The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Just days after his firing of the brand-new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a defiant Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the U.S. secretary of health and human services, defended that action and others before a sometimes skeptical Senate Finance Committee. Criticism of Kennedy’s increasingly anti-vaccine actions came not just from Democrats on the panel but from some Republicans who are also medical doctors.

Meanwhile, members of Congress have only a few weeks left to complete work on spending bills or risk a government shutdown, and time is also running out to head off the large increases in premiums for Affordable Care Act health plans likely to occur with additional Biden-era government subsidies set to expire.

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA approved this year’s covid booster for people older than 65 and for younger people with serious illnesses. Previously, it had been recommended more broadly. All eyes will now turn to the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which is scheduled to meet Sept. 18. Usually this panel would endorse these recommendations and perhaps offer more guidance on the booster’s use for specific populations. But it is not clear whether it will do so — or whether it might even impose more limitations.
• Kennedy’s firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez and the subsequent resignation of multiple senior scientists is raising questions about the agency’s future. Many staffers who were already on the fence about staying now are increasingly likely to leave. Many of these career scientists associate Kennedy’s history of harsh criticisms of public health workers with the recent CDC shooting in Atlanta. But since the shooting, Kennedy seems to have doubled down on his position.
• At the hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, even those Republicans who were critical of Kennedy were careful not to criticize President Donald Trump. There’s some speculation that this duality is meant to drive a wedge between Kennedy and the White House, and to communicate that the HHS secretary could be politically damaging.
• With vaccine policy in flux, red and blue states alike seem to be doing their own thing. Some, like California, Oregon, and Washington — which formed what they’re calling the West Coast Health Alliance — appear to be taking steps to protect access to vaccines. Red states could move in the other direction. For instance, this week, Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo announced an effort to undo all statewide vaccine mandates, including those that require certain vaccines for children to attend school. If more states follow suit, it could lead to a geographic patchwork in which vaccine availability and requirements vary widely.
• This month is lawmakers’ last chance to reup the federal ACA tax subsidies. If Congress doesn’t act to extend them, an estimated 24 million people — many of whom live in GOP-controlled states like Georgia and Florida — will see significant increases in their health insurance premium costs. There’s some talk that Congress could opt for a short-term or limited extension that would postpone the pocketbook impact until after the midterm elections. But insurers are already factoring in the uncertainty as they set rates for the upcoming plan year.
• The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced a Medicare pilot program beginning next year that will use artificial intelligence to grant prior authorization decisions for certain procedures. There is irony here. United Healthcare and other private plans have already gotten into a lot of trouble for doing this, with AI systems often denying needed care.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’s Tony Leys, who discusses his “Bill of the Month” report about a woman’s unfortunate interaction with a bat — and her even more unfortunate interaction with the bill for her rabies prevention treatment.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Gutted: How Deeply Trump Has Cut Federal Health Agencies,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, and Pratheek Rebala.

Jessie Hellmann: KFF Health News’ “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle,” by Bram Sable-Smith.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: NPR’s “Leniency on Lice in Schools Meets Reality,” by Blake Farmer.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Vox’s “Exclusive: RFK Jr. and the White House Buried a Major Study on Alcohol and Cancer. Here’s What It Shows,” by Dylan Scott.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “Florida Moves To End All School Vaccine Mandates, First in Nation To Do So,” by David Ovalle and Lori Rozsa.
• The 19th’s “Texas Passes Bill Banning Abortion Pills From Being Mailed to the State,” by Shefali Luthra.
• The New York Times’ “Medicare Will Require Prior Approval for Certain Procedures,” by Reed Abelson and Teddy Rosenbluth.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: On Capitol Hill, RFK Defends Firings at CDC

[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 Friday, Sept. 5, 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, everybody. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with my KFF Health News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the August “Bill of the Month” about a patient’s unfortunate run-in with a bat and an even more unfortunate run-in with the bill for rabies prophylaxis. But first, this week’s news.  

