but transgender care, in some cases, just treating people with AIDS. The Obama administration scaled back the Bush rule, and then the Trump administration broadened it. Then it got blocked by the courts, and now the Biden administration has formally rolled back the Trump changes that never really took effect. Alice, where are we with this?

Ollstein: Like you said, this is a back-and-forth, and I think this is why a lot of the questions being asked of candidates on the campaign trail right now, related to abortion, are the wrong questions. They keep getting asked about what kind of bills they would sign. That’s not the question. The question is what would they do administratively, which they could do so much. They could undo this. They could reverse all kinds of things. I follow the Title X stuff. I follow the Mexico City policy on restrictions on international spending on reproductive health. There’s just so much, obviously — FDA regulation of abortion pills — but these are the things we should be focused [on], not a bill that Congress has shown itself unable to pass even with one-party control of Congress.

Rovner: Nikki Haley keeps correctly saying there aren’t 60 votes for anything in the Senate related to abortion.

Ollstein: Right. But then, she also is saying that to mean a future Republican president couldn’t really do much, and that part is not true. They could do a lot.

Rovner: Exactly. Well, moving on, it’s January, and state legislatures are coming back into session. And we’re seeing some pretty eye-popping bills introduced in Florida, where abortion rights supporters just secured enough signatures to get a referendum protecting abortion rights on the 2024 ballot. Republican state Rep. David Borrero introduced a bill that would not only ban abortion, it would classify it as a third-degree felony with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. It also seeks to reach anyone outside the state who makes, sells, or mails abortion pills if they are, quote, “likely to be used in Florida.” The bill also defines personhood as beginning at the moment of fertilization, which would, among other things, make most birth control illegal and give fetuses constitutional rights. Alice, this bill is obviously not likely to pass, but legislators are playing the long game here by trying to make these things look sort of not out of the ordinary, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, the pill one, I think, is more the one to watch there. I’m curious if other states try to do that as well. Obviously, that runs into legal concerns about regulating interstate commerce, et cetera. But I think that we’ve seen these sort of nation attempts to restrict the movement of both people and medications across state lines, since that is a huge way that people are managing to terminate pregnancies despite bans right now. And so I think there’s only going to be more and more activity in that area to try to close off those remaining outlets for people. But yes, on the personhood front, that’s something that states have been attempting to do for a long time now, obviously more recently. And I think there’s sort of a strategy of, “Let’s just put it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in bills. Let’s throw it in amicus briefs.” And the hope is to eventually force this issue in court and to get a court to rule on whether the 14th Amendment covers fetuses, basically. Will that happen and when remains to be seen, but there’s definitely an effort to sort of seed it in the landscape.

Rovner: Sarah, this obviously — not so much the personhood part, although maybe that too — but trying to ban the movement of medication is something that clearly impacts the FDA. They seem to have been pretty quiet about this, but there’s an awful lot that seems to be sort of threatening the basic core procedures of what the FDA does. Are you hearing anybody whispering about this? Is there concern?

Karlin-Smith: I think the mifepristone case at the Supreme Court is a concern for people who watch FDA’s power and regulation, not just because of abortion but because it is seen as depending on how the court decides that case is something that really could touch on all of its regulatory authority as well. Certainly, this provision that Florida is trying to put in is really something where they seem like they’re effectively trying to regulate the abortion pill throughout the entire country and regulate manufacturers. So that would be concerning, again, if that somehow came to pass and was not struck down by courts, as Alice mentioned, for interstate commerce regulation, which is not some power that is usually given to the states, but so, in general, the abortion pill controversy makes anybody who’s impacted by the FDA regulation nervous.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has entered the chat. This week, it barred a tech company from selling data on people’s visits to medical centers and other health facilities. This was not affecting abortion. They were actually just trying to help people figure out where people are and help them sort of get through their medical undertakings. But this seems like kind of a big deal enforcing privacy post-Dobbs. It’s the first one of these I’ve seen. Have you seen any of these, Alice?

Ollstein: I’m in the same camp as you. Yeah. This is sort of the first I’ve seen of this. But as has been the trend over the last couple of years, it’s a very “throw things against the wall and see what sticks” kind of environment, and so you can’t dismiss the outliers because the outliers can very quickly become the norm.

Rovner: This obviously was not a company that was trying to get women’s menstrual data and figure out whether they’re pregnant and whether they’re going to have an abortion. But there is a lot of concern that because there’s so much medical data floating out now in the metaverse, shall we say, that it would not be that hard to do that. And I guess the FTC is trying to plant a flag and say, “Mm-mm, don’t even try.” Although I’m sure people will …

Ollstein: Again, circling back to our previous theme, like, who a presidential administration installs at places like the FTC that you might not think that has anything to do with health care and abortion, but it certainly does. It certainly can. Same with DOJ, Labor Department. A lot of these things touch on reproductive health in ways that aren’t always obvious.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, turning to prescription drug news, the FDA has approved Florida’s request to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But, Tami, you wrote about this. This comes with a long list of caveats, right? It’s not like they just opened the borders and said, “OK, buy what you want.”

Luhby: No, and Florida has also put forth a fairly restricted proposal. It’s only going to be for people in their public payer program, people like inmates and people who are cared for by the county health systems and, later, Medicaid. And it’s also a pretty small list of drugs, drugs for HIV/AIDS and mental illness, and certain ones. But no, there’s a lot of hurdles before the state can actually start importing drugs. There’s going to likely be a lawsuit by PhRMA. They came out pretty strongly against it. They don’t want this, and Canada doesn’t necessarily want this. They said this in 2020 when the Trump administration first indicated that they were going to move in this direction, and then Health Canada on Friday put out a pretty strong statement saying they are clear in its position. “Bulk importation will not provide an effective solution to the problem of high drug prices in the U.S.” So there’s a long path before Florida will be able to actually see this and an even longer path before its general residents will see it. People may think, “Oh, I can go up to CVS now and order my Canadian version of the drug, which will be much cheaper.” And that’s not at all the case.

Rovner: Sarah, this has been going on for more than 20 years — I think I covered it first time in 1998 — because it’s really popular among Republicans and Democrats because it sounds so good. “We’ll just buy cheaper drugs from other countries where they have the same drugs, and they sell them for less money because they have price controls.” But Canada can’t even supply Florida, much less the rest of the country, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think people, sometimes you look at Canada on a map geographically. It’s a very large area, but the population compared to the U.S. is much smaller. So the supply chain that’s feeding Canada is very different. And then you get into why HHS and FDA has usually pushed back against this idea is because they’re concerned about securing the supply-chain safety and making sure people are actually getting what they … think they’re getting and know how to use the drug. And what’s basically happened under starting the Trump administration and then Biden’s kind of continued it is they came up with a pathway to sort of make importation potentially possible. But they put in so many hoops that these states will have to go through and so many processes in place to ensure the safety of it that by the time Florida does all of this, and again, as Tami mentioned, FDA hasn’t cleared any specific drugs for Florida to import yet; each drug product still is going to have to go through a bunch of steps to get that OK. So by the time they do all of that, it doesn’t look like it’s going to save very much money. Florida’s estimating maybe not quite $200 million for the first year and about the same the second year. If you look at just their Medicaid spending in a year on outpatient drugs, it’s like $1.-something billion. So you can see how tiny a savings that is.

Rovner: Yes. This is one of those things that’s not been partisan. It’s always been sort of the FDA wanting to protect the integrity of the supply chain, whether it’s controlled by Democrats or Republicans versus Democrats and Republicans who would like to find a way to help their constituents get cheaper drugs.

Luhby: One thing also to note that’s going to be interesting, because there’ve been so many people involved in this, we saw Ron DeSantis say yesterday at the debate that he took credit for pushing the federal government and beating the federal government, I think he said, to be allowed to import drugs. But this is also going to be a talking point that Trump and Biden will also be able to say on the campaign. So basically, everyone is probably going to try to take credit for this.

Rovner: Right. Everybody’s going to take credit for something that’s probably only going to happen in a very small way, if it happens at all.

Luhby: If it all happens at all.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, also this week, drug maker Eli Lilly said it is setting up its own telehealth service to help patients access not only its soon-to-be blockbuster weight loss drug Zepbound but also other diabetes and migraine drugs, basically cutting out the doctor or at least cutting out the patient’s regular doctor, if they have one. Sarah, this feels to me like a really big sea change. Is the FDA going to let this happen? Is the AMA going to let this happen?

Karlin-Smith: It’s really interesting. I think the first headline of it makes it seem a little bit more extreme or maybe novel than once you actually look into the details because Lilly’s …

Rovner: Kind of like drug importation.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Although I think more patients maybe will actually be served by this program. But, basically, Eli Lilly is setting up a website that will then connect patients to outside telehealth companies that have the ability to prescribe the drug. Again, these telehealth companies are supposedly prescribing all different drugs, not just Eli Lilly products. The doctor’s supposed to make sure you actually qualify for the product, and so forth. And then Lilly also seems to have developed partnerships with a couple online pharmacy companies that could then directly mail you the product. So Eli Lilly is sort of helping facilitate these connections for patients. But I think probably to avoid various scrutinies by the federal government, they’ve tried to disconnect themselves a few steps, but certainly make the process of getting a drug and their drug easier for patients. Also helping ease the process of getting any copay support or coupons the company offers. So they seem to be kind of taking advantage of a trend that we’ve seen in other areas, with ADHD, like male sexual health products, and so forth, of people wanting to do this through telehealth. And so they’re trying to, I think, get at least a cut of it or at least help steer their product there. But there’s definitely going to be questions, I think, around how you handle advertising and other things for the government to look at.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s definitely a space that, now, we’re going to have to start watching as well as everything else. All right. Well, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” which is going to Olympic gold medalist gymnast Mary Lou Retton. Retton, who is now in her mid-50s, contracted a rare form of pneumonia, ended up in the hospital for a month, and became the subject of a crowdfunding effort launched by her daughter because she didn’t have health insurance. Retton, who has been very closed-mouthed about her illness and what happened to the half a million dollars the crowdfunding campaign raised, as is her right, did do an interview this week with the “Today” show on NBC in which she said she couldn’t afford health insurance because her preexisting conditions made it too expensive. For the record, if you’re uninsured, you can still sign up for an Affordable Care Act Plan in most states, and you can’t be charged more due to preexisting conditions. And there are still extra subsidies that we talked about earlier that were implemented during covid that makes insurance even more affordable. Why is it that people don’t know this yet?

Ollstein: Well, as we saw with record-breaking enrollment, a lot of people do know it, but the people who don’t are still loud.

Rovner: We’re 10 years into the ACA!

Ollstein: Yes. It’s funny. I mean, living in D.C. and doing this work, I always try to think about what of all of our reporting actually breaks through around the country. And it’s always interesting to see what does and what doesn’t.

