Less than two years after opening a state-of-the-art $26 million hospital in Leadville, Colorado, St. Vincent Health nearly ran out of money.

Hospital officials said in early December that without a cash infusion they would be unable to pay their bills or meet payroll by the end of the week.

The eight-bed rural hospital had turned a $2.2 million profit in 2021, but the windfall was largely a mirage. Pandemic relief payments masked problems in the way the hospital billed for services and collected payments.

In 2022, St. Vincent lost nearly $2.3 million. It was at risk of closing and leaving the 7,400 residents of Lake County without a hospital or immediate emergency care. A $480,000 bailout from the county and an advance of more than $1 million from the state kept the doors open and the lights on.

Since 2010, 145 rural hospitals across the U.S. have closed, according to the Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research at the University of North Carolina. But covid-19 relief measures slowed that trend. Only 10 rural hospitals shut down in 2021 and 2022 combined, after a record 19 in 2020. Two rural hospitals have closed already this year.

Now that those covid funds are gone, many challenges that threatened rural hospitals before the pandemic have resurfaced. Industry analysts warn that rural facilities, like St. Vincent Health, are once again on shaky ground.

Jeffrey Johnson, a partner with the consulting firm Wipfli, said he has been warning hospital boards during audits not to overestimate their financial position coming out of the pandemic.

He said the influx of cash aid gave rural hospital operators a “false sense of reality.”

No rural hospitals have closed in Colorado in the past decade, but 16 are operating in the red, according to Michelle Mills, CEO of the nonprofit Colorado Rural Health Center, the State Office of Rural Health. Last year, Delta County voters saved a rural hospital owned by Delta Health by passing a sales tax ballot measure to help support the facility. And state legislators are fast-tracking a $5 million payment to stabilize Denver Health, an urban safety-net hospital.

John Gardner took over as interim CEO of St. Vincent after the previous CEO resigned last year. He said the hospital’s cash crunch stemmed from decisions to spend covid funds on equipment instead of operating costs.

St. Vincent is classified by Medicare as a critical access hospital, so the federal program reimburses it based on its costs. Medicare advanced payments to hospitals in 2020, but then recouped the money by reducing payments in 2022. St. Vincent had to repay $1.2 million at the same time the hospital faced higher spending, a growing accounts-payable obligation, and falling revenue. The hospital, Gardner said, had mismanaged its billing process, hadn’t updated its prices since 2018, and failed to credential new clinicians with insurance plans.

Meanwhile, the hospital began adding services, including behavioral health, home health and hospice, and genetic testing, which came with high startup costs and additional employees.

“Some businesses the hospital was looking at getting into were beyond the normal menu of critical access hospitals,” Gardner said. “I think they lost their focus. There were just some bad decisions made.”

Once the hospital’s upside-down finances became clear, those services were dropped, and the hospital reduced staffing from 145 employees to 98.

Additionally, St. Vincent had purchased an accounting system designed for hospitals but had trouble getting it to work.

The accounting problems meant the hospital was late completing its 2021 audit and hadn’t provided its board with monthly financial updates. Gardner said the hospital believes it may have underreported its costs to Medicare, and so it is updating its reports in hopes of securing additional revenue.

The hospital also ran into difficulty with equipment it purchased to perform colonoscopies. St. Vincent is believed to be the highest-elevation hospital in the U.S., at more than 10,150 feet, and the equipment used to verify that the scopes weren’t leaking did not work at that altitude.

“We’re peeling the onion, trying to find out what are the things that went wrong and then fixing them, so it’s hopefully a ship that’s running fairly smoothly,” Gardner said.

Soon Gardner will hand off operations to a management company charged with getting the hospital back on track and hiring new leadership. But officials expect it could take two to three years to get the hospital on solid ground.

Some of those challenges are unique to St. Vincent, but many are not. According to the Chartis Center for Rural Health, a consulting and research firm, the average rural hospital operates with a razor-thin 1.8% margin, leaving little room for error.

Rural hospitals operating in states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, as Colorado did, average a 2.6% margin, but rural hospitals in the 12 non-expansion states have a margin of minus 0.5%.

Chartis calculated that 43% of rural hospitals are operating in the red, down slightly from 45% last year. Michael Topchik, who heads the Chartis Center for Rural Health, said the rate was only 33% 10 years ago.

A hospital should be able to sustain operations with the income from patient care, he said. Additional payments — such as provider relief funds, revenues from tax levies, or other state or federal funds — should be set aside for the capital expenditures needed to keep hospitals up to date.

“That’s not what we see,” Topchik said, adding that hospitals use that supplemental income to pay salaries and keep the lights on.

