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.

If Congress fails to raise the nation’s debt ceiling in the next few months, the U.S. could default on its debt for the first time in history. Republicans in Congress, however, say they won’t agree to pay the nation’s bills unless Democrats and President Joe Biden agree to deep cuts to health and other programs. Among the proposals in a bill House Republicans passed April 26 is the imposition of new work requirements for adults who receive Medicaid.

Meanwhile, many of the states passing restrictions on abortion are also passing bills to restrict the ability of trans people to get health care. The two movements — both largely aimed at conservative evangelicals, a key GOP constituency — have much in common.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Republican-controlled House’s proposal to raise the debt ceiling contains enough politically poisonous measures that the plan is a non-starter in the Senate. They include substantial funding cuts to major federal health programs, including the FDA and the National Institutes of Health — cuts that would force the federal government to cut back on grants and other funding.
• The proposal would also impose work requirements on adults enrolled in Medicaid — which covers low-income and disabled Americans, as well as pregnant women — and in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps needy families buy food. Under the plan, the government would save money by cutting the number of people helped. But most beneficiaries cannot work or already do so. Experience shows the change would mostly affect people who struggle to report their work hours through what can be complicated online portals.
• Multiple congressional committees have released plans to fight high drug costs, promoting efforts to explore how pharmacy benefit managers make decisions about cost and access, as well as to encourage access to cheaper, generic drugs on the market. And during congressional testimony this week, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, said the agency would no longer issue warnings to hospitals that fail to comply with a law that requires them to post their prices, but instead would move directly to fining the holdouts.
• Also in news about cost-cutting legislation, a plan to address an expensive glitch in Medicare payments to hospital outpatient centers and physician offices is gaining steam on Capitol Hill. Hospital consolidation has helped increase costs in the health care system, and lawmakers are eager to keep health spending under control. But the hospital industry is ramping up advertising to make sure lawmakers think twice before legislating.
• In abortion news, it will likely be at least a year before the Supreme Court rules on whether the abortion pill mifepristone should remain accessible. Some justices suggested in last summer’s Dobbs decision, which overturned abortion rights, that they would leave further abortion questions to the states, yet the nation is finding that overturning a half-century of legal precedent is messy, to say the least. Meanwhile, reporting and polling are revealing just how difficult it is for doctors in states with abortion bans to determine what constitutes a “medical emergency” worthy of intervention, with a grim consensus emerging that apparently means “when a woman is near death.”

Also this week, Rovner interviews Renuka Rayasam, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a pregnant woman experiencing a dangerous complication who was asked to pay $15,000 upfront to see one of the few specialists who could help her. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: The Nation’s “The Poison Pill in the Mifepristone Lawsuit That Could Trigger a National Abortion Ban,” by Amy Littlefield.

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “The Conservative Campaign to Rewrite Child Labor Laws,” by Jacob Bogage and María Luisa Paúl.

Jessie Hellmann: Politico’s “Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States. It’s Not Even Close,” by Colin Woodard.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Wall Street Journal’s “Weight-Loss Drugmakers Lobby for Medicare Coverage,” by Liz Essley Whyte.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• In Oklahoma, a Woman Was Told to Wait Until She’s ‘Crashing’ for Abortion Care,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
• Anti-Trans Bills Have Doubled Since 2022. Our Map Shows Where States Stand,” by Annys Shin, N. Kirkpatrick, and Anne Branigin.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Dancing Under the Debt Ceiling

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Dancing Under the Debt Ceiling

Episode Number: 295

Published: April 27, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

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

Jessie Hellmann: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith, the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have our KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” interview with Renuka Rayasam. This month’s patient had a happy ending medically, but a not-so-happy ending financially. But first, the news. We’re going to start this week with the budget and, to be specific, the nation’s debt ceiling, which will put the U.S. in default if it’s not raised sometime in the next several weeks, not to panic anyone. House Republicans, who have maintained all along that they won’t allow the debt ceiling to be raised unless they get spending cuts in return, managed to pass — barely — a bill that would raise the debt ceiling enough to get to roughly the middle of next year. It has no chance in the Senate, but it’s now the Republicans’ official negotiating position, so we should talk about what’s in it. It starts with a giant cut to discretionary spending programs. In health care that includes things like the National Institutes of Health, most public health programs, and the parts of the FDA that aren’t funded by user fees. I mean, these are big cuts, yes?

Hellmann: Yeah, it’s about a 14% cut to some of these programs. It’s kind of hard to know exactly what that would mean. But yeah, it’s a big cut and there would have to be, like, a lot of changes made, especially to a lot of health care programs, because that’s where a lot of spending happens.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, sometimes they’ll agree on cuts and it’ll be like a 1% across the board, which itself can be a lot of money. But I mean, these are, these are sort of really deep cuts that would seriously hinder the ability of these programs to function, right?

Karlin-Smith: NIH for a number of years was operating on only getting budget increases that were not keeping up kind of with inflation and so forth. And they just finally, over the last few years, got back on track. Even though their budget seemed like it was going up, really, if you adjusted for inflation, it had been going down. And then when you have an agency like FDA, which, the line is always that they do an incredible amount of work on really a shoestring budget for the amount they regulate, so they never get — NIH sometimes gets, you know, that bipartisan popularity and does get those bigger increases back, and they never really get those big increases, so I think it would be harder for them also to get that back later on if they did get such big cuts.

Hellmann: There are like also a lot of health programs that just operate on flat funding from year to year, like Title X.

Rovner: Yeah, the family planning program.

Hellmann: And so obviously, like HHS said last year, We are only able to fund a certain number of providers, like, less than previously, because of inflation, and stuff like that. So obviously if you take a 14% cut to that, it would make it even harder.

Rovner: All right. Another major proposal in the package would institute or expand work requirements for people on food stamps and on Medicaid. Now, we’ve had work rules for people on welfare since the 1990s, but most people on Medicaid and food stamps, for that matter, either already work or can’t work for some reason. Why are the Republicans so excited about expanding or instituting work requirements?

Hellmann: I think there are a few reasons. No. 1, it’s a big money saver. The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] came out with their analysis this week showing that it would save the federal government about $109 billion. A lot of that would be shifted to the states because the way the bill is written, states would still be allowed to cover these individuals if they can’t prove that they’re working. But they’d have to pick up the costs themselves, which, I’ve seen experts questioning if that would really happen, even in states like, you know, New York and California, who probably wouldn’t want these people to lose coverage. But I think an argument that you hear a lot too, especially during the Trump administration when they were really pushing these, is they say that work is what provides fulfillment and dignity to people. Former CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator Seema Verma talked about this a lot. The argument I heard a lot on the Hill this week is that Medicaid and other — SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], programs like that — trap people in poverty and that work requirements will kind of give them an incentive to get jobs. But as you said, like, it wouldn’t apply to most — you know, most people are already working. And most people who lost coverage under some of the previous iterations of this just didn’t know about it or they were unable to complete the reporting requirements.

Rovner: And to be clear, the CBO estimate is not so much because people would work and they wouldn’t need it anymore. It’s because people are likely to lose their coverage because they can’t meet the bureaucratic requirements to prove that they’re working. Shefali, you’re nodding. We’ve seen this before, right?

Luthra: I was just thinking, I mean, the savings, yes, they come from people losing their health insurance. That’s very obvious. Of course, you save money when you pay for fewer people’s coverage. And you’re absolutely right: “This will motivate people to work” argument has always been a little bit — complicated is a generous word. I think you could even say it’s a bit thin just because people do already work.

Rovner: And they — many of them work, they don’t earn enough money, really, to bring them out of poverty. And they don’t have jobs that offer health insurance. That’s the only way they’re going to get health insurance. All right. Well, where do we go from here with the debt ceiling? So now we’ve got this Republican plan that says work — everybody has to work and prove that they work and we’re going to cut all these programs — and the Democrats saying this is not a discussion for the debt ceiling, this is a separate discussion that should happen down the road on the budget. Is there any sign that either side is going to give here?

Hellmann: It doesn’t seem like it. Democrats have been saying, like, this is a non-starter. The president has been saying, like, we’re not going to negotiate on this; we want a clean increase in the debt ceiling, and we can talk about some of these other proposals that you want to pursue later. But right now, it seems like both sides are kind of at a standstill. And I think Republicans see, like, passing this bill yesterday as a way to kind of strengthen their hand and show that they can get all on the same page. But I just do not see the Senate entertaining a 14% cut or, like, Medicaid work requirements or any of this stuff that is just kind of extremely toxic, even to some, like, moderate Democrats over there.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this is going to go on for a while. Well, so at this high level, we’ve got this huge partisan fight going on. But interestingly, this week elsewhere on Capitol Hill things seem surprisingly almost bipartisan, dare I say. Starting in the Senate, the chairman and the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Bill Cassidy, announced that they’ve reached agreement on a series of bills aimed at reining in prescription drug costs for consumers, including one to more closely regulate pharmacy benefit managers and others to further promote the availability of generic drugs. Sarah, we’ve talked about the target on the backs of PBMs this year. What would this bill do and what are the chances of it becoming law?

Karlin-Smith: So this bill does three things: One is transparency. They want to pull back the cover and get more data and information from PBMs so that they can better understand how they’re working. So I think the idea would then be to take future policy action, because one of the criticisms of this industry is it’s so opaque it’s hard to know if they’re really doing the right thing in terms of serving their customers and trying to save money and drug prices as they say they are. The other thing is it would basically require a lot of the fees and rebates PBMs get on drug prices to be given back directly to the health plan, which is sort of interesting because the drug industry has argued that money should be given more directly to patients who are paying for those drugs. And when that has scored by the CBO, that often costs money because that leads to PBMs using less money to lower people’s premiums, and premiums are subsidized from the government. So I’m curious if the reason why they designed the bill this way is to sort of get around that, although then I’m not sure exactly if you get the same individual … [unintelligible] … level benefit from it. And then the third thing they do is they want to eliminate spread pricing, which is where — this is really a pharmacy issue — where PBMs basically reimburse pharmacies less than they’re charging the health plans and, you know, their customers for the drug and kind of pocketing the difference. So I think, from what I’m seeing on the Hill, there’s a ton of momentum to tackle PBMs. And like you said, it’s bipartisan. Whether it’s this bill or which particular bills it’s hard to know, because Senate Finance Committee is sort of working on their own plan. A number of committees in the House are looking at it, other parts of the Senate. So to me, it seems like there’s reasonable odds that something gets done maybe this spring or summer on PBMs. But it’s hard to know, like, the exact shape of the final legislation. It’s pretty early at this point to figure out exactly how it all, you know, teases out.

Rovner: We have seen in the past things that are very bipartisan get stuck nonetheless. Well, across the Capitol, meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at bipartisan issues in health care, including — as they are in the Senate — how to increase price transparency and competition, which also, I hasten to add, includes regulating PBMs. But, Jessie, there was some actual news out of the hearing at Energy and Commerce from Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, who runs the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. What did she say?

Hellmann: So they’ve instituted two fines against hospitals that haven’t been complying with the price transparency requirements. So I think that brings the number of hospitals that they’ve fined to, like, less than five. Please fact-check that, but I’m pretty sure that I can count it on one hand.

Rovner: One hand. They have, they have actually fined a small number of hospitals under the requirement. Yeah. I mean, we’ve known — we’ve talked about this for a while, that these rules have been in effect since the beginning of 2022, right? And a lot of hospitals have just been not doing it or they’re supposed to be showing their prices in a consumer-understandable way. And a lot of them just haven’t been. And I assume CMS is not happy with this.

Hellmann: Yeah, so Brooks-LaSure said yesterday that CMS is no longer going to issue warnings for hospitals that aren’t making a good-faith effort to comply with these rules. Instead, they’ll move straight to what’s called the corrective action phase, where basically hospitals are supposed to, like, say what they’re going to do to comply with these. And after that, they could get penalized. So we’ll see if that actually encourages hospitals to comply. One of the fines that they issued is like $100,000. And so I think some hospitals are viewing this, you know, as a cost of doing business because they think it would cost them more to comply with the price transparency rules than it would to not comply with them.

Rovner: So transparency here is still a work in progress. There’s also a fight in the House over the very wonky-sounding site-neutral payment policy in Medicare, which, like the surprise bill legislation from a few years back, is not so much a partisan disagreement as a fight between various sectors in the health care system. Can you explain what this is and what the fight’s about?

Hellmann: So basically hospital outpatient departments or, like, physician offices owned by hospitals get paid more than, like, independent physician’s offices for providing things like X-rays or drug administration and stuff like that. And so this is —

Rovner: But the same care. I mean, if you get it in a hospital outpatient or a doctor’s office, the hospital outpatient clinic gets paid more.

Hellmann: Yeah. And there’s not much evidence that shows that the care is any different or the quality is better in a hospital. And so this has kind of been something that’s been getting a lot of attention this year as people are looking for ways to reduce Medicare spending. It would save billions of dollars over 10 years, I think one think tank estimated about 150 billion over 10 years. It’s getting a lot of bipartisan interest, especially as we talk more about consolidation in hospitals, you know, buying up these physician practices, kind of rebranding them and saying, OK, this is outpatient department now, we get paid more for this. There are fewer independent physician’s offices than there used to be, and members have taken a really big interest in how consolidation increases health care prices, especially from hospitals. So it does seem like something that could pass. I will say that there is a lot of heat coming from the hospital industry. They released an ad on Friday last week warning about Medicare cuts, so, they usually do whenever anyone talks about anything that could hurt their bottom lines. Very generalist ad and kind of those “Mediscare” ads that we’ve been talking about. So it’ll be interesting to see if members can withstand the heat from such a powerful lobbying force.

Rovner: As we like to say, there’s a hospital in every single district, and most of them give money to members of Congress, so anything that has the objection of the hospital industry has an uphill battle. So we’ll see how this one plays out. Let us turn to abortion. The fate of the abortion pill mifepristone is still unclear, although the Supreme Court did prevent even a temporary suspension of its approval, as a lower court would have done. Now the case is back at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has swiftly scheduled a hearing for May 17. But it still could be months or even years before we know how this is going to come out, right, Shefali?

Luthra: It absolutely could be. So the fastest that we could expect to see this case before the Supreme Court again, just — what from folks I’ve talked to is, I mean, we have this hearing May 17, depending on how quickly the 5th Circuit rules, depending on how they rule, there is a chance that we could see if we get, for instance, an unfriendly ruling toward mifepristone, the federal government could appeal to the Supreme Court this summer. We could see if the Supreme Court is willing to take the case. The earliest that means that they would hear it would be this fall, with a decision in the spring a year from now, but that would be quite fast. I think what’s striking about it is that we may all recall last year, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Dobbs case, they said this will put the issue of abortion back in the hands of the states, out of the judiciary, we will no longer be involved. And anyone at the time could have told you there’s no way that this would happen because it is too complicated of an issue, when you undo 50 years of precedent, to assume there will be no more legal questions. And here we are. Those critics have been proven right, because who could have seen that, once again, we’d have the courts being asked to step in and answer more questions about what it means when a 50-year right is suddenly gone?

Rovner: Indeed. And of course, we have the … [unintelligible] … This is going to be my next question, about whether this really is all going to be at the state level or it’s going to be at the state and the federal level. So as red states are rushing to pass as many restrictions as they can, some Republicans seem to be recognizing that their party is veering into dangerously unpopular territory, as others insist on pressing on. We saw a great example of this over the weekend. Former vice president and longtime anti-abortion activist Mike Pence formally split on the issue with former President Trump, with Pence calling for a federal ban and not just leaving the issue to the states. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and the lone woman in the Republican field so far, managed to anger both sides with the speech she made at the headquarters of the hard-line anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List. Haley’s staff had suggested ahead of time that she would try to lay out a middle ground, but she said almost nothing specific, which managed to irritate both full abortion abolitionists and those who support more restrained action. Is this going to be a full-fledged war in the Republican Party?

Luthra: I think it has to be. I mean, the anti-abortion group is still very powerful in the Republican Party. If you would like to win the nomination, you would like their support. That is why we know that Ron DeSantis pursued a six-week ban in Florida despite it being incredibly unpopular, despite it now alienating many people who would be his donors. This is just too important of a constituency to annoy. But unfortunately, you can’t really compromise on national abortion policy if you’re running for president. A national ban, no matter what week you pick, it’s not a good sound bite. We saw what happened last year when Sen. Lindsey Graham put forth his national 15-week ban: Virtually no other even Republicans wanted to endorse that, because it’s a toxic word to say, especially in this post-Dobbs environment, especially now that we have all of this polling, including NPR polling from yesterday, that showed us that abortion bans remain quite unpopular and that people don’t trust Republicans largely on this issue. I think this is going to be incredibly interesting because we are going to eventually have to see Nikki Haley take a stance. We will have to see Donald Trump, I think, frankly, be a bit more committal than he has been, because meanwhile, he has lately told people publicly that he would not issue any federal policy, would leave this up to the states, we also know that he has said different things in other conversations. And at some point those conflicts are going to come to a head. And what Republicans realize is that their party’s stance and the stance they need to take to maintain favor with this important group is just not a winning issue for most voters. People don’t want abortion banned.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a real problem. And Republicans are seeing they have no idea how to sort of get out of this box canyon, if you will. Well, back in the states, things seem to be getting even more restrictive. In Oklahoma this week NPR has another of those wrenching stories about pregnant women unable to get emergency health care. This time, a woman, a mom of three kids already with a nonviable and cancerous pregnancy who was told literally to wait in the hospital parking lot until she was close enough to death to obtain needed care. And that case turned out not to be an outlier. A quote-unquote “secret shopper” survey of hospitals in Oklahoma found that a majority of the 34 hospitals contacted could not articulate what their policy was in case of pregnancy complications or how they would determine if the pregnant person’s life was actually in danger. I can’t imagine Oklahoma is the only state where this is the case. We have a lot of these bans and no idea where sort of the lines are, even if they have exceptions.

Luthra: We know that this is not isolated to Oklahoma. There is a lawsuit in Texas right now with a group of women suing the state because they could not access care that would save their lives. One of those plaintiffs testified in Congress about this yesterday. Doctors in virtually every state with an abortion ban have said that they do not know what the medical exceptions really are in practice other than that they have to wait until people are on death’s door because there isn’t — medical emergency isn’t really a technical term. These bills, now laws, were written without the expertise of actual physicians or clinicians because they were never really supposed to take effect. This really has been just another example of a way that the dog chased the car and now the dog has the car.

Rovner: And the dog has no idea what to do with the car. Well, meanwhile, in Iowa, the attorney general has paused the state’s policy of paying for abortions as well as emergency contraception for rape victims. This is where I get to rant briefly that emergency contraception and the abortion pill are totally different, that emergency contraception does not cause abortion — it only delays ovulation after unprotected sex and thus is endorsed for rape victims in Catholic health facilities across Europe. OK, end of rant. I expect we’re going to see more of this from officials in red states, though, right, with going — not just going after abortions, but going after things that are not abortion, like emergency contraception.

Luthra: And I mean, if we look at what many of the hard-line anti-abortion groups advocate, they don’t just want to get rid of abortion. They specifically name many forms of hormonal contraception, but specifically the emergency contraception Plan B, and they oppose IUDs [intrauterine devices]. It would just be so, so surprising if those were not next targets for Republican states.

Rovner: So abortion isn’t the only culture war issue being fought out in state legislatures. There’s also a parallel effort in lots of red states to curtail the ability of trans people, mostly but not solely teenagers, to get treatment or, in some cases, to merely live their lives. According to The Washington Post, as of the middle of this month, state legislators have introduced more than 400 anti-trans bills just since January. That’s more than the previous four years combined. Nearly 30 of them have become law. Now, I remember in the early aughts when anti-gay and particularly anti-gay marriage bills were the hot items in red states. Today, with some notable exceptions, gay marriage is as routine as any other marriage. Is it possible that all these attacks on trans people, by making them more visible, could have the same effect? In other words, could this have the opposite effect as the people who are pushing it intended? Or am I just looking for a silver lining here?

Luthra: I think it’s too soon to say. There isn’t incredible polling on this issue, but we do know that in general, like, this is not an issue that even Republicans pick their candidates for. It’s not like they are driven to the ballot box because they hate trans people this much. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there is a backlash, just because what we are hearing is so, frankly, horrific. What I have been really struck by, in addition to the parallels to anti-gay marriage, have been the ways in which restrictions on access to health care for trans people really do parallel attacks to abortion in particular, thinking about, for instance, passing laws that restrict access to care for minors, passing laws that restrict Medicaid from paying for care, that restrict how insurance covers for care. It’s almost spooky how similar these are, because people often think minors are easier to access first. People often think health insurance is an easier, sort of almost niche issue to go for first. And what we don’t often see until afterward is that these state-by-state laws have made care largely inaccessible. The other thing that I think about all the time is that these are obviously, in both cases, forms of health care restriction that are largely opposed by the medical community, that are often crafted without the input of actual medical expertise, and that target health care that does feel incredibly difficult to extricate from the patient’s gender.

Rovner: Yeah. The other thing is that people are going from state to state, just like with abortion. In order to get health care, they’re having to cross state lines and in some cases move. I mean, we’re starting to see this.

Luthra: The high-profile example being Dwyane Wade, formerly of the Miami Heat, moving away from Florida because of his child.

Karlin-Smith: The other thing, Julie, you were saying in terms of how optimistic to be, in terms of maybe the other side of this issue sort of pushing back and overcoming it, is that Politico had this good story this week about doctors in states where this care is perfectly legal and permissible but they’re getting so many threats and essentially their health care facilities feel that they’re so much in danger that they are concerned about how to safely provide and help these people that they do want to help and give care, while also not putting their families and so forth in danger, which perhaps also has a parallel to some of how there’s tons of, like, constant protests outside abortion clinics. And people have volunteered for years just to kind of escort people so they can safely feel comfortable getting there, which of course is, you know, can be very traumatic to patients trying to get care.

Rovner: Yeah, the parallels are really striking. So we will watch that space too. All right. That is the news for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Renuka Rayasam. Then we will come back and share our extra credit. We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Renuka Rayasam, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” story. Renu, welcome to “What the Health?”

Renuka Rayasam: Thanks, Julie. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient was pregnant with twins when she experienced a complication. Tell us who she is, where she’s from, and what happened.

Rayasam: Sure. Sara Walsh was 24 weeks pregnant with twins — it was Labor Day weekend in 2021 — and she started to feel something was off. She had spent a long time waiting to have a pregnancy that made it this far — eight years, she told me. But instead of feeling excited, she started to feel really nervous and she knew something was off. And so on Tuesday, she went to her regular doctor. And then on Wednesday, after that Labor Day, she went to her maternal fetal specialist, who diagnosed her with a pretty rare pregnancy complication that can occur when you have twins, when you have multiple fetuses that share blood unevenly through the same placenta. And it’s called twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. And, you know — and this was Wednesday — she went into the office in the morning and she waited a long time for the doctor to kind of come back with the results, she and her husband, and just kind of spent the morning sort of back-and-forth between her maternal fetal specialist and her OB-GYN. And they told her she needed to get treatment immediately, that if she didn’t have treatment that she could lose one or both twins, she herself could even die. She needed to keep her fluid intake low. So they referred her to a specialist about four hours away from where she was. She was in Winter Haven, Florida, and they referred her to a specialist near Miami. And the specialist there apparently does not contract with any private insurance. And so that afternoon, hours after her diagnosis, she was packing her bags; she was getting ready to go, figuring out a place to stay, a hotel room and all that. And she gets a call from the billing office of this specialist in Coral Gables, Florida, near Miami. And they said, “Listen, we don’t contract with private insurance. You have to pay upfront for the pre surgical consultation for the surgery and then the post-surgical consult. And you need to have that money before you show up tomorrow in our office at 8 a.m.”

Rovner: And how much money was it?

Rayasam: About $15,000 in total for the consultations and the surgery itself. She told me she burst into tears. She didn’t want to lose these twins. She wasn’t given any option of shopping around for another provider. And she spent some time trying to figure out what to do. She couldn’t get a medical credit card because I guess there’s a 24-hour waiting period and she didn’t have that long. And so finally, her mother let her borrow her credit card. She checked into a hotel at midnight and at 8 a.m. the next morning she handed over her credit card and her mother’s credit card before she could have the procedure — before she could even see the doctor, I should say.

Rovner: And the outcome was medically good, right?

Rayasam: Yeah. The provider who did her surgery is a pioneer in this field. And that was why those doctors sent Sara to this provider, Dr. Ruben Quintero. He came up with this staging system that helps assess the symptom’s severity and even pioneered the treatment for it. But he sort of used all that to kind of say, OK, you have to pay me; I’m not even going to deal with insurance in this case. And so that afternoon, it was that Thursday, the day after she was diagnosed, she had a procedure, it went well, she had a couple of follow-ups in the following weeks. And then five weeks later, she delivered premature but otherwise healthy twin girls.

Rovner: So is that even legal for a doctor to say, “I’m not even going to look at you unless you pay me some five-figure amount”?

Rayasam: Generally, no. We have the federal No Surprises Act, as you know, and that’s meant to do away with surprise billing. But that was really designed for kind of inadvertent medical bills or surprises. Things get really complicated when there’s this appearance of choice where, you know, she had time to call the insurer, she had time to call the provider. It wasn’t as if she was unconscious and sort of rushed to the nearest doctor. Technically, she had a choice here. She could have chosen not to get the procedure. She could have gone to a different state. But obviously, those are not real choices in her situation when she needed the procedure so urgently. And so in those cases, you know, the billing experts I spoke with said this is a real loophole in federal billing legislation and state surprise billing legislation because the bill wasn’t a surprise. She knew how much to expect upfront. And that’s what makes this situation tricky.

Rovner: And she knew that the doctor wasn’t in network.

Rayasam: Absolutely. She knew the doctor wasn’t in network, and she knew how much she had to pay, and she willingly forked over the money, of course, as anyone would have in that situation or tried to in that situation.