Rovner: I used to stomp around the NPR newsroom when the ACA was just getting up and running, saying, “It is not my job to do the administration’s publicity. It’s really not my job.” But …

Luhby: Yeah.

Rovner: … they are still working on it.

Luhby: It also may be selective ignorance, because I’m sure if she actually asked anyone about health insurance or called any agent or insurer and said, “Well, I have this preexisting condition,” they may have said, “Well, on the ACA, it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Rovner: Yes. And that if she said she didn’t have the money after her divorce, it’s like those are the people who are eligible for big subsidies. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my interview with AMA President Jesse Ehrenfeld, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast, in person here in our D.C. studio, Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld, president of the American Medical Association. Dr. Ehrenfeld is an anesthesiologist, medical school professor, researcher on medical information technology, and director of a statewide health philanthropy in Wisconsin, among other activities. He’s an Afghanistan combat veteran twice over, as well as the first openly gay president of the AMA and a national advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Dr. Ehrenfeld, thank you so much for coming in. You are a very busy person.

Jesse Ehrenfeld: Well, thanks for having me. It’s great to talk to you today.

Rovner: So I want to start on Capitol Hill, since we’re here in D.C.

Ehrenfeld: Sure.

Rovner: And Congress is coming back and working on a budget, or so we hear.

Ehrenfeld: We hope they’re working.

Rovner: I know physicians are facing, again, a cut in Medicare pay, but that’s not the only AMA priority here in Washington at the moment, right?

Ehrenfeld: Well, it’s a big one for us. And, you know, it’s really painful that you turn the clock back, Jan. 1, and 3.37% Medicare cut to physician payments. It’s unconscionable. And so we’re optimistic that we can get a fix, hopefully retroactive, as the omnibus consolidation work goes forward, short of this Jan. 19 deadline coming up. But we can’t have it. Physicians continue to struggle. My parents lost their own primary care physician because of a challenge with their primary care doctor not being able to take Medicare anymore. And what we’re seeing is more and more doctors just stopping seeing new Medicare patients, or opting out of the program entirely. So, every other provider under Medicare is actually fighting for how many increase they’re getting while doctors are getting cut. So we’re hopeful that we can solve this, but it really is something that’s just urgent for us as an association.

Rovner: I thought we took care of this in 2015. I feel like it’s Groundhog Day. I covered it every year from about 2003 to about 2015, and then we solved it briefly.

Ehrenfeld: We solved one problem and replaced it with another, unfortunately. And the doomed SGR did die in 2015 — the unsustainable “sustainable growth rate” problem — that did lead to those year-end patches. And, unfortunately now, though, because of budget neutrality rules and other — we’ll call them “features” — of the program, we’re in the situation again. We do have optimism, though, that we might get some standing inflationary updates. There was the introduction of a bill last session. And we hope that that can be something that does move forward once we get through this time-sensitive issue to deal with the 3.37% cut.

Rovner: So I feel like the physician shortage is kind of like climate change. People have been warning about it for decades, and suddenly it’s here.

Ehrenfeld: It’s here.

Rovner: With people having to wait weeks or sometimes months to see a doctor. Obviously, like with climate change, it’s going to take a while to get out of the hole that we have dug. I know we’ve seen the establishment of several new medical schools, both allopathic and osteopathic, in the past decade. How soon might we be able to see some relief, and what more will it take beyond training more doctors?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re opening more medical schools, but we’re not actually training more doctors. And that’s the problem. We haven’t expanded GME [Graduate Medical Education] residency programs. And unfortunately, because, as you know, GME funding through the federal government is tied to a fixed cap, set in the 1990s by Medicare, we’ve opened all these new schools and the students don’t have a place to go to train. So that’s a problem that we need to solve. We’ve had a little tiny, tiny increase these past few years, a couple of hundred spots here and there. We need thousands more training spots open. We need the GME dollars to come from Medicare. We also need to solve some of the issues around how we get international medical graduates here and ready to practice in the U.S. Twenty-five percent of practicing physicians in the U.S. were trained abroad. Most people don’t know that. We already have a huge international workforce, but we do silly things, like we’ll let an international doctor train their residency here, and then we make them go away for two years to their home country before they can come back. There are H-1B visa waiver bills that are circulating around the Conrad 30 extension. We need to do those things as well. Unfortunately, as you’re aware, immigration reform is a challenging issue here in Washington. But there are commonsense solutions that have bipartisan support. And we’re hopeful that we can get some workforce pressure reductions, not just by expanding GME for U.S.-trained individuals, but also those international graduates.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like people forget that immigration is about more than just people coming across the southern border. There are a lot of skilled-worker issues in the immigration debate.

Ehrenfeld: In lots of industries, health care, technology, other places as well.

Rovner: I know the rise — or should I say the “re-rise” — of prior authorization requirements from insurance companies is something that contributes to physician burnout and the physician shortage by driving doctors out of practice, just from frustration. The Biden administration has a new regulation to limit prior authorization in the pipeline. Assuming that that regulation is finalized soon, how close will that come to fully addressing the problem for your members?

Ehrenfeld: You know, we hope it’ll move the needle a little bit, but we need wholesale reform, and we need to do more than Medicare Advantage plans. Unfortunately, I hear every week from colleagues who are just at their wits’ end, and it’s frustrating. I see it with my own parents. I’m an anesthesiologist. I have a habit now, I ask my patients: “So how long did it take your surgery to get scheduled?” Eh, it’s a couple weeks or a month. I said, “And how long did it take for your insurance company to approve the procedure?” And it’s months. And often what they tell me is they approved it, and then they denied it after they approved it. And they have to go through all of this rigmarole that just doesn’t make sense.

Rovner: You think that Congress is going to need to step in at some point, or is this something that can be worked out?

Ehrenfeld: I think we’re going to have to have regulatory relief from Congress, and we’re pushing for that through our grassroots network. Certainly, we try to bring all the third-party payers together. We have a set of principles that, theoretically, third-party payers have agreed to, and yet they ignore them, and they continue to just harass patients, really to improve their bottom line, but not doing what’s in their best interests.

Rovner: So I want to talk a little bit about physician autonomy. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen an increasing level of what I call legislators practicing medicine. Now we have the Supreme Court …

Ehrenfeld: It’s OK if they have an MD.

Rovner: [laughs] That’s true. Now we have the Supreme Court — none of whom have an MD as far as I know — about to decide whether doctors facing women with pregnancy emergencies should obey state abortion bans, the federal EMTALA law, or their medical ethics, all of which may conflict. What’s the AMA doing to help doctors navigate these very choppy and changing legal waters?

Ehrenfeld: “Choppy” is a good word for it. It’s confusing. And since the decision, the Dobbs decision, came out, we have been working with all of our state and federation partners to try to help physicians navigate this. And I can tell you, it’s unbelievable that now physicians are having to call their attorneys, the hospital legal counsel to figure out what they can and can’t do. And obviously, this is not a picture that is a picture that supports women’s health. So we are optimistic that we might get a positive ruling with this EMTALA decision on the Supreme Court. But, obviously, there’s a long way that we need to go to make sure that we can maintain access for reproductive care.

Rovner: You’re younger than I am, but when I was growing up and covering this, the AMA didn’t want to talk about abortion because it was controversial. And now, certainly in the last five or 10 years, the AMA has come out. Do you think that’s something that has dawned on the rest of the members of the AMA that this is not necessarily about abortion, this is about the ability to practice medicine?

Ehrenfeld: Well, you know, look, if you look at some of these socially charged restrictive laws, whether it’s in transgender health or abortion access, or other items, we take the same foundational approach, which is that physicians and patients ought to be making their health care decisions without legislative interference.

Rovner: So it’s not just abortion and reproductive health where lawmakers are trying to dictate medical practice but also care for transgender kids and adults and even treatment for covid and other infectious diseases. How big a priority is this for the AMA, and what are you doing to fight the sort of “pushing against” scientific discourse?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we will always stand up for science. And it’s so important that as an association we do that. Our foundation in 1847 was to get rid of quackery and snake oil salesmen in medicine. And yet here we are trying to do some of those same things with misinformation, disinformation. And obviously, even if you look at the attack on PrEP, preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention — you know, an important part of the Affordable Care Act, right? Making it basically zero out-of-pocket cost for many Americans — those things are just unconscionable. We have treatments. We know that they work. We ought to make sure that patients and their physicians can have access to them.

Rovner: What about doctors who are pushing things that you know to be not helpful?

Ehrenfeld: We call them out, and we would encourage others to call them out. If somebody is trying to sell something that’s inappropriate or do something that doesn’t follow the evidence, we need to call it for what it is, which is inappropriate.

Rovner: It’s not just legislators who want to practice medicine these days. We also have the rise of artificial intelligence, which I know promises both huge advances …

Ehrenfeld: I’m real, by the way.

Rovner: [both laugh] Yes, I can attest that you’re real. At least you seem real. But, obviously, our artificial intelligence can portend huge advances and also other issues, not all of which are good. How is the AMA trying to push the AMA more towards the former, the good things, and less towards the latter, the unintended consequences?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re really excited about it. I’m excited about it. I have an informatics background. So, you know, I believe that there is so much power that these technologies and tools can bring, but we need to make sure that the technology is an asset, not a burden. And we have all lived through the painful rollout of electronic health records where that just was not the case. So we did survey — we do routine surveys, data that’s a nationally representative sample — in August of this year, it’s on our website. An equal number of physicians are excited about AI as they are terrified about AI, anxious, concerned, right? And we need to make sure that we have the right regulatory framework. We’re very appreciative of the ONC [Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology] rule that came out, out of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], at the end of last year. Certainly, the Biden administration’s, whole of government’s approach we think is important, but that is no substitution for regulation. And we need to make sure that we have appropriate regulation. The FDA doesn’t have the framework that they need. The system set up in the ’60s and ’70s for drugs and biologics and devices hasn’t held up. So we know that there have to be changes. We just need to make sure that those changes only let safe and effective algorithms, AI tools, AI-powered products come to the marketplace.

Rovner: Dr. Ehrenfeld, that’s all the time we have. Thank you so much for joining us.

Ehrenfeld: Oh, thanks for having me. It’s been a treat.

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. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, my extra credit is titled “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by KFF Health News’ Phil Galewitz. And as many of our podcast listeners know, states are reviewing the eligibility of their residents in Medicaid and terminating the coverage of those they deem ineligible. Roughly 14.4 million people have been disenrolled. And the big question is, what has happened to them? Did they return to Medicaid? Did they find coverage elsewhere, or did they become uninsured? And that’s the question that many actually Medicaid directors have been unable to answer.