Well, it is safe to say that there has been quite a bit of health news since we last met in mid-August. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. testified before the Senate Finance Committee yesterday, which we will talk about in a moment. But first, I want to catch us up on what you might’ve missed. Our story starts, kind of, with the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] approval of this year’s covid boosters, which are only being licensed for those over age 65 and those who are younger but have at least one condition that puts them at high risk of serious illness if they contract the virus. That leaves out lots of people that many doctors think ought to be boosted, like pregnant women and children. Sarah, what’s supposed to happen after the FDA acts? The next step happens at CDC [the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], right? 

Karlin-Smith: Correct. So right now the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices is scheduled to meet Sept. 17 to 18, 18 to 19, but about two weeks from now. And they would typically vote on sort of endorsing use of these vaccines and, again, have like sort of a second chance to weigh in on which populations they would be used for. And that’s often important for triggering insurance coverage without copays. And also many states rely on the CDC recommendations for various state laws that say, again, who can get the vaccine or whether you can get it via a pharmacist or only at a doctor’s office, do you need a prescription, and things like that. So the CDC and FDA, I would say, in general is a little bit behind this year. I could think a lot of people have been trying to go out and get these new shots even though those steps haven’t happened yet. 

Rovner: That’s right. I mean, it is early. Even if there was nothing else going on, there is that little bit of a lag between when FDA acts and when the CDC acts, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, there usually is. I think in the past they’ve tried to have both FDA approval and the CDC act so that the vaccines could start rolling out more like late summer, early September. So they’re definitely behind, and there’s been a number of reports of covid kind of slowly rising as the summer winds down and school gets back in session. 

Rovner: Yeah, so there’s a lot of other things going on. Well, in the meantime, nothing that was supposed to happen has happened yet, and we still don’t know all the details, but it certainly appears that Susan Monarez, who was just confirmed by the Senate to lead the CDC a month ago, was fired after she refused to override her scientific advisers and approve the new restrictions on covid vaccine availability, even before the ACIP met. In turn, four top CDC leaders resigned as well, going public to warn that the agency is being politicized by the secretary. How much of a mess is the CDC in right now? And how long is it going to take to put the pieces back together? 

Karlin-Smith: I think they’re in a pretty bad place, because not only did they lose their director really quickly, but after she resigned, about I think it was eight or nine senior CDC leaders resigned last week as well. And so, really critical people to various parts of the operation that you don’t just replace very easily. And Kennedy has slotted in Jim O’Neill as the temporary director of the CDC and kind of indicated he wants to remake the agency. And I think there are questions as to how that remaking shapes both its priorities and how it handles public health throughout the U.S. 

Rovner: And of course, morale at CDC is awesome, in part because, as we discussed the last time we met, a gunman came and shot up the place, killing a policeman and leaving the staff pretty upset. And that gunman, who then took his own life, was later found to have had some discontent with vaccines. So things are just really bright and cheery there in Atlanta at the CDC. Alice, I see you nodding. 

Ollstein: These things kind of snowball, you know? I think there are likely to be a lot of staff who were already on the fence about staying and decided to stay because they trusted these pretty senior leaders with a lot of decades of expertise and institutional knowledge. And that was sort of the thread they were hanging on as well, at least: I’m with these people. And now that they’ve left, I think that could trigger a bigger exodus on top of the exodus that was already underway. 

Rovner: And it’s important to say — even though we say it, I think, every time — that these are career scientists who’ve worked for Democrats and Republicans over the years. These are not generally political people. They’re not political appointees. And they basically do their jobs. And until fairly recently, public health wasn’t this partisan, so it wasn’t that hard to be a career public health official just working for public health. That’s just not the case anymore, is it? 