Rovner: So after the fact, she went back to her insurance company to see if they could work something out, since it was pretty much the only place she could have gone at that point to get the treatment. But that didn’t go so well.

Rayasam: That didn’t go so well, and it’s one complication in this story that I myself don’t know what to make of, but the provider does not contract with any insurer, I should say. But he did take her insurance card and — or, the billing person did — and they say that they bill as a courtesy to the patient. So they file the paperwork for the patient. They say, “OK, your insurer will reimburse you. We’re going to provide all the paperwork.” In Sara’s case, it took a long time for this doctor and his practice to get Blue Cross Blue Shield the paperwork they needed to kind of pay for her claim. And in addition to that, they didn’t really send over the right paperwork right away. So it took a long time. And eventually she got only $1,200 back and she ended up paying far more than that out-of-pocket.

Rovner: And of course, the next obvious question is, doesn’t her insurance have an out-of-pocket maximum? How did she ever end up spending this much?

Rayasam: That’s a great question. We reached out to her insurer, and they didn’t really give us much of an explanation, but they, you know, on their billing statements and what they said to her was, “Hey, you went willingly out of network; this doesn’t qualify you for those out-of-pocket maximums.” They didn’t give us an explanation as to why. This seems to be a classic case of where those maximums should apply. But like I said, I think, you know, she had very little recourse. She tried to appeal the bills. She’s, you know, been on the phone with her insurer multiple times. The thing that makes this story more complicated is that it’s such a rare procedure and there aren’t that many providers in the country that even perform this procedure. So at first she was having to struggle with billing codes and all that with her insurance, so a lot of the people she was dealing with on the insurance side were really confused. It wasn’t something that they had a playbook for, knew what to do with, and that’s what made this a little bit more complicated.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, obviously this was a rare complication, but if you multiply the number of rare complications of different things, you’re talking about a lot of people. Is there any way to get around this? I mean, it sounds like she did everything she could have in this case.

Rayasam: She did. In this case, it turns out there was another provider in Florida. There was no way for her to know that. Neither her OB-GYN nor the maternal fetal specialist told her about this other provider. I found out about it. I called around and did the reporter thing. And there are now four providers in Florida that will treat this. But of course, you know, if I was a patient, I wouldn’t shop around and risk my pregnancy either. So it’s unfortunate, in this case, there’s not much a person can do other than make sure that they’re keeping all the paperwork. And, you know, one thing that one of the billing experts I spoke with told me is that when you pay upfront, it makes things a lot harder. And in this case, like I said, she didn’t have a choice. But if there’s ever a way to get the bill on the back end, then there’s more of an incentive for the provider and the insurer to work together to get paid. But once the provider was paid, the insurer is not going to rush to reimburse the patient.

Rovner: And the provider is not going to rush to help the insurer figure out what to do. Ah well, another cautionary tale. Renu Rayasam, thank you so much.

Rayasam: Thank you.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a story in The Wall Street Journal, “Weight-Loss Drugmakers Lobby for Medicare Coverage. Adding Ozempic, Mounjaro to federal plans could stoke sales.” It really documents well sort of the range of lobbying organizations and groups and where they’re sort of putting money to try and get Medicare to shift its policies and cover treatments for obesity, which was something that in the early creations of Part D was banned. And I think largely at that time it was because weight loss was seen as more of a cosmetic treatment than something that impacted health in the same way we appreciate now.

Rovner: And also, there wasn’t anything that worked.

Karlin-Smith: Right. The things that prior to this, the things that were available at different times were not very effective and in some cases turned out to be fairly unsafe. And of course, now we have treatments that seem to work very well for a number of people, but there’s a fear of just how much money it would cost Medicare. So the other interesting thing in this story is they talk about some lawmakers in Congress thinking about ways to maybe narrowly start opening the floodgates to access by potentially maybe limiting it to people with certain BMIs [body mass indexes] or things like that to maybe not have the initial cost hit they might be concerned about with it.

Rovner: And of course, whether Medicare covers something is going to be a big factor in whether private insurance covers something. So it’s not just the Medicare population I think we’re talking about here.

Karlin-Smith: Right. There’s already I know lobbying going on around that. My colleague wrote a story a few weeks ago about Cigna sort of pushing back about having those drugs be included potentially in, like, the essential health benefits of the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. So it’s going to be, yeah, a broader issue than just Medicare.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a lot. I mean, I remember when the hepatitis C drugs came out and we were all so, you know, “Oh my God, how much this is going to cost, but it cures hepatitis C.” But I mean, that’s not nearly as many people as we’re talking about here. Jessie, why don’t you go next?

Hellmann: My stories from Politico. It’s called “Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States. It’s Not Even Close.” It takes a weird twist that I was not expecting. Basically, the premise is about how gun deaths are actually higher in areas like Texas and Florida. They have higher per capita firearm deaths, despite messaging from some Republican governors that it’s actually, like, you know, cities like Chicago and New York that are like war zones, I think it’s the former president said. The author kind of makes an interesting argument I didn’t see coming about how he thinks who colonized these areas plays into kind of like the culture. And he argues that Puritans like had more self-restraint for the common good. And so areas like that have less firearm deaths where, you know, the Deep South people were — had like a belief in defending their honor, the honor of their families. So they were kind of more likely to take up arms. Not sure how I feel about this argument, but I thought it was an interesting story and an interesting argument, so —

Rovner: It is. It’s a really good story. Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from The Washington Post. It is called “The Conservative Campaign to Rewrite Child Labor Laws.” It’s a really great look at this Florida-based group called the Foundation for Government Accountability, which, despite its innocuous-sounding name, is trying to help states make it easier to employ children. This is really striking because we have seen, in states like Arkansas, efforts to make it easier to employ people younger than 16 in some cases, which is just really interesting to watch in these states that talk about protecting children and protecting life to, to then make it easier to, to employ kids.

Rovner: And in dangerous profess — in dangerous jobs sometimes. I mean, we’re not talking about flipping burgers.

Luthra: No, no. We’re talking about working in, like, in meat plants, for instance. But I think what’s also interesting is that this same organization that has made it easier to employ children has also tried to fight things like anti-poverty and try to fight things like Medicaid expansion, which is just sort of, if you’re thinking about it from an access-to-health standpoint, like, anti-poverty programs and Medicaid are shown to make people healthier. It’s sort of a really interesting look into a worldview that in many ways uses one kind of language but then advance the policy agenda that takes us in a different direction.

Rovner: Maybe we should go back to to Jessie’s story and depend on who settled that part of the country. We shall see. Speaking of history, my story’s from The Nation, and it’s called “The Poison Pill in the Mifepristone Lawsuit That Could Trigger a National Abortion Ban,” by Amy Littlefield. And it’s about the Comstock Act, which is a law from the Victorian era — it was passed in 1873 — that banned the mailing of, quote, “lewd materials,” including articles about abortion or contraception. A lot has been written about the Comstock Act of late because it was used to justify part of the opinion in the original mifepristone case out of Amarillo. But what this article makes clear is that reviving the law is actually a carefully calculated strategy to make abortion illegal everywhere. So this is not something that just popped up in this case. It’s a really interesting read. OK, that is our show. As always. if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me, at least for now. I’m @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @Shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

Mary Agnes Carey, Partnerships Editor and Senior Correspondent, oversees placement of KFF Health News content in publications nationwide. She has covered health care policy and politics for KFF Health News, CQ, Dow Jones Newswires, and other news outlets.

Supreme Court justices could act at any moment on access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Beyond reproductive health, their ruling could carry significant implications for states’ rights and FDA independence and integrity. For now, though, observers are unsure what the court will do — or what exactly prompted justices to again delay their decision this week.

At the Capitol, lawmakers grumbled, scoffed, and bickered this week as House Speaker Kevin McCarthy revealed the Republican proposal to cut government spending. The package would be dead-on-arrival in the Democratic-controlled Senate. But of note is the pushback from within McCarthy’s own caucus, with some hard-right conservatives pressing to go further by demanding the repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act in exchange for raising the debt ceiling.

And President Joe Biden pursued new efforts to grant legal status to young immigrants living in the country illegally who were brought here as children, sometimes called “Dreamers,” as his administration announced a plan to grant them access to government-funded health coverage.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Supreme Court extended its stay on the use of mifepristone through Friday, giving justices longer to act on a major, complicated case with nationwide implications for reproductive health. It is unclear what the court will do, though there are several actions it could take — including sending the case back to the lower courts or again extending the stay and buying justices even more time to come to agreement or pen dissents.
• GenBioPro, which produces the generic version of mifepristone, sued the FDA on Wednesday, attempting to preserve access to the drug. About two-thirds of the mifepristone currently used in the United States is generic.
• In congressional news, House Speaker McCarthy released what is effectively Republicans’ opening offer in the fight over raising the debt ceiling. The package includes GOP health priorities that would not garner needed support in the Senate, like work requirements for Medicaid and the clawback of unspent covid-19 pandemic funds.
• While health costs are high across government programs, Medicaid takes the big hit in the Republican proposal to cut federal spending. Republicans have embraced work requirements for government assistance since at least the 1980s, yet in Arkansas — a state that implemented work rules for Medicaid — it has proved challenging to verify that enrollees are meeting those requirements.
• The Senate Finance Committee, which has jurisdiction over much of federal health spending, revealed a package this week to tackle drug pricing. While the proposal is in the early stages, it seeks to incorporate bipartisan measures touching pharmacy benefit managers, insulin users, and more.
• And on the coverage front, the Biden administration announced that immigrant kids brought to the United States who remain here under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program will be able to apply for Medicaid and Affordable Care Act coverage. This eligibility expansion comes as states prepare to disenroll those who no longer qualify for Medicaid as the public health emergency’s coverage protections expire. Expect a fight from some states as they resist being forced to cover insurance for individuals living in the U.S. without legal permission.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: The New York Times’ “A Beauty Treatment Promised to Zap Fat. For Some, It Brought Disfigurement,” by Anna Kodé

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon,” by Amy Silverstein

Sandhya Raman: ABC News’ “Puerto Rico’s Water Supply Is Being Depleted, Contaminated by Manufacturing Industry on the Island, Experts Say,” by Jessie DiMartino, Lilia Geho, and Julia Jacobo

Rachel Cohrs: The Wall Street Journal’s “‘I Hate You, Kathie Lee Gifford!’ Ozempic Users Report Bizarre Dreams,” by Peter Loftus

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Will They or Won’t They (Block the Abortion Pill)?Episode Number: 294Published: April 20, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, 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. I’m filling in this week for Julie Rovner, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 20, at 10 a.m. Eastern. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Joining us today by video conference are Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Carey: Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Cohrs: Morning, everyone.

Carey: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Carey: Let’s start with the current court action on mifepristone. The Supreme Court was scheduled to rule yesterday on a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit that rolled back FDA action since 2016, allowing patients to get mifepristone through the mail, authorizing prescriptions by medical professionals other than doctors, and approving the drug’s use up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy instead of seven. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr, who’d previously set Wednesday as the deadline for the court to act, extended that stay until Friday, and the justices could certainly act before they choose to —hopefully not while we’re taping. But I wanted to get everyone’s thoughts on why do you think the court didn’t act yesterday? Joanne, can I start with you?

Kenen: I mean, presumably they’re still hashing it out. There’re probably two or three judges who are still thinking about it or discussing it with their colleagues, or colleagues who want to think they can persuade them to their side. I mean, there’s something internal. On the other hand, I mean, they didn’t originally give themselves a lot of time to consider a complicated and historic case. We know there’s an anti-abortion majority. We know they’re not crazy about medical abortions any more than they are about surgical abortions. But this has large implications about states’ rights and about the sort of integrity of the FDA. So they may just wanted to sleep on it. They’re human, but the two sides are battling for two or three in the middle.

Carey: So what does this signal about how they might rule? I mean, to your point about the split, the battle, what are the options? What do you — Sandhya, what do you think about what they might —

Kenen: Well, if it was slam dunk, we’d have had it.

Carey: That is true. That is true. It is not a slam dunk.

Raman: And everyone that I have talked to in the last few weeks on this is just that there are so many different options, different permutations, that it’s difficult even for people that are experts on FDA policy, like expert lawyers, experts on abortion policy, to just kind of like predict the nuances. You know, they could let the stay expire. They could send it back to the 5th Circuit. They could decide to hold arguments and let it expire or not expire. They could decide something different than the 5th Circuit. You know, there’s so many different ways that things could happen that I think it makes it difficult. And then yesterday, the other manufacturer of mifepristone, GenBioPro, also filed suit against the FDA. So now we have, since Dobbs, like five different lawsuits related to mifepristone and three of them, post-Dobbs, are related to the FDA in particular. And I think it just gets very, very complicated to make a decision, even if ideologically some people might align with one way versus the other, given all of these different permutations and that we still have that Washington case that is attacking another part of this. So it’s just complicated to get people to do something. And the fact that this case has been moving so, so quickly.

Carey: Could we be in the same place on Friday? Could we get another stay? Could the justices certainly ask for more time, and are there any thoughts about the probability of that actually happening? Rachel, what are your thoughts?

Cohrs: I think they can do what they want.

Carey: That’s true.

Cohrs: They gave themselves time once more, and I think obviously there’s a benefit to having some certainty and predictability for people, for providers, but certainly they could stay again.

Carey: So, Sandhya, you just mentioned the Washington state case. So while this Texas ruling is before the Supreme Court, a federal district judge in Washington state issued a ruling in a separate case that instructed the FDA to not alter the current availability of the drug in 17 states and the District of Columbia. And as you just mentioned, a manufacturer of the generic version of the drug — the company’s name is GenBioPro; they make the generic version of mifepristone — they’re arguing that if the FDA implements a court order suspending approval of the drug, the agency would deprive the company of its rights to market the drug without due process of law. And as I understand, this company is a major manufacturer of the generic version of the drug, right? So let’s talk a bit more about this confusion of these split rulings. I mean, what is the public to make of it? What’s the reaction with facilities that are providing this medication or doctors who want to prescribe it or just the general public? The person who might be interested in this situation is very confused. I mean, talk a little bit about how people sort through it and what this means for them.

Raman: So the suit that was filed yesterday about the generic, they make two-thirds of the mifepristone that is used in the U.S. So if they were unable to be manufacturing theirs based on a ruling that only allowed the name-brand version of the drug, that’s a huge percentage of the market that is gone, and more than half of abortions are done through medication abortion. So that’s one thorn in it. And I think that another is that we have all of these states that have been stockpiling the drugs — several that have been, you know, in case they don’t know what is happening with the ruling. Washington is one of them. And there’s still not clarity depending on what happens with these cases of, you know, will they be able to use what that they have stockpiled? And then we have other states like New York and I think California that have been stockpiling misoprostol as another way to — in case there’s a court ruling that doesn’t go in their favor — to just give patients in their states access to medication abortion. I think that there are so many different permutations that it’s very difficult for even folks that are confident that the rule may go a different way to know what to predict, just because we’re in such uncertain territory, from all of the different former FDA officials that have said, “You know, this is a very different situation. We don’t even know, after decades of experience at the FDA, like, how this would play out, what it would mean, whether we’d have to pull everything off the market.” How it would play out, it’s just a lot of unknown territory given all of the different things going on.

Kenen: Well, also, whatever they do now isn’t necessarily the end of the story, right? I mean, if the court issues a stay, it will still go through the courts and it presumably ends up at the Supreme Court again. If they issue a stay pending full hearing of the case, it’ll be going on for months more. But either they issue a stay saying the 5th Circuit ruling, which did not totally — the lower federal court banned the use of the pill; the appeals court limited it to seven weeks instead of the FDA has ruled it’s for 10 weeks. So if they uphold the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, there would still be use, but it would be limited. If they put a stay saying, “Yes, it can stay legal in the states that allow it for now,” then it would still be legal in those states but we’d still be back discussing what is the Supreme Court going to do a couple of months from now.

Carey: And how — where is the drug industry on this? I mean, this would have sweeping ramifications.

Kenen: They’re horrified. One of you might know the number — was it like 250 companies signed the brief that you’re going to have a court decide what drug is safe and what drug is not safe, rather than the FDA? I mean, the pharmaceutical company fights with the FDA all the time, but they need the FDA and they know they need the FDA and they admit they need the FDA. You know, you have one voice in this country saying a drug is safe or a drug is not safe or a drug is safe under the following conditions.

Raman: There have been hundreds of the drug companies that have spoken out against it, and PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America] more recently also finally came out against it. It’s been pretty uniform in a way that I have not really seen in the past where there have been, you know, the drug companies, the various people that have been regulators, the folks that are in favor of abortion rights, then just advocates — and just very unified in this response.

Carey: Rachel, what is the impact of the drug industry’s weighing in in this manner? How could that shape the decision? Was there anything surprising in how they worked together on this? I know you’ve done some reporting on this area.

Cohrs: Yes. Yeah. So I think certainly them actually filing briefs with the court will kind of help drive home the ramifications of this, just on a much larger scale. I mean, we’re not just talking about abortion now. We’re talking about any medication that could be at all controversial. You know, we’re talking PrEP for HIV. You know, there are so many areas where companies genuinely are concerned about lawsuits and about judges who aren’t experts. So I think this uniform voice will drive home the larger impacts here beyond this one issue. And also, I think, the drug industry has significant resources to invest. And I think, it took a little while, but the trade groups PhRMA and BIO [Biotechnology Innovation Organization] have said that they are willing to invest, and they haven’t made any specific commitments, but certainly I think down the line there could be legal challenges. And now that they have put themselves out there, they certainly are a significant player in the space, with resources.

Raman: The drug industry is also a huge player in, you know, donating to various campaigns and lobbying on the Hill. And it’s definitely going to be — put increasingly different folks in a tight spot if they are receiving a lot of backing from the pharmaceutical industry and if they’ve spoken out in favor of restricting the drug. And it’ll be interesting to see kind of as it goes on what happens there with some of these folks.

Carey: Sure. Well that’s a perfect segue way because we have lawmakers on Capitol Hill are also weighing in on this. About 150 Republicans are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the 5th Circuit’s ruling, while more than 250 Democrats have urged the court to not prevent access to mifepristone. Are Republicans taking a political risk here speaking out? Because I know it’s been talked about on the podcast before, about the abortion rights opponents have some splits on how far to go on some of these restrictions on abortion. You know, Republicans didn’t really seem eager to engage when the decision came out, but now they are. What does that mean? What do you make of it?

Raman: We’ve had that delay first that, you know, a lot of Republicans did not even comment on the case, which was kind of interesting, given that, you know, after a lot of these decisions, we see a lot from both sides kind of weighing in. And I think when you look at some of these briefs, they say a lot of the similar talking points as before, which is something that you can kind of look to. But I mean, the conversation is still moving, even on the Hill. Yesterday, Robert Califf from the FDA was facing questions about mifepristone from different Republicans, from Cindy Hyde-Smith, who had agreed with the lower court decision, from Susan Collins, who was kind of against the decision as one of the Republicans who generally supports abortion rights. And I think it’ll be very interesting if this gets taken up by a committee that has jurisdiction over the FDA, which we have not really seen a commitment to. Energy and Commerce [Committee] Democrats have asked for something on this to come up. But, you know, under Republican leadership, I don’t know that that would necessarily happen. The only committee that is really committed to looking at this issue has been, like, Senate Judiciary, which with Democratic control is going to look a different way. And they don’t really have the jurisdiction over FDA in the same way as some of the other committees do. So I think that’ll be interesting to look at if that changes.

Kenen: There is a divide in the Republican Party about how far to go. I mean, some are for rape and incest exceptions, some are not. Some are for six weeks, some are for 15 weeks, some are for zero weeks. This is reflecting those divisions. It also depends on the individual lawmaker’s district. You know, if you come from an extremely conservative district and you are an anti-abortion absolutist, then you’re going to speak out on this. But we’ve noted they don’t really want to antagonize pharma either. So you’ve seen, I guess it’s 150ish — you haven’t seen all of them. It’s a complicated issue for some of them, given the competing interests, you know. Is abolishing all abortions in the United States of America your top goal? In which case you’re going to want to support the lower court. If you have a more nuanced view, where you’re worried about precedent for overriding the FDA, you have competing — I mean, there are very few abortion rights Republicans, but they don’t all want to draw the line in the same place.

Carey: So while we’re on the subject of Capitol Hill, let’s talk about the debt ceiling. We have a little bit of action there this week. Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy unveiled his plan to raise the debt ceiling. McCarthy and many Republicans have said they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling without spending cuts. President Biden and many Democrats are pushing for a clean debt ceiling increase. So among its provisions, Speaker McCarthy’s plan would cut federal spending by roughly $130 billion, and that would take spending back to fiscal 2022 levels. Health-related provisions include new work requirements for Medicaid and food stamp recipients, and the package would also claw back unspent covid aid funds. And there’s a bit of a twist on the work requirement proposals of the past: States could opt to keep those that don’t comply with the work rules covered under Medicaid, keep them on the rolls. But if they do, the state would bear the full cost of that coverage and forgo the federal money for those enrollees, right? The proposal also requires states to make use of existing resources like payroll databases, state health and human service agencies, to verify compliance with a work rule when possible. There’s a lot to unpack here. It’s pretty clear that, I mean, House Democrats aren’t going to vote for this. Does the speaker even have enough votes in his own caucus to pass it? I think he can only lose like four.

Kenen: TBD. But I don’t think the conventional wisdom is that he has the votes. You know, it’s a starting offer, but they can change, you know, has to go Rules [Committee]. They’ll change — you know, they could change things.

Carey: It is a starting offer. But your vote is next week and it’s Thursday. OK. Rachel, what’s your take on this?

Cohrs: Yeah, I think it was a bit of a roller coaster this week, as some members of the Freedom Caucus were demanding wholesale repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act around midweek, and they certainly backed off from that, especially the health care portion. So I think that is worth noting, at least right now. Again, unclear if he has the votes, or if the speaker has the votes, and then obviously Senate Democrats aren’t going to go for it and President Biden isn’t going to go for this. So I think, like Joanne said, it is kind of an opening offer here. And again, there isn’t a lot on Medicare in here. So I think we just, you know, finally, after so much rhetoric and so much back-and-forth, have some sort of tangible starting point from Republicans here, which is significant.

Kenen: But, you know, as soon as they made that pledge that we’re not going to touch Medicare, meaning traditional Medicare actually, and we’re not going to touch Social Security, we all knew that, Oh, that means that it’s all going to go to Medicaid. So this is a big Medicaid hit. And work rules have been something the Republicans have embraced at least since the Reagan era, maybe even before, but certainly since the 1980s. A few states tried them or at least said they were going to impose them under the Obama administration. At that point, the administration didn’t approve them and the courts didn’t uphold them. But we have a different court now. So I think this court would uphold; that’s likely. But this is not acceptable for Democrats, nor is it meant to be.

Raman: And when we had the various states propose these and in some cases implement them during the Trump administration, every single one of them was struck down by the court once, sometimes twice. You know, we had Arkansas, we had New Hampshire, we had Kentucky, we had Michigan. Every single time the judge at hand was, you know, “This is going against the function of Medicaid,” which — historically we’ve had work requirements in some of the other programs, but the way the Medicaid statute is written, it has been difficult to find a way to keep those in place. So if they were able to get that past, I mean, even the House, which seems like is a, is a question mark, I mean — whatever could get through would absolutely face court battles from some of the same folks that challenged them during the Trump administration.

Kenen: But I think the only one that actually went into effect was Arkansas. And in addition to it being thrown out by a court, it also just didn’t work. The mechanism didn’t work. It became really hard for people. The verification that you’re working, which this proposal actually addresses, that Mary Agnes just alluded to that, the verification was extraordinarily cumbersome. I mean, you had like lots of poor people in Arkansas — and rural Arkansas don’t have access to Internet — and you only had a few hours a day where you could use the portal and you have to leave work to go to the local library to prove that you were working. I mean, it was just — forget the ideology of it — the mechanics didn’t work, and people were thrown off even though they were compliant. And but this [is] just like a deep philosophical divide between the two parties, and they have compromised, and back in the Clinton years they compromised on welfare, what’s now called TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families]. There’s work requirements for SNAP, for what we used to call food stamps. But Medicaid has been a red line for Democrats, that this is an entitlement based on health; it’s not like you deserve — some people deserve it and some people don’t. It’s been a philosophical, ideological, you know, something that Democrats feel very strongly about.

Cohrs: Oh, I just want to jump in on the covid money as well — much smaller deal, fewer impacts on patients — but it has been kind of interesting and over the last couple of weeks that the Biden administration has rolled out some new programs that cost quite a bit of money, as there’s this horizon, this call for Congress to claw back unspent covid funds. I mean, they’re spending $5 billion now on developing vaccines and therapeutics, $1 billion on vaccine access, when they said they didn’t have any money. So it’s just kind of interesting that, you know, when these funds are committed to a program legally, then Congress can’t claw them back. So I’m curious to see what else we’ll see as these negotiations solidify.

Carey: All right. We’ll keep our eye on it. And I want to just check in briefly on the Senate side. I know we’ve discussed these issues on the podcast before. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee has been working on legislation focused on drug prices and pharmacy benefit managers. This morning we have a framework introduced from the Senate Finance Committee. It’s with Sen. Wyden, the chair from Oregon, who’s a Democrat, and Sen. Mike Crapo, Republican from Idaho, that also seeks to address PBMs in the prescription drug supply chain. We also have the moving, or maybe not moving, but introduce legislation, anything new there on insulin prices with Sen. Warnock and Sen. Kennedy to cap the out-of-pocket price at $35. Any movements there in the Senate, any insight you could offer?

