The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Democrats and Republicans are both facing potential political consequences in their continuing standoff over federal government funding. Republicans are likely to face a voter backlash if they refuse to agree to Democrats’ demands that they renew additional tax credits for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans, since the majority of those facing premium hikes live in GOP-dominated states. For their part, Democrats are worried that Republicans will violate the terms of any potential spending deal.

At the same time, the Trump administration is using the shutdown to try to lay off thousands of federal workers, including those performing key public health roles at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As the federal government shutdown drags on, there has been little progress toward a deal on government spending — or on the expiring ACA marketplace subsidies Democrats are fighting to renew. Potential subsidy compromises could, for instance, implement a minimal premium in place of $0 premiums, to reduce enrollment fraud, as Republicans want.
• A federal judge halted the Trump administration’s latest layoffs of federal workers amid questions about the layoffs’ legality. The administration in particular dealt a heavy blow this round to the CDC, an agency that has been battered by staff reductions, policy shifts, and even violence.
• New reporting shows the Trump administration explored the feasibility of tracing abortion pill residue in wastewater, following up on an anti-abortion claim that the drugs may be contaminating the water supply. Yet advocates could have an ulterior motive: developing the ability to trace use of the pill to further crack down on abortions.
• And President Donald Trump unveiled a deal with a second drugmaker, AstraZeneca, that allows the company to avoid tariffs in exchange for building a new U.S. facility. But as with the first deal, it’s unclear how much money the agreement will save patients.

Also this week, Rovner interviews health insurance analyst Louise Norris of Medicareresources.org about the Medicare open enrollment period, which began Oct. 15.

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

Julie Rovner: Politico’s “RFK Jr.’s Got Advice for Pregnant Women. There’s Limited Data To Support It,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

Anna Edney: The New York Times’ “The Drug That Took Away More Than Her Appetite,” by Maia Szalavitz.

Joanne Kenen: Mother Jones’ “From Medicine to Mysticism: The Radicalization of Florida’s Top Doc,” by Kiera Butler and Julianne McShane.

Lauren Weber: KFF Health News’ “Senators Press Deloitte, Other Contractors on Errors in Medicaid Eligibility Systems,” by Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “She Left the Medical Mainstream and Rose To Be RFK Jr.’s Surgeon General Pick,” by Lauren Weber and Rachel Roubein.
• The Bulwark’s “There’s Something Weirdly Familiar About This New GOP Argument,” by Jonathan Cohn.
• Politico’s “4 GOP Ideas for an Obamacare Subsidies Compromise,” by Benjamin Guggenheim.
• The New York Times’ “The E.P.A. Followed Up on an Unusual Request About Abortion Pills,” by Caroline Kitchener and Coral Davenport.
• Bloomberg News’ “WHO Warns Against Three India-Made Cough Syrups After Child Deaths,” by Satviki Sanjay.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Schrödinger’s Government Shutdown

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Oct. 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with health insurance expert Louise Norris, who will explain some of the changes coming with this year’s open enrollment for Medicare, which began Wednesday. But first, this week’s news. 

So, today is Day 16 of the government shutdown, and there is still no discernible end in sight. This week Republicans shifted their main talking point against Democrats. They were arguing that Democrats are trying to restore eligibility for Medicaid to illegal immigrants. Now it’s become a general takedown of the Affordable Care Act and arguing that in urging continuing the expanded tax credits for ACA premiums, Democrats want to throw good money after bad, because the ACA has made health care more expensive. 

First off, it has not. There’s lots of evidence that the ACA has actually held down health spending increases, although other factors have pushed it up. But more to the point, do Republicans still not get that the expiration of these additional tax credits are going to hurt their voters more than it’s going to hurt Democratic voters? I see arched eyebrows. 

Edney: It doesn’t seem like they get that yet, but I’m not in those strategy rooms, so a little tough to say what their line will be with this game of chicken. They basically are allowing firings of federal workers to continue to go forward in a way that they hope maybe will turn the tide and attention. It doesn’t seem to be working. So I don’t know if they’re having these conversations quite yet, but I know that the notices are starting to go out to some people in some states about these increases, and so it really might depend on what that backlash is from people who are going to see much higher costs for their health care. 

Rovner: Yeah, apparently open enrollment began in Idaho on Wednesday. I didn’t realize that they started early, and so there’s just that one little state where people are actually able to see what these premium increases look like, assuming that they do not continue these extra subsidies. I’m wondering sort of about the Republican strategy of, We couldn’t get any traction with the illegal immigrants, so we’re just going to move to “The ACA is terrible.” Joanne. 

Kenen: Well, I mean, we talked about this a couple of weeks ago. And Julie linked to the story, and I wrote about the politics of this. And one of the issues is [President Donald] Trump is a master of deflection. Are these people going to think it’s really Republican policy? Or are they going to think it’s greedy insurers, leftovers of the flaws of Obamacare itself, it’s Biden’s fault? And also concentration, I mean where the voters are in these states. Are there enough of them who actually are going to turn out to make a difference? They’re not going to flip Texas, right? 

Are there enough of them in swing states or closer-margin states to make any difference? Are there enough in a single congressional district to make any difference? I mean part of it, I think they’re just sort of banking on that they won’t get the blame, that it’s really easy for us to get mad at our insurers. And I think that’s part of what they’re hoping, that they can just say: Blame them. Blame the structure of Obamacare. Because it’s not our fault. So, whether that works as a selling tactic remains to be seen. If they thought it was a huge political risk, they wouldn’t do it. 

Rovner: True. Lauren. 

Weber: I’ve been fascinated to see [Rep.] Marjorie Taylor-Green come out and say, Wow, these are some expensive premiums. And her in general, her seeming split from some parts of the Republican Party, is fascinating to watch for many reasons. But it’s just a lot of money that these people could be staring down. I mean, there was an analyst quoted in some coverage that was, like, people will have to decide between groceries and rent. I mean, if you are paying over a thousand dollars more a month, for some of these folks, I mean, that is a significant amount of cash. So, I do feel like people vote with their pocketbooks more than they vote with anything else. But to Joanne’s point, I mean, will they attribute the blame? I’m not sure. 

Rovner: So, Politico was reporting on some possible options for a deal on those subsidies, which lawmakers are apparently talking about quietly behind closed doors, since actual negotiations are not yet happening. Two of those possibilities seem like real potential common ground. Minimum premiums — so, people who are now not paying any premiums, and the argument from some Republicans is that that’s pushing fraud, because some people, if they’re not paying premiums, don’t even know that they’re enrolled, and that the brokers are making money, which my colleague Julie Appleby has written about ad nauseum. So that seems like a possible place for compromise, to have a minimum $5-a-month premium so people would know that they have insurance. And maximum incomes for the subsidies. I know that people are floating, like, $200,000 a year or something like that. 

Then there are two possibilities that at least strike me as less likely. One of them is grandfathering the subsidies, so only people who are getting them now could continue to get them, which would be problematic at a time when the economy seems to be shedding jobs, and changing the abortion language, which I don’t even want to start with. So, I’m seeing the first two as a real possibility. The second two, not so much. I’m wondering what you guys think. 

Kenen: I mean, I’ve talked to some Republicans who claim that the current structure of the subsidies would enable families who are making $600,000, which all of us would agree is a fair amount of money. When I was told that, I went on a whole bunch of different calculators and pretended I was making $600,000. And could I actually get the subsidies? And I kept being laughed at by these calculators. I think there are probably some cases where this has happened. It’s a complicated formula where 8% of — we don’t have to get into the technicality. There may be— 

Rovner: But it is a percent of your income. You only get a subsidy if it’s more than — yeah. 

Kenen: And you’d have to have a premium that’s, like, an extraordinarily rich premium. I mean, it has to be in a really, really, really, really high number. Can this exist under current law? Several reputable Republicans have told me yes. Or conservatives — they’re not all necessarily Republicans. Conservative on this issue, at least — have said yes. I mean, if that’s the kind of thing that you want, to set an income cap, that was probably what was intended. I would take that out of the nonstarter and into the starter pile. I don’t think that’s enough, but I think that’s a reasonable discussion for both sides to have. I don’t think the intention was to subsidize people who were really not lower-middle, middle class. 

Rovner: The people who got the big tax cuts. 

Kenen: Right. They’re getting other tax cuts. I thought that was an interesting piece with some interesting options, but I’m also hearing escalating rhetoric, back to 2014 kind of rhetoric, back to repeal kind of rhetoric, that everything that you hate about the health care system is the fault of Obamacare, nothing in Obamacare works. We’ve got a really — they’re not saying “repeal,” but they’re saying reform it, and I’m hearing more and more of that. It’s just in the air now. So, and Jon Cohn had a really good piece in The Bulwark about some of the background of this. I think it could mean that this becomes a more intense tug-of-war that does not bode well for a quick resolution of the shutdown. 

I don’t think we necessarily get into a yearlong repeal fight, even if you call it reform. But I think that these demands and this rhetoric about, Well, high-risk pools worked. Well, no, they didn’t. That, This is why your insurance costs have gone up. No, there’s a whole bunch of incentives and structures and bad stuff in our health care system. It is, Obamacare fixed certain problems. Those of us, we all have employer insurance, I believe, and all of us face cost increases and frustrations and hitting our head against brick walls and delays. And things are not perfect by any means, but it’s not because of these subsidies in Obamacare. 

Rovner: And it’s not because of Obamacare. [Barack] Obama himself this week was on a podcast and said it was intended as a start, not as the be-all, end-all. I was surprised. I mean, I think one of the reasons that Republicans, I mean, this is now in their talking points about, We’re going to go after Obamacare. And [Rep.] Mike Johnson, the speaker, had kind of a rant on Monday, I mean, which sort of opened this up. And I think some of the Republicans were also talking about it on the Sunday shows. But I can’t imagine that Republicans don’t remember that the last time they had this big fight against Obamacare, Obamacare won. That was in 2017, and if anything, it’s even more popular now because there’s twice as many people on it, which was kind of the way I set up my first question. 

Kenen: Right. But the dynamic of a year’s worth of repeal votes while other things are actually functioning in government versus a fight about this when Trump holds a lot of the cards in a shutdown — it’s comparable but not the same. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: Well, and I also have to wonder if an actual extended replace, or reform, whatever we’re going to call it, fight is what they want, or if this is a strategy to help blame the increases in premiums that are coming on Obamacare in general directed towards the Democrats, right?. I mean, you can see how that line could be drawn. And so if they just keep bashing Obamacare, it’s Obamacare’s fault that Obamacare’s premiums got higher, not because they didn’t vote on extending the subsidies. 

Kenen: And we’re also talking about Obamacare again. We had been talking about the Affordable Care Act. It had gone from Obamacare, which is politically toxic, to Affordable Care Act, which was sort of a subtle acknowledgment that it had bipartisan popularity among people getting benefits. And now we’re back to Obamacare, which sort of tells me, yes, we’re back into some of this endless loop of political fights about Obamacare. 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: And trying to get the Guinness Book of World Records for repeal votes on a single piece of legislation. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile — and I said this last week and I think the week before — that even if there is a deal on the tax credits, the bigger problem for Democrats right now is that if they make a deal on spending levels for fiscal 2026, which is what this fight is actually over, the administration can simply undo it, and Congress can ratify that undoing with a simple majority of just Republican votes. This week, even Republican [Sen.] Lisa Murkowski wondered aloud why Democrats would do a deal like that. So, I’m still wondering how they get out of that box, even if they were to get some kind of a compromise on the ACA subsidies. I certainly don’t know how Democrats get out of that box. I think the Republicans don’t know how they get out of that box. 

Kenen: They don’t realize they’re both in the box. That’s one of the problems. This is a large box. 

Rovner: It’s Schrödinger’s shutdown. We will have to see how that plays itself out. In the meantime, I’m not holding my breath. Well, moving on, despite laws against it, as Anna already mentioned, the Trump administration began firing federal workers last week, and the cuts hit particularly hard at the Department of Health and Human Services and agencies like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. The cuts appeared both sweeping and devastating, at least at first, including the entire staff of the CDC’s news journal and lead public health source of information, the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Though by the end of the weekend, many of the firings had been rescinded. It’s not clear whether that really was a coding mistake, as was the official explanation, or an effort to continue to put federal workers, quote, air quotes here, “in trauma” as OMB [Office of Management and Budget] Director Russell Vought famously promised before he took office for the second time. Whichever, it’s not really the way to get the best work out of your workforce, right? Telling you: You’re fired. No, you’re not. Maybe you are? Go ahead, Lauren. 

Weber: I would like to go back to the story I wrote in April when a bunch of fired health workers were told to contact an employee who had died. I don’t think, based on the coding error or some of these past things, it does not seem like these layoffs are being done in any sort of organized way. It doesn’t seem like they have up-to-date records. It seems like, also, are these layoffs even legal, based on some of the litigation that’s been filed? I think there’s going to be a lot that has to shake out there. But, I mean, to be quite honest, it is very striking to see a bunch of CDC employees continue to get laid off after, again, this is an agency that got shot at with hundreds of bullets. Police officer— 

Rovner: Yeah, literally shot at. 

Weber: Literally shot at with hundreds of bullets, and a police officer died responding to that, due to a shooter who had been radicalized in part, it seems, from his father’s account, by information that was wrong about the covid vaccine. So, to see more of those employees get laid off, I mean, you just have to wonder who’s going to want to work at these places. Morale is just completely, as we understand it, terrible. But yeah, I also question if that was a coding error or what exactly was happening there, because there were a lot of priorities of folks that were seemingly let go that are allegedly Make America Healthy Again priorities, but that’s also been true for many months of policymaking, so— 

Rovner: Yeah, there’s a lot of right hand not seemingly knowing what left hand is doing in all of this, which may be the goal. I mean, I think you put your finger on it. It’s like, who would want to work at these places after what’s being done? And I think that’s the whole idea of the Russell Vought strategy of, Let’s shrink the federal government to a point where it’s so small that you can just sort of put it in a box and put it under the bed. That’s essentially where we are. Well, Lauren, as you mentioned, Wednesday afternoon, a federal district court judge ordered the administration to pause the firings. But will they actually obey that? And do we even know what offices have been most affected at this point? 

I mean, we heard a lot of things like the entire Office of Population Affairs at HHS, which runs Title X, has apparently been reduced to one person. The people who do a lot of the statistics and survey work at CDC. All these people sort of appear to have been laid off, but we’re not quite sure, and we’re not quite sure what’s going to happen from here. 

Kenen: I’m not sure if they know they’ve been laid off and rehired, because if you were laid off, you lost your access to your work email, and then if you get an email in your work email saying, Oops, you’re hired. I mean, I guess people sort of may just see if they have access again, but I’m not really sure how the actual notification of this somewhat chaotic layoff, no-layoff thing is. 

Rovner: It has been chaotic. I think that’s a good word to describe all of this. Well, one reason it was relatively easy for the administration to go after the CDC is that it doesn’t have a leader — or even a nominated leader — at the moment, after the firing of Susan Monarez in August, less than a month after her Senate confirmation vote. Another high HHS position that remains vacant is that of surgeon general, although that office at least has a nominee, Casey Means. She’s the sister of RFK [Robert F. Kennedy] Jr. top aide and MAHA associate Calley Means and more than a little bit controversial. Lauren, you did a deep dive this week into the prospective surgeon general. What’d you find? 

Weber: Yeah, my colleague Rachel Roubein and I did a deep dive into her background. And she’s, look, she’s a fascinating example, really, of MAHA today. And you could argue she really wrote the manifesto to MAHA with her book “Good Energy” that she authored with her brother, Calley Means. But basically she’s a very accomplished person in the sense that she went to Stanford undergrad; she graduated from Stanford med school; she had a very prestigious residency in ear, nose, and throat surgery; and then she resigned. She left and decided she wanted to take a different path and has become a bestselling author, a health products entrepreneur, and has also worked, as her financial disclosures have revealed, to promote a variety of products in some of her work. Financial disclosures revealed that she had received over half a million dollars over basically the last year and a half promoting a variety of different supplements, teas, elixirs, diagnostic products, and so on. 

And several of the medical and scientific experts I spoke to said that they worried that she spoke in too absolute of terms about health, and they were really concerned that as someone who would be the surgeon general that she would use that bully pulpit and speak in terms not necessarily grounded in evidence. They pointed to some of her remarks about how cancer and Alzheimer’s and fertility was within one’s power to prevent and reverse, and they felt like that language went a step too far. And looking at her history, they are concerned about what that could mean for the health of the nation if she is directing it. 

Rovner: She doesn’t even have a confirmation hearing scheduled yet, does she? Well, the Senate’s in so they could. 

Weber: She is pregnant, so I think that is playing into the timing of some of her stuff. But yes, she does not have it scheduled. Her forms seemingly were pretty delayed. And then obviously there’s other things going on. I mean, I think the CDC firing also sucked a lot of health air out of the room of what people want to deal with and spend their political capital on, I suspect. But yes, we shall see. 

Kenen: Yeah, she has to go before the [Senate] HELP [Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions] Committee, which is, Sen. [Bill] Cassidy is the chair. He is not a happy camper at the moment, from his public statements, and we do not know what the private conversations he is having at this point in time. 

Rovner: And of course, that committee will also have to pass on the new CDC nominee when there is one. 

Kenen: Yes. And the last CDC hearing, which all of us watched, I think he’s clearly concerned and displeased by lots of things going on at the federal health agencies. So, none of us are in those rooms, but they’re probably interesting conversations. 

Rovner: As I like to say, we will watch that space. Well, turning to reproductive health, The New York Times has a story this week about something that we’ve talked about before on the podcast, arguments by anti-abortion activists that abortion pill residue in wastewater might be contaminating the nation’s waterways. Notwithstanding that there is no evidence of that, the Environmental Protection [Agency], acting on a request from anti-abortion lawmakers in Congress, ordered scientists to see if they could develop methods to detect the drug in wastewater. Now, the groups that originally pushed this say they were concerned about pollution. But if such a detection method is successfully developed, abortion rights supporters worry that it could be used to trace users in particular buildings in order to enforce abortion bans. This is basically another step in this sort of, Let’s try and shut down abortion nationwide. Is it not? And Anna I see you nodding. 

Edney: Well, I mean that was my feeling when I read this really good piece that you’re talking about. And it’s a little bit lower down in the piece when they do start talking about using this to target maybe buildings or places where someone might have used an abortion drug. And I kind of was like, Yes, this is what I assumed they were trying to do, as I read this. And the reason for that is not just because I feel like there’s always a vindictive motive or something, but it’s because there are lots of drugs that are in our wastewater, and people are taking far larger amounts daily of many more things that is all going into our wastewater. So, particularly, why you would want to track that one, which is not used by millions of people for a chronic condition on a daily basis, it seems like there would be an ulterior motive. 

Rovner: And has not been shown to do any harm, even if it is showing up in trace amounts in the wastewater. Although presumably that’s what the EPA scientists were also tasked with trying to figure out. 

Kenen: I mean, it’s really hard to get rid of a drug you no longer take. I mean, pharmacies don’t want to take it back. In my neighborhood, there is a pharmacy at a supermarket that does have a take-back, which is great, but it’s always broken. If you have any drug that you want to get rid of responsibly and not have it end up — Anna’s right, I mean, there’s just a lot of stuff in our water. It’s really hard to do. And this is not the only drug that is an issue with. 

Rovner: Although if you Google it, there are a lot of places where you can actually take back drugs. 

Kenen: It’s hard. It’s limited hours, limited access, and the machines are often— 

Rovner: Yeah. Yeah. 

Kenen: I’ve been trying for a couple of them for a few months, actually. 

Rovner: You do have to actually take some steps actively to do it. Well, turning to drugs, and drug prices, there was so much other news, you might’ve missed this, but President Trump last Friday afternoon announced a deal with a second drug company to bring back manufacturing, in order to avoid tariffs. This deals with AstraZeneca, which promised to build a plant in Virginia. But Anna, is there any promise to actually bring down prices for consumers in any of this? 

Edney: Minimally, possibly. It’s a lot like the Pfizer deal, and we saw that focus largely on Medicaid, that already has extremely steep discounts that are required by law. And so how much they’d actually be slashing to offer the “most favored nations” pricing that Trump wants to the Medicaid program, it seems like that probably isn’t a huge leap, and certainly we saw that Wall Street didn’t react with any hair on fire. They’re not worried about the bottom lines of these companies when these deals come out, and they’re avoiding tariffs for three years. So, kind of net positive, seemingly. We don’t have all the details of the deal— 

Rovner: Like with the Pfizer deal where we never got all the details. 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. So, there’s some stuff that we still don’t know, but Medicaid is the main focus. Then they’ll offer, again, some of their drugs on TrumpRx. So, maybe if your insurance doesn’t cover something, or if you don’t have insurance, and you want to get a drug, that might be helpful. But most people I think are going to opt to pay their lower copay than the cost of a drug that is discounted but still full price. 

Rovner: Well, in case you’re looking for a reason why it might be a good thing to reshore some drug manufacturing, the World Health Organization this week warned of potentially poisonous cough syrup made in India. According to one of your Bloomberg colleagues, Anna, 22 children have died in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh — I hope I’m pronouncing that close to right. And this is far from the first time poisonous substances have been found in medications made in India, right? You’ve done a lot of reporting on this. 

Edney: Yeah, for sure, and these are really tragic stories that now seem to keep, particularly with these kind of cough medicines, keep popping up. And thankfully the FDA did put out a message saying these cough medicines in this round were not sold in the U.S., but there have been times where India has imported some of these. There were children in the Gambia that died last time — this was a few years ago. Because what’s happening is some of the drugmakers in India are supposed to be purchasing a solvent. It’s propylene glycol. Well, that solvent, that helps the medicine kind of all mix together. It can be a lot cheaper if you buy something that looks like it but is actually deadly, diethylene glycol. And so that’s what some of these companies are doing, is saving money and substituting a deadly ingredient. And so we see that this is a problem a lot of times with some of the drugmakers, and it’s happened, unfortunately, particularly in India, where the cost-cutting, the corner-cutting has actually affected people’s lives, and in this case, tragically, children. 

Rovner: Yeah. There is reason to kind of want to keep drug manufacturing where the FDA can keep an eye on it, which I know you will continue to report on. 

Edney: For sure. 

Rovner: Because that has been your specialty, I know, of late. 

Edney: Yes. 

Rovner: All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my Medicare open enrollment interview with Louise Norris, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Louise Norris. She’s a health policy analyst at Medicareresources.org and at Healthinsurance.org and the author of some of the most helpful guides to health insurance out there — and the person who keeps track of all the changes for health reporters like me. Louise, so happy to welcome you to “What the Health?” 

Louise Norris: Thank you so much, Julie. It’s a pleasure to be here. 

Rovner: So, we’ve talked a lot these past few months about how the Affordable Care Act and its potentially skyrocketing premiums for 2026 is about to happen, but we haven’t talked as much about some of the changes to Medicare, for which open enrollment began this week. Now, most years it’s probably OK for Medicare recipients just to let whatever coverage they have kind of roll over. But that’s not the case this year, right? 

Norris: Well, I feel like it’s never the best idea to just let your coverage roll over, because there’s always plan-specific changes that people just really need to pay attention to. And even though averages might be fairly steady in terms of premiums and benefits, that doesn’t mean your plan will have a steady premium or benefits. And for 2026, we’re seeing in the Medicare Advantage and Part D —stand-alone Part D — drug plans, there are fewer plans available on average and actually a slight average decrease in premiums. But I feel like if people see that as the headline, they might be sort of lulled into complacency, of like, Oh, I just don’t need to look, when in reality there’s quite a bit of variation from one plan to another. So, although the average stand-alone Part D plan premium is actually decreasing slightly, some plans are increasing their premiums by as much as $50 a month. So, you need to really pay attention to the notice you got from your plan about what’s happening for 2026 and then comparison-shop. Comparison-shop is always in your best interest every year. 

Rovner: Right, because, I mean, people don’t realize that maybe your doctor’s been dropped from your Medicare Advantage plan or your drug has been dropped from your Part D plan. So, I mean, even if your premium doesn’t change that much, your coverage might be changing a lot, right? 

Norris: Exactly. And you don’t want to find that out when you go to the pharmacy in January to fill your prescription and then you’re locked into your Part D plan for all of 2026. It’s definitely better to know all those details at this right now during open enrollment. 

Rovner: Now there are some coverage changes that people are starting to feel from really a couple of years ago, yes? 

Norris: There are. So, there’s some basic changes like, for example, the maximum out-of-pocket cost on Part D plans, which just went into effect in 2025 under the Inflation Reduction Act, it was a $2,000 cap on out-of-pocket costs for Part D. That is indexed for inflation. So for 2026 it goes up to $2,100. So not a huge change but definitely a change people should know about. And you do still have the option to work with your plan to spread that out in equal payments across all 12 months of the year instead of having to meet it right at the beginning of the year, if you take an expensive medication. There’s this change in the maximum Part D deductible, just like there is every year. This year it’s, for 2025, it’s $590 is the maximum deductible. It’ll be $615 next year. That doesn’t mean your plan will have a $615 deductible, but it might. 

But there are also plan-specific changes that vary from one plan to another. So, for example, your Medicare Advantage plan might be adding or subtracting supplemental benefits. They might be changing the amount of your deductible or changing the amount of your inpatient hospital copay. There’s all sorts of changes that aren’t necessarily broadly applicable but that apply to your plan. And then, like you were saying, whether or not your doctor and hospital are still in the network, whether your prescription drug is still covered and covered at the same level, plans can move prescription drugs from one tier to another. So, those are all the sorts of things you really need to pay attention to now so that you can comparison-shop and see if something else might be a better option. 

Rovner: And we are seeing plans starting to sort of drop out. I mean, I know at one point there was concern that there were too many plans for people to choose from, that it was, just, it was too confusing. But now are we running the risk of having too few plans in some places? 

Norris: Well, I think the concern about too many plans is definitely valid. For a while, there were — it could definitely be overwhelming for people shopping for coverage. For both Medicare Advantage and Part D, we do have, overall, an average of a reduction in how many plans are available for next year. There are a few states where the average beneficiary will actually see more options for Medicare Advantage, but that’s rare. But the average beneficiary will have access to more Medicare Advantage plans than they did before 2022, for example. It’s just been in the last few years that it has decreased, but it still hasn’t decreased below the level that it was in 2022. So it’s still a lot. I believe it’s an average of 32 plans. And then in the Part D, for people who buy stand-alone Part D coverage, everybody has between eight and 12 plans to pick from. 

So, if your plan is ending, you obviously need to shop for new coverage. If you’re on a Medicare Advantage plan and you don’t shop for new coverage, you’ll just be automatically moved to original Medicare on Jan. 1. If you’re on a Medicare Advantage plan that’s ending, because your carrier is exiting the market or pulling out of your area and your plan can’t be renewed, you can pick any other Medicare Advantage plan that’s available in your area. But you also can do, you can switch to original Medicare, and you’ll have guaranteed issue access to Medigap, which is not normally the case. During this open enrollment period, people have guaranteed issue access to Medicare Advantage and Part D but not Medigap. So, for other folks whose Medicare Advantage plan is continuing, obviously they have the option to switch to original Medicare. But depending on how long they’ve been on their Advantage plan and what state they’re in, they do not have guaranteed issue access to Medigap. So, that is an important thing for folks to know if their plan is actually ending, is that they can make that choice if they want to. 

Rovner: We’ve seen a lot of increases in health care costs overall, and I guess that’s true for Medicare, too. I mean, why should people who aren’t on Medicare care about what happens to Medicare and what happens to the Medicare market? 

Norris: First of all, hopefully all of us will eventually be on Medicare. Almost everyone by the time they’re 65 is on Medicare. But even if you’re a long ways away from that, it is important to know how much the whole Medicare sphere, in terms of the insurance companies and the regulations, how that sort of trickles down to the rest of the commercial insurance sector. Drug price negotiation, for example, that will have a trickle-down effect into what the insurance companies in the rest of the commercial market pay for drugs. When regulations come out for Medicare, they oftentimes, the insurance companies follow suit in the private market, or states will follow suit in terms of how they regulate the private market. So, it certainly does matter for everyone, even if it’s not a direct effect. 

Rovner: So even if you’re not 65 or helping somebody who’s over 65. 

Norris: Exactly, yes, and that’s the other thing is a lot of folks who are younger are helping a parent or a grandparent navigate this, and so it really does affect most people. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is one of the autumn tasks for many people. 

Norris: Absolutely. 

Rovner: Helping Mom and Dad or Grandma and Grandpa navigate their Medicare coverage for the following year. 

Norris: And I do think, like you were saying earlier, as far as just letting it ride, obviously if you comparison-shop and you’re happy with your coverage and you’ve determined that it is still the best option, then, yes, you do not need to do anything. You just, assuming it’s still available for renewal, you just let it renew. But oftentimes I think people don’t comparison-shop, simply because the process seems overwhelming and they just figure, I’ll just keep what I have. And of course, if you’re in that situation, you might be one of the people who’s on a Part D plan that’s increasing by $50 a month next year, or you might find out in January that your doctor’s no longer in-network with your Advantage plan. 

So if you get those notices from your plan and something doesn’t make sense or you’re confused, it’s much better to reach out to someone who can help you, whether it’s a family member or friend, asking them for help, or call 1-800-MEDICARE. Call the Medicare SHIP in your state. Every state has a State Health Insurance Assistance Program that’s staffed with people who can answer your questions. Contact a Medicare broker in your area. Just asking questions and finding out the answers is a much better approach than just assuming things will work out if you just let your plan renew. 

Rovner: I’ll put a link to your site also. 

Norris: Yeah, Medicareresources.org. We do have an open enrollment guide where we list all of the changes that are happening for 2026, the broad changes, and we’ll continue to update that. For example, we don’t yet have the Medicare Part B premiums for 2026, so as those numbers come out, we’ll update that guide with everything people need to know. 

Rovner: Louise Norris, thank you so much. 

Norris: Absolutely. Thank you so much for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week? 

Kenen: The piece I have this week is from Mother Jones, and it’s about Florida Surgeon General Dr. Joseph Ladapo. And the headline is “From Medicine to Mysticism: The Radicalization of Florida’s Top Doc,” by Kiera Butler and Julianne McShane. It’s a phenomenal read. He has stellar credentials — Harvard, Stanford. He was an academic medicine MPH [master of public health]. He’s public health and medicine. He had this stellar traditional career. He was widely respected. And now he is this leading voice. He’s trying to get rid of the vaccine mandates, childhood vaccine mandates, to the whole state of Florida. He has questioned all sorts of established public health practices. He is out there. And we’ve sort of all wondered: How do people get to this point? 

And this story talks about his wife and her mysticism, and their guru healer, who walks on their thighs to the point that it’s painful. And they emerge from this foot-walking thigh-walking thing, and his mystical experiences with this whole different take on the human experience and the role of health. I cannot begin to capture it. And here it is. It is a long, detailed, and fascinating read on his wife, who he met on an airplane, and her beliefs in, we bring certain things on ourselves because of who we are and who are the ancestors that we carry. She sees auras and visions, and this is their current belief system. And it is not compatible with what most of us think of as science-based public health. Really good read. Really, really good read. 

Rovner: Definitely MAHA to the max. Anna. 

