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).

Layoff notices began arriving early Tuesday for thousands of employees of the sprawling Department of Health and Human Services and its subsidiary agencies, with as many 10,000 workers potentially expected to be hit by the cuts, including some of the country’s top health officials.

The range of job losses across institutes and offices reflected the breadth of what HHS does and the role it plays in the U.S., in both the obvious ways and less appreciated ones. The cuts and reorganizations affected people who help approve new medicines, track emerging pathogens, and uncover the secrets held in our DNA. But they also reached those developing safer tobacco policies, trying to reduce injuries, and protecting people who rely on Medicare and Medicaid — as well as the staff who made the agencies operate day to day and aimed to communicate health updates, new recommendations, and policy shifts to the public. 

Read the rest…

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 abortion and other reproductive issues gain more prominence in the looming election, some Republicans are trying to moderate their anti-abortion positions, particularly in states where access to the procedure remains politically popular. 

Meanwhile, open enrollment is underway for Medicare, even as some health plans are challenging in court the federal government’s decision to reduce their quality ratings — with millions of dollars at stake. 

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• With polls showing more voters citing abortion as a top voting issue, some candidates with long track records opposing abortion rights are working to moderate their positions.
• Many older Americans will spend less on prescription drugs next year due to a new out-of-pocket pricing cap, among other changes in store as provisions of the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act take effect. But some are realizing the limits on those benefits, as deeper problems persist in drug pricing, insurance coverage, and access.
• The FDA is reconsidering a weight-loss drug decision that caused confusion for patients and compounding pharmacies. Compounded drugs are intended for individual issues, like needing a different dosage — and while the process can be used to augment mass manufacturing during times of drug shortages, it is not well suited to address access and pricing issues.
• In abortion news, a comprehensive study shows abortions have increased since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, even among women in states with strict restrictions — and those states are seeing higher infant mortality rates, according to separate research. And an effort is underway to revive in a Texas court the challenge to mifepristone’s FDA approval. The last challenge failed because the Supreme Court found the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Tricia Neuman, senior vice president of KFF and executive director of its Program on Medicare Policy, about Medicare open enrollment and the changes to the program for 2025. 

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’ “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Vanity Fair’s “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health,” by Katherine Eban. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: The Atlantic’s “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch.  

Victoria Knight: NPR’s “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year,” by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Abortions Have Increased, Even for Women in States With Rigid Bans, Study Says,” by Claire Cain Miller and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• CNN’s “Infants Died at Higher Rates After Abortion Bans in the US, Research Shows,” by Deidre McPhillips.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Less Than Two Weeks To Go

[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. 24, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. 

Today we are joined via video conference by Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News. 

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios. 

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my friend and KFF colleague Tricia Neuman about Medicare open enrollment and what to expect in Medicare in the coming year. 

But first, this week’s news. We will start on the campaign trail since Election Day is now less than two weeks away. Let that sink in. Abortion is, at least according to many polls, on the upswing as a voting issue and, probably not coincidentally, abortion-adjacent issues, like contraception, are also getting more attention. But while it’s clear that Democrats are still pretty much the party of abortion rights and Republicans are pretty much the party representing anti-abortion activists, we’re seeing some Republican candidates working pretty hard to muddy the waters. Yes? 

Knight: Yeah, it’s been interesting this election cycle. We have seen some Republicans saying that they are pro-choice. And this is at a time when, finally, on the Democratic side in Congress, there really are not many anti-abortion Democrats left. We have in the House congressman Henry Cuellar [of Texas] is really the only one left. [Pennsylvania] Sen. Bob Casey, we’ve kind of seen him swing over time to be more in the camp of pro-choice, pro-abortion rights and so … 

Rovner: … which was really, in Casey’s case, really interesting, because his father, who was the governor of Pennsylvania, was sort of the original anti-abortion Democrat back in the early 1990s. 

Knight: Yeah. I’m interested to see if this works in — we’re seeing, particularly in some more moderate, swinging House seats, that Republicans are trying to message in this way that they’re more moderate on abortion, saying they’re more pro-choice. I’m interested to see if this actually works. And then we have perhaps this caucus within the House, if that works, that are more moderate. I mean, you already see in the current makeup of the House, there are some House Republicans, particularly the New York Republicans, that were really careful in this 118th Congress when they were having to vote on certain bills that would restrict, for example, access to mifepristone. That was kind of a rider in the FDA appropriations bill, and they didn’t want to vote for it, and they helped cause chaos on the House floor for that bill, particularly, because they didn’t want to pass it because they knew that would look bad on their record and they were having to run for the House again. So, will this messaging work for the kind of new people that are running this cycle? I’m not sure, but we’ll see. 

Rovner: I was kind of surprised to see Liz Cheney this week (who was out campaigning with Vice President [Kamala] Harris), who’s strongly anti-abortion, has been her entire career, actually pipe up on her own — and she’s not running for anything; she’s basically a person without a party at the moment — but say that even though she’s anti-abortion, she is not in favor of some of the things that are happening with some of these abortion bans, like women having miscarriages not being able to get immediate medical [care]. I was fascinated to see somebody who, with as strong anti-abortion credentials as she has, speak out about these things that one would assume even people who are anti-abortion would not be against. We do see the anti-abortion group saying making abortion illegal doesn’t make it illegal to treat ectopic pregnancies and miscarriage care, even though it gets all muddled when you’re actually on the ground doing it and you’re a doctor facing potential jail time. 