Bob Morasko, CEO of Heart of the Rockies Regional Medical Center in Salida, said a change in the way Colorado’s Medicaid program pays hospitals has hurt rural facilities.

Several years ago, the program shifted from a cost-based approach, similar to Medicare’s, to one that pays per patient visit. He said a rural hospital has to staff its ER every night with at least a doctor, a nurse, and X-ray and laboratory technicians.

“If you’re paid on an encounter and you have very low volumes, you can’t cover your costs,” he said. “Some nights, you might get only one or two patients.”

Hospitals also struggle to recruit staff to rural areas and often have to pay higher salaries than they can afford. When they can’t recruit, they must pay even higher wages for temporary travel nurses or doctors. And the shift to an encounter-based system, Morasko said, also complicated coding for billing , leading to difficulties in hiring competent billing staff.

On top of that, inflation has meant hospitals pay more for goods and services, said Mills, from the state’s rural health center.

“Critical access hospitals and rural health clinics were established to provide care, not to be a moneymaker in the community,” she said.

Even if rural hospitals manage to stay open, their financial weakness can affect patients in other ways. Chartis found the number of rural hospitals eliminating obstetrics rose from 198 in 2019 to 217 last year, and the number no longer offering chemotherapy grew from 311 to 353.

“These were two we were able to track with large data sets, but it’s across the board,” Topchik said. “You don’t have to close to be weak.”

Back in Leadville, Gardner said financial lifelines thrown to the hospital have stabilized its financial situation for now, and he doesn’t anticipate needing to ask the county or state for more money.

“It gives us the cushion that we need to fix all the other things,” he said. “It’s not perfect, but I see light at the end of the tunnel.”

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 Sinopharm and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines will be available at the island’s polyclinics from Monday, February 27, to Friday, March 3, at the times listed below.

Monday, February 27

• Branford Taitt Polyclinic, Black Rock, St. Michael – 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Eunice Gibson Polyclinic, Warrens, St. Michael – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Frederick “Freddie” Miller Polyclinic, The Glebe, St. George – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Tuesday, February 28

• Branford Taitt Polyclinic, Black Rock, St. Michael – 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Frederick “Freddie” Miller Polyclinic, The Glebe, St. George – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Eunice Gibson Polyclinic, Warrens, St. Michael – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Randal Phillips Polyclinic, Oistins, Christ Church – 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Wednesday, March 1

• Branford Taitt Polyclinic, Black Rock, St. Michael – 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Maurice Byer Polyclinic, Station Hill, St. Peter – 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
• Winston Scott Polyclinic, Jemmotts Lane, St. Michael – 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• St. Philip Polyclinic, Six Roads, St. Philip – 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Edgar Cochrane Polyclinic, Wildey, St. Michael – 1:00 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Eunice Gibson Polyclinic, Warrens, St. Michael – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Frederick “Freddie” Miller Polyclinic, The Glebe, St. George – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

Thursday, March 2

• Branford Taitt Polyclinic, Black Rock, St. Michael – 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Frederick “Freddie” Miller Polyclinic, The Glebe, St. George – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
• Randal Phillips Polyclinic, Oistins, Christ Church – 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.

Friday, March 3

• David Thompson Health and Social Services Complex, Glebe Land, St. John – 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Branford Taitt Polyclinic, Black Rock, St. Michael – 9:30 a.m. to 3:00 p.m.
• Frederick “Freddie” Miller Polyclinic, The Glebe, St. George – 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.

The AstraZeneca, adult Pfizer vaccine, and the paediatric Pfizer vaccine for children ages five to eleven, are currently not available.

Persons who wish to receive their first dose of any available vaccine are advised to walk with their identification card. Those eligible for second doses should also travel with their blue vaccination card.

At present, the choice for boosters is either Johnson & Johnson or Sinopharm. Persons receiving boosters may present either their blue vaccination card or vaccination certificate and valid photo identification. Those who were fully vaccinated overseas must also provide their vaccination cards and valid photo identification (passport or identification card). (MR/BGIS)

The post Vaccination schedule for February 27 to March 3, 2023 appeared first on Barbados Today.

CMO Dr Shawn Charles said that Grenada is currently monitoring the situation

View the full post Swine Flu and Human Metapneumovirus in circulation on NOW Grenada.

Los funcionarios federales de inmigración reciben a migrantes procedentes principalmente de Brasil, Cuba, Colombia y Perú, la mayoría de los cuales esperan audiencias de asilo en Estados Unidos.