Edney: Mine was a guest essay in The New York Times, “The Drug That Took Away More Than Her Appetite,” [by Maia Szalavitz]. And I thought it was a really great look at how some of these obesity medications, the GLP-1s like Ozempic and others, can be used to treat addiction. And so it follows this woman who was addicted to different kinds of drugs at different times. And she lost her children and all sorts of horrible things and had tried over and over again to stop using, and then has been in this program that uses a version of these GLP-1s at a lower level — they don’t necessarily want you also losing weight — but to treat addiction, and just how it’s kind of been the only thing that’s worked for her. It stops the cravings, kind of as you think it might do for people with obesity as well. 

I thought we don’t see this as much, and the companies that make these drugs aren’t extremely focused on this. So I thought the article did a good job of saying why this could be really important, and looking at the fact that right now it requires federal funding of research to keep the promise alive, and hope that at some point some pharmaceutical company will be more willing to pick it up. 

Rovner: Right now, there’s a lot more money to be made in the obesity side of this. But yeah, it’s a really interesting story. Lauren. 

Weber: I actually highlighted work from Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss from KFF Health News. The article’s titled “Senators Press Deloitte, Other Contractors on Errors in Medicaid Eligibility Systems.” It’s impact from their great reporting, which I think we talked about on this podcast earlier in the year, about how — talk about waste, fraud, and abuse — that there’s some questionable issues with how Deloitte manages Medicaid systems and how money’s being wasted through them. And the senators, it looks like, read KFF Health News’ reporting and have sent some letters about it. So, great work by the team over there, and eye-opening for sure to see, on some of the dollars, Medicaid, that are not going to patients. 

Rovner: Journalism impact. My extra credit this week is a really thoughtful story from our fellow podcast panelist Alice Miranda Olstein at Politico. It’s called “RFK Jr.’s Got Advice for Pregnant Women. There’s Limited Data to Support It.” It’s about a topic that I have been covering for more than three decades — the difficulties of including women, particularly women of childbearing age, in clinical trials of drugs. As Alice outlined so well, the problem isn’t just ethical — an unborn fetus obviously can’t give informed consent to be part of an experiment — but it’s also a question of liability. Drugmakers are afraid of getting sued for bad pregnancy outcomes, and with good reason. That’s why it’s so hard to know what is and isn’t safe to take during pregnancy and what might cause birth defects or miscarriages. And despite the secretary’s promise to, quote, “do the science,” it is not that easy. It’s a really, really good read. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m either on Bluesky, @joannekenen, or on LinkedIn. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: Bluesky or X, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m on X or Bluesky, @LaurenWeberHP. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

As long predicted, much of the federal government shut down on Oct. 1, after Congress failed to agree on spending bills that keep most programs running. Republicans need at least a handful of Democratic votes to pass spending bills in the Senate. In exchange, Democrats demanded Republicans renew expanded premium subsidies for Affordable Care Act marketplace plans, which were passed during the pandemic — effectively forcing their own shutdown over ACA policies, as Republicans did in 2013. Republicans so far have refused to continue the subsidies or even discuss them — but now say they won’t negotiate unless Democrats agree to reopen the government.

Meanwhile, President Donald Trump announced a deal with the drugmaker Pfizer to lower some drug prices in the U.S., but it’s unclear how much of a difference it will make for consumers.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Bloomberg News

@rachelcohrs

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefali.bsky.social

Read Shefali's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Democrats seized an opportunity to highlight how Republican policies are reshaping the health care system, as health care tends to be a winning campaign issue for Democrats. But as they push to extend enhanced federal subsidies and reverse Medicaid cuts, a big question arises: Will Americans notice?
• Meanwhile, some Republicans suggest they are open to renewing enhanced ACA plan subsidies with certain changes — but do not want to address the issue now, even as open enrollment approaches. And in response to Democrats’ calls to undo Medicaid cuts, the GOP is repeating a misleading talking point about benefits for people living in the U.S. without legal status — when, in fact, the policy change would largely help hospitals.
• And vaccine uncertainty continues, with new recommendations from the remade Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices awaiting sign-off — and holding up some vaccine shipments, particularly for uninsured and underinsured kids. Plus, the Trump administration has struck a deal with Pfizer. Other drug companies are likely to follow with their own deals to spare themselves tariffs. What’s less clear is how patients would benefit from these savings.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Cara Anthony, who wrote a recent “Bill of the Month” feature about an out-of-network eye surgery that left one kindergartner’s family with a big bill. If you have an outrageous or inexplicable medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Big Loopholes in Hospital Charity Care Programs Mean Patients Still Get Stuck With the Tab,” by Michelle Andrews.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “Trump’s USAID Pause Stranded Lifesaving Drugs. Children Died Waiting,” by Meg Kelly, Joyce Sohyun Lee, Rael Ombuor, Sarah Blaskey, Andrew Ba Tran, Artur Galocha, Eric Lau, and Katharine Houreld.  

Lauren Weber: Time Magazine’s “Trump Is Breaking Americans’ Trust in Doctors,” by Dr. Craig Spencer.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: ProPublica’s “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Program Spent Twice as Much on Administrative Costs as on Health Care, GAO Says,” by Margaret Coker, The Current.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF’s “ACA Marketplace Premium Payments Would More than Double on Average Next Year if Enhanced Premium Tax Credits Expire,” by Justin Lo, Larry Levitt, Jared Ortaliza, and Cynthia Cox.
• KFF Health News’ “How Federal Shutdown Hits Health Agencies, Explained to Aspen the Corgi,” by Julie Rovner.
• The Washington Post’s “White House Considers Funding Advantage for Colleges That Align With Trump Policies,” by Laura Meckler and Susan Svrluga.
• Politico’s “Top US Researchers Rush To Relocate to Europe,” by Pieter Haeck.
• Bloomberg News’ “RFK Jr. Mulls Adding Autism Symptoms to Vaccine Injury Program,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang, Madison Muller, and Gerry Smith.
• MSNBC’s “He Helped Build the Anti-Vaccine Movement. RFK Jr. Just Hired Him,” by Brandy Zadrozny.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Democrats Make This Shutdown About the ACA

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

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

Today we are joined via videoconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello. 

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll play my interview with my colleague Cara Anthony, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about an out-of-network surgery that looked like it had prior approval from the insurer — but maybe not. But first, this week’s news. 

So today is Oct. 2, and to the surprise of just about nobody who’s been paying attention, much of the government is in a shutdown, thanks to Congress’ failure to pass a spending bill or even a temporary patch for the fiscal year that started Wednesday. And just like in 2013, this shutdown is about the Affordable Care Act. Except in 2013 the Republicans shut down the government because they wanted to delay the start of the ACA. This time Democrats are shutting down the government to try to force Republicans to reup the additional ACA subsidies that Democrats passed during the pandemic but which expire at the end of December. That’s just the beginning of the confusion. 

I’m not even going to ask when or how this ends, because truly nobody knows. But there are lots of things that are very different about this shutdown from previous ones, aside from the fact that Democrats, who are usually the ones fighting to keep the government up and running, are the ones who are forcing the shutdown this time. What has changed the most since March, when Democrats went along with a temporary spending measure that they could have blocked at the time? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think obviously we saw a lot of blowback from the Democratic base in response to [Senate Minority Leader] Chuck Schumer’s decision to go along and just continue funding the government. I think the argument has been that it’s not business as usual and that Democratic leaders shouldn’t be treating it that way. And this is one of the few leverage points Democrats have in Washington right now, just because Republicans control the White House and the House and the Senate. So we have seen much more aggressive actions by the White House to exercise control over government spending and testing the waters as to how far they can go to overrule Congress’ directions for how money’s supposed to be spent in the government, which obviously plays into the government spending fight. 

And we’ve also seen the passage of Republicans’ reconciliation bill in the summer, which always poisons the well a little bit when it comes to bipartisan negotiations. Democrats see an opportunity to highlight Republicans’ spending reductions in Medicaid and all these new policies that they’re passing there. And I think Democrats have always viewed health care as a winning issue for them. I think that’s a lesson that they’ve learned over and over again in midterms and elections, that this is just an issue that generally voters think Democrats do a better job on. So I think they’re seeing this as an opportunity to highlight a potential pocketbook issue for health care and setting up for the midterm elections next year. 

Rovner: It’s interesting that back in March, one of the things that Chuck Schumer said is that he didn’t want to close down the government and give [President Donald] Trump basically that much more power. Well, this time they’re giving Trump that much more power and he seems to be running with it. The head of the OMB [Office of Management and Budget], Russ Vought, has already announced on social media that he’s cutting off funding for Democratic priorities, including a tunnel that’s being built between New York and New Jersey and a lot of the green energy projects that were in the Biden administration infrastructure bill, all of which have had money appropriated for them that the administration is supposed to spend. And now just this morning before we started taping, the president himself said he’s going to meet with Russ Vought to see what else they can do to basically throw sand in the gears of Democratic priorities that are supposed to be carried out. I guess this maybe is where Schumer gets to say, See, I told you so back in March. 

Luthra: Potentially. I think it’s worth noting — right? — that a lot of things, which we’ll talk about later, of course, were cut off, in terms of spending that was already allocated, even without the excuse of a shutdown. So it’s not very productive to engage in counterfactuals and hypotheticals, but it’s totally plausible that even without a shutdown a lot of this funding would’ve been cut off anyway. Which — I don’t know. It’s just we are not living under really normal politics anymore, and we can’t really pretend we can know what would’ve happened. 

Rovner: Yes, “unprecedented” is a word I’ve been using a lot lately. Well, we should review what happens to health programs during a shutdown, and I will post a link to the video that I did with my corgi Aspen to help explain it. What’s running and what’s not in terms of health care when the government is, quote-unquote, “shut down”? Because not everything is shut down? 

Cohrs Zhang: I mean, we do have a lot of the core functions continuing in terms of emergency response at the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention]. They are cutting back on public communications of public health data that are usually pretty routine. The FDA [Food and Drug Administration] has said they’re no longer accepting new drug applications, but obviously the review of applications that they’ve already received will continue because there are a lot of positions at the FDA specifically, but across the government, that are funded through other streams from fees from industry that don’t necessarily go through the routine process. But we certainly will see less information coming out of agencies. Just the general function of them, policy announcements, policy of movement, everything slows down as things that are in motion kind of grind to a halt as everywhere is kind of strained for resources. 

So I think we’ll see. I know at NIH [the National Instituted of Health] they said that they’re not taking in new patients for clinical trials and the grant reviews may be slowed down. So there’s just a lot of things that will slow down. But I think the core functions — of, like, Is this patient care? Is this emergency response? — for the large part are continuing at this time. 

Rovner: And of course mandatory programs, Medicare and Medicaid, continue because they’re not affected by a shutdown, because the shutdown is only for discretionary programs. Lauren, you were going to add something. 

Weber: I was just going to say I was sitting on an unrelated focus group for five hours on Tuesday night, and like 99% of the people when asked Oh, is anything happening in D.C.? had no idea about the shutdown. Like, none. I mean, just absolutely zero idea. So while all of these points are very important to talk through, I also question whether any of the messaging from both sides is getting through to the average person and whether or not the complexities of this are quite clear. 

Rovner: Well, one of the things that the Democrats are shutting the government down over is the failure of Republicans to renew the expanded subsidies for the Affordable Care Act that were passed in 2021 originally and then extended through the end of this year. People are going to find out about those because there’s 24 million people who are getting ACA coverage, and 90% of them are getting subsidies, and they’re all going to find out in the next couple of weeks how much their premiums are going to go up because of the failure to renew these subsidies. How big is this shock going to be? 

Cohrs Zhang: Depends on who it is, right? So, it’s like some people, especially people who are kind of in the higher income range, around 400% of the federal poverty level, if these tax credits expire, they don’t get any subsidies at all anymore. So we could see hundreds of dollars a month for beneficiaries who fall into this category. But for some beneficiaries there’s a smaller dollars-and-cents change that they’re going to see, because they’ll still get some subsidies but not as many. And I think it’s actually unclear who exactly is going to find out about these rate increases. CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] has given states some flexibility as to whether they put the actual premium increase in these letters that people are going to be getting over the next month. So I think it’s going to be interesting to see how states strategize in terms of communicating with people about the potential for these increases but not scaring them away from the exchange entirely if Washington does manage to figure this out in the next couple weeks. 

Rovner: Yeah, the Republicans keep saying, Oh, this is a December problem. It’s like, no, this is not a December problem. Open enrollment starts Nov. 1, and if people show up and sign up, or if they’re in a plan that suddenly they can’t afford and they might want to move to a cheaper plan if they can find a cheaper plan to move to, I mean, this is definitely not a December problem. 

Luthra: And going back to your question, Julie, I mean, KFF did a very helpful analysis just looking at how much premiums could go up if the tax credits expire. And the last I checked it was they will more than double, which I noticed when my electricity bill went up this year. I think that’s pretty hard for people to not see when suddenly they’re spending potentially twice as much on their health care. 

Rovner: And I will post a link to that analysis which just came out. It’s an updated analysis with new data that shows that premiums are likely to spike even more. Well, one of the big arguments that Republicans are making about this shutdown, because Democrats not only want a renewal of these subsidies, they also want a reversal of a lot of the Medicaid cuts that were in the big budget bill that passed over the summer, and Republicans say Democrats are asking for federal health funding for illegal immigrants, which is not really true. What is it that Democrats are asking for? 

All right. I’m going to have to answer. I will answer this question myself because I went down the rabbit hole on emergency Medicaid. What the bill this summer did is it basically lowered the reimbursement that hospitals get when they provide emergency coverage to people who are not here with documentation. That is a long-standing program. It dates back to 1986, where hospitals can get reimbursed for treating people in medical emergencies who would be eligible for Medicaid other than the fact that they are not documented, meaning undocumented people are not eligible for Medicaid or for Medicare. Shefali, you were saying there’s a lot of this that is used for labor and delivery, right? 

Luthra: Exactly. And I mean if we even think about who benefits from emergency Medicaid, it’s not really undocumented people. It is hospitals, who are required to provide emergency care. But the example where I hear about this a lot is if you are pregnant and you don’t have documentation, you will go to the hospital because you need to give birth, you need to deliver. And emergency Medicaid is what covers the cost of that, which I just found that to be a really interesting point of tension with Republicans given in particular the vice president’s frequent remarks about how much he cares about healthy births and healthy babies. 

Rovner: And there’s a whole brand-new federal program aimed at improving birth outcomes. At the same time, they’re chastising the Democrats for saying, We would like to pay hospitals for delivering healthy babies — who are going to be American citizens, by the way, even if they’re mothers don’t have documentation, unless the Supreme Court changes that. 

Well as if there wasn’t enough to make your head swim here, I think one of the biggest ironies is that if the Democrats get what they want in terms of getting the Republicans to either roll back some of these Medicaid cuts or extend the additional subsidies, isn’t that going to accrue to the benefit of the Republicans? Because if these cuts happen, it’s presumably the Republicans who are going to get blamed come the midterms next year. 

Weber: That’s the irony of all of it, Julie. I mean, that’s the irony of the shutdown. That’s the irony of the messaging. That’s the irony of the whole thing, is that Republicans polls have shown that if these subsidies do increase, if they do double, I mean to Shefali’s point, I think we all notice when — if something costs you a thousand more dollars a year, I think people are going to sit up and pay attention to that. That will cause an issue. So yes, I mean it is somewhat surprising, but at the same day this is a lot of brinksmanship. And again, I question whether the messaging on either side is really cracking through to the American public about why both sides are arguing about the shutdown. 

Rovner: Yeah, they’re not on social media and cable TV in general watching people trade these fact checks back and forth. 

Weber: Yeah. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, back at the now partially shut down Department of Health and Human Services, there is still lots of news. We will start with vaccines. Remember that Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices vote a couple of weeks ago that changed recommendations for a whole bunch of vaccines? Well, the committee’s recommendations are not the end of the process. The committee’s work needs to be officially approved by the head of the CDC or the HHS secretary, neither of which has happened yet. Without that approval, shipping can’t begin, for example, for covid vaccines for the federal Vaccines for Children Program, which provides vaccines to about half of all the children in the U.S., by the way. One thing [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] has apparently done, according to reporting from MSNBC, is hire as a senior adviser to CDC Mark Blaxill, a high-profile anti-vaccine activist who is neither a physician nor a scientist. Is Kennedy just thumbing his nose now at anyone who believes in vaccines, particularly at Republican senator and doctor Bill Cassidy, without whose vote Kennedy would not now have his job? 

Weber: I think Kennedy has been pretty emboldened by the president even going out further than he has publicly on vaccine issues. And I think we’re seeing his continuing leaning into the vaccine point of it all. Which I mean, this is a man who has been an anti-vaccine activist for many, many years. So it’s not completely surprising that he would hire people in that orbit or institute policies that follow what he’s advocated for for many years. 

Rovner: But I mean, just, I say this every week, he promised at his confirmation hearings that he would not go after the vaccine schedule, and he has definitely not kept that promise. 

Weber: Would you say that most politicians promise things that they do or do not keep, Julia, in your many years of coverage? 

Rovner: I don’t consider Cabinet secretaries who promise things to members of Congress who oversee them to be sort of typical politicians. It’s one thing to run for office and then do something else. It’s quite another thing to say in your confirmation hearing for a job that you won’t do something and then just weeks or months later do it. Shefali wanted to add something. 

Luthra: Oh, I was going to say to that point, Julie, when all of us watched those confirmation hearings, it was really striking to see that what RFK promised was also different from his long record of advocacy. And one watching those could come away deciding to believe what he said in the hearings or decide to believe what he said leading up to those hearings. And if you picked one, you’d be more right than if you picked the other. And I think there’s a real question now, I mean, given the point that you raised, Sen. Cassidy’s role in helping him get confirmed, his public remarks about how much he supports vaccines. There is a role Congress can play here to try and change things. And I don’t think we’ve seen that that will actually happen. 

Weber: So, I’m sorry. I just wanted to throw it back to the confirmation hearing itself. Cassidy asked this question directly. He said something, I’m not quoting it directly, but some version of, You’re a 70-something-year-old man. Does a tiger really change his stripes? — and then voted to confirm him. So as Shefali pointed out, I mean he chose to listen to what he said. But I mean I would say his track record in office has certainly not followed suit on those promises. 

Rovner: Well, while we’re on the subject of vaccines, Rachel, you have a story out this week about Kennedy’s plan to add autism to the list of complications eligible for compensation under the federal Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. What would that mean? 

Cohrs Zhang: We’re unclear exactly what they’re planning to do, but they’re planning to change the list of conditions or symptoms that people can claim are related to vaccines in this kind of arbitration process that the federal government has set up to compensate people who do suffer side effects from vaccines. It does happen, and I think there’s bipartisan agreement that the current system for compensating people, it isn’t really working very well. It’s really backed up, and there’s arguments that it doesn’t pay enough for people who experience these things. However, I think Secretary Kennedy has made clear to his advisers that he wants parents who believe their children have autism because of vaccines to be compensated through this program, which doesn’t currently happen. 

Rovner: No. And would probably bankrupt the program, right? 

Cohrs Zhang: It could. It could. Depending on, there’s just so many children these days that do kind of fall under the definition of autism. They’ve talked about maybe changing a definition of some just general neurological symptoms to maybe allow people with autism to qualify. But I think there’s a clear concern from experts as to how this program works, that it’s already backed up and if it’s flooded with these new claims. There’s actually a statutory limit on how many special masters there are to oversee this process. 

And unless Congress acts, then they can’t increase that number. So there’s a point at which, A, if these claims are getting granted that they just run out of money. They’re funded by a fixed tax on vaccine doses. So, again, unless Congress acts, they have a limited amount of money. And then you’re thinking about just the fixed capacity that they have to process these claims in the first place. And I think there is genuine concern here that without some support from Congress, this could completely overwhelm the program and just kind of be a roundabout way to validate the idea that vaccines cause autism. 

So I think there’s much to watch in terms of what the details are coming out. We’ve just had some high-level comments from an adviser, but stay tuned on that and I think it’ll definitely be something to watch. 

Rovner: Oh, absolutely. In other administration news directly affecting HHS and how it provides research funding to universities, The Washington Post is reporting that the White House is working on a plan that would reward institutions that pledge to, quote, “adhere to the values and policies of the Trump administration.” While others are reporting that Trump is about to close a deal with Harvard that involves the U.S.’ most prestigious university paying $500 million to the federal government and, so we hear, opening up and operating trade schools. And in a related piece of news, Politico EU reports that a program run by the EU’s top research council, essentially the EU’s NIH, has seen a fivefold increase in applications from U.S.-based scientists interested in moving across the pond. I’m not even sure what to make of any of this or what it could mean for the future of biomedical research, but it sounds like potentially big, big changes in how the research operation works here in the U.S.? 

Luthra: It does seem like something that could ripple for years if not generations to come. I mean, research is something that happens in years-long installments. Careers are built over very long periods of time. And, I mean, when I’ve spoken to a lot of young academics, whether that is for work or even in a personal capacity, a lot of them are really navigating so much instability that is just not what they anticipated when they began their years-long Ph.D. programs. And so it’s not at all surprising that we are seeing the EU’s efforts to recruit American scientists really bear fruit. But to your point, it absolutely raises the specter that a lot of cutting-edge research, a lot of really great future biomedical work simply won’t happen here and we won’t reap the immediate benefits in a way that we have historically. I mean, our higher education and research sector has been a real crown jewel, and it’s hard to see if that stays the case. 

Rovner: And it’s been a really important contributor to the economy. I mean, it’s not just the benefits of the research itself. It’s the biomedical research establishment has been something that’s been really important to the United States for a couple of generations now. 

Luthra: When you go to a university town, the university is almost always the largest employer and it plays a really big role in keeping up local economies and state economies. And we don’t have a clear answer for what fills in the gap if the institutions that provide those resources disappear or significantly downsize. 

Rovner: So sort of kind of related to what’s going on in the university community, President Trump is also demanding that U.S. drugmakers lower their prices and move manufacturing back to the USA — which he also demanded in his first term, though he was mostly blocked by the courts in the ways he tried to make that happen. Well, now he’s employing the same strategy that he’s using with other countries with tariffs and with universities, by negotiating individually. He’s now negotiating individually with drug companies and threatening bad things if they don’t do what he wants. And lo and behold, this week he announced a deal with Pfizer. Rachel, what has Pfizer promised to do? And what does it mean for what had been a unified wall of resistance by drug companies to Trump’s demands that they lower prices? 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I agree with your take there that this is a symbolic change for the industry that had warned for so long that if you take, like, put even a toe over the line of imported — tying what Americans pay for medicines to what countries abroad pay, that it was going to be a slippery slope and it was a terrifying concept. So that is a big moment. 

We know at a high level what Pfizer’s committed to, but we don’t have a lot of details yet. There’s little in writing, and the press releases were pretty vague. But at a high level, I think Pfizer has agreed to reduce the prices that they offer state Medicaid programs and make those more in line with what prices abroad are. Again, Medicaid already gets really low prices for drugs, so it really is going to be a drug-by-drug, I think, question of: Is this price even lower? I think in some cases, the experts I’ve spoken with think that it’s possible that Medicaid could save money on some of these drugs, but some of them the price could be higher. And I think there’s a question of exactly what those mean. And drug pricing’s really hard, and they aren’t necessarily public, what each payer is paying for these things. So that’s one big element of this that’s important. 

They’re also agreeing to sell some of their medicines online, straight to consumers, on a website branded TrumpRx. And I think it’s just kind of like a platform, like a shopping platform is how they’ve described it. You can type in the drug name and then the website would direct you to the marketplaces that the drug companies run themselves. 

Rovner: And that just cuts out the middlemen, right? That doesn’t itself save money — I mean, save money for consumers. 

Cohrs Zhang: Right. The price may be discounted, but most people aren’t paying the net price of what their insurer pays for a lot of medicines. They’re paying a copay or a percentage. So again, for some medicines, if you’re uninsured, yeah, it’s a lot better to pay a discounted price. But if you have insurance, it’s unclear how, whether you would save any money by going through this process. And you have to have a prescription anyway for a lot of these medicines. So I think there’s just a lot of unanswered questions about exactly how that would interplay for patients with insurance. And then you also have assurances that Pfizer will launch medicine prices that are kind of aligned with what they charge other countries. Generally companies launch in the U.S. first. So does this create a new floor and leverage for Pfizer? I think that’s going to be a really interesting question. 

And then I think the last commitment that they made was if they raise prices in other countries for medicines that some of this increased revenue that they get from those drug sales abroad would go back to the federal government potentially through the Medicare program. But we don’t have a lot of details. 

Rovner: I saw a story just before we started taping that not only has Pfizer stock gone up since this announcement, but other drug companies’ stocks have gone up since this announcement. Obviously in exchange for this deal, Pfizer has been sort of absolved from having to pay the tariffs that Trump has threatened for three years. And the idea is that other drug companies are likely to make these same deals, which certainly the stock market thinks is not going to cause them to lose money, which suggests that it’s not going to cause big savings for consumers, right? 

Cohrs Zhang: Yes. I think that’s a good question, and it is important that analyst notes have expressed that Pfizer’s U.S. revenue, only like 5% of it is for Medicaid. So it’s a very small amount of what they make on drugs. But I think there is this looming regulatory option where Trump could kind of force drugmakers to comply with price reductions in other programs if they don’t make deals. So I don’t think this story is over. And they’ve foreshadowed that more deals are coming, and they may not have exactly the same terms as Pfizer. So I think we’re very much staying tuned here. 

Rovner: Well, we will cover them as they happen. OK, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Cara Anthony, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Cara Anthony, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Cara, welcome back. 

Cara Anthony: Hey, thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient — or her family, more accurately — did everything right before an elective surgery. At least they thought they did. Tell us who the patient was and what kind of care she needed. 

Anthony: Yeah, this month we introduced our readers to a little girl named Chloë Jones. She was in kindergarten at the time. She needed an elective surgery. She had a condition known as ptosis. In layman’s terms, that just means that she had a droopy eyelid. Her parents didn’t want this to interfere with her vision in the future, and so they elected to have this surgery. 

Rovner: And they lived where? 

Anthony: Just outside of St. Louis, pretty close to me, actually. But here’s the thing: They had a hard time finding a provider who was in network, and the story kind of goes on from there. 

Rovner: Yeah. So I guess pediatric ophthalmologists are not a dime a dozen. And they did find somebody. And knowing that it was out of network, they asked their insurer for permission, right? 

Anthony: Yeah. They asked for something called a gap exception and actually worked with their pediatrician, worked with Chloë’s primary care doctor, who wrote a letter on their behalf to say: Hey, she needs to have this surgery. Would you honor it as an in-network treatment? Because the closest person that could do this surgery was in Wisconsin, which wasn’t reasonable for them. This is a family with a lot of little kids. So they did. They dotted all of the i’s, crossed all the t’s — or so they thought, because they ended up with a huge bill. 

Rovner: Yeah. So then she has the surgery, everything is great, and then the bill comes. How big was the bill? 

Anthony: Thirteen thousand dollars, Julie, which was a huge surprise to the family. They didn’t have the means to pay that. So immediately, Chloë’s mom, Keyanna Jones, starts to ask questions, making phone calls, trying to figure out, Hey, what’s going on? They only paid just under $2,000, and there was no way they could pay a $13,000 bill. 

Rovner: So they had this letter from the insurance company that said that they would cover this. What happened? 

Anthony: Yeah, and this is why we had to ask ourselves in this case: What does covered actually mean? And in this case, the insurers said that they would cover it though without offering network discounts, the surgery itself. Now, some of her other exams that she needed, they did honor those as in network and that was fine. But the surgery itself was covered, but they weren’t willing to cover it as in network and offer those discounts, which would’ve made it much more reasonable, which is why we ended up with the $13,000 bill. 

But the tricky part here is that they received letters that looked basically identical. So the letters that said that they would get those in-network discounts were just for the pre-surgery and some post-surgery exams. Those look the same as the letter that said that they were covered for the surgery. But in that letter, the insurer explained that, Hey, we are not going to offer you network discounts. So the family was really confused here, and they had to ask for some serious help. 

Rovner: And what finally happened with the bill? 

Anthony: Well, Keyanna has a brother who was a former state senator. So she got so frustrated with the situation, she reaches out to her brother, who’s former state Sen. Caleb Rowden, here in Missouri, and he says, Hey, reach out to the senator who represents you, Sen. Travis Fitzwater, and they got the ball rolling. She also reached out to the Missouri attorney general, wrote a letter. Representative Fitzwater also contacted the hospital and the insurer, and they worked it out. So it’s really important for people to know that they can contact their local lawmakers, and that’s what they do — they advocate for their constituents. And in this case, the family paid absolutely nothing. 

Rovner: So eventually the bill was basically completely taken care of? 

Anthony: It was taken care of completely. They didn’t even have to pay the copay. That’s how much this was kind of messed up. And UnitedHealthcare and both the hospital here in St. Louis just said: You know what? We’re done. So kind of wild. 

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here, besides that you can go for help? I mean, that’s obviously a big piece of it. But what’s the takeaway in the asking permission and getting what we think of as these prior authorizations, these preapproval letters for things like elective surgery? 

Anthony: Yeah. I think the main thing is that even if the letters look the same, you have to read every line, make sure that you have clarity there. But it’s also, here’s another reflection of how complicated our health care system is. And in this case, the family had a happy ending. But I don’t know, had she not contacted her brother, who’s a state senator, and not everybody has that kind of advantage. But everyone can contact their local lawmaker for help. But in this case, I would just say read the fine print, and if you think you understand it, read it again because there might be something in there that you’ll catch, and hopefully you can avoid a huge bill. But I’m glad this family was taken care of. 

Rovner: Oh, good advice. Cara Anthony, thank you so much. 

Anthony: Hey, thanks for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Shefali, you chose first this week. Why don’t you go first? 

Luthra: Sure. My story is from The Washington Post. I normally try and give every byline, but there are a lot. Many journalists really worked very hard on this piece. The headline is “Trump’s USAID Pause Stranded Lifesaving Drugs. Children Died Waiting.” And it’s a very impressive, in-depth investigation. It takes us to Congo, where we meet a young girl who has malaria, and she dies because she can’t get the medication she needs even though it is less than 10 miles away. And the medication never comes to her, because of the freeze on USAID [U.S. Agency for International Development] funding, and this is the taking of U.S. aid inside the State Department. 

The story does a remarkable job following the grants and orders that were stopped in the United States when we have the USAID freeze take effect. And then it takes us to the people who suffered and whose lives were lost, including many children, because they couldn’t get medication that was actually not even that far away but simply couldn’t travel the last few miles to get there. It puts all of these against Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s promise that no one has died because of the USAID funding freeze and shows that that probably isn’t true. I mean, not probably, that isn’t true, because these people here in this story did in fact die because they couldn’t get medications that we purchased and sent there and then simply could not get the final step there. I think it’s a really great look at just how devastating this policy choice has been and will continue to be around the world. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was quite an impressive project. Lauren. 

Weber: I picked an op-ed in Time by Dr. Craig Spencer titled “Trump Is Breaking Americans’ Trust in Doctors.” It’s an op-ed after Trump and RFK Jr. talked about Tylenol and Trump went on to talk about vaccines and what that means for the rest of the country. And I will just say personally, I’ve been struck by how many of my friends from the Midwest, mom friends, regular friends, have reached out like: Hey, you are a reporter for The Washington Post that covers health. What is this? And I do think the Tylenol press conference really broke through in a way that a lot of other things have not. 