So Phil’s story looks at a first-of-its-kind study conducted in October by Utah’s Medicaid agency. And in Utah, 94% of those disenrolled were dropped for procedural reasons, such as not returning their paperwork, rather than being deemed ineligible. And the study found that 57% of respondents did not attempt to renew their Medicaid coverage. Thirty-nine percent shifted to employer plans, and 15% signed up for Affordable Care Act coverage. So they remained insured, but 30% became uninsured. The story also shows that many Medicaid enrollees said that they had trouble reapplying for Medicaid coverage. They didn’t get the documents. They didn’t have the necessary paperwork. They couldn’t get their questions answered. And these are all things that we’ve heard about anecdotally, but the Utah study and Phil’s story actually put some numbers to it. And interestingly, Utah officials also confirmed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is conducting two audits of the state’s Medicaid unwinding. So we’ll see what happens and what we find out from Utah may inform us about what’s happening in the rest of the country.

Rovner: Yes, we have noted before that HHS has been very close-mouthed about how it is trying to get states to maintain coverage for these people who are, if not eligible for Medicaid anymore, eligible for something else. Alice, you have kind of a related story, so why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Yeah, I have something from our own Rachel Cohrs at Stat. It’s called “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University.” It’s a great accountability story about how taxpayers were convinced to put up tens of millions of dollars that they thought was going to provide care for very poor people in the area around Austin, Texas. And instead, basically, none of that money is going to … directly to provide that care to people. And instead, it’s gone to build fancy buildings at this medical school, and overhead, and recruiting faculty. And the school and hospital insist that all of this trickles down eventually to patients. But it’s not what taxpayers feel they were promised. And so they’re getting upset about that.

Rovner: It is a very nice medical school. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a New York Times story from Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller, “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” and it’s about Singulair, a now generic asthma medicine. Over 20 years after it was first approved, FDA added what’s known as its strictest warning, a black box warning, warning of very serious mental health side effects, including suicidal thoughts. And The New York Times investigation seems to have found out that really these messages are not reaching doctors. They’re not reaching patients, or parents, and many young kids who are taking this medicine. And that has led to many ill effects, including some very young people who have died by suicide. And it’s a really good dive into the challenges that FDA faces and kind of translating their regulatory action into something that then gets communicated to a doctor, and then a doctor translates to a patient. In many ways, it’s not that surprising a story to me because I think it’s kind of well known that not a lot of people read drug labels and then certainly not on an individual level, but even on a doctor level. And I think a lot of the risk-benefit conversations that FDA envisions happen between doctors and patients before people take drugs don’t actually happen in the real world. I once actually had a doctor who told me, “This medicine has a box warning, but don’t worry about it.” Which I always find as a pretty funny story as a drug reporter. And it just also raises a lot of issues, this story, about how drugs are studied on children and what’s done to make sure that as a drug goes generic, the safety is still being monitored, and somebody is responsible again for ensuring people are aware of new safety updates. So it’s a really good dive. I think the thing I was most struck by, though, is I think the solutions perhaps here are not ones that would be very popular in the U.S., which is that by design, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. And, in most cases, I don’t think Americans would want FDA pushing the boundaries much further to get at the safety hurdles this story maybe flags.

Rovner: Yeah. More along our theme of the federal government and its role in society. Well, my extra credit this week is actually a collection of stories. It’s sparked by the headline on this month’s issue of Consumer Reports, which is “How to Eat Less Plastic.” The first story is from CNN reporting on a study in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says.” And it basically says that plastic sheds just like skin cells do. So anything you eat or drink that’s stored or wrapped in plastic is going to get into whatever it is you’re putting into your body. If that’s not enough to give you pause, my second story is from ScienceAlert, which is a website, called “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too.” And it’s about a study that found that many paper straws contain those forever chemicals we keep hearing about, called PFAS, which, of course, are also in many plastics. Finally, if that’s not enough plastic for you, here’s a story from The Washington Post called “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products.” Basically, those laundry sheets that can replace the use of all those plastic bottles that we keep seeing ads for? Apparently, even many of those sheets that claim to be, quote, “plastic-free” contains something called polyvinyl alcohol, which is, you guessed it, a plastic that’s been found in drinking water and breast milk. I think the message here is everything you do is probably bad for you in some way, so be humble and do the best you can.

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, my fellow happy Michigan Wolverine this week, 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. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m trying to be places, but then it’s hard to be at all of them. So mostly Twitter and Bluesky, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: The best place to find me is cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Alice.

Ollstein: Still on X @AliceOllstein, 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.

With other GOP presidential candidates following Donald Trump’s lead in calling for an end to the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are jumping on an issue they think will favor them in the 2024 elections. The Biden administration almost immediately rolled out a controversial proposal that could dramatically decrease the price of drugs developed with federally funded research dollars. The drug industry and the business community at large are vehemently opposed to the proposal, but it is likely to be popular with voters.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case to decide whether the Sackler family should be able to shield billions of dollars taken from its bankrupt drug company, Purdue Pharma, from further lawsuits regarding the company’s highly addictive drug OxyContin.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna'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:

• The ACA may end up back on the proverbial chopping block if Trump is reelected. But as many in both parties know, it is unlikely to be a winning political strategy for Republicans. ACA enrollment numbers are high, as is the law’s popularity, and years after a failed effort during Trump’s presidency, Republicans still have not unified around a proposal to replace it.
• Democrats are eager to capitalize on the revival of “repeal and replace.” This week, the Biden administration announced plans to exercise so-called “march-in rights,” which it argues allow the government to seize certain patent-protected drugs whose prices have gotten too high and open them to price competition. The plan, once largely embraced by progressives, could give President Joe Biden another opportunity to claim his administration has proven more effective than Trump’s heading into the 2024 election.
• The Senate voted to approve more than 400 military promotions this week, effectively ending the 10-month blockade by Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama over a Pentagon policy that helps service members travel to obtain abortions. At the state level, the Texas courts are considering cases over its exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, while in Ohio, a woman who miscarried after being sent home from the hospital is facing criminal charges.
• Meanwhile, the Supreme Court soon could rule on whether EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, requires doctors to perform abortions in emergencies. And justices are also considering whether to allow a settlement deal to move forward that does not hold the Sacker family accountable for the harm caused by opioids.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Pfizer of failing to end the covid-19 pandemic with its vaccine.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’ sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg,” about his investigation into hospitals suing their patients for unpaid medical bills.

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

Julie Rovner: The Wisconsin State Journal’s “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs,” by David Wahlberg.  

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own,” by Madison Muller.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “New Abortion Restrictions Pose a Serious Threat to Fetal Surgery,” by Francois I. Luks, Tippi Mackenzie, and Thomas F. Tracy Jr. 

Rachana Pradhan: KFF Health News’ “Patients Expected Profemur Artificial Hips to Last. Then They Snapped in Half,” by Brett Kelman and Anna Werner, CBS News.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Bloomberg News’ “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way,” by Anna Edney and Riley Griffin.
• Ars Technica’s “Texas Sues Pfizer With COVID Anti-Fax Argument That Is Pure Stupid,” by Beth Mole.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health Law 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health LawEpisode Number: 325Published: Dec. 7, 2023

[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 reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hello.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Good morning, Julie.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Dan Weissmann, host of our sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan’s been working on a very cool two-part episode about hospitals suing their patients that he will explain. But first, this week’s news. So now that former President [Donald] Trump has raised the possibility of revisiting a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, all of the other Republican presidential wannabes are adding their two cents.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says that rather than repeal and replace the health law, he would “repeal and supersede,” whatever that means. Nikki Haley has been talking up her anti-ACA bona fides in New Hampshire, and the leading Republican candidate for Senate in Montana is calling for a return to full health care privatization, which would mean getting rid of not only the Affordable Care Act, but also Medicare and Medicaid.

But the Affordable Care Act is more popular than ever, at least judging from this year’s still very brisk open enrollment signups. Alice, you wrote an entire story about how the ACA of 2023 is not the ACA of 2017, the last time Republicans took a serious run at it. How much harder would it be to repeal now?

Ollstein: It would be a lot harder. So, not only have a bunch of red and purple states expanded Medicaid since Republicans took their last swing at the law — meaning that a bunch more constituents in those states are getting coverage they weren’t getting before and might be upset if it was threatened by a repeal — but also just non-Medicaid enrollment is up as well, fueled in large part by all the new subsidies that were implemented over the last few years. And that’s true even in states that resisted expansions.

DeSantis’ Florida, for instance, has the highest exchange enrollment in the country. There’s just a lot more people with a lot more invested in maintaining the program. You have that higher enrollment, you have the higher popularity, and we still haven’t seen a real replacement or “supersede” plan, or whatever they want to call it. And folks I talk to on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers, even those that were pretty involved last time, do not think such a plan is coming.

Rovner: It did get asked about at the “last” Republican presidential primary debate last night, and there was an awful lot of hemming and hawing about greedy drug companies and greedy insurance companies, and I heard exactly nothing about any kind of plan. Has anybody else seen any sign of something that Republicans would actually do if they got rid of the Affordable Care Act?

Pradhan: No. There was a time, immediately after the ACA’s passage, that health care was a winning political issue for Republicans, right? It was multiple election cycles that they capitalized on Obamacare and used it to regain House majorities, Senate majorities, and the presidency eventually. But that has not been true for multiple years now. And I think they know that. I think establishment Republicans know that health care is not a winning issue for the party, which is why Democrats are so eager to capitalize on this reopening of ACA repeal, if you will.

Rovner: What a perfect segue, because I was going to say the Biden administration is wasting no time jumping back into health care with both feet, trying to capitalize on what it sees as a gigantic Republican misstep. Just this morning, they are rolling out new proposals aimed at further lowering prescription drug prices, and to highlight the fact that they’ve actually gotten somewhere in some lowering of prescription drug prices.

Now they would like to make it easier to use government “march-in rights,” which would let the government basically tell prescription drug companies, “You’re going to lower your price because we’re going to let other people compete against you, despite your patent.” They’re also doing, and I will use their words, a cross-government public inquiry into corporate greed in health care. Now, some of these things are super controversial. I mean, the march-in rights even before this was unveiled, we saw the drug industry complaining against. But they could also have a real impact if they did some of this, right? Anna, you’ve watched the drug price issue.

Edney: Yeah, I think they definitely could have an impact. This is one of those situations with the march-in rights where we don’t have any clue on where or how exactly, because we haven’t been told that this drug or this class of drugs are kind of what we’re aiming at at this point. It sounds like maybe there’s a little bit more of the plan to be baked, but I am sure there are a lot of progressives, particularly, who had pushed for this that, over the years, who are very excited to even see it mentioned and moving in some sort of way, which hasn’t really happened before.

And, clearly, the Biden administration wants to, like you said, capitalize on health care being part of the campaign. And they’ve done a lot on drug prices, at least a lot in the sense of what can be done. There’s negotiation in Medicare now for some drugs. They kept insulin for Medicare as well. So this is just another step they can say, “We’re doing something else,” and we’d have to see down the line exactly where they’d even plan to use it.