Karlin-Smith: I think there’s been a lot of insult to injury added with what happened with the shooting at the CDC, because there is a sense that the kind of rhetoric that Kennedy in particular has used over the years, even before he came into HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], on sort of his movement has sort of amplified the criticism of public health workers and put them in this situation where they’re dangerous. And Kennedy, instead of really acknowledging that and maybe apologizing or giving any sense that he was going to shift in a different direction, has actually really kind of doubled down on it. And even in some of the pieces he’s written recently about how he wants to reform the CDC, he kind of keeps criticizing the rank-and-file employees and so forth. So there’s a lot of tension between the political leadership and the career staff, I think, at this moment. 

Ollstein: And in normal times, most of the American public would not even know the names of these people. They’re not public figures. They’re just very behind-the-scenes scientists doing their work. And now their personal photos are being combed through and shared to attack them because they’ve criticized the administration. They’re getting threats. It’s just this whole level, like you said, of politicization that we haven’t seen before. 

Rovner: Well, so, in kind of a coincidence, Kennedy had already agreed to appear on Thursday before the Senate Finance Committee, which by the way doesn’t have jurisdiction over the CDC or the rest of the public health service. But no matter — a Senate hearing is a Senate hearing. And let’s just say it didn’t go that well for the secretary. Democrats were kind of withering in their criticism of Kennedy’s eight-month tenure so far. Here’s Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet. 

Sen. Michael Bennet: This is the last thing, by the way, our parents need when their kids are going back to school, is to have the kind of confusion and expense and scarcity that you’re creating as a result of your ideology. 

Rovner: Republicans weren’t that impressed, either, particularly the Republicans on the committee who are also doctors. [Sen.] Bill Cassidy, a doctor who’s on Finance but is also the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and is facing a primary challenge in Louisiana, seemed to tread pretty carefully. More surprising, at least to me, was Dr. Sen. John Barrasso of Wyoming, who’s also in the Senate leadership. 

Sen. John Barrasso: So over the last 50 years, vaccines are estimated to have saved 154 million lives worldwide. I support vaccines. I’m a doctor. Vaccines work. 

Rovner: I was super impressed that even the Republicans who criticized RFK were careful not to criticize President [Donald] Trump. In fact, there were several suggestions — this was clearly a talking point — that Trump should be given a Nobel Prize for his work overseeing Operation Warp Speed, just so the senators could kind of bifurcate their complaints. What impact, if any, is this hearing going to have on RFK’s future as secretary? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there was an attempt to, I think, what you just mentioned. That like dual criticism with praise of Trump was meant to drive a wedge and to get Trump to question RFK’s leadership. That does not seem to have worked so far. We don’t know what’s going to happen in the future, but I think it’s an attempt to get the message to Trump that RFK’s reputation and actions could be damaging to the administration overall. And there was some reporting that polling showing that most people do support vaccines was circulated amongst Republican members before the hearing. And so, I think it’s trying to, yeah, get the message that this is both damaging in a public health sense but also potentially damaging in a political sense as well. 

But so far, the reporting is that Trump is standing by RFK, that he liked how combative he was. And so I don’t know where those attempts to drive a wedge will go in the future, but like you said, it was notable that if folks like Barrasso, [Sen. Thom] Tillis, who’s not running for reelection, was also more vocally critical, and a couple others, not a lot. We’re not seeing a great dam breaking yet. But I think there’s more cracks than there used to be on the GOP side. 

Rovner: I did notice that Trump, he had a very strange Truth Social post earlier in the week that basically said that CDC is a mess and it has to be fixed. Kind of just Trump being the omniscient observer. And then, apparently at a dinner with tech titans after the hearing, he said that he had not watched the hearing but that he heard that Kennedy did well, which is not exactly what I would call a ringing endorsement. I feel like Trump is giving himself some runway to go either way depending on sort of how things continue to shake out. I see nodding. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I saw a lot of people reposting that clip on social media last night who are frustrated with Kennedy and using it to try and ramp up their banks and say: Keep calling. Keep pressuring. This shows we have an opening. I think it’s really always hard to read the tea leaves with Trump and his language and words. He’s a harder person to interpret. But I also thought it was really interesting that in some ways Cassidy and some of the other Republicans were throwing RFK a bone and saying: This is your president. This was his greatest achievement. Can you support it? 