And Craig makes a bunch of different points about how it essentially pits doctors against the president. And what does that do for decaying trust in medical authorities? What does it do for trust in authorities, period? And I think that’s a question we’re going to continue to see bear out over the next couple of years. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think the byword of 2025 is “losing trust.” Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: My extra credit this week is in ProPublica. The headline is “Georgia’s Medicaid Work Requirement Program Spent Twice as Much on Administrative Costs as on Health Care, GAO Says,” and that’s by Margaret Coker with The Current. And I just thought this story did a great job of just kind of being grounded in the local reporting of: What have we seen? I think there’s tremendous interest in how some of these Medicaid policies that Republicans have committed to will play out across the country. We know state Medicaid officials are already scrambling. Insurance companies, hospitals are trying to figure out: How are we going to implement work requirements at the beginning of 2027? And I think this is a really interesting test project of what that could mean. And I think the administrative burden should not be underestimated, and I think this is just a great way to quantify the infrastructure you need to run a program like this. And I think if you’re spending more on the infrastructure to track people than on the actual health care, then I think that just raises questions about the program as a whole and how efficiently it’s running. So. 

Rovner: I would say a lot of eyes on Georgia because they’ve got the only one that’s actually up and running at the moment that people can study. 

My extra credit this week is from KFF Health News by Michelle Andrews, and it’s called “Big Loopholes in Hospital Charity Care Programs Mean Patients Still Get Stuck With the Tab.” And it’s about how stupid and bifurcated our health system now is that you can go to a hospital, get approved for charity care, and then still get billed into bankruptcy by doctors who work at the hospital but not for the hospital. It’s kind of a perfect case study into just how dysfunctional things have gotten, and with the impending Medicaid cuts and the ACA premium increases, lots more people are going to become uninsured and likely fall into this same trap. It’s really good story. 

All right, that is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m still on X, @rachelcohrs. 

Rovner: Shefali? 

Luthra: I’m Bluesky, @shefali. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m on X and Bluesky, @LaurenWeberHP. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

In a highly unusual White House news conference this week, President Donald Trump — without evidence — boldly blamed the painkiller Tylenol and a string of childhood vaccines for causing a recent rise in autism. That came just days after the newly reconstituted Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, now populated with vaccine skeptics and opponents, voted to change long-standing recommendations.

Podcast host Julie Rovner interviews Demetre Daskalakis, who until last month was the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, about the reaction to these unprecedented actions.

Meanwhile, as the government approaches a likely shutdown, with Congress at a standoff over funding for the new fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, the Trump administration is ordering federal agencies not to just furlough workers but to fire them if their jobs do not align with the president’s priorities.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The federal Office of Management and Budget on Wednesday night sent a memo to government agencies asking for contingency plans in the event of a government shutdown starting Oct. 1. Such a memo isn’t unusual when it comes to pre-shutdown planning. This time around, it took an unprecedented turn in informing agency personnel that they should prepare for mass firings of employees whose programs lack alternative funding sources or who are working on a program whose mission doesn’t directly align with Trump’s priorities. Though federal RIFs, or reductions in force, and government shutdowns have each happened before, the combined RIF/shutdown threat is a first.

• It seems we are headed for a shutdown. Before adjourning until after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30, the House approved a stopgap funding measure. But, because House members do not plan to return to Washington until Oct. 6, that leaves the Senate in a jam. If senators change anything in the bill, it would require another House vote, which, because of the House schedule, might not happen before the month ends.

• There’s also interparty strife. Republicans say they want a clean bill to provide short-term funding, while Democrats have other ideas. Their prevailing attitude is that they went along with this approach in March and got burned. This week, Trump also canceled a meeting with Democratic leaders. The bottom line is that both sides are jockeying for a position that would allow them to cast shutdown blame across the aisle. Some call it a game of three-dimensional chess, while others call it a game of chicken. Either way, there will be consequences.

• Confusion and chaos have emerged as buzzwords to describe two recent events: last week’s meeting of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and this week’s White House press conference about autism. Both were marked by mixed messages. At the White House event, for instance, Trump warned pregnant women not to take Tylenol. But the FDA information that shortly followed downplayed the Tylenol risk.

• The Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas could have an impact on health care. Such visas are often used by graduating medical students and other health professionals who come to the U.S. for training, then stay to practice. That $100,000 fee is steep and generated an almost immediate backlash from hospitals and health systems, especially those in rural areas — a reaction that caught administration officials off guard. Administration officials have suggested that health professionals would qualify for an exemption from this fee. What is not yet clear is what hoops the sponsoring hospitals would have to jump through to qualify for it.

• Trump has given 17 drug companies a Sept. 29 deadline by which they will have to commit to adopting his “most favored nation” pricing policy. It’s intended to increase the cost drugmakers charge in other countries while lowering prices in the U.S. Talks between the administration and the drugmakers are ongoing. So far, indications are that Trump might end up with half a loaf. Some large drugmakers have announced they will raise the prices of specific medications in other countries but have not agreed to reduce prices in the U.S.

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “RFK Jr. Has the Federal Vaccine Court in His Sights. Attacking It Could Threaten Vaccine Production in the U.S.,” by Liz Szabo.

Anna Edney: The Washington Post’s “Do State Abortion Laws Affect Women’s Recruiting? That’s Up to Athletes,” by Kevin B. Blackistone.

Sandhya Raman: ProPublica’s “Psychiatric Hospitals Turn Away Patients Who Need Urgent Care. The Facilities Face Few Consequences,” by Eli Cahan.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Axios’ “Drugmakers Meet Trump Only Halfway on Pricing Plan,” by Peter Sullivan.
• Bloomberg Law’s “White House Says Doctors May Win Reprieve From H-1B Visa Fee,” by Rachel Cohrs Zhang, John Tozzi, and Jessica Nix.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Public Health Further Politicized Under the Threat of More Firings

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

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

Today, we are joined via videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hey, everybody. 

Rovner: So we’re going to do something a little different today. I got a chance to speak on Wednesday with Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, the former head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. I asked him to respond to the White House announcement on autism and last week’s rather muddled meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. So we’ll play that interview first, and then we’ll come back for our panel discussion. Here’s the interview. 

I am so pleased to welcome Dr. Demetre Daskalakis to the podcast. Until last month, Dr. Daskalakis was the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases in Atlanta. He quit, along with three other senior career CDC officials, after Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired their boss, Susan Monarez, for refusing to approve in advance changes to the childhood vaccine schedule. Dr. Daskalakis, thank you so much for joining us. 

Demetre Daskalakis: Thank you so much for having me. 

Rovner: So, for those who haven’t been plugged into the public health doings over the past month, remind us what exactly your job was at CDC and why you felt you needed to resign following the dismissal of Dr. Monarez. 

Daskalakis: So CDC is made up of centers, and so I ran one of the centers, called the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. CDC’s not known for its pithy titles. So what that is is the center that is responsible for a lot of what you think about when you think about vaccines and vaccine-preventable diseases. That includes the resources that go out to local jurisdictions. 

Rovner: And when Dr. Monarez was fired, what did that signal to you? 

Daskalakis: Yeah. I think the last eight months had been hard. I think that we had other things that happened before Dr. Monarez’s resignation. I think we saw the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices be zombified into something that was not science, we saw recommendations around covid vaccine come out on Twitter rather than through any scientific process. So those were the things that were on the way. But as ACIP was made zombified — and what I mean by that was CDC has nothing to do with it, these folks who have been installed, who are frankly anti-vaxxers for the most part, they’re the ones that are driving the agenda, the membership, all of it — so it wasn’t really doing anything of scientific consequence anymore. 

But when Dr. Monarez was there, we had a scientific leader whose job it was to really be a diplomat to Secretary Kennedy and Health and Human Services, but also to really make sure that the science is what leads the policy. And so, when I saw that organization, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, become some strange ideology machine, and then also saw that I wouldn’t have a scientific leader at CDC who would be able to defend the science, the game was over for me, because I couldn’t see any way that we would be leading with science. Instead, I could only see ideology. I read RFK’s books, and I know what’s coming, which is the dismantling of vaccines for the United States. 

Rovner: So can you talk a little bit about how the career scientists and doctors at the CDC normally interact with the political appointees at the agency and the political folks at the top of HHS, and how that was so different in this administration? 

Daskalakis: Yeah. I worked with — now that would be — four CDC directors and two secretaries of health. And so, the way that we normally interacted as career scientists was that we would produce materials; if there were questions, we would create memos and other materials to be able to present to our politicals around those issues. We would be responsive to any issues that they wanted to talk about. So for instance, if somebody said, “I want to talk about the birth dose of hepatitis B vaccine,” we would create briefing materials and opportunities for the politicals, both at HHS and CDC, to be able to have time with career scientists to really learn about the story. And that’s not what’s happened in this newest regime. 

Now, let me be clear, Dr. Monarez did ask for briefings, and she did get them, so that is not the person I’m talking about. Above that, the secretary had never been briefed by anyone from the National Center of Immunization and Respiratory Diseases while I was there, so he never heard about measles, never heard about bird flu, didn’t hear about covid, though he made decisions about covid, didn’t hear about any of the things that we normally brief about. Didn’t hear anything about seasonal flu, RSV, and covid. We had been briefing folks on a monthly basis, because this was the epidemic that we have every year. So to say that there’s a glitch in the matrix is an understatement. This is an extremely atypical environment, where the head of people’s health for America doesn’t talk to people who know the science. 

Rovner: So I want to ask you about the ACIP meeting, but since then, we’ve had the White House announcement on the causes of autism and a potential new treatment for it. Can you give us your take on that entire event, both the press conference announcing it and the documentation, such as it was, that was provided afterwards? I have to say, I watched all of the covid press conferences with President [Donald] Trump in 2020, and this made even my eyes cross a little bit. 

Daskalakis: So let’s rehash what happened with the acetaminophen and autism issue. So they took one study and elevated that study and did this Orwellian doublespeak around it, where they said that it showed that there was a link, quote, “link,” between acetaminophen and autism. The study didn’t show that; the study showed that there was an association, and so an association does not mean cause. And so, my example that I use is when you are meeting people who have lung cancer and you ask them if they have matches in their pocket, they very often do. It’s not the matches that cause the lung cancer, it’s the tobacco; it’s the smoking. 

So very similarly, there’s an association with acetaminophen, that’s the matchbook. Autism is a spectrum and it’s not a disorder or a disability for some people, it’s just part of their normal neurocognitive story, but it’s like the equivalent in my analogy of lung cancer. And so, there’s something in between there that we don’t really see, and that could be genetics and other environmental exposures. So they put all of their eggs in one basket that should make nobody feel comfortable that they have the answer for autism because they found an association that people kind of already knew about and made an announcement, mainly because the secretary promised a September announcement. And so, science can’t be rushed, this was a rush job, and I don’t like my policy fast and loose, and that’s what you’re seeing, fast-and-loose policy. 

They also talked about leucovorin, which is a drug that I think many people use or know about, usually used in cancer chemotherapies that involve some kind of antifolate, so it is a rescue. So if people are getting a medicine that makes their folate low, the folinic acid is kind of like super folate that really replaces the deficiency. And so, they made big statements about this being a potential treatment for autism, but then subsequently in the writing that they put out, they were very focused on a very specific circumstance of people who have some sort of cerebral folate deficiency. 

So that’s the big picture. They announced a bunch of stuff, and it didn’t go through any process, we don’t know the quality of the data, the entirety of the data was not reviewed in any systematic way, and then announcements were made without any process of actually demonstrating what work was done to get there. We’ve all been in math class — the answer to an equation isn’t just 25, you have to show the work to get there, and so it’s like they just said, “The answer is 25.” 

Rovner: And in this case, this could cause all kinds of actual consequences for people, particularly for pregnant women who have pain or fever. 

Daskalakis: Which is associated with poor outcome for the pregnant woman, as well as for the fetus or the child after they’re born. So there’s that reality, that it’s not inconsequential, and then you have someone saying, “Avoid it, don’t do it, at all costs, don’t do it,” and then what the FDA puts out that says, “Should use judiciously.” 

So I’m going to answer the second part of your question, what did I think of the press conference? I’m going to be honest, I don’t blame the president for anything that he said. I blame RFK Jr. and the other people on that stage. Their job is to make sure that their principal knows what they’re talking about, and so they have failed their job because what happened was we had a principal who was talking about things that were, I think, beyond his scope. And then also, we thought we were just talking acetaminophen, and then all of a sudden, in a non sequitur, we heard about the vaccine schedule for kids with some very strange places that we visited, including the notion that hepatitis B is a sexually transmitted infection, and rather than the birth dose that prevents vertical transmission, mother to child, as well as household transmission, we should wait until age 12, which will manifest itself as liver cancer, liver transplant, and cirrhosis for a lot of children, especially those who maybe are at higher risk because of their social circumstance. 

So that’s what I thought. I was, like, poor guy, he’s being briefed by people who don’t know anything, and so maybe they should take care of him. 

Rovner: All right. Well, I want to also ask you about your reaction to the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ meeting last week, where the committee voted to change recommendations for both the measles-mumps-rubella and chickenpox vaccines and the covid vaccine. At the end, it felt like everyone was confused, including the members of the committee. What stood out to you about that meeting? 

Daskalakis: I felt like an oracle, because in my resignation letter, I told you this was going to happen, and it’s exactly what I thought. And so, what happened was they did no process and just did stuff. And so, let me just give you what normal is, because that’s really important, and then I’ll walk you through each one and tell you why they were abnormal. 

So generally speaking, something happens, and there’s a question related to vaccine policy, there’s a new vaccine, there’s new data around safety, something happens. And that’s elevated either by ACIP members, CDC, or the working groups that live within the ACIP that do all the work on the side before the meeting. So that question comes to the work group, and the CDC folks work really hard and poll all the data in the world about the question. They in effect work to do what is, for lack of a better word, a meta-analysis, a study of studies, and they go through a process called GRADE, where they look at all the data and say, “This is good data, this is OK data, there’s bias,” really to contextualize all of the data. They then put that onto a clear table that tells you what’s happening. Now, they did that for a couple of things. 

The next thing is that there are long discussions. They’re long because they’re complicated, and they go through something that’s called an Evidence to Recommendations Framework. Now, that’s jargony, but what it means is that there’s this process where they ask, “Is this an important public health question? What are the implications for equity? Do the risks and the benefits … what is the equation there? Is there more harm or more good? Is this something that is going to improve the health of people? And is this cost-effective?” There’s a lot of domains, but they go through it really methodically because they want to get all of the domains that are needed for decisions. Once they do that, they produce a recommendation. That is taken to ACIP and it’s discussed. And then they vote. 

So what happened was that they didn’t do it, because RFK Jr., I know this from the inside, said, “I want on the agenda hepatitis B birth dose and MMRV.” What you saw there was politicization of the committee, ideology dominating, conspiracy theories being elevated to the level of data, and then decisions being made based on that. So if the data’s no good, if the foundation of the house is rotten, that house shouldn’t be standing, so that’s what we saw. 

And I want to go back to that hepatitis B thing. So they may go and do something that’s more process. But one of the reasons that I left was that CDC is not allowed to dictate who is on the work group anymore. So if they stack the work group with people that are anti-vax people, who are naysayers, who are not basing conversations on data, but on the anecdote or unvetted studies, it won’t matter, because that process will also be rotten if there’s not a diversity of opinion and scientific expertise on the work group. So that’s what happened at ACIP. 

Rovner: So following some pretty unusual public health actions just in the week since you’ve resigned, what’s your biggest concern about public health going forward? 

Daskalakis: So I think that there’s a couple of things that happened that I didn’t talk about yet that are very concerning. I’ll tell you that the book that I picked up to start reading when I finished my time at CDC was [George] Orwell’s “1984,” and the reason that I picked it up was because really soon after I left, I have nothing to do with stopping it or starting it, but just saying temporally speaking, CDC changed their webpage, that was the “About CDC” webpage, into, in effect, what is a manifesto as opposed to a description of an agency that is supposed to be balanced and scientific. So it really, in effect, speaks about compliance to ideology as the principal motivator for what CDC is and will do. There were other things wrong with that document, but we don’t have the time to go into that one. 

And so, I feel like — first chapter of “1984” that talks about ministries that are using doublespeak to be able to say what they do, I think we are now living it. And so that’s my fear, that everything that’s going to be coming out of CDC is going to be colored by ideology, or that data is going to be released from CDC without scientists able to explain it so that it can be used for other means or that will allow folks who are more ideologically motivated to be able to make conclusions based on inadequate analyses. So that’s what I’m worried about. 

Rovner: So how do we proceed from here, both public health professionals and Americans who are just looking for health guidance? 

Daskalakis: Yeah. I think we’re at a dark time, but I also think that there’s going to be light in the darkness, it just may not be today. So the first thing is trauma-informed care, your feelings are valid: This is not normal, something not good is going on, and it’s hard to figure out who to trust. And so, my recommendation to people is, and I know that this is a hard one because not everybody has access to care, is if you do have access to care, you really need to lean into your doctors — doctors, nurses, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists — taken widely and broadly, health care professionals. So even if you don’t have a primary care doctor, you have a pharmacist, and so go to that pharmacist and talk to them. It’s not as good as having one word for the land, as had been standard for CDC, but in this environment, I think you need to go with people that you trust. 

I’ll also say one of the things that should be a red flag for everybody out there is — I’m a doctor, I take care of patients — and I do actually believe that the relationship between a clinician, a health care provider, whoever they are, and their patient is very sacred. And so, whenever you hear anyone in the world trying to destabilize that relationship, saying that, “Doctors don’t know what they’re talking about, don’t listen to the pediatricians,” that is not someone you should be taking medical advice from, because they’re actually at their core trying to get you to not listen to the people who are your best allies and advocates in the health space. 

Rovner: Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, thank you so much for joining us. 

Daskalakis: My pleasure. 

Rovner: OK. We are back with our panel, and I want to ask both of you about your reactions to the ACIP meeting and the autism announcement. But let’s turn first to the breaking news about the potential government shutdown that’s less than a week away. Last night, the Office of Management and Budget, which traditionally sets the rules for who stays on the job in a shutdown and who doesn’t, issued a memo of the sort I’ve never seen before. Rather than directing agencies to prioritize which activities are needed to preserve, quote, “life and property,” and thus who’s required to work without pay for the duration and who gets furloughed until funding is restored, this memo basically says if the activity doesn’t have another source of funding and it’s not within the administration’s priorities, agencies should prepare to fire not furlough workers. This is obviously a big ramping up of this shutdown. I know this just happened, but what kind of reaction are you guys seeing? 

Raman: This to me just seems very, very highly unprecedented. We’ve had shutdowns, we’ve had near shutdowns, many of them in the past, and it has not escalated to this at any time that I’ve seen. 

Rovner: Forty years, I’ve been doing this 40 years, I have never seen anything quite like this. We’ve had rifts and we have shutdowns, but we’ve never had them combined. 

Raman: Yeah. And so, I think it’ll be really interesting how the next few days play out. The Senate is in for a couple of days before we would hit the shutdown, if there’s anything they can come together on. It is really difficult when you escalate to this level when they’ve been trying to negotiate so far. It’s hard. The House isn’t supposed to come back until Oct. 6. 

Rovner: Oops. 

Raman: So if the Senate changes anything or wants to change anything compared to what the House had passed, they’re stuck. Either the House has to come back in or they shut down until they come to a compromise on something. So I think from everyone that I’ve been talking with over the past few weeks, it seems like we’re really headed to a shutdown. It’s possible they get a few Democrats to fold and go with what’s there, but I think this last move, and then also President Trump saying that he was going to meet with Democrats earlier this week, and then saying, “No, I don’t want to,” they’ve been saying there’s not good-faith efforts to negotiate, so they’re in a pickle at this point. 

Rovner: Let’s get real: This is about not whether we’re going to have a shutdown, but who gets blamed for the shutdown. Traditionally, it’s been the Democrats, and the Republicans keep saying this, who say, “Look, we’re just having a clean extension of funding, we’re just going to basically roll out the clock, kick the can down the road, so we can continue to negotiate over funding for next year. Why won’t Democrats go along with that?” And Democrats are responding, “Well, we went along with it in March, and look at what’s happened in the interim, and our base didn’t like that, so we think we should fight this time.” And then, you had the president agreeing to meet with Democratic leaders, but then the Republican leaders in Congress telling the president, “No, don’t meet with them.” It’s all strategy at this point. You’re nodding, Anna. 

Edney: Yeah, yeah. I was just thinking, I think a lot of times, talking about this administration, people are saying, “There’s no plan.” But I do see the 3D game of chess at this point, and that letter very clearly mentioned if the Democrats shut down the government, that was lobbying that into the court of the Democrats saying, “This is your fault if it happens.” And I do think that the Democrats were burned last time in the sense that it seemed like they might allow a shutdown and then backtracked pretty quickly and the base just didn’t like it, and I think we’re seeing a lot from the, I don’t know what exactly to call them, thought leaders on the more liberal side saying, “Just do it, let it rip.” If it shuts down, they’re going to try to find a way to blame it on the Republicans. 

So I think it’s a game of chicken at this point, but there are real consequences. These are people’s jobs who aren’t necessarily going to all want to come back to the government if things suddenly, it works out. These are activities that we rely on for everyday life that will be hurt. 

Rovner: Yeah. We’ve already seen the administration trying to hire back some of the people that they laid off earlier this year because it turns out they were needed to do important jobs. I saw House Democratic Whip Katherine Clark this morning on CNN describing this letter as, “The beatings will continue until morale improves.” This really is playing with the lives of government workers who basically have come to these jobs because either they believe in them or because they usually have been stable jobs. They might, may be able to make more in the private sector, but government jobs tended to be secure, and boy, that’s not what’s happening right now. They don’t seem to be guilty parties in all of this, and yet they’re the ones who are being used as pawns. 

Raman: I think one thing that I have been thinking about in reading that OMB memo is that it says that the rifts are going to affect people that aren’t also really aligned with carrying out President Trump’s priorities and mission. What does that entail? Within HHS, what falls in that bucket? We have some ideas based on previous executive orders and things that he’s made some remarks on, but there’s plenty that we don’t know. 

Rovner: They could theoretically shut down the entire NIH [National Institutes of Health] or the entire CDC, which I think Secretary Kennedy might not mind. 

Raman: How that would go about, I don’t know. I think that we’ll all be really looking to see what kind of contingency documents they put out. They usually put those out before, when we’re in this waiting period about a shutdown, and it would definitely be very different than the ones that we’ve had in the past for a department down or agencies. What that’ll say, I just don’t know. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s right. To be clear, the OMB memo is to the agencies saying, “Send us your contingency plans.” Normally, that would’ve happened by now, it usually comes out a couple of weeks ahead of a potential shutdown and everything. We’re playing brinksmanship here. Anna, you wanted to say something before we move on? 

Edney: Oh, I don’t remember what that was. But just on the last point, I think the agencies, they usually have that contingency plan at the ready, but they can’t — I don’t think that this would’ve been the one that they had drawn up. I think they have to tear that up and start over again. And like you mentioned, the CDC, the NIH, you can, through this mandate, possibly see how you could just wipe out an entire agency. 

I think on the FDA side, I just wanted to add, there are some user fees on that side that may keep the drug review side afloat, anything where they’re looking at approvals and things like that is funded, at least for a while. If this devolves for months and months, that’s not the case. But there are a lot of other parts where they’re doing inspections and keeping the drug supply and the food supply safe that could be impacted. 

Rovner: Yeah. And we should point out that this does not affect things that have mandatory funding, like Medicare and Medicaid and Social Security, and, as you say, user fee funding, like the review activities at FDA. 

Well, while we’re on the subject of things that are unprecedented, let’s turn back to that ACIP meeting and the White House autism announcement. One of the things that ties them together is the fact that both leave the public with more confusion than clarity over what to do about vaccines and Tylenol and, once again, leaves Americans wondering who or what they can trust. What’s the biggest takeaway from each of you? Anna, why don’t you go first, about both the autism announcement and the ACIP meeting? 

Edney: Yeah, I think there just is a ton of confusion. I can’t count how many times people are like, “Remind me again, who can get a covid shot and who can’t? And what are we doing with RSV now?” There was a lot of talk before the ACIP meeting about hepatitis B and that even the ACIP members were confused. 

So I think that one thing that I think this makes crystal clear is that when I know that this administration and many of the people at the top in health care don’t appreciate the medical establishment and they don’t feel that it is operated in a way that is open to modernization. But you can’t just break it all and then start over, these are guidelines and things that people rely on, and it has to be, I think, a much more thoughtful process than what we’re seeing right now. You have a lot of people who are pregnant or have young children who are freaking out, because they’re like, well, I took Tylenol for three days because I had a fever, and I think that it creates more fear-mongering, because the guidance really isn’t that different, what the FDA actually said isn’t that different from what was already out there, you’re just really scaring people now. 

Raman: So I think I would say something along similar lines, the mixed messaging and the confusion of that both events is pretty stark. So I think the thing that struck me with ACIP is just the second day, we have a re-vote on something that you voted on the first day, and if you watch just one, you would assume that what happened there is done, and then going back, it’s just very unusual and makes it even more confusing. 

And I think the second thing that struck me was that we had this whole shake-up of ACIP in general to be like, we don’t want conflicts of interest, we want people that are able to vote on everything. And then, here, when we have the votes, we have someone on ACIP not be able to vote on something because they’re disclosing a conflict of interest. So it struck me that we went through this whole process that was to eliminate that, and then here we are back to that, which people have been saying for a long time, it’s difficult to find anyone in this space that doesn’t have other things that are connected to vaccines. 

For the autism announcement, the thing that was really interesting to me was that this was done on the White House level rather than just HHS is having an event, it’s with some agency folks there, and then them putting out information, whatever they’re talking about. This was predominantly Trump speaking in a much more aggressive, this is what is what tone, compared to the agency folks who mostly were downplaying a little bit of what he’s saying. He repeatedly said, over and over again, “Don’t take Tylenol, don’t take Tylenol, no Tylenol for pregnant women.” And then, even when you look at the FDA release that came out a little bit after really downplayed it, it said that there was an association, but there wasn’t a causal relationship that they had found between acetaminophen and autism in children. It goes back to that mixed messaging, where even if the majority of scientific professionals are saying that this goes against what a lot of the research that they’ve been doing, you’re going to be confused. 

Rovner: Yes. Another thing that seems to tie together both the ACIP meeting and the autism announcement is to basically put all medical responsibility on individuals, which many consider to be blaming the victim and increasing stigma by basically saying, “Whatever you decide, whatever happens is your fault.” I feel like we’ve careened from maybe too much reliance on experts to too little. That was certainly the president’s message at that press conference, it’s like, “Well, this is just common sense.” It’s like, I thought we were supposed to be relying on gold-standard science. 

Edney: That was a very stark point, where it was like, what do you mean you feel this? It’s like, I think you’re supposed to know that through research and scientific data. 

But I wanted to go back, you mentioned blaming the patient, I think specifically on the autism side, this is something we see with expecting mothers a lot, because I interviewed professor Emily Oster about the autism announcement, and she dives very deep into data on a lot of things parents are concerned about, and she was telling me about “refrigerator moms” in the 1950s, and I didn’t realize this, but apparently women were blamed for different mental illnesses if they were too cold, not freezing-cold, but emotionally not available for their children enough, and so they must be causing their schizophrenia and there was a big link to that. And that continues, they’re telling the women, “If you have a fever or enough pain that you would consider popping a Tylenol, then that’s on you, just either deal with it or be responsible for the fate of your child.” 

I think that’s what the medical establishment has been trying to avoid, is giving women options, and there are a lot of reasons you need to take care of that fever or you need to take care of that pain, and some of them have to do with the health of the child, the baby that they’re carrying, so … 

Rovner: Right, fever is also a potential cause of problems. 

Edney: Exactly. 

Rovner: All right. Well, in a health-related story that doesn’t seem like a health-related story, the Trump administration late last week announced a new $100,000 application fee for H-1B visas. Now, those are usually associated with tech workers, but it turns out that an awful lot of medical professionals, particularly doctors from other countries, use them to come here to fill residency positions that American medical school graduates don’t fill — often low-paying primary care slots in rural areas. And, according to reporting from your colleagues at Bloomberg, it seems that medical personnel might be exempt from this new fee, but it’s not clear how many hoops hospitals might have to jump through to get those exemptions. At best, it doesn’t feel like this was very thoroughly thought through, particularly for an administration that says that rural health is a priority. 

Edney: Right, yes. I think they may have been a little surprised by the amount of pushback from the hospital and doctor associations, saying, “We really rely on these to get doctors to rural areas.” And they almost immediately tried to massage that and say, “Oh, well, they could be included in exemptions.” But that’s all we know, “can be included” is not extremely reassuring. It’s not saying, “We’re giving you a blanket waiver for doctors,” or anything like that, and nobody knows, like you said, the hoops they might have to jump through. I would say it’s a start, and maybe they’re thinking about it, more aware of it, at this point. 

Rovner: Sandhya, is there any pushback from Congress? Can the president even do this? 

Raman: I think the pushback I’ve seen has been broader, not just on how this is going to affect hospitals that clearly cannot afford this in the same way that maybe some of the Big Tech companies may be able to. But I will be really interested when they come back just how lawmakers might look at this, because hospitals are the biggest employer in so many congressional districts, that if they’re pushing back, I could see people that normally don’t push back on this kind of thing saying, “If the biggest employer in my district is going to tank because of this,” it rises up as an issue for them. 

Rovner: On the other hand, we haven’t seen a lot of pushback from Congress for things that we expected to see pushback on, so I guess we’ll have to watch that space. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Rovner: Well, finally this week, there’s good news and bad news on drug prices, which President Trump has vowed to reduce by, and I looked this up to get the quote correct, 1,400% to 1,500%. He said it many other ways, by the way. The idea of his, quote, “most-favored-nation” executive order that he issued last spring is to get drugmakers to lower U.S. prices to those charged in other countries that have price controls that we don’t have. Well, Trump is getting half of what he wanted, according to Axios. Several large drugmakers say they’re going to equalize what they charge here and overseas, but not by lowering prices for Americans, rather by raising them for Europeans and others. On the other hand, there’s still a few more days until the Sept. 29 deadline for them to do this. Anna, are you hearing anything new on this? 

Edney: I haven’t heard anything new. I think we just saw, like you mentioned, what Bristol Myers Squibb did, which was a newer schizophrenia drug they raised, they said they were going to introduce that in the U.K. [United Kingdom] at the same price in the U.S., extremely convenient for the pharmaceutical companies to be able to have this reason to raise prices elsewhere. But then, of course, they can find reasons not to bring them down so far in the U.S., and we’ve seen — the only other company I can think of was Eli Lilly did this earlier this summer, saying they would do the same for their drug Mounjaro, and there was maybe some hoarding that started because people in Europe don’t want to pay the higher price. 

Rovner: Mounjaro being a diabetes drug that is also the weight loss drug. 

Edney: Right, right, yeah, so the weight loss drugs have seen a lot of ups and downs. But you’re right, there’s only a few days left, and it’s interesting that it hasn’t leaked … any kind of plan that the pharmaceutical companies are talking about or anything like that. Sometimes, I feel like because this administration is operating more by telling people through letters and demanding it at the podium rather than doing actual regulations — remember, the most-favored-nation policy did not work out well after challenged in court the first administration. So I think they’re often happy to get half of what they asked for in a way. But this could be tough, because it lets Trump say, “We’re no longer carrying all the water,” but it doesn’t let him say, “We decreased prices for the American people.” So we’ll have to see … 

Rovner: By 1,400% to 1,500%. 

Edney: Right, right, get those economists to figure that out. But we’ll just have to see what’s going on even … so much. The shutdown may take all his fire. 