En los centros médicos, según explican los coordinadores, los migrantes reciben máscaras para protegerse de la propagación de enfermedades infecciosas, además de agua y comida. Los médicos les hacen pruebas para detectar el coronavirus, les ofrecen vacunas y aislan a los que dan positivo. Los solicitantes de asilo reciben tratamiento para las lesiones que puedan haber sufrido durante el viaje y se les realizan pruebas para detectar problemas de salud crónicos, como diabetes o hipertensión.

Pero ahora que el estado, de tendencia liberal, se enfrenta a un déficit proyectado de $22,500 millones, el gobernador Gavin Newsom ha declarado que California ya no puede permitirse mantener los centros. En enero, el gobernador demócrata propuso eliminar gradualmente algunos servicios médicos en los próximos meses y, finalmente, reducir el programa de asistencia a los migrantes, a menos que el presidente Joe Biden y el Congreso intervengan con ayuda.

California amplió los servicios de salud de su programa de asistencia a migrantes durante la fase más mortífera de la pandemia de coronavirus, hace dos años.

El estado mantiene tres centros de recursos sanitarios —dos en el condado de San Diego y uno en el condado de Imperial— que realizan pruebas y vacunaciones contra covid y otros exámenes de salud, y han atendido a más de 300,000 migrantes desde abril de 2021.

El programa de asistencia a migrantes también proporciona alimentos, alojamiento y viajes para contactarlos con patrocinadores, familiares o amigos en Estados Unidos mientras esperan sus audiencias de inmigración; y el estado ha financiado el esfuerzo humanitario con una asignación de más de mil millones de dólares desde 2019.

Aunque la Casa Blanca declinó hacer comentarios y no ha promulgado ninguna legislación federal, Newsom dijo que era optimista de que la financiación federal llegará, citando “algunas conversaciones muy positivas” con la administración Biden.

El presidente anunció recientemente que Estados Unidos devolverá a los cubanos, haitianos y nicaragüenses que crucen ilegalmente la frontera desde México, una medida destinada a frenar la inmigración. La Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos también considera poner fin a una política de la era Trump conocida como Título 42, que Estados Unidos ha utilizado para expulsar a los solicitantes de asilo y supuestamente prevenir la propagación del coronavirus.

Ya se ha identificado una posible fuente de dinero federal. La Agencia Federal para el Manejo de Emergencias y el Departamento de Seguridad Nacional de los Estados Unidos comunicaron a KHN que los gobiernos locales, y los proveedores no gubernamentales, pronto podrán aprovechar $800 millones adicionales en fondos federales, a través de un programa de subvenciones para refugios y servicios.

Algunos trabajadores de salud y activistas pro inmigrantes quieren que el estado continúe su labor, pero Newsom parece contar con apoyo bipartidista estatal para reducirla. El gobernador prometió más detalles durante la revisión del presupuesto en mayo, antes de que comiencen las negociaciones legislativas sobre el presupuesto. Además, señaló que las condiciones han cambiado de tal manera que los servicios de pruebas y vacunación son menos urgentes.

El supervisor del condado de San Diego, el demócrata Nathan Fletcher, coincidió en que la carga debe recaer en el gobierno federal. Y el líder republicano del Senado estatal, Brian Jones, de San Diego, que representa a parte de la región afectada, afirmó que California tiene previsto poner fin a su estado de emergencia por la pandemia el 28 de febrero, meses antes de que el presupuesto entre en vigor en julio.

“Las condiciones de la pandemia ya no justifican esta gran inversión por parte del estado, especialmente porque se supone que la inmigración es un asunto federal”, declaró Jones en un comunicado.

California comenzó su programa de asistencia a migrantes poco después de que Newsom asumiera el cargo en 2019, después de que la administración Trump pusiera fin al programa “liberación segura” que ayudaba a transportar a inmigrantes que buscaban asilo para estar con sus familiares en Estados Unidos. Fue parte de la respuesta de California contra las políticas migratorias de Trump. Además, los legisladores estatales lo convirtieron en un llamado estado santuario, un intento de proteger a California de las medidas migratorias más duras.

California, junto con gobiernos locales y organizaciones sin fines de lucro, intervino para llenar el vacío y aliviar la presión de las zonas fronterizas trasladando rápidamente a los migrantes a otros lugares del país.

El involucramiento del estado se intensificó en 2021 a medida que la pandemia aumentaba y la administración Biden intentaba revertir la política de la administración Trump de “permanecer en México”. Algunas ciudades en otras partes del país también proporcionaron ayuda, pero los funcionarios estatales dijeron que ningún otro estado estaba proporcionando el nivel de apoyo de California.