And, of course, as pharma always does, they said that this will hurt innovation and we won’t get any drugs. Not that things have been in place that long, but, clearly, we haven’t seen that so far.

Rovner: Yes, that is always their excuse. I feel like this is one of those times where it doesn’t even matter if any of these things get done, they’re putting them out there just to keep the debate going. This is obviously ground that the Biden campaign would love to campaign on — rather than talking about the economy that makes people mostly unhappy. I assume we’ll be seeing more of this.

Edney: Yeah. Your food prices and other things are very high right now. But if they can talk about getting drug prices lower, that’s a totally different thing that they can point to.

Ollstein: And it’s an easy way to draw the contrast. For people who might be apathetic and think, “Oh, it doesn’t matter who wins the presidential election,” this is an area where the Biden administration can credibly claim, based on what Trump recently said, “This is what’s at stake. This is the difference between my opponent and me. The health care of millions is on the line,” which has been a winning message in past elections.

And what’s been really striking to me is that even talking to a bunch of conservatives now, even though they don’t like the Affordable Care Act, they even are starting to argue that full-scale repeal and replace — now that it’s the status quo — that’s not even a conservative proposal.

They’re saying that it’s more conservative to propose smaller changes that chip around the edges and create some alternatives, but mainly leave it in place, which I think is really interesting, because for so long the litmus test was: Are you for full repeal, root and branch? And we’re just not really hearing that much anymore — except from Trump!

Rovner: The difficulty from the beginning is that the basis of the ACA was a Republican proposal. I mean, they were defanged from the start. It’s been very hard for them to come up with a replacement. What it already is is what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Well, let us turn to the other big issue that Democrats hope will be this coming election year, and that’s abortion, where there was lots of news this week.

We will start with the fact that the 10-month blockade of military promotions by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is over. Well, mostly over. On Tuesday, the Senate approved by voice vote more than 400 promotions that Tuberville had held up, with only a few four-star nominees still in question. Tuberville’s protests had angered not just Senate Democrats and the Biden administration, who said it was threatening national security, but increasingly his own Senate Republican colleagues.

Tuberville said he was holding up the nominations to protest the Biden administration’s policy of allowing active-duty military members and their dependents to travel out of state for an abortion if they’re stationed where it’s illegal, like in, you know, Alabama. So Alice, what did Tuberville get in exchange for dropping his 10-month blockade?

Ollstein: So, not much. I mean, his aim was to force the Biden administration to change the policy, and that didn’t happen — the policy supporting folks in the military traveling if they’re based in a state where abortion is banned and they need an abortion, supporting the travel to another state, still not paying for the abortion itself, which is still banned. And so that was the policy Tuberville was trying to get overturned, and he did not get that. So he’s claiming that what he got was drawing attention to it, basically. So we’ll see if he tries to use this little bit of remaining leverage to do anything. It does not seem like much was accomplished through this means, although there is a lot of anxiety that this sets a precedent for the future, not just on abortion issues, but, really, could inspire any senator to try to do this and hold a bunch of nominees hostage for whatever policy purpose they want.

Rovner: I know. I mean, senators traditionally sit on nominees for Cabinet posts. And the FDA and the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t have a director for, like, three administrations because members were angry at the administration for something about Medicare and Medicaid. But I had never seen anybody hold up military promotions before. This was definitely something new. Rachana, you were going to add something?

Pradhan: Oh, I mean, I was just thinking on Alabama specifically. I mean, I don’t claim to know, even though there was rising anger in Sen. Tuberville’s own party about this move. I mean, I’m not saying I know that this is a factor or not, but in Alabama, regardless of what he tried to do, I think that the attorney general in Alabama has made it clear that he might try to prosecute organizations that help people travel out of state to get abortions.

And so, it’s not like this is only the last word when you’re even talking about military officers or people in the military. Even in his home state, you might see some greater activity on that anyway, which might make it easier for him to honestly, in a way, give it up because it’s not the only way that you could presumably prosecute organizations or people who tried to help others go out of state to access abortion.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s important to say that while he irritated a lot of people in Washington, he probably had a lot of support from people back home in Alabama, which he kept pointing out.

Ollstein: Right. And I saw national anti-abortion groups really cheering him on and urging their members to send him thank-you letters and such. And so definitely not just in his home state. There are conservatives who were backing this.

Rovner: Well, moving on to Texas, because there is always abortion news out of Texas, we have talked quite a bit about the lawsuit filed by women who experienced pregnancy complications and couldn’t get abortions. Well, now we have a separate emergency lawsuit from a woman named Kate Cox, who is currently seeking an abortion because of the threat to her health and life.

Both of these lawsuits aren’t trying to strike the Texas ban, just to clarify when a doctor can perform a medically needed abortion without possibly facing jail time or loss of their medical license. Alice, I know the hearing for Kate Cox is happening even now as we are taping. What’s the status of the other case? We’re waiting to hear from the Texas Supreme Court. Is that where it is?

Ollstein: Yeah. So oral arguments were the other day and a bunch of new plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit. So it’s expanded to a few dozen people now, mostly patients, but some doctors as well who are directly impacted by the law. There was some interesting back and forth in the oral arguments over standing.

And one of the things the state was hammering was that they don’t have standing to sue because they aren’t in this situation that this other woman is in today, where they’re actively pregnant, actively in crisis, and being actively prevented from accessing the health care that they need that their doctor recommends, which in some circumstances is an abortion. And so I think this is an interesting test of the state’s argument on that front.

Rovner: Also, the idea, I mean, that a woman who literally is in the throes of this crisis would step forward and have her name in public and it’s going to court in an emergency hearing today.

Ollstein: Right, as opposed to the other women who were harmed previously. By the time they are seeking relief in court, their pregnancy is already over and the damage has already been done, but they’re saying it’s a threat of a future pregnancy. It’s impacting their willingness to become pregnant again, knowing what could happen, what already happened. But the state was saying like, “Oh, but because you’re not actively in the moment, you shouldn’t have the right to sue.” And so now we’ll see what they say when someone is really in the throes of it.

Rovner: In the moment. Well, another troubling story this week comes from Warren, Ohio, where a woman who experienced a miscarriage is being charged with “abuse of a corpse” because she was sent home from the hospital after her water broke early and miscarried into her toilet, which is gross, but that’s how most miscarriages happen.

The medical examiner has since determined that the fetus was, in fact, born dead and was too premature to survive anyway. Yet the case seems to be going forward. Is this what we can expect to see in places like Ohio where abortion remains legal, but prosecutors want to find other ways to punish women?

Ollstein: I mean, I also think it’s an important reminder that people were criminalized for pregnancy loss while Roe [v. Wade] was still in place. I mean, it was rare, but it did happen. And there are groups tracking it. And so I think that it’s not a huge surprise that it could happen even more now, in this post-Roe era, even in states like Ohio that just voted overwhelmingly to maintain access to abortion.

Pradhan: Julie, do we know what hospital? Because when I was looking at the story, do we know what kind of hospital it was that sent this person away?

Rovner: No. The information is still pretty sketchy about this case, although we do know the prosecutor is sending it to a grand jury. We know that much. I mean, the case is going forward. And we do know that her water broke early and that she did visit, I believe, it was two hospitals, although I have not seen them named. I mean, there’s clearly more information to come about this case.

But yeah, Alice is right. I mean, I wrote about a case in Indiana that was in 2012 or 2013, it was a long time ago, about a woman who tried to kill herself and ended up only killing her fetus and ended up in jail for a year. I mean, was eventually released, but … it’s unusual but not unprecedented for women to be prosecuted, basically, for pregnancy loss.

Ollstein: Yeah, especially people who are struggling with substance abuse. That’s been a major area where that’s happened.

Pradhan: I would personally be very interested in knowing the hospitals that are a part of this and whether they are religiously affiliated, because there’s a standard of care in medicine for what happens if you have your water break before the fetus is viable and what’s supposed to happen versus what can happen.

Rovner: There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where it was a Catholic hospital. The woman, her water broke early. She was in a Catholic hospital, and they also sent her home. I’m trying to remember where she finally got care. But yeah, that has been an issue also over the years. Well, meanwhile, back here in Washington, the Supreme Court is likely to tell us shortly, I believe, whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA, requires doctors to perform abortions in life-threatening situations, as the Biden administration maintains.

Alice, this case is on what’s known as the “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court, meaning it has not been fully briefed and argued. It’s only asking if the court will overturn a lower court’s ruling that the federal law trumps the state’s ban. When are we expecting to hear something?

Ollstein: It could be after justices meet on Friday. Really, it could be whenever after that. As we’ve seen in the last few years, the shadow docket can be very unpredictable, and we could just get, at very odd times, major decisions that impact the whole country or just one state. And so, yes, I mean, this issue of abortion care and emergency circumstances is playing out in court in a couple different states, and the federal government is getting involved in some of those states.

And so I think this could be a big test. Unlike a lot of lawsuits going on right now, this is not seeking to strike down the state’s abortion ban entirely. It’s just trying to expand and clarify that people who are in the middle of a medical emergency shouldn’t be subject to the ban.

Rovner: It’s similar to what they’re fighting about in Texas, actually.

Ollstein: Yeah, exactly. And this is still playing out at the 9th Circuit, but they’re trying to leapfrog that and get the Supreme Court to weigh in the meantime.

Rovner: Yeah, and we shall see. All right, well, while we’re on the subject of “This Week in Court,” let us move on to the case that was argued in public at the Supreme Court this week about whether the Sackler family can keep much of its wealth while declaring bankruptcy for its drug company, Purdue Pharma, that’s been found liable for exacerbating, if not causing much of the nation’s opioid epidemic.

The case involves basically two bad choices: Let the Sacklers manipulate the federal bankruptcy code to shield billions of dollars from future lawsuits or further delay justice for millions of people injured by the company’s behavior. And the justices themselves seem pretty divided over which way to go. Anna, what’s at stake here? This is a lot, isn’t it?

Edney: Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting how it doesn’t exactly break down on ideological lines. The justices were — I don’t want to say all over the place, because that sounds disrespectful — but they had concerns on many different levels. And one is that the victims and their lawyers negotiated the settlement because for them it was the best way they felt that they could get compensation, and they didn’t feel that they could get it without letting the Sacklers off the hook, that the Sacklers basically would not sign the settlement agreement, and they were willing to go that route.

And the government is worried about using that and letting the Sacklers off the hook in this way and using this bankruptcy deal to be able to shield a lot of their money that they took out of the company, essentially, and have in their personal wealth now. And so that’s something that a lot of companies are, not a lot, but companies are looking to hope to use the sign of bankruptcy protection when it comes to big class-action lawsuits and harm to consumers.