And RFK couldn’t even really twist himself into doing that. He sort of tried to, but he could never square it with the bulk of his remarks at the hearing, which were incredibly critical. MRNA vaccines and vaccines in general — he defended the massive cuts in this area for research. He defended people who have really said very untrue things about the harm caused by these vaccines. So in some ways I felt like Cassidy was trying to give him one more chance or something, and RFK couldn’t even take it when it was couched as this Trump achievement. 

Rovner: I can’t help but wonder if this is playing to Trump’s advantage because it’s distracting from Trump’s other problems, that perhaps Trump likes that there’s so much attention on this because it takes attention away from other things. 

Ollstein: Yeah. Although I do find the eagerness of Democratic members of Congress and other folks to wave away certain things as a distraction as a little bit questionable. This is all part of the agenda of the administration, and dismantling government bureaucracy is clearly a core, core part of the administration’s agenda, and so— 

Rovner: And flooding the zone. 

Ollstein: Exactly. Well, it might also serve as a distraction. I think that it should be considered a serious part of what they actually want to do as well. 

Rovner: So there were a couple of things that we learned about RFK Jr. from his confirmation hearings back in the winter. One is that he’s not at all deferential to elected officials, even calling them liars, which is pretty unheard of. And that he doesn’t really know how his department works. And it appears that eight months later, neither of those things have changed. How does he get away with being so rude? I mean, I’ve just never seen a Cabinet official who’s been so undeferential to the people who basically put him in office. Is it just me? 

Karlin-Smith: I think it’s part of the times where politics is really trumping behavior or policy, right? Even though there were a few Republicans that we’ve talked about who have kind of started to get frustrated with RFK and his vaccine policies. You saw at the beginning of the hearing, Chairman [Mike] Crapo was asked by the ranking Democrat, Sen. [Ron] Wyden, to basically swear Kennedy in because Wyden has felt like Kennedy has lied to the committee before. And Crapo just basically brushed that away and dismissed it. And I think, so, in many ways a lot of the Republicans on the committee endorsed Kennedy’s behavior kind of, maybe not overtly but indirectly, and that’s sort of been how they’ve been operating. It’s more of a political theater thing, and they’re OK with sort of this disrespect, of its sort of political fight that somebody on their side is taking up. 

Ollstein: I also think Congress’ unwillingness so far to actually sanction or take action in any way about anything RFK has done seems to have emboldened him. I think the fact that he has broken all these promises he made to Cassidy and other senators and there have been basically no consequences for him so far feeds into that. He kind of has a What are you going to do? attitude that was very evident in the hearing. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s fair. Well, there were, as always, parochial question from senators about home state issues, but one topic I don’t think I expected to see come up as many times as it did was the future of the abortion pill, mifepristone, which is about to celebrate the 25th anniversary of its original approval by the FDA. Alice, what are you hearing about whether FDA is going to rein the drug back in, which is what a lot of these anti-abortion Republicans really want to see happen? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so I think there was nothing new in the hearing this week. What he said was what he’s been saying, that they’re looking into it, that they’re evaluating. He made no specific commitments. He gave no specific timelines. He said basically enough to keep the anti-abortion people thinking that they’re cooking up some restrictions but not explicitly promising that, either. And so I think we’re just where we were before. They continue to reference data put forward by an anti-abortion think tank that was not peer-reviewed and claiming that it is this solid scientific evidence, which it is not, about the risks posed by the pills, which many actual, credible, peer-reviewed studies have found to be very safe. And so we just don’t know what’s going to happen. I think any nationwide restrictions, which is what they’re mulling at the federal level, which would impact states where abortion is legally protected, that would be a potentially politically damaging move. And so it’s understandable why they might not want to pull that trigger right now. So, right. 