En un esfuerzo coordinado, funcionarios federales de inmigración dejan a los migrantes en los centros. Luego, los examinan y atienden organizaciones contratadas por el estado que brindan ayuda médica, asistencia de viaje, alimentos y alojamiento temporal mientras esperan sus audiencias de inmigración. Caridades Católicas de la Diócesis de San Diego y el Servicio Familiar Judío de San Diego son los dos principales operadores de albergues para inmigrantes del estado.

Los funcionarios de inmigración no respondieron a las preguntas de KHN sobre qué exámenes médicos, y otros cuidados, reciben los migrantes antes de ser entregados al estado. A menudo pasan de uno a tres días antes de que los migrantes puedan tomar autobuses o vuelos comerciales. Mientras tanto, son alojados en hoteles y se les proporciona alimentos, ropa y otras necesidades como parte del programa estatal.

“Muchos de ellos llegan hambrientos”, señaló Vino Pajanor, director ejecutivo de Caridades Católicas de la Diócesis de San Diego, al describir el proceso de selección y pruebas en los centros. “La mayoría no tiene zapatos. Les damos zapatos”.

Las autoridades dijeron que unas 46,000 personas han sido vacunadas contra el coronavirus a través del programa. La cifra, según las mismas fuentes, es significativamente inferior al número de migrantes que han pasado por los centros porque algunos se vacunaron antes de llegar a Estados Unidos, y los migrantes más jóvenes no cumplían inicialmente los requisitos, mientras que otros rechazaron las vacunas.

Según la Agencia de Salud y Servicios Humanos de California, el estado tiene previsto retirar gradualmente parte del apoyo médico, pero se espera que las operaciones de acogida continúen “a corto plazo” y que su futuro dependa de la disponibilidad de financiación federal.

La agencia señaló que, si bien el estado no ha adoptado planes específicos para reducir la capacidad de los centros, dará prioridad a la ayuda a familias con niños pequeños y a “personas médicamente frágiles” en caso de que los refugios se vean desbordados por las llegadas. El gobernador dijo que el estado pretende “centrarse en los más vulnerables”.

Algunos activistas declararon que el estado estaba tomando la decisión equivocada.

“Ahora es el momento para que el estado de California redoble su apoyo a las personas que buscan alivio de su estado de arresto migratorio”, afirmó Pedro Ríos, quien dirige el programa de la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México en el American Friends Service Committee, que aboga en nombre de los inmigrantes. “Creo que envía un mensaje erróneo de que los problemas ya no preocupan y que los inmigrantes que potencialmente podrían beneficiarse de estos fondos ya no los necesitan”.

Esta historia fue producida por KHN, que publica California Healthline, un servicio editorialmente independiente de la California Health Care Foundation.

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).

Once inside, coordinators say, migrants are given face masks to guard against the spread of infectious diseases, along with water and food. Medical providers test them for the coronavirus, offer them vaccines, and isolate those who test positive for the virus. Asylum-seekers are treated for injuries they may have suffered during their journey and checked for chronic health issues, such as diabetes or high blood pressure.

But now, as the liberal-leaning state confronts a projected $22.5 billion deficit, Gov. Gavin Newsom said the state can no longer afford to contribute to the centers, which also receive federal and local grants. The Democratic governor in January proposed phasing out state aid for some medical services in the next few months, and eventually scaling back the migrant assistance program unless President Joe Biden and Congress step in with help.

California began contributing money for medical services through its migrant assistance program during the deadliest phase of the coronavirus pandemic two years ago. The state helps support three health resource centers — two in San Diego County and one in Imperial County — that conduct covid testing and vaccinations and other health screenings, serving more than 300,000 migrants since April 2021. The migrant assistance program also provides food, lodging, and travel to unite migrants with sponsors, family, or friends in the U.S. while awaiting their immigration hearings, and the state has been covering the humanitarian effort with an appropriation of more than $1 billion since 2019.

Though the White House declined to comment and no federal legislation has advanced, Newsom said he was optimistic that federal funding will come through, citing “some remarkably good conversations” with the Biden administration. The president recently announced that the United States would turn back Cubans, Haitians, and Nicaraguans who cross the border from Mexico illegally — a move intended to slow migration. The U.S. Supreme Court is also now considering whether to end a Trump-era policy known as Title 42 that the U.S. has used to expel asylum-seekers, ostensibly to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.

Already, one potential pot of federal money has been identified. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued a statement to KHN noting that local governments and nongovernmental providers will soon be able to tap into an additional $800 million in federal funds through a shelter and services grant program. FEMA did not answer KHN’s questions about how much the agency spends serving migrants.

“We’re continuing our operations and again calling on all levels of government to make sure that there is an investment,” said Kate Clark, senior director of immigration services for Jewish Family Services of San Diego, one of two main migrant shelter operators. The other is run by Catholic Charities for the Diocese of San Diego.