And so I think that what the worry is is that that then becomes the precedent, that the ones at the very top will always get off because it’s easier to negotiate the settlement that way.

Rovner: We’ll obviously have to wait until — as this goes a few months — to see the decisions in this case, but it’s going to be interesting. I think everybody, including the justices, are unhappy with the set of facts here, but that’s why it was in front of the Supreme Court. So our final entry in “This Week in Court” is a twofer. It is also “This Week in Health Misinformation.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit against Pfizer for allegedly violating Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act because its covid vaccine did not, in fact, end the covid epidemic. Quoting from the attorney general’s press release, “We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies.” It’s hard to even know where to start with this, except that, I guess, anyone can sue anyone for anything in Texas, right?

Edney: Yeah, that’s a very good point. The entire concept of it feels so weird. I mean, a vaccine doesn’t cure anything, right? That’s not the point of a vaccine. It’s not a drug. It is a vaccine that is supposed to prevent you from getting something, and not everybody took it. So that feels like the end of the story, but, clearly, the attorney general would prefer attention, I think, on this, and to continue to sow doubt in vaccines and the government and the Food and Drug Administration seems to be maybe more of the point here.

Rovner: I noticed he’s only suing for, I think, it’s $10 million, which is frankly not a ton of money to a company as big as Pfizer. So one would assume that he’s doing this more for the publicity than for the actual possibility of getting something.

Pradhan: Yeah, I think Pfizer’s CEO’s annual salary is more than the damages that are being sought in this case. So it’s really not very much money at all. I mean, more broadly speaking, I mean, Texas, Florida, I think you see especially post-public-health-emergency-covid times, the medical freedom movement has really taken root in a lot of these places.

And I think that it just seems like this is adding onto that, where doctors say they should be able to give ivermectin to covid patients and it helped them and not be at risk of losing their license. And that’s really kind of an anti-vaccine sentiment. Obviously, it’s very alive and well.

Rovner: We are post-belief-in-scientific-expertise.

Edney: Well, I was going to say, I appreciated The Texas Tribune’s story on this because they called out every time in this lawsuit that he was twisting the truth or just completely not telling the truth at all in the sense that he said that more people who took the vaccine died, and that’s clearly not the case. And so I appreciated that they were trying to call him out every time that he said something that wasn’t true, but was just completely willing to put that out in the public sphere as if it was.

Rovner: There was also a great story on Ars Technica, which is a scientific website, about how the lawsuit completely misrepresents the use of statistics, just got it completely backwards. We’ll post a link to that one too. Well, while we are talking about drug companies, let’s talk about some drugs that really may not be what companies say they are.

Anna, you have a new story up this week about the Pentagon’s effort to ensure that generic drugs are actually copies of the drugs they’re supposed to be. That effort’s running into a roadblock. Tell us a little about that.

Edney: Yeah, thanks for letting me talk about this one. It’s “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way.” So the FDA is the roadblock to trying to figure out whether the drugs, particularly that the military and their family members are taking, work well and don’t have side effects that could be extremely harmful. So what’s going on here is that the Defense Department and others, the White House even, has grown skeptical of the FDA’s ability to police generic drugs, largely that are made overseas.

We did some analysis and we found that it was actually 2019 was the first time that generic drug-making facilities in India surpassed the number of those in the U.S. So we are making more, not just active ingredients, but finished products over in India. And the FDA just doesn’t have a good line into India. They don’t do many unannounced inspections. They usually have to tell the company they’re coming weeks in advance. And what we found is when the Defense Department started looking into this, they partnered with a lab to test some of these drugs.

They got some early results. Those results were concerning, as far as the drug might not work, and also could cause kidney failure, seizures. And even despite this, they’ve been facing the FDA around every corner trying to stop them and trying to get them not to test drugs. They say it’s a waste of money, when, in fact, Kaiser Permanente has been doing this for its 12.7 million members for several years.

And it just seems like something is going on at the FDA and that they don’t want people to have any questions about generic drugs. They really just want everyone to accept that they’re always exactly the same, and they even derail the White House effort to try to look into this more as well. But the Pentagon said, “Thank you very much, FDA, but we’re going forward with this.”

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, I could see that the FDA would be concerned about … they’re supposed to be the last word on these things. But, as you point out and as much of your reporting has pointed out over the last couple of years, the FDA has not been able to keep up with really making sure that these drugs are what they say they are.

Edney: One thing I learned that was interesting, and this is that in Europe, actually, there’s a network of 70 labs that do this kind of testing before drugs reach patients and after they reach patients. So it’s not a totally unusual thing. And for some reason, the FDA does not want that to happen.

Rovner: Well, finally on the drug beat this week, CVS announced earlier that it would overhaul its drug pricing to better reflect how much it pays for the drugs, all of which sounds great, but the fact is that how much CVS pays for the drugs doesn’t have all that much effect on how much we end up paying CVS for those same drugs, right? They’re just changing how they get the drugs from the manufacturers, not necessarily how they price it for the customers.

Pradhan: I think my main question would be, what does that mean for a patient’s out-of-pocket cost for prescriptions? I don’t know how much of this has to do with … for CVS as the pharmacy, but we have CVS Caremark, which is a major PBM, and how this affects the pricing models there. And PBMs, of course, have been under scrutiny in Congress. And there’s outside pressure too, right? The story that you highlighted, Julie, talks about Mark Cuban’s affordable-drug effort. And so, yeah, I don’t know. I mean, I think it sounds good until maybe we see some more details, right?

Rovner: I saw one story that said, “This could really help lower drug prices for consumers,” and one that said, “This could actually raise drug prices for consumers.” So I’m assuming that this is another one where we’re going to have to wait and see the details of. All right, well, that is this week’s news.

Now we will play my interview with Dan Weissmann of the “Arm and a Leg” podcast, and then we will come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’s sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan has a cool two-part story on hospitals suing patients for overdue bills that he’s here to tell us about. Dan, welcome back.

Dan Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: So over the past few years, there have been a lot of stories about hospitals suing former patients, including a big investigation by KFF Health News. But you came at this from kind of a different perspective. Tell us what you were trying to find out.

Weissmann: We were trying to figure out why hospitals file lawsuits in bulk. Investigative reporters like Jay Hancock at KFF [Health News] have documented this practice, and one of the things that they note frequently is how little money hospitals get from these lawsuits. Jay Hancock compared the amount that VCU [Health] was seeking from patients and compared it to that hospital system’s annual surplus, their profit margin, and it looked tiny. And other studies document essentially the same thing. So why do they do it?

And we got a clue from a big report done by National Nurses United in Maryland, which, in addition to documenting how little money hospitals were getting compared to the million-dollar salaries they were paying executives in this case, also noted that a relatively small number of attorneys were filing most of these lawsuits. Just five attorneys filed two-thirds of the 145,000 lawsuits they documented across 10 years, and just one attorney filed more than 40,000 cases. So we were like, huh, maybe that’s a clue. Maybe we found somebody who is getting something out of this. We should find out more.

Rovner: So you keep saying “we” — you had some help working on this. Tell us about your partners.

Weissmann: Oh my God, we were so, so lucky. We work with The Baltimore Banner, which is a new daily news outlet in Baltimore, new nonprofit news outlet in Baltimore, that specializes in data reporting. Their data editor, Ryan Little, pulled untold numbers of cases, hundreds of thousands of cases, from the Maryland courts’ website and analyzed them to an inch of their life and taught us more than I could ever have imagined.

And Scripps News also came in as a partner and one of their data journalists, Rosie Cima, pulled untold numbers of records from the Wisconsin court system and worked to analyze data that we also got from a commercial firm that has a cache of data that has more detail than what we could pull off the website. It was a heroic effort by those folks.

Rovner: So what did you find? Not what you were expecting, right?

Weissmann: No. While Rosie and Ryan were especially gathering all this data and figuring out what to do with it, I was out talking to a lot of people. And what I found out is that in the main, it appears that frequently when these lawsuits happen and when hospitals file lawsuits in general, they’re not being approached by attorneys. They’re working with collection agencies. And most hospitals do work with a collection agency, and it’s essentially like, I put it like, you get a menu, oh, I’m having a hamburger, I’m going to pursue people for bills.

Like, OK, do you want onions? Do you want mustard? Do you want relish? What do you want on it? And in this case, it’s like, how hard do you want us to go after people? Do you want us to hit their credit reports — if you still can do that, because the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] has been making regulations about that — but do you want us to do that? How often can we call them? And do you want us to file lawsuits if we don’t get results? And so that is essentially in consultation with the hospital’s revenue department and the collection agency, and it’s a strategic decision between them.

That was what we found out through talking to people. What Rosie and Ryan turned up, and the data we had from the folks in New York backed up, is that, surprisingly, in the three states that we looked at, there’s just so much less of this activity than we had expected to find. In Maryland, Ryan sent me a series of emails, the first saying, like, “I’m not actually seeing any this year. That’s got to be wrong. They must be hiding them somewhere. I’m going to go investigate.” And a week later he was like, “I think I found them, and then we’ll go run some more numbers.”

And then a week later, after going to the courthouse and looking at everything you could find, he was like, “No, actually Maryland hospitals just do not seem to be suing anybody this year.” And we had expected there to be fewer lawsuits, but zero was a surprise to everybody. In New York, we appear to have found that two of those three law firms handling all those cases are no longer handling medical bill cases. And in Wisconsin, final numbers are still being crunched. Our second part will have all those numbers.

The Banner is coming out with their numbers this week. But Scripps News and us are still crunching numbers in Wisconsin. But what was the biggest shocker was, I can just tell you, there were so many fewer lawsuits than we had expected, and many of the most active plaintiffs had either cut the practice entirely, like filing zero lawsuits or filing hardly any. One of the things that a lot of these reports that look at across a state, like in New York and the Maryland report, note, and that we found in Wisconsin too, is that most hospitals don’t do this.

Noam Levey at KFF [Health News] found that many hospitals have policies that say, “We might file a lawsuit,” and some larger number of hospitals file some lawsuits. But in all these cases where you’re seeing tons of lawsuits filed, the phenomenon of suing people in bulk is actually not business as usual for most hospitals. That is driven by a relatively small group of players. There was a study in North Carolina by the state treasurers, obviously and Duke University, that found 95% of all the lawsuits were filed by just a few institutions.

The New York people found this. We’ve seen it in Wisconsin. So I mean, it’s another very interesting question when you’re looking at why does this happen. It’s like it’s not something that most institutions do. And again, in Wisconsin, we found that most of the players that had been the most active had basically stopped.

Rovner: Do we know why? Is it just all of the attention that we’ve seen to this issue?

Weissmann: Probably the answer is we don’t know why. Our colleagues at The Banner called every hospital in Maryland and were not told very much. We emailed all the hospitals in Wisconsin that we could that we had seen dramatically decrease, and nobody came to the phone. So we don’t really know.