Knight: Well, and I think the thing is, people are seeing the realities of the abortion bans a couple of years in. I think that’s really the consequences. … When these first happened two years ago, people can say all these kind of things, but now that they’ve been in place for a couple years and women have died, we’re hearing these stories from news outlets of how that happens and it’s often women that want the babies. It’s like people are having to moderate their stances somewhat, I think. 

Rovner: It’s — there’s nuance. … Politics is not great with nuance, but we’re seeing nuance. 

Well, one abortion-adjacent story that jumped out at me this week is happening in Florida, where it seems that the office of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis himself was behind legal threats to TV stations running ads in favor of the ballot measure that would enshrine abortion rights in the state’s constitution. According to the Tampa Bay Times, “Florida Department of Health general counsel John Wilson said he was given prewritten letters from one of DeSantis’ lawyers … Oct. 3 and told to send them under his own name, he wrote in a sworn affidavit.” Wilson subsequently resigned rather than send out more letters. In between, a judge warned the state to cease and desist with the threat, saying, and I quote, “It’s the First Amendment, stupid.” I have honestly never seen anything quite like this, although I would also point out I’ve never seen anything quite like Florida’s surgeon general recommending against people getting vaccines. What the heck is going on in Florida? 

Cohrs Zhang: I think we’ve seen state officials in Florida try to enact their will and challenge public health recommendations. Certainly, we saw that happen during the covid-19 pandemic. They were trying to put out their own guidelines on vaccination, and so I don’t think it’s a particular surprise. I think it is just uglier than usual now that we get the full backstory on how these letters came to be. And court cases take a long time, and I think that’ll extend to beyond the next couple of weeks. But it’s an interesting publicity stunt for what it is, and yeah I … 

Rovner: I wouldn’t want to be one of the TV stations threatening to have its license canceled, although the head of the FCC, I think, got involved too and said, “Um, this is not how this works.” 

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I think so. I don’t expect that the court would find that political ads you don’t like are illegal, so, yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, I don’t think the governor can tell you to pull political ads that they don’t like. Pretty sure that’s not how these things work. 

Well, meanwhile, given the very real possibility that Donald Trump will return to the White House, the D.C. rumor mill is already spinning out names of those who could fill Cabinet and other senior health posts. What are you guys hearing? And is RFK Jr. really going to end up in some big health policymaking job? 

Knight: That’s funny that you say that because I was just having a talk with my editors about the names that we’re hearing. I have heard, and I am sure Rachel and Sarah have names on their mind as well, but someone said this to me, I think it’s funny: A very 2004 pick would be Bobby Jindal. He’s at the America First Policy Institute, which has a lot of former Trump administration people there, and it’s kind of seen this swing, I think recently, now that Project 2025 is kind of like no one wants to touch Project 2025 anymore. It seems like more people are, like, OK, AFPI is the place to pick people from if there’s a new Trump administration. And there’s been some stories this week about the chief of staff potentially coming from AFPI. So, people have been telling me Bobby Jindal, but I think he seems to have some solid grounding in that. You probably are more familiar with him, Julie, than I am, but … 

Rovner: Oh, yes. I’ve known him since 2004. I’ve known him since before 2004. He was actually … he was brought to Washington by Democratic Sen. John Breaux to staff a Medicare commission back in, I think it was the very late 1990s. He served in Congress, he was the governor of Louisiana, and he served in HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in the George W. Bush administration. So he’s got lots of experience, and he’s coincidentally all over Twitter this week with a paid ad, trashing Kamala Harris’ support for “Medicare for All,” which, of course, she hasn’t supported since 2019. But yeah, suddenly Bobby Jindal, who we hadn’t seen in a while, is kind of everywhere. He was one of the bright young lights about, what, eight years ago? 

Knight: Right, right. 

Rovner: But I guess before Trump, he was one of the bright young Republican lights. So yeah, I keep hearing his name too. 

Cohrs Zhang: I don’t know … 

Rovner: Go ahead, Rachel. 

Cohrs Zhang: I was just going to say that I don’t think there are a lot of people that we’ve been talking to who are worried about RFK himself getting appointed to one of these posts, but I think there has been a lot of buzz about some of his allies, like Calley and Casey Means. I know my colleague Isa Cueto did a great — just, profile of kind of who they are and kind of how their rise has just been so meteoric, and I think we’re also seeing some allies. So people who rose in the conservative movement over skepticism, over vaccine mandates, and just like the whole public health establishment have really gotten a new platform. And so I think people are a little nervous, as we’ve reported, both health care industry leaders who are worried about anti-pharmaceutical industry sentiment, anti-science sentiment, and even establishment Republican leaders and officials who served in prior Trump administrations that the picks could be more extreme than a Bobby Jindal establishment-Republican type and that this could be taking a turn. 

Rovner: Sarah, what are you hearing with FDA? 