While health workers and immigration advocates want the state to continue funding, Newsom appears to have bipartisan support within the state for scaling it back. He promised more details in his revised budget in May, before legislative budget negotiations begin in earnest. And, he noted, conditions have changed such that testing and vaccination services are less urgent.

San Diego County Supervisor Nathan Fletcher, a Democrat, agreed that the burden should be on the federal government, though local officials are contemplating additional assistance. And state Senate Republican leader Brian Jones of San Diego, who represents part of the affected region, said that California is set to end its pandemic state of emergency on Feb. 28, months before the budget takes effect in July.

“The pandemic conditions no longer warrant this large investment from the state, especially since immigration is supposed to be a federal issue,” Jones said in a statement.

California began its migrant assistance support soon after Newsom took office in 2019 and after the Trump administration ended the “safe release” program that helped transport immigrants seeking asylum to be with their family members in the United States. It was part of California’s broad pushback against Trump’s immigration policies; state lawmakers also made it a so-called sanctuary state, an attempt to make it safe from immigration crackdowns.

California, along with local governments and nonprofit organizations, stepped in to fill the void and take pressure off border areas by quickly moving migrants elsewhere in the United States. The state’s involvement ramped up in 2021 as the pandemic surged and the Biden administration tried to unwind the Trump administration’s “remain in Mexico” policy. While some cities in other parts of the country provided aid, state officials said no other state was providing California’s level of support.

In a coordinated effort, migrants are dropped off at the centers by federal immigration officers, then are screened and cared for by state-contracted organizations that provide medical aid, travel assistance, food, and temporary housing while they await their immigration hearings.

Both Catholic Charities for the Diocese of San Diego and Jewish Family Service of San Diego coordinate medical support with the University of California San Diego. The federal government covers most of the university’s costs while the state pays for nurses and other medical contractors to supplement health care, according to Catholic Charities.

It often takes one to three days before migrants can be put on buses or commercial flights, and in the meantime, they are housed in hotels and provided with food, clothing, and other necessities as part of the state’s program.

“Many of them come hungry, starving,” said Vino Pajanor, chief executive of Catholic Charities for the Diocese of San Diego, who described the screening and testing process at the centers. “Most of them don’t have shoes. They get shoes.”

Officials said about 46,000 people have been vaccinated against the coronavirus through the program. They said the figure is significantly lower than the number of migrants who have come through the centers because some were vaccinated before reaching the U.S. and younger migrants were initially ineligible, while others refused the shots.

According to the California Health and Human Services Agency, the state plans to phase out some medical support, but the sheltering operations are expected to continue “for the near term” with their future determined by the availability of federal funding. Of the more than $1 billion spent by the state, $828 million has been allocated through the Department of Public Health, according to the governor’s office.

The agency said that while the state has not adopted specific plans to cut the sites’ capacity, it will put a priority on helping families with young children and “medically fragile individuals” if the shelters are overwhelmed by arrivals.

Some immigration advocates said the state was making the wrong choice.

“Now’s the time for the state of California to double down on supporting those individuals that are seeking relief from immigration detention,” said Pedro Rios, who directs the U.S.-Mexico border program at the American Friends Service Committee, which advocates on behalf of immigrants. “I think it sends an erroneous message that the issues are no longer of concern.”

This story was produced by KHN, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation.

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).

Los murciélagos en todo el mundo son vectores primarios para la transmisión de virus de animales a humanos. Generalmente esos virus son inofensivos para los murciélagos, pero pueden ser mortales para los humanos.

Por ejemplo, en China, los murciélagos de herradura se citan como una causa probable del brote de covid-19. Y los investigadores creen que la presión ejercida sobre los murciélagos por el cambio climático y la invasión del desarrollo humano han aumentado la frecuencia con la que los virus saltan de estos animales a las personas, causando lo que se conoce como enfermedades zoonóticas.

“Estos eventos indirectos son el resultado de una cascada de factores estresantes: el hábitat de los murciélagos cambia, el clima se vuelve más extremo, los murciélagos se trasladan a áreas humanas para encontrar comida”, dijo Raina Plowright, ecologista de enfermedades y coautora de un artículo reciente en la revista Nature y otro en Ecology Letters sobre el papel de los cambios ecológicos en las enfermedades.

Es por eso que Agnieszka Rynda-Apple, inmunóloga de la Universidad Estatal de Montana (MSU), planea traer murciélagos frugívoros (o de la fruta) de Jamaica a Bozeman este invierno para iniciar una colonia de reproducción y acelerar el trabajo de su laboratorio como parte de un equipo de 70 investigadores en siete países.