Cohrs: On the Senate Finance [Committee] side, that is a very significant development, that they’ve decided to get in on the fun this week of putting together a package, just because their committees do have jurisdiction over so much federal spending. And Sen. Wyden has been involved in this issue. He’s put out — I found a package of bills from 2019, and, you know, he’s been on this issue a long time. So I think his team has proven they can craft big-picture, very impactful policy with the Inflation Reduction Act. So I think that’s certainly something to watch with that much federal spending on the line. And on insulin, you know, Sen. Schumer this week has committed to have some sort of insulin pricing provision in whatever package might come together — it’s still pretty amorphous — but it’s unclear what that’s going to look like. There is another proposal from Sen. Collins and Sen. Shaheen, two much more senior members of the caucus, and that mechanism works differently. For patients, it would look pretty similar. But on the back end, for insurers, for drugmakers, both of those programs would work differently. So they haven’t sorted that out yet. HELP hasn’t even picked a date for their hearing and formally announced it yet. So we are in early stages, but there’s certainly a lot swirling around.

Carey: Absolutely. And we’ll keep our eye on all of that as well. So I’d like to also chat a little bit about some ACA developments that happened this week. President Biden recently announced that hundreds of thousands of immigrants brought to the United States illegally as children will be able to apply for Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act’s health insurance exchanges. This allows participants in the Obama-era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, also known as DACA, to access government-funded health insurance programs. You can expect pushback from conservative leaders of states that have been reluctant to expand Medicaid, possibly also pushback from Republican members of the Hill on this provision. And then, in other ACA news, the administration has finalized new rules that are aimed at making it easier for consumers to sign up for ACA plans, in particular those who are losing their coverage through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also known as CMS, will also give state marketplaces the option to hold a special enrollment period for people who lose their Medicaid or CHIP coverage. What could this possibly mean for enrollment in the program, right, to making it easier for DACA participants to enroll in the ACA or people losing their coverage through CHIP or Medicaid? I think it’s about 16 million people now in the program. Does this build more support for it? Are Republicans going to engage against it? Do they think that’s simply a losing battle because they’ve never agreed on an alternative?

Raman: I mean, right now, we’ve had historic levels of people in Medicaid and CHIP just because states have been unable to unenroll them from coverage during the public health emergency for covid. And now that states are starting to recheck their rolls and see who’s still eligible, who’s not eligible, we’ve been expecting just, you know, a big drop in different people that would be either getting uninsured or maybe moving to a different type of plan with a private or the exchanges. And I think it’s been something that, you know, states and the federal government have been working on for the entire time of just, you know, different ways to make sure that that drop-off in the number of uninsured folks doesn’t skyrocket as states are going through this process. And so I think the timing is important in that, you know, you’re trying to counteract the drop. And HHS [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services] has been touting, you know, the high levels of uptake in the ACA and just like the low uninsured rate and this has been something they’ve just kind of been pushing, you know, month after month. This has been something that has been like a big achievement for them. And so now really like push comes to shove to say that, you know, it doesn’t drop off dramatically if you want to continue touting some of these achievements and making sure that people don’t drop off just because the emergency is ending and that guaranteed coverage isn’t there.

Kenen: So there are multiple issues in the question that are exposed, the DACA, which —

Carey: Of course it can’t be just one question I have to ask four at once.

Kenen: The DACA, which is also known as the Dreamers, Biden is trying to cover them. Democrats have been trying to give them legal status and got nowhere. In fact, they’re probably further away from that than they were five or six years ago. But to get them health coverage is something the Democrats — it’s like the least they can do to this population. But I can’t imagine there’s not going to be a political and/or a legal fight from the states who are going to have to pay for their share of it, right? I mean, Medicaid is a state-federal joint expenditure, and the states that don’t want to cover these people will well resist or sue. Or, I mean, everything ends up in court; I would imagine this will, too, or baked into the debt ceiling — you know, one more thing to fight about with the debt ceiling. So that’s one issue. I mean, the other issue is this unwinding of this huge Medicaid population. Most of these people are going to be eligible for some kind of coverage. Some of them are still going to be eligible for Medicaid. Some of them are going to be eligible for very good deals for sort of low-income working people on the ACA. And some have jobs that they can get insured through — theirs or a partner or a family member. But really, the only ones who are ineligible for anything would be those in the remaining Medicaid gap states. But that’s like theoretically, if we did everything right, the only people that would be ineligible are the Medicaid gap population, which is now down to about 10 states, assuming North Carolina, you know, finalizes their approval or, you know, enacts their expansion. But like, that’s the perfect world, and we don’t live in a perfect world. I mean, some of these people are going to get lost in the shuffle. And in fact, maybe several million; their estimates are like maybe 6 million, you know, no one knows. But, you know, our health care system is complicated. You know, getting a letter in the mail saying, you know, “Sayonara, Medicaid,” is not all of them will know how to negotiate new coverage even when they’re eligible, and we’re going to have to do a really good job of helping them. And that has to be from the federal government, from the state governments, from the health system itself, from advocates, from Congress. You know, everyone’s going to have to pitch in to get these people what they’re eligible for. And I don’t see that as an overnight success story. I think that there are people who should be covered and can be covered who won’t be covered. Eventually we’ll probably catch up and most of them enrolled. But I think that some of them have periods of uninsurance.

Carey: It’s absolutely a major undertaking. I know we’ll all be watching closely. OK, that’s the news for this week. Now it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week and think you should read it too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We’ll post the links on our podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.

Kenen: I actually want to read the first sentence of this piece. This is a guest essay in The New York Times by Amy Silverstein. She’s a heart transplant recipient. She’s, I guess, about 60 now, and she’s about to die, not because her heart, her transplanted heart is failing — she writes about how she kept that in pristine condition — but because she’s got cancer. And it’s called “My Transplanted Heart and I Will Die Soon,” and it begins, “Today, I will explain to my healthy transplanted heart why, in what may be a matter of days or weeks at best, she — well, we — will die.” And in addition to being just a heart-tugger, I did not know a lot of what she explores about transplant medicine, that we think of transplants as medical miracles — and they are; you know, she had like an extra 35 years of life — but they’re also, transplant medicine itself hasn’t really, according to what she writes, transplant medicine itself — the drugs, the care they get, these heavy-duty drugs haven’t improved in 40 years. While she has a healthy heart, she has metastatic lung cancer because of these drugs. The medical care around transplant can be quite dangerous. And I knew nothing about that, and I’ve covered health for a long time. So it’s a tragic story and it’s also a scientific failure or a medical system or a medical research failure story that I hope a lot of people who have the power to change it read.

Carey: Sandhya, what’s your extra credit?

Raman: So my extra credit is from ABC News. It’s called “Puerto Rico’s Water Supply Is Being Depleted, Contaminated by Manufacturing Industry on the Island, Experts Say.” It’s a triple byline from Jessie DiMartino, Lilia Geho, and Julia Jacobo. And I thought their story was really interesting because it looks at the effects of the manufacturing industry on the water supply in Puerto Rico. The manufacturing there is, in Puerto Rico, is really high because there used to be a tax incentive that’s now lapsed to create a huge boom in manufacturing in the ’60s and ’70s. And kind of looking at the impacts of that, and over time and to the environment, and pharma manufacturing in particular, is 65% of what has been the industrial groundwater withdrawals. So in areas that rely heavily on groundwater on an island, this is felt especially hard. And so they go through a lot of the implications of some of that and how the manufacturing affects it, especially in an island with a finite water supply.

Carey: Rachel.

Cohrs: Mine is, the headline is, “‘I Hate You, Kathie Lee Gifford!’ Ozempic Users Report Bizarre Dreams,” in The Wall Street Journal and by Peter Loftus. Our newsroom has been covering the weight loss drug explosion this year, and I think this story was just so colorful and just a great example of reporting on the side effects that emerge when so many people are interested or want to take a drug. And I think there is certainly a public service to people understanding what they’re getting into and just hearing from all sorts of people, because certainly there are agencies who are supposed to be doing that. But I think there’s also just a lot of buzz that’s fascinating. The writing was just so rich and bizarre. And yeah, it was a great read and a great illustration on it, too.

Carey: Well, speaking of weight loss and getting fat out of our bodies, my story is from The New York Times, called “A Beauty Treatment Promised to Zap Fat. For Some, It Brought Disfigurement,” by Anna Kodé, and I hope I’m pronouncing your name correctly. You might have heard or seen all these ads about the treatment called CoolSculpting. It uses a device on a targeted part of the body to freeze fat cells. Patients typically undergo multiple treatments in the same area, and in successful cases, the cells die and the body absorbs them. “But for some people,” Anna writes, “the procedure results in severe disfigurement. The fat can grow, harden and lodge in the body, sometimes even taking on the shape of the device’s applicator.” The manufacturer says this is a rare side effect, but a Times investigation that drew on internal documents, lawsuits, medical studies, and interviews indicates the risk to patients may be considerably higher. So that’s our show. As always, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. And as always, you can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me @maryagnescarey. Rachel?

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

Carey: Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Carey: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Carey: We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Medicare Advantage, the private-sector alternative to original Medicare, now enrolls nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries. But it remains controversial because — while most of its subscribers like the extra benefits many plans provide — the program frequently costs the federal government more than if those seniors remained in the fully public program. That controversy is becoming political, as the Biden administration tries to rein in some of those payments without being accused of “cutting” Medicare.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden has signed a bill to declassify U.S. intelligence about the possible origin of covid-19 in China. And new evidence has emerged potentially linking the virus to raccoon dogs at an animal market in Wuhan, where the virus reportedly first took hold.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

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

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Biden administration recently changed the formula used to calculate how much the federal government pays private Medicare Advantage plans to care for patients with serious conditions, amid allegations that many of the health plans overcharge or even defraud the government. Major insurers are making no secret about how lucrative the program can be: Humana recently said it would leave the commercial insurance market and focus on government-funded programs, like its booming Medicare Advantage plans.
• The formula change is intended to rein in excess spending on Medicare — a huge, costly program at risk of insolvency — yet it has triggered a lobbying blitz, including a vigorous letter-writing campaign in support of the popular Medicare Advantage program. On Capitol Hill, though, party leaders have not stepped up to defend private insurers as aggressively as they have in the past. But the 2024 campaign season could hear the parties trading accusations over whether Biden cut Medicare or, conversely, protected it.
• The latest maternal mortality rates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the problem continued to worsen during the pandemic. Many states have extended Medicaid coverage for a full year after women give birth, in an effort to improve care during that higher-risk period. But other problems limit access to postpartum care. During the pandemic, some women did not get prenatal care. And after the fall of Roe v. Wade, some states are having trouble securing providers — including one rural Idaho hospital, which announced it will stop delivering babies.
• The federal government will soon declassify intelligence related to the origins of the covid pandemic. In the United States, the fight over what started the pandemic has largely morphed into an issue of political identity, with Republicans favoring the notion that a Chinese lab leak started the global health crisis that killed millions, while Democrats are more likely to believe it was animal transmission tied to a wet market.
• And in drug price news, Sanofi has become the third major insulin maker (of three) to announce it will reduce the price on some of its insulin products ahead of a U.S. government policy change next year that could have cost the company.

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

Julie Rovner: Vice News’ “Inside the Private Group Where Parents Give Ivermectin to Kids With Autism,” by David Gilbert

Jessie Hellmann: The Washington Post’s “Senior Care Is Crushingly Expensive. Boomers Aren’t Ready,” by Christopher Rowland

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “Will the Ozempic Era Change How We Think About Being Fat and Being Thin?” by Jia Tolentino

Margot Sanger-Katz: Slate’s “You Know What? I’m Not Doing This Anymore,” by Sophie Novack

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Coverage by KHN’s Fred Schulte on Medicare Advantage: https://khn.org/news/author/fred-schulte/
• The New York Times’ “Biden Plan to Cut Billions in Medicare Fraud Ignites Lobbying Frenzy,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz
• The CDC’s “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021,” by Donna L. Hoyert

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Policy, and Politics, of Medicare Advantage

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Policy, and Politics, of Medicare AdvantageEpisode Number: 290Published: March 23, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 23, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hello.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So a happy 13th birthday to the Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed just a couple of hundred feet from where I am sitting now. But there’s lots of other health news, so we’re going to dive right in. I want to start this week with Medicare Advantage, the private Medicare alternative that now enrolls more than half of all Medicare beneficiaries. If you watch cable TV or pretty much any TV at all, you have likely seen the dueling ads. They’re part of a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign, like this ad from the Better Medicare Alliance, made up of mostly Medicare Advantage insurers.

Excerpt from ad set in a bowling alley:Bowler 1: They might cut Medicare Advantage.Bowler 2: C’mon!Bowler 1: They’re talking about it in Washington.Bowler 2: Cut Medicare Advantage? Higher premiums? With inflation already so high?Bowler 3: That’s nuts!

Rovner: Or this one from the consumer advocacy group Protect Our Care.

Excerpt from ad: Insurance companies are lying to America’s seniors about cuts to Medicare Advantage benefits. Experts agree what they are saying is just plain false. Health insurance companies are simply trying to stop cuts to their sky-high profits, CEO salaries, and bonuses.

Rovner: I swear, Margot, I pulled the clip from that first ad before you also used it in your excellent story published Wednesday. So — and I know this is a hugely complicated issue that we’re going to try to take apart at least a little bit — but, who’s right here? Those who are saying that Medicare Advantage is about to be cut or those who were saying not really.

Sanger-Katz: I think actually they are both a little bit right. The Biden administration has made a very technical change to the formula that pays these private plans extra money when they sign up patients who have serious medical diagnoses. And this is, of course, a response to an earlier problem. It used to be Medicare Advantage plans — those are the private plans that are an alternative to the government Medicare program. It used to be that they just got a flat fee for everyone that they signed up. That was about what it costs on average to take care of someone in Medicare. And what happened is that the plans then had a huge incentive to only sign up healthy people. And so that’s what they tried to do. And they marketed to healthy people by doing things like including gym benefits in the health insurance plan or this famous, and perhaps apocryphal, example of, you know, locating the enrollment office on the third story of a building with no elevators so only people who could get up the stairs would be able to sign up for the plan. And so, there was this policy response where it said, well, you know, sicker people are more expensive to take care of, and we want these plans to not just be cherry-picking all of the healthiest people. And so they created this system that basically pays extra to the plans. If you have congestive heart failure, if you have cancer, or if you have diabetes, then your health plan gets, like, a little bonus. But what we have seen over the course of the life of this program is that this has created enormous incentives for the plans to diagnose their customers with as many diseases as possible, regardless of the strength of the evidence that they have. And there is a whole industry of data-mining operations that go through people’s medical records, of home health agencies that go into people’s homes just to diagnose them with more illnesses. And there are just absolutely widespread — from, like, every possible authoritative source that you can think of — allegations of overcharging of the federal government through this program and also of fraud. Not every insurance plan in the country in this program has been accused of fraud, but quite a lot of them have, including most of the largest players. And they are facing lawsuits in federal court for basically scamming Medicare by saying that their people are too sick.

Rovner: So I want to go back to the beginning or, really, the middle. Medicare has offered beneficiaries the option of enrolling in a private managed-care plan instead of what’s known as traditional Medicare, where patients can go to just about any doctor or hospital, pretty much from the inception of the program and pretty broadly since the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. They were originally called Medicare risk plans. Health plans almost exclusively, HMOs, said they could provide the same care more efficiently by, quote, “managing care,” and could still make a profit even if the government paid them 5% less than the average patient in traditional Medicare in that area. So it was a good deal all around. The plans were making money. The government was saving money. Yeah, that was a very long time ago. Since then, Congress has significantly raised what it pays the plans with the stipulation that they use the excess funds to either reduce premiums or add benefits, mostly dental, vision, and hearing care. Still, however, a lot of insurers are, to use a technical term, raking it in. In fact, Humana last month announced that it was going to pull out of the commercial insurance market in order to concentrate on its much more lucrative Medicare Advantage business. So, how are these companies both providing more benefits and making big profits? I know that fraud is part of it. Jessie, where’s all this money coming from?

Hellmann: Like Margot said … I think a lot of it has to do with the upcoding that they do. They’re just able to find all of these diagnoses from their enrollees, either through chart reviews … some have done home health visits where they send in people to interview patients and ask about their health history without really providing any care. So that’s another way. And it’s just become, like, a really lucrative business practice for them. But like Margot said, they’ve just been facing more and more scrutiny and lawsuits over the way that they do this.

Rovner: They deny care, too, right? That has been a long-standing issue that people who go into these plans and then get sick sometimes have trouble getting the care that they need.

Hellmann: Medicare Advantage plans do something called prior authorization, where they require providers submit requests for something to be covered before they’ll pay for it. They do this with a lot of more costly things, like imaging or like nursing home stays, which are obviously very expensive. And so if they can deny these claims and maybe get a beneficiary to do something that is cheaper before moving onto these more costly things, then that obviously saves some money. But that’s something else that the Biden administration has been looking more closely at. They’ve proposed a few rules that would just say that Medicare Advantage plans have to cover things that are covered by Medicare. They can’t just deny care for something based on their own proprietary models of deciding whether something is medically necessary or not.

Kenen: It’s complicated because sometimes there are patients that ask for things that they actually don’t need. You know, something they have seen on TV or they heard their neighbor had or whatever, and that [there’s] actually something more conservative [that can be done]. Back surgery is the famous example. You know, sometimes physical therapy and other treatments will do better than an $80,000 back surgery. But there’s a difference between saying, “Let’s try something else first,” and times when somebody is really sick and needs an expensive drug, they may have already tried a cheaper drug in another health plan the year before. It’s very hard to untangle, you know, when “no” is appropriate because we have overtreatment in this country. But the problem here is that sometimes “no” it’s completely inappropriate, and the insurer is not paying for something that the patient expected to get when they signed up for a health plan to take care of their health.

Rovner: And we should point out this is true in all managed-care plans, not just in Medicare Advantage plans.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: So before we move on, I want to give a shoutout to my KHN colleague Fred Schulte, who has been on the Medicare Advantage fraud trail like a dog with a bone for more than a decade now. We will link to some of his award-winning work in our show notes. Anyway, now the Biden administration, Margot, as you said, is trying to crack down on the, if not outright fraud, at least the manipulation of payments, which will also, at the same time, save the Medicare trust fund a lot of money. In the past, though, even small changes to Medicare Advantage, because it is so popular, have been met with a lot of pushback from members of Congress in both parties. But that’s not really happening this time, is it?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, This has, I think, been the biggest surprise and the most interesting part of reporting on this story. Historically, Medicare Advantage is about half of Medicare’s enrollment, as in these plans. If you survey seniors who have these plans, they tell you that they really love them. And notwithstanding all the stuff we just talked about, I think they are popular by most people who use them. In part, it’s because they get these extra benefits. They have lower premiums. You know, they get some goodies that they wouldn’t get with regular Medicare. And in Congress, the preponderance of members of Congress have signed letters indicating that they support, I think, what they call a stable policy-and-rate environment for the plan. So last year, 80% of members of the House of Representatives signed such a letter. That’s just, I mean, you don’t see 80% of members of the House of Representatives agreeing on practically anything — and a majority of senators as well. And I think everyone’s expectation, including me, is that when these people signed this letter and said, you know, this is important and my constituents care about it, that they would have the back of the plans and that it would be hard for regulators to be aggressive in trying to change anything about this program because there would be such a big political outcry. And, in fact, what’s happened is they have really started cracking down. They started with some of these smaller regulations. And then the one that they did, it was kind of hidden in a technical way, but it had a really big impact. They changed this whole formula and they basically said, hey, plans, like, you can no longer get these extra payments for a lot of the diseases that they were very commonly making money for diagnosing people for. And all of a sudden, you know, this support on the Hill just kind of dissolved. And that is very much in the face of this huge lobbying effort. You know, Julie, you mentioned the television commercials, but the plans also mobilize their customers to call their members of Congress to contact the White House. Something like 142,000 calls and letters have been submitted to members of Congress and the White House. The proposal itself, there’s the formal comment process — in a normal year [it] gets like a couple of hundred comments, mostly from various stakeholders in the Medicare system. This year there was an organized letter-writing campaign and 15,000 comments were submitted on this rate notice. So we just see this environment in which the public has been activated. Lobbyists are going crazy. The CEO of United[Healthcare], the largest health insurer in the country, was making the rounds on the Hill, talking to members of Congress. And yet … and yet there’s really no one in Congress who’s standing up and screaming and yelling about how terrible this is. I mean, I shouldn’t say no one. There are a few individual members of Congress, Republicans, who have been highly critical of this and who have pointed out that this move is potentially inconsistent with President [Joe] Biden’s promise to never cut Medicare, which is a key campaign message for him going into his reelection. But the leaders in Congress, the heads of committees, the really prominent members, and certainly leading Democrats have not said those kinds of things. There were letters that came out very late in the process, really in the last week or so, from Republicans in House and Senate committees of jurisdiction that you might have expected to be these angry, partisan, like, “how dare you do this to Medicare Advantage?” kind of letters. And they were not those kinds of letters. They weren’t critical, but they were very polite and they were very technical. They’re, like, could you please answer the following 10 very technical questions about this tiny little detail of the formula? So it’s clear … they are concerned and they are providing oversight. And I don’t think that they are enthusiastically embracing these changes. But at the same time, I think they are not carrying water for the insurance industry and making it very politically difficult for the Biden administration to make these changes.

Rovner: I feel like the Humana announcement actually sent quite a message that says, wow, we can make a lot more money from Medicare than we can make from the commercial market.

Kenen: Well, I think that’s true. I mean, one reason so many seniors are in Medicare Advantage, and do like it, is that they get an incredible deluge of marketing. I mean, the companies went in here, they saw that it was a business opportunity. They have marketed themselves very aggressively. People get dozens and dozens of letters saying, “Apply for this plan” or “We’ll give you this. We’ll give you that.” So the market is there. But I also think there’s a political dynamic that’s bubbled up recently that’s different. There’s been a fight every year about Medicare Advantage payments. It hasn’t been as grassroots; it hasn’t gotten as much attention. But there’s been a fight. I mean, every year the administration puts out their formula. Every year the industry fights it back. You know, there’s some kind of compromise. The industry doesn’t get hit as much as it would have. It’s part of the game, right? I mean, that’s how payment rules are made in Washington. But something has changed here that Biden quite successfully, at the State of the Union, really put the Republicans on the hot seat in terms of protecting Medicare and Social Security. And they’ve flipped it. Because the Republicans are better at language. You know, if this was a Republican rule, they would be calling it the “Protect America’s Seniors From Fraudulent Insurers” rule. You know … the Democrats just don’t do that.

Rovner: We should point out that it was the Republicans who named it Medicare Advantage — renamed the whole Medicare private plan program.

Kenen: Right. But just as … Biden’s politically great moment at the State of the Union making the Republicans promise not to touch Medicare, the Republicans have flipped it, because now they’re accusing Biden of attacking Medicare in a different way. And, you know, Medicare was this hot political issue in campaigns in the late Nineties and the early 2000s. It was replaced by a 10- to 15-year fight about what became the Affordable Care Act and repealing it and all that. And then there was this political vacuum in 2022, and in 2020, after the Republicans failed to repeal the ACA, we sort of had a — not health slogan-free, but it was on the back burner and …

Rovner: We had a reset. Well, we did have a pandemic.

Kenen: We had the pandemic, but — and that was politicized — but the traditional health care fight is reemerging. The traditional partisan health care fight is … both sides have accused the other over the year of “Mediscare.” This is the platform for that fight that I think we will continue to see going into 2024. I mean, it will evolve. I mean, this particular rule will get settled. But, you know, you’re sort of seeing who is the champion of Medicare, which Republicans, years ago, when Paul Ryan, when he was the budget chair of the House and the speaker of the House, he really wanted to significantly transform Medicare in ways that made it very different than the Medicare as it existed for them, Republicans, who are “saving Medicare.” For the Democrats, it was “Republicans are privatizing and destroying Medicare.” This is just Chapter 9,000. It’ll morph again between now and November 2024, but it’s begun.

Sanger-Katz: I think the politics of this are interesting and I think kind of unsettled. I’m very curious to see how this plays out in the campaigns. I do think that there is an available argument for Republicans to make that this change, which does take money out of the pockets of these plans and which potentially could mean that beneficiaries are going to end up with a little bit less generosity, because when those plans make less money, maybe they’re not going to give you as many extra goodies or lower your premium by as much. We don’t know that, but it’s certainly possible.

Rovner: In 1997, they cut payments for what was then Medicare Plus Choice, I think, Medicare Part C. And that’s exactly what happened. They cut all the extra benefits and people threw a fit, and they ended up having to put a lot of the money back.

Sanger-Katz: But in the Affordable Care Act, they cut a lot of the money and the benefits just kept growing. So we don’t know how the plans are going to absorb this change. But anyway, I think there is this available attack line for Republicans. Biden said he’s not going to cut Medicare. Look what he did. He’s cut Medicare. He’s taken all this money out of Medicare and it’s causing your premiums to go up. On the other hand, I do think there is this opportunity for Biden to say, “We reduced fraud; we improved the health of the Medicare trust fund.” And I think a lot of Republicans are actually committed to both of those things. I think they care about program integrity. They care about the fiscal future of the program. And so it’s all just a little bit scrambled. This almost feels more like something you might see in a Republican administration than a Democratic one.

Rovner: I was just saying, Jessie, is there any inclination on the Hill to do anything about this, or do you think they’re just going to either talk about it or not talk about it, as it were?

Hellmann: I haven’t heard anything about any potential action on the Hill. There’s just been letters sent asking questions, or some Republicans have sent letters saying, “We don’t like this.” But I don’t know that there’s enough support in both the Senate and the House to override this. And they are talking more about, like, the health of the Medicare trust fund. And some of the rules proposed by the administration could help strengthen that a little bit. It’s not going to solve all of its problems. But to go in and meddle with what the administration is doing to help the trust fund a little bit, while Congress is having more and more debates about helping the trust fund, I don’t know if that would be a good look.

Kenen: You could still have a policy compromise on, like, anti-fraud policy and still have a political fight. “We saved it!” “No, we saved it!” Oh, they … it’s way too soon to know what issues are going to dominate 2024 and what issues attract sustained attention from a public that doesn’t sustain attention to much of anything anymore. But right now, this is certainly a trial balloon for 2024. And I can see it. I can see that. I can see working out some kind of compromise on the actual technical issues and still having a political fight.