Rovner: Yeah. This is one of those issues that is bipartisan, that it is popular on Capitol Hill, and that lawmakers keep saying they’re going to do something about, but so far, we’re not seeing it, are we? 

Raman: I think that there’s so much that they have on their plate right now and just so much that they have been at odds with each other right now, it’s something that would’ve gotten more attention in normal times, has just gotten really delayed at this point. 

Rovner: These are definitely not normal times. 

Raman: Yep. 

Rovner: All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now, it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry, if you miss it; we will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Anna, why don’t you go first this week? 

Edney: Sure. So mine is in The Washington Post, and it’s: “Do State Abortion Laws Affect Women’s Recruiting? That’s Up to Athletes.” It was a really interesting look at basically how women athletes, specifically in basketball, and they discuss others lower down, are choosing college based on abortion laws — the states where they have less restrictive abortion laws, or more abortion rights, I guess I should say — then they’re tending to go there. And then, you have the schools more in the South, where they’re more restrictive, where they’re choosing not to go there for the four years of their college life. And it was something that I think was just a really interesting look at a topic that has been on everyone’s mind, but with so much going on, not exactly focusing on it. And it talks about other trends in college admissions and things too. So something to think about. 

Rovner: Yeah. I know we’ve talked a lot about health workers avoiding states with abortion restrictions. This is the first time I’ve seen this link to younger women and sports and college, and we’ll see whether some of the states react to that. Sandhya? 

Raman: My extra credit is called “Psychiatric Hospitals [Turn Away Patients Who Need Urgent Care. The Facilities Face Few Consequences],” and it’s in ProPublica by Eli Cahan. And I think what drew me to this is EMTALA [the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] has been one of those things where we have been thinking about it a lot in terms of abortion, when we’ve seen it in the news in the last few years, it’s been very abortion-focused. But this story looks at a psychiatric hospital in Colorado that got taken to task for not providing stabilizing care to patients at risk for suicide, and CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t penalize them in reducing funding or imposing any penalties. It’s part of a broader thing, where over 90 psychiatric hospitals have violated EMTALA in the past 15 years. I don’t want to give away the whole thing of the story, but it goes more into this. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. All right. My extra credit this week is from NBC News by my friend and former colleague Liz Szabo, and it’s called “RFK Jr. Has the Federal Vaccine Court in His Sights. Attacking It Could Threaten Vaccine Production in the U.S.” It’s a really good roundup about what’s likely to be the HHS secretary’s next target: the program that compensates the very small number of Americans who are injured or killed by vaccine side effects. There are risks to all vaccines, although they are very much outweighed by the benefits, and this program was created by Congress during the Reagan administration to compensate those who have suffered from those rare adverse reactions. 

The program was created to keep vaccine manufacturing alive in the United States because product liability suits were threatening to shut it down entirely, while the program also makes it easier for those who are injured to receive compensation. The program is far from perfect and it could use some revisions, which Congress has tried and failed to do over the last couple of decades. But it seems clear that that’s not what Secretary Kennedy has in mind. It’s a great preview of what the next likely battle is going to be in the vaccine wars. 

OK, that is this week’s show. Thanks this week to our editor, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. 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. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: At X and on Bluesky: @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: Same places, @annaedney or @annaedney. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

Emmarie Huetteman, senior editor, oversees a team of Washington reporters, as well as “Bill of the Month” and KFF Health News’ “What the Health?” She previously spent more than a decade reporting on the federal government, most recently covering surprise medical bills, drug pricing reform, and other health policy debates in Washington and on the campaign trail. 

Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s announcement that the federal government will cancel nearly $500 million in mRNA research funding is unnerving not only for those who develop vaccines, but also for public health experts who see the technology behind the first covid-19 shots as the nation’s best hope to combat a future pandemic.

And President Donald Trump is demanding that major pharmaceutical companies offer many American patients the same prices available to patients overseas. It isn’t the first time he’s made such threats, and drugmakers — who scored a couple of wins against Medicare negotiations in the president’s tax and spending law — are unlikely to volunteer to drop their prices.

This week’s panelists are Emmarie Huetteman of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Explaining the decision to cancel some mRNA vaccine funding, a priority for vaccine critics, Kennedy falsely claimed that the technology is ineffective against respiratory illnesses. Researchers have been making headway into mRNA vaccines for maladies such as bird flu and even cancer, and the Trump administration’s opposition to backing vaccine development weakens the prospects for future breakthroughs.
• Trump’s insistence that big-name drugmakers voluntarily lower their prices underscores how few tools the presidency has to deliver results on this important pocketbook issue for many Americans. Medicare’s ability to negotiate drug prices took a hit under Trump’s big tax-and-spending law, which included two provisions advocated by the pharmaceutical industry that would delay or exclude some expensive drugs from the dealmaking process.
• A year after Trump promised on the campaign trail to secure coverage of in vitro fertilization, the White House reportedly is not planning to compel insurers to pay for those pricey reproductive services — a change that would require an act of Congress and could raise costs overall.
• And with Congress back home for its August recess and a late September deadline looming, the annual government funding process is in progress — but unlikely to resolve quickly or cleanly. Senate appropriators are further along in their work than usual, but the House of Representatives has yet to release its version, which is expected to cut deeper and hit social issues like abortion harder.

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

Emmarie Huetteman: KFF Health News’ “New Medicaid Federal Work Requirements Mean Less Leeway for States,” by Katheryn Houghton and Bram Sable-Smith. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Slate’s “Confessions of a Welfare Queen,” by Maria Kefalas. 

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “Sweden’s Push for Smokeless Products Leads Some To Wonder About Risks,” by Sandhya Raman. 

Lauren Weber: The New York Times’ “‘Hot Wasps’ Found at Nuclear Facility in South Carolina,” by Emily Anthes. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “How RFK Jr.’s mRNA Crackdown Affects Vaccinemaking and Future Pandemics,” by Carolyn Y. Johnson and Lauren Weber.
• The AP’s “Fact Focus: Trump Says He’s Cut Drug Prices By Up to 1,500%. That’s Not Possible,” by Melissa Goldin.
• The Washington Post’s “Medicare, Medicaid Plan To Experiment with Covering Weight Loss Drugs,” by Paige Winfield Cunningham.
• The Washington Post’s “White House Has No Plan To Mandate IVF Care, Despite Campaign Pledge,” by Riley Beggin and Jeff Stein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Kennedy Cancels Vaccine Funding

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

Emmarie Huetteman: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Emmarie Huetteman, a senior editor for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might have changed by the time you hear this. Here we go. 

Today, we’re joined via video conference by Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hey, everybody. 

Huetteman: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Huetteman: It’s August, and here in the nation’s capital that means Congress has flown the coop, and a lot of the federal city has gone with them. No interview this week. And you may be wondering why you’re hearing my voice instead of the incomparable Julie Rovner. Julie’s out this week having surgery to repair her broken wrist. Good news: She’s on the mend and she’ll be back in your podcast feed very soon. Get well soon, Julie. Let’s get to the news. 

On Tuesday, the Trump administration announced that the secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has canceled almost $500 million in federal grants and contracts to develop mRNA vaccines. That technology, of course, was responsible for the first covid vaccines, and researchers have been working on new ways to use mRNA, including against bird flu and even cancer. But in explaining his decision, Kennedy made false claims about mRNA vaccines, including that they do not protect against respiratory illnesses. Kennedy’s opposition to the covid vaccine, in particular, is well-documented. But before becoming health secretary, he advocated for federal officials to revoke approval for mRNA-based covid shots. 

Sarah, you’re our pharmaceutical industry expert. What will this mean for vaccine development? Without this government funding, can that research continue? 

Karlin-Smith: I think people are really concerned, particularly about the speed of vaccine development for pandemic situations. That’s a classic market failure in that companies aren’t that incentivized to work on developing products for hypothetical situations that may never come to pass, but we obviously want to be prepared for strains of the flu that can be particularly harmful and stuff. So I think that’s where people are really concerned. 

I think, in general, this is just another mark in some of the vaccine actions that have taken place since this administration took over that makes people a little more nervous about just investing in the vaccine field, whether it’s mRNA or vaccines in general. FDA has made some unusual decisions around the indications for covid vaccines moving forward. The [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s] whole [Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] has changed. So I do think there’s broader concern beyond the mRNA vaccines and our need to have this technology to really prepare for a pandemic about how confident industry will be in the places they normally would invest money on their own. 

Huetteman: Lauren, you had a story yesterday about how Kennedy’s decision is intensifying concerns about our ability to fight future pandemics. Can you tell us what you’re hearing from public health experts? 

Weber: Yeah. We spoke to a number of public health experts and vaccine experts, mRNA experts, who said, Look, this is the technology that you want to be spry, to be able to alter something, to fight potentially a bird flu. It’s also used in revolutionary ways to fight maybe even cancer here in the future. There’s a lot of fear about how this could have a chilling effect, as Sarah was pointing out, on the development pipeline and what that means in a pandemic situation. 

I do think it’s important to note that just this morning, Trump was asked about this and said he was going to have a meeting on it at noon. Not sure exactly what that means, but potentially that could be something. Robert Malone, who’s an ACIP member, sent out an email trying to rally MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] supporters to make sure that they backed up Kennedy’s decision. 

I think it’s also important to take a step back and look at Kennedy’s past remarks on mRNA, as you alluded to. This is a man who falsely called the covid vaccine “the deadliest ever made.” He’s described it as a poison in the past. Some anti-vaccine factions of MAHA have really been pushing to try and limit access to mRNA technology. You’ve seen this also in some Republican and far-right states, that are more right. You’ve seen some legislation suggested to remove access to mRNA technology. There’s a big question among some of the folks we talked to on if this is a bit of a signal to the base. 

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, ironically, the mRNA vaccines was probably the biggest success of the Trump administration’s first term in office. He was instrumental in spearheading the fast development of the vaccines for covid. 

Huetteman: Right, Operation Warp Speed. Interesting how far we’ve come. To be clear, this isn’t all of the government’s mRNA contracts, right? This is just a piece of the research funding? 

Karlin-Smith: This is a piece of it coming through BARDA [the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], which is particularly designed to help fill those market gaps in pandemic preparedness, but they’ve also cut other mRNA vaccine contracts previously in this administration, including a big one around bird flu, which people are concerned about right now. I’ve even seen some media reports where people, researchers in the cancer but mRNA space, were concerned about grants just being flagged just because they had the terminology. It’s not everything, but I think there’s certainly fears that this is just a step in a bigger process that is problematic. 

Huetteman: Absolutely. We’ll be keeping an eye on that. And vaccine contracts aren’t the only thing that President Trump’s team is undoing this week. Under a new federal rule, VA hospitals would no longer be able to perform abortions in cases of rape, incest, or health endangerment. You may remember that the Biden administration introduced that policy at the Department of Veterans Affairs in 2022, after the Supreme Court ended the constitutional right to an abortion. The policy has allowed veterans and their relatives to obtain abortion services even while they are stationed in states with restrictions. 

Meanwhile, lots of news to get to this week. In prescription drug news, late last week, President Donald Trump sent letters to more than a dozen drugmakers insisting that they drop their prices within 60 days. Specifically, the president demanded that pharmaceutical companies offer many American patients the same prices that drugmakers charge abroad. Over the weekend, Trump told reporters that his administration is dramatically lowering drug prices, “up to 1,500%,” he said — which, well, I think that technically means the drugmaker would pay you. 

Anyway, Trump told drugmakers that if they don’t lower drug prices, “We will deploy every tool in our arsenal.” What can the president do to force drugmakers to comply? 

Karlin-Smith: I think, in some ways, he doesn’t have as many tools in the toolbox as he probably would like to think. At least, not ones that are making the industry particularly fearful right now. He doesn’t have the power to just issue a regulation saying, “The Medicare-Medicaid reimbursement rates are tied to the rates countries are paying abroad.” That would have to be through legislation. And I think there are reasons that both Republicans and Democrats don’t really like this most-favored-nation approach to drug pricing. There is some sort of limited authority for them to do a demonstration project through CMS’ [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’] Medicare-Medicaid Innovation Center. They could come up with a test of this in some kind of limited area. They tried to start implementing that [in] his last term and they got scuttled by lawsuits, so we’ll see if they have a way to avoid that problem this time. 

But the ironic thing is that when the administration issued this executive order in May calling for this most-favored-nation pricing, he set this 30-day-ish deadline of saying, OK, we’ll tell you what prices we want, you guys lower them. If not, we’re going to do rulemaking. One thing that came up when he issued this letter, these letters on Friday, giving industry another 60 days is, Well, why are they not just going through with some kind of rulemaking or next steps? It almost seemed to some people like almost a more muted threat because they haven’t done the follow-through yet or come up with what the follow-through is here.  

Huetteman: Now, where is the Medicare’s drug negotiation ability in this equation? Why isn’t the president doing more to leverage Medicare’s power to negotiate at this point? 

Weber: Well, that’s really interesting because in the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” there were two provisions that a lot of people missed that limited the ability to negotiate on some key drugs, which has been estimated to likely cost the American taxpayer and the government billions of dollars over the next couple years. 

Huetteman: Yeah, the CBO says that those changes will cost Medicare at least $5 billion in missed savings over 10 years. 

Weber: Yes, that’s what’s called effective lobbying. Essentially, what happened is some pharma companies were able to tuck in provisions that key drugs, I think it was Keytruda, I’m not sure if I’m pronouncing that right, or Keytruda, which is used to treat cancer, it’s a drug by Merck. It had $17.9 billion in U.S. sales in 2024. That’s the kind of drug that they won’t be able to negotiate prices on for a bit.  

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s right. Of course, that also means that Medicare patients will be subject to paying their percentage of those higher prices as well. On top of talking about this CBO score there, we’re talking about drug prices that real people are paying for their expensive cancer drugs right now. I guess I’m curious why Trump isn’t using the negotiation process in order to lower those drug prices? 

Raman: I would add that something that makes this more difficult is that Trump has been very back-and-forth about a lot of his opinions on different things that he’s going to do throughout the last several months in this process. Even if you look at something like how we would deal with tariffs on the pharmaceutical industry, we’ve been a little bit all over the place. I think even if he’s not demonstrating the clear idea of which way he’d want to go, it makes it a little bit harder for the regulators, whether it would be in Congress or through the FDA, to do anything, given that he’s been changing a lot what he’s hinting at wanting to do.  

Huetteman: Yeah, that’s right. Actually, Sarah, you brought up the CMS innovation option. There’s a story out about this this week. The Washington Post reports that the Trump administration is considering using that center to do a pilot project to expand access to GLP-1 drugs for weight loss purposes by allowing state Medicaid and Medicare Part D plans to cover them. 

Now, insurance premiums are slated to go way up next year. If I’m not mistaken, the cost of covering GLP-1 drugs is one reason that insurers have cited for those premium hikes. If this happens, can we expect that the cost of those drugs would strain state and federal budgets? 

Karlin-Smith: Actually, one I guess positive thing is that some GLP-1 drugs are slated to be subject to negotiation through the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] program next year, so that there’s maybe positive news around the prices of those going down. Again, that’s obviously only for Medicare. But the problem on the back end is that, based on law, Medicare is not allowed in Part D to cover drugs for weight loss. 

The Biden administration had tried through rulemaking to make an argument that weight loss drugs and drugs that treat obesity are two different things, hearkening back to — when that law was written we really didn’t understand obesity as a disease process and all the health problems it has on your body. We thought of weight loss as more of a cosmetic thing. The Trump administration actually pulled that rule, so this would be a much more small step in the direction of trying to get coverage. The report says it would be a “voluntary demo.” 

The biggest question in my mind, which is again, knowing that these drugs, even with cheaper prices, would likely raise costs, is what is the incentive for health plans to voluntarily want to participate in this? What would the government have to do to incentivize this? Without some sort of push there for states and for Medicare Part D plans, I’m not sure the private plans are just going to pick up these products given the amount of people that would qualify for them. I think we need a lot more details from the Trump administration to know if they can actually make this feasible. 

Weber: I just find this to be such a fascinating move considering [CMS Administrator Mehmet] Oz and Kennedy have such different opinions about weight loss drugs, as does MAHA as a whole. We at The Washington Post had reported previously that Oz does have financial ties to Ozempic through his show — they had to run a sponsored ad to some extent — and also through other means. It’s fascinating to see that clearly this is going forward, despite Kennedy having said repeatedly, often, constantly that he does not want to pay for these drugs, that he thinks other interventions, healthy diet and lifestyle, should be implemented. Which Oz has also really promoted as well. So fascinating to see how this experiment plays out. I agree with Sarah; I’m not sure where the incentives are, considering the cost that this will be to see it play out. 

Huetteman: And one year after Trump promised coverage for in vitro fertilization services on the campaign trail, The Washington Post reports that the White House does not plan to require health insurers to cover IVF. The president had said that “if he were elected, the government would either pay for IVF services itself or require insurance companies to do it.” 

What’s standing in the way here? What’s involved in making something an essential health benefit? 

Raman: I think this whole process has been interesting. In February, Trump had put out an executive order directing his administration to come up ways to reduce the out-of-pocket costs for IVF. At the time, it’s pretty vague in terms of what that would entail. After the deadline passed, in part, I think a lot of people weren’t surprised because a) IVF is very expensive. And b) I think there are a lot of complicated nuances to some of his base and whether or not they fully support IVF. We had a lot of this last year, with people saying that they support it, but then also some of the folks that are more pro-life have some stipulations about not wanting embryos destroyed. It just complicated that some of the people that were talking to him about some of the other abortion-related issues were not on board with all of the IVF things. I think that has played definitely a factor in what they’re going to do with this. 

But it’s also a hard thing to do, to just make this something that — even with prescription drugs, reducing the costs of those is not simple. In order for them to make it an essential health benefit, I think, is also more complicated given the issues that we’ve been having with preventative care, and just the concerns about the [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] getting removed and what that’ll do to different things that are covered. It’s complicated and I wouldn’t really see this changing on IVF in the near future, at least from the executive level. 

Karlin-Smith: It needs to go through Congress to be an essential health benefit. I think there’s a theme in some of the topics we’re coming up to today where Trump is clearly coming up to the limits of his bully power and his threats of negotiation. I think Martin Makary, the head of the FDA, said, “You get more bees with honey.” Well, unfortunately, sometimes it’s just not enough to attract these industries to make major changes. 

Yes, they’ve gotten some sort of minor concessions, I think. I know they would like to think they’re transformative, but I think a lot of what they’ve gotten voluntarily is pretty minor, in terms of both health impact, and also how much it harms industry in terms of, like, food dyes. Or even the insurance companies saying, Oh, sure, we’ll do better on not going crazy on prior authorization. 

I think Trump now has to actually double-down and work with policymakers on rule writing, or work with Congress. It’s more complicated, especially again, as Sandhya said, IVF is something that’s complicated for his base to support. 

Huetteman: That’s right. This all came out of the blowback about how far towards banning abortion the country was going to go under Trump. This was a way to say, We’re preserving some parts of the reproductive health that are really important to people in our base, right?  

Raman: Yet even when Congress has tried to look at any of the IVF legislation in the past, it’s fallen on party lines. There have been ones that have been more messaging on either side. I think the closest we’ve gotten is that, on the defense side, trying to consider measures there for folks with Tricare, but it’s difficult to get folks on board with things like this through Congress. 

Huetteman: Well, speaking of Congress, Congress has left the building. August recess has begun and lawmakers are back home. Say, how is that government funding coming along. Sandhya?  

Raman: I think we’re in a similar place to many years in that it’s August, they’re out. We need government funding by the end of September, and we’re nowhere close to getting that. I would say on the plus side, the Senate is further along than they usually are. Before they left, they did mark up the Labor, HHS, Education funding bill, and that was overwhelmingly bipartisan. It included some money that would be a boost for NIH [the National Institutes of Health], which I know was a big concern for a lot of folks given what was in the White House proposal. It maintains funding for some of the programs that would be cut under the White House, things like Title X, Ryan White HIV. It also has a little bit of a pushback on making sure that the agencies continue the staffing to keep up some of their statutory duties.  

But again, it’s just the Senate. The House has not put out their bill. I would expect theirs to be a bit more conservative, given that the head of the Appropriations Committee in the Senate is Susan Collins, who’s been a little bit more moderate. The House is expected to release theirs and mark up theirs right after they get back. They meant to do it before recess but got pushed back because of reconciliation and that changing their schedule. 

It depends what they say in theirs and how much difference there is. I would expect there to be a lot of differences. It seems like we’re headed toward the usual of at least some sort of temporary spending to kick it down the line. Whether or not that ends up being a year again, like we did this year, or a short-term thing, we’re not sure yet. It depends on where we are in September.  

Huetteman: Right. And possibly preceded by a lot of fighting over social issues that get thrown into the health bill, and fights over the actual funding levels, if I had to guess, based on how House lawmakers have been talking about it so far.  

Raman: Oh, no. I think just the fact that we had such a big rescissions debate this year and the fact that we might do that again, it has definitely left a sour taste for a lot of Democrats who are worried that if whatever they vote for here might just get clawed back later on down the line. That’ll be another thorn in it.  

Huetteman: Awesome. Well, thanks for that take. That’s this week’s news. Now it’s time for our extra-credits segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week that we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it; we’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device.  

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

Weber: I have a doozy of a story from The New York Times titled “‘Hot Wasps’ Found at Nuclear Facility in South Carolina,” by Emily Anthes. Yeah, it’s the stuff of nightmares. It’s all about how wasps became radioactive — four wasps’ nests near a South Carolina nuclear facility.  

Huetteman: Yikes.  

Weber: If this gave you bad dreams, it definitely did for me. Essentially, what some of the researchers have posited is that wasps could have burrowed in some sort of bad wood or wood that was contaminated or other parts of the area that are contaminated. But this idea that it sounds like something out of Chernobyl, or something like that. But this idea that in the U.S., you could have a nuclear facility that is potentially transforming some of the near-wildlife is concerning in terms of cleanup efforts, and also concerning in terms of contamination control. Clearly, there’s more that needs to be dug into there. Hopefully everyone sleeps after hearing about this.  

Huetteman: Woof, yeah. I might need to take an Ambien tonight. Sandhya, how about you go next?  

Raman: My extra credit is from me in Roll Call. It’s my last dispatch from my reporting trip in Sweden earlier this year. And it’s called “Sweden’s Push for Smokeless Products Leads Some To Wonder About Risks.” It looks a little bit at some of the public health impacts as Sweden has really tried to reduce their smoking rate to become smoke-free. The U.S. is also at a low from smoking. Some of the things that public health experts are thinking about as people shift to other products and how they’re able to message to the remaining smokers that are not willing to give that up still.  

Huetteman: Awesome. Thanks for telling us about your work there. And Sarah?  

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a story from Slate, “Confessions of a Welfare Queen: I Study Poverty for a Living, and I Never Thought I’d Need Medicaid. Then My Child Was Diagnosed With a Terminal Illness,” by Maria Kefalas. It’s a personal story from a mother whose family needed Medicaid when their young child was diagnosed with an illness that was going to severely require intense medical care and limit her lifespan. They were able to take advantage of what are known as “Katie Beckett waivers” that were instituted by Ronald Reagan to allow states to voluntarily allow higher income requirements so that people could get Medicaid and care for their children at home. The original girl it was named for was otherwise basically going to be stuck living her life, and she lived until 34, in a hospital.  

The purpose of the story is really to point out that now that the “Big, Beautiful Bill” has passed and there are $1 trillion in spending cuts to Medicaid, that these are some of the sorts of people and programs, because it is not a mandatory program, that may unfortunately be on the first for the chopping block. I think the piece does a good job of pointing out, while there’s been a lot of rhetoric around the people who are going to get hurt by this are people that are not working or somehow abusing the system, and the mother does a pretty good job of talking about how both she and her husband continue to work. Most of the families that need this program, to the extent they can, want to keep working. You just get a really human picture of the type of people that are at risk of losing services.  

Huetteman: Yeah, for sure. It’s a really illuminating story. Thanks for talking about it. My extra credit this week is from my colleagues here at KFF Health News. The headline is “New Medicaid Federal Work Requirements Mean Less Leeway for States.” It’s by Katheryn Houghton and Bram Sable-Smith. 

They report that at least 14 states are in progress designing their own work requirement programs. But now, with the passage of Trump’s law last month, which institutes federal work requirements, those states must make sure that their programs meet federal standards. In some cases, the states are actually going even further than federal requirements, my colleagues report. For instance, Arizona state law would institute a five-year lifetime limit on Medicaid coverage for “able-bodied adults.” 

OK, that’s this week’s show. Thanks as always to our producer-engineer, Francis Ying, and to Stephanie Stapleton, our editor this week. If you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me on LinkedIn. Where are you guys these days? Sandhya?  

Raman: I’m on X and Bluesky @SandhyaWrites.  

Huetteman: Sarah?  

Karlin-Smith: A little bit of everywhere, but X, Bluesky, LinkedIn @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.  

Huetteman: And Lauren?  

Weber: I’m at X and Bluesky @laurenweberhp. Yes, the HP is for “health policy.” 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

After narrowly passing a budget resolution this spring foreshadowing major Medicaid cuts, Republicans in Congress are having trouble agreeing on specific ways to save billions of dollars from a pool of funding that pays for the program without cutting benefits on which millions of Americans rely. Moderates resist changes they say would harm their constituents, while fiscal conservatives say they won’t vote for smaller cuts than those called for in the budget resolution. The fate of President Donald Trump’s “one big, beautiful bill” containing renewed tax cuts and boosted immigration enforcement could hang on a Medicaid deal.

Meanwhile, the Trump administration surprised those on both sides of the abortion debate by agreeing with the Biden administration that a Texas case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone should be dropped. It’s clear the administration’s request is purely technical, though, and has no bearing on whether officials plan to protect the abortion pill’s availability.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Maya Goldman of Axios, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congressional Republicans are making halting progress on negotiations over government spending cuts. As hard-line House conservatives push for deeper cuts to the Medicaid program, their GOP colleagues representing districts that heavily depend on Medicaid coverage are pushing back. House Republican leaders are eying a Memorial Day deadline, and key committees are scheduled to review the legislation next week — but first, Republicans need to agree on what that legislation says.
• Trump withdrew his nomination of Janette Nesheiwat for U.S. surgeon general amid accusations she misrepresented her academic credentials and criticism from the far right. In her place, he nominated Casey Means, a physician who is an ally of HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s and a prominent advocate of the “Make America Healthy Again” movement.
• The pharmaceutical industry is on alert as Trump prepares to sign an executive order directing agencies to look into “most-favored-nation” pricing, a policy that would set U.S. drug prices to the lowest level paid by similar countries. The president explored that policy during his first administration, and the drug industry sued to stop it. Drugmakers are already on edge over Trump’s plan to impose tariffs on drugs and their ingredients.
• And Kennedy is scheduled to appear before the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee next week. The hearing would be the first time the secretary of Health and Human Services has appeared before the HELP Committee since his confirmation hearings — and all eyes are on the committee’s GOP chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, a physician who expressed deep concerns at the time, including about Kennedy’s stances on vaccines.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and co-wrote the latest KFF Health News’ “Bill of the Month” installment, about an unexpected bill for what seemed like preventive care. If you have an outrageous, baffling, or infuriating medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: NPR’s “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured,” by Andrea Hsu. 

Maya Goldman: Stat’s “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. 

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare,” by Zachary R. Mider and Zeke Faux. 

Sandhya Raman: The Louisiana Illuminator’s “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” by Anna Claire Vollers. 

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s series “Life of the Mother: How Abortion Bans Lead to Preventable Deaths,” by Kavitha Surana, Lizzie Presser, Cassandra Jaramillo, and Stacy Kranitz, and the winner of the 2025 Pulitzer Prize for public service journalism.
• The New York Times’ “G.O.P. Targets a Medicaid Loophole Used by 49 States To Grab Federal Money,” by Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff.
• KFF Health News’ “Seeking Spending Cuts, GOP Lawmakers Target a Tax Hospitals Love to Pay,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Axios’ “Out-of-Pocket Drug Spending Hit $98B in 2024: Report,” by Maya Goldman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

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

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 8, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via a videoconference by Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient got preventive care they assumed would be covered by their Affordable Care Act health plan, except it wasn’t. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where Sandhya is coming directly from, where regular listeners to this podcast will be not one bit surprised that Republicans working on President [Donald] Trump’s one “big, beautiful” budget reconciliation bill are at an impasse over how and how deeply to cut the Medicaid program. Originally, the House Energy and Commerce Committee was supposed to mark up its portion of the bill this week, but that turned out to be too optimistic. Now they’re shooting for next week, apparently Tuesday or so, they’re saying, and apparently that Memorial Day goal to finish the bill is shifting to maybe the Fourth of July? But given what’s leaking out of the closed Republican meetings on this, even that might be too soon. Where are we with these Medicaid negotiations? 

Raman: I would say a lot has been happening, but also a lot has not been happening. I think that anytime we’ve gotten any little progress on knowing what exactly is at the top of the list, it gets walked back. So earlier this week we had a meeting with a lot of the moderates in Speaker [Mike] Johnson’s office and trying to get them on board with some of the things that they were hesitant about, and following the meeting, Speaker Johnson had said that two of the things that have been a little bit more contentious — changing the federal match for the expansion population and instituting per capita caps for states — were off the table. But the way that he phrased it is kind of interesting in that he said stay tuned and that it possibly could change. 

And so then yesterday when we were hearing from the Energy and Commerce Committee, it seemed like these things are still on the table. And then Speaker Johnson has kind of gone back on that and said, I said it was likely. So every time we kind of have any sort of change, it’s really unclear if these things are in the mix, outside the mix. When we pulled them off the table, we had a lot of the hard-line conservatives get really upset about this because it’s not enough savings. So I think any way that you push it with such narrow margins, it’s been difficult to make any progress, even though they’ve been having a lot of meetings this week. 

Rovner: One of the things that surprised me was apparently the Senate Republicans are weighing in. The Senate Republicans who aren’t even set to make Medicaid cuts under their version of the budget resolution are saying that the House needs to go further. Where did that come from? 

Raman: It’s just been a difficult process to get anything across. I mean, in the House side, a lot of it has been, I think, election-driven. You see the people that are not willing to make as many concessions are in competitive districts. The people that want to go a little bit more extreme on what they’re thinking are in much more safe districts. And then in the Senate, I think there’s a lot more at play just because they have longer terms, they have more to work with. So some of the pushback has been from people that it would directly affect their states or if the governors have weighed in. But I think that there are so many things that they do want to get done, since there is much stronger agreement on some of the immigration stuff and the taxes that they want to find the savings somewhere. If they don’t find it, then the whole thing is moot. 

Rovner: So meanwhile, the Congressional Budget Office at the request of Democrats is out with estimates of what some of these Medicaid options would mean for coverage, and it gives lie to some of these Republican claims that they can cut nearly a trillion dollars from Medicaid without touching benefits, right? I mean all of these — and Maya, your nodding. 

Goldman: Yeah. 

Rovner: All of these things would come with coverage losses. 

Goldman: Yeah, I think it’s important to think about things like work requirements, which has gotten a lot of support from moderate Republicans. The only way that that produces savings is if people come off Medicaid as a result. Work requirements in and of themselves are not saving any money. So I know advocates are very concerned about any level of cuts. I talked to somebody from a nursing home association who said: We can’t pick and choose. We’re not in a position to pick and choose which are better or worse, because at this point, everything on the table is bad for us. So I think people are definitely waiting with bated breath there. 