El grupo, llamado BatOneHealth, fundado por Plowright, espera encontrar formas de predecir dónde el póximo virus mortal podría dar el salto de los murciélagos a las personas. “Estamos colaborando para responder a la pregunta de por qué los murciélagos son un vector tan fantástico”, dijo Rynda-Apple.

“Estamos tratando de entender qué es lo que hace que sus sistemas inmunológicos retengan el virus y cuál es la situación en la que lo eliminan”, agregó.

Para estudiar el papel del estrés nutricional, explicó que los investigadores crean diferentes dietas para estos mamíferos, “los infectan con el virus de la influenza y luego estudian cuánto virus están eliminando, la duración de la eliminación viral y su respuesta antiviral”.

Si bien Rynda Apple y sus colegas ya han estado haciendo este tipo de experimentos, la cría de murciélagos les permitirá ampliar la investigación. Es un esfuerzo arduo comprender a fondo cómo el cambio ambiental contribuye al estrés nutricional, y predecir mejor el efecto indirecto.

“Si realmente podemos entender todas las piezas del rompecabezas, eso nos dará herramientas para volver atrás y pensar en medidas contra-ecológicas que podemos poner en práctica para romper el ciclo de los efectos indirectos”, dijo Andrew Hoegh, profesor asistente de estadísticas en MSU que está creando modelos para posibles escenarios indirectos.

El pequeño equipo de investigadores de la MSU trabaja con un investigador del Rocky Mountain Laboratories de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud en Hamilton, Montana.

Los artículos recientes publicados en Nature y Ecology Letters se centran en el virus Hendra en Australia, que es donde nació Plowright.

Hendra es un virus respiratorio que causa síntomas similares a los de la gripe y se propaga de los murciélagos a los caballos, y luego puede transmitirse a las personas que tratan a los caballos. Es mortal, con una tasa de mortalidad del 75% en caballos. De las siete personas que hasta el momento se sabe que contrajeron esta infección, cuatro murieron.

La pregunta que impulsó el trabajo de Plowright es por qué Hendra comenzó a aparecer en caballos y personas en la década de 1990, a pesar de que los murciélagos probablemente han albergado al virus por millones de años.

La investigación demuestra que la razón es el cambio ambiental. Plowright comenzó su investigación sobre murciélagos en 2006. En muestras tomadas de murciélagos australianos llamados zorros voladores, ella y sus colegas rara vez detectaron el virus.

Después de que el ciclón tropical Larry frente a la costa del Territorio del Norte australiano acabara con la fuente de alimento de los murciélagos en 2005-06, cientos de miles de animales simplemente desaparecieron. Sin embargo, encontraron una pequeña población de murciélagos débiles y hambrientos cargados con el virus Hendra.

Eso llevó a Plowright a centrarse en el estrés nutricional como un factor clave en el efecto indirecto. El equipo analizó 25 años de datos sobre la pérdida de hábitat, el derrame y el clima, y descubrieron un vínculo entre la pérdida de fuentes de alimento causada por el cambio ambiental y las altas cargas virales en murciélagos estresados por la comida.

En el año posterior a un patrón climático de El Niño, con sus altas temperaturas, que ocurren cada pocos años, muchos árboles de eucalipto no producen las flores con el néctar que necesitan los murciélagos. Y la invasión humana de otros hábitats, desde las granjas hasta el desarrollo urbano, ha eliminado las fuentes alternativas de alimentos. Entonces, los murciélagos tienden a mudarse a áreas urbanas con higueras, mangos y otros árboles deficientes y, estresados, propagan los virus.

Cuando los murciélagos excretan orina y heces, los caballos las inhalan mientras huelen el suelo. Los investigadores esperan que su trabajo con murciélagos infectados con Hendra ilustre un principio universal: cómo la destrucción y la alteración de la naturaleza pueden aumentar la probabilidad de que los patógenos mortales pasen de los animales salvajes a los humanos.

Las tres fuentes más probables de contagio son los murciélagos, los mamíferos y los artrópodos, especialmente las garrapatas. Alrededor del 60% de las enfermedades infecciosas emergentes que infectan a los humanos provienen de animales, y alrededor de dos tercios de ellas provienen de animales salvajes.

La idea de que la deforestación y la invasión humana de las tierras salvajes alimentan las pandemias no es nueva. Por ejemplo, expertos creen que el VIH, que causa el SIDA, infectó a los humanos por primera vez cuando la gente comía chimpancés en África central. Un brote en Malasia a fines de 1998 y principios de 1999 del virus Nipah transmitido por murciélagos se propagó de murciélagos a cerdos. Los cerdos lo amplificaron y se propagó a los humanos, con un brote que infectó a 276 personas, y mató a 106.