But it does seem like, certainly in Maryland and New York, there were these huge campaigns that got tons of publicity and got laws changed, got laws passed. And there has been attention. The reports that Bobby Peterson put out in Wisconsin got attention locally. Sarah Kliff of The New York Times, who’s been writing about these kinds of lawsuits, has written multiple times about hospitals in Wisconsin. So it seems like a good first guess, but it’s a guess. Yeah.

Rovner: Well, one thing that I was interested that you did turn up, as you pointed out at the top, hospitals don’t get very much money from doing this. You’re basically suing people for money that they don’t have. So you did find other ways that hospitals could get reimbursed. I mean, they are losing a lot of money from people who can’t pay, even people with insurance, who can’t pay their multi-thousand-dollar deductible. So what could they be doing instead?

Weissmann: They could be doing a better job of evaluating people’s ability to pay upfront. The majority of hospitals in the United States are obligated by the Affordable Care Act to have charity care policies, financial assistance policies, in which they spell out, if you make less than a certain amount of money, it’s a multiple of the federal poverty level that they choose, we’ll forgive some or all of your bill. And, frequently, that number is as much as four times the federal poverty level. They might knock 75% off your bill, which is a huge help.

And as a guy that I met noted, using data from KFF, 58% of Americans make less than 75% of the federal poverty level. That is a lot of people. And so if you’re chasing someone for a medical bill, they might very well have been someone you could have extended financial assistance to. This guy, his name is Nick McLaughlin, he worked for 10 years for a medical bill collections agency. Someone in his family had a medical bill they were having a hard time paying, and he figured out that they qualified for charity care, but the application process, he noted, was really cumbersome, and even just figuring out how to apply was a big process. And so he thought, I know that chasing people for money they don’t have isn’t really the best business model and that we’re often chasing people for money they don’t have. What if we encourage hospitals to be more proactive about figuring out if someone should be getting charity care from them in the first place?

Because, as he said, every time you send someone a bill, you’re spending two bucks. And you’re not just sending one bill, you’re sending like three bills and a final notice. That all adds up, and you’re manning a call center. You’re spending money and you’re missing opportunities by not evaluating people. Because while you’re asking about their income, you might find out they’re eligible for Medicaid, and you can get paid by Medicaid rather than chasing them for money they don’t have.

And two, they might update their insurance information from you and you can get money from their insurance. You can extend financial assistance to somebody, as you said, who has a deductible they can’t pay, and they might actually come to you for care that you can unlock money from their insurance if they’re going to come to you because they’re not afraid of the bill.

I should absolutely say, while Nick McLaughlin is selling hospitals on the idea of adopting new software, which is a great idea, they should do that, they should be more proactive, an entity called Dollar For, a nonprofit organization out of the Pacific Northwest that’s been doing work all over the country, has been beating the drum about this and has a tool that anybody can use.

Essentially, go to their website, dollarfor.org, and type in where you were seen and an estimate of your income, and they will tell you, you’re likely to qualify for charity care at this hospital, because they have a database of every hospital’s policy. And if you need help applying, because some of these applications are burdensome, we’ll help you. So this exists, and everybody should know about it and everybody should tell everybody they know about it. I think the work they’re doing is absolutely heroic.

Rovner: Well, Dan Weissmann, thank you so much for joining us. We will post a link to Dan’s story in our show notes and on our podcast page.

Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

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

Edney: Sure. This is from my colleague Madison Muller, “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own.” And I thought she just did such an amazing job with this story, talking to Mark Bryant, who helped start an organization, Gun Violence Archive, which is essentially the only place that is trying to tally every instance of gun violence.

And because of a lot of the restrictions that the NRA has helped get into government regulations and things, some of them which are more recently loosening, but because of those in the past, this is really the only way you could try to look up these statistics. And he’s just given the last decade of his life, with no breaks, trying to do this and his health is failing. And I thought it was just a really poignant look at somebody who has no skin in the game, but just wanted the right information out there.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously this is a big deal. Alice.

Ollstein: I did an op-ed that was published in Stat by a group of fetal medicine specialists who are writing about how their work is being compromised by state abortion bans right now. They were saying these are very risky, high-stakes procedures where they perform operations in utero, latent pregnancy usually, and it’s an attempt to save the pregnancy where there is a big risk. But with all of these, there are risks that it could end the pregnancy, and now they’re afraid of being prosecuted for that.

And they describe a bunch of challenging situations that, even without these bans are challenging, things where there’s twins and something to help one could harm the other twin, and this could all affect the health and life of the parent as well. And so they’re saying that they’re really in this whole new era and have to think about the legal risks, as well as the medical and bioethical ones that they already have to deal with.

Rovner: I’ve reported about this over the years, and I can tell you that these are always really wrenching family decisions about trying to desperately save a pregnancy by doing this extraordinarily difficult and delicate kind of procedure. Rachana.

Pradhan: My extra credit is a story from our colleague Brett Kelman, who worked on this investigation with CBS News. It is about a type of artificial hip known as Profemur that literally were snapping in half in patients’ bodies. I told Brett earlier this week that I was cringing at every line that I read. So if folks want to get a really, frankly, pretty gruesome, awful story about how people around the country have received these artificial hips, and the fact that they broke inside their bodies has really caused a lot of damage.

And, frankly, I know we talked about the FDA, but also this story really sheds light on how the FDA has dropped the ball in not acting with more urgency. And had they done that, many of these injuries likely would’ve been avoided. So, I urge everyone to read it. It’s a great story.

Rovner: It is. I also flinched when I was reading a lot of it. Well, my story is from the Wisconsin State Journal by David Wahlberg, and it’s called “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs.” And while I have been covering Medicaid since the 1980s, and I never knew this even existed, it seems that a handful of states, Wisconsin among them, allows counties to go after the fathers of babies born on Medicaid, which is about half of all births — Medicaid’s about half of all births.

Not surprisingly, making moms choose between disclosing the father to whom she is not married to the state or losing Medicaid for her infant is not a great choice. And there’s lots of research to suggest that it can lead to bad birth outcomes, particularly in African American and Native American communities. I have long known that states can come after the estates of seniors who died after receiving Medicaid-paid nursing home or home care, but this one, at the other end of life, was a new one to me.

Now, I want to know how many other states are still doing this. And when I find out, I’ll report back.

OK, 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. Thanks, as always, to our tireless tech guru, Francis Ying, who’s back from vacation. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Anna?

Edney: @anna_edneyreports on Threads and @annaedney on X.

Rovner: Rachana.

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: I’m @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).

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

Partnerships Editor and Senior Correspondent, oversees placement of KFF Health News content in publications nationwide and covers health reform and federal health policy. Before joining KFF Health News, Mary Agnes was associate editor of CQ HealthBeat, Capitol Hill Bureau Chief for Congressional Quarterly, and a reporter with Dow Jones Newswires. A frequent radio and television commentator, she has appeared on CNN, C-SPAN, the PBS NewsHour, and on NPR affiliates nationwide. Her stories have appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, TheAtlantic.com, Time.com, Money.com, and The Daily Beast, among other publications. She worked for newspapers in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University.

In most states, open enrollment for plans on the Affordable Care Act exchange — also known as Obamacare — began Nov. 1 and lasts until Dec. 15, though some states go longer. With premiums expected to increase by a median of 6%, consumers who get their health coverage through the federal or state ACA marketplaces are encouraged to shop around. Because of enhanced subsidies and cost-sharing assistance, they might save money by switching plans.

Meanwhile, Ohio is yet again an election-year battleground state. A ballot issue that would provide constitutional protection to reproductive health decisions has become a flashpoint for misinformation and message testing.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Open enrollment for most plans on the Affordable Care Act exchange — also known as Obamacare — began Nov. 1 and lasts until Dec. 15, though enrollment lasts longer in some states. With premiums expected to increase by a median of 6%, consumers are advised to shop around. Enhanced subsidies are still in place post-pandemic, and enhanced cost-sharing assistance is available to those who qualify. Many people who have lost health coverage may be eligible for subsidies.
• In Ohio, voters will consider a ballot issue that would protect abortion rights under the state constitution. This closely watched contest is viewed by anti-abortion advocates as a testing ground for messaging on the issue. Abortion is also key in other races, such as for Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court and Virginia’s state assembly, where the entire legislature is up for election.
• Earlier this week, President Joe Biden issued an executive order that calls on federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, to step into the artificial intelligence arena. AI is a buzzword at every health care conference or panel these days, and the technologies are already in use in health care, with insurers using AI to help make coverage decisions. There is also the recurring question, after many hearings and much discussion: Why hasn’t Congress acted to regulate AI yet?
• Our health care system — in particular the doctors, nurses, and other medical personnel — hasn’t recovered from the pandemic. Workers are still burned out, and some have participated in work stoppages to make the point that they can’t take much more. Will this be the next area for organized labor, fresh from successful strikes against automakers, to grow union membership? Take pharmacy workers, for instance, who are beginning to stage walkouts to push for improvements.
• And, of course, for the next installment of the new podcast feature, “This Week in Medical Misinformation:” The official government website of the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate is attacking the proposed abortion amendment in what some experts have said is a highly unusual and misleading manner. Headlines on its “On The Record” blog include “Abortion Is Killing the Black Community” and say the ballot measure would cause “unimaginable atrocities.” The Associated Press termed the blog’s language “inflammatory.”

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

Mary Agnes Carey: Stat News’ “The Health Care Issue Democrats Can’t Solve: Hospital Reform,” by Rachel Cohrs.

Jessie Hellmann: The Washington Post’s “Drugstore Closures Are Leaving Millions Without Easy Access to a Pharmacy,” by Aaron Gregg and Jaclyn Peiser.

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “Older Americans Are Dominating Like Never Before, but What Comes Next?” by Marc Fisher.

Rachana Pradhan: The New York Times’ “How a Lucrative Surgery Took Off Online and Disfigured Patients,” by Sarah Kliff and Katie Thomas.

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: For ACA Plans, It’s Time to Shop Around

[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.]

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Mary Agnes Carey, partnerships editor for KFF Health News, filling in this week for Julie Rovner. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Nov. 2, at 10 a.m. ET. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this.

We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Carey: Jessie Hellmann, of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hey there.

Carey: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Thanks for having me.

Carey: It’s great to have you here. It’s great to have all of you here. Let’s start today with the Affordable Care Act. If you’re interested in enrolling in an ACA plan for coverage that begins Jan. 1, it’s time for you to sign up. The ACA’s open enrollment period began Nov. 1 and lasts through Dec. 15 for plans offered on the federal exchange, but some state-based ACA exchanges have longer enrollment periods. Consumers can go online, call an 800 number, get help from an insurance broker or from other ACA navigators and others who are trained to help you research your coverage options, help you find out if you qualify for a subsidy, or if you should consider changing your ACA plan.