Karlin-Smith: I mean, it’s a little less clear, I think, who might end up in FDA, but the sentiment has been probably a more typical Trump pick than maybe we got last time. FDA was sort of insulated in some ways, I think, from some of the drama, if you will, of the Trump administration last time. Scott Gottlieb was able to run FDA with pretty hands-off from other parts of the administration, and I think he ran FDA more like you would expect a traditional Republican to run FDA, not necessarily a Trump Republican. And I think people are recognizing that FDA will be a lot more vulnerable this time around that we’re probably not going to get another kind of Scott Gottlieb to save FDA if Trump is president. There’s certainly more concerns about how that impacts staff turnover as well, among civil service folks. 

Rovner: Yeah, we will see. 

All right, well, moving on. Open enrollment for Medicare began last week and continues until Dec. 7. That’s when people on Medicare can join or change their private prescription drug and/or Medicare Advantage plans. We explore this in more detail in my interview later in this episode with KFF’s Tricia Neuman. We know that most people with Medicare and most people with private insurance, where they can change plans during an open enrollment season, don’t actually bother to do anything. But this year there really are a lot of changes coming in Medicare, particularly on the prescription drug side. Why is it extra important this year that people take a look at their coverage? 

Karlin-Smith: So, some of the big changes with the IRA [Inflation Reduction Act] that kick in this year for Medicare and the prescription side, like the $2,000 out-of-pocket cap. Your plan actually has to cover that. One thing, I was at a conference this week and they’re saying that drug has to be, actually be on your plan for you to reap those savings of hitting that cap, which seems obvious, but … 

Rovner: Oh, I don’t know. I think people don’t quite realize that. It’s like they think that there’s a $2,000 cap no matter what, and it’s important. It’s, like, if your drug is not one of the drugs that’s covered by your plan, does not count. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, and so it’s looking for all of those things to make sure all the pieces of your plan actually fit together with your medical needs. There’s been, I think, a reduction, in some degree, into the amount of particularly Part D stand-alone plans for people who elect to use traditional Medicare for their other health benefits. So you may just want to look a little bit more closely at what the options are, what the premiums are, because some of these changes to Part D have impacted premiums a bit, though the federal government has stepped in to try to alleviate that. 

But I think this is seen as an adjustment year for the plans because one of the ideas behind the IRA is to put both health insurance companies as well as the pharmaceutical companies more on the hook, in some ways, for the cost of drugs. The old way Part D plans worked, the government ended up bearing a lot of the costs of the drugs to a point where it didn’t give a lot of incentives for both the drug companies to want to lower the prices, for the insurance companies to push for that. So I think it may take a little bit of time for them to figure out now how to adjust the benefits and the premiums and so forth, given this new dynamic. So people just may want to pay a little bit more close attention for premium aspects and others as well to the plans they’re picking. 

Rovner: And if you’re helping someone on Medicare, which I know many people are, it’s good to do a little extra homework this year. 

Well, another story that caught my eye is a survey of independent drugstores that suggests many of them won’t stock the very expensive drugs that Medicare negotiations are making less expensive, because they would actually lose money dispensing them. Sarah, is this an unexpected glitch, and can it be fixed, or is this just the price of bringing down drug prices? 

Karlin-Smith: I would say not entirely unexpected. These independent pharmacies have warned CMS [the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and tried to push in guidance so that when they’re dispensing a drug, basically, they will be entitled to get quicker rebates from the drug companies so that they can make stocking these drugs more reasonable for them. And these pharmacies, I think in particular, have been raising alarm bells outside of Medicare drug price negotiations for a while now, that they’re being placed in these difficult positions where they have to buy drugs at whatever the wholesale acquisition cost is. And then there’s all of this insurance back-end stuff going on, and they sometimes get reimbursed by the plans and so forth for less than they’ve actually bought the drugs. 

So it’s not just a Medicare drug price negotiation issue here. Some of it is, again, about the time that the pharmaceutical companies have to rebate the costs and they ask Medicare for a bit of leeway. And others, it’s just this broader way our system works, where they’re buying wholesale. You have a patient come to the counter that pays their small portion of it, their plan pays, whatever, and everybody has to sort of, right at the end … and these pharmacies are saying, “We can’t afford to do that.” I do think, politically, if this becomes a problem, if patients can’t get the negotiated prices/drugs at the pharmacies they’re used to, this could be politically problematic for the IRA moving forward. Even though, again, I’m not entirely sure. It’s illuminating a broader problem in the system that I think existed without it. 

Rovner: Right, it’s all a big mess, and it’s underlining it. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, but that doesn’t mean that politics won’t come into play and blame drug price negotiation. And certainly, anytime an opposing party hates something — we know Democrats are really into this, Republicans aren’t, and I’m sure they will try and blame it on the IRA as much as possible. And we’ll see if CMS maybe realizes that they had a little more leverage to try and make this a little bit easier and fixes it for the next round. 

Rovner: Yeah. Before we leave Medicare, I want to talk briefly about Medicare Advantage. This Medicare Advantage market is so valuable to insurers and so competitive that we now have at least two lawsuits charging that Medicare wrongly lowered the number of quality stars some plans received. Now, this feels like a restaurant suing Yelp for lowering its rating from four stars to three, but in Medicare Advantage, this is a really big deal, right, when they lose a star? 