Rovner: Well, we’re going to move on because we’re clearly not gonna settle this today. But I hope people at least got a flavor for really how complicated this is, both, you know, technically and politically. I want to turn to something else that’s complicated: That’s reproductive health. And by that I mean much more than abortion and birth control. A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that maternal mortality, the death rate for people when they are giving birth or in the weeks immediately after, rose by more than a third in 2021 compared to 2020. And African American women, even those with higher incomes, were 2½ times more likely to die during or just after childbirth than white women. Certainly, the pandemic had something to do with this. It disrupted medical care for just about everybody, and pregnant women who got covid had a higher risk of severe illness or death. But this is really just a continuation of a trend that’s been troubling health experts for several years now. Joanne, you’re our public health expert here. Why has this been so difficult to address?

Kenen: I mean, I think some of it is the two things that Julie said for 2020. I mean, you know, there was all this fear that the vaccines could hurt pregnant women. Actually, it was covid that hurt pregnant women and their babies. So, hopefully, we’re over the worst of that. And people weren’t going in for good prenatal care. So that was a factor. But this is a really sustained problem, and we’ve begun to take some steps. Most states are now extending Medicaid coverage postpartum for six months or a year under Medicaid. I think that when many of us, including me, when I first heard about these problems with maternal mortality, I was thinking about giving birth. I was thinking about hemorrhage and things that happen in the delivery room or right after, when, in fact, it’s really the full year after. There is high risk for everything. And that’s where a lot of the disparities in our system … the states that don’t have Medicaid, the states that  …

Rovner: Didn’t expand Medicaid.

Kenen: … didn’t extend Medicaid, you know, or there aren’t … most of them are now expanding it for women in this category, or beginning to. So that might help. I mean, the disparities throughout the health care system, this is not just an income thing. In all economic strata, the racial disparities in maternal mortality exist. And then I just found out something recently that really shocked me. I’ve done some work over the past six months writing about domestic violence as a public health problem, and I’ve moderated two panels, just like in the last 10 days on it. And most states do not count homicide, suicide, and overdose as part of the maternal mortality figures. So if you think these figures are bad, it’s way worse, because pregnancy and postpartum are all so high risk for all of those things. But since the OB-GYNs actually review these maternal mortality cases, they’re not reviewing those other three categories. So as bad as it is, it shocked me to realize what we’re looking at and being horrified by isn’t even the full picture.

Rovner: Wow. So, well, here’s where reproductive health writ large and abortion policy cross in ways that may be unexpected to lawmakers who voted for their states’ bans, but not to anybody who’s studied health policy. In Idaho, a rural hospital has announced it will no longer deliver babies, forcing women seeking labor and delivery care to travel nearly 50 miles. Why? Because the hospital, Bonner General Health in Sandpoint, says it cannot keep enough health professionals, both OB-GYNs and pediatricians, to safely run a maternity ward. Why not? Well, Idaho’s, quote, “legal and political climate,” says the hospital from its press release, quote: “The Idaho legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care.” Margot, your extra credit this week is about something similar, but in Texas. So why don’t you do it now?

Sanger-Katz: Yes, I wanted to recommend this article from Sophie Novak in Slate called “You Know What? I’m Not Doing This Anymore.” And her piece profiles a whole bunch of nurses and doctors who work in OB-GYN care in Texas who are quitting or leaving or who are considering not taking jobs that they might otherwise have taken. And I think we don’t have real data on these trends, and I’m always a little bit worried about these kinds of stories that, you know, you can always find five or six or seven or 10 doctors who are unhappy or who say that they might quit. There was a lot of those stories, like, when Obamacare passed, all these doctors are going to retire early because they don’t like the rules. I think that turned out to be more marginal than we might have expected based on that coverage. But I still think that this story is telling these stories of these providers, and I think it’s pointing to something that is a real risk and is potentially a real trend, which is if you are someone who is in the business of caring for women through pregnancy and childbirth, and you feel like you cannot do the things that you were trained to do, that there is potential criminal liability for you in providing the care that your patients need, if you’re having to watch your patients suffer through needless harm or medical risk because you can’t provide an abortion when one is medically indicated without facing that kind of legal risk. I do think that there is a real risk that these people are not going to want to practice in those states. They would rather go to a place where they have a little bit more autonomy and a little bit less concern about prosecution. And what that means is that the women left behind in these states, however you feel about abortion, may not have access to as many health care providers, and they are going to continue to have pregnancies and births and need that kind of support. And I think that is a very interesting and troubling dynamic that I think could have very large reverberations and could, of course, make the trends that Joanne was just talking about, you know, even more concerning and lead to even more disparities. Because, of course, it is a lot of the states that are banning abortion are states that have these kind of poor, minority communities who are already facing a lot of the maternal mortality. We see in the existing data it’s increasing in a kind of across-the-board way, but there are some places where it’s worse than other places. And a lot of the worst places for maternal and fetal mortality are these same places that are banning abortion and where they may be at risk of losing some of the providers that can help ameliorate the problem.

Rovner: And it’s not just losing the providers, it’s replacing the providers who do get old enough and retire or who leave, because we’re seeing medical students, fourth-year medical students, say they’re loath to apply for residencies in some of these states, partly because they’re worried about their training, but partly because, you know, if they’re women, they may need this care at some point or they may have family members who will come with them who need this care at some point. And because, for the most part, where you do your residency tends to be where you end up practicing. So, I mean, we didn’t see it so much in this year’s match, but I’m wondering whether this is going to be an issue, too. There’s some big, important academic training centers in some of these states with bans. I’m thinking, you know, Vanderbilt comes to mind immediately in Tennessee. I think this is another thing that was perhaps unexpected, although if you thought about it hard, you could have predicted it.

Kenen: I mean, pregnancy is complicated. A century ago, women commonly died in pregnancy. And we live in an era where it’s safer than it had been, but we forget it can still be risky. And wanted pregnancies, very much wanted pregnancies, can go wrong. And I’ve experienced … I mean, I have two kids, but I experienced that, and I needed emergency medical care and I was able to get it. I needed emergency medical care more than once, and I was able to get it.

Rovner: And I remember visiting you when you were on bed rest.

Kenen: Right? It was one of my few fun nights on bed rest, when Julie and Joanne Silberner brought me dinner. We had a picnic, right? In bed, right? But, you know, I never had to deal with anything except the grief of losing a pregnancy. So, you know, it was a very much wanted pregnancy, and I didn’t have to worry about anything being withheld from me. I had a lot of things go wrong a lot of times. But, you know, I was really lucky to end up with the family I have. When I read these stories, and I go back and think, what if I had to deal with infection? What if I couldn’t get that care? And we’re just not thinking this assumption, by mostly male lawmakers, that it’s not a huge medical thing. Pregnancy changes your body, everything about your body, it’s not just cosmetic. There are lots and lots of risk factors, before and after. That [has] sort of just been glossed over as, oh, it’s not a problem. And it is a problem. And one reason we’re going to see this shift in medical practice is because they understand it’s a problem. I mean, you read these stories about these doctors, and we’ve talked about them every week, and our listeners have heard them and read them, about doctors who are watching a patient with a serious infection, until she is getting close enough to die that they can treat her, but not so close to dying that they lose her. And you hear the anguish.

Rovner: That’s why I was so taken by that line in the press release from the hospital in Idaho, which is that doctors don’t want to possibly be criminalized for what is considered the standard of care. They’re being asked to basically choose between perhaps getting sued or put in jail and what they vowed to do to care for their patients. And it’s really hard. It’s not really that much of a surprise that people are going to leave or not go there. All right. Well, we will definitely come back to this, too. I want to talk about covid briefly. Jessie, the president signed the bill passed by Congress to declassify intelligence on the origin of covid. Do we have any idea when that’s going to happen? How soon? And do we get to see this, too? Or just the members of Congress?

Hellmann: The director of national intelligence is supposed to declassify this information 90 days after the law is passed. After that, I’m not entirely sure if it’s just for Congress or it’s for the public, to be honest.

Rovner: We will see. I was amused that, right after this happened — because now we have all this talk that, you know, “Oh, absolutely” or not, absolutely it was a lab leak, but “more likely it was a lab leak.” Now we have new evidence suggesting that it may, in fact, have started in the Wuhan wet market, after all, jumping from something called raccoon dogs? Now, I consider myself something of an animal expert here. I have never heard of a raccoon dog.

Sanger-Katz: They’re really cute. I was enjoying looking at all the photographs of them.

Rovner: Are we going to now go back to the “OK, maybe it really did come from the market”? I-I-I …

Kenen: What I’m about to say is an oversimplification, but if you’re a Republican, you think it’s a lab leak. And if you’re a Democrat, you think it’s a raccoon dog. And that is an oversimplification. And one of the things that drives me crazy is that the potential for lab leaks exists and lab safety is an issue that should be bipartisan. There have been lab leaks in the U.S., there have been lab leaks elsewhere in the world. And that doesn’t mean this came from a lab leak, but lab leaks are a thing. And we want to make them not a thing. But again, there are many lessons we should be able to take from the pandemic; that’s one of them. Like, OK, maybe this wasn’t a lab leak, maybe this was the Wuhan animal market, but let’s take this as a moment to think about how we can protect ourselves from a future lab leak. You know, we may never conclusively know. Even the raccoon dog thing is still a theory. I mean, there’s evidence behind that theory, but the scientific establishment has not said, OK, this is it. There’s still debate. The science world tends to think it’s zoonotic, that it’s from an animal, but it’s not over yet. And again, the politicization is preventing good public policy.

Rovner: If only someone could turn that fight into something. And as I quoted Michael Osterholm last week as saying, “It doesn’t matter which one it was, because we have to be ready for both of them in a future pandemic.”

Kenen: Exactly. And we’ll probably have both. I mean, we may not have a pandemic from a lab leak, but is it possible that somebody, somewhere, or some community will be hurt from a lab leak? Yes, it is. And we need to mitigate that. Is it possible we have another zoonotic infection? I mean, there’s two Marburg outbreaks in Africa right now. I mean, that’s from animals. And there’s two of them going on. It’s an obscure disease. It’s worse than Ebola. It doesn’t spread as fast, but we have zoonotic infections way more often than the average American realizes.

Sanger-Katz: And also just one more thing, which is we still had and have a global pandemic that has caused enormous suffering and death and fear around the world. And in some ways, I feel like this obsession with like whose fault it is is a distraction from what can we do to prevent such a thing from happening in the future and really looking at, like, what was done appropriately and inappropriately in terms of the covid response? Pinning this down seems … it seems academically interesting to me. It seems useful to know. I think, as you guys have said, you’ve got to be ready for both things anyway. But it also feels like a little bit of a sideshow sometimes when the reality is: Covid came for us. It wasn’t a near-miss where looking at the origin is the whole story. It’s also everything that came afterwards is really important, too.

Rovner: Yes, absolutely. Well, finally this week, one more update. On last week’s podcast,while we were discussing Novo Nordisk following Eli Lilly’s lead in announcing insulin price cuts, I wondered aloud how long it would be before the third company in the triumvirate that controls most of the diabetes drug market, Sanofi, would follow suit. As it turned out, the answer was a couple of hours. In a press release that came out Thursday afternoon, Sanofi said it would cut the price of its most popular insulin product by 78% and ensure that people with health insurance pay no more than $35 a month for their insulin. But I’m thinking this fight is not completely over; now that the three big companies have voluntarily said we’ll lower our prices on some of our insulins, Congress is still going to want to do something about this, right?

Hellmann: Yeah. Sen. [Chuck] Schumer said last week that he still wants Congress to address this issue. He still wants to cap the cost of insulin because, like you said, there are still insulin products that some of these companies offer that don’t fall under these announcements.

Rovner: Drug prices will continue to be a top-of-mind issue, I suspect. All right. Well, that’s as much news as we have time 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 khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Margot, you’ve already done yours. Joanne, why don’t you go next?

Kenen: It’s a piece in The New Yorker, and I’m not sure how she pronounces her name. I think it’s Jia Tolentino. If any of you know, please correct me. But the story is called “Will the Ozempic Era Change How We Think About Being Fat and Being Thin?” I mean, this is a diabetes drug that is being used off-label for weight loss, quite widely to the point that there’s a shortage for people who have diabetes; they are having trouble getting it. It does help people lose weight and it’s become very much in demand because it does help you lose weight. And there are a few others in this class. So, the question she poses: This is a metabolic disorder, it’s not just a willpower issue, and will this help us get to that point? … It was a really good, interesting article, and I still ended up with a lot of questions about long-term safety, about do you have to take it forever and how much, and what happens if you don’t? It’s treating obesity rather than thinking about how to prevent obesity, which is a better — you know, too late for some millions of Americans, but there is generations to come. So but it was an interesting, provocative landscape piece.

Hellmann: My story is from The Washington Post. It’s called “Senior Care Is Crushingly Expensive. Boomers Aren’t Ready.” It’s just a story about how expensive long-term care could be, especially if you need really specialized care. One of the people interviewed for this story would have to pay about $72,000 a year to stay in an assisted-living facility. This person has Alzheimer’s and so they just need a little more help than someone else might. And they talk a lot about how Medicaid will cover some of this care, but only if you spend all of your life savings. And obviously, Medicare doesn’t really cover stays in assisted-living facilities either. I know we talked in email about how perennial this issue is. It’s something that was an issue 20 years ago. People are warning: We need to fix this problem.

Rovner: More than that. When I first joined CQ in 1986, it was the first big story I wrote, about what are we going to do about long-term care for the baby boomers? Here we are almost 40 years later, still talking about the same thing.

Hellmann: Yeah, I guess the answer is nothing.

Rovner: Not much has happened.

Kenen: Yeah, what’s happened is we’ve shifted more and more of it onto families.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true.

Kenen: More complicated care for longer.

Rovner: My extra credit this week is a truly terrifying piece from Vice News called “Inside the Private Group Where Parents Give Ivermectin to Kids With Autism,” by David Gilbert. And the headline says most of it. What it doesn’t say is that when you give horse wormer to kids — and this group actually advises the use of the paste that’s given to horses — they’re going to have adverse reactions. The kids, not the horses, including headaches, stomachaches, blurry vision, and more. But the administrators of this group insist that the side effects aren’t because the children are being administered something that can kill people in the wrong dosages, but because the medication is, quote, “working.” They also say it can cure a whole host of other disorders from Down syndrome to alopecia. It is quite the story. You really do need to read it.

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

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

President Joe Biden’s fiscal 2024 budget proposal includes new policies and funding boosts for many of the Democratic Party’s important constituencies, including advocates for people with disabilities and reproductive rights. It also proposes ways to shore up Medicare’s dwindling Hospital Insurance Trust Fund without cutting benefits, basically daring Republicans to match him on the politically potent issue.

Meanwhile, five women in Texas who were denied abortions when their pregnancies threatened their lives or the viability of the fetuses they were carrying are suing the state. They charge that the language of Texas’ abortion ban makes it impossible for doctors to provide needed care without fear of enormous fines or prison sentences.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Biden’s budget manages to toe the line between preserving Medicare and keeping the Medicare trust fund solvent while advancing progressive policies. Republicans have yet to propose a budget, but it seems likely any GOP plan would lean heavily on cuts to Medicaid and subsidies provided under the Affordable Care Act. Democrats will fight both of those.
• Even though the president’s budget includes something of a Democratic “wish list” of social policy priorities, the proposals are less sweeping than those made last year. Rather, many — such as extending to private insurance the $35 monthly Medicare cost cap for insulin — build on achievements already realized. That puts new focus on things the president has accomplished.
• Walgreens, the nation’s second-largest pharmacy chain, is caught up in the abortion wars. In January, the chain said it would apply for certification from the FDA to sell the abortion pill mifepristone in states where abortion is legal. However, last week, under threats from Republican attorneys general in states where abortion is still legal, the chain wavered on whether it would seek to sell the pill there or not, which caused a backlash from both abortion rights proponents and opponents.
• The five women suing Texas after being denied abortions amid dangerous pregnancy complications are not asking for the state’s ban to be lifted. Rather, they’re seeking clarification about who qualifies for exceptions to the ban, so doctors and hospitals can provide needed care without fear of prosecution.
• Although anti-abortion groups have for decades insisted that those who have abortions should not be prosecuted, bills introduced in several state legislatures would do exactly that. In South Carolina, those who have abortions could even be subject to the death penalty. So far none of these bills have passed, but the wave of measures could herald a major policy change.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Harris Meyer, who reported and wrote the two latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” features. Both were about families facing unexpected bills after childbirth. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KHN’s “Girls in Texas Could Get Birth Control at Federal Clinics, Until a Christian Father Objected,” by Sarah Varney

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Language for Treating Childhood Obesity Carries Its Own Health Risks to Kids, Experts Say,” by Jennifer Gerson

Victoria Knight: KHN’s “After People on Medicaid Die, Some States Aggressively Seek Repayment From Their Estates,” by Tony Leys

Margot Sanger-Katz: ProPublica’s “How Obamacare Enabled a Multibillion-Dollar Christian Health Care Cash Grab,” by J. David McSwane and Ryan Gabrielson

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “The Programs You’d Have to Cut to Balance the Budget,” by Alicia Parlapiano, Margot Sanger-Katz, and Josh Katz

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Biden Budget Touches All the Bases

KHN’s “What the Health?”Episode Title: Biden Budget Touches All the BasesEpisode Number: 288Published: March 10, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been lightly edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Friday, March 10, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hi. Good morning.

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

Margot Sanger Katz: Hello, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with Harris Meyer. It’s a twofer this time: two successive bills from two different families related to having a baby. But first, this week’s news. We are taping on Friday this week because President [Joe] Biden released his budget Thursday afternoon, and it felt weird to have a news podcast without talking about the budget. And yes, like most presidential budgets since the 1980s, this one is, quote-unquote, “dead on arrival” on Capitol Hill. But one thing the president’s budget does is provide a pretty-detailed look at the administration’s priorities and policy initiatives. Which health program stuck out to you as getting a publicity, if not an actual funding, boost in this document? Victoria, you were looking at the budget.

Knight: Yeah. My colleagues at Axios and I spent several hours yesterday morning going through the budget. I think it was really interesting because I think he was trying to toe the line between “we want to save Medicare, make sure it stays solvent,” but also “we want to push some more progressive ideas as well.” So there’s kind of both things in there. Some obvious things: He wants to permanently extend the enhanced tax credits for the ACA [Affordable Care Act] — so, make permanent those subsidies. Those expire, currently, at the end of 2025. He also wanted to do something called Medicaid-like coverage for eligible people in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid. And then he also wants to expand the number of drugs to be negotiated under the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] and also move up the timeline a little bit. So, just an example: It’s supposed to be 10 drugs to be negotiated in 2026. And now he wants to do 20. Something also really interesting: [He] wants to do like a Netflix-like subscription service for hepatitis C to basically eradicate hepatitis C within the U.S.

Rovner: I thought that was maybe the most interesting thing in this budget because it’s something that we just hadn’t heard of before.

Knight: Yeah.

Rovner: That, basically, I mean, these hepatitis C drugs were really expensive when they first came out and there was concern that Medicaid programs, in particular, were going to have trouble paying for them because many of the people who have hepatitis C are intravenous drug users, and they’re more likely to get hepatitis C — or people in prison. Lots of people on Medicaid who have hepatitis C. And this would basically be a way to pay in advance for the drugs. Is that essentially what they would do?

Knight: Yeah. And I think it’s also interesting that it at least has one Republican senator — Bill Cassidy is super into this idea. He did something similar in Louisiana. I’m not sure there’s other Republicans that are on board for that, but I thought that was really interesting. You know, of course, he was talking about extending the $35 insulin cap to the commercial market. There’s some other stuff about behavioral health, pandemic preparedness. One other thing Shefali will appreciate also, he proposed increasing Title X family planning funding by almost 80% from 2023 levels, which I think — Shefali, maybe you know — [is] one of the highest increases they’ve ever proposed, in a while at least.

Luthra: Yeah, the family planning clinics, interest groups, etc., were very, very happy about this proposal, even if they know it will not become reality. I think their sense was this was a commitment that would be really transformative for them, especially now, when they are so tightly funded.

Rovner: I did notice that for a president who has not technically said that he’s running again, some of these targeted increases were for some of the very important interest groups who have been kind of, I won’t say whining, but complaining. You know, Title X had not gotten big increases since Biden became president. There’s an initiative for more money for home- and community-based care in Medicaid, which is something, again, there’s an active constituency for in the Democratic Party; the “Cancer Moonshot,” you know, which has obviously been something near and dear to President Biden’s heart; also more money … also, the [American] Cancer Society sent out a lot of emails yesterday saying, yay, thanks for proposing this big budget increase. So there does certainly seem to be a lot of touching of the important constituencies, perhaps in anticipation of reelection campaign?

[Three panelists chime in at once.]

Luthra: Julie, you forgot …

Sanger-Katz: I would say …

Knight: And I think he did … Go, Margot!

Rovner: One at a time! [laughing all around] Margot, you go first.

Sanger-Katz: I would say so. And I would also just point out that the Medicare policies in the bill were previewed by the White House a couple of days before the budget release, and they were, like, the main thing. This is what they were leading with. The president had an op-ed in The New York Times describing his Medicare policies, and they put out a fact sheet with a lot of the Medicare policies. And I think it really reflects this notion that improving the solvency of Medicare and also committing to not really cutting the core services of Medicare, that this is a very key political message that the president cares about, that the president wants to run on, and that he thinks is a very useful contrast with what some Republicans have proposed in the past and what he imagines they might want to propose as House Republicans get ready to release their own budget, which faces some difficult constraints because Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy has promised certain members that the budget that they will pass will be a balanced budget. And that’s quite hard to do without touching the big health care programs.

Rovner: Yeah. Republicans have not promised not to touch Medicaid, which now the president has been very careful to say, “It’s not just Medicare and Social Security. I’m not going to let you cut Medicare, the Affordable Care Act either.” All right, Victoria, you wanted to say something?

Knight: I think — it was also interesting that, I do think, the president did want to push forward some of the more progressive policies that … the progressive base care about, such as doing more negotiating of drugs; something Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) has talked a lot about is the community health centers program; expanding Medicaid, home- and community-based services; … and the insulin price cap — things that I think the progressive base cares about as well. So I feel like, as you’re saying, that interest groups, but also the different bases and also the groups that care about reproductive health care, they want him to do something after Roe v. Wade. So it definitely was, like, this huge list of trying to cater to everyone.

Rovner: It’s kind of a Democratic wish list.

Sanger-Katz: At the same time, though, I think he did leave out some of the things that were part of the Build Back Better package. In the previous budgets, the president had gone even bigger on things that the progressive base wanted. And you can see a lot of things in this budget where he’s ticking those boxes, as you say. And I think a lot of policies that he has proposed in the past that he wasn’t able to get through the last Congress — but not all. It does seem like this budget is a little more focused on being able to reduce the deficit a little bit less on this very expansive notion of a robust federal government that is spending money to improve people’s lives in quite as many ways as the message that he has been proposing in his previous budgets. You can see, again, I think this is a pivot towards campaign mode, towards his assessment of the current political moment, growing concerns about the deficit and about inflation.

Rovner: But also, as you mentioned, Margot, they put out the Medicare part of this in advance, mainly because I feel like the Medicare part of the budget is not so much a part of, you know, the statement of the budget as it is a negotiating position for this whole fight we’re going to have over the debt ceiling in a couple of months, where the Republicans are going to want to demand cuts to programs basically in exchange for not letting the U.S. default on its debts. And what the president has managed to do here is say, “We’re going to lower the price of prescription drugs more, we’re going to tax the rich more. And those two things are going to a) reduce the deficit some and b) shore up the Medicare trust fund. So you can’t accuse me of not dealing with the impending problem of Medicare.” How much of a box does that actually put Republicans in when we start to get to these negotiations?

Sanger-Katz: I don’t know how much of a box it really puts them in for a couple of reasons. One is that some of what he’s proposing is really kind of an accounting gimmick. He’s taking money that is already flowing into the federal budget, that is already part of the dollars and cents of our deficit, and he’s just redirecting them from the general fund into the Medicare trust fund. So it is true that these proposals would extend the solvency of the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund, which is projected to run into some financial trouble in the coming decade. But it is not true that, like, all of the things that he’s proposing are actually new money. Some of it just comes out of other parts of the budget. It doesn’t change the deficit.

Rovner: So I will point out that that is a time honored way of extending the solvency of trusts.

Sanger-Katz: Oh, sure. I’m not saying that Biden is alone in doing that. But I just think there’s kind of three things he’s doing in this proposal. One of them is not deficit reduction. It’s just kind of moving money around. One is this drug price reduction proposal where he’s trying to get more savings by going more aggressively after more drugs. I think that is a place where he can put Republicans in a box a little bit. They’ve come out in opposition to the drug price negotiation provisions that were part of the Inflation Reduction Act that they passed last year. But those policies are super popular. The public really supports them. They feel like the pharmaceutical companies make too much money. They think that Medicare should be able to negotiate. So I think that’s a very politically shrewd decision that I think does demand potentially a response from Republicans as a possibility for deficit reduction. But then the third thing that he did is he really just raised taxes. You know, these are taxes on the rich; as Biden has been promising all along, he’s not going to raise taxes for people earning under $400,000 a year. So they’ve increased these payroll taxes, they’ve increased some investment taxes. There was kind of a loophole, a category of businesses that were not subject to that tax in the past. And, you know, I think those are basically nonstarters with Republicans. And when Republicans talk about deficit reduction, they often are very, very focused on cutting spending that the federal government does. They are much less interested in increasing taxes. And I do think that the fact that Biden led with this proposal, that he’s so comfortable talking about raising taxes as a core part of his platform, is a sign that the politics of tax cuts have changed a little bit, that that is … if you’re just taxing the rich, it seems like the public will accept that. Democrats seem actually excited about that in certain cases. But I still think tax increases are a hard political row to hoe. I think that it is not something that probably appeals to many Republican politicians. And I also think it’s probably not something that appeals to many Republican voters, either. So I don’t know that it really puts Republicans in a box in a meaningful way because they don’t feel any tension where their supporters will want them to do this thing.