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard a lot of Republicans over the last week or so with the talking points. If we’re just going after fraud and abuse then we’re not going to cut anybody’s benefits. And it’s like — um, good luck with that. 

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

Rovner: That’s right. Well, one place Congress could recoup a lot of money from Medicaid is by cracking down on provider taxes, which 49 of the 50 states use to plump up their federal Medicaid match, if you will. Basically the state levies a tax on hospitals or nursing homes or some other group of providers, claims that money as their state share to draw down additional federal matching Medicaid funds, then returns it to the providers in the form of increased reimbursement while pocketing the difference. You can call it money laundering as some do, or creative financing as others do, or just another way to provide health care to low-income people. 

But one thing it definitely is, at least right now, is legal. Congress has occasionally tried to crack down on it since the late 1980s. I have spent way more time covering this fight than I wish I had, but the combination of state and health provider pushback has always prevented it from being eliminated entirely. If you want a really good backgrounder, I point you to the excellent piece in The New York Times this week by our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff. What are you guys hearing about provider taxes and other forms of state contributions and their future in all of this? Is this where they’re finally going to look to get a pot of money? 

Raman: It’s still in the mix. The tricky thing is how narrow the margins are, and when you have certain moderates having a hard line saying, I don’t want to cut more than $500 billion or $600 billion, or something like that. And then you have others that don’t want to dip below the $880 billion set for the Energy and Commerce Committee. And then there are others that have said it’s not about a specific number, it’s what is being cut. So I think once we have some more numbers for some of the other things, it’ll provide a better idea of what else can fit in. Because right now for work requirements, we’re going based on some older CBO [Congressional Budget Office] numbers. We have the CBO numbers that the Democrats asked for, but it doesn’t include everything. And piecing that together is the puzzle, will illuminate some of that, if there are things that people are a little bit more on board with. But it’s still kind of soon to figure out if we’re not going to see draft text until early next week. 

Goldman: I think the tricky thing with provider taxes is that it’s so baked into the way that Medicaid functions in each state. And I think I totally co-sign on the New York Times article. It was a really helpful explanation of all of this, and I would bet that you’ll see a lot of pushback from state governments, including Republicans, on a proposal that makes severe changes to that. 

Rovner: Someday, but not today, I will tell the story of the 1991 fight over this in which there was basically a bizarre dealmaking with individual senators to keep this legal. That was a year when the Democrats were trying to get rid of it. So it’s a bipartisan thing. All right, well, moving on. 

It wouldn’t be a Thursday morning if we didn’t have breaking federal health personnel news. Today was supposed to be the confirmation hearing for surgeon general nominee and Fox News contributor Janette Nesheiwat. But now her nomination has been pulled over some questions about whether she was misrepresenting her medical education credentials, and she’s already been replaced with the nomination of Casey Means, the sister of top [Health and Human Services] Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] aide Calley Means, who are both leaders in the MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] movement. This feels like a lot of science deniers moving in at one time. Or is it just me? 

Edney: Yeah, I think that the Meanses have been in this circle, names floated for various things at various times, and this was a place where Casey Means fit in. And certainly she espouses a lot of the views on, like, functional medicine and things that this administration, at least RFK Jr., seems to also subscribe to. But the one thing I’m not as clear on her is where she stands with vaccines, because obviously Nesheiwat had fudged on her school a little bit, and— 

Rovner: Yeah, I think she did her residency at the University of Arkansas— 

Edney: That’s where. 

Rovner: —and she implied that she’d graduated from the University of Arkansas medical school when in fact she graduated from an accredited Caribbean medical school, which lots of doctors go to. It’s not a sin— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —and it’s a perfectly, as I say, accredited medical school. That was basically — but she did fudge it on her resume. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: So apparently that was one of the things that got her pulled. 

Edney: Right. And the other, kind of, that we’ve seen in recent days, again, is Laura Loomer coming out against her because she thinks she’s not anti-vaccine enough. So what the question I think to maybe be looking into today and after is: Is Casey Means anti-vaccine enough for them? I don’t know exactly the answer to that and whether she’ll make it through as well. 

Rovner: Well, we also learned this week that Vinay Prasad, a controversial figure in the covid movement and even before that, has been named to head the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] Center for Biologics and Evaluation Research, making him the nation’s lead vaccine regulator, among other things. Now he does have research bona fides but is a known skeptic of things like accelerated approval of new drugs, and apparently the biotech industry, less than thrilled with this pick, Anna? 

Edney: Yeah, they are quite afraid of this pick. You could see it in the stocks for a lot of vaccine companies, for some other companies particularly. He was quite vocal and quite against the covid vaccines during covid and even compared them to the Nazi regime. So we know that there could be a lot of trouble where, already, you know, FDA has said that they’re going to require placebo-controlled trials for new vaccines and imply that any update to a covid vaccine makes it a new vaccine. So this just spells more trouble for getting vaccines to market and quickly to people. He also—you mentioned accelerated approval. This is a way that the FDA uses to try to get promising medicines to people faster. There are issues with it, and people have written about the fact that they rely on what are called surrogate endpoints. So not Did you live longer? but Did your tumor shrink? 

And you would think that that would make you live longer, but it actually turns out a lot of times it doesn’t. So you maybe went through a very strong medication and felt more terrible than you might have and didn’t extend your life. So there’s a lot of that discussion, and so that. There are other drugs. Like this Sarepta drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a big one that Vinay Prasad has come out against, saying that should have never been approved, because it was using these kind of surrogate endpoints. So I think biotech’s pretty — thinking they’re going to have a lot tougher road ahead to bring stuff to market. 

Rovner: And I should point out that over the very long term, this has been the continuing struggle at FDA. It’s like, do you protect the public but make people wait longer for drugs or do you get the drugs out and make sure that people who have no other treatments available have something available? And it’s been a constant push and pull. It’s not really been partisan. Sometimes you get one side pushing and the other side pushing back. It’s really nothing new. It’s just the sort of latest iteration of this. 

Edney: Right. Yeah. This is the pendulum swing, back to the Maybe we need to be slowing it down side. It’s also interesting because there are other discussions from RFK Jr. that, like, We need to be speeding up approvals and Trump wants to speed up approvals. So I don’t know where any of this will actually come down when the rubber meets the road, I guess. 

Rovner: Sandhya and Maya, I see you both nodding. Do you want to add something? 

Raman: I think this was kind of a theme that I also heard this week in the — we had the Senate Finance hearing for some of the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nominees, and Jim O’Neill, who’s one of the nominees, that was something that was brought up by Finance ranking member Ron Wyden, that some of his past remarks when he was originally considered to be on the short list for FDA commissioner last Trump administration is that he basically said as long as it’s safe, it should go ahead regardless of efficacy. So those comments were kind of brought back again, and he’s in another hearing now, so that might come up as an issue in HELP [the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] today. 

Rovner: And he’s the nominee for deputy secretary, right? Have to make sure I keep all these things straight. Maya, you wanting to add something? 

Goldman: Yeah, I was just going to say, I think there is a divide between these two philosophies on pharmaceuticals, and my sense is that the selection of Prasad is kind of showing that the anti-accelerated-approval side is winning out. But I think Anna is correct that we still don’t know where it’s going to land. 

Rovner: Yes, and I will point out that accelerated approval first started during AIDS when there was no treatments and basically people were storming the — literally physically storming — the FDA, demanding access to AIDS drugs, which they did finally get. But that’s where accelerated approval came from. This is not a new fight, and it will continue. 

Turning to abortion, the Trump administration surprised a lot of people this week when it continued the Biden administration’s position asking for that case in Texas challenging the abortion pill to be dropped. For those who’ve forgotten, this was a case originally filed by a bunch of Texas medical providers demanding the judge overrule the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone in the year 2000. The Supreme Court ruled the original plaintiff lacked standing to sue, but in the meantime, three states —Missouri, Idaho, and Kansas — have taken their place as plaintiffs. But now the Trump administration points out that those states have no business suing in the Northern District of Texas, which kind of seems true on its face. But we should not mistake this to think that the Trump administration now supports the current approval status of the abortion bill. Right, Sandhya? 

Raman: Yeah, I think you’re exactly right. It doesn’t surprise me. If they had allowed these three states, none of which are Texas — they shouldn’t have standing. And if they did allow them to, that would open a whole new can of worms for so many other cases where the other side on so many issues could cherry-pick in the same way. And so I think, I assume, that this will come up in future cases for them and they will continue with the positions they’ve had before. But this was probably in their best interest not to in this specific one. 

Rovner: Yeah. There are also those who point out that this could be a way of the administration protecting itself. If it wants to roll back or reimpose restrictions on the abortion pill, it would help prevent blue states from suing to stop that. So it serves a double purpose here, right? 

Raman: Yeah. I couldn’t see them doing it another way. And even if you go through the ruling, the language they use, it’s very careful. It’s not dipping into talking fully about abortion. It’s going purely on standing. Yeah. 

Rovner: There’s nothing that says, We think the abortion pill is fine the way it is. It clearly does not say that, although they did get the headlines — and I’m sure the president wanted — that makes it look like they’re towing this middle ground on abortion, which they may be but not necessarily in this case. 

Well, before we move off of reproductive health, a shoutout here to the incredible work of ProPublica, which was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for public service this week for its stories on women who died due to abortion bans that prevented them from getting care for their pregnancy complications. Regular listeners of the podcast will remember that we talked about these stories as they came out last year, but I will post another link to them in the show notes today. 

OK, moving on. There’s even more drug price news this week, starting with the return of, quote, “most favored nation” drug pricing. Anna, remind us what this is and why it’s controversial. 

Edney: Yeah. So the idea of most favored nation, this is something President Trump has brought up before in his first administration, but it creates a basket, essentially, of different prices that nations pay. And we’re going to base ours on the lowest price that is paid for— 

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

Edney: Yeah. Essentially, yes. We can’t import their drugs, but we can import their prices. And so the goal is to just basically piggyback off of whoever is paying the lowest price and to base ours off of that. And clearly the drug industry does not like this and, I think, has faced a number of kind of hits this week where things are looming that could really come after them. So Politico broke that news that Trump is going to sign or expected to sign an executive order that will direct his agencies to look into this most-favored-nation effort. And it feels very much like 2.0, like we were here before. And it didn’t exactly work out, obviously. 

Rovner: They sued, didn’t they? The drug industry sued, as I recall. 

Edney: Yeah, I think you’re right. Yes. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

Goldman: If I’m remembering correctly, it was an Administrative Procedure Act lawsuit though, right? So— 

Rovner: It was. Yes. It was about a regulation. Yes. 

Goldman: —who knows what would happen if they go through a different procedure this time. 

Rovner: So the other thing, obviously, that the drug industry is freaked out about right now are tariffs, which have been on again, off again, on again, off again. Where are we with tariffs on — and it’s not just tariffs on drugs being imported. It’s tariffs on drug ingredients being imported, right? 

Edney: Yeah. And that’s a particularly rough one because many ingredients are imported, and then some of the drugs are then finished here, just like a car. All the pieces are brought in and then put together in one place. And so this is something the Trump administration has began the process of investigating. And PhRMA [Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America], the trade group for the drug industry, has come out officially, as you would expect, against the tariffs, saying that: This will reduce our ability to do R&D. It will raise the price of drugs that Americans pay, because we’re just going to pass this on to everyone. And so we’re still in this waiting zone of seeing when or exactly how much and all of that for the tariffs for pharma. 

Rovner: And yet Americans are paying — already paying — more than they ever have. Maya, you have a story just about that. Tell us. 

Goldman: Yeah, there was a really interesting report from an analytics data firm that showed the price that Americans are paying for prescriptions is continuing to climb. Also, the number of prescriptions that Americans are taking is continuing to climb. It certainly will be interesting to see if this administration can be any more successful. That report, I don’t think this made it into the article that I ended up writing, but it did show that the cost of insulin is down. And that’s something that has been a federal policy intervention. We haven’t seen a lot of the effects yet of the Medicare drug price negotiations, but I think there are signs that that could lower the prices that people are paying. So I think it’s interesting to just see the evolution of all of this. It’s very much in flux. 

Rovner: A continuing effort. Well, we are now well into the second hundred days of Trump 2.0, and we’re still learning about the cuts to health and health-related programs the administration is making. Just in this week’s rundown are stories about hundreds more people being laid off at the National Cancer Institute, a stop-work order at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases research lab at Fort Detrick, Maryland, that studies Ebola and other deadly infectious diseases, and the layoff of most of the remaining staff at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. 

A reminder that this is all separate from the discretionary-spending budget request that the administration sent up to lawmakers last week. That document calls for a 26% cut in non-mandatory funding at HHS, meaning just about everything other than Medicare and Medicaid. And it includes a proposed $18 billion cut to the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and elimination of the $4 billion Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps millions of low-income Americans pay their heating and air conditioning bills. Now, this is normally the part of the federal budget that’s deemed dead on arrival. The president sends up his budget request, and Congress says, Yeah, we’re not doing that. But this at least does give us an idea of what direction the administration wants to take at HHS, right? What’s the likelihood of Congress endorsing any of these really huge, deep cuts? 

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

Raman: It’s not going to happen, and they need 60 votes in the Senate to pass the appropriations bills. I think that when we’re looking in the House in particular, there are a lot of things in what we know from this so-called skinny budget document that they could take up and put in their bill for Labor, HHS, and Education. But I think the Senate’s going to be a different story, just because the Senate Appropriations chair is Susan Collins and she, as soon as this came out, had some pretty sharp words about the big cuts to NIH. They’ve had one in a series of two hearings on biomedical research. Concerned about some of these kinds of things. So I cannot necessarily see that sharp of a cut coming to fruition for NIH, but they might need to make some concessions on some other things. 

This is also just a not full document. It has some things and others. I didn’t see any to FDA in there at all. So that was a question mark, even though they had some more information in some of the documents that had leaked kind of earlier on a larger version of this budget request. So I think we’ll see more about how people are feeling next week when we start having Secretary Kennedy testify on some of these. But I would not expect most of this to make it into whatever appropriations law we get. 

Goldman: I was just going to say that. You take it seriously but not literally, is what I’ve been hearing from people. 

Edney: We don’t have a full picture of what has already been cut. So to go in and then endorse cutting some more, maybe a little bit too early for that, because even at this point they’re still bringing people back that they cut. They’re finding out, Oh, this is actually something that is really important and that we need, so to do even more doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense right now. 

Rovner: Yeah, that state of disarray is purposeful, I would guess, and doing a really good job at sort of clouding things up. 

Goldman: One note on the cuts. I talked to someone at HHS this week who said as they’re bringing back some of these specialized people, in order to maintain the legality of, what they see as the legality of, the RIF [reduction in force], they need to lay off additional people to keep that number consistent. So I think that is very much in flux still and interesting to watch. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I think that’s part of what we were seeing this week is that the groups that got spared are now getting cut because they’ve had to bring back other people. And as I point out, I guess, every week, pretty much all of this is illegal. And as it goes to courts, judges say, You can’t do this. So everything is in flux and will continue. 

All right, finally this week, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who as of now is scheduled to appear before the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee next week to talk about the department’s proposed budget, is asking CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to develop new guidance for treating measles with drugs and vitamins. This comes a week after he ordered a change in vaccine policy you already mentioned, Anna, so that new vaccines would have to be tested against placebos rather than older versions of the vaccine. These are all exactly the kinds of things that Kennedy promised health committee chairman Bill Cassidy he wouldn’t do. And yet we’ve heard almost nothing from Cassidy about anything the secretary has said or done since he’s been in office. So what do we expect to happen when they come face-to-face with each other in front of the cameras next week, assuming that it happens? 

Edney: I’m very curious. I don’t know. Do I expect a senator to take a stand? I don’t necessarily, but this— 

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

Edney: Yeah, he hasn’t yet. But this is maybe about face-saving too for him. So I don’t know. 

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

Edney: For Cassidy, given he said: I’m going to keep an eye on him. We’re going to talk all the time, and he is not going to do this thing without my input. I’m not sure how Cassidy will approach that. I think it’ll be a really interesting hearing that we’ll all be watching. 

Rovner: Yes. And just little announcement, if it does happen, that we are going to do sort of a special Wednesday afternoon after the hearing with some of our KFF Health News colleagues. So we are looking forward to that hearing. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who co-reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, welcome back. 

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got preventive care, which the Affordable Care Act was supposed to incentivize by making it cost-free at the point of service — except it wasn’t. Tell us who the patient is and what kind of care they got. 

Sausser: Carmen Aiken is from Chicago. Carmen uses they/them pronouns. And Carmen made an appointment in the summer of 2023 for an annual checkup. This is just like a wellness check that you are very familiar with. You get your vaccines updated. You get your weight checked. You talk to your doctor about your physical activity and your family history. You might get some blood work done. Standard stuff. 

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

Sausser: The bill ended up being more than $1,400 when it should, in Carmen’s mind, have been free. 

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

Rovner: I assume that there was a complaint to the health plan and the health plan said, Nope, not covered. Why did they say that? 

Sausser: It turns out that alongside with some blood work that was preventive, Carmen also had some blood work done to monitor an ongoing prescription. Because that blood test is not considered a standard preventive service, the entire appointment was categorized as diagnostic and not preventive. So all of these services that would’ve been free to them, available at no cost, all of a sudden Carmen became responsible for. 

Rovner: So even if the care was diagnostic rather than strictly preventive — obviously debatable — that sounds like a lot of money for a vaccine and some blood test. Why was the bill so high? 

Sausser: Part of the reason the bill was so high was because Carmen’s blood work was sent to a hospital for processing, and hospitals, as you know, can charge a lot more for the same services. So under Carmen’s health plan, they were responsible for, I believe it was, 50% of the cost of services performed in an outpatient hospital setting. And that’s what that blood work fell under. So the charges were high. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked a lot on the podcast about this fight in Congress to create site-neutral payments. This is a case where that probably would’ve made a big difference. 

Sausser: Yeah, it would. And there’s discussion, there’s bipartisan support for it. The idea is that you should not have to pay more for the same services that are delivered at different places. But right now there’s no legislation to protect patients like Carmen from incurring higher charges. 

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

Sausser: Carmen ended up paying it. They put it on a credit card. This was of course after they tried appealing it to their insurance company. Their insurance company decided that they agreed with the provider that these services were diagnostic, not preventive. And so, yeah, Carmen was losing sleep over this and decided ultimately that they were just going to pay it. 

Rovner: And at least it was a four-figure bill and not a five-figure bill. 

Sausser: Right. 

Rovner: What’s the takeaway here? I imagine it is not that you should skip needed preventive/diagnostic care. Some drugs, when you’re on them, they say that you should have blood work done periodically to make sure you’re not having side effects. 

Sausser: Right. You should not skip preventive services. And that’s the whole intent behind this in the ACA. It catches stuff early so that it becomes more treatable. I think you have to be really, really careful and specific when you’re making appointments, and about your intention for the appointment, so that you don’t incur charges like this. I think that you can also be really careful about where you get your blood work conducted. A lot of times you’ll see these signs in the doctor’s office like: We use this lab. If this isn’t in-network with you, you need to let us know. Because the charges that you can face really vary depending on where those labs are processed. So you can be really careful about that, too. 

Rovner: And adding to all of this, there’s the pending Supreme Court case that could change it, right? 

Sausser: Right. The Supreme Court heard oral arguments. It was in April. I think it was on the 21st. And it is a case that originated out in Texas. There is a group of Christian businesses that are challenging the mandate in the ACA that requires health insurers to cover a lot of these preventive services. So obviously we don’t have a decision in the case yet, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: We will, and we will cover it on the podcast. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thank you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Maya, you were the first to choose this week, so why don’t you go first? 

Goldman: My extra credit is from Stat. It’s called “Europe Unveils $565 Million Package To Retain Scientists, and Attract New Ones,” by Andrew Joseph. And I just think it’s a really interesting evidence point to the United States’ losses, other countries’ gain. The U.S. has long been the pinnacle of research science, and people flock to this country to do research. And I think we’re already seeing a reversal of that as cuts to NIH funding and other scientific enterprises is reduced. 

Rovner: Yep. A lot of stories about this, too. Anna. 

Edney: So mine is from a couple of my colleagues that they did earlier this week. “A Former TV Writer Found a Health-Care Loophole That Threatens To Blow Up Obamacare.” And I thought it was really interesting because it had brought me back to these cheap, bare-bones plans that people were allowed to start selling that don’t meet any of the Obamacare requirements. And so this guy who used to, in the ’80s and ’90s, wrote for sitcoms — “Coach” or “Night Court,” if anyone goes to watch those on reruns. But he did a series of random things after that and has sort of now landed on selling these junk plans, but doing it in a really weird way that signs people up for a job that they don’t know they’re being signed up for. And I think it’s just, it’s an interesting read because we knew when these things were coming online that this was shady and people weren’t going to get the coverage they needed. And this takes it to an extra level. They’re still around, and they’re still ripping people off. 

Rovner: Or as I’d like to subhead this story: Creative people think of creative things. 

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

Raman: So my pick is “In the Deep South, Health Care Fights Echo Civil Rights Battles,” and it’s from Anna Claire Vollers at the Louisiana Illuminator. And her story looks at some of the ties between civil rights and health. So 2025 is the 70th anniversary of the bus boycott, the 60th anniversary of Selma-to-Montgomery marches, the Voting Rights Act. And it’s also the 60th anniversary of Medicaid. And she goes into, Medicaid isn’t something you usually consider a civil rights win, but health as a human right was part of the civil rights movement. And I think it’s an interesting piece. 

Rovner: It is an interesting piece, and we should point out Medicare was also a huge civil rights, important piece of law because it desegregated all the hospitals in the South. All right, my extra credit this week is a truly infuriating story from NPR by Andrea Hsu. It’s called “Fired, Rehired, and Fired Again: Some Federal Workers Find They’re Suddenly Uninsured.” And it’s a situation that if a private employer did it, Congress would be all over them and it would be making huge headlines. These are federal workers who are trying to do the right thing for themselves and their families but who are being jerked around in impossible ways and have no idea not just whether they have jobs but whether they have health insurance, and whether the medical care that they’re getting while this all gets sorted out will be covered. It’s one thing to shrink the federal workforce, but there is some basic human decency for people who haven’t done anything wrong, and a lot of now-former federal workers are not getting it at the moment. 

OK, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions, We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Sandhya? 

Raman: I’m on X, @SandhyaWrites, and also on Bluesky, @SandhyaWrites at Bluesky. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

Goldman: I am on X, @mayagoldman_. Same on Bluesky and also increasingly on LinkedIn. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Department of Health and Human Services underwent an unprecedented purge this week, as thousands of employees from the National Institutes of Health, the FDA, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other agencies across the department were fired, placed on administrative leave, or offered transfers to far-flung Indian Health Service facilities in such places as New Mexico, Montana, and Alaska. Altogether, the layoffs mean the federal government, in a single day, shed hundreds if not thousands of years of health and science expertise.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court heard a case about whether states can bar Planned Parenthood from providing non-abortion-related services to Medicaid patients. But by the time the case is settled, it’s unclear how much of Medicaid or the Title X Family Planning Program will remain intact.

 This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Bloomberg News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Bloomberg News

@rachelcohrs

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As details trickle out about the major staffing purge underway at HHS, long-serving and high-ranking health officials are among those who have been shown the door: in particular, senior scientists at FDA, including the top vaccine regulator, and even the head veterinarian working on bird flu response.
• The Trump administration has also gutted entire offices, including the FDA’s tobacco division — even though the division’s elimination would not save taxpayer money because it’s not funded by taxpayers. Still, the tobacco industry stands to benefit from less regulatory oversight. Many health agencies have their own examples of federal jobs cut under the auspices of saving taxpayer money when the true effect will be undermining federal health work.
• Democratic Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey set a record this week during a marathon, 25-hour-plus chamber floor speech railing against Trump administration actions, and he used much of his time discussing the risks posed to Americans’ health care. With Republicans considering deep cuts that could hit Medicaid hard, it’s possible that health changes could be the area that resonates most with Americans and garner key support for Democrats come midterm elections.
• And the tariffs unveiled by President Donald Trump this week reportedly touch at least some pharmaceuticals, leaving the drug industry scrambling to sort out the impact. It seems likely tariffs would raise the prices Americans pay for drugs, as tariffs are expected to do for other consumer products — leaving it unclear how Americans stand to benefit from the president’s decision to upend global trade.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby, whose latest “Bill of the Month” feature is about a short-term health plan and a very expensive colonoscopy. Do you have a baffling, confusing, or outrageous medical bill to share with us? You can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “Uber for Nursing Is Here — And It’s Not Good for Patients or Nurses,” by Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: MSNBC’s “Florida Considers Easing Child Labor Laws After Pushing Out Immigrants,” by Ja’han Jones.

Lauren Weber: The Atlantic’s “Miscarriage and Motherhood,” by Ashley Parker.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Wall Street Journal’s “FDA Punts on Major Covid-19 Vaccine Decision After Ouster of Top Official,” by Liz Essley White.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “Laid-Off HHS Leaders Offered Transfers to Remote Indian Health Service Regions,” by Usha Lee McFarling.
• The Washington Post’s “Fired Health Workers Were Told To Contact an Employee. She’s Dead.” By Lauren Weber.
• Georgia Recorder’s “Bill That Criminalizes Abortion, Undermines IVF Access Gets Georgia House Panel Hearing,” by Jill Nolin.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: American Health Gets a Pink Slip

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 3, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie. 

Rovner: Lauren Weber of The Washington Post. 

Lauren Weber: Hello hello. 

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast Rachel Cohrs Zhang, now at Bloomberg News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everyone. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month,” about yet another very expensive colonoscopy. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week, as usual, with the latest changes to the Department of Health and Human Services from the Trump administration. But before we dive in, I want to exercise my host prerogative to make a personal observation for those who think that what’s happening here is, quote, “politics as usual.” I am now a month into my 40th year of covering health policy in Washington and HHS in particular. When I began, Ronald Reagan was still president. So I’ve been through Democratic and Republican administrations, and Democratic- and Republican-controlled Congresses, and all the changeovers that have resulted therefrom. 

And obviously the HHS I cover today is far different from the one I covered in 1986, but I can safely say I have never seen such a swift and sweeping dismantling of the structure that oversees the U.S. health system as we’ve witnessed these past 60 days. Agencies and programs that were the result of years of expert consultations and political compromises have been summarily eliminated, and health and science professionals with thousands of years of combined experience cut loose via middle-of-the-night form emails. To call the scope and speed of the changes breathtaking is an understatement, and while I won’t take any more personal time here, if you want to hear me expand further on just how different this all really is, I’m on this week’s episode of my friend Dan Gorenstein’s “Tradeoffs” podcast, which you should all be listening to anyway. 

All right. That said, now let’s dive in. I suppose it was inevitable that we would see the results of last week’s announced reorganization of HHS on April Fools’ Day. Let’s start with who was let go. While the announcement last week suggested it would mostly be redundancies and things like IT and HR and procurement, there were a bunch of longtime leaders included in this purge, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. At FDA [the Food and Drug Administration] there were some of the most senior scientists, like their Office of New Drugs directors, their chief medical officer, almost everybody who works on policy, legislative affairs, entire communications offices, external affairs. And even in the case where they are laying off people whose job titles might sound extraneous, or not as important to the health of people in the U.S., I think you can sort of debate that, but they did it in such a way that they laid off so many people in those departments that the people they said, We are protecting, because we do at least understand these jobs are important, cannot actually fully do their jobs. So scientists are not able to access the supplies they need. It’s not even clear how people at FDA are going to get paid and do their timesheets and track time given how many people they laid off. 

And it also just seems like there’s been a ton of, again, to the extent they were trying to protect certain positions that they deemed more critical to U.S. health and well-being, like medical reviewers or inspectors, they didn’t quite understand who actually is critical to doing that work, because it’s not just somebody who has, like, “inspector” in the title. Vanity Fair had a great piece about this man who really has saved people in the U.S. from going blind by helping inspectors catch sterility issues in eye drops, and they walk through very clearly how people like him do not have a title of inspector but are absolutely needed to ensure we have drugs that are safe for people in the U.S. So, probably not surprising to people who’ve tracked the administration so far, but it’s been a lot of the move-fast -break-things, and then realize on the back end that they maybe broke things they didn’t necessarily mean to, or don’t actually care as much about whether it’s broken. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: They got rid of the head veterinarian on the bird flu response. That would seem to be a thing that is surprising. I spoke to a congressman yesterday who said that seems very dumb. It’s not just that. They also eliminated entire swaths of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], small agencies that maybe a lot of people have no idea alphabetically what they do but are pivotal in preventing injury deaths, and in really the preventative and chronic disease care that RFK [Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] has said is really vital to getting America back on track. When we talk about dollars and cents saved in health care, a lot of that is in chronic disease and in preventative care. And to see some of these places get hit so broadly is quite shocking considering the end goal is allegedly to save money. 

Rovner: There are also a lot of things that seem sort of at odds with [President Donald] Trump’s own agenda. David Kessler, the former FDA commissioner, was on TV last night talking about how the people who answer the phones when a doctor wants to get an emergency use authorization for a drug that’s not yet approved. That’s something that’s been a very big deal for Donald Trump. The people who answer the phones got fired. So, when a doctor has a patient who, nothing else will work and they need an experimental drug, and they’re supposed to be able to call FDA. And I think there are rules about how fast FDA is supposed to respond. But now there’s nobody to actually answer the phone and take those requests. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think the list of things that don’t seem to align is very long. One thing I was talking to somebody about yesterday who said, well, pretty much everybody who deals with tracking pesticides in foods, and food safety at the FDA in regards to pesticides was let go. And making our food system healthier and safer, and concerns about pesticides, has actually been a big focus of RFK. Similarly, Martin Makary talked a lot in his opening speech to FDA employees yesterday about obesity, and they are basically gutting offices that work on pediatrics, minority health. They’ve laid off lots of people in their tobacco division at FDA, and FDA’s tobacco division actually is not funded at all by taxpayer funding. So, I have a hard time understanding how anybody besides the tobacco industry really benefits from this loss. As Lauren said, it’s like every health agency, you can kind of find examples of that. They say America is not healthy, but they’re cutting these top researchers that have found incredible advances in Parkinson’s and some of the chronic diseases he’s most cared about. 

Rovner: They also, I mean, there are some big names who were let go. We didn’t even — the Peter Marks firing at FDA happened last week after we taped, so we haven’t even talked about that. Somebody tell us who Peter Marks is and why everybody’s all freaked out about that. 

Cohrs Zhang: Well, Peter Marks was head of the division of biologics and the top regulator of vaccines, and complicated injectable medicines like insulin products, too, fell under his purview. And I think we saw markets react in a panic on Monday. The shares of vaccine makers like Moderna were falling. And we saw companies selling gene therapies that Peter Marks has been really involved in regulating and championing through some of those processes, they were kind of freaked out because it just creates uncertainty as to kind of what the new philosophy toward these medicines will be. And the Trump administration, we’ve seen, especially on the Marks being pushed out, I think they’ve tried to highlight some of his more controversial actions in the past. 

We saw a White House adviser, Calley Means, was personally attacking Marks for some conflicts he had with vaccine regulators during debate over the covid booster approvals, and just his decisions to overrule recommendations by FDA experts on some innovative medications that some people disagreed with. But the perspective from former officials has been that, like Peter Marks or not, the idea that scientific expertise is being purged in this way is concerning. And it wasn’t just Peter Marks. There’s another regulator at the Office of New Drugs, Peter Stein. who was pushed out. We have Anthony Fauci’s successor at NIH [the National Institutes of Health] was pushed out, Jeanne Marrazzo, as well as a couple other heads of scientific research institutes at NIH. 