Ahora está emergiendo la conexión con el estrés provocado por los cambios ambientales.

Una pieza crítica de este complejo rompecabezas es el sistema inmunológico de los murciélagos. Los murciélagos frugívoros de Jamaica que vivirán en la MSU ayudarán a los investigadores a obtener más información sobre los efectos del estrés nutricional en su carga viral.

Vincent Munster, jefe de la unidad de ecología de virus de Rocky Mountain Laboratories y miembro de BatOneHealth, también está analizando diferentes especies de murciélagos para comprender mejor la ecología del contagio. “Hay 1,400 especies diferentes de murciélagos y hay diferencias muy significativas entre los que albergan coronavirus y los murciélagos que albergan el virus del Ébola”, dijo Munster. “Y murciélagos que viven cientos de miles juntos versus murciélagos que son relativamente solitarios”.

Mientras tanto, Gary Tabor, esposo de Plowright, es presidente del Center for Large Landscape Conservation, una organización sin fines de lucro que aplica la ecología de la investigación de enfermedades para proteger el hábitat de la vida silvestre, en parte, para garantizar que la vida silvestre esté adecuadamente alimentada y protegerse contra la propagación de virus.

“La fragmentación del hábitat es un problema de salud planetaria que no se está abordando lo suficiente, dado que el mundo continúa experimentando niveles sin precedentes de deforestación”, dijo Tabor.

A medida que mejore la capacidad de predecir brotes, otras estrategias se vuelven posibles. Los modelos que pueden predecir dónde podría extenderse el virus Hendra podrían conducir a la vacunación de los caballos en esas áreas. Otra posible solución es el conjunto de “contramedidas ecológicas” a las que se refirió Hoegh, como la plantación a gran escala de eucaliptos en flor para que los murciélagos zorros voladores no se vean obligados a buscar néctar en áreas desarrolladas.

“En este momento, el mundo está enfocado en cómo podemos detener la próxima pandemia”, dijo Plowright. “Desafortunadamente, preservar o restaurar la naturaleza rara vez es parte de la discusión”.

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).

Bats worldwide are primary vectors for virus transmission from animals to humans. Those viruses often are harmless to bats but can be deadly to humans. Horseshoe bats in China, for example, are cited as a likely cause of the covid-19 outbreak. And researchers believe pressure put on bats by climate change and encroachment from human development have increased the frequency of viruses jumping from bats to people, causing what are known as zoonotic diseases.

“Spillover events are the result of a cascade of stressors — bat habitat is cleared, climate becomes more extreme, bats move into human areas to find food,” said Raina Plowright, a disease ecologist and co-author of a recent paper in the journal Nature and another in Ecology Letters on the role of ecological changes in disease.

That’s why Montana State University immunologist Agnieszka Rynda-Apple plans to bring the Jamaican fruit bats to Bozeman this winter to start a breeding colony and accelerate her lab’s work as part of a team of 70 researchers in seven countries. The group, called BatOneHealth — founded by Plowright — hopes to find ways to predict where the next deadly virus might make the leap from bats to people.

“We’re collaborating on the question of why bats are such a fantastic vector,” said Rynda-Apple. “We’re trying to understand what is it about their immune systems that makes them retain the virus, and what is the situation in which they shed the virus.”

To study the role of nutritional stress, researchers create different diets for them, she said, “and infect them with the influenza virus and then study how much virus they are shedding, the length of the viral shedding, and their antiviral response.”

While she and her colleagues have already been doing these kinds of experiments, breeding bats will allow them to expand the research.

It’s a painstaking effort to thoroughly understand how environmental change contributes to nutritional stress and to better predict spillover. “If we can really understand all the pieces of the puzzle, that gives us tools to go back in and think about eco-counter measures that we can put in place that will break the cycle of spillovers,” said Andrew Hoegh, an assistant professor of statistics at MSU who is creating models for possible spillover scenarios.

The small team of researchers at MSU works with a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana.

The recent papers published in Nature and Ecology Letters focus on the Hendra virus in Australia, which is where Plowright was born. Hendra is a respiratory virus that causes flu-like symptoms and spreads from bats to horses, and then can be passed on to people who treat the horses. It is deadly, with a mortality rate of 75% in horses. Of the seven people known to have been infected, four died.

The question that propelled Plowright’s work is why Hendra began to show up in horses and people in the 1990s, even though bats have likely hosted the virus for eons. The research demonstrates that the reason is environmental change.