Cohrs Zhang: Right, I think if the Yelp rating was worth $70 million, or whatever that figure is, then yeah, maybe they would sue. So I think we certainly — I think it’s a measure that is so important to insurers, to regulators, but that individual people might not understand. And there were some really interesting details from that lawsuit about the potential that there was one call-center call that tipped the balance into a quality measure and that there might’ve been some technical difficulties, and it does just cast these larger questions that I think I’ll be interested to see what documents come out during these lawsuits. And just questioning how useful these metrics really are, if that really was the case. 

Rovner: Yeah, I found it, I also was taken aback. It’s like, really, one call to a customer service center didn’t happen properly, and so the whole plan loses a star? That seemed a little bit dramatic, but yes, like you, I’ll be interested to see. There’s a lot of pressure on Medicare Advantage from every conceivable angle, but we are now in litigation over it. 

Well, while we are on the subject of private health companies suing the federal government, the compounding pharmacies who have been legally selling unapproved copies of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Mounjaro and Zepbound have apparently successfully gotten the FDA to reverse its earlier finding, based on the pharmaceutical manufacturers’ say-so, that those drugs are no longer in shortage. That’s a decision that would’ve made it illegal for the compounders to continue to make and sell those drugs. At the same time, Novo Nordisk, maker of the very popular and very expensive diabetes/obesity drugs Ozempic and Wegovy, are trying to get the FDA to stop compounders from copying their drugs, which are still in shortage. Can somebody please explain what’s going on here? 

Karlin-Smith: So, basically, compounding is where pharmacists can sometimes make drugs in a more customized fashion because a person maybe can’t swallow a pill or needs a slightly different dose or a different inactive ingredient, but there’s not … 

Rovner: And they add flavoring for kids too, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Isn’t that a big compounding thing? 

Karlin-Smith: But it’s not supposed to be something that takes the place of mass-manufactured drugs. But one of the times when it kind of can — and FDA, after some big safety incidents in 2013, developed a sort of scheme where there can be some degree mass compounding, but there’s a little bit more safety oversight from their end. 

And one of the cases where you can do more compounding is when a drug is in shortage. But once FDA flipped the switch and said, “Oh, OK, actually, these drugs are no longer in shortage,” that makes it illegal. So these companies sued. My understanding from talking to legal experts is it’s not necessarily clear that FDA is entirely reversing course and agreeing that drugs aren’t in shortage. They’re agreeing to re-look at their decision, which may mean they are going to bolster their case so when they get back into court, they have a much clearer documentation of why the drugs are actually out of shortage. But in the meantime, we have probably at least another four weeks or so where everybody can compound these products. 

At the same time, I think Novo Nordisk and, actually, Eli Lilly before them had also submitted a similar citizen petition to FDA trying to basically get these drugs from being on lists where you really could not compound them at all. And there’s clearly a lot of money at stake here. These are probably some of the most well-known drugs right now with huge markets in the U.S., but they’re also really expensive and they haven’t been picked up and covered by a lot of insurance plans, particularly when you’re talking about the weight loss element. I think for Type 2 diabetes, there’s pretty good coverage. And the thing here that’s really so significant is this is probably one of the first times in the U.S. where we’ve seen this mass-market compounding for a drug kind of at the beginning-ish of its exclusivity, at least when you’re talking about weight loss — again, not diabetes. And it’s not like a niche thing. So many people are using it,  through compounding. And again, it’s really like … 

Rovner: The advertising is everywhere on social media. 

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, that just surprised me, I think, at first to begin with, how open these companies were about it being available via compounding pharmacies. And so I think FDA is in a really tricky position, particularly if they can clearly document it’s not a shortage situation anymore, because there still probably is going to be a lot of demand because of the cheaper prices coming from compounders, because of health insurance coverage issues. But, again, the compounding system is not meant to address those sorts of price and access issues. Right? It’s supposed to be for very particular situations where people really can’t use the exact manufactured drug, in most cases. And so maybe this tension will force us to address the other issues of price and insurance coverage, but it’s an awkward position for FDA to be in. 

And again, because, I think, it’s just also important just to go backtrack and remember, you know, FDA facilitates an important role of inspecting the manufacturing facilities, ensuring every lot is being manufactured to a consistent quality, approving the drug to begin with. So there’s certainly this delicate dance of you want people to be able to get drugs they need and you also don’t want this kerfuffle to undermine the entire drug-approval system we have that ensures that when you get a drug, a prescription drug, you know it’s a certain quality. 

Rovner: And it is what it says it is. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. 

Rovner: Yes. All right, well, turning back to abortion. A new study out this week suggests that not only has the number of abortions not gone down since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, it actually might’ve gone up. Now there are lots of caveats with these numbers and, clearly, one big reason is the loosening of restrictions on obtaining abortion medication by mail. We also have a separate study this week that found infant mortality in states with abortion bans are rising, perhaps due to less available medical care in some of those states, as well as more fetuses with deadly anomalies being carried to term. But I have to wonder what these numbers will prompt from the anti-abortion side. Are they going to double down on efforts to impose some sort of nationwide restrictions or bans if Republicans regain control of the White House and Congress? And how are they going to address the rising infant mortality numbers? Victoria, are you hearing anything from the anti-abortion side? I’ve heard kind of not a lot. I’ve been surprised at how much I have not heard. 