Rovner: Anthony Fauci’s wife was pushed out— 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: —as the head of the office of bioethics at NIH. 

Cohrs Zhang: Truly, and I think we had heard that some of these more politically sensitive center leader positions would be at risk. We’ve heard this for a very long time, but it seems like they took advantage of the chaos to implement some of these high-level cuts to people that they may have disagreed with. But, like, people will be filling those positions. I don’t know that there’s a cost-saving argument there. But it certainly seems like they were trying to push out senior leaders with a lot of experience. 

Rovner: It also feels like, the way that people were let go seems, to put it bluntly, purposely cruel, like sending out RIF [reduction in force] notices at 5 a.m. and then having people find out they’ve been let go when they stand in long lines only to find out that their IDs no longer work, or CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] employees being directed to contact a person who died last year. Is there a strategy here? Lauren, you wanted to add something. 

Weber: I wrote a story on the CMS employees being told to contact someone who was dead. And I spoke to one of this woman Anita Pinder’s former colleagues who said she was just heartbroken. She said CMS employees who got that email had gone to this woman’s funeral, and what a gut punch. She said, Look — this person who was talking to me is a former CMS employee — said: Look, you know, there always is a way to reorganize. It’s not that there isn’t waste or ability to consolidate or streamline in the federal government. She’s like, That’s not my problem. My problem, this woman told me, was that it was done in such a way that you really can’t take that back. People getting a dead woman’s name as their point of contact to contest their firings is something that is difficult to take back. 

Rovner: I guess my question is: Is this just sloppy, or are they actually trying to be cruel in this? Because it certainly feels like they’re trying to be cruel. 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s possible. It’s both, a combination, one or the other. Again, it seems like the people who are doing this are not expert, right? They didn’t actually take the time to assess HHS and all what the agency does to understand what people do for the government beyond just looking at their job titles. And so some of it may be intentional cruelty, and some of it just may be really just rushing and not understanding the process. I mean, there were other notices at FDA that were signed by somebody that no longer worked there. People’s performance scores were wrong. The sense is they didn’t follow the normal process of, like, when you do a RIF, you have to give — there’s certain people that get preferences and who stays and who goes and whether it’s veteran status, disability, all those things. 

And I think some of that will probably result in legal challenges down the line, including they got rid of certain offices, or everybody in them, that were mandated by Congress. So some of it’s probably sloppy, but some of it is — right? — they don’t really care how they treat people, because there is like a very clear message that comes from their rhetoric of kind of lack of respect for government bureaucracy. 

Rovner: And I know some of these senior leaders, they figured out that they can’t just summarily fire them. So a number of them were offered transfers to the Indian Health Service in places like Alaska and Montana, and they were given 36 hours to decide whether they would accept the transfer. And we are told that Secretary Kennedy is very concerned about Native populations and the Indian Health Service, which is short of workers in a lot of places. But this seemed to be insulting to both the people who were given these quote-unquote “transfers” and to the Indian Health Service, because it wasn’t sending the Indian Health Service what it actually needs, which are practitioners, doctors and nurses, and laboratory workers. It was sending research analysts and bench scientists and people whose qualifications do not match what the IHS needs. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. They wanted to send, I think, the FDA’s tobacco head to the IHS to do, I think, medical care. So it enraged people in the IHS. 

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the Native population was really thrilled about this, either. Lauren, you wanted to add something. 

Weber: Yeah, I would just say that this is a playbook the Trump administration has executed in other government agencies. Members of the FBI, top leaders of the FBI were reassigned to child sex trafficking crimes or faraway distant lands in the hopes of getting them to resign. So, I think we are seeing that play out at HHS, but it certainly is a tactic they’ve used in other federal agencies to, quote-unquote, “drain the swamp.” 

Rovner: Right. And in the first Trump administration, they did move some offices out of Washington to the middle of the country, if you will, and most people obviously didn’t go. And now there’s a lot of expertise that, again, that we lost. I think that really can’t be overstated, is how much expertise is being pushed out the door right now, in terms of things that, as I said, this administration says that it wants to do or get accomplished. Meanwhile, Secretary Kennedy has been invited — or should I say summoned — to come testify next week before the Senate health committee at the behest of Republican Chairman Bill Cassidy, Democratic ranking member Bernie Sanders. So far Congress has mostly just been kind of sitting back and watching all of this happen. Is there any indication that that’s about to change? 

Karlin-Smith: I think Democrats are pushing a little bit harder, but I’m not sure they have enough power or have enough, again, momentum yet to actually do what they can with their power. I’m interested to see how Cassidy handles this hearing going forward because his statement the day of the big reduction in force seemed to suggest that the media was maybe unfairly reporting on it and that Kennedy may have another side to the story to share to justify it. And it didn’t sound like somebody that was necessarily going to go particularly hard at RFK. It seemed like somebody who wanted to give him a chance to justify his moves. But we’ll see what happens. I think Cassidy has been, despite RFK walking back a lot of his promises he made to Cassidy around vaccines and so forth, Cassidy has not been that willing to go hard on him so far. 

Rovner: Yeah, the other thing we’ve seen is that most of the big health groups that you would expect to be out on the front lines, hair on fire, have actually been keeping their heads down through most of these huge changes. But that seems to be maybe changing a little bit, too. This is a pretty dramatic change to get not a huge response from. I’ve seen way lesser changes get way bigger responses. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think I spend a lot of time thinking about what is going to be the last straw for some of these organizations. And I think we saw some more effective organizing from the, like, medical device industry when actual medical device reviewers were laid off, and I think they went public pretty quickly, and those people were rehired. But I think it’s important to remember that some of these larger trade organizations in these companies are looking at a broader picture here. And there are all these different pieces of the puzzle. And certainly I think we’ve seen some trade groups that represent, like, pharmaceutical companies criticize some of the cutbacks at HHS, but also for now they were spared in a tariff announcement this week. 

And so I think they are trying to walk this tightrope where they have to figure out how to get the wins that they think they need and take losses in other place, and hope it kind of all evens out for them. So, I think they’re in a tough situation, and I think there’s much more concern behind the scenes than we’re seeing spill out into the public. But I think at some point maybe the line will be crossed, and I just don’t think we’ve seen that quite yet. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think the dam is definitely starting to break a bit, though. I was shocked — I guess, what day was it, Tuesday, when all this happened? — when finally late in the day, pharma sent a statement, and it was more scathing than you might even expect. And I think it was the first time they’ve actually responded to anything I’ve asked them to respond to that the administration does. And they said that it’s going to raise crucial questions about the FDA’s ability to fulfill its role. And so I think that is a big sign because, as Rachel mentioned, the medical device community was willing to stick their neck out there when they felt they were really harmed. Smaller trade associations have been starting to push back, but the silence has really been notable, and notable I think by people outside who were hoping that these powerful industries that have sort of more connections to the Republican Party would use that leverage, and they sort of felt abandoned by them. So, I think that is a significant crack to follow. 

Rovner: I feel like everybody’s waiting for somebody else to stand up and see if they get their head chopped off. I agree. I mean, I’m hearing, quietly, I’m hearing the concern, too, but publicly not so much. Well, moving to Capitol Hill, Congress is in this week. Well, they were in. We’ll get to the House in a minute. But first in the Senate, New Jersey’s Cory Booker set a new record for holding the floor, which is saying something for a place where being long-winded is basically a prerequisite. Twenty-five hours and five minutes, besting by almost an hour the 1957 filibuster against the Civil Rights Act by Strom Thurmond of South Carolina. Much of what Booker talked about during his more than a day on the Senate floor was health care. Is this still the issue that Democrats are hoping to ride to their political return? 

Weber: I was going to say, if the massive Medicaid cuts that are forecast come through, I do think that will be the midterm political return of Democrats. I think the writing is on the wall politically for Republicans if those do go through, which is why I think you’re seeing a lot of Republican leaders start to say: Oh, no. No, no, no. We don’t want some of these Medicaid cuts like this. But to be determined how that actually plays out. 

Rovner: Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that Democrats are just trying to figure out something that will break through to people. They’re just trying to throw spaghetti at the wall and see if there’s some strategy they can find to get through to people. And I think this, just given the viewership of Sen. Booker’s speech, seemed to break through in a way and felt like even though Democrats do have really limited levers of power in Washington right now, that at least somebody was doing something, you know. And that’s kind of the takeaway that I had from that speech. 

But I will say I think Congressman Jake Auchincloss appeared after White House adviser Calley Means criticized the scientific establishment and HHS and was defending these cuts, and Congressman Auchincloss, I think, did have a more forceful tone in pushing back and just arguing for the scientific advances that have happened and had some really camera-ready little tidbits about the new administration being run by like conspiracy theorists and podcast bros. And I think they’re trying to figure out how to push back and how to get through to people and what approaches are going to work. And I think that was just a new tactic that we saw break through. 

Rovner: Well, if the Democrats did want to make a statement about Medicaid, they could make a stand against President Trump’s nominee to head the Medicaid program, as well as Medicare and the ACA [Affordable Care Act], Dr. Mehmet Oz. That vote is scheduled in the Senate for today after we finish taping. But we’re not really seeing that much pushback. Are we, Lauren? 

Weber: Not so far. I guess we’ll see. We’re taping before this happens. But Mehmet Oz really waltzed through his confirmation hearing process. It’s rare that you see someone who will lead such a massive agency on health care mention the multiple Daytime Emmys he’s won, but I think that helped in his charming of legislators. His daytime bona fides were on high display. He was able to dodge multiple questions about what he would do about cuts to Medicaid, and even Democratic senators were inviting him to come to church. I would be surprised if we see some sort of big stand today. 

Rovner: He was super well prepped, which we said — we did a special after the hearing — which is of all of the Trump nominees, I think he was the best prepped of anybody I’ve seen. He was ready with tidbits from every single member of the committee. But I will say that, going back years, and as I said, you know, 40 years, this is a position that one party or the other has frequently blocked, not for reasons that the nominee was not qualified but because they wanted to make a point about something that was going on at the agency. And it kind of surprises me that we haven’t seen that sort of thing. There were years where we did not have a Senate-approved head of Medicare and Medicaid. Sarah, as you pointed out, there were years when we didn’t have a Senate-approved head of the FDA for the same reason. Had nothing to do with the nominee. Had everything to do with the party that was out of power trying to use that as leverage to make a point. And we’re just not even seeing the Democrats try that. 

Weber: I guess we’ll see this afternoon. You could be forecasting what’s going to happen, Julie. But I think on top of him being well prepped, Oz does have a history in health care, is a very accomplished surgeon. But what is fascinating to me is that he’s coming back to the Senate after a 2014 grilling by the Senate on his pushing of supplements and other things for, quote, “fat blasting” and, quote, “weight loss” products. And it’s just the turnaround of daytime TV star to failed Senate candidate to potential administrator for CMS, which runs hundreds of millions Americans’ health insurance, potentially at a very consequential period in which there are massive cuts to them, is really going to be something. 

Rovner: Yes. Yet another eye-opening thing out of this administration. Well, over in the House, things are a little more confusing. On Tuesday, the usually unified Republicans rejected a rule, normally a party-line , because Speaker Mike Johnson was using it to avoid a vote on a bill that would allow new parents to vote by proxy, basically granting them parental leave. I did not have this fight on my bingo card for this year. It’s actually less a partisan fight than one between younger — read, childbearing age — members of Congress and older ones from both parties. I’m kind of surprised that this of all things is what stopped the House from doing business this week. 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think that it is an interesting contrast here because House Republicans have had this very pro-family rhetoric in the campaign, but they also have been so against remote work in any fashion, and members of Congress travel really far. There’s a time in pregnancy when you can no longer fly on a plane. And so I think given Republicans’ really, really slim majority in the House, it puts them in kind of a pickle where they need these votes to keep the majority, but it kind of sits at the intersection of all these different forces at play. So, I think, yeah, just a really weird political pickle that House Republicans have found themselves in this week. 

Rovner: Yeah, and of course this was a member of the House Freedom Caucus, a Republican member of the House Freedom Caucus, who was pushing this, who got a majority of the House to sign her discharge petition, which is supposed to bring this bill to the floor. So, we will see how that one plays out. Obviously, with everything else that’s going on, it’s not the biggest story, but it sure is interesting. 

Well, the big non-health news of the week are the tariffs that President Trump announced in the Rose Garden Wednesday afternoon. There is a health care angle to this story. The tariffs reportedly include at least some drugs and drug ingredients that are manufactured overseas. This, again, feels like it’s going to do exactly the opposite of what the president says he wants to do in terms of reducing drug prices, right? 

Weber: I mean, yes, yes. That would seem to be exactly how that is likely to go. Even look at drugs we get from Canada. They’re going to have tariffs on them. I think we have to wait and see exactly what happens. Trump has had a history of proposing these and then taking them back. Obviously these are much more sweeping than the ones we’ve seen so far. So, I think it, the jury is out on how exactly this will play out over the next couple weeks. 

Rovner: Right. And I said there’s also the exception process, right? 

Karlin-Smith: So, yeah, there’s been I think a lot of confusion and lack of clarity around exactly what happened yesterday here. It seems like the drug industry did get some key exemptions, but people are trying to kind of clarify some of those, including, like: Do you just apply to finished product? Do ingredients that they need lower down in the supply chain get impacted? So, I think it seems like pharma at least got some amount of a win here and got some of the typical exemptions for medicines, but people are not confident in all of that and how it’s going to play out. And I’ve seen sort of mixed reactions from analysts in the space. But yeah, it’s just like other parts of the economy that people have talked about with tariffs. It’s not entirely clear how the average American consumer would actually benefit from these tariffs versus having to just pay more money for goods. 

Rovner: We are apparently going to tariff penguins from islands off the coast of Australia. That much we seem clear on this morning. Turning to abortion, this week, as we mentioned last week, the Supreme Court heard a case out of South Carolina testing whether a state can kick Planned Parenthood not just out of the federal Family Planning Program, Title X, but whether Planned Parenthood can be disallowed from providing Medicaid services as well. Now, Planned Parenthood gets way more money from Medicaid than it does from Title X, and neither program allows the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. I will say that again: Neither program allows the use of federal funds to pay for abortion. Interestingly, it seems the high court might actually be leaning towards Planned Parenthood in this case, not because the conservative justices have any sympathy towards Planned Parenthood but because the court has fairly recently made it clear that the provision of Medicaid law that says patients can choose any qualified provider actually means what it says: The patient can choose any qualified provider. 

At the same time, though, the Trump administration this week declined to distribute a big swath of that Title X funding. And you have to wonder whether, even if Planned Parenthood wins this South Carolina case, what’s going to be left of either Title X or the Medicaid program. Possibly a Pyrrhic victory coming here? It seems that this administration is just whacking things, and even if the court ultimately says you can’t kick them out, there’s going to be nothing for them to stay in. 

Karlin-Smith: Well, the any-willing-provider debate struck me as sort of most interesting here because that type of clause seems to be something you typically see conservatives want to put into a government health program. They don’t feel comfortable kind of restricting people and choices in that way around who they see. So that was one of the elements of this case. The other thing that I think is being watched is this argument that the state is making around, like, how you enforce disagreements, I guess, around how the Medicaid program is being operated. And that seems like it could have a lot of long-lasting impacts as well if people, depending on if the court weighs in on that and so forth, just what rights people have to contest problematic decisions made in state Medicaid programs. 

Rovner: Yeah, for the first hour of the debate, the word “abortion” wasn’t mentioned. The word “Planned Parenthood” wasn’t mentioned. This was really about whether patients actually have a right to sue over not being able to get the kind of care that they want, which has been a long-standing fight in Medicaid, back to, I think, pretty much the beginning of Medicaid. So, we’ll see how this one comes out. Well, turning to the states and another case we have talked about, Texas wants to prosecute a New York doctor who was acting legally under New York law from prescribing abortion pills via telemedicine to a Texas patient. The latest is that the court clerk in Ulster County, New York, has refused to file a judgment for the $100,000 fine that Texas says the New York doctor owes. 

At the other end of the spectrum, in Georgia, meanwhile, lawmakers held a hearing on a bill that would — and I’m quoting from a Georgia state news service here — “ban abortions in Georgia from the moment of fertilization and codify it as a felony homicide crime unless a pregnant woman was threatened with violence to have the procedure.” Now, under this bill, both the woman and the doctor could be charged with murder. This bill is unlikely to be enacted this year, but I feel like the Overton window on this continues to move towards maybe punishing women with poor pregnancy outcomes. 

Karlin-Smith: Well, and punishing women who have trouble getting pregnant, as some of the opponents of this bill are arguing. It’s not clear whether it will really be possible to do IVF procedures if the bill was enacted how it was written. And even it seems like some of the reason why some pretty anti-abortion groups are concerned about this law, because they feel uncomfortable that it’s penalizing or going after the woman rather than other people involved in the abortion system. 

Rovner: I feel like we’ve been creeping this direction for a while, though. Obviously, this bill’s probably not going to move this cycle, but it got a hearing. We’ve seen a lot of things like this introduced. We’ve rarely seen it progress to the hearing stage. Another thing that bears watching. So, last week in the segment that I’m now calling “MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] in the States,” we talked about West Virginia banning food dyes and additives. Well, hold my beer — um, make that water, says Utah. Utah has now become the first state to ban fluoride in public water systems, something takes effect next month. Lauren, I feel like states are rushing to match RFK Jr. Is that what we’re seeing? 

Weber: There is some interest at the state level, but I also think it speaks to RFK’s limitations. I think everybody always thinks the game is always in D.C., but there’s a lot the states can do. And so I think it’ll be fascinating to kind of see how this continues to play out. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will keep watching it. All right, that is this week’s health news. Now we will play my interview with KFF Health News’ Julie Appleby. Then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast KFF Health News’ other Julie, Julie Appleby, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Julie, welcome back. 

Julie Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, this month’s patient is yet another with a gigantic colonoscopy bill, but there’s a twist with this one. Tell us who he is and, important for this story, what kind of health insurance he has. 

Appleby: Yes, absolutely. His name is Tim Winard, and he lives in Addison, Illinois. He bought his own health insurance after he left his management job to launch his own business. So he shopped around a little bit. This is the first time he’s bought insurance. And he chose a short-term policy, which is good for six months in his state. And the first six months went pretty well. And he was still working on starting his business, so he signed up for another short-term policy with a different insurer. And this one cost about $500 a month. 

Rovner: So, remind us again. What is short-term health insurance? And how is it different from most employer and Affordable Care Act coverage? 

Appleby: Right. These types of policies have been sold for years. They’re generally intended for people who are, like, between jobs or maybe just getting out of school. They’re a temporary bridge to more comprehensive insurance, and as such they are not considered Affordable Care Act-qualified plans. So they don’t have to meet the rules that are set under the Affordable Care Act. So, for example, they might look like comprehensive major medical policies, but they all have sort of significant caveats. And some of these might surprise people who are accustomed to work-based or ACA plans. So, for example, like in Tim Winard’s plan, some set specific dollar caps on certain types of medical care, and sometimes those are, like, per day or per visit or something like that, and they can be sometimes far below what it actually costs. 

And all of them — this is a key difference with ACA plans — all of these types of short-term plans screen applicants for health conditions, and they can reject people because of health problems or exclude those conditions from coverage. Many also do not cover drugs or maternity care. So people really have to read their policies carefully to see what they cover and what they don’t cover. 

Rovner: So this is sort of like pre-ACA. It’s cheap because it doesn’t cover that much. 

Appleby: Exactly. That’s why they can offer them lower premiums. Now, again, some people with a subsidized ACA plan, these are not necessarily cheaper, but for others these are less expensive. 

Rovner: So back to our patient this month. He does what we always advise and calls his insurance company before he goes for this, because it is obviously scheduled care, not an emergency. What did they tell him? 

Appleby: Well, I think he only asked where he could go. He was concerned that he would go to a facility that was in-network, and they told him he could pretty much go anywhere. He did not ask about cost in that phone call. 

Rovner: Yeah, so he gets his colonoscopy. Everything turns out OK medically. And then, as we say, the bill comes. How big was it? 

Appleby: He was left owing $7,226 after his plan paid about $817 towards the bill. They got a little bit of a discount for being insured, but then he was still left owing more than $7,000. 

Rovner: And what was the explanation for him owing that much? Just a reminder that this should have been fully covered if he’d had an ACA plan, right? 

Appleby: That’s correct. Under the ACA, screening colonoscopies and other types of cancer screenings are covered without a copay for the patient. But he didn’t have an ACA plan here. So, what was the explanation? Well, this time he did email his insurance company, which is Companion Life Insurance of Columbia, South Carolina, and they wrote him back, and they told him his policy classified the procedure and all of its costs, including the anesthesia, under his policy’s outpatient surgery facility benefit. What is that? you might ask. Well, in his policy, that benefit caps insurance payments within that facility to a maximum of a thousand dollars per day. So, the most they were going to pay towards this was a thousand dollars, because they classified the whole thing as an outpatient procedure with that cap. And this surprised Winard because he thought the cancer screening was covered and he would only owe 20% of the bill, not almost the entire thing, basically. 

Rovner: So how did this eventually work out? 

Appleby: Well, we reached out and tried to reach Companion Life, and we also talked to Scott Wood, who works as a program manager and is a co-founder of a marketing company that markets Companion Life and other insurance plans. And he thought there was some room for interpretation in the billing and in the policy language. So he asked Companion Life to take another look. And shortly after that, Winard said he was contacted by his insurer, and a representative told him that upon reconsideration the bill had been adjusted. And he wasn’t really given a reason why that happened, but as it turns out his new bill showed he owed only $770. 

Rovner: Which is, I assume, about what he expected when he went into this, right? 

Appleby: That’s, yes, correct. He didn’t think he was going to have to pay as much as it was initially billed at. 

Rovner: So, what’s the takeaway here other than to come to us if you have a bill that you can’t deal with? 

Appleby: Right. Well, I think experts say to be very cautious and read the plans very carefully if you’re shopping for a short-term plan. And realize they have some of these limits and they may not cover everything. They may not cover preexisting conditions. And this could become more widespread in the coming years as — short-term plans have been somewhat of a political football. So, out of concern that people would choose them over more comprehensive coverage, President Barack Obama’s administration limited them to terms of three months. Those rules were lifted during the first Trump administration, and he allowed the plans to again be sold as 364-day policies, just one day short of a year, and then you could try to get another one. Or in some cases the insurer could opt to renew them. 

And then Joe Biden came in, and President Biden called them “junk insurance,” and he restricted the policies to four months. So, it’s been bouncing back and forth, back and forth. Everybody really expects the Trump administration to do what it did the last time and make them available for longer periods. So I think if we’re going to hear more about short-term plans. They may become more common. And again, it’s just a matter of trying to understand what you’re buying, and why they might be less expensive in your mind than an ACA plan, but they might not turn out to be. 

Rovner: And you can always ask for an estimate, right? 

Appleby: And always ask for an estimate. That’s a given. Experts always say, before any kind of scheduled procedure, call your insurer, call the provider, ask for an estimate on how much this might cost you out-of-pocket. 

Rovner: Good. And if all else fails, then you can write to us. 

Appleby: There you go. 

Rovner: Julie Appleby, thank you very much. 

Appleby: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now it’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s where we each recognize a story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week? 

Cohrs Zhang: All right. My extra credit is a piece in The Wall Street Journal, and the headline is “FDA Punts on Major COVID-19 Vaccine Decision After Ouster of Top Official,” by Liz Essley White. It’s a great story, and I think, as we talked about earlier, I’m thinking about: What are the breaking points for companies, for industries, as they look at how the HHS is changing? And I think one of those metrics is if the FDA starts missing deadlines to approve products. I think this one is a little bit of a special case because it is a covid-19 vaccine, which is, like, the most highly politicized medical product right now. But I think there could be other cases, and I think industry is watching this so closely to see if some of these changes at FDA really do bleed into approvals, whether the approval process will be politicized, whether they’re going to start missing deadlines. And given just the amount of financial support that industry provides to fund routine activities, I think this was kind of a really good marker in this process as we learn what the impacts are. 

Rovner: Yeah, agree. Lauren. 

Weber: I read “Miscarriage and Motherhood” by Ashley Parker, now at The Atlantic. And I’ve got to be honest — if you read it, be in a place where you can cry. It’s an incredibly moving piece about tragedies of miscarriage, and frankly about women’s health care, and how little support and understanding there is in general about what surrounds that entire field. And some of the fascinating parts in it is when Ashley details going in for a D&C [dilation and curettage] and being told that is an abortion. And it’s kind of an interesting interplay between how what words mean, what people understand what words mean, and what exactly parenthood entails in modern America today. 

Rovner: And how extremely common miscarriage is. I think people just don’t realize, because it’s something that’s just not talked about very much. It’s a really beautiful story. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I looked at an MSNBC piece [“Florida Considers Easing Child Labor Laws After Pushing Out Immigrants”] by Ja’han Jones, about Florida considering easing their child labor laws after pushing out immigrants. And, yeah, the state is considering bills that would allow very young teenagers to work overnight, to maybe work at the kinds of jobs that would normally be seen as too unsafe for such young people. And, yeah, it just seems like an interesting sort of consequence of pushing out immigrant workers. But also it comes after some really moving reports over the past few years, too, about just how dangerous some of this work is, and how even under current law that is supposed to prevent this, particularly immigrants and the most vulnerable workers have ended up with young people in this job, and they’ve really — these types of jobs — and they’ve been harmed by it. 

Rovner: Who could have possibly seen this coming? Sorry. My extra credit this week is from Stat, and it’s called “Uber for Nursing is Here — and It’s Not Good for Patients or Nurses,” by Katie J. Wells and Funda Ustek Spilda. And it’s yet another case of something that sounds really good, using an app to help nurses who want to find extra work and set their own schedules get it, and helping facilities that need extra help find workers. But like so many of these things, it’s not as rosy as it appears unless you’re the one that’s collecting the fees from the app. Workers are basically all temps. They may not be familiar with the facilities they’ve been assigned to, much less the patients, which doesn’t always result in optimal care. And they bid against each other for who will do the job for the lowest rate, creating a race to the bottom for wages. It’s another one of those quote-unquote “advances” that’s a lot less than meets the eye. 

All right, that is this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys these days? Rachel, you’re still on LinkedIn, right? 

Cohrs Zhang: Still on LinkedIn. Still on X. I do have a Bluesky account, too. But any and all the places. 

Rovner: Excellent. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I’m at Bluesky, some X, some LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Lauren. 

Weber: I’m still on X, and I am on Bluesky, @LaurenWeberHP. And as a member of — a congressional staffer asked me: Does the “HP” really stand for “health policy”? And yes, it does. So, still there. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Two months into the new administration, federal workers and contractors remain off-balance as the Trump administration ramps up its efforts to cancel jobs and programs — even as federal judges declare many of those efforts illegal and/or unconstitutional.

As it eliminates programs deemed duplicative or unnecessary, however, President Donald Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency is also cutting programs and workers aligned with Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s “Make America Healthy Again” agenda.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Kennedy’s comments this week about allowing bird flu to spread unchecked through farms provided another example of the new secretary of health and human services making claims that lack scientific support and could instead undermine public health.
• The Trump administration is experiencing more pushback from the federal courts over its efforts to reduce and dismantle federal agencies, and federal workers who have been rehired under court orders report returning to uncertainty and instability within government agencies.
• The second Trump administration is signaling it plans to dismantle HIV prevention programs in the United States, including efforts that the first Trump administration started. A Texas midwife is accused of performing illegal abortions. And a Trump appointee resigns after being targeted by a Republican senator.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “The Free-Living Bureaucrat,” by Michael Lewis.

Rachel Roubein: The Washington Post’s “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” by Carolyn Y. Johnson.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KFF Health News’ “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them To Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” by Arthur Allen.

Jessie Hellmann: Stat’s “NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease,” by Elaine Chen.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Wall Street Journal’s “Trump Administration Weighing Major Cuts to Funding for Domestic HIV Prevention,” by Liz Essley White, Dominique Mosbergen, and Jonathan D. Rockoff.
• The Washington Post’s “Disabled Americans Fear Losing Protections if States’ Lawsuit Succeeds,” by Amanda Morris.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Federal Health Work in Flux

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, March 20, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Today we are joined via videoconference by Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post. 

Rachel Roubein: Hi. 

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet. 

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hello. 

Rovner: No interview today, but, as usual, way more news than we can get to, so let us jump right in. In case you missed it, there’s a bonus podcast episode in your feed. After last week’s Senate Finance Committee confirmation hearing for Dr. Mehmet Oz to head the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, my KFF Health News colleagues Stephanie Armour and Rachana Pradhan and I summarized the hearing and caught up on all the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] nomination actions. It will be the episode in your feed right before this one. 

So even without Senate-confirmed heads at — checks notes — all of the major agencies at HHS, the department does continue to make news. First, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new HHS secretary, speaks. Last week it was measles. This week it was bird flu, which he says should be allowed to spread unchecked in chicken flocks to see which birds are resistant or immune. This feels kind of like what some people recommended during covid. Sarah, is there any science to suggest this might be a good idea? 

Karlin-Smith: No, it seems like the science actually suggests the opposite, because doctors and veterinary specialists are saying basically every time you let the infection continue to infect birds, you’re giving the virus more and more chances to mutate, which can lead to more problems down the road. The other thing is they were talking about the way we raise animals, and for food these days, there isn’t going to be a lot of genetic variation for the chickens, so it’s not like you’re going to be able to find a huge subset of them that are going to survive bird flu. 

And then the other thing I thought is really interesting is just it doesn’t seem economically to make the most sense either as well, both for the individual farmers but then for U.S. industry as a whole, because it seems like other countries will be particularly unhappy with us and even maybe put prohibitions on trading with us or those products due to the spread of bird flu. 

Rovner: Yeah, it was eyebrow-raising, let us say. Well, HHS this week also announced its first big policy effort, called Operation Stork Speed. It will press infant formula makers for more complete lists of ingredients, increase testing for heavy metals in formula, make it easier to import formula from other countries, and order more research into the health outcomes of feeding infant formula. This feels like maybe one of those things that’s not totally controversial, except for the part that the FDA [Food and Drug Administration] workers who have been monitoring the infant formula shortage were part of the big DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs. 

Roubein: I talked to some experts about this idea, and, like you said, they thought it kind of sounded good, but they basically needed more details. Like, what does it mean? Who’s going to review these ingredients? To your point, some people did say that the agency would need to staff up, and there was a neonatologist who is heading up infant formula that was hired after the 2022 shortage who was part of the probationary worker terminations. However, when the FDA rescinded the terminations of some workers, so, that doctor has been hired back. So I think that’s worth noting. 

Rovner: Yes. This is also, I guess, where we get to note that Calley Means, one of RFK Jr.’s, I guess, brain trusts in the MAHA movement, has been hired as, I guess, in an Elon Musk-like position in the White House as an adviser. But this is certainly an area where he would expect to weigh in. 

Hellmann: Yeah, I saw he’s really excited about this on Twitter, or X. There’s just been concerns in the MAHA movement, “Make America Healthy Again,” about the ingredients that are in baby formula. And the only thing is I saw that he also retweeted somebody who said that “breast is best,” and I’m just hoping that we’re not going back down that road again, because I feel like public health did a lot of work in pushing the message that formula and breast milk is good for the child, and so that’s just another angle that I’ve been thinking about on this. 