Plowright began her bat research in 2006. In samples taken from Australian bats called flying foxes, she and her colleagues rarely detected the virus. After Tropical Cyclone Larry off the coast of the Northern Territory wiped out the bats’ food source in 2005-06, hundreds of thousands of the animals simply disappeared. However, they found one small population of weak and starving bats loaded with the Hendra virus. That led Plowright to focus on nutritional stress as a key player in spillover.

She and her collaborators scoured 25 years of data on habitat loss, spillover, and climate and discovered a link between the loss of food sources caused by environmental change and high viral loads in food-stressed bats.

In the year after an El Niño climate pattern, with its high temperatures — occurring every few years — many eucalyptus trees don’t produce the flowers with nectar the bats need. And human encroachment on other habitats, from farms to urban development, has eliminated alternative food sources. And so the bats tend to move into urban areas with substandard fig, mango, and other trees, and, stressed, shed virus. When the bats excrete urine and feces, horses inhale it while sniffing the ground.

The researchers hope their work with Hendra-infected bats will illustrate a universal principle: how the destruction and alteration of nature can increase the likelihood that deadly pathogens will spill over from wild animals to humans.

The three most likely sources of spillover are bats, mammals, and arthropods, especially ticks. Some 60% of emerging infectious diseases that infect humans come from animals, and about two-thirds of those come from wild animals.

The idea that deforestation and human encroachment into wild land fuels pandemics is not new. For example, experts believe that HIV, which causes AIDS, first infected humans when people ate chimpanzees in central Africa. A Malaysian outbreak in late 1998 and early 1999 of the bat-borne Nipah virus spread from bats to pigs. The pigs amplified it, and it spread to humans, infecting 276 people and killing 106 in that outbreak. Now emerging is the connection to stress brought on by environmental changes.

One critical piece of this complex puzzle is bat immune systems. The Jamaican fruit bats kept at MSU will help researchers learn more about the effects of nutritional stress on their viral load.

Vincent Munster, chief of the virus ecology unit of Rocky Mountain Laboratories and a member of BatOneHealth, is also looking at different species of bats to better understand the ecology of spillover. “There are 1,400 different bat species and there are very significant differences between bats who harbor coronaviruses and bats who harbor Ebola virus,” said Munster. “And bats who live with hundreds of thousands together versus bats who are relatively solitary.”

Meanwhile, Plowright’s husband, Gary Tabor, is president of the Center for Large Landscape Conservation, a nonprofit that applies ecology of disease research to protect wildlife habitat — in part, to assure that wildlife is adequately nourished and to guard against virus spillover.

“Habitat fragmentation is a planetary health issue that is not being sufficiently addressed, given the world continues to experience unprecedented levels of land clearing,” said Tabor.

As the ability to predict outbreaks improves, other strategies become possible. Models that can predict where the Hendra virus could spill over could lead to vaccination for horses in those areas.

Another possible solution is the set of “eco-counter measures” Hoegh referred to — such as large-scale planting of flowering eucalyptus trees so flying foxes won’t be forced to seek nectar in developed areas.

“Right now, the world is focused on how we can stop the next pandemic,” said Plowright. “Unfortunately, preserving or restoring nature is rarely part of the discussion.”

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).

SOURCE: Reuters – The U.S. health regulator on Monday proposed one dose of the latest updated COVID-19 shot annually for healthy adults, similar to the influenza immunization campaign, as it aims to simplify the country’s COVID-vaccine strategy.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also asked its panel of external advisers to consider the usage of two COVID vaccine shots a year for some young children, older adults and persons with compromised immunity. The regulator proposed the need for routine selection of variants for updating the vaccine, similar to the way strains for flu vaccines are changed annually, in briefing documents ahead of a meeting of its panel on Thursday.

The FDA hopes annual immunization schedules may contribute to less complicated vaccine deployment and fewer vaccine administration errors, leading to improved vaccine coverage rates. The agency’s proposal was on expected lines, following its announcement of its intention for the update last month.

The Biden administration has also been planning for a campaign of vaccine boosters every fall season.

Currently, most people in the United States need to first get two doses of the original COVID vaccine spaced at least three to four weeks apart, depending on the vaccine, followed by a booster dose a few months later.

Pfizer’s primary vaccine doses for children and people involve three shots, with the third a bivalent shot given about two months later.

If the panel votes in favor of the proposal, Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Moderna Inc’s (MRNA.O) bivalent vaccines, which target both the Omicron and the original variants, would be used for all COVID vaccine doses, and not just as boosters.

The post U.S. FDA proposes shift to annual COVID vaccine shots appeared first on Barbados Today.