Knight: Yeah, I mean I think this has been an interesting election for them because I think Trump has said different things throughout this election cycle on his stance on abortion and being — taking credit for appointing the Supreme Court justices who overturned Roe, but then at the same time being, like, it’s a states issue. And I’ve seen some reporting on that a lot of these groups are frustrated with Trump, but they kind of are sticking with him for the moment because they’re, like, this is the guy we have. 

So I think that perhaps they will put more pressure, depending on what the makeup of Congress is, and I think it’s important to remember it really depends on the majorities, this upcoming Congress, what will that look like? So if there is a Republican sweep, how many senators will be there? How many Republican senators? Also in the House, it may not be a huge majority either. And as we talked about earlier in this episode, there are some Republicans that are trying to walk the line more and be more moderate on abortion. And will they want to vote for a national abortion ban? That seems doubtful to me. And, for now, the filibuster is still in place in the Senate, so you still need 60 votes to pass anything. So, I think that they’re being quiet for now, but I think, depending on what Congress looks like, they could up their ante later. 

Cohrs Zhang: Again, I think Congress just has no appetite really to talk about these things, and I don’t expect that to change, especially, like you said, with narrow majorities. And I just think that the cost-benefit, maybe we’re going to see new leadership in the Senate Republican party too, and I think a lot of that could shape how much appetite they have to pick a fight on this. So yeah, just a lot of unknowns at this point. 

Rovner: And, as we’ve discussed before, if Trump is elected, he can do a lot from the executive branch that wouldn’t require Congress, and I completely agree with Rachel: I think Congress does not have a whole lot of appetite for this. 

Knight: Right. 

Rovner: Possibly on either side. 

Knight: And I think one more thing also interesting to point out is that the current House speaker, Mike Johnson, is very anti-abortion. Throughout his congressional career and even his career as a state lawmaker, he’s always been very anti-abortion, but he’s been in power now over a year, at least a year, and he has done, really, nothing on this. And he has a slim majority, but also I think you see that, yeah, as Rachel said, there’s just not an appetite for it, so … 

Rovner: He doesn’t have the votes. 

Knight: Yeah, exactly. He doesn’t have the votes, but he’s staunchly anti-abortion, has done really nothing, so. 

Rovner: Well, Sarah, you have a story on the revived lawsuit challenging the FDA over its rules for the abortion pill mifepristone. This is my chance to say I told you so, when the Supreme Court ruled that the original plaintiffs in this case did not have standing to sue. We said at the time: not over. Not over, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, three states are trying to revive that case in the court in Texas, where it originated. And it’s not particularly a surprise, like you said, the Supreme Court didn’t totally throw out the case. They said, “You guys don’t have standing,” that the doctors’ group that filed suit there. One of the interesting things now, given the timing, is as this case moves forward and if Trump wins the election, it’s not really clear to me whether his FDA and his Justice Department and so forth would actually want to defend this case or whether they would just, again, use the powers they have and push FDA to go back to the older restrictions around mifepristone’s availability. And basically make it … 

Rovner: We’re no longer talking about pulling it from the market right now? We’re just talking about the changes that were made in 2016 that makes it more easily available? 

Karlin-Smith: Right, so they sort of … 

Rovner: Is that a fair way to put it? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s like one change, which by the time we got to the Supreme Court, we were largely arguing about this as well, but they had initially started to just — by trying to get it off the market entirely. But now we’re basically arguing about changes that have made it easier to take later in pregnancy, so up to 10 weeks, and just made it easier to access. So you can now get it via telehealth and via mail and so forth, which has been really important given some of the state-specific bans on abortion. And it’s why abortion pills have become a really much more popular method for abortion. So a lot of legal experts don’t actually think these three states have standing either, or have jurisdiction, certainly in this court. However, I think they also acknowledge there’s a good chance this case proceeds and proceeds very similarly to how it did before, if for no other reason than the judges involved in the past have been willing to let these states be heard in their courtroom. 

Rovner: Yeah, it is in the 5th Circuit land of mostly Republican anti-abortion judges. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So there’s a good chance, again, barring this sort of scenario where Trump administration comes in and just says, “We’re not going to defend this. We’re going to revert to the old restrictions anyway.” But under a Democratic administration, they could end up back all the way at the Supreme Court having to defend mifepristone’s newer availability as well. 

And the other thing that there’s been a number of mifepristone cases around the country, but there’s one that’s very similar in the 9th Circuit, where judges have basically ruled that the entire, what’s known as a REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy], these restrictions related to mifepristone should actually be removed altogether. And they, actually, in some ways, want to make it more easily accessible. So whenever you have a circuits … but you also know that the Supreme Court is likely to take things up against. So yeah, I think the big thing is if people thought that last June’s Supreme Court ruling was kind of like Eh, it’s over, mifepristone is here to stay, that was just sort of the first round of many fights in access and availability of that in the courts. 