Rovner: Yes, I think this is one of those things that everybody agrees we should look at and has the potential to get really controversial at some point. While we are on the subject of the federal workforce and layoffs, federal judges and DOGE continue to play cat-and-mouse, with lots of real people’s lives and careers at stake. Various judges have ordered the reinstatement, as you mentioned, Rachel, of probationary and other workers. Although in many cases workers have been reinstated to an administrative leave status, meaning they get put back on the payroll and they get their benefits back, but they still can’t do their jobs. At least one judge has said that does not satisfy his order, and this is all changing so fast it’s basically impossible to keep up. But is it fair to say that it’s not a very stable time to be a federal worker? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s probably the nicest possible way to put it. When you talk to federal workers, everybody seems stressed and just unsure of their status. And if they do have a job, it’s often from their perspective tougher to do their job lately, and then they’re just not sure how stable it is. And many people are considering what options they have outside the federal government at this point. 

Rovner: So for those lucky federal workers who do still have jobs, the Trump administration has also ordered everyone back to offices, even if those offices aren’t equipped to accommodate them. FDA headquarters here in Maryland’s kind of been the poster child for this this week. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, FDA is an interesting one because well before covid normalized working from home and transitioned a lot of people to working from home, FDA’s headquarters couldn’t accommodate a lot of the new growth in the agency over the years, like the tobacco part of the FDA. So it was typical that people at least worked part of their workweek at home, and FDA really found once covid gave them additional work-from-home flexibilities, they were able to recruit staff they really, really needed with specialized degrees and training who don’t live near here, and it actually turned out to be quite a benefit from them. 

And now they’re saying everybody needs to be in an office five days a week, and you have people basically cramped into conference rooms. There’s not enough parking. People are trying to review technical scientific data, and you kind of can’t hear yourself think. Or you’re a lawyer — I heard of a situation where people are basically being told, Well, if you need to do a private phone call because of the confidentiality around what you’re doing, go take the call in your car. So I think in addition to all of the concerns people have around the stability of their jobs, there’s now this element of, on a personal level, I think for many of them it’s just made their lives more challenging. And then they just feel like they’re not actually able to do, have the same level of efficiency at their work as they normally would. 

Rovner: And for those who don’t know, the FDA campus is on a former military installation in the Maryland suburbs. It’s not really near any public transportation. So you pretty much have to drive to get there. And I think that the parking lots are not that big, because, as you pointed out, Sarah, the workforce is now bigger than the headquarters was created to accommodate it. And we’re seeing this across the government. This week it happened to be FDA. You have to ask the question: Is this really just an effort to make the government not work, to make federal workers, if they can’t fire them, to make them quit? 

Hellmann: I definitely think that’s part of the underlying goal. If you see some of the stuff that Elon Musk says about the federal workforce, it’s very dismissive. He doesn’t seem to have a lot of respect for the civil servants. And they’ve been running into a lot of pushback from federal judges over many lawsuits targeting these terminations. And so I think just making conditions as frustrating as possible for some of these workers until they quit is definitely part of the strategy. 

Roubein: And I think this is overlaid with the additional buyout offers, the additional early retirement offers. There’s also the reduction-in-force plans that federal workers have been unnerved about, bracing for future layoffs. So it’s very clear that they want to shrink the size of the federal workforce. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve seen a lot of these people, I’ve seen interviews with them, who are being reinstated, but they’re still worried that now they’re going to be RIF-ed. They’re back on the payroll, they’re off the payroll. I mean there’s nothing — this does not feel like a very efficient way to run the federal government. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think that’s what a lot of people are talking about is, again, going back to offices, for many of these people, is not leading to productivity. I talked to one person who said: I’m just leaving my laptop at the office now. I’m not going to take it home and do the extra hours of work that they might’ve normally gotten from me. And that includes losing time to commute. FDA is paying for parking-garage spaces in downtown Silver Spring [Maryland] near the Metro so that they can then shuttle people to the FDA headquarters. I’ve taken buses from that Metro to FDA headquarters. In traffic, that’s a 30-minute drive. They’re spending money on things that, again, I think are not going to in the long run create any government efficiency. 

And in fact, I’ve been talking to people who are worried it’s going to do the opposite, that drug review, device review, medical product review times and things like that are going to slow. We talked about food safety. I think The New York Times had a really good story this week about concerns about losing the people. We need to make sure that baby formula is actually safe. So there’s a lot of contradictions in the messaging of what they’re trying to accomplish and how the actions actually are playing out. 

Rovner: Well, and finally, I’m going to lay one more layer on this. There’s the question of whether you can even put the toothpaste back in the tube if you wanted to. After weeks of back-and-forth, the federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the dissolution of USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] was illegal and probably unconstitutional, and ordered email and computer access restored for the remaining workers while blocking further cuts. But with nearly everybody fired, called back from overseas, and contracts canceled, USAID couldn’t possibly come close to doing what it did before DOGE basically took it apart, right?. 

Karlin-Smith: You hear stories of if someone already takes a new job, they’re lucky enough to find a new job, why are they going to come back? Again, even if you’re brought back, my expectation is a lot of people who have been brought back are probably looking for new jobs regardless because you don’t have that stability. And I think the USAID thing is interesting, too, because again, you have people that were working in all corners of the world and you have partnerships with other countries and contractors that have to be able to trust you moving forward. And the question is, do those countries and those organizations want to continue working with the U.S. if they can’t have that sort of trust? And as people said, the U.S. government was known as, they could pay contractors less because they always paid you. And when you take that away, that creates a lot of problems for negotiating deals to work with them moving forward. 

Rovner: And I think that’s true for federal workers, too. There’s always been the idea that you probably could earn more in the private sector than you can working for the federal government, but it’s always been a pretty stable job. And I think right now it’s anything but, so comes the question of: Are we deterring people from wanting to work for the federal government? Eventually one would assume there’s still going to be a federal government to work for, and there may not be anybody who wants to do it. 

Roubein: Yeah, you saw various hiring authorities given to try and recruit scientists and other researchers who make a lot, lot more in the public health sector, and some of those were a part of the probationary workforce because they had been hired recently under those authorities. 

Rovner: Yeah, and now this is all sort of coming apart. Well, meanwhile, the cuts are continuing even faster than federal judges can rule against them. Last week, the administration said it would reduce the number of HHS regional offices from 10 to four. Considering these are where the department’s major fraud-fighting efforts take place, that doesn’t seem a very effective way of going after fraud and abuse in programs like Medicare and Medicaid. Those regional offices are also where lots of beneficiary protections come from, like inspections of nursing homes and Head Start facilities. How does this serve RFK Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again agenda? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s not clear that it does, right? You’re talking about, again, the Department of Government Efficiency has focused on efficiency, cost savings, and Medicare and Medicaid does a pretty good job of fighting fraud and making HHS OIG [Office of Inspector General], all those organizations, they collect a lot of money back. So when you lose people— 

Rovner: And of course the inspector general has also been laid off in all of this. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. It’s not clear to me, I think one of the things with that whole reorganization of their chief counsel is people are suggesting, again, this is sort of a power move of HHS wanting to get a little bit more control of the legal operations at the lower agencies, whether it’s NIH [the National Institutes of Health] or FDA and so forth. But, right, it’s reducing head count without really thinking about what people’s roles actually were and what you lose when you let them go. 

Rovner: Well, the Trump administration is also continuing to cut grants and contracts that seem like they’d be the kind of things that directly relate to Make America Healthy Again. Jessie, you’ve chosen one of those as your extra credit this week. Tell us about it. 

Hellmann: Yeah. So my story is from Stat [“NIH Cancels Funding for a Landmark Diabetes Study at a Time of Focus on Chronic Disease”], and it’s about a nationwide study that tracks patients with prediabetes and diabetes. And it was housed at Columbia University, which as we know has been the subject of some criticism from the Trump administration. They had lost about $400 million in grants because the administration didn’t like Columbia’s response to some of the protests that were on campus last year. But that has an effect on some research that really doesn’t have much to do with that, including a study that looked at diabetes over a really long period of time. 

So it was able to over decades result in 200 publications about prediabetes and diabetes, and led to some of the knowledge that we have now about the interventions for that. And the latest stage was going to focus on dementia and cognitive impairment, since some of the people that they’ve been following for years are now in their older ages. And now they have to put a stop to that. They don’t even have funding to analyze blood samples that they’ve done and the brain scans that they’ve collected. So it’s just another example of how what’s being done at the administration level is contradicting some of the goals that they say that they have. 

Rovner: Yeah, and it’s important to remember that Columbia’s funding is being cut not because they deemed this particular project to be not helpful but because they are, as you said, angry at Columbia for not cracking down more on pro-Palestinian protesters after Oct. 7. 

Well, meanwhile, people are bracing for still more cuts. The Wall Street Journal is reporting the administration plans to cut domestic AIDS-HIV programming on top of the cuts to the international PEPFAR [President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief] program that was hammered as part of the USAID cancellation. Is fighting AIDS and HIV just way too George W. Bush for this administration? 

Hellmann: It’s interesting because President [Donald] Trump unveiled the Ending the HIV Epidemic initiative in his first term, and the goal was to end the epidemic in the United States. And so if they were talking about reducing some of that funding, or I know there were reports that maybe they would move the funding from CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] to HRSA [the Health Resources and Services Administration], it’s very unclear at this point. Then it raises questions about whether it would undermine that effort. And there’s already actions that the Trump administration has done to undermine the initiative, like the attacks on trans people. They’ve canceled grants to researchers studying HIV. They have done a whole host of things. They canceled funding to HIV services organizations because they have “trans” in their programming or on their websites. So it’s already caused a lot of anxiety in this community. And yeah, it’s just a total turnaround from the first administration. 

Rovner: I know the Whitman-Walker clinic here in Washington, which has long been one of the premier AIDS-HIV clinics, had just huge layoffs. This is already happening, and as you point out, this was something that President Trump in his first term vowed to end AIDS-HIV in the U.S. So this is not one would think how one would go about that. 

Well, it’s not just the administration that’s working to constrict rights and services. A group of 17 states, led by Texas, of course, are suing to have Biden-era regulations concerning discrimination against trans people struck down, except as part of that suit, the states are asking that the entirety of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act be declared unconstitutional. Now, you may never have heard of Section 504, but it is a very big deal. It was the forerunner of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and it prevents discrimination on the basis of disability in all federally funded activities. It is literally a lifeline for millions of disabled people that enables them to live in the community rather than in institutions. Are we looking at an actual attempt to roll back basically all civil rights as part of this war on “woke” and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and trans people? 

Hellmann: The story is interesting, because it seems like some of the attorneys general are saying, That’s not our intent. But if you look at the court filings, it definitely seems like it is. And yeah, like you said, this is something that would just have a tremendous impact. And Medicaid coverage of home- and community-based services is one of those things that states are constantly struggling to pay for. You’re just continuing to see more and more people need these services. Some states have waiting lists, so— 

Rovner: I think most states have waiting lists. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s something, you have to really question what the intent is here. Even if people are saying, This isn’t our intent, it’s pretty black-and-white on paper in the court records, so— 

Rovner: Yeah, just to be clear, this was a Biden administration regulation, updating the rules for Section 504, that included reference to trans people. But in the process of trying to get that struck down, the court filings do, as you say, call for the entirety of Section 504 to be declared unconstitutional. This is obviously one of those court cases that’s still before the district court, so it’s a long way to go. But the entire disability community, certainly it has their attention. 

Well, we haven’t had any big abortion news the past couple of weeks, but that is changing. In Texas, a midwife and her associate have become the first people arrested under the state’s 2022 abortion ban. The details of the case are still pretty fuzzy, but if convicted, the midwife who reportedly worked as an OB-GYN doctor in her native Peru and served a mostly Spanish-speaking clientele, could be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison. So, obviously, be watching that one. Meanwhile, here in Washington, Hilary Perkins, a career lawyer chosen by FDA commissioner nominee Marty Makary to serve as the agency’s general counsel, resigned less than two days into her new position after complaints from Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley that she defended the Biden administration’s position on the abortion pill mifepristone. 

Now, Hilary Perkins is no liberal trying to hide out in the bureaucracy. She’s a self-described pro-life Christian conservative hired in the first Trump administration, but she was apparently forced out for the high crime of doing her job as a career lawyer. Is this administration really going to try to evict anyone who ever supported a Biden position? Will that leave anybody left? 

Roubein: I think what’s notable is Sen. Josh Hawley here, who expressed concerns and I had heard expressed concerns to the White House, and the post on X from the FDA came an hour before the hearing. There were concerns that he was not going to make it out of committee and— 

Rovner: Before the Marty Makary hearing. 

Roubein: Yes, sorry, before the vote in the HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee on Marty Makary. And Hawley said because of that, he would vote to support him. What was interesting is two Democrats actually ended up supporting him, so he could have passed without Hawley’s vote. But I think in general it poses a test for Marty Makary when he’s an FDA commissioner, and how and whether he’s going to get his people in and how he’ll respond to different pressure points in Congress and with HHS and with the White House. 

Rovner: And of course, Hawley’s not a disinterested bystander here, right? 

Karlin-Smith: So his wife was one of the key attorneys in the recent big Supreme Court case that was pushed down to the lower courts for a lack of standing, but she was trying to essentially get tighter controls on the abortion pill mifepristone. But it seems like almost maybe Hawley jumped too soon before doing all of his research or fully understanding the role of people at Justice. Because even before this whole controversy erupted, I had talked to people the day before about this and asked them, “Should we read into this, her being involved in this?” And everybody I talked to, including, I think, a lot of people that have different views than Perkins does on the case, that they were saying she was in a role as a career attorney. You do what your boss, what the administration, wants. 

If you really, really had a big moral problem with that, you can quit your job. But it’s perfectly normal for an attorney in that kind of position to defend a client’s interest and then have another client and maybe have to defend them wrongly. So it seems like if they had just maybe even picked up the phone and had a conversation with her, the whole crisis could have been averted. And she was on CNN yesterday trying to plead her case and, again, emphasize her positions because perhaps she’s worried about her future career prospects, I guess, over this debacle. 

Rovner: Yeah, now she’s going to be blackballed by both sides for having done her job, basically. Anyway, all right, well, one big Biden initiative that looks like it will continue is the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation program. And we think we know this because CMS announced last week that the makers of all of the 15 drugs selected for the second round of negotiations have agreed to, well, negotiate. Sarah, this is news, right? Because we were wondering whether this was really going to go forward. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they’ve made some other signals since taking over that they were going to keep going with this, including last week at his confirmation hearing, Dr. Oz, for CMS, also indicated he seemed like he would uphold that law and they were looking for ways to lower drug costs. So I think what people are going to be watching for is whether they yield around the edges in terms of tweaks the industry wants to the law, or is there something about the prices they actually negotiate that signal they’re not really trying to get them as low as they can go? But this seems to be one populist issue for Trump that he wants to keep leaning into and keep the same consistency, I think, from his first administration, where he always took a pretty hard line on the drug industry and drug pricing. 

Rovner: And I know Ozempic is on that list of 15 drugs, but the administration hasn’t said yet. I assume that’s Ozempic for its original purpose in treating diabetes. This administration hasn’t said yet whether they’ll continue the Biden declaration that these drugs could be available for people for weight loss, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. And I think that’s going to be more complicated because that’s so costly. So negotiating the price of drugs saves money. So yes, basically because Ozempic and Wegovy are the same drug, that price should be available regardless of the indication. But I’m more skeptical that they continue that policy, because of the cost and also just because, again, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy seems to be particularly skeptical of the drugs, or at least using that as a first line of defense, widespread use, reliance on that. He tends to, in general, I think, support other ways of medical, I guess, treatment or health treatments before turning to pharmaceuticals. 

Rovner: Eating better and exercising. 

Karlin-Smith: Correct, right. So I think that’s going to be a hard sell for them because it’s just so costly. 

Rovner: We will see. All right, that is as much news as we have time for this week. Now, it is time for our extra-credit segment, that’s where we each recognize the story we read this week we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss it. We will put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Jessie, you’ve done yours already this week. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Roubein: My extra credit, the headline is “Her Research Grant Mentioned ‘Hesitancy.’ Now Her Funding Is Gone.” In The Washington Post by my colleague Carolyn Y. Johnson. And I thought the story was particularly interesting because it really dove into the personal level. You hear about all these cuts from a high level, but you don’t always really know what it means and how it came about. So the backstory is the National Institutes of Health terminated dozens of research grants that focused on why some people are hesitant to accept vaccines. 

And Carolyn profiled one researcher, Nisha Acharya, but there was a twist, and the twist was she doesn’t actually study how to combat vaccine hesitancy or ways to increase vaccine uptake. Instead, she studies how well the shingles vaccine works to prevent the infection, with a focus on whether the shot also prevents the virus from affecting people’s eyes. But in the summary of her project, she had used the word “hesitancy” once and used the word “uptake” once. And so this highlights the sweeping approach to halting some of these vaccine hesitancy research grants. 

Rovner: Yeah that was like the DOD [Department of Defense] getting rid of the picture of the Enola Gay, the plane that dropped the atomic bomb, because it had the word “Gay” in it. This is the downside, I guess, of using AI for these sorts of things. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a KFF story by Arthur Allen, “Scientists Say NIH Officials Told Them to Scrub mRNA References on Grants,” and it’s about NIH officials urging people to remove any reference to mRNA vaccine technology from their grants. And the story indicates it’s not yet clear if that is going to translate to defunding of such research, but the implications are quite vast. I think most people probably remember the mRNA vaccine technology is really what helped many of us survive the covid pandemic and is credited with saving millions of lives, but the technology promise seems vast even beyond infectious diseases, and there’s a lot of hope for it in cancer. 

And so this has a lot of people worried. It’s not particularly surprising, I guess, because again, the anti-vaccine movement, which Kennedy has been a leader of, has been particularly skeptical of the mRNA technology. But it is problematic, I think, for research. And we spent a lot of time on this call talking about the decimation of the federal workforce that may happen here, and I think this story and some of the other things we talked about today also show how we may just decimate our entire scientific research infrastructure and workforce in the U.S. outside of just the federal government, because so much of it is funded by NIH, and the decisions they’re making are going to make it impossible for a lot of scientists to do their job. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’re also seeing scientists going to other countries, but that’s for another time. Well, my extra credit this week, probably along the same lines, also from The Washington Post. It’s part of a series called “Who Is Government?” This particular piece [“The Free-Living Bureaucrat”] is by bestselling author Michael Lewis, and it’s a sprawling — and I mean sprawling — story of how a mid-level FDA employee who wanted to help find new treatments for rare diseases ended up not only figuring out a cure for a child who was dying of a rare brain amoeba but managed to obtain the drug for the family in time to save her. It’s a really good piece, and it’s a really excellent series that tells the stories of mostly faceless bureaucrats who actually are working to try to make the country a better place. 

OK, that’s this week’s show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our producer, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, and at Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys these days? Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: A little bit everywhere. X, Bluesky, LinkedIn — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on X and Bluesky, and I’m also on LinkedIn more these days. 

Rovner: Great. Rachel. 

Roubein: @rachelroubein at Bluesky, @rachel_roubein on X, and also on LinkedIn. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As part of a media blitz aimed at women voters, Vice President Kamala Harris this week rolled out a plan for Medicare to provide in-home long-term care services. It’s popular, particularly for families struggling to care for both young children and older relatives, but its enormous expense has prevented similar plans from being implemented for decades.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden called out former President Donald Trump by name for having “led the onslaught of lies” about the federal efforts to help people affected by hurricanes Helene and Milton. Even some Republican officials say the misinformation about hurricane relief efforts is threatening public health.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris’ plan to expand Medicare to cover more long-term care is popular but not new, and in the past has proved prohibitively expensive.
• Former President Donald Trump has abandoned support for a drug price policy he pursued during his first term. The idea, which would lower drug prices in the U.S. to their levels in other industrialized countries, is vehemently opposed by the drug industry, raising the question of whether Trump is softening his hard line on the issue.
• Abortion continues to be the biggest health policy issue of 2024, as Republican candidates — in what seems to be a replay of 2022 — try to distance themselves from their support of abortion bans and other limits. Voters continue to favor reproductive rights, which creates a brand problem for the GOP. Trump’s going back and forth on his abortion positions is an exception to the tack other candidates have taken.
• The Supreme Court returned from its summer break and immediately declined to hear two abortion-related cases. One case pits Texas’ near-total abortion ban against a federal law that requires emergency abortions to be performed in certain cases. The other challenges a ruling earlier this year from the Alabama Supreme Court finding that embryos frozen for in vitro fertilization have the same legal rights as born humans.
• The 2024 KFF annual employer health benefits survey, released this week, showed a roughly 7% increase in premiums, with average family premiums now topping $25,000 per year. And that’s with most employers not covering two popular but expensive medical interventions: GLP-1 drugs for weight loss and IVF.

Also this week, excerpts from a KFF lunch with “Shark Tank” panelist and generic drug discounter Mark Cuban, who has been consulting with the Harris campaign about health care issues.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly.

Shefali Luthra: The 19th’s “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” by Mel Leonor Barclay.

Jessie Hellmann: The Assembly’s “Helene Left Some NC Elder-Care Homes Without Power,” by Carli Brosseau.

Joanne Kenen: The New York Times’ “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It,” by Kate Morgan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Biden Accuses Trump of ‘Outright Lies’ About Hurricane Response,” by Michael D. Shear.
• The Miami Herald’s “Florida Threatens To Prosecute TV Stations Over Abortion Ad. FCC Head Calls It ‘Dangerous,’” by Claire Healy and Ana Ceballos.
• KFF’s “2024 Employer Health Benefits Survey.”

Click to open the Transcript

Transcript: Yet Another Promise for Long-Term Care Coverage

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

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

Today we are joined via teleconference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: Jesse Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have some excerpts from the Newsmaker lunch we had here at KFF this week with Mark Cuban — “Shark Tank” star, part-owner of the Dallas Mavericks NBA team, and, for the purposes of our discussion, co-founder of the industry-disrupting pharmaceutical company Cost Plus Drugs. But first, this week’s news. 

We’re going to start this week with Vice President [Kamala] Harris, who’s been making the media rounds on women-focused podcasts and TV shows like “The View.” To go along with that, she’s released a proposal to expand Medicare to include home-based long-term care, to be paid for in part by expanding the number of drugs whose price Medicare can negotiate. Sounds simple and really popular. Why has no one else ever proposed something like that? she asks, knowing full well the answer. Joanne, tell us! 

Kenen: As the one full-fledged member of the sandwich generation here, who has lived the experience of being a family caregiver while raising children and working full time, long-term care is the unfulfillable, extremely expensive, but incredibly important missing link in our health care system. We do not have a system for long-term care, and people do not realize that. Many people think Medicare will, in fact, cover it, where Medicare covers it in a very limited, short-term basis. So the estimates of what families spend both in terms of lost work hours and what they put out-of-pockets is in, I think it’s something like $400 billion. It’s extraordinarily high. But the reason it’s been hard to fix is it’s extraordinarily expensive. And although Harris put out a plan to pay for this, that plan is going to have to be vetted by economists and budget scorers and skeptical Republicans. And probably some skeptical Democrats. It’s really expensive. It’s really hard to do. Julie has covered this for years, too. It’s just— 

Rovner: I would say this is where I get to say one of my favorite things, which is that I started covering health care in 1986, and in 1986 my first big feature was: Why don’t we have a long-term care policy in this country? Thirty-eight years later, and we still don’t, and not that people have not tried. There, in fact, was a long-term-care-in-the-home piece of the Affordable Care Act that passed Congress, and HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] discovered that they could not implement it in the way it was written, because only the people who would’ve needed it would’ve signed up for it. It would’ve been too expensive. And there it went. So this is the continuing promise of something that everybody agrees that we need and nobody has ever been able to figure out how to do. Shefali, I see you nodding here. 

Luthra: I mean, I’m just thinking again about the pay-fors in here, which are largely the savings from Medicare negotiating drug prices. And what Harris says in her plan is that they’re going to get more savings by expanding the list of drugs that get lower prices. But that also feels very politically suspect when we have already heard congressional Republicans say that they would like to weaken some of those drug negotiation price provisions. And we also know that Democrats, even if they win the presidency, are not likely to have Congress. It really takes me back to 2020, when we are just talking about ideas that Democrats would love to do if they had full power of Congress, while all of us in Washington kind of know that that is just not going to happen. 

Rovner: Yes, I love that one of the pay-fors for this is cutting Medicare fraud. It’s like, where have we heard that before? Oh, yes. In every Medicare proposal for the last 45 years. 

Kenen: And it also involves closing some kind of international tax loopholes, and that also sounds easy on paper, and nothing with taxes is ever easy. The Democrats probably are not going to have the Senate. Nobody really knows about the House. It looks like the Democrats may have a narrow edge in that, but we’re going to have more years of gridlock unless something really changes politically, like something extraordinary changes politically. The Republicans are not going to give a President Harris, if she is in fact President Harris, her wish list on a golden platter. On the other hand there’s need for this. 

Rovner: But in fairness, this is what the campaign is for. 

Kenen: Right. There is a need for something on long-term care. 

Rovner: And everybody’s complaining: Well, what would she do? What would she do if she was elected? Well, here’s something she said she would do if she could, if she was elected. Well, meanwhile, former President [Donald] Trump has apparently abandoned a proposal that he made during his first term to require drugmakers to lower their prices for Medicare to no more than they charge in other developed countries where their prices are government-regulated. Is Trump going soft on the drug industry? Trump has been, what, the Republican, I think, who’s been most hostile towards the drug industry until now. 

Hellmann: I would say maybe. I think the “most favored nation” proposal is something that the pharmaceutical industry has feared even more than the Democrats’ Medicare negotiation program. And it’s something that Trump really pursued in his first term but wasn’t able to get done. In such a tight race, I think he’s really worried about angering pharmaceutical companies, especially after they were just kind of dealt this loss with Medicare price negotiation. And if he does win reelection, he’s going to be kind of limited in his ability to weaken that program. It’s going to be hard to repeal it. It’s extremely popular, and he may be able to weaken it. 

Rovner: “It” meaning price negotiation, not the “most favored nations” prices. 

Hellmann: Yeah. It’s going to be really hard to repeal that, and he may be able to weaken it through the negotiation process with drug companies. It’s definitely an interesting turn. 

Rovner: Joanne, you want to add something? 

Kenen: Trump rhetorically was very harsh on the drug companies right around the time of his inauguration. I think it was the week before, if I remember correctly. Said a lot of very tough stuff on drugs. Put out a list of something like dozens of potential steps. The drug companies have lots of allies in both parties, and more in one than the other, but they have allies on the Hill, and nothing revolutionary happened on drug pricing under Trump. 

Rovner: And his HHS secretary was a former drug company executive. 

Kenen: Yes, Eli Lilly. So we also pointed out here that former President Trump is not consistent in policy proposals. He says one thing, and then he says another thing, and it’s very hard to know where he’s going to come down. So Trump and drug pricing is an open question. 

Rovner: Yes, we will see. All right, well, moving on. Drug prices and Medicare aside, the biggest health issue of Campaign 2024 continues to be abortion and other reproductive health issues. And it’s not just Trump trying to back away from his anti-abortion record. We’ve had a spate of stories over the past week or so of Republicans running for the House, the Senate, and governorships who are trying to literally reinvent themselves as, if not actually supportive of abortion rights, at least anti abortion bans. And that includes Republicans who have not just voted for and advocated for bans but who have been outspokenly supportive of the anti-abortion effort, people like North Carolina Republican gubernatorial candidate Mark Robinson, New Hampshire Republican gubernatorial candidate and former U.S. Senator Kelly Ayotte, along with former Michigan Republican representative and now Senate candidate Mike Rogers. Donald Trump has gotten away repeatedly, as Joanne just said, with changing his positions, even on hot-button issues like abortion. Are these candidates going to be able to get away with doing the same thing, Shefali? 

Luthra: I think it’s just so much tougher when your name is not Donald Trump. And that’s because we know from focus group after focus group, and survey after survey, that voters kind of give Trump more leeway on abortion. Especially independent voters will look at him and say, Well, I don’t think he actually opposes abortion, because I’m sure he’s paid for them. And they don’t have that same grace that they give to Republican lawmakers and Republican candidates, because the party has a bad brand on abortion at large, and Trump is seen as this kind of maverick figure. But voters know that Republicans have a history of opposing abortion, of supporting restrictions. 

When you look at surveys, when you talk to voters, what they say is, Well, I don’t trust Republicans to represent my interests on this issue, because they largely support access. And one thing that I do think is really interesting is, once again, what we’re seeing is kind of a repeat of the 2022 elections when we saw some very brazen efforts by Republican candidates for the House and Senate try and scrub references to abortion and to fetal personhood from their websites. And it didn’t work, because people have eyes and people have memories, and, also, campaigns have access to the internet archive and are able to show people that, even a few weeks ago, Republican candidates were saying something very different from what they are saying now. I don’t think Mark Robinson can really escape from his relatively recent and very public comments about abortion. 

Rovner: Well, on the other hand, there’s some things that don’t change. Republican vice presidential candidate JD Vance told RealClearPolitics last week that if Trump is elected again, their administration would cut off funding to Planned Parenthood because, he said, and I quote, “We don’t think that taxpayers should fund late-term abortions.” Notwithstanding, of course, that even before the overturn of Roe, less than half of all Planned Parenthoods even performed abortions and almost none of those who did perform them later in pregnancy. Is it fair to say that Vance’s anti-abortion slip is showing? 

Luthra: I think it might be. And I will say, Julie, when I saw that he said that, I could hear you in my head just yelling about the Hyde Amendment, because we know that Planned Parenthood does not use taxpayer money to pay for abortions. But we also know that JD Vance has seen that he and his ticket are kind of in a tough corner talking about abortion. He has said many times, We need to rebrand — he’s very honest about that, at least — and trying to focus instead on this nonmedical term of “late term” abortions. 

It’s a gamble. It’s hoping that voters will be more sympathetic to that because they’ll think, Oh, well, that sounds very extreme. And they’re trying to shift back who is seen as credible and who is not, by focusing on something that historically was less popular. But again, it’s again tricky because when we look at the polling, voters’ understanding of abortion has shifted and they are now more likely to understand that when you have an abortion later in pregnancy, it is often for very medically complex reasons. And someone very high-profile who recently said that is Melania Trump in her new memoir, talking about how she supports abortion at all stages of pregnancy because often these are very heart-wrenching cases and not sort of the murder that Republicans have tried to characterize them as. 

Rovner: I think you’re right. I think this is the continuation of the 2022 campaign, except that we’ve had so many more women come forward. We’ve seen actual cases. It used to be anti-abortion forces would say, Oh, well, this never happened. I mean, these are wrenching, awful things that happened to a lot of these patients with pregnancy complications late in pregnancy. And it is, I know, because I’ve talked to them. It’s very hard to get them to talk publicly, because then they get trolled. Why should they step forward? 

Well, now we’ve seen a lot of these women stepping forward. So we now see a public that knows that this happens, because they’re hearing from the people that it’s happened to and they’re hearing from their doctors. I do know also from the polling that there are people who are going to vote in these 10 states where abortion is on the ballot. Many of them are going to vote for abortion access and then turn around and vote for Republicans who support restrictions, because they’re Republicans. It may or may not be their most important issue, but I still think it’s a big question mark where that happens and how it shakes out. Joanne, did you want to add something? 