Rovner: Obviously, this is a big fight yet to come. Victoria, you wanted to say something.

Knight: Yeah. I just want to add one thing. We did have, like, the first indicator: The House Freedom Caucus had a press conference this morning, and they didn’t give a lot of details, but they did say they want to restore Clinton-era work requirements for welfare programs. So they didn’t specify Medicaid, but it seems pretty likely that’s probably what they’re talking about. My colleagues and I did talk to some Republicans last week that were indicating they did want work requirements for Medicaid. So I think that seems like the very first. There’s going to be three different groups within the House Republican caucus that are going to release budgets: the Budget Committee, the House Freedom Caucus, the Republican Study Committee. So I think we are going to start seeing the outlines of what they want to do very soon. But that was kind of the first one coming out this morning, so …

Rovner: Yes, underscoring the fact that the Republicans don’t agree on what they want to do …

Knight: No.

Rovner: … which is why we haven’t seen their budget yet.

Knight: Exactly.

Rovner: Although I will point out President Biden’s budget was a month late, too.

Sanger-Katz: Can I just say one thing about the Republican budget? Because I actually spent a lot of time looking at various budget proposals and trying to examine this goal that the Republicans have of balancing the budget. Just like: How hard is it to balance the budget? And it turns out that it’s extremely hard. It’s sort of hard in a normal year. But in this post-covid era, when spending has been so elevated for so long, balancing the budget within a decade is just really, really, really hard. If you do it without raising taxes, which Republicans say they don’t want to raise taxes; if you do it without cutting defense spending, which Republicans say they don’t want to cut defense spending; if you do it without cutting Medicare or Social Security, which recently McCarthy has said he does not want to do — you end up just … this is just the basic math … having to cut everything else by 70%. That’s 7-0%. That is not the kind of cut that you can achieve even by imposing a work requirement on Medicaid, a work requirement on food stamps, and other kinds of policies that Republicans have proposed in the past. That is like deeply, deeply reducing the role of the federal government, you know, cutting Medicaid in more than half. Larry Levitt [KFF’s executive vice president for health policy] pointed out earlier this week reducing Medicaid spending by 70% probably means 50 million fewer people would have Medicaid coverage. And that’s just Medicaid. You’re talking about basically everything that the government does — environmental protection, law enforcement, military pensions, just about any program that you can think about in the government that’s not Medicare, Social Security, or direct defense spending. Seventy percent cut is quite hard to do. And so I am very curious to see what these budgets look like. I can tell you, having looked at some of the previous Republican proposals, that those all relied on some reductions to Medicare and Social Security because those programs represent such a large percentage of federal spending that if you don’t cut those at all, there’s just not a lot of dollars left. And in my reporting on this question, it does seem like one thing that the Republican Budget Committee is very likely to do is to use very aggressive assumptions about the economic growth that their policies will unleash. And so the idea is that if the economy grows by so much, then tax revenue, what increase all by itself, because people will be earning more money, and so that will enable them to balance the budget in 10 years without having to actually reduce the deficit by as much as independent scorekeepers like the Congressional Budget Office think would be necessary.

Rovner: Although I would point out that every time we’ve had one of these big tax cuts that Republicans say it’s going to grow the economy enough to pay for it, it has not grown the economy enough to pay for it.

Sanger-Katz: Indeed! You know, cutting everything that the government does by 70% probably actually would have a negative impact on the economy. People would be losing money. They would be losing their government jobs. These would be very large economic impacts that probably most economists do not think would lead to economic growth.

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will see. I will put, Margot, the nice story you did with your colleagues demonstrating all of this in chart form in the show notes. OK. Let us turn to abortion. We will start with Walgreens, poor Walgreens, caught in the maw of the abortion wars. In January, the FDA said that brick-and-mortar pharmacies for the first time could start dispensing the abortion pill, mifepristone, whose distribution had been tightly regulated since it was first approved more than 20 years ago. Almost immediately, both CVS and Walgreens, the country’s largest and second-largest pharmacy chains, announced they would apply for FDA certification to distribute the pills in states where abortion is still legal. Then, last month, 20 Republican state attorneys general, including at least four in states where abortion is still legal, warned CVS and Walgreens that if they send the pills by mail, they could be in violation of the 1873 Comstock Act, which we have talked about here before, which prohibited the mailing of items considered, air quotes, “obscene,” which at the time included information about birth control. Cut to last week when Walgreens appeared to cave to the pressure and the threat of legal action, saying it would not sell the pill in states where it’s illegal, not actually naming those states. Then, after a huge backlash, it tried to walk back its position a little, mostly leaving lots of questions. Shefali, what is your take on what Walgreens is and isn’t going to do now vis-a-vis mifepristone? They’ve kind of said both things.

Luthra: I think there’s a lot of layers here, but I want to go back to January for a moment, when we got that news from Walgreens and CVS so quickly that they would participate in providing mifepristone. Frankly, a lot of these folks that I spoke to were very surprised that [the pharmacies] reacted so quickly because carrying mifepristone in stock opens you up to really intense harassment, boycotts, protests from the anti-abortion movement. And we did see right away many of the premier anti-abortion movements calling for boycotts of Walgreens and CVS, for protests, etc. They have been organizing protests outside pharmacies right now. And there has been pressure from the beginning from governors like [Florida] Gov. Ron DeSantis instructing pharmacies not to stock the press down. The fact that Walgreens ultimately has caved in these states with hostile governments wasn’t surprising. If anything, it was surprising that it took quite so long. I am incredibly curious to see what happens with CVS and Rite Aid, the other two pharmacies that are now getting caught in the crosshairs, facing really intense pressure from lawmakers and politicians who support abortion access and also those who don’t. We saw in New York this week, the governor and the attorney general called on pharmacies to continue carrying mifepristone. Frankly, I’m skeptical that that really matters because there is no reason not to carry mifepristone in New York, a state where the government is very friendly to abortion.

Rovner: And we should point out, because this is my biggest frustration: Nobody’s actually doing it yet because nobody’s gotten certified yet.

Luthra: Correct.

Rovner: They’re not — all these headlines that said, “Walgreens is going to stop doing this.” It’s like, no, they’re going to not start doing this. Sorry.

Luthra: And we have no idea when they will get certified how long it would take. We have no idea, frankly, if mifepristone will still be able to be distributed in the country at that point, because we are still waiting on the ruling from this judge in Texas. We simply have so many open questions. And at this point, this really is more of an avenue for people to make statements about how they feel about abortion access, than it is actually affecting people’s ability to get care. The other statement grandstanding that I have been really struck by is what we’ve seen from the California governor, Gavin Newsom, who really does love to talk a lot about his pro-abortion rights bona fides, even if those statements don’t translate much into actual impact or policy. And what we saw this week was his promise that California wouldn’t do business with Walgreens if they wouldn’t stock mifepristone.

Rovner: And this is not just an idle threat in California, right? There’s a huge contract that he now says he’s not going to renew.

Luthra: So there is a contract. But friend of the podcast and former KHNer Sydney Lumpkin found the contract that Newsom was referring to. You would think it would be a significant amount of money, given how much attention it has gotten. It is a $54 million contract over five years. When you look at the overall market cap of Walgreens, a $30 billion company, it’s not clear exactly how meaningful that actually is compared to the pressure they are facing from lawsuits and the very powerful anti-abortion movement.

Rovner: So, and what … I mean, you referred to this, but what are we thinking that CVS and Rite Aid are going to do — having seen Walgreens literally put through the wringer here on this issue?

Luthra: I think that’s a really good question. I — I mean, coming into this week — had assumed that they would follow the path of Walgreens and do the exact same thing, right? Stock mifepristone, provide it with a doctor’s prescription in states where they are protected and face no legal risks, but perhaps not do so in those states where a) mifepristone is banned, as they have said they would not do. And also in states where, like Kansas, for instance, abortion is legal, but you have a very anti-abortion attorney general. It is quite interesting that they have not said either way what they will do beyond just, well we won’t do it in states where it’s illegal.

Rovner: Yeah, if I was advising CVS at this point, I would tell them to not say a word to anybody until some of this shakes out.

Luthra: Exactly.

Rovner: All right. Well, let us move on to Texas, where there is always abortion news. As Shefali mentioned, we have not had the decision yet on that abortion pill case out of Amarillo, but both sides are still going at it on other issues. Remember all those stories we’ve been chronicling about women with wanted pregnancies gone wrong who couldn’t get medical care until they were literally at death’s door or they went to another state? Well, five of them are suing the state of Texas, saying they should have been allowed to terminate their pregnancies under existing exceptions to the abortion bans, except that doctors and hospitals have been unwilling to risk giant fines and even jail time. The five women — some of whom are still pregnant, some of whom are not — want the state, whose officials continue to claim that these women were eligible for abortions in Texas if their lives were truly at risk, they want the state to clarify those exceptions even more. Is there any chance this happens? They’re not asking for the bans to be lifted. I mean, this is a kind of a unique lawsuit that we’ve not seen before because we’ve not seen that many women in this situation before.

Luthra: I think this is a pretty smart approach. I wouldn’t be surprised if it has better odds of success than, as you mentioned, a request to fully overturn Texas’ abortion bans because the exceptions are really unclear. Doctors do not feel safe talking about abortion, even in cases where it is likely that it would be very beneficial for the pregnant person, for a fetus that has really minimal chance of survival upon birth. One thing that Nancy Northup, the head of CRR [the Center for Reproductive Rights], said to me when I asked her is, depending on how this case goes, it is not at all unlikely that we see similar lawsuits filed in other states with abortion bans with similarly vague “life of the parent” exceptions that are, in reality, impossible to enforce. I think this is going to be the beginning of a very robust series of legal challenges to state abortion bans. And we’ll see better success for abortion rights lawyers in some states than in others — really depending on the makeup of these different states’ supreme courts.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it’s funny because over the years I’ve heard obviously lots of warning about this possibility, both from the Center for Reproductive Rights, which, as you say, is pushing this case, and other groups. But nobody could sue because nobody had standing, because it hadn’t happened. It was all theoretical. Well, now it’s happened and we have people to whom it is not theoretical, who are able to go to court and say, hey, this happened to us and it violated our rights and you need to do something about it.

Luthra: And I do want to add just one thing. I mean, it’s — I think we can’t understate just what these people have been through, the women who are suing Texas. I was just really struck by one woman who flew from Texas to Colorado for an abortion that she couldn’t get in state, paid extra for a seat by the airplane in case she went into labor on the flight, and said that she still has PTSD to this day from having to travel while afraid that she might go into labor and could die from it. Like, what these people are going through right now is just … it’s really difficult for us to imagine. And I think we’re just going to hear so many more stories that are really troubling about people whose lives have been so deeply put at risk, and they’re unable to get the care their doctors want to provide.

Rovner: Right. And I say for the 11th time, these are not women who got pregnant by accident and don’t wish to be pregnant. Many of these are women who’ve been through infertility treatment and were desperately anxious to be pregnant, were thrilled when they got pregnant, but whose pregnancy took a bad turn either for the fetus or, in some cases, one of the fetuses of twins, or in some cases the pregnant person themselves. Well, meanwhile, the Texas Republican legislature has been busy proposing even more abortion restrictions. Last week, we talked about a bill that would ban websites that include information about how to get abortion pills and punish internet providers who don’t block those sites. This week, we have a bill giving state officials the upper hand in prosecuting abortion cases in parts of the state where local Democratic prosecutors have suggested they don’t plan to zealously pursue such cases. Another bill would create a special prosecutor whose job would be, among other things, to pursue violations of the state’s abortion bans. Why is Texas such a hotbed of this?

Luthra: It’s always Texas. Texas is the biggest state in the country to have banned abortion, right? Most of the people who are traveling out of state — well, maybe not most, but the plurality — are Texans, because just so many people live there. And if we think about it, Roe v. Wade, as a case, it came from Texas. SB 8, the first law that allowed a state to circumvent Roe and ban abortions [at] anything after six weeks, that was a Texas law. This is a place where lawmakers really believe that they can be a fertile testing ground for the future of abortion restrictions. Between them and Missouri, I think, that is where we will see the bulk of innovative new ways to further restrict access.

Rovner: Well, speaking of big states that are banning or thinking about banning abortion, you wrote about Florida this week, which already has a ban on abortions after 15 weeks [and is] now considering a ban after six weeks. Florida is kind of a pivotal state in all this, right?

Luthra: Florida, third-biggest state in the country. And if we look at the map of the U.S. South and particularly the Southeast, Florida is just critical. Between Florida and North Carolina, that is where people across the region are going for abortions. And Florida has more than 60 clinics compared to, you know, around a dozen in North Carolina. If abortion there is banned after six weeks, there will be thousands of people who are displaced. They will probably have to go to North Carolina, while abortion is legal there, to Virginia and then to Illinois. And that is just really too far for so many people to travel. There just aren’t realistic options once you take Florida off the map.

Rovner: Well, finally, a bill has been introduced in the South Carolina legislature that could potentially subject patients who get abortions to the death penalty. Now, I am old enough to remember last year, when anti-abortion groups insisted they didn’t want to punish women who had abortions, just those who provide or facilitate them. I guess that’s not the case anymore.

Luthra: And I think we need to see where this bill goes. It is not the only state, either, where we are seeing legislation proposed that would treat abortion as murder or as homicide. There was a bill in Louisiana just last summer that failed on that front. But we have seen bills introduced in Tennessee, in Georgia, in so many others that I cannot remember now. But it’s a long list. I think what’s interesting is, so far, none of these bills have actually moved forward. And it’s still obviously early in the session. But what I’m curious about is, is this chipping away at the resistance toward these kinds of really strict abortion bans? And is this the first step in a multiyear effort to redirect who is punished for getting an abortion to switch from the doctors, the health care providers, to the pregnant people themselves, which has always been sort of this Rubicon the movement has been afraid to cross.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember in 2016 Chris Matthews was interviewing then-candidate Donald Trump and sort of got Donald Trump to say, you know, yes, the woman should be punished. And the anti-abortion movement came at him, like, no, no, no, that’s not what we say. That’s not what we want. And now it’s, you know, seven, eight years later and that’s not necessarily what people are saying. So, we will see how that goes. OK. That’s the news for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Harris Meyer and then we’ll come back and do her extra credits.

We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Harris Meyer, who reported and wrote the last two KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” stories, which are kind of related. Harris, welcome to “What the Health?”

Harris Meyer: Thanks very much, Julie.

Rovner: So, both of these bills have to do with something very common and very treacherous to your financial health: having a baby. Let’s start with baby No. 1, a now-3-year-old named Joey Trumble. Where is she from? Why was she in the hospital for 36 days?

Meyer: Joey was born prematurely in December 2019. Her mother, Brenna Kearney, is a writer in Chicago, and she was diagnosed with preeclampsia, and her doctors ordered her hospitalized at Northwestern. And then she developed a worse form of preeclampsia called HELLP syndrome. But anyway, the baby was born healthy but premature. And the baby, Joey, was treated at Northwestern Prentice, but without the knowledge of the parents the doctors who were treating her came over from next door from Lurie Children’s, and her hospital, Northwestern, was in network for her health plan. But Lurie Children’s doctors were out of network. They did not know that. So after her baby was sent home — it had about a month, 36 days, of hospitalization — the family got a bill of about $12,000, which was unexpected.

Rovner: That’s right. And we should point out that the baby was covered, right, under the mother’s health insurance.

Meyer: Correct.

Rovner: And yet they still got a bill for $12,000.

Meyer: That’s right. The hospitalization was covered. And, to their surprise, the doctors, the neonatologist from Lurie who treated the baby, were not covered in network. And so Brenna spent the next year contesting these charges. And they were never told that the doctors were out of the network. But she had found out that there was a 2011 Illinois law, which was in effect, which prohibited this kind of out-of-network billing for neonatology services.

Rovner: That’s right. And we should point out that this was before the federal No Surprises Act took effect, because this was late 2019.

Meyer: Correct.

Rovner: But there was a state law that should have applied.

Meyer: There was a state law. Illinois was a pioneer in this. So she cited that law to Blue Cross Blue Shield Illinois and to Lurie Children’s, and they said they knew nothing about it. So the bill was sent to collections about a year later, and she was able to get Blue Cross, finally, and, a year after the birth, to cover the Lurie doctor charges fully. However, in December, three years after she gave birth, she finds out she’s being billed again, after she thought the whole ordeal was over — many years after. And she finds out that Blue Cross of Illinois had taken the money back and now Lurie was coming after her and her husband again for the out-of-network charges. And that’s when she came to Kaiser Health News, and I made calls to Lurie, to Blue Cross of Illinois, and to Northwestern. And after my calls, Lurie agreed to drop the charges. But now a state senator, the Illinois Department of Insurance, and the Illinois attorney general are looking into this to see if there was a long pattern of violations by Lurie of this 2011 state law. And Brenna actually has been contacted now by three other women who experienced similar out-of-network bills from Lurie. So we’ll see what happens with that.

Rovner: So sort of a happy ending to that one. Let’s move to baby No. 2, or, more accurately, his mother. Who is she and what happened to her?

Meyer: OK. This was last June. Danielle Laskey is a school nurse, an RN, in Seattle. She was on vacation with the family. And at 26 weeks pregnant she felt that her water broke. Her doctors in Seattle ordered her to come back and said, you’d better come in. And her doctors were at Swedish Maternal & Fetal Specialty Center in Seattle, which was in network for her Blue Shield health plan. And when she got there, they said, yes, your water broke. You were at risk for the same complication from your first pregnancy three years ago. We want you to go to Swedish Medical Center across the street immediately, and we want you to stay there until you give birth, and we’ll monitor you. So she was in the hospital for seven weeks until she gave birth in August of last year.

Rovner: Oh, so just for context, Swedish is one of the big hospitals in Seattle, right?

Meyer: Yes, absolutely. And it’s one of the specialty facilities for this particular uncommon complication, which is called placenta accreta. Anyway, she was there for seven weeks. And again, she and her husband were not told that the hospital was out of network. But it turns out that Swedish, even though her doctors were — her Swedish doctors were in network for her health plan, it turns out that Swedish Medical Center was out of network, and she found out. Then the baby was born. The baby was in the hospital, the baby boy, for about a month. And then, meanwhile, after the baby was born, she experienced symptoms again, and she was rehospitalized for a day to have this placenta condition treated. Both those hospitalizations — you know, she and her husband, who’s a psychiatrist, thought they were emergencies. The doctors regarded them as emergencies. But yet afterward, the Regence Blue Shield and Swedish decided they were not emergencies. And so, guess what? The family was hit with over $100,000 in out-of-network bills for the two Swedish hospitalizations.

Rovner: And this was after the federal law took effect, right? This was last year.

Meyer: The federal law and a Washington state law were both in effect at that point, which say that you cannot apply out-of-network charges in an emergency situation. So, at first, Blue Shield said that it was not an emergency and it didn’t come under the law. And Swedish Medical Center was going to take the family to collections. The family appealed to Regence Blue Shield. Regence in January granted the appeal for the first hospitalization, erasing $100,000 or so of the charges. But the second hospitalization, $15,000 bill, was still in effect. And then they contacted Kaiser Health News. I contacted Regence Blue Shield and Swedish, and then the charges were dropped for the second hospitalization.

Rovner: Amazing how that happens.

Meyer: Yeah, well, it’s not a solution. So the twist on this one is that Regence Blue Shield said we decided it was an emergency and that it wasn’t proper that the doctors were in network but the hospital wasn’t, so we’re going to consider this an in network and erase the charges. But they said Regence Blue Shield had a contract with Swedish, which made Swedish a quote-unquote “participating provider”; therefore, the federal and state laws do not apply to that situation, and the hospital was allowed to charge the out-of-network charge. We’re going to erase it for this case, but the law does not apply to that situation.

Rovner: I confess, if I’m in a hospital and they say they’re a participating provider, I’m going to assume that means they’re in network. And in this case, it doesn’t, right?

Meyer: Right. It’s a very strange twist that my experts had never encountered before. I took the issue to the federal agency CMS, which administers the No Surprises Act, and they said that they’re going to look into this and HHS, Treasury Department, and Department of Labor are all going to have to look into this to see if this could be fixed through an agency guidance or whether this would require a congressional action to fix this apparent loophole in the law.

Rovner: Creativity. So what’s the takeaway here for both women and particularly for pregnant women who know at some point they’re likely to be in the hospital? You can’t ask every single person who touches you whether they’re in your network. And isn’t that what state and the federal law are supposed to guard against? These are the exact things that we assumed would be taken care of. Right?

Meyer: Right. Well, first of all, the family, the patient, and their loved ones need to ask the hospital and the insurer to tell them their rights under the No Surprises Act and make sure that both the insurer and the provider are following the letter of those federal and state laws. Second, if they do get, God forbid, a out-of-network bill, they need to immediately appeal that to the insurance company, and there’s a two-level appeal process. The second level, they get an independent review. And then, at the same time, they need to file a report or a complaint with the state attorney general’s office, the state department of insurance, and maybe even contact state legislators. There also are private agencies or private companies with nurses and lawyers, etc., that will help families, for a fee, address issues like this. Hopefully it shouldn’t require that, but sometimes it may. And of course, then there’s Kaiser Health News. You can file your “Bill of the Month” complaint through the portal, which we can’t deal with hundreds of thousands of cases, obviously.

Rovner: But we can help at least a few. And Harris Meyer, you helped two. So thank you very much. And thank you for joining us.

Meyer: Thank you, Julie.

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

Knight: My extra credit is called “They Could Lose the House — to Medicaid,” by Tony Leys, and it is published on NPR but is a KHN story. It’s about a family in Iowa who found out, after the mother in the family died, that they could lose their house because she was getting services through Medicaid. She had dementia, and so she needed really intensive at-home family care. Then after she died, they got a letter from the Iowa Department of Human Services — just a month after she died, so not long after — saying that the state was trying to recoup the money that they had spent on her care. So it was almost over $200,000 that they were asking for. And what was really upsetting is this family home was going to be the inheritance for the daughter. And so now they’re kind of like, what are we going to do? Thankfully, they don’t have to do anything with the house until something happens to the father. So it’s not gone immediately. But this is basically something that some states do. It’s called estate recovery programs. And if people use Medicaid in those states, the states have the ability to come back later … whether it’s, like, a house or they can ask for funds that these families used for Medicaid. So it’s really illuminating. I had no idea this was something that happened, and it varies by state to state. But in Iowa, this is something that they kind of pursue very aggressively.

Rovner: I remember when Congress made this a possibility, I think it was back in 1995. It’s been around, the possibility of states recouping Medicaid money for a long time. But as you point out, not all states do it. And it’s usually a surprise when states do do it. People still really don’t know about it. Shefali.

Luthra: So my story is from my 19th colleague, Jennifer Gerson. The headline is “Language for Treating Childhood Obesity Carries Its Own Health Risks to Kids, Experts Say.” And what Jen did, which I think is really smart and important, is she looked at the new clinical guidelines we got from the American Academy of Pediatrics. And those were meant to improve how we evaluate and treat obesity in children. And what she gets into is that there are a lot of children’s health experts, especially mental health experts, who are deeply concerned about what the impacts of these new guidelines could be, how they might exacerbate weight stigma, and how the long-term ramifications of some of the treatment guidelines could actually have worse outcomes for young people as a result, by building on weight stigma, which could lead to different kinds of unhealthy behaviors, could lead to mental health harms that could have much longer term repercussions, possibly more, in fact, dangerous than the actual problems that these guidelines are trying to treat. And one thing that Jen notes I think is really important is that the implications of weight stigma, in particular, are especially harmful for young girls who, as we know, are already facing so many mental health crises in general right now. I thought this was a really important look at a potentially really troubling unintended consequence, and I’m really glad Jen wrote about it.

Rovner: Yeah, I had no idea. It was a very counterintuitive but really interesting piece. Margot, what do you have this week?

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to suggest an article in ProPublica called “How Obamacare Enabled a Multibillion-Dollar Christian Health Care Cash Grab,” by J. David McSwane and Ryan Gabrielson which is just this wonderful historic dive into how the Affordable Care Act ended up allowing something called Christian health ministries to provide an alternative to health insurance. As we all know, the Affordable Care Act basically said, if you’re going to offer health insurance, it has to meet certain minimum guidelines in terms of what it covers and how it works. And these Christian health sharing ministries are just this huge, huge exception where basically it’s just, you know, groups of religiously affiliated people can get together and just pay for each other’s health care or not, depending on what they want to do. There has been a lot of reporting over the years about the degree to which these plans are kind of scammy or poorly run or are not paying for needed health care for their members who think that they are an alternative to insurance. And so this piece is just fun because it looked at the lobbying that generated this strange policy.

Rovner: Yeah. You know, I remember when they got the Christian sharing ministries exception into the ACA and not really knowing where it came from. Well, this story explains exactly where it came from. So it is quite an eye-popping read. Mine is from my KHN colleague Sarah Varney, and it’s called “Girls in Texas Could Get Birth Control at Federal Clinics, Until a Christian Father Objected. Now, for decades, underage girls have been able to get contraception from federally funded Title X family planning clinics without parental permission. An effort by the Reagan administration in the early 1980s, dubbed the “Squeal Rule,” which would have required that parents be notified after the fact, was struck down in federal court and the Reagan administration did not appeal it. And no, I was not there to cover that at that time. I did look it up. A couple of months ago, Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk — yes, that Judge Kacsmaryk, who will any day now rule on whether the FDA approval of the abortion pill should be revoked — ruled in favor of a father in Texas, not a father whose daughters did or said they wanted to obtain contraception from a Title X clinic. But the father complained that the very possibility that his daughters could get birth control without his consent rendered that portion of the law — which has been in effect since Title X, was signed by Richard Nixon in 1970 — unconstitutional. And of course, the judge agreed with him. So for now, the ruling only applies in Texas. But lest you think they’re not coming for your birth control, think again.