Rovner: Could a Trump administration just say, “The FDA should never have approved this drug,” and pull it from the market? Or does somebody have to file a petition for that to happen? 

Karlin-Smith: Ooh, that’s a good, tough question. I mean, there are very formal processes that go around withdrawing a drug. I think it would be challenging because at least the generic companies that manufacture the drug still want to be manufacturing it at this point. And I would imagine there would be quite a process FDA would have to go through, particularly to try and declare it no longer safe and effective to be marketed. And you, again, to raise strange history, I think if you looked at all the documents in science, because you have FDA scientists who over the years have declared it’s safe and effective and said, “Actually, as we’ve got more use with this, we realize you can actually give it to more women at different parts of pregnancy, and it’s safer than we thought. We don’t need to monitor a woman at a doctor’s office while she takes it.” So I think it would be challenging. I certainly wouldn’t put it past them trying this. 

But it does get to, I think, what’s been worrying about this mifepristone case to begin with for just people outside of the abortion space, but who follow FDA and the drug industry, which is this lack of certainty you start to lose when politicians come in and start trying to undermine the scientific drug-approval process and using politics instead, and their whims, to shift what is available or not available, because, obviously, it undermines FDA’s authority. 

And for the drug industry, I mean, a big thing they dislike is certainty, right? You’re investing millions, maybe even billions, of dollars to bring a drug to market. You want some confidence that if it’s successful and FDA says yes, it’s going to stay there unless some new, real, true safety event happens, which it does occasionally happen, but for the most part, you don’t want a new president to come into office or a new member of the Congress to flip and all of a sudden you have a drug that they’ve decided to challenge. So it’s an abortion case that’s always had these broader undertones of just confidence and trust and certainty around our scientific agencies in the U.S. 

Rovner: Yet another space we will continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with KFF’s Tricia Neuman, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Tricia Newman, who’s KFF’s senior vice president and executive director of KFF’s Program on Medicare Policy, and senior adviser to the president, and the person I always turn to first when I have a question about Medicare and have done so for more than three decades. Tricia, welcome back to “What the Health?” 

Tricia Neuman: Hi, Julie. Thanks for having me back. 

Rovner: So, as anybody who watches over-the-air or cable TV knows, it’s Medicare open enrollment right now until Dec. 7. What should people in Medicare or people helping people in Medicare know about changes coming for 2025? 

Neuman: This is the time for people to really compare coverage options. What we’ve seen in our own research is that most people don’t compare options during the open enrollment period, but plans change, people’s needs change, and this is a great moment. People have between now until Dec. 7, as you said. The important thing to do is figure out what is actually most important to either yourself or the person you’re helping. 

Some people really need certain drugs covered by their plan, and so that might be the go-to question. Other people care very much about being able to see certain doctors or hospitals. So, for them, it’s a question of do they want to be in traditional Medicare, where they can see virtually any doctor and go to any hospital? Or if they want to be in a Medicare Advantage plan for a variety of reasons, the question is, are the doctors that they care most about covered by their plan? 

Rovner: There are big changes coming next year both for prescription drugs and for Medicare Advantage, right? 

Neuman: Absolutely. I mean, Medicare Advantage plans also cover prescription drugs, and what the big thing people need to know there is there’s a new out-of-pocket limit that’s coming. There’s not really much you have to do in order to get; it’s a Medicare benefit. So that’s really a huge change and it really is a change that helps people who take very expensive medications. I mean, I can tell you how helpful it would be to some family members of mine. I have a family member who is taking a drug, she had a Part D plan, and it was costing her $13,000 a year for this particular drug for her cancer treatment. With the new $2,000 out-of-pocket cap, her costs would drop from $13,000 to $2,000. Keep in mind that half of all people on Medicare live on an income of $36,000 or less, so this is a big deal. And not everybody is going to need this benefit in any given year, but over time, you never know. And so it’s a big change that will be helpful to people who take expensive medications. 

Rovner: Over the spring and summer, it looked like, because of this $2,000 cap, Part D plans were going to raise their premiums dramatically. That mostly didn’t happen. Why not? 

Neuman: The administration, the government put in place what they call a demonstration or a model, and essentially what it did is it limited premium increases. So no Part D plan will have a premium increase greater than $35 between 2024 and 2025. 

Rovner: … of $35 a month. 

Neuman: … of $35-a-month increase. Now that said, some will increase by $35, some will decrease. There are going to be changes, and that’s an important thing for people to keep an eye on as they consider their drug coverage for next year. 

Rovner: There are Republicans in Congress who say that what the administration did was sort of unfairly politically tinkering with Medicare, but this isn’t the first time this kind of thing has been put into place, right? 

Neuman: That’s absolutely true. I mean, I would agree that there was some concern that people in Medicare would see big increases in their drug premiums, and that was part of the concern that motivated the administration. But that was also a concern that motivated prior administrations. In fact, right after the drug benefit went into effect, and that was under the Bush administration, there were similar demonstrations that took effect. And at the time, nobody really complained because the main issue was protecting people from higher premiums. 

Rovner: But now everything is more political. 