Kenen: You’re seeing two competing things at the same time. You have a number of Republicans trying to moderate their stance or at least sound like they’re moderating their stance. At the same time, you also have the whole, where the Republican Party is on abortion has shifted to the right. They are talking about personhood at the moment of conception, the embryo — which is, scientifically put, a small ball of cells still at that point — that they actually have the same legal rights as any other post-birth person. 

So that’s become a fairly common view in the Republican Party, as opposed to something that just five or six years ago was seen as the fringe. And Trump is going around saying that Democrats allow babies to be executed after birth, which is not true. And they’re particularly saying this is true in Minnesota because of [Gov.] Tim Walz, and some voters must believe it, right? Because they keep saying it. So you have this trend that Shefali just described and that you’ve described, Julie, about this sort of attempting to win back trust, as Vance said. And it sounded more moderate, and at the same time as you’re hearing this rhetoric about personhood and execution. So I don’t think the Republicans have yet solved their own whiplash post-Roe. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, the abortion debate is getting mired in the free-speech debate. In Florida, Republican governor Ron DeSantis is threatening legal action against TV stations airing an ad in support of the ballot measure that would overturn the state’s six-week abortion ban. That has in turn triggered a rebuke from the head of the Federal Communications Commission warning that political speech is still protected here in the United States. Shefali, this is really kind of out there, isn’t it? 

Luthra: It’s just so fascinating, and it’s really part of a bigger effort by Ron DeSantis to try and leverage anything that he can politically or, frankly, in his capacity as head of the state to try and weaken the campaign for the ballot measure. They have used the health department in other ways to try and send out material suggesting that the campaign’s talking points, which are largely focused on the futility of exceptions to the abortion ban, they’re trying to argue that that is misinformation, and that’s not true. And they’re using the state health department to make that argument, which is something we don’t really see very often, because usually health departments are supposed to be nonpartisan. And what I will say is, in this case, at least to your point, Julie, the FCC has weighed in and said: You can’t do this. You can’t stop a TV station from airing a political ad that was bought and paid for. And the ads haven’t stopped showing at this point. I just heard from family yesterday in Florida who are seeing the ads in question on their TV, and it’s still— 

Rovner: And I will post a link to the ad just so you can see it. It’s about a woman who’s pregnant and had cancer and needed cancer treatment and needed to terminate the pregnancy in order to get the cancer treatment. It said that the exception would not allow her to, which the state says isn’t true and which is clearly one of these things that is debatable. That’s why we’re having a political debate. 

Luthra: Exactly. And one thing that I think is worth adding in here is, I mean, this really intense effort from Governor DeSantis and his administration comes at a time when already this ballot measure faces probably the toughest fight of any abortion rights measure. And we have seen abortion rights win again and again at the ballot, but in Florida you need 60% to pass. And if you look across the country at every abortion rights measure that has been voted on since Roe v. Wade was overturned, only two have cleared 60, and they are in California and they are in Vermont. So these more conservative-leaning states, and Florida is one of them, it’s just, it’s really, really hard to see how you get to that number. And we even saw this week there’s polling that suggests that the campaign has a lot of work to do if they’re hoping to clear that threshold. 

Rovner: And, of course, now they have two hurricanes to deal with, which we will deal with in a few minutes. But first, the Supreme Court is back in session here in Washington, and even though there’s no big abortion case on its official docket as of now this term, the court quickly declined to hear two cases on its first day back, one involving whether the abortion ban in Texas can override the federal emergency treatment law that’s supposed to guarantee abortion access in medical emergencies threatening the pregnant woman’s life or health. The court also declined to overrule the Alabama Supreme Court’s ruling that frozen embryos can be considered legally as unborn children. That’s what Joanne was just talking about. Where do these two decisions leave us? Neither one actually resolved either of these questions, right? 

Luthra: I mean, the EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] question is still ongoing, not because of the Texas case but because of the Idaho case that is asking very similar questions that we’ve talked about previously on this podcast. And the end of last term, the court kicked that back down to the lower courts to continue making its way through. We anticipate it will eventually come back to the Supreme Court. So this is a question that we will, in fact, be hearing on at some point. 

Rovner: Although, the irony here is that in Idaho, the ban is on hold because there was a court stay. And in Texas, the ban is not on hold, even though we’re talking about exactly the same question: Does the federal law overrule the state’s ban? 

Luthra: And what that kind of highlights — right? — is just how much access to abortion, even under states with similar laws or legislatures, really does depend on so many factors, including what circuit court you fall into or the makeup of your state Supreme Court and how judges are appointed or whether they are elected. There is just so much at play that makes access so variable. And I think the other thing that one could speculate that maybe the court didn’t want headlines around reproductive health so soon into an election, but it’s not as if this is an issue that they’re going to be avoiding in the medium- or long-term future. These are questions that are just too pressing, and they will be coming back to the Supreme Court in some form. 

Rovner: Yes, I would say in the IVF [in vitro fertilization] case, they simply basically said, Go away for now. Right? 

Luthra: Yeah. And, I mean, right now in Alabama, people are largely able to get IVF because of the state law that was passed, even if it didn’t touch the substance of that state court’s ruling. This is something, for now, people can sort of think is maybe uninterrupted, even as we all know that the ideological and political groundwork is being laid for a much longer and more intense fight over this. 

Rovner: Well, remember back last week when we predicted that the judge’s decision overturning Georgia’s six-week ban was unlikely to be the last word? Well, sure enough, the Georgia Supreme Court this week overturned the immediate overturning of the ban, which officially went back into effect on Monday. Like these other cases, this one continues, right? 

Luthra: Yes, this continues. The Georgia case continued for a while, and it just sort of underscores again what we’ve been talking about, just how much access really changes back and forth. And I was talking to an abortion clinic provider who has clinics in North Carolina and Georgia. She literally found out about the decision both times and changed her plans for the next day because I texted her asking her for comment. And providers and patients are being tasked with keeping up with so much. And it’s just very, very difficult, because Georgia also has a 24-hour waiting period for abortions, which means that every time the decision around access has changed — and we know it very well could change again as this case progresses — people will have to scramble very quickly. And in Georgia, they have also been trying to do that on top of navigating the fallout of a hurricane. 

Rovner: Yeah. And as we pointed out a couple of weeks ago when the court overturned the North Dakota ban, there are no abortion providers left in North Dakota. Now that there’s no ban, it’s only in theory that abortion is now once again allowed in North Dakota. Well, before we leave abortion for this week, we have two new studies showing how abortion bans are impacting the health care workforce. In one survey, more than half of oncologists, cancer doctors, who were completing their fellowships, so people ready to go into practice, said they would consider the impact of abortion restrictions in their decisions about where to set up their practice. And a third said abortion restrictions hindered their ability to provide care. 

Meanwhile, a survey of OBGYNs in Texas by the consulting group Manatt Health found “a significant majority of practicing OB/GYN physicians … believe that the Texas abortion laws have inhibited their ability to provide highest-quality and medically necessary care to their patients,” and that many have already made or are considering making changes to their practice that would “reduce the availability of OB/GYN care in the state.” What’s the anti-abortion reaction to this growing body of evidence that abortion bans are having deleterious effects on the availability of other kinds of health care, too? I mean, I was particularly taken by the oncologists, the idea that you might not be able to get cancer care because cancer doctors are worried about treating pregnant women with cancer. 

Luthra: They’re blaming the doctors. And we saw this in Texas when the Zurawski case was argued and women patients and doctors in the state said that they had not been able to get essential, lifesaving medical care because of the state’s abortion ban and lack of clarity around what was actually permitted. And the state argued, and we have heard this talking point again and again, that actually the doctors are just not willing to do the hard work of practicing medicine and trying to interpret, Well, obviously this qualifies. That’s something we’ve seen in the Florida arguments. They say: Our exceptions are so clear, and if you aren’t able to navigate these exceptions, well, that’s your problem, because you are being risk-averse, and patients should really take this up with their doctors, who are just irresponsible. 

Rovner: Yes, this is obviously an issue that’s going to continue. Well, moving on. The cost of health care continues to grow, which is not really news, but this week we have more hard evidence, courtesy of my KFF colleagues via the annual 2024 Employer Health Benefit Survey, which finds the average family premium rose 7% this year to $25,572, with workers contributing an average of $6,296 towards that cost. And that’s with a distinct minority of firms covering two very popular but very expensive medical interventions, GLP-1 [glucagon-like peptide-1] drugs for obesity and IVF, which we’ve just been talking about. Anything else in this survey jump out at anybody? 

Hellmann: I mean, that’s just a massive amount of money. And the employer is really paying the majority of that, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have an impact on people. That means it’s going to limit how much your wages go up. And something I thought of when I read this study is these lawsuits that we’re beginning to see, accusing employers of not doing enough to make sure that they’re limiting health care costs. They’re not playing enough of a role in what their benefits look like. They’re kind of outsourcing this to consultants. And so when you look at this data and you see $25,000 they’re spending per year per family on health care premiums, you wonder, what are they doing? 

Health care, yes, it’s obviously very expensive, but you just kind of question, what role are employers actually playing in trying to drive down health care costs? Are they just taking what they get from consultants? And another thing that kind of stood out to me from this is, I think it’s said in there, employers are having a hard time lately of passing these costs on to employees, which is really interesting. It’s because of the tight labor market. But obviously health care is still very expensive for employees — $6,000 a year in premiums for family coverage is not a small amount of money. So employers are just continuing to absorb that, and it does really impact everyone. 

Rovner: It’s funny. Before the Affordable Care Act, it was employers who were sort of driving the, You must do something about the cost of health care, because inflation was so fast. And then, of course, we saw health care inflation, at least, slow down for several years. Now it’s picking up again. Are we going to see employers sort of getting back into this jumping up and down and saying, “We’ve got to do something about health care costs”? 

Hellmann: I feel like we are seeing more of that. You’re beginning to hear more from employers about it. I don’t know. It’s just such a hard issue to solve, and I’ve seen more and more interest from Congress about this, but they really struggle to regulate the commercial market. So … 

Rovner: Yes, as we talk about at length every week. But it’s still important, and they will still go for it. Well, finally, this week in health misinformation. Let us talk about hurricanes — the public health misinformation that’s being spread both about Hurricane Helene that hit the Southeast two weeks ago, and Hurricane Milton that’s exiting Florida even as we are taping this morning. President [Joe] Biden addressed the press yesterday from the White House, calling out former President Trump by name along with Georgia Republican congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene for spreading deliberate misinformation that’s not just undermining efforts at storm relief but actually putting people in more danger. Now, I remember Hurricane Katrina and all the criticism that was heaped, mostly deservedly, on George W. Bush and his administration, but I don’t remember deliberate misinformation like this. I mean, Joanne, have you ever seen anything like this? You lived in Florida for a while. 

Kenen: I went through Andrew, and there’s always a certain — there’s confusion and chaos after a big storm. But there’s a difference between stuff being wrong that can be corrected and stuff being intentionally said that then in this sort of divided, suspicious, two-realities world we’re now living in, that’s being repeated and perpetuated and amplified. It damages public health. It damages people economically trying to recover from this disastrous storm or in some cases storms. I don’t know how many people actually believe that Marjorie Taylor asserted that the Democrats are controlling the weather and sending storms to suppress Republican voters. She still has a following, right? But other things … 

Rovner: She still gets reelected. 

Kenen: … being told that if you go to FEMA [the Federal Emergency Management Agency] for help, your property will be confiscated and taken away from you. I mean, that’s all over the place, and it’s not true. Even a number of Republican lawmakers in the affected states have been on social media and making statements on local TV and whatever, saying: This is not true. Please, FEMA is there to help you. Let’s get through this. Stop the lies. A number of Republicans have actually been quite blunt about the misinformation coming from their colleagues and urging their constituents to seek and take the help that’s available. 

This is the public health crisis. We don’t know how many people have been killed. I don’t think we have an accurate total final count from Helene, and we sure don’t have from Milton. I mean, the people did seem to take this storm seriously and evacuated, but it also spawned something like three dozen tornadoes in places where people hadn’t been told, there’s normally no need to evacuate. There’s flooding. It’s a devastating storm. So when people are flooding, power outages, electricity, hard to get access to health care, you can’t refrigerate your insulin. All these— 

Rovner: Toxic floodwaters, I mean, the one thing … 

Kenen: Toxic, yeah. 

Rovner: … we know about hurricanes is that they’re more dangerous in the aftermath than during the actual storm in terms of public health. 

Kenen: Right. This is a life-threatening public health emergency to really millions of people. And misinformation, not just getting something wrong and then trying to correct it, but intentional disinformation, is something we haven’t seen before in a natural disaster. And we’re only going to have more natural disasters. And it was really — I mean, Julie, you already pointed this out — but it was really unusual how precise Biden was yesterday in calling out Trump by name, and I believe at two different times yesterday. So I heard one, but I think I read about what I think was the second one really saying, laying it at his feet that this is harming people. 

Rovner: Yeah, like I said, I remember Katrina vividly, and that was obviously a really devastating storm. I do also remember Democrats and Republicans, even while they were criticizing the federal government reaction to it, not spreading things that were obviously untrue. All right. Well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play a segment from our Newsmaker interview with Mark Cuban, and then we will be back with our extra credits. 

On Tuesday, October 8th, Mark Cuban met with a group of reporters for a Newsmaker lunch at KFF’s offices in Washington, D.C. Cuban, a billionaire best known as a panelist on the ABC TV show “Shark Tank,” has taken an interest in health policy in the past several years. He’s been consulting with the campaign of Vice President Harris, although he says he’s definitely not interested in a government post if she wins. Cuban started out talking about how, as he sees it, the biggest problem with drug prices in the U.S. is that no one knows what anyone else is paying. 

Mark Cuban: I mean, when I talk to corporations and I’ve tried to explain to them how they’re getting ripped off, the biggest of the biggest said, Well, so-and-so PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] is passing through all of their rebates to us. 

And I’m like: Does that include the subsidiary in Scotland or Japan? Is that where the other one is? 

I don’t know. 

And it doesn’t. By definition, you’re passing through all the rebates with the company you contracted with, but they’re not passing through all the rebates that they get or that they’re keeping in their subsidiary. And so, yeah, I truly, truly believe from there everybody can argue about the best way. Where do you use artificial intelligence? Where do you do this? What’s the EHR [electronic health record? What’s this? We can all argue about best practices there. But without a foundation of information that’s available to everybody, the market’s not efficient and there’s no place to go. 

Rovner: He says his online generic drug marketplace, costplusdrugs.com, is already addressing that problem. 

Cuban: The crazy thing about costplusdrugs.com, the greatest impact we had wasn’t the markup we chose or the way we approach it. It’s publishing our price list. That changed the game more than anything. So when you saw the FTC [Federal Trade Commission] go after the PBMs, they used a lot of our pricing for all the non-insulin stuff. When you saw these articles written by the Times and others, or even better yet, there was research from Vanderbilt, I think it was, that says nine oncology drugs, if they were purchased by Medicare through Cost Plus, would save $3.6 billion. These 15, whatever drugs would save six-point-whatever billion. All because we published our price list, people are starting to realize that things are really out of whack. And so that’s why I put the emphasis on transparency, because whether it’s inside of government or inside companies that self-insure, in particular, they’re going to be able to see. The number one rule of health care contracts, particularly PBM contracts, is you can’t talk about PBM contracts. 

Rovner: Cuban also says that more transparency can address problems in the rest of the health care system, not just for drug prices. Here’s how he responded to a question I asked describing his next big plan for health care. 

We’ve had, obviously, issues with the system being run by the government not very efficiently and being run by the private sector not very efficiently. 

Cuban: Very efficiently, yeah. 

Rovner: And right now we seem to have this sort of working at cross-purposes. If you could design a system from the ground up, which would you let do it? The government or— 

Cuban: I don’t think that’s really the issue. I think the issue is a lack of transparency. And you see that in any organization. The more communication and the more the culture is open and transparent, the more people hold each other responsible. And I think you get fiefdoms in private industry and you get fiefdoms in government, as well, because they know that if no one can see the results of their work, it doesn’t matter. I can say my deal was the best and I did the best and our outcomes are the best, but there’s no way to question it. And so talking to the Harris campaign, it’s like if you introduce transparency, even to the point of requiring PBMs and insurers to publish their contracts publicly, then you start to introduce an efficient market. And once you have an efficient market, then people are better able to make decisions and then you can hold them more accountable. 

And I think that’s going to spill over beyond pharm. We’re working on — it’s not a company — but we’re working on something called Cost Plus Wellness, where we’re eating our own dog food. And it’s not a company that’s going to be a for-profit or even a nonprofit, for that matter, just for the lives that I cover for my companies, that we self-insure. We’re doing direct contracting with providers, and we’re going to publish those contracts. And part and parcel to that is going through the — and I apologize if I’m stumbling here. I haven’t slept in two days, so bear with me. But going through the hierarchy of care and following the money, if you think about when we talk to CFOs and CEOs of providers, one of the things that was stunning to me that I never imagined is the relationship between deductibles for self-insured companies and payers, and the risk associated with collecting those deductibles to providers. 

And I think people don’t really realize the connection there. So whoever does Ann’s care [KFF Chief Communications Officer Ann DeFabio, who was present] — well, Kaiser’s a little bit different, but let’s just say you’re employed at The Washington Post or whoever and you have a $2,500 deductible. And something happens. Your kid breaks their leg and goes to the hospital, and you’re out of market, and it’s out of network. Well, whatever hospital you go to there, you might give your insurance card, but you’re responsible for that first $2,500. And that provider, depending on where it’s located, might have collection — bad debt, rather — of 50% or more. 

So what does that mean in terms of how they have to set their pricing? Obviously, that pricing goes up. So there’s literally a relationship between, particularly on pharmacy, if my company takes a bigger rebate, which in turn means I have a higher deductible because there’s less responsibility for the PBM-slash-insurance company. My higher deductible also means that my sickest employees are the ones paying that deductible, because they’re the ones that have to use it. And my older employees who have ongoing health issues and have chronic illnesses and need medication, they’re paying higher copays. But when they have to go to the hospital with that same deductible, because I took more of a rebate, the hospital is taking more of a credit risk for me. That’s insane. That makes absolutely no sense. 

And so what I’ve said is as part of our wellness program and what we’re doing to — Project Alpo is what we call it, eating our own dog food. What I’ve said is, we’ve gone to the providers and said: Look, we know you’re taking this deductible risk. We’ll pay you cash to eliminate that. But wait, there’s more. We also know that when you go through a typical insurer, even if it’s a self-insured employer using that insurer and you’re just using the insurance company not for insurance services but as a TPA [third-party administrator], the TPA still plays games with the provider, and they underpay them all the time. 

And so what happens as a result of the underpayment is that provider has to have offices and offices full of administrative assistants and lawyers, and they have to not only pay for those people, but they have the associated overhead and burden and the time. And then talking to them, to a big hospital system, they said that’s about 2% of their revenue. So because of that, that’s 2%. Then, wait, there’s more. You have the pre-ops, and you have the TPAs who fight you on the pre-ops. But the downstream economic impacts are enormous because, first, the doctor has to ask for the pre-op. That’s eating doctor’s time, and so they see fewer patients. And then not only does the doctor have to deal with them, they go to HR at the company who self-insures and says, Wait, my employee can’t come to work, because their child is sick, and you won’t approve this process or, whatever, this procedure, because it has to go through this pre-op. 

Or if it’s on medications, it’s you want to go through the step-up process or you want to go through a different utilization because you get more rebates. All these pieces are intertwined, and we don’t look at it holistically. And so what we’re saying with Cost Plus Wellness is, we’re going to do this all in a cash basis. We’re going to trust doctors so that we’re not going to go through a pre-op. Now we’ll trust but verify. So as we go through our population and we look at all of our claims, because we’ll own all of our claims, we’re going to look to see if there are repetitive issues with somebody who’s just trying to —there’s lots of back surgeries or there’s lots of this or there’s lots of that — to see if somebody’s abusing us. And because there’s no deductible, we pay it, and we pay it right when the procedure happens or right when the medication is prescribed. Because of all that, we want Medicare pricing. Nobody’s saying no. And in some cases I’m getting lower than Medicare pricing for primary care stuff. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. Now it’s time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include the links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other device. Joanne, why don’t you go first this week. 

Kenen: There was a fascinating story in The New York Times by Kate Morgan. The headline was “Her Face Was Unrecognizable After an Explosion. A Placenta Restored It.” So I knew nothing about this, and it was so interesting. Placentas have amazing healing properties for wound care, burns, infections, pain control, regenerating skin tissue, just many, many things. And it’s been well known for years, and it’s not widely used. This is a story specifically about a really severe burn victim in a gas explosion and how her face was totally restored. We don’t use this, partly because placenta — every childbirth, there’s a placenta. There are lots of them around. There’s I think three and a half million births a year, or that’s the estimate I read in the Times. One of the reasons they weren’t being used is, during the AIDS crisis, there was some development toward using them, and then the AIDS crisis, there was a fear of contamination and spreading the virus, and it stopped decades later. 

We have a lot more ways of detecting, controlling, figuring out whether something’s contaminated by AIDS or whether a patient has been exposed. It is being used again on a limited basis after C-sections, but it seems to have pretty astonishing — think about all the wound care for just diabetes. I’m not a scientist, but I just looked at the story and said, it seems like a lot of people could be healed quicker and more safely and earlier if this was developed. They’re thrown away now. They’re sent to hospital waste incinerators and biohazard waste. They’re garbage, and they’re actually medicine. 

Rovner: Definitely a scientist’s cool story. Shefali. 

Luthra: My story is from my brilliant colleague Mel Leonor Barclay. The headline is “Arizona’s Ballot Measure Could Shift the Narrative on Latinas and Abortion,” and as part of this really tremendous series that she has running this week, looking at how Latinas as a much more influential and growingly influential voter group could shape gun violence, abortion rights, and housing. And in this story, which I really love, she went to Arizona and spent time talking to folks on all sides of the issue to better understand how Latinas are affected by abortion rights and also how they’ll be voting on this. 

And she really challenges the narrative that has existed for so long, which is that Latinas are largely Catholic, largely more conservative on abortion. And she finds something much more complex, which is that actually polls really show that a large share of Latina voters in Arizona and similar states support abortion rights and will be voting in favor of measures like the Arizona constitutional amendment. But at the same time, there are real divides within the community, and people talk about their faith in a different way and how it connects their stance on abortion. They talk about their relationships with family in different ways, and I think it just underscores how rarely Latina voters are treated with real nuance and care and thoughtfulness when talking about something as complex as abortion and abortion politics. And I really love the way that she approaches this piece. 

Rovner: It was a super-interesting story. Jesse. 

Hellmann: My story is from The Assembly. It’s an outlet in North Carolina. It’s called “Helene Left Some North Carolina Elder-Care Homes Without Power.” Some assisted living facilities have been without power and water since the hurricane hit. Several facilities had to evacuate residents, and the story just kind of gets into how North Carolina has more lax rules around emergency preparedness. While they do require nursing homes be prepared to provide backup power, the same requirements don’t apply to assisted living facilities. And it’s because there’s been industry pushback against that because of the cost. But as we see some more of these extreme weather events, it seems like something has to be done. We cannot just allow vulnerable people living in these facilities to go hours and hours without power and water. And I saw that there was a facility where they evacuated dozens of people who had dementia, and that’s just something that’s really upsetting and traumatizing for people. 

Rovner: Yeah, once again, now we are seeing these extreme weather events in places that, unlike Florida and Texas, are not set up and used to extreme weather events. And it is something I think that a lot of people are starting to think about. Well, my story this week is from our KFF Health News public health project called Health Beat, and it’s called “A Boy’s Bicycling Death Haunts a Black Neighborhood. 35 Years Later, There’s Still No Sidewalk,” by Renuka Rayasam and Fred Clasen-Kelly. And it’s one of those stories you never really think about until it’s pointed out that in areas, particularly those that had been redlined, in particular, the lack of safety infrastructure that most of us take for granted — crosswalks, sidewalks, traffic lights are not really there. And that’s a public health crisis of its own, and it’s one that rarely gets addressed, and it’s a really infuriating but a really good story. 

All right, that is our show. Next week, for my birthday, we’re doing a live election preview show here at KFF in D.C., because I have a slightly warped idea of fun. And you’re all invited to join us. I will put a link to the RSVP in the show notes. I am promised there will be cake. 

As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our fill-in editor this week, Stephanie Stapleton. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me for the moment at X. I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where are you? 

Kenen: @JoanneKenen sometimes on Twitter and @joannekenen1 on Threads.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann on Twitter.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @shefalil on Twitter.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Most employers have little idea what the pharmacy benefit managers they hire do with the money they exchange for the medications used by their employees, according to a KFF survey released Wednesday morning.

In KFF’s latest employer health benefits survey, company officials were asked how much of the rebates collected from drugmakers by pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, is returned to them. In recent years, the pharmaceutical industry has tried to deflect criticism of high drug prices by saying much of that income is siphoned off by the PBMs, companies that manage patients’ drug benefits on behalf of employers and health plans.

PBM leaders say they save companies and patients billions of dollars annually by obtaining rebates from drugmakers that they pass along to employers. Drugmakers, meanwhile, say they raise their list prices so high in order to afford the rebates that PBMs demand in exchange for placing the drugs on formularies that make them available to patients.

Leaders of the three largest PBMs — CVS Caremark, Optum RX and Express Scripts — all testified in Congress in July that 95% to 98% of the rebates they collect from drugmakers flow to employers.

For KFF’s survey of 2,142 randomly selected companies, officials from those with 500 or more employees were asked how much of the rebates negotiated by PBMs returned to the company as savings. About 19% said they received most of the rebates, 27% said some, and 16% said little. Thirty-seven percent of the respondents didn’t know.

While a larger percentage of officials from the largest companies said they got most or some of the rebates, the answers — and their contrast with the testimony of PBM leaders — reflect the confusion or ignorance of employers about what their drug benefit managers do, said survey leader Gary Claxton, a senior vice president at KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

“I don’t think they can ever know all the ways the money moves around because there are so many layers, between the wholesalers and the pharmacies and the manufacturers,” he said.

Critics say big PBMs — which are parts of conglomerates that include pharmacies, providers, and insurers — may conceal the size of their rebates by conducting negotiations through corporate-controlled rebate aggregators, or group purchasers, mostly based overseas in tax havens, that siphon off a percentage of the cash before it goes on the PBMs’ books.

PBMs also make money by encouraging or requiring patients to use affiliated specialty pharmacies, by skimping on payments to other pharmacies, and by collecting extra cash from drug companies through the federal 340B drug pricing program, which is aimed at lowering drug costs for low-income patients, said Antonio Ciaccia, CEO of 46brooklyn Research.

The KFF survey indicates how little employers understand the PBMs and their pricing policies. “Employers are generally frustrated by the lack of transparency into all the prices out there,” Claxton said. “They can’t actually know what’s true.”

Billionaire Mark Cuban started a company to undercut the PBMs by selling pharmaceuticals with transparent pricing policies. He tells Fortune 500 executives he meets, “You’re getting ripped off, you’re losing money because it’s not your core competency to understand how your PBM and health insurance contracts work,” Cuban told KFF Health News in an interview Tuesday.

Ciaccia, who has conducted PBM investigations for several states, said employers are not equipped to understand the behavior of the PBMs and often are surprised at how unregulated the PBM business is.

“You’d assume that employers want to pay less, that they would want to pay more attention,” he said. “But what I’ve learned is they are often underequipped, underresourced, and oftentimes not understanding the severity of the lack of oversight and accountability.”

Employers may assume the PBMs are acting in their best interest, but they don’t have a legal obligation to do so.

Prices can be all over the map, even those charged by the same PBM, Ciaccia said. In a Medicaid study he recently conducted, a PBM was billing employers anywhere from $2,000 to $8,000 for a month’s worth of imatinib, a cancer drug that can be bought as a generic for as little as $30.

PBM contracts often guarantee discounts of certain percentage points for generics and brand-name drugs. But the contracts then contain five pages of exclusions, and “no employer will know what they mean,” Ciaccia said. “That person doesn’t have enough information to have an informed opinion.”

The KFF survey found that companies’ annual premiums for coverage of individual employees had increased from an average of $7,739 in 2021 to $8,951 this year, and $22,221 to $25,572 for families. Among employers’ greatest concerns was how to cover increasingly popular weight loss drugs that list at $2,000 a month or more.

Only 18% of respondents said their companies covered drugs such as Wegovy for weight loss. The largest group of employers offering such coverage — 28% — was those with 5,000 or more employees.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Californians in November will weigh in on a ballot initiative to increase scrutiny over the use of health-care dollars — particularly money from a federal drug discount program — meant to support patient care largely for low-income or indigent people. The revenue is sometimes used to address housing instability and homelessness among vulnerable patient populations.

Voters are being asked whether California should increase accountability in the 340B drug discount program, which provides money for community clinics, safety net hospitals and other nonprofit health-care providers.

The program requires pharmaceutical companies to give drug discounts to these clinics and nonprofit entities, which can bank revenue by charging higher reimbursement rates.

Advocates pushing the measure, Proposition 34, say some entities are using the drug discount program as a slush fund, plowing money into housing and homelessness initiatives that don’t meet basic patient safety standards. Researchers and advocates have called for greater oversight.

“There are 340B entities that are misusing these public dollars,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for the pro-Proposition 34 campaign. “The whole point of this program is to use this money to get more low-income people health-care services.”

The initiative wouldn’t bar 340B providers from using health-care funds for housing or homelessness programs. Instead, it targets providers that spend more than $100 million on purposes other than direct patient care over 10 years. It would mandate that 98 percentof 340B revenues go to direct patient care. It also targets 340B providers with health insurer contracts and pharmacy licenses and those serving low-income Medicaid or Medicare patients that have been dinged with at least 500 high-severity housing violations for substandard or unsafe conditions.

That has placed a bull’s eye on the Los Angeles-based AIDS Healthcare Foundation, a nonprofit that provides direct patient care via clinics and pharmacies in California and other states, including Illinois, Texas and New York. It also owns housing for low-income and homeless people.

A Los Angeles Times investigation found that many residents of AIDS Healthcare Foundation properties are living in deplorable, unhealthy conditions.

Michael Weinstein, the foundation’s president, disputes those claims and argues that Proposition 34 proponents, including real estate interests, are going after him for another ballot initiative that seeks to implement rent control in more communities across California.

“It’s a revenge initiative,” Weinstein said, arguing that the deep-pocketed California Apartment Association is targeting his foundation — and its health and housing operations — because it has backed ballot measures pushing rent control across California. “This is a two-pronged attack against us to defeat rent control.”

Weinstein is locked in a feud with the apartment association, the chief sponsor of the initiative, which has contributed handsomely to pass Proposition 34. Opponents argue that the initiative is “a wolf in sheep’s clothing.”

Weinstein acknowledged to KFF Health News that his nonprofit uses money from 340B drug discounts to support its housing initiatives but argued they are helping treat and house some of the most vulnerable people, who would otherwise be homeless.

The apartment association declined several requests for comment. But Proposition 34 backers say they aren’t going after rent control — or Weinstein and his nonprofit.

Supporters argue that “rising health care costs are squeezing millions of Californians” and say that the initiative would “give California patients and taxpayers much needed relief, and lowers state drug costs, while saving California taxpayers billions.”

If the initiative passes and 340B providers do not spend 98 percent of the revenue on direct patient care, they could lose their license to practice health care and their nonprofit status.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).