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

Luthra: I’m @shefalil

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk

Rovner: Margot.

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

With Medicare and Social Security apparently off the table for federal budget cuts, the focus has turned to Medicaid, the federal-state health program for those with low incomes. President Joe Biden has made it clear he wants to protect the program, along with the Affordable Care Act, but Republicans will likely propose cuts to both when they present a proposed budget in the next several weeks.

Meanwhile, confusion over abortion restrictions continues, particularly at the FDA. One lawsuit in Texas calls for a federal judge to temporarily halt distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. A separate suit, though, asks a different federal judge to temporarily make the drug easier to get, by removing some of the FDA’s safety restrictions.

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• States are working to review Medicaid eligibility for millions of people as pandemic-era coverage rules lapse at the end of March, amid fears that many Americans kicked off Medicaid who are eligible for free or near-free coverage under the ACA won’t know their options and will go uninsured.
• Biden promised this week to stop Republicans from “gutting” Medicaid and the ACA. But not all Republicans are on board with cuts to Medicaid. Between the party’s narrow majority in the House and the fact that Medicaid pays for nursing homes for many seniors, cutting the program is a politically dicey move.
• A national group that pushed the use of ivermectin to treat covid-19 is now hyping the drug as a treatment for flu and RSV — despite a lack of clinical evidence to support their claims that it is effective against any of those illnesses. Nonetheless, there is a movement of people, many of them doctors, who believe ivermectin works.
• In reproductive health news, a federal judge recently ruled that a Texas law cannot be used to prosecute groups that help women travel out of state to obtain abortions. And the abortion issue has highlighted the role of attorneys general around the country — politicizing a formerly nonpartisan state post. –And Eli Lilly announced plans to cut the price of some insulin products and cap out-of-pocket costs, though their reasons may not be completely altruistic: An expert pointed out that a change to Medicaid rebates next year means drugmakers soon will have to pay the government every time a patient fills a prescription for insulin, meaning Eli Lilly’s plan could save the company money.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “A Drug Company Exploited a Safety Requirement to Make Money,” by Rebecca Robbins.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “Alone and Exploited, Migrant Children Work Brutal Jobs Across the U.S.,” by Hannah Dreier.

Rachel Cohrs: STAT News’ “Nonprofit Hospitals Are Failing Americans. Their Boards May Be a Reason Why,” by Sanjay Kishore and Suhas Gondi.

Lauren Weber: KHN and CBS News’ “This Dental Device Was Sold to Fix Patients’ Jaws. Lawsuits Claim It Wrecked Their Teeth,” by Brett Kelman and Anna Werner.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Politico’s “Why One State’s Plan to Unwind a Covid-Era Medicaid Rule Is Raising Red Flags,” by Megan Messerly.
• The Washington Post’s “Doctors Who Touted Ivermectin as Covid Fix Now Pushing It for Flu, RSV,” by Lauren Weber.
• NPR’s “To Safeguard Healthy Twins in Utero, She Had to ‘Escape’ Texas for Abortion Procedure,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
• The Daily Beast’s “Tennessee Abortion Ban a ‘Nightmare’ for Woman With Doomed Pregnancy,” by Michael Daly.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: March Medicaid Madness

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Medicaid March MadnessEpisode Number: 287Published: March 2, 2023

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week on Thursday, March 2, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we officially welcome to the podcast panel this week Lauren Weber, ex of KHN and now at The Washington Post covering a cool new beat on health and science disinformation. Lauren, welcome back to the podcast.

Lauren Weber: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So we’re going to get right to this week’s news. We’ve talked a lot about the political fight swirling around Medicare the past couple of weeks. So this week, I want to talk more about Medicaid. Our regular listeners will know, or should know, that states are beginning to re-determine eligibility for people who got on Medicaid during the covid pandemic and were allowed to stay on until now. In fact, Arkansas is vowing to re-determine eligibility for half a million people over the next six months. Alice, the last time Arkansas tried to do something bureaucratically complicated with Medicaid, it didn’t turn out so well, did it?

Ollstein: No. It was so much of a cautionary tale that no other state until now has gone down that path, although now at least a couple are attempting to. So Arkansas was the only state to actually move forward under the Trump administration with implementing Medicaid work requirements. And we covered it at the time, and just thousands and thousands of people lost coverage who should have qualified. They were working. They just couldn’t navigate the reporting system. Part of the problem was that you had to report your working hours online and a lot of people who are poor don’t have access to the internet. And, you know, the system was buggy and clunky and it was just a huge mess. But that is not stopping the state from trying again on several fronts. One, they want to do Medicaid work requirements again. The governor, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, has said that they plan to do that and also they plan to do their redeterminations for the end of the public health emergency in half the time the federal government would like states to take to do it. The federal government has incentives for states to go slow and take a full year to make sure people know how to prove whether or not they qualify for Medicaid and to learn what other insurance coverage options might be available to them. For instance, you know, Obamacare plans that are free or almost free.

Rovner: Yeah. Presumably most of the people who are no longer eligible for Medicaid but are still low-income will be eligible for Obamacare with hefty subsidies.

Ollstein: That’s right. So the fear is that history will repeat itself. A lot of people who should be covered will be dropped from coverage and won’t even know it because the state didn’t take the time to contact people and seek them out.

Rovner: This is something that we will certainly follow as it plays out over the next year. More broadly, though, there have been whispers — well, more than whispers, whines — over the past couple of weeks that President [Joe] Biden’s challenge to Republicans not to cut Social Security and Medicare, and Republicans’ apparent acceptance of that challenge, specifically leaves out Medicaid. Now, I never thought that was true, at least for the Democrats. But earlier this week, President Biden extended his promises to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act. How much of a threat is there really to Medicaid in the coming budget battles? Rachel, you wrote about that today.

Cohrs: There is a lot of anxiety swirling around this on the Hill. I know there’s a former Trump White House official who’s circulated some documents that are making people a little bit nervous about Republicans’ position. But it is useful to look at existing documents out there. It is not reflective necessarily of the consensus Republican position. And it’s a very diverse party right now in the House. They have an incredibly narrow majority and Kevin McCarthy is really going to have to walk a tightrope here. And I think it is important to remember that when Medicaid has come up on steep ballot initiatives in red states, so many times it has passed overwhelmingly. So I think there is an argument to be made that Medicaid enjoys more political support among the GOP voting populace than maybe it does among members of Congress. So I think I am viewing it with caution. You know, obviously, it’s something that we’re going to have to be tracking and watching as these negotiations develop. But Democrats still hold the Senate and they still hold the presidency. So Republicans have more leverage than they did last Congress, but they’re still … Democrats still have a lot of sway here.

Rovner: Although I’ll just point out, as I think I pointed out before, that in 2017, when the Republicans tried to repeal the Affordable Care Act, one of the things they discovered is that Medicaid is actually kind of popular. I think … much to their surprise, they discovered that Medicaid is also kind of popular, maybe not as much as Medicare, but more than I think they thought. So I guess the budget wars really get started next week: We get President Biden’s budget, right?

Ollstein: And House Republicans are allegedly working on something. We don’t know when it will come or how much detail it will have, but it will be some sort of counter to Biden’s budget. But, you know, the real work will come later, in hashing it out in negotiations. And, really, a small number of people will be involved in that. And so just like Rachel said, you know, you’re going to see a lot of proposals thrown out over the next several months. Not all of them should necessarily be taken seriously or taken as determinative. Just one last interesting thing: This has been a really interesting education time, both for lawmakers and the public on just who is covered under these programs. I mean, the idea is that Medicare is so untouchable, is this third rail, because it is primarily seniors, and seniors vote. And seniors are more politically important to conservatives and Republicans. But people forget a lot of seniors are also on Medicaid. They get their nursing home coverage through there. And so I’ve heard a lot of Democratic lawmakers really hammering that argument lately and saying, look, you know, the stereotype for Medicaid is that it’s just poor adults, but …

Rovner: Yeah, moms and kids. That was how it started out.

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: It was poor moms and kids.

Ollstein: Exactly. But it’s a lot more than that now. And it is more politically dicey to go after it than maybe people think.

Rovner: Yeah, I think Nancy Pelosi … in 2017 when, you know, if the threat with Medicare is throwing Granny off the cliff in her wheelchair, the threat of Medicaid is throwing Granny out of her nursing home, both of which have their political perils. All right. Well, we’ll definitely see this one play out for a while. I want to move to the public health beat. Lauren, you had a really cool story on the front page of The Washington Post this week about how the promise of ivermectin to treat infectious diseases in humans. And for those who forget, ivermectin is an anti-wormer drug that I give to my horse and both of my dogs. But the idea of using it for various infectious diseases just won’t die. What is the latest ivermectin craze?

Weber: Yes, and to be clear, there is an ivermectin that is a pill that can be given to humans, which is what these folks are talking about. But there’s this group called the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance that really pushed ivermectin in the height of covid. As we all know on this podcast, scientific study after scientific study after clinical trial has disproved that there is any efficacy for that. But this group has continued to push it. And I discovered, looking at their website back this winter, that they’re now pushing it for the flu and RSV. And as I asked the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] and medical experts, there’s no clinical data to support pushing that for the flu or RSV. And, you know, as one scientist said to me, they had data that … had antiviral properties in a test tube. But as one scientist said to me, well, if you put Coca-Cola in a test tube, it would show it had antiviral properties as well. So there’s a lot of pushback to these folks. But, that said, they told me that they have had their protocols downloaded over a million times. You know, they’re … absolutely have some prominence and have, you know, converted a share of the American population to the belief that this is a useful medical treatment for them. And one of the doctors that has left their group over their support of ivermectin said to me, “Look, I’m not surprised that they’re continuing to push this for something else. This is what they do now. They push this for other things.” And so it’s quite interesting to see this continue to play out as we continue into covid, to see them kind of expand, as these folks said to me, into other diseases.

Rovner: I know I mean, usually when we see these kinds of things, it’s because the people who are pushing them are also selling them and making money off of them. And I know that’s the case in some of this, but a lot of these are just doctors who are writing prescriptions for ivermectin. Right? I mean, this is an actual belief that they have.

Weber: Yeah, some of them do make money off of telehealth appointments. They can charge up to a couple hundred dollars for telehealth appointments. And one of the couple of co-founders had a lucrative Substack and book deal that talks about ivermectin and do get paid by this alliance. One of them made almost a quarter of a million dollars in salary from the alliance. But yeah, I mean, the average doctor that’s prescribing ivermectin, I mean — there were over 400,000 ivermectin prescriptions in, I think, it was August of 2021. So that’s a lot of prescriptions.

Rovner: They’re not all making money off of it.

Weber: They’re not all making money. And I mean, what’s wild to me is Merck has come out and said, which, in a very rare statement for a pharmaceutical company, you know, don’t prescribe our drug for this. And when I asked them about RSV and the flu, they said, yeah, our statement would still stand on that. So it’s a movement, to some extent. And the folks I talked to about it, they really believe …

Rovner: And I will say, for a while in 2021, you couldn’t get horse wormer, which is a very nasty-tasting paste, even the horses don’t really like it. Because it was hard to get ivermectin at all. So we’ll see where this goes next. Here’s one of those “in case you missed It” stories. The Tulsa World this week has an interview with former Republican Sen. James Inhofe, who said, in his blunt Inhofe way, that he retired last year not only because he’s 88, but because he’s still suffering the effects of long covid. And he’s not the only one — quote, “five or six others have [long covid], but I’m the only one who admits it,” he told the paper, referring to other members of the Senate, presumably other Republican members of the Senate. Now, mind you, the very conservative Inhofe voted against just about every covid funding bill. And my impression from not going to the Hill regularly in 2021 and 2022 is that while covid seemed to be floating around in the air, lots of people were getting it, very few people seemed to be getting very sick. But now we’re thinking that’s not really the case, right?

Ollstein: When I saw this, I immediately went back to a story I wrote about a year ago on Tim Kaine’s long covid diagnosis and his attempts to convince his colleagues to put more research funding or treatment funding, more basic covid prevention funding … you know, fewer people will get long covid if fewer people get covid in the first place. And there was just zero appetite on the Republican side for that. And that’s why a lot of it didn’t end up passing. Inhofe was one of the Republicans I talked to, and I said, you know, do you think you should do more about long covid? What do you think about this? And this is what he told me: “I have other priorities. We’re handling all we can right now.” And then he added that long covid is not that well defined. And he argued there’s no way to determine how many people are affected. Well.

Rovner: OK.

Ollstein: So that … in “Quotes That Aged Poorly Hall of Fame.”

Rovner: You know, obviously Tim Kaine came forward and talked about it. But now I’m wondering if there are people who are slowing down or looking like they’re not well, maybe they have long covid and don’t want to say.

Ollstein: Well, I mean, something that Tim Kaine’s case shows is that there’s no one thing it can look like and somebody can look completely healthy and normal on the outside and be suffering symptoms. And Tim Kaine has also said that members of Congress have quietly disclosed to him and thanked him for speaking up, but said they weren’t willing to do it themselves. And he, Tim Kaine, told me that he felt more comfortable speaking up because the kind of symptoms he had were less stigmatized. They weren’t anything in terms of impeding his mental capacity and function. And there’s just a lot of stigma and fear of people coming forward and admitting they’re having a problem.

Rovner: I find it kind of ironic that last week we talked about how, you know, members of Congress and politicians with mental health, you know, normally stigmatizing problems are more willing to talk about it. And yet here are people with long covid not willing to talk about it. So maybe we’ll see a little bit more after this or maybe not. I want to talk a little bit about artificial intelligence and health care. I’ve been wanting to talk about this for a while, but this week seems to be everyone is talking about AI. There have been a spate of stories about how different types of artificial intelligence are aiding in medical care, but also some cautionary tales, particularly about chat engines. They get all their information from the internet, good or bad. Now, we already have robots that do intricate surgeries and lots and lots of treatment algorithms. On the other hand, the little bit of AI that I already have that’s medical-oriented, my Fitbit, that sometimes accurately tracks my exercise and sometimes doesn’t, and the chat bot from my favorite chain drugstore that honestly cannot keep my medication straight. None of that makes me terribly optimistic about launching into health AI. Is this, like most tech, going to roll out a little before it’s ready and then we’ll work the bugs out? Or maybe are we going to be a little bit more careful with some of this stuff?

Cohrs: I think we’ve already seen some examples of things rolling out before they’re exactly ready. And I just thought of my colleague Casey Ross’ reporting on Epic’s algorithm that was supposed to help …

Rovner: Epic, the electronic medical records company.

Cohrs: Yes, yes. They had this algorithm that was supposed to help doctors treat sepsis patients, and it didn’t work. The problem with using AI in health care is that there are life-and-death consequences for some of these things. If you’re misdiagnosing someone, if you’re giving them medicine they don’t need, there are, like, those big consequences. But there are also the smaller ones too. And my colleague Brittany Trang wrote about how with doctor’s notes or transcripts of conversations between a physician and a patient sometimes AI has difficulty differentiating between an “mm-hm” or an “uh-huh” and telling whether that’s a yes or a no. And so I think that there’s just all of these really fascinating issues that we’re going to have to work through. And I think there is enormous potential, certainly, and I think there’s getting more experimentation. But like you said, I think in health care it’s just a very different beast when you’re rolling things out and making sure that they work.

Weber: Yeah, I wanted to add, I mean, one of the things that I found really interesting is that doctors’ offices are using some of it to reduce some of the administrative burden. As we all know, prior authorizations suck up a lot of time for doctors’ offices. And it seems like this has actually been really helpful for them. That said, I mean, that comes with the caveat of — my colleagues and I and much reporting has shown that — sometimes these things just make up references for studies. They just make it up. That level of “Is this just a made-up study that supports what I’m saying?” I think is really jarring. This isn’t quite like using Google. It cannot be trusted to the level … and I think people do have caution with it and they will have to continue to have caution with it. But I think we’re really only at the forefront of figuring out how this all plays out.

Rovner: I was talking before we started taping about how I got a text from my favorite chain drugstore saying that I was out of refills and that they would call my doctor, which is fine. And then they said, “Text ‘Yes’ if you would like us to call” … some other doctor. I’m like, “Who the heck is this other doctor?” And then I realize he’s the doctor I saw at urgent care last September when I burned myself. I’m like, “Why on earth would you even have him in your system?” So, you know, that’s the sort of thing … it’s like, we’re going to be really helpful and do something really stupid. I worry that Congress, in trying to regulate tech, and failing so far — I mean, we’ve seen how much they do and don’t know about, you know, Facebook and Instagram and the hand-wringing over TikTok because it’s owned by the Chinese — I can’t imagine any kind of serious, thoughtful regulation on this. We’re going to have to basically rely on the medical industry to decide how to roll this out, right? Or might somebody step in?

Ollstein: I mean, there could be agency, you know, rulemaking, potentially. But, yes, it’s the classic conundrum of technology evolving way faster than government can act to regulate it. I mean, we see that on so many fronts. I mean, look how long has gone without any kind of update. And, you know, the kinds of ways health information is shared are completely different from when that law was written, so …

Rovner: Indeed.

Weber: And as Rachel said, I mean, this is life-or-death consequences in some places. So the slowness with which the government regulates things could really have a problem here, because this is not something that is just little …

Rovner: Of the things that keep me awake at night, this is one of the things that keeps me awake at night. All right. Well, one of these weeks, we will not have a ton of reproductive health news. But this week isn’t it. As of this taping, we still have not gotten a decision in that Texas case challenging the FDA approval of the abortion pill, mifepristone, back in the year 2000. But there’s plenty of other abortion news happening in the Lone Star State. First, a federal judge in Texas who was not handpicked by the anti-abortion groups ruled that Texas officials cannot enforce the state’s abortion ban against groups who help women get abortion out of state, including abortion funds that help women get the money to go out of state to get an abortion. The judge also questioned whether the state’s pre-Roe ban is even in effect or has actually been repealed, although there are overlapping bans in the state that … so that wouldn’t make abortion legal. But still, this is a win for the abortion rights side, right, Alice?

Ollstein: Yeah, I think the right knows that there are two main ways that people are still getting abortions who live in ban states. They’re traveling out of state or they are ordering pills in the mail. And so they are moving to try to cut off both of those avenues. And, you know, running into some difficulty in doing so, both in the courts and just practically in terms of enforcing. This is part of that bigger battle to try to cut off, you know, people’s remaining avenues to access the procedure.

Rovner: Well, speaking exactly of that, Texas being Texas, this week, we saw a bill introduced in the state legislature that would ban the websites that include information about how to get abortion pills and would punish internet providers that fail to block those sites. It would also overturn the court ruling we just talked about by allowing criminal prosecution of anyone who helps someone get an abortion. Even a year ago, I would have said this is an obvious legislative overreach, but this is Texas. So now maybe not so much.

Ollstein: I mean, I think lots of states are just throwing things at the wall to see what sticks and to see what gets through the courts. You had states test the waters on banning certain kinds of out-of-state travel, and that hasn’t gone anywhere yet. But even things that don’t end up passing and being implemented can have a chilling effect. You have a lot of confusion right now. You have a lot of people not sure what’s legal, what’s not. And if you create this atmosphere of fear where people might be afraid to go out of state, might be afraid to ask for funding to go out of state, afraid to Google around and see what their options are that serves the intended impacts of these proposals, in terms of preventing people from exploring their options and seeing what they can do to terminate a pregnancy.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, meanwhile, a dozen states that are not named Texas are suing the FDA, trying to get it to roll back some of the prescribing requirements around the abortion pill. The states are arguing that not only are the risk-mitigation rules unnecessary, given the proven safety of mifepristone, but that some of the certification requirements could invade the privacy of patients and prescribers and subject them to harassment or worse. They’re asking the judge to halt enforcement of the restrictions while the case is being litigated. That could run right into [U.S. District] Judge [Matthew] Kacsmaryk’s possible injunction in Texas banning mifepristone nationwide. Then what happens? If you’ve got one judge saying, “OK, you can’t sell this nationwide,” and another judge saying … “Of course you can sell it, and you can’t use these safety restrictions that the FDA has put around it.” Then the FDA has two conflicting decisions in front of it.

Weber: Yeah, and I find the battles of the AGs and the abortion wars are really fascinating because, I mean, this is a lawsuit brought by states, which is attorneys general, Democratic attorneys general. And you’re seeing that play out. I mean, you see that in Texas, too, with [Ken] Paxton. You see it in Michigan with [Dana] Nessel. I mean, I would argue one of the things that attorney generals have been the most prominent on in the last several decades of American history and have actually had immediate effects on due to the fall of Roe v. Wade. So we’ll see what happens. But it is fascinating to see in real time this proxy battle, so to speak, between the two sides play out across the states and across the country.

Rovner: No, it’s funny. State AGs did do the tobacco settlement.

Weber: Yes.

Rovner: I mean, that would not have happened. But what was interesting about that is that it was very bipartisan.

Weber: Well, they were on the same side.

Rovner: And this is not.

Weber: Yeah, I mean, yeah, they were on the same side. This is a different deal. And I think to some extent, and I did some reporting on this last year, it speaks to the politicization of that office and what that office has become and how it’s become, frankly, a huge launching pad for people’s political careers. And the rhetoric there often is really notched up to the highest levels on both sides. So, you know, as we continue to see that play out, I think a lot of these folks will end up being folks you see on the national stage for quite some time.

Ollstein: I’ve been really interested in the states where the attorney general has clashed with other parts of their own state government. And so in North Carolina, for example, right now you have the current Democratic attorney general who is planning to run for governor. And he said, I’m not going to defend our state restrictions on abortion pills in court because I agree with the people challenging them. And then you have the Republican state legislatures saying, well, if he’s not going to defend these laws, we will. So that kind of clash has happened in Kentucky and other states where the attorney general is not always on the same side with other state officials.

Rovner: If that’s not confusing enough, we have a story out of Mississippi this week, one of the few states where voters technically have the ability to put a question on the ballot, except that process has been blocked for the moment by a technicality. Now, Republican legislators are proposing to restart the ballot initiative process. They would fix the technicality, but not for abortion questions. Reading from the AP story here, quote, “If the proposed new initiative process is adopted, state legislators would be the only people in Mississippi with the power to change abortion laws.” Really? I mean, it’s hard to conceive that they could say you can have a ballot question, but not on this.

Ollstein: This is, again, part of a national trend. There are several Republican-controlled states that are moving right now to attempt to limit the ability of people to put a measure on the ballot. And this, you know, comes as a direct result of last year. Six states had abortion-related referendums on their ballot. And in all six, the pro-abortion rights side won. Each one was a little different. We don’t need to get into it, but that’s the important thing. And so people voted pretty overwhelmingly, even in really red states like Kentucky and Montana. And so other states that fear that could happen there are now moving to make that process harder in different ways. You have Mississippi trying to do, like, a carve-out where nothing on abortion can make it through. Other states are just trying to raise, like, the signature threshold or the vote threshold people need to get these passed. There are a lot of different ways they’re going about it.

Rovner: I covered the Mississippi “personhood” amendment back in 2011. It was the first statewide vote on, you know, granting personhood to fetuses. And everybody assumed it was going to win, and it didn’t, even in Mississippi. So I think there’s reason for the legislators who are trying to re-stand up this ballot initiative process to worry about what might come up and how the voters might vote on it. Well, because I continue to hear people say that women trying to have babies are not being affected by state abortion bans and restrictions, this week we have not one but two stories of pregnant women who were very much impacted by abortion bans. One from NPR is the story of a Texas woman pregnant with twins — except one twin had genetic defects not only incompatible with life, but that threatened the life of both the other twin and the pregnant woman. She not only had to leave the state for a procedure to preserve her own life and that of the surviving twin, but doctors in Texas couldn’t even tell her explicitly what was going on for fear of being brought up on charges of violating the state’s ban. I think, Alice, you were the one talking about how, you know, women are afraid to Google. Doctors are afraid to say anything.

Ollstein: Yeah, absolutely. I mean, it’s a really chilling and litigious environment right now. And I think, as more and more of these stories start to come forward, I think that is spurring the debates you’re seeing in a lot of states right now about adding or clarifying or expanding the kind of exceptions that exist on these bans. So you have very heated debates going on right now in Utah and Tennessee and in several states around, you know, should we add more exceptions because there are some Republican lawmakers who are looking at these really tragic stories that are trickling out and saying, “This isn’t what we intended when we voted for this ban. Let’s go back and revisit.” Whether exceptions even work when they are on the books is another question that we can discuss. I mean, we have seen them not be effective in other states and people not able to navigate them.

Rovner: We’ve seen a lot of these stories about women whose water broke early and at what point is it threatening her life? How close to death does she have to be before doctors can step in? I mean, we’ve seen four or five of these. It’s not like they’re one-offs. The other story this week is from the Daily Beast. It’s about a 28-year-old Tennessee woman whose fetus had anomalies with its heart, brain, and kidneys. That woman also had to leave the state at her own expense to protect her own health. Is there a point where anti-abortion forces might realize they are actually deterring women who want babies from getting pregnant for fear of complications that they won’t be able to get treated?

Ollstein: Most of the pushback I’ve seen from anti-abortion groups, they claim that the state laws are fine and that doctors are misinterpreting them. And there is a semantic tug of war going on right now where anti-abortion groups are trying to argue that intervening in a medical emergency shouldn’t even count as an abortion. Doctors argue, no, it is an abortion. It’s the same procedure medically, and thus we are afraid to do it under the current law. And the anti-abortion groups are saying, “Oh, no, you’re saying that in bad faith; that doesn’t count as an abortion. An abortion is when it’s intended to kill the fetus.” So you’re having this challenging tug of war, and it’s not really clear what states are going to do. There’s a lot of state bills on this making their way through legislatures right now.