Well, regular listeners to the podcast know that Medicare Advantage has become not just more popular among beneficiaries, but also much more controversial. Some companies are even using artificial intelligence to deny benefits and micromanaging doctors and other health care providers. Has the cost-benefit analysis for Medicare Advantage shifted over the past few years? 

Neuman: I think the focus on Medicare Advantage has changed. The way people are thinking about it is changing. Medicare Advantage is quite popular among people because plans, for a variety of reasons related to their payments, are able to offer extra benefits, and they are appealing. I mean, dental, vision, hearing. Now, the latest thing is “flex cards,” which is just kind of offering money for people to sign up for a plan. So it’s really appealing, particularly for people with fixed incomes. But the medical community has sort of surfaced and started raising concerns about what these prior authorizations and other cost-management tools mean for them and for their patients. 

So hospitals, for example, have expressed concerns about delayed payments. Doctors are now talking about prior authorization hassles. We recently did a study that documented 46 million prior-authorization requests, close to 2 million requests per enrollee. That’s a hassle for doctors. It also can delay or lead to no care for beneficiaries when it’s been prescribed by their doctor. It could, of course, limit inappropriate care, not necessary care, but I think the medical community now sees that Medicare Advantage is a big part of their patient profile and has some concerns. 

We’ve also been reading stories about some medical groups that are saying that we’re not going to take any more Medicare Advantage patients. So I think there’s a little bit more of an eye toward, gee, this has gotten really big. We know it’s really popular, but it might require a closer look. 

Rovner: Speaking of which, I mean, Medicare hasn’t really been a big campaign issue in 2024 when maybe it should have been. It doesn’t seem that safe to leave a program of its size and importance on autopilot, which is kind of what former President Trump is promising. What do we know about what Vice President Harris would do for Medicare if she were elected and what former President Trump would do if he was elected? 

Neuman: We actually know very little about what former President Trump would do. 

Rovner: He says he wouldn’t touch it. 

Neuman: He said he wouldn’t touch it. He said he’s concerned about drug costs, but we’re not really sure what more he would do there. He was for a proposal called Most Favored Nation, but he’s now withdrawn support for that. So it’s hard to know whether he would implement anything new or scale back what has already become the law of the land. For example, it’s not clear what he would do about government negotiations and whether or not there would be sufficient pressure in his caucus to scale back that pretty popular proposal that was included in the Inflation Reduction Act. 

Vice President Harris has talked about strengthening Medicare and improving the solvency, mostly through revenues on higher-income people. So that is one major proposal she has with regard to solvency. She has recently put out a proposal that would add a home care benefit to Medicare. This responds to a huge issue that you and I have talked about, that a lot of families across the country have talked about where people are really struggling to care for a family member. Family members are dropping out of the workforce in order to care for somebody because they cannot afford to get help at home. Medicare really does not currently provide a home care benefit except under limited circumstances. So this is recognizing a huge issue for families that are, it’s an economic issue if people, mostly women, have to step out of the workforce. It’s also an issue if you just cannot afford or you’re paying huge amounts for people to come into your home to help a parent, grandparent, spouse who’s unable to care for themselves. So that’s a big initiative on her part that would be funded primarily out of expanding Medicare’s ability to negotiate drugs. 

Rovner: So neither candidate is talking about solvency issues with Medicare, though, and that’s a long-term issue that somebody’s going to need to address, right? 

Neuman: Yes, that is absolutely true. It is an issue that is not going away. We have more and more people aging onto Medicare and the people who are on Medicare are getting older. And as people grow older, they tend to be more expensive. So this is not an imminent concern, but it is an issue that policymakers will have to deal with one way or the other in the years to come. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep talking about it. Tricia Neuman, thank you so much. 

Neuman: And thank you for having me, Julie. 

Rovner: OK, we are back. 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. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week? 

Knight: Sure. My extra credit is a story on NPR, it’s called “Why Catholic Bishops Are Donating Less To Oppose Abortion Rights Measures This Year.” It was on Weekend Edition, and it is by Rosemary Westwood and Jack Jenkins, basically detailing that in the past, the Catholic Church and bishops have been really big in the anti-abortion movement and that has also translated to donating a lot of money to anti-abortion campaigns. But this year, they’re kind of seeing almost a historic low in how little they’re donating to anti-abortion campaigns. And they didn’t really have a clear answer of what the reason for that was, except that maybe they’re just acknowledging the reality of the situation. When you look at particularly the ballot measures in states and how popular those have been — we’ve seen since 2022 that the ballot measures, even in more conservative-leaning states, that protect abortion access, and those vary depending on the state, what they look like, they’ve been really, really popular. And they really have been really overwhelmingly approved, even if there’s Republicans running on the same ballot with them and that people are voting for. People still really support abortion rights mostly. 

So that seems to be the reason — they didn’t really have a clear reason, but it was an interesting marker in the trend of just kind of following where abortion rights are going, as well as where the Catholic Church is moving as well. It seems to be becoming somewhat more progressive over time. 

Rovner: I was fascinated by this story, which I just heard on the radio as I was driving, because the Catholic Church is the originator of the right-to-life movement in the United States. And for a long time, it was almost exclusively the Catholic Church that was pushing this, and now it seems to have moved sort of into other places. So this is sort of the exclamation point on that, that it’s broadened and changed, but it’s no longer being driven as much by the Catholic Church as it used to be. Rachel, why don’t you go next? 