What can consumers expect this year during open enrollment? Are there more or fewer choices? Are premiums increasing?

Hellmann: So, I saw the average premium will increase about 6%. So people are definitely going to want to shop around and might not necessarily just want to stick with the same plan that they had last year. And we’re also going to continue seeing the enhanced premiums, subsidies, that Congress passed last year that they kind of stuck with after the pandemic. So subsidies might be more affordable for people — I’m sorry, premiums might be more affordable for people. There’s also some enhanced cost-sharing assistance.

Carey: So it kind of underscores the idea that if you’re on the ACA exchange, you really should go back and take a look, right? Because there might be a different deal out there waiting.

Kenen: I think the wrinkle — this may be what you were just about to ask — but the wrinkle this year is the Medicaid disenroll, the unwinding. There are approximately 10 million, 10 million people, who’ve been disenrolled from Medicaid. Many of them are eligible for Medicaid, and at some point hopefully they’ll figure out how to get them back on. But some of those who are no longer eligible for Medicaid will probably be eligible for heavily subsidized ACA plans if they understand that and go look for it.

This population has been hard to reach and hard to communicate with for a number of reasons, some caused by the health system, not the people, or the Medicaid system, the states. They do have a fallback; they have some extra options. But a lot of those people should click and see what they’re eligible for.

Pradhan: One thing, kind of piggybacking on what Joanne said, that I’m really interested in: Of course, right now is a time when people can actively sign up for ACA plans. But the people who lost Medicaid, or are losing Medicaid — technically, the state Medicaid agency, if they think that a person might qualify for an ACA plan, they’re supposed to automatically transfer those people’s applications to their marketplace, whether it’s healthcare.gov or a state-based exchange. But the data we have so far shows really low enrollment rates into ACA plans from those batches of people that are being automatically transferred. So I’m really curious about whether that’s going to improve and what does enrollment look like in a few months to see if those rates actually increase.

Carey: I’m also wondering what you’re all picking up on the issue of the provider networks. How many doctors and hospitals and other providers are included in these plans? Are they likely to be smaller for 2024? Are they getting bigger? Is there a particular trend you can point to?

I know that sometimes insurers might reduce the number of providers, narrow that network, for example to lower costs. So I guess that remains to be seen here.

Kenen: I haven’t seen data on the ACA plans, and maybe one of the other podcasters has. I haven’t seen that. But we do know that in certain cities, including the one we all live in [Washington, D.C.], many doctors are stopping, are no longer taking insurance. I mean, it’s not most, but the number of people who are dropping being in-network in some of the major networks that we are used to, I think we have all encountered that in our own lives and our friends’ and families’ lives. There are doctors opting out, or they’re in but their practices are closed; they’re not taking more patients, they’re full.

I don’t want to pretend I know how much worse it is or isn’t in ACA plans, but we do know that this is a trend for multiple years. In some parts of the country, it’s getting worse.

Hellmann: Yeah, the Biden administration has been doing some stuff to try to address some of these problems. Last year there were some rules requiring health plans have enough in-network providers that meet specific driving time and distance requirements. So, they are trying to address this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some of these plans’ networks are still pretty narrow.

Pradhan: Yeah. I mean, I think the concern for a while now with ACA plans is because insurance companies can’t do the things that they did a decade ago to limit premium increases, etc., one of the ways they can keep their costs down is to curtail the number of available providers for someone who signs up for one of these plans. So, like Jessie, I’m curious about how those new rules from last year will affect whether people see meaningful differences in the availability of in-network providers under specific plans.

Carey: That and many other trends are worth watching as we head into the open enrollment season. But right now, I’d like to turn to another topic in the news, and that’s abortion. “What the Health?” listeners know that last week your host, Julie Rovner, created a new segment that she’s calling “This Week in Health Care Misinformation.” Here’s this week’s entry.

A measure before Ohio voters next Tuesday, that’s Nov. 7, would amend Ohio’s constitution to guarantee the right to reproductive health care decisions, including abortion. Abortion rights opponents say the measure is crafted too broadly and should not be approved. The official government website of the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate is attacking the proposed abortion amendment in what some experts have said is a highly unusual and misleading manner. Headlines on the “On The Record” blog — and that’s what it’s called, “On The Record”; this is on the Ohio state website — it makes several claims about the measure that legal and medical experts have told The Associated Press were false or misleading. Headlines on this site include, and I’m quoting here, “Abortion Is Killing the Black Community” and that the proposal would cause, again, another quote, “unimaginable atrocities.” Isn’t it unusual for an official government website to operate in this manner?

Pradhan: I think yes, as far as we know, and that’s really scary. It’s hard enough these days to sort out what is legitimate and what isn’t. We’ve seen AI [artificial intelligence] used in other political campaign materials in the forms of altered videos, photographs, etc. But now this is a really terrifying prospect, I think, that you could provide misinformation to voters — particularly in close races, I would say, that you could really swing an outcome based on what people are being told.

Kenen: The other thing that’s being said in Ohio by the Republicans is that the measure would allow, quote, “partial-birth abortions,” which is a particular — it’s a phrase used to describe a particular type of late-term abortion that’s illegal. Congress passed legislation, I think it’s 15 to 20 years ago now, and it went through the courts and it’s been upheld by the courts. This measure in Ohio does not undo federal law in the state of Ohio or anywhere else. So that’s not true. And that’s another thing circulating.

Carey: This discussion is very important. And to Rachana’s point, how voters perceive this is very important because Ohio is serving as a testing ground for political messaging headed into the presidential race next year. And abortion groups are trying to qualify initiatives in more states in 2024, potentially including Arizona. So even if you haven’t followed this story closely, I mean, how do you think this tactic may influence voters? Again, you’re talking about something — when you hit a news tab on an official state website, you come to this blog. Do you think voters will reject it? Could it possibly influence them — as you were talking about earlier, tip the results?

Kenen: Well, I don’t think we know how it’s going to tip, because I don’t know how many people actually read the state legislature blog.

Carey: Yeah, that could be an issue.

Kenen: Although, and the coverage of it, one would hope, in the state media would point out that some of these claims are untrue. But I mean, it’s taking — you know, the Republicans have lost every single state ballot initiative on abortion, and it’s been a winning issue for the Democrats and they’re trying to reframe it a little bit, because while polls have shown — not just polls, but voting behavior has shown — many Americans want abortion to remain legal, they aren’t as comfortable with late-term abortions, with abortions in the final weeks or months of pregnancy. So this is trying to shift it from a general debate over banning abortion, which is not popular in the U.S., to an area where there’s softer support for abortions later during pregnancy.

And polls have shown really strong support for abortion rights. But this is an area that is not as strong, or a little bit more open to maybe moving people. And if the Republicans succeed in portraying this as falsely allowing a procedure that the country has decided to ban, I think that’s part of what’s going on, is to shift the definition, shift the terms of debate.

Carey: As we know, Ohio is not the only state where abortion is taking center stage. For example, in Pennsylvania, abortion is a key issue in the state Supreme Court justice election, and it’s a test case of political fallout from the Supreme Court, the United States Supreme Court’s decision last summer to overrule Roe v. Wade. In Texas, the state is accusing Planned Parenthood of defrauding the Republican-led state’s Medicaid health insurance program. And in Kansas, in a victory for abortion rights advocates, a judge put a new state law on medication abortions on hold and blocked other restrictions governing the use and distribution of these medications and imposed waiting periods.

And of course, abortion remains a huge issue on Capitol Hill, with House Republicans inserting language into many spending bills to restrict abortion access, to block funding for HIV prevention, contraception, global health programs, and so on. So, which of these cases, or others maybe that you are watching, do you think will be the strongest indicators of how the abortion battle will shake out for the rest of this year and into 2024?

Pradhan: I’m actually going to make a plug for another one that we didn’t mention, which is for our local, D.C.-area listeners, Virginia next week has a state legislative election. So, Gov. [Glenn] Youngkin of course is still — he’s not up for reelection; he’ll sit one single four-year term, but the entire Virginia General Assembly is up for election. So currently Gov. Youngkin says that he wants to institute a 15-week abortion ban, but Republicans would need to control every branch of government, which they do not currently, but it is possible that they will after next week. So that would be a big change as you see abortion restrictions that have proliferated, especially throughout the South and the Midwest. But now Virginia so far has not, in the wake of last year’s Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision, has not imposed greater restrictions on access to abortion.

But I think the 15-week limit also provides kind of a test case, I think, for whether Republicans might be able to coalesce around that standard as opposed to something more aggressive like, say, a total ban or a six-week ban that’s obviously been instituted in certain states but I think at a national level right now is a nonstarter. I’m pretty interested in seeing what happens even in a lot of our own backyard.

Kenen: Because Virginia’s really tightly divided. I mean, the last few elections. This was a traditional Republican state that has become a purple state. And the last few state legislature elections, didn’t they once decide by drawing lots? It was so close. I mean it’s flipped back. It’s really, really, really tiny margins in both houses. I think Rachana lives there and knows the details better than I do. But it’s razor-thin, and it was Republican-controlled for a long time and Democrats, what, have one-seat-in-the-Senate control? Something like that, a very narrow margin. And they may or may not keep it.

Pradhan: Joanne, your memory’s so good, because they had —

Kenen: Because I edited your stories.

Pradhan: You did. I know. And they had to draw names out of a bowl that was— it was in a museum. It was something that a Virginia potter had made and they had to take it out of a museum exhibit. I mean, it was the most — it’s really fascinating what democracy can look like in this country when it comes down to it. It was such a bizarre situation to decide control of the state House. So you’re very right, so it’s very close.

Kenen: It’s also worth pointing out, as we have in prior weeks, that 15 weeks is now being offered as this sort of moderate position, when 15 weeks — a year ago, that’s what the Supreme Court case was really about, the case we know as Dobbs. It was about a law in Mississippi that was a 15-week ban. And what happened is once the courts gave the states the go-ahead, they went way further than 15 weeks. I don’t know how many states have a 15-week ban, not many. The anti-abortion states now have sort of six weeks-ish or less. North Carolina has 12, with some conditions. So 15 weeks is now Youngkin saying, “Here’s the middle ground.” I mean, even when Congress was trying to do a ban, it was 20, so — when they had those symbolic votes, I think it was always 20. He’s changed the parameters of what we’re talking about politically.

Carey: Jessie, how do you see the abortion riders on these appropriations bills, particularly in the House. House Republicans have put a lot of this abortion language into the approps bills. How do you see that shaking out, resolving itself, as we look forward?