Rovner: And doctors and patients are caught in the middle. Well, finally this week, Eli Lilly announced it would lower, in some cases dramatically, the list prices for some of its insulin products. You may remember that, last year, Democrats in Congress passed a $35-per-month cap for Medicare beneficiaries but couldn’t get those last few votes to apply the cap to the rest of the population. Lilly is getting very good press. Its stock price went up, even though it’s not really capping all the out-of-pocket costs for insulin for everybody. But I’m guessing they’re not doing this out of the goodness of their drugmaking heart, right, Rachel?

Cohrs: Probably not. Even though there’s a quote from their CEO that implied that that was the case. I think there was one drug pricing expert at West Health Policy Center, Sean Dickson, who is very sharp on these issues, knows the programs well. And he pointed out that there’s a new policy going into effect in Medicaid next year, and it’s really, really wonky and complicated. But I’ll do my best to try to explain that, generally, in the Medicare program, rebates are capped, or they have been historically, at the price of the drug. So you can’t charge a drugmaker a rebate that’s higher than the cost. But …

Rovner: That would make sense.

Cohrs: Right. But that math can get kind of wonky when there are really high drug price increases and then that math gets really messed up. But Congress, I want to say it was in 2021, tweaked this policy to discourage those big price increases. And they said, you know what? We’re going to raise the rebate cap in Medicaid, which means that, drugmakers, if you are taking really big price increases, you may have to pay us every time someone on Medicaid fills those prescriptions. And I think people thought about insulin right away as a drug that has these really high rebates already and could be a candidate disproportionately impacted by this policy. So I thought that was an interesting point that Sean made about the timing of this. That change is supposed to go into effect early next year. So this could, in theory, save Lilly a lot of money in the Medicaid program because we don’t know exactly what their net prices were before.

Rovner: But this is very convenient.

Cohrs: It’s convenient. And there’s a chance that they’re not really losing any money right now, depending on how their contracts work with insurers. So I think, yeah, there is definitely a possibility for some ulterior motives here.

Rovner: And plus, the thing that I learned this week that I hadn’t known before is that there are starting to be some generic competition. The three big insulin makers, which are Lilly, Sanofi, and Novo Nordisk, may actually not become the, almost, the only insulin maker. So it’s probably in Lilly’s interest to step forward now. And, you know, they’re reducing the prices on their most popular insulins, but not necessarily their most expensive insulin. So I think there’s still money to be made in this segment. But they sure did get, you know, I watched all the stories come across. It’s, like, it’s all, oh, look at this great thing that Lilly has done and that everything’s going to be cheap. And it’s, like, not quite. But …

Cohrs: But it is different. It’s a big step. And I think …

Rovner: It is. It is.

Cohrs: Somebody has to go first in breaking this cycle. And I think it will be interesting to see how that plays out for them and whether the other two companies do follow suit. Sen. Bernie Sanders asked them to and said, you know, why don’t you just all do the same thing and lower prices on more products? So, yeah, we’ll see how it plays out.

Weber: Day to day, I mean, that’s a huge difference for people. I mean, that is a lot of money. That is a big deal. So, I mean, you know, no matter what the motivation, at the end of the day, I think the American public will be much happier with having to pay a lot less for insulin.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m just saying that not everybody who takes insulin is going to pay a lot less for insulin.

Weber: Right. Which is very fair, very fair.

Rovner: But many more people than before, which is, I think, why it got lauded by everybody. Although I will … I wrote in my notes, please, someone mention Josh Hawley taking credit and calling for legislation. Sen. Hawley from Missouri, who voted against extending the $35 cap, as all Republicans did, to the rest of the population, put out a tweet yesterday that was, like, this is a great thing and now we should have, you know, legislation to follow up. And I’m like: OK.

Cohrs: You’ll have to check on that. I actually think Hawley may have voted for it.

Rovner: Oh, a-ha. All right.

Cohrs: There were a few Republicans.

Rovner: Thank you.

Cohrs: It’s not enough, though.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember that they couldn’t get those last few votes. Yes, I think [Sen. Joe] Manchin voted against. He was the one, the last Democrat they couldn’t get right. That’s why they ended up dropping …

Cohrs: Uh, it had to be a 60-vote threshold, so …

Rovner: Oh, that’s right.

Cohrs: Yeah.

Rovner: All right. Good. Thank you. Good point, Rachel. All right. Well, 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 khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: Yeah. So I did the incredible New York Times investigation by Hannah Dreier on child labor. This is about undocumented, unaccompanied migrant children who are coming to the U.S. And the reason I’m bringing it up on our podcast is there is a health angle. So HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], their Office of Refugee Resettlement has jurisdiction over these kids’ welfare and making sure they are safe. And that is not happening right now. The system is so overwhelmed that they have been cutting corners in how they vet the sponsors that they release the kids to. Of course, we remember that there were tons of problems with these kids being detained and kept for way too long and that being a huge threat to their physical and mental health. But this is sort of the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, and they’re being released to people who in some cases straight up trafficking them and in other cases just forcing them to work and drop out of school, even if it’s not a trafficking situation. And so this reporting has already had an impact. The HHS has announced all these new initiatives to try to stop this. So we’ll see if they are effective. But really moving, incredible reporting.

Rovner: Yeah, it was an incredible story. Lauren.

Weber: I’m going to shout out my former KHN colleague Brett Kelman. I loved his piece on, I guess you can’t call it a medical device because it wasn’t approved by the FDA, which is the point of the story. But this device that was supposed to fix your jaw so you didn’t have to have expensive jaw surgery. Well, what it ended up doing is it messed up all these people’s teeth and totally destroyed their mouths and left them with a bunch more medical and dental bills. And, you know, what I find interesting about the story, what I find interesting about the trend in general is the problem is, they never applied for anything with the FDA. So people were using this device, but they didn’t check, they didn’t know. And I think that speaks to the American public’s perception that devices and medical devices and things like this are safe to use. But a lot of times the FDA regulations are outdated or are not on top of this or the agency is so understaffed and not investigating that things like this slipped through the cracks. And then you have people — and it’s 10,000 patients, I believe, that have used this tool — that did not do what it is supposed to do and, in fact, injured them along the way. And I think that the FDA piece of that is really interesting. It’s something I’ve run into before looking at air cleaners and how they fit the gaps of that. And I think it’s something we’re going to continue to see as we examine how these agencies are really stacking up to the evolution of technology today.

Rovner: Yeah, capitalism is going to push everything. Rachel.

Cohrs: So my extra credit this week is actually an opinion piece, in Stat, and the headline is “Nonprofit Hospitals Are Failing Americans. Their Boards May Be a Reason Why.” It was written by Sanjay Kishore and Suhas Gondi. I think the part that really stood out to me is they analyzed the backgrounds and makeups of hospital boards, especially nonprofit hospitals. I think they analyzed like 20 large facilities. And the statistic that really surprised me was that, I think, 44% of those board members came from the financial sector representing investment funds, real estate, and other entities. Less than 15% were health care workers, 13% were physicians, and less than 1% were nurses. And, you know, I’ve spent a lot of time and we’ve spent a lot of time thinking about just how nonprofit hospitals are operating as businesses. And I think a lot of other publications have done great work as well making that point. But I think this is just a stark statistic that shows these boards that are supposed to be holding these organizations accountable are thinking about the bottom line, because that’s what the financial services sector is all about, and that there’s so much disproportionately less clinical representation. So obviously hospitals need admin sides to run, and they are businesses, and a lot of them don’t have very large margins. But the statistics just really surprised me as to the balance there.

Rovner: Yeah, I felt like this is one, you know, we’ve all been sort of enmeshed in this, you know, what are we going to do about the nonprofit hospitals that are not actually acting as charitable institutions? But I think the boards had been something that I had not seen anybody else look at until now. So it’s a really interesting piece. All right. Well, my story this week is the other big investigation from The New York Times. It’s called “A Drug Company Exploited a Safety Requirement to Make Money,” by Rebecca Robbins. And it’s about those same risk-mitigation rules from the FDA that are at the heart of those abortion drug lawsuits we talked about a few minutes ago. Except in this case, the drug company in question, Jazz Pharmaceuticals, somehow patented its risk-mitigation strategy as the distribution center — it’s actually called the REMS [Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies] — which is managed to fend off generic competition for the company’s narcolepsy drug. It had also had a response already. It has produced a bipartisan bill in the Senate to close the loophole — but [I’ll] never underestimate the creativity of drugmakers when it comes to protecting their profit. It’s quite a story. OK. That’s our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — at kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: A Health-Heavy State of the Union

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 9, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: In a minute.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: They’re being sued.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Katherine Baicker: Thank you so much.

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

Baicker: It’s a pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baicker: I hope sooner than that.

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

Baicker: My pleasure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Rachel

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The former human rights activist feared for her life in the political turmoil following the military coup that overthrew President Jean-Bertrand Aristide in 1991. Leaving her two small children with her sister in Port-au-Prince, Nerette, then 29, came to Miami a few years later on a three-month visa and never went back. In time, she was granted political asylum.

She eventually studied to become a nursing assistant, passed her certification exam, and got a job in a nursing home. The work was hard and didn’t pay a lot, she said, but “as an immigrant, those are the jobs that are open to you.”

A few years later her family joined her, but her children didn’t want to follow her career path. When she was a teenager, Nerette’s daughter, now 25, would ask, “Mom, why are you doing that?” Nerette said. Her daughter considered the work underpaid and too physical.

After many years, Nerette, now 57, left nursing home work for a job with the Florida local of the labor union SEIU1199, which represents more than 25,000 health workers. As the local’s vice president for long-term care, she is keenly aware of the staffing challenges that have plagued the industry for decades and will worsen as aging baby boomers stretch the limits of long-term care services.

The U.S. is facing a growing crisis of unfilled job openings and high staff turnover that puts the safety of older, frail residents at risk. In a tight labor market where job options are plentiful, long-term care jobs that are poorly paid and physically demanding are a tough sell. Experts say opening pathways for care workers to immigrate would help, but policymakers haven’t moved.

In the decade leading up to 2031, employment in health care support jobs is expected to expand by 1.3 million, a nearly 18% growth rate that outpaces that of every other major occupational group, according to the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. These direct care workers include nurses of various types, home health aides, and physical therapy and occupational therapy assistants, among others.

Certified nursing assistants, who help people with everyday tasks like bathing, dressing, and eating, make up the largest proportion of workers in nursing homes. In the decade leading up to 2029, nearly 562,000 nursing assistant jobs will need to be filled in the United States, according to a far-reaching report on nursing home quality published last year by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.

But as the U.S. population ages, fewer workers will be available to fill those job openings in nursing homes, assisted living facilities, and private homes. While the number of adults 65 and older will nearly double to 94.7 million between 2016 and 2060, the number of working-age adults will grow just 15%, according to an analysis of census data by PHI, a research and advocacy organization for older and disabled people that conducts workforce research.

Immigrants can play a crucial role in filling those gaps, experts say. Already, about 1 in 4 direct care workers are foreign-born, according to a 2018 PHI analysis.

“We do think that immigrants are critical to this workforce and the future of the long-term care industry,” said Robert Espinoza, executive vice president of policy at PHI. “We think the industry would probably collapse without them.”

Nursing homes and other long-term care facilities have long struggled to maintain adequate staff. The problem worsened dramatically during the pandemic, when those facilities became hotbeds for covid-19 infections and deaths. More than 200,000 residents and staff members died during the first two years of the pandemic, representing about a quarter of all covid deaths during that time.

Since March 2020, the long-term care industry has lost more than 300,000 jobs, bringing employment to a 13-year low of just over 3 million, according to an analysis of BLS payroll data by the American Health Care Association and the National Center for Assisted Living.

Immigration policies that aim to identify potential workers from overseas to fill long-term care job slots could help ease the strain. But unlike other countries that face similar long-term care challenges, the U.S. generally hasn’t made attracting direct care workers from abroad a priority.

“Immigration policy is long-term care policy,” said David Grabowski, a professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School whose research focuses on the economics of aging and long-term care. “If we really want to encourage a strong workforce, we need to make immigration more accessible for individuals.”

Most of the roughly 1 million immigrants to the U.S. annually are family members of citizens, though some come in on employment visas, often for highly skilled jobs.

On his first day in office, President Joe Biden proposed comprehensive immigration reform that would have created a pathway to citizenship for undocumented workers and revised the rules for employment-based visas, among other things, but it went nowhere.

“There hasn’t been a lot of interest or political will behind opening up more immigration opportunities for mid- to lower-level care aides such as home health aides, personal health aides, and certified nursing assistants,” said Kristie De Peña, vice president for policy and director of immigration policy at the Niskanen Center, a think tank.

The Biden administration didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Some local and regional organizations are working to connect immigrants with health care jobs.

Ascentria Care Alliance provides social services, refugee resettlement, and long-term care services in five New England states. With state and private philanthropic funding, the organization is beginning to help refugees from Ukraine, Haiti, Venezuela, and Afghanistan get the supportive services they need — language, housing, child care — to enable them to take health care jobs at Ascentria’s long-term care facilities and those of health care partners.

The group has long helped refugees resettle and find jobs in traditional settings like warehouses or retailers, said Angela Bovill, president and CEO of Ascentria, which is based in Worcester, Massachusetts. “Now we’re looking at what it would take to move them into health care jobs,” she said.

The alliance is applying to the Department of Labor for a grant to scale up the program. “If we get it right, we’ll build a pathway and a pipeline to move at the fastest rate from immigrant to effective health care worker,” Bovill said.

Some long-term care experts say the U.S. can’t afford to drag its feet on putting policies in place to appeal to immigrants.

“We’re competing with the rest of the world, other countries that also want these workers,” said Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute.

Canada, for instance, is going all in on immigration. In 2022, it welcomed more than 430,000 new permanent residents, the most in its history. Immigration accounts for almost 100% of Canada’s labor force growth, and by 2036 immigrants are expected to make up 30% of the population, the government said.

In the U.S., immigrants account for about 14% of the population, according to an analysis of census data by the Migration Policy Institute.

Canada’s Economic Mobility Pathways Pilot aims to identify and recruit refugees who have skills Canadian employers need. In January, after visiting a refugee camp in Kenya, recruiters offered jobs in Nova Scotia to 65 continuing care assistants.

In a December survey of 500 U.S. nursing homes, more than half said staffing shortages have forced them to turn away new residents.

These staffing challenges, said industry representatives, are likely to become an even heavier lift, with more closed facilities, units, or wings, after the Biden administration announced last year that it would establish minimum nursing home staffing requirements.

A government mandate alone won’t solve long-standing problems with inadequate training, pay, benefits, or career advancement, experts said.

“Young people aren’t going to clean 10 to 15 patients for $15 an hour,” Nerette said. “They’ll go to McDonald’s. We need to face that reality and come up with a plan.”

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The public health emergency in effect since the start of the covid-19 pandemic will end on May 11, the Biden administration announced this week. The end of the so-called PHE will bring about a raft of policy changes affecting patients, health care providers, and states. But Republicans in Congress, along with some Democrats, have been agitating for an end to the “emergency” designation for months.

Meanwhile, despite Republicans’ less-than-stellar showing in the 2022 midterm elections and broad public support for preserving abortion access, anti-abortion groups are pushing for even stronger restrictions on the procedure, arguing that Republicans did poorly because they were not strident enough on abortion issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Victoria Knight of Axios, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week the Biden administration announced the covid public health emergency will end in May, terminating many flexibilities the government afforded health care providers during the pandemic to ease the challenges of caring for patients.
• Some of the biggest covid-era changes, like the expansion of telehealth and Medicare coverage for the antiviral medication Paxlovid, have already been extended by Congress. Lawmakers have also set a separate timetable for the end of the Medicaid coverage requirement. Meanwhile, the White House is pushing back on reports that the end of the public health emergency will also mean the end of free vaccines, testing, and treatments.
• A new KFF poll shows widespread public confusion over medication abortion, with many respondents saying they are unsure whether the abortion pill is legal in their state and how to access it. Advocates say medication abortion, which accounts for about half of abortions nationwide, is the procedure’s future, and state laws regarding its use are changing often.
• On abortion politics, the Republican National Committee passed a resolution urging candidates to “go on the offense” in 2024 and push stricter abortion laws. Abortion opponents were unhappy that Republican congressional leaders did not push through a federal gestational limit on abortion last year, and the party is signaling a desire to appeal to its conservative base in the presidential election year.
• This week, the federal government announced it will audit Medicare Advantage plans for overbilling. But according to a KHN scoop, the government will limit its clawbacks to recent years, allowing many plans to keep the money it overpaid them. Medicare Advantage is poised to enroll the majority of seniors this year.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness about how the rollout of the new 988 suicide prevention hotline is going.

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

Julie Rovner: Axios’ “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” by Caitlin Owens and Victoria Knight

Margot Sanger-Katz: The New York Times’ “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted,” by Amy Schoenfeld Walker

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee,” by Benjamin Ryan

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Early 2023 Update on Public Awareness on Abortion and Emergency Contraception,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Marley Presiado, Ashley Kirzinger, and Mollyann Brodie
• USA Today’s “Biden Seeks to Bolster the Affordable Care Act’s No-Cost Contraception Rule,” by Ken Alltucker
• The National Review’s “To Reduce Abortions, Should Giving Birth Be Free?” by Wesley J. Smith
• The New York Times’ “New Medicare Rule Aims to Take Back $4.7 Billion From Insurers,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz
• KHN’s “Government Lets Health Plans That Ripped Off Medicare Keep the Money,” by Fred Schulte

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Au Revoir, Public Health Emergency

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Au Revoir, Public Health EmergencyEpisode Number: 283Published: Feb. 2, 2023

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

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

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Feb. 2, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi, good morning.

Rovner: And Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi! Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. She’s going to update us on the rollout of 988, the new national suicide prevention hotline. And because it’s February, we’re asking for your best health policy valentines. You can write a poem or haiku and tweet it, tagging @KHNews, and use the hashtag #healthpolicyvalentines, all one word. We’ll choose some of our favorites for that week’s podcast and the winner will be featured on Valentine’s Day on khn.org with its own illustration. But first, this week’s news. So we’re going to start with covid, which we actually haven’t talked about very much for a couple of weeks. But this week there’s some real actual news, which is that President [Joe] Biden has announced he will be ending the public health emergency, as well as the national covid emergency, which is a different thing, on May 11. Depending on who you believe, the president’s hand was forced by the Republican House this week voting on a bunch of bills that would immediately end the emergencies — or that May had always been the administration’s plan. I’m guessing it’s probably a bit of both. But let’s start with what’s going to happen in May, because it’s a bit confusing. We’ve talked at some length over the months about the Medicaid “unwinding.” So let’s start with that. How is that going to roll out, as we will?

Sanger-Katz: So that is actually not going to be affected at all by this change. When Congress passed the CARES Act, it tied a lot of these pandemic programs to the public health emergency. And I think what Congress has been doing in recent months is trying to untie some of those policies from the public health emergency, because I think it has identified that some of them are worth keeping and some of them are worth eliminating, and that it ought to make up its own mind about the right timeline and process for that — instead of just leaving it in the hands of the president to end the public health emergency when he sees fit. So what happened in the omnibus legislation, the big spending bill that passed at the end of the year, is that Congress said, OK, there has been this provision in the CARES Act that said that states need to keep everyone who is enrolled in Medicaid continuously enrolled in Medicaid until the end of the public health emergency, or they risk losing this extra Medicaid funding that they have been getting — and that, I think, has been beneficial to state budgets. And what Congress did is they said, OK, we’re going to create a date certain, starting in April, [that] this policy is going to go away, but we’re going to do it sort of incrementally. So the money’s not going to go away all at once. It’s going to go away in a couple of stages to make it a little easier on states. And they also created a lot of procedures and what they call guardrails to prevent states from just dumping everyone out of Medicaid all at once. So they’re requiring them to do various things to make sure they have the right address and that they’ve contacted people in Medicaid. They will punish them. There’s new penalties that the secretary can use to punish them if it seems like they’re doing things too arbitrarily, and there are other provisions. So as a result, the public health emergency doesn’t have any effect on this. But this policy and Medicaid is going to start unwinding right around the same time. In April and May we’re going to start seeing states probably phasing down their enrollment of some Medicaid beneficiaries as this extra funding that is tied to that goes away.

Rovner: And just a reminder, I mean, there’s now more than close to 90 million people on Medicaid, many of whom are probably no longer still eligible. So the concern is that states are going to have to basically reevaluate the eligibility of all of those people to see who’s still eligible and who’s not and who may be eligible for other government programs. And it’s just going to be a very long process. And I know health advocates are really worried about people falling through the cracks and losing their health insurance entirely.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s still a huge risk and there still are a lot of people who are likely to lose their insurance as a result of this transition. But it was a weird situation that we were in, where you kind of went from all or nothing, just by the president deciding that the public health emergency was over. And I do understand why Congress decided, OK, look, why don’t we take some leadership over how this policy is going to phase down instead of just leaving it as this looming cliff that we don’t know exactly when it will come and where we don’t have control over the procedure for it.

Rovner: And Margot, you also mentioned things that Congress thought they might want to keep. And I guess a big one of those is telehealth, right? Because that was also in the end-of-year omnibus bill.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, that’s proved to be really popular, because of the pandemic, because it was dangerous for people to get into doctors’ offices and hospitals early in the pandemic. Medicare loosened some rules and then Congress kind of cemented that. That allowed people to get doctors’ visits using video conferencing, telephone, other kinds of remote technologies, and Medicare paid for that. And that’s been super popular. It has a lot of bipartisan support. And now Congress has extended that benefit for longer. So I think we’re going to see telehealth become a more permanent part of how Medicare benefits are delivered.

Rovner: But not permanent yet. I think there’s still some concern that if it …

Sanger-Katz: Just for two years right now.

Rovner: Well, if it gets too popular, it could get really expensive. I think there’s a worry about …

Sanger-Katz: I do think that the two years will create some infrastructure — I think even just the temporary provision. A lot of doctors and hospitals … I was talking to folks that worked in medicine, they just weren’t set up for it at all. And they had to figure out, how are we going to do it? How are we going to build for it? What systems are we going to use? How are we going to make it secure? So some of that has already happened. But I also think two years is a long-enough runway that you start to imagine that there will be more start-ups, more health care providers that are really orienting their practice around this method of delivering care because they have some sense of permanence now.

Rovner: And I can’t imagine that this won’t become one of those, quote-unquote, “extenders” that Congress renews whenever it expires, which they do now. Rachel, you wanted to say something?

Roubein: Oh, yeah. To your point, I just think once there’s infrastructure built, it’s really hard to take things away. But I guess while we’re on the train of things that aren’t impacting, Congress also in their big government spending bill made a change to Paxlovid, allowing Medicare to continue to cover it under emergency use authorization. So that also won’t be impacted by an end to the public health emergency.

Rovner: So what are the things that will be impacted by the end of the public health emergency?

Knight: Really the biggest thing — and my colleague Maya [Goldman] has been pioneering at writing about this — is that it’s really CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services gave providers a lot of flexibilities that were tied to the PHE [public health emergency]. So it’s a bunch of different small things. It’s, like, reporting requirements, physical environment standards, even things like where radiologists can read X-rays. It’s small stuff like that that a lot of providers have kind of gotten used to and relied on during covid. And so those may go away. It’s possible also that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] could allow some of those to remain in place. When I talked to congressman Brett Guthrie, who is the one who introduced the bill to end the PHE, he said he wants to talk to HHS and figure out what are some things that he knows providers enjoy on these flexibilities. There was something about nurses’ training that he wants to keep in place. So they’re making it sound like it’s the end of the world end to this. I’m not sure that that’s actually true.

Rovner: Yeah, and I know the administration’s been pushing back on some of the stories that said that this will be an end to free vaccines and the actual covid testing. But that’s not even really true, right?

Roubein: I think one of my colleagues had talked a little bit about this to Jen Kates from the Kaiser Family Foundation, and that was a concern of hers. So I think some of it is dependent on what policies … and see what the next few months …

Rovner: My impression is that federal government has purchased all of these things. So it’s not … so much the end of the public health emergency. It’s when they run out of supply that they have now. So it’s not so much linked to a date. It’s linked to the supply, because I guess at the end of the public health emergency, they won’t be buying anymore. If nobody wants to answer this question, please don’t. But I’m confused about how this all affects the controversial Title 42, which is a public health requirement that was put in by the Trump administration that limited how many people could come across the border because of covid. I’m still confused about who’s for ending it and who’s not for ending it, and whether ending the emergency ends it or whether it’s in court. And if nobody knows, that’s fine because it’s not totally a health issue. But if anybody does, I’m dying to know.

Sanger-Katz: So my understanding on this one — which I also want to say I’m not like 1,000% sure, but this is what I’ve been told — is that it is related to public health authority and assessment that there is a health emergency, but that it is not part of that CARES framework where … when the public health emergency ends, it ends. It is a separate declaration by the CDC [and Health and Human Services] secretary. And so what I have been told is that it is not directly linked to this, but obviously it is the policy of the Biden administration that we are no longer experiencing a public health emergency. Then I do think the continued use of that policy starts to come under question because the justification for it is quite similar, even if the mechanism is different.

Knight: And I have to tell you, Julie, some of my immigration reporter friends on the Hill were also confused. I think everyone was a little confused because the Biden administration was saying this will lift Title 42 immediately, and Republicans were saying, no, it doesn’t. Brett Guthrie literally came to me and was like, “It is not ending yet.” So I think …

Rovner: I’m not the only one confused?

Knight: Yeah, you’re not the only one confused. And people were calling lawyers, being like, what does this mean when that was going on this week? So, yeah.

Roubein: I think it’s going to be a continuation of this big political fight that we’ve seen over Title 42. An administration official argued to my White House colleague Tyler Pager that essentially because Title 42 is a public health order, the CDC is determining that [there] would no longer be a need for the measure once the coronavirus no longer presents a public health emergency. So we’ll see wrangling over this.

Rovner: Yes, this will go on.