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. So my piece is in The Atlantic, and the headline is “The Perverse Consequences of Tuition-Free Medical School,” by Rose Horowitch. And I just love this story because it’s a look back on this policy that seemed like a good idea at the time, where these really wealthy benefactors are donating to elite, often elite medical schools to make tuition free. And the whole idea was that more doctors will go into primary care if they don’t have debt, and it might open medical school to a more diverse cohort of students. And the opposite has almost happened, where they’re not seeing any more doctors going into primary care and their student body has actually gotten more wealthy than it was before. So I mean, it’s just a great check-in, because I feel like so often we’re just looking forward with the news that we don’t take a moment to question whether some of these policies or stories that we’ve covered, how they’ve worked out a couple of years later. So, I thought it was a great look back. 

Rovner: Yes, in health care, so many things go in, we try things with so much promise, and sometimes they don’t work. So it’s good to notice when they don’t work. Sarah? 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a Vanity Fair piece by Katherine Eban: “Inside the Bungled Bird Flu Response, Where Profits Collide With Public Health.” And it’s a fascinating deep dive to the challenges the U.S. has faced in containing what is, right now at least, mostly just an epidemic in animals, but certainly has public health folks worried about the potential for a human spillover pandemic, if not properly contained. And it’s just a really great story that shows you all of the tensions, and how it has a lot of these flashbacks to early days of covid, where you had different parts of the government with different responsibilities, not quite working together well, and not quite knowing how to play together well. Because you have the USDA in this case, which in many ways has the economics of farmers and the dairy industry in mind more than perhaps broader health concerns. You have FDA, which regulates milk; CDC, which comes in and does the human health; and then you have states, which don’t necessarily always have to answer to everything the federal government would like them to be doing here. 

And the biggest, I think, crisis we face now is just we don’t have a lot of data. We don’t have enough information to truly know the scope of this outbreak. And without knowing that, I think you risk something bad happening before we are on top of it. And that’s really what people are really concerned about now, particularly with seasonal flu season coming up, is if you mix this virus and a human being with seasonal flu or even in an animal, you could develop an even more dangerous virus. So, it’s a warning to everybody in the public health space that this is something we need to be paying attention to because, obviously, the best thing to do is contain it and tamp it out and not have to deal with a much larger human pandemic. 

Rovner: Yes, that would be nice. Something else to keep us awake at night. 

My story this week is from NBC News, it’s called “Crisis Pregnancy Center’s Forms Give Rare Insight Into Anti-Abortion Practices,” by Abigail Brooks. She got a hold of the intake forms of a pregnancy center in Idaho, which included not just the typical medical questions, but also questions about religious and financial status. And one asking, “What decision would the father like you to make, regarding the outcome of your pregnancy?” The answers, which are not protected by HIPAA, because crisis pregnancy centers are not technically medical providers, allow the staff to score whether a patient is “abortion-vulnerable,” which would lead them to try to talk her out of ending the pregnancy. 

It also includes a story of one patient who was strung along so long waiting for test results from this crisis pregnancy center that she ended up needing a second-trimester abortion. It’s quite the look at what goes on behind the scenes at some of these centers, and I strongly recommend it. 

OK, that’s all the time we have today. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sarah, where are you hanging these days? 

Karlin-Smith: A little bit on X, a little bit on Bluesky, at @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Rachel? 

Cohrs Zhang: I’m on X @rachelcohrs and also spending some time on LinkedIn, so feel free to follow me there. 

Rovner: Great. Victoria? 

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk still on X. I am trying to post more on LinkedIn, too. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Gavin Newsom to support food makers’ nightmare scenario — a first-in-the-nation law banning certain food additives in the state, which was signed into law last year.

Wagner is best known for his co-ownership of Magnolia Pictures alongside his longtime business partner Mark Cuban. But now, he told STAT in an extended interview, he’s dedicating himself to fighting food makers and their industrial creations, ultra-processed foods.

“I want people angry,” said Wagner, who is worth an estimated $1.9 billion. “This is an indictment of the food companies that have tainted our food supply, and now we wake up 50, 60 years later with a nation that is unhealthy.”

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning. It’s been a challenging time for workers in the biopharma industry. We’ve seen companies announce layoffs one after another, and people online talk about how it seems increasingly difficult to secure a new job. Read our latest on this subject below, with new numbers on the state of the job market.

Read the rest…

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Hello! Hope your weekend was a blissful one. Today, we talk about AbbVie’s outsize marketing spend, see how GLP-1s are impacting cancer rates, and more.

Read the rest…

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

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

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Correct.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

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

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

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

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning. Read on today for some exclusive hiring news and a retraction of a high-profile paper on cancer detection.

Read the rest…

Want to stay on top of the science and politics driving biotech today? Sign up to get our biotech newsletter in your inbox.

Good morning. It’s Wednesday, which means it’a also “The Bear” season 3 premiere day. For my Boston readers, know that Ayo Edebiri has been thinking deeply about the tragedy of the Great Molasses Flood of 1919.

Read the rest…