Hellmann: It is hard to see how some of these riders could become law, like the one in the FDA-Ag approps bill that would basically ban mailing of mifepristone, which can be used for abortions. Even some moderate Republicans who are really against that rider — I mean just a handful, but it’s enough where it should just be a nonstarter. So I’m just not sure how I can see a compromise on that right now. And I definitely don’t see how that could pass the Senate. So it’s just everything has become so much more contentious since the Roe decision. And things that weren’t contentious before, like the PEPFAR [The United States President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] reauthorization, are now being bogged down in abortion politics. It’s hard to see how the two sides can come to an agreement at this point.

Carey: Yes, contentious issues are everywhere. So, let’s switch from abortion to AI. Earlier this week, President Biden issued an executive order that calls on several federal agencies, including the Department of Health and Human Services, to create regulations governing the use of AI, including in health care. What uses of AI now in health care, or even future uses, are causing the greatest concern and might be the greatest focus of this executive order? And I’m thinking of things that work well in AI or are accepted, and things that maybe aren’t accepted at this point or people are concerned about.

Kenen: I think that none of us on the panel are super AI experts.

Carey: Nor am I, nor am I.

Kenen: But we are all following it and learning about it the way everybody else is. I think this is something that Vice President Harris pointed out in a summit in London on AI yesterday. There’s a lot of focus on the existential, cosmic scary stuff, like: Is it going to kill us all? But there’s also practical things right now, particularly in health care, like using algorithms to deny people care. And there’s been some exposés of insurance doing batch denials based on an AI formula. There’s concerns about — since AI is based on the data we have and the data, that’s the foundation, that’s the edifice. So the data we have is flawed, there’s racial bias in the data we have. So how do you make sure the algorithms in the future don’t bake in the inequities we already have? And there’s questions too about AI is already being used clinically, and how well does it really work? How reliable are the studies and the data? What do we know or not know before we start?

I mean, it has huge potential. There are risks, but it also has huge potential. So how do we make sure that we don’t have exaggerated happy-go-lucky mistrust in technology before we actually understand what it can and cannot do and what kind of safeguards the government —and the European governments as well; it’s not just us, and they may do a better job — are going to be in place so that we have the good without … The goal is sort of, to be really simplistic about it, is let’s have the good without the bad, but doing it is challenging.

Carey: Oh, Rachana, please.

Pradhan: Well, all I was going to say was nowadays you cannot go to a health care conference or a panel discussion without there being some session about AI. I guess it demonstrates the level of interest. It kind of reminds me of every few years there’s a new health care unicorn. So there was ACOs [accountable care organizations] for a long time; that’s all people would talk about. Or value-based care, like every conference you went to. And then with covid, and for other reasons, everyone is really big on equity, equity, equity for a long time. And now it’s like AI is everywhere.

So like Joanne said, I mean, we have everything from a chatbot that pops up on your screen to answer even benign questions about insurance. That’s AI. It’s a form of AI. It’s not generative AI, but it is. And yeah, I mean, insurance companies use all sorts of algorithms and data to make decisions about what claims they’re going to pay and not pay. So yeah, I think we all just have to exercise some skepticism when we’re trying to examine how this might be used for good or bad.

Kenen: I just want a robot to clean my kitchen. Why doesn’t anyone just handle the … Silicon Valley does the really important stuff.

Carey: That would be a use for good in your house, in my house, in all our houses.

Kenen: Yeah.

Carey: So, while we’re understandably and admittedly not AI experts, we are experts on Congress here. And the president did say in his announcement earlier this week that Congress still needs to act on this issue. Why haven’t they done it yet? They’ve had all these hearings and all this conversation about crafting rules around privacy, online safety, and emerging technologies. Why no action so far? And any bets on whether it may or may not happen in the near future?

Hellmann: I think they don’t know what to do. We’ve only, as a country, started really talking about AI at kitchen tables, to use a cliche, this year. And so Congress is always behind the eight ball on these issues. And even if they are having these member meetings and talking about it, I think it could take a long time for them to actually pass any meaningful legislation that isn’t just directing an agency to do a study or directing an agency to issue regulations or something that could have a really big impact.

Carey: Excellent. Thank you. So let’s touch briefly — before we wrap, I really do want to get to this point and some of the stuff we continue to see in the news about health care workers under fire. It’s certainly not easy to be a health care worker these days. New findings published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show that, in 2022, 13.4% of health workers said they had been harassed at work. That’s up from 6.4% in 2018. That’s more than double the rate of workplace harassment compared to pre-pandemic times, the CDC found.

We’ve talked about this before. It’s worth revisiting again. What is going on with our health care workforce? And what do these kind of findings mean for keeping talented people in the workforce, attracting new people to join?

Hellmann: Has anyone actually caught a break after the pandemic?

Carey: That’s a good point.

Hellmann: I mean, covid is still out there, but I don’t think that our health care system has really recovered from that. People have left the workforce because they’re burned out. People still feel burned out who stuck around, and I don’t know if they really got any breaks or the support that they needed. There’s just kind of this recognition of people being burned out. But I don’t know how much action there is to address the issue.

I feel like sometimes that leads to more burnout, when you see executives and leaders acknowledging the problem but then not really doing much to address it.

Carey: Well, that’s certainly been the complaint by pharmacy staff and others and pharmacists at some of the large drugstore chains, retail chains, that have gone out on strike. They’ve had these two- and three-day strikes recently. So, I’m assuming that will continue, unfortunately, for all the reasons that Jessie just laid out.

Pradhan: Actually, kind of going back to the strikes from pharmacists, I was thinking about this earlier because we’ve seen recently, I think separately in the news when it comes to labor unions, and maybe this will have some bearing, maybe not, but the United Auto Workers strike — I mean, they extracted some of the largest concessions from automakers as far as pay increases. And people are seeing, they really got a victory after striking for weeks. And I think people, at least the coverage that I’ve seen has talked about how that union win might not just catalyze greater labor union involvement, not just in the auto industry but in other parts of the country and other sectors.

And so, I’m not sure what percentage of pharmacists are part of labor unions, but I think people have sort of said more recently that organized labor is having a moment, or has been, that it has not in a while. And so, I’ll be fascinated to see whether there’s a greater appetite among pharmacists to actually be part of a labor union and sort of whether that results in greater demands of some of these corporate chains. As we know — we can talk about this I think in a little bit — but the corporate chains have really taken over pharmacies in America, and rural pharmacies are really dying off. And so that has a lot of important implications for the country.

Kenen: I think the problems with the health care workforce are not all things that labor unions can address, because some of it is how many hours you work and what kind of shifts you have and how often they change and things that — yeah, I mean, labor is having a moment, Rachana’s right. But they’re also tied to larger demographic trends, with an aging society. It’s tied to, our whole system is geared toward the, like dean of nursing at [Johns] Hopkins Sarah Szanton is always talking about, it’s not so much not having enough nurses; we’ve got them in the wrong places. If we did more preventive care and community care and chronic disease management in the community, you wouldn’t have so many people in the hospital in the first place where the workforce crisis is.

So some of these larger issues of how do we have a better health care system; labor negotiations can address aspects of it. Nursing ratios are controversial, but that’s a labor issue. It’s a regulatory issue as well. But our whole system’s so screwed up now that Jessie’s right, nobody recovered from the strains of the pandemic in many sectors, probably all sectors of society, but obviously particularly brutal on the health care workforce. We didn’t get to hit pause and say, OK, nobody get sick for six months while we all recover. The unmet psychiatric needs. I mean, it’s just tons of stuff is wrong, and it’s manifesting itself in a workforce crisis. So maybe if you don’t have anyone to take care of you, maybe people will pay attention to the larger underlying reasons for that.

Carey: That’s an issue I’m sure we will talk more about in the future because it’s just not going anywhere. But for now, we’re going to turn to our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week and 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.

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

Kenen: Well, speaking of which, after we just talked about, there’s a piece in The Washington Post by Marc Fisher. It has a long headline: “Older Americans Are Dominating Like Never Before, but What Comes Next?” And basically it’s talking about not so much the nursing and physician workforce, although that’s part of it, just the workforce in general. We have more people working longer, and in areas where there’s shortages, there’s nothing wrong with having old people. A lot of communities have shortages of school bus drivers. So if you have a lot of older school bus drivers and they’re safe and like kids and like driving the bus, more power to them. If you’re 55 and you can drive a school bus full of nine-year-olds, middle schoolers, so much more.

Carey: Good luck with that one.

Kenen: But some of the physician specialties — one of the people in the story is a palliative care physician who retired and isn’t happy retired and wants to go back to work. And that’s another area where we need more people. But it’s a cultural shift, like, who’s doing what when, and how does it affect the younger generation? Although there was a reference to Angelina Jolie being on the old side at 48. I guess for an actress that might be old. But that wasn’t the gist of it. But we have this shift toward older people in many places, not just Trump and Biden. It’s sort of the whole workforce.

Carey: Got it. Jessie.

Hellmann: My extra credit is also a story from The Washington Post. It’s called “Drugstore Closures Are Leaving Millions Without Easy Access to a Pharmacy.” Focused specifically on some of the big national chains like CVS and Walgreens and Rite Aid, which have really kind of dominated the drugstore space over the past few decades. But now they are dealing with the repercussions from all these lawsuits that are being filed alleging they had a role in the opioid epidemic. And the story just kind of looks at the consequences of that.

These aren’t just places people get prescriptions. They rely on them for food, for medical advice, especially in rural and underserved areas. So yeah, I just thought it was a really interesting look at that issue.

Carey: Rachana?

Pradhan: So my extra credit is a story in The New York Times called “How a Lucrative Surgery Took Off Online and Disfigured Patients.” It’s horrifying. It’s a story about surgeons who are performing a complex type of hernia surgery and evidently are learning their techniques, or at least a large share of them are learning their techniques, by watching videos on social media. And the techniques that are demonstrated there are not exactly high quality. So the story digs into resulting harm to patients.

Kenen: And it’s unnecessary surgery in the first place — for many, not all. But it’s a more complicated procedure than they even need in a large portion of these patients.

Carey: My extra credit is written by Rachel Cohrs of Stat, and she’s a frequent guest on this program. Her story is called “The Health Care Issue Democrats Can’t Solve: Hospital Reform.” While Democrats have seized on lowering health care costs as a politically winning issue — they’ve taken on insurers and the drug industry, for example — Rachel writes that hospitals may be a health care giant they’re unable to confront alone, and they being the Democrats. As we know, hospitals are major employers in many congressional districts. There’s been a lot of consolidation in the industry in recent years. And hospital industry lobbyists have worked hard to preserve the image that they are the good guys in the health care industry, Rachel writes, while others, like pharma, are not.

Well, that’s 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 others find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our engineer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you could still find me on X. I am @maryagnescarey. Rachana?

Pradhan: I am @rachanadpradhan on X.

Carey: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann.

Carey: And Joanne.

Kenen: I’m occasionally on X, @JoanneKenen, and I’m trying to get more on Threads, @joannekenen1.

Carey: We’ll be back in your feed next week, and 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).