Sanger-Katz: I mean, it’s the same administration, you would think that they would be making a similar judgment about these different things. But the politics around this immigration policy are quite fraught. And it’s possible that they will be de-linked in some way. We’ll see.

Rovner: We will see.

Roubein: And the fight over this held up millions of dollars of covid aid last year. So it’s just been really political.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, moving along and speaking of the Republican-led House, they have, shall we say, refocused the special committee on covid that was set up in the last Congress. Rather than looking at how the nation flubbed preparedness in the early response to the pandemic. The Republican panel is now expected to concentrate on complaining about mask and vaccine mandates, trying to figure out the virus’s origins, and, at least so they’ve said, roasting scientists and public health leaders like the now-retired Anthony Fauci. Among the new Republican members appointed to the panel are the outspoken Marjorie Taylor Greene and former Trump White House doctor, now congressman, Ronny Jackson of Texas. I imagine, if nothing else, these hearings will be very lively to watch, right?

Knight: They definitely are going to be lively to watch. We did just find out yesterday that congressman Raul Ruiz is going to be the Democratic ranking member [of the Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic]. He’s also a doctor. Congressman Brad Wenstrup [R-Ohio] is the chairman of the committee. He’s also a doctor. So it is not only some members who have pushed forward misinformation about covid; there are also members that agree with vaccines and things like that. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how they play this out. I’ve been talking to a lot of them on what they’re going to focus on the committee, what the goal is. So it may not be as wild as we’re anticipating. There may be some members that want it to be, but I think that they want to look at covid origins for sure and the Biden administration’s rollout of vaccines and mandates and things like that. But there’s also Democrats on the committee. So we’ll see how it goes.

Rovner: I will point out, though, when you point out how many doctors are there that Andy Harris of Maryland, who’s also a doctor, a Johns Hopkins anesthesiologist, came under fire for prescribing ivermectin. So we’ve got doctors and we’ve got doctors in the House.

Knight: But I listened to the covid origins hearing yesterday — they did the first one, the Energy and Commerce [ Committee], and I covered it — and I was expecting it to be, like, very intense. And it actually was pretty measured and nothing too wild happened, so …

Rovner: But we shall see. All right. Well, let’s move on to abortion. This is where I get to say that if you didn’t listen to last week’s two-parter on the state of the abortion debate and you’re at all interested in this subject, you should definitely go back and do that. But, obviously, I wish more people would listen to it because a new poll this week from my colleagues over the firewall at KFF finds that a large portion of the public is still confused over whether medication abortion is legal in their state, about whether it requires a prescription (it does), and about how it works compared to emergency contraception. The first one can terminate an early pregnancy. The second one can only prevent pregnancy. Given how fast things are changing in various states, I suppose this confusion is predictable. But is there any way to make this even a little bit clearer? I mean, we have a public that honestly is getting ready to throw its hands up because they can’t figure out what’s what.

Sanger-Katz: I think there’s a good role for journalism here. The abortion pill is a very mature technology. It’s been around for a very long time. It’s become the means for more than half of abortions in America. But I still think, you know, a lot of people don’t know about it. I think when they think about abortion, a lot of Americans are thinking about a surgical procedure that happens in a clinic. Advocates on both sides of the abortion debate are very clear that medication abortion is likely the future of abortion for a lot of Americans because it is easily transportable, because it is able to be prescribed through telemedicine, because it is less expensive than clinic abortion. But I do think just a lot of Americans just don’t have a lot of familiarity with this. And so I think we just have to keep telling them about it, explaining how it works, what the safety profile of it is, how you can get it, what the laws are around it. And, you know, this is a bit of a shifting ground beneath our feet because states are actively regulating and restricting this technology. And I have a team of colleagues at The New York Times in the graphics department who are amazing, who are just like every day updating a page on our website about what is the state of laws surrounding abortion in this country? And it’s really remarkable how often the laws, particularly about abortion pills, are changing. You know, several times a week they are updating that page. So I think all of us just have to keep educating the public about this.

Rovner: And my required reminder that the “morning-after pill” is not the same as the abortion pill. The morning-after pill is now available over the counter. And we now know — thank you, FDA, for changing the label — that it cannot actually interrupt an existing pregnancy. It can only prevent pregnancy. So that’s my little PSA. Meanwhile, we have talked a lot about how anti-abortion forces are pushing harder than ever for a national abortion ban. The Republican National Committee passed a resolution last week, pushed by some of the more strident anti-abortion groups, calling for Republicans to, quote, “go on the offense” in 2024 to work for the most restrictive abortion laws possible. Given that polling still shows a majority of Americans and even a majority of swing voters still think abortion should be legal, are the Republicans driving themselves politically off a cliff here, or do they really think that revving up their base will help them win elections?

Roubein: I think that this is notable from the RNC because, as you mentioned, anti-abortion advocates were really, really mad at people like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, other Republicans who were saying that it was a state issue and had been pushing for them to paint Democrats as extreme, pushing a very different message. So this is ahead of 2024. Obviously, anti-abortion advocates are, when they’re looking at who they’re going to endorse in the presidential race, are going to be looking for candidates that support some kind of federal gestational limit on abortion.

Knight: I know Alice [Miranda Ollstein], who has been on here a lot, she was reporting that these anti-abortion groups are also pushing Republicans to put bills on the House floor to vote on restricting abortion. So there’s a six-week bill that’s already been introduced, maybe some other weeks. And so I think depending on if they actually do floor votes on this, that’s going to be something Democrats will use to attack them, I’m sure, in the upcoming election and maybe also something Republicans want to promote. So I think that it’s definitely notable, and we’re going to have to see if it’s the same as it was in the midterms when it didn’t seem to be a winning message for Republicans. But the anti-abortion groups are saying double down more. So we’ll see.

Rovner: Well, speaking of anti-abortion groups, they’ve been quietly pushing something new: a campaign to, as they call it, quote, “make birth free.” The idea is that a pregnant woman shouldn’t be swayed to have an abortion because she thinks she can’t afford to give birth. It’s been quite a few years since the anti-abortion side tried to advocate for benefits for pregnant women. I remember in the mid-1980s, congressman Henry Hyde — yes, he of the Hyde Amendment — joined with one of the most liberal members of the House, former California Democrat Henry Waxman, to sponsor a bill to reduce infant mortality. It turned out to be the beginning of Medicaid’s benefit for pregnant women, for prenatal delivery and postnatal care, something that’s now extremely popular. Do we expect to see more for this, more of this, or for this to catch on? … I’ve seen the group asking for this. I haven’t really seen any lawmakers suggesting this. It would be pretty expensive to basically pay for every birth in the country. We have a lot of shaking heads.

Knight: I had not heard any lawmakers talking about that. I don’t know if others have. I know there has been some push from some Republicans to put more safeguards in place for women who give birth, like just more supportive programs, but like, I haven’t heard like making birth completely free. And I know also that’s not maybe a widely held view within — I know there are some Republicans pushing for it. There’s a really good Washington Post article about this recently, about paid leave also. But they seem to be in the minority. And so there’s not enough movement to, like, make the party actually do anything on that.

Roubein: I think it’s sort of the beginning. Like Americans United for Life, a big anti-abortion group that’s written a lot, a lot of model laws that states have adopted. They had released a white paper about this. I think that’s sort of the beginning of the push and that’s what we tend to see with the anti-abortion movement is, you know, sometimes we see these policies come out from different groups and then they advocate and then potentially it goes to legislation and they try and find different lawmakers’ ears. So I think it’s a little bit TBD at this point.

Sanger-Katz: I also think it highlights how there’s a growing movement in the Republican Party — and I would say this is not a majority of Republicans yet — but we do see a significant minority that really are pursuing these pro-family policies, policies that we often think about as being pursued by Democrats. Family leave is an example of that, interest in day care, the child tax credit. There are a number of Republicans that were really champions of that policy in the last few years. And I think this feels like it’s a piece with that, that a lot of Republicans, they want to encourage people to have families, to have children, to be able to care for their children. And they understand that it’s hard and it’s expensive. But I do think that those ideas tend to bump up against the more libertarian elements in the Republican Party that are opposed to a lot of government spending, a lot of government intervention in people’s family lives and just concerned about the deficit and debt as well. And so this continues to be an interesting development. My colleague Claire Cain Miller at The Upshot has written a lot about this debate within the Republican Party as it relates to some of these other policies. And I wonder if this idea of making birth free could start to become part of that package of policies that you see some Republicans really interested in, even though you might think of the issue as being something that is more classically a Democratic issue.

Rovner: Although I’m wondering if the Democrats are going to pick up on this and try to hold the Republicans’ feet to the fire on it. It’s like, see, your base would like to make this free. Don’t you want to join them? I could see that happening although hard to know. All right. Well, finally this week on the reproductive health agenda, the Biden administration undid another Trump regulation, this one to eliminate employers with, quote-unquote, “moral objections to birth control” from having to offer it under the Affordable Care Act. Those with religious objections would still have a workaround to ensure that their employees get the coverage, according to the Department of Health and Human Services. Actually, only a handful of employers have used the moral exception. Actually, I think the more important part of this regulation would create a new pathway for employees of religiously objecting employers, like religious schools and colleges, to get coverage without involving the employer at all, nor making the employer pay for it. This has been a big sticking point and created a giant backlash early on in the Affordable Care Act’s rollout — and two separate Supreme Court cases — because the employers didn’t want to be seen to be facilitating people getting birth control that they didn’t believe in. Now that they’re going to totally separate this from the employer, might this put that little fight to rest? Not a little — a big fight to rest? [pause] We have no predictions?

Sanger-Katz: This feels like one of those policies that is just going to flip-flop back and forth when we have different presidents. The Trump administration, you know, went really far. This idea of a moral objection, I think doesn’t have a particularly strong basis in law or at least didn’t historically. But the Supreme Court said that they had the authority to do it. And so I think that then creates a precedent that future administrations can do it. I do think that there is a concern from the religious community that this requirement imposes too much of a moral stricture on them. And so they are always pushing for more and wider exceptions to this contraceptive coverage policy. To me, the big surprise in this is just that it took so long. The Trump administration rolled out this particular policy almost immediately upon taking office. And now we’re more than two years into the Biden administration and they have finally rolled it back.

Rovner: Yes. And I am keeping track. And I will update my little infographic about how long it’s taking the Biden administration to change some of these policies. Well, finally, this week, Medicare Advantage, as we’ve mentioned before, private Medicare plans have become very popular, particularly because they often offer extra benefits, mostly because they’re being paid extra by the federal government. But it seems some of these companies have also figured out how to game the system. Surprise. So this week, the federal government announced a crackdown by way of new audits that’s predicted to recoup nearly $5 billion. Medicare’s always … things with lots of zeros. Margot, you wrote about this this week. What are they going to do?

Sanger-Katz: So just a little bit of background. Medicare pays Medicare Advantage plans a set amount per person to take care of them. And the idea is the insurance company can try to do a better job and provide less medical care and keep people healthier and save the remainder as profits. And when Medicare Advantage started, there was this problem where the plans had this huge incentive to just pick all the healthy seniors, because if you pick all the healthy people, they don’t need a lot of medical care and then you get to keep a lot of that payment as profits. And so Congress came up with a new system where if you take care of someone who is sick, who has diabetes, who has substance abuse problems, who has COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease], you get a little bonus payment so that the insurer has an incentive to cover that person. They have a little bit of extra money to take care of their health needs. And what we’ve seen over the years that the Medicare Advantage program has become mature, is that the plans have gotten extremely good at finding every single possible thing that is wrong with every single possible person that they enroll. And in some cases, they just kind of make things up that don’t seem to be justified by that person’s medical records. And so the amount that the Medicare system is paying to these plans has just gone up and up and up. And there are all kinds of estimates of how much they’ve been overpaid that are kind of eye-popping. And there are quite a lot of serious fraud lawsuits that are making their way through the federal courts. There have been some settlements, but basically every major insurer in this program is facing some kind of legal scrutiny for the way that they are diagnosing their patients to get these payments. And you know, what’s interesting to me about it is there’s been quite a lot of good journalism about this problem. Julie, your colleague Fred Schulte, I think, has been a real leader on this and had actually a big, big scoop recently. And the GAO has written about it. The HHS inspector general has done audits and written about it. There have been these lawsuits. This is not really a secret, but there has been very little action by CMS over the last decade on this problem. And I think there are a few reasons for that. One, I think it’s hard to fix. I will give them some credit. The policy levers are complicated, but I also think there is just a big political disincentive to do anything about this. Medicare Advantage has become more and more popular over the years. It is poised to enroll a majority of seniors, of Medicare beneficiaries, this year, and those people are very diffuse across the country. It’s not the case that there’s just Medicare Advantage in one or two markets where you have a couple members of Congress who care about it. They’re kind of everywhere. And they’re not just in Republican districts. Even though Republicans created this program, there are a lot of them in Democratic districts, too. And people like these plans. They have some downsides, which we could talk about another time. But they tend to have lower premiums for seniors. They tend to cover benefits like hearing, vision, and dental benefits that the traditional Medicare program does not cover. And so people really like these plans. And the more the plans are paid, the more they can afford to give all these goodies to their beneficiaries. And so I think there has been a lot of political pressure on CMS to not aggressively regulate the plans. And that’s part of why what they did this week is actually pretty striking. They did something pretty aggressive. They have been conducting these audits where they take 200 patients — which is a very, very small fraction of the total number of patients in any one plan — and they look at the diagnoses and they compare them to the medical records for those patients and they say, hey, wait a minute, I don’t think that this patient really has lung cancer. I think this patient doesn’t have that. So you shouldn’t have gotten that payment. And so that has been the system for some time where they look at a couple of records and they go back to the plans and they say, hey, pay us back this lung cancer payment. You can’t justify this based on the medical record.

Rovner: And they extrapolate from that, right? And it’s not …

Sanger-Katz: No. So what this new rule says is it says, you know, if in your 200 people that we look at, we find that you have an error rate of whatever, 5%, we are now going to ask you to pay back the money across your whole book of business, that you can’t just pay us back for the five people that we found, you have to pay back for everyone because we assume that whatever kinds of mistakes or sketchy things that you’ve done to create these errors in this small sample, probably you’ve done them to other patients, too. So that’s like the big thing that the rule does. It says “Pay back more money.” And then the other thing that it says is it says we’re going to reach back in time and you’re got to pay back all the extra money you got in 2018, in 2019, in 2020, and in 2021. So it’s not just forward-looking, but it’s also backward-looking, trying to recover some of what CMS believes are excessive payments that the plans received.

Rovner: Although, as my colleague Fred Schulte points out, they don’t go back in time as far as they could. So they’re basically leaving a fair bit of money on the table for … I guess that’s part of the balancing that they’re trying to do with being aggressive in recouping some of this money and noting that this is a very popular program that has a lot of bipartisan support.

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, it’s been interesting. The market reaction was very muted. So this suggests to me that the plans, even though it is aggressive relative to what we have seen in the past, that it was not as aggressive as what the plans and their shareholders were worried about.

Rovner: Exactly. All right. Well, that is as much time as we have for the news this week. Now, we will play my interview with Hannah Wesolowski of NAMI. Then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Hannah Wesolowski of the National Alliance on Mental Illness. You may remember we spoke to Hannah last February in anticipation of the launch of the new three-digit national suicide hotline, 988. Hannah, welcome back.

Hannah Wesolowski: Thanks, Julie. It’s great to be here.

Rovner: So the 988 hotline officially launched last July. It’s been up and running now for just about seven months. How’s it going?

Wesolowski: Largely, it’s going great. We’re really excited to see that not only are more people reaching out for help — overall, there’s about a 30% to 40% increase, year over year, when we look at every month of the helpline — but they’re talking to people quickly. They’re getting that help. They’re getting connected to crisis counselors in their state. And that really displays the tremendous work that’s happened across the country to build up capacity in anticipation of the lifeline.

Rovner: Is there anything that surprised you about the rollout, something that was unexpected — or that you expected that didn’t happen?

Wesolowski: I had a few sleepless nights there, worried about: Would people be able to get through? What would demand look like? And would call centers have that capacity? This was a quick turnaround. Congress passed this in late 2020, and it went live in mid-2022. That’s not a lot of time in the real world to actually stand up call centers that have a 24/7 capacity to answer calls, texts, and chats. And yet, when we look at the numbers, they’re amazing. The number of texts alone has grown exponentially, when we look at people who were texting the lifeline previously and are now texting 988. They’re getting through. They’re talking to people quickly, and there’s tens of thousands of them that are doing it every month.

Rovner: And I imagine, particularly, younger people might well prefer to text than to actually talk to someone on the phone.

Wesolowski: Exactly. This is about making sure this resource is accessible to anyone and makes it as easy for them to get the help they need in the way that they prefer to get it. It is hard to get a young person to pick up the phone. So texting is absolutely critical to reach a population that is in crisis. There’s a youth mental health crisis in this country. And so making sure that we are responsive to the needs of youth and young adults is absolutely critical.

Rovner: So I see that mental health, in general, and the 988 program, in particular, got big funding boosts in the most recent omnibus spending bill. Republicans in the House, however, say they want to roll back funding for all of these domestic discretionary programs to fiscal 2022 levels. What would that mean for this program and for mental health in general?

Wesolowski: You’re right. 988 got [an] exponential increase in funding in the omnibus. It grew from $101.6 million in fiscal year 2022 to $501.6 million in fiscal year 2023. So nearly five times the funding. And it’s still not everything we estimated that is needed out there. Just to fund the local call centers alone, it would probably be more than $560 million. That doesn’t include the cost of operating the national network, the data integrity, the technical platforms, the backup networks, you know, all the resources that are needed to do this, plus public awareness. There still hasn’t been a widespread public awareness campaign of 988. So while $501.6 million is amazing, it’s still only a fraction of what we ultimately need. So thinking about future cuts to this … this is something that saves lives. There’s very clear data that lifelines save lives, and we’re telling people that this resource is there; to cut funding would mean that people [who need] help wouldn’t be able to connect to somebody when they need it most.

Rovner: So I know there’s been some resistance to using 988. Some folks, particularly on social media, warn that callers could be subject to police involvement or involuntary treatment or confinement. Tell us how it really works when someone calls. And are some of those concerns well placed or not?

Wesolowski: Every concern that is made about this system comes from a real place of people who have been in crisis and gotten a horrific and traumatic response. With 988, the thing that is important for people to understand is there is no way to know your location. There is no tracking of your information. This is 100% anonymous. In fact, right now we have the challenge of calls being routed based on area code and not somebody’s general geographic location. So, for example, I have a New Hampshire area code, love the great state of New Hampshire, but live in Virginia and have for many years — I would get routed to New Hampshire. I’m still talking to a crisis counselor. That’s wonderful. But we want to be connected locally. So there is no way that police can be dispatched or somebody can be taken to a hospital. Now, there are situations where the crisis counselor determines a person may be at imminent risk. They may be having thoughts of suicide, and the counselors are trained to look for that, in which case they’ll initiate emergency protocol to try to get the individual to share their location. And it’s less than 2% of contacts that an individual is at imminent risk. And many of those voluntarily share their location. So it’s a lengthy process when they don’t. And that means many minutes where we could lose a life. So it’s a challenging situation, but we know that that location is not available when somebody calls 988. And the intention is very much for this to be an anonymous resource that provides the least invasive intervention.

Rovner: So I’ve also seen concerns about just the lack of resources to back up the call centers, particularly in rural areas. What’s being done to build up the capacity?

Wesolowski: That’s one of the biggest challenges with this. 988 should be the entry point to a crisis continuum of care. When you call 911, you are connected to existing services: law enforcement, fire, EMS. 988 — we’re trying to build that system at the same time this resource is available. Many states already have robust mobile crisis response, which is a behavioral health-based response, rather than relying on law enforcement, which is unfortunately often the response that people see in their communities.

Rovner: And often doesn’t end well.

Wesolowski: Right. Often very tragic and traumatic circumstances — and it doesn’t get people the mental health care that they need. Unfortunately, [in] many communities, that’s still the main option. But more and more communities are getting mobile crisis response online, social workers, peer support specialists, nurses, EMTs, psychologists who staff those and provide a mental health-based response. But it’s much harder in rural areas. It takes longer to get to people. You’re covering a much bigger geographic area. And so that still is a challenge. You know, communities are looking at innovative ways that they can leverage existing emergency response to connect to behavioral health providers, like having law enforcement with iPads so they can leverage telehealth if somebody is in a crisis. But certainly, it’s a challenge and a solution that has to be very localized to the needs of that community.

Rovner: So what still is most needed? I know the law that created 988 also allows states to assess a fee on cellphones to help pay to boost mental health services. Are any states doing that yet?

Wesolowski: We have five states that have passed laws since 2020 to assess a monthly fee on all phone bills. That’s similar to how we fund 911. Everyone across the country already pays a 911 fee. Virginia, Colorado, Nevada, California, and Washington state all currently have legislation that has implemented a small fee on phone bills. It ranges from $0.12 to $0.40 per phone line per month. And that really is helping build out not just the 988 call centers, but that range of crisis services that can respond when somebody needs more help; it can be provided over the phone.

Rovner: Well, it sounds like it’s off to a good start. Hannah Wesolowski, thank you for coming back to update us, and I’m sure we’ll have you back again.

Wesolowski: Thank you so much, Julie. Always a pleasure.

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

Knight: My extra credit is “Emailing Your Doctor May Carry a Fee.” That’s the name of the article by Benjamin Ryan in The New York Times. So it basically was documenting how doctors practices are starting to charge for sending an email correspondence with a patient. I think we’ve all probably done that, especially during covid. It can be really helpful sometimes when you’re not feeling well and you don’t want to go into the office. But these doctors practices are starting to sometimes charge up to $30, $50 for this, and it’s going to become a new revenue stream for some clinics. And the example they gave in the story was the Cleveland Clinic that was doing this for some people.

Rovner: And the Cleveland Clinic, for people who don’t know, has a lot of patients. It’s a very large organization.

Knight: Yes. Yes, absolutely. So clinics are saying their doctors are spending time on this and so they need to be reimbursed for it. But the critics of this are saying it could discourage people from getting care when they need it. It also could contribute to health inequities, and also can contribute to doctor burnout, because they’re having to now really do these emails to contribute to the revenue stream. So anyway, super interesting, hasn’t happened to me yet, but I hope it doesn’t.

Rovner: The continued tension over doctors getting paid and patients having to pay and insurers having to pay. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit, it’s by my colleague, she’s a health and science reporter, Carolyn Y. Johnson, and it’s titled “I Wrote About High-Priced Drugs for Years. Then My Toddler Needed One.” And in her story, she describes her effort of essentially getting lost in the health care system and having to deal with a really complex system to get a pricey medication for her 3-year-old son. So her 3-year-old son was diagnosed with a rare type of childhood arthritis, which can cause young kids to suffer from daily spiking fevers, a fleeting rash, and arthritis. And doctors had recommended a really pricey drug, which required approval from her insurer. Aetna denied the request. In September, doctors wrote another test, which the insurer wanted. The denial was upheld again. She was able to get the medication through a free program offered by the drugmaker, but she was really worried because she was close to using up the last dose. She was calling it the insurer, etc., just really, really often. And, ultimately, the resolution was she was able to get a different high-cost drug that worked in a similar way approved because the request was subject to different rules. And the big-picture point that she makes is that this isn’t a unique story. It’s something that a lot of Americans deal with, a really frustrating, routine process known as prior authorization and step therapy, etc., trying to get coverage of medication that doctors think are needed.

Rovner: And boy, if it takes a professional health reporter that much time and effort to get this, just imagine what people who know less about the system have to go through. It was a really hard piece to read, but very good. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to recommend an article from my colleague Amy Schoenfeld Walker called “Most Abortion Bans Include Exceptions. In Practice, Few Are Granted.” And I know that this connects with the abortion discussion that you guys had in the last episode, but I thought what she did was really remarkable. You know, we talk a lot in the political debate about abortion, about exceptions to protect the health of the mother, exceptions for fetuses that cannot survive outside the womb. And, of course, these very politically heated discussions about exceptions for rape and incest. And her article actually looked at the numbers of abortions that are being granted due to these exceptions and states that have them on the books and found that, you know, it’s so minimal that it’s almost not happening at all. If you are a woman who has been raped, if you are a woman who has a really serious health complication in a state where abortion has been banned, you almost always have to travel out of state, despite the existence of these exceptions. And I think this is not a huge surprise. It makes sense that medical providers are scared of getting in trouble when the sanction for being wrong is so high. And also that there aren’t a lot of abortion providers available in states that have banned abortion because there’s no place for them to practice. But I thought she did a really nice job of really putting numbers to this intuition that we all had about what was going to happen and showing how limited access is, and how meaningless in some ways these talking points are that, you know, legislators say that they are providing exceptions, but they’re not actually providing any infrastructure to provide care for the people who qualify.

Rovner: And yet we’re seeing these huge political fights in a lot of states about these exceptions, which, as we now know, don’t actually result in that much in actual practice. Well, my story this week is from Axios by former podcast panelist Caitlin Owens and Victoria here. It’s called “Republicans Break With Another Historical Ally: Doctors,” and it’s about the growing discord between the American Medical Association, long the bastion of male white Republican M.D.s, and Republicans in Congress, particularly Republican M.D.s themselves. The AMA has been moving, I won’t say left, but at least towards the center in recent years, reflecting in large part the changing demographics of the medical profession itself. And if you go back to our podcast of July 21 of last year, you can hear the “not that AMA-like” list of priorities from Jack Resnick, who’s the AMA’s current president. Well, the very conservative Republicans in Congress aren’t too thrilled and are describing the AMA as, quote, “woke” and prioritizing things that lawmakers don’t support, like the right to practice reproductive health according to their medical expertise and to treat teens with gender issues. I never thought I would say it, but it seems the Republicans in the AMA might actually be heading for a divorce. It’s a really great story. You really should read it.

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

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: @victoriaregisk

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).