Rovner: And Trump has said, I mean, Trump has indicated that he does not really want to wade into this. 

Ollstein: Correct. But again, he’s also very good about not making hard promises in either direction and sort of keeping his options open, which is what they’re doing. The anti-abortion activists, this is not their only iron in the fire. This is just one of many strategies they have going on. They also have multiple pending lawsuits and court cases that are attempting to accomplish the same thing. They’re pursuing new policies at the state level, which we’ll probably talk about, Texas and others. 

Rovner: Next. 

Ollstein: And so yes, this pressure on FDA and HHS to use regulation to restrict the pills is only one of many ongoing efforts. 

Rovner: Well, you have anticipated my next question, which is that while we are on the subject of the abortion pill, Texas, because it is always Texas, has a new bill on its way to the governor for a signature to try to outlaw telemedicine prescribing of the abortion pill. What exactly would this Texas law do? And would it work? Because, obviously, this has been the biggest loophole about stopping abortion in these states that have banned abortion, is that people are still able to get these pills from other states via telemedicine. 

Ollstein: Yeah. So in one sense, nothing’s changed. Abortion was already illegal in Texas, whether you use a pill or have a procedure. And so this is just layered on top of that. The groups who backed this explicitly said the attempt is to have a chilling effect. What they’re hoping is that no lawsuits are even needed, because this just scares people away from ordering pills and scares groups in other states away from sending pills. One concern that I saw raised is that the law criminalizes simply the shipping of the pills. Somebody doesn’t even have to take them for a crime to have been committed. 

And so that’s raising concerns that anti-abortion activists will do kind of sting operations, sort of entrapment-y things where they order the pills solely in the interest of bringing a lawsuit. Because there is a cash bounty that you can get for filing a lawsuit — there’s an incentive. So that’s a concern. And then just the general concern of a chilling effect and people who are using less safe means than these pills to terminate their pregnancies out of fear, which studies have shown is already on the rise, people injuring themselves taking herbs and other substances, chemicals. So that’s a concern as well. 

Rovner: We’ll continue to watch this, but back to vaccine policy. With the status of federal vaccine recommendations in limbo, states appear to be going their own way. Blue states California, Washington, and Oregon are banding together in a consortium to make official recommendations in the absence of federal policy, and several blue-state governors are acting unilaterally to make sure covid vaccines, at least, remain available to most people. At the same time, some red states are going the other way, with Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who we have talked about before, now vowing to get rid of all vaccine requirements for schoolchildren. Sarah, that would be a really big deal, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think the big fear then is that the school requirements is kind of what gets us to close to, in many cases, universal vaccine uptake in the country, because everybody needs their kids to be in school. Unless you’re homeschooled, you really must follow these vaccine requirements. And it not only hurts the kids who don’t end up getting vaccinated individually, but it can really hurt the idea of herd immunity and the protection we need for these diseases to disappear in the community. So there’s— 

Rovner: And protection for people who can’t be immunized for some reason. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. Who either can’t be immunized or don’t have an adequate response to the immunization because they’re going through cancer treatment or they have some other medical reason that their body is immunocompromised. 

Rovner: So, I mean, is this going to end up like abortion, where it’s availability absolutely depends on where you live? 

Karlin-Smith: I think that’s hard to say. I think that a policy like what Florida is trying to implement could very quickly and easily go wrong, I think, and be reversed, as we’ve seen, like what’s happening in Texas now, with measles outbreaks. You know you only need just very small fractions of decreases in vaccination to create huge public health crises in places. And so I think it would be more sort of visible, in a way, to some of these states and their populations, the potential harm that could be caused, than maybe it is to them the abortion harm. But we definitely are seeing some sense of, right, the Democratic-controlled states trying to implement policies that help people get better access to vaccines, even when the federal government is trying to maybe harm that, and red states not caring as much. 

So there is going to be some more of a patchwork. And I feel like, in talking to just sort of people outside of the health policy space, there is a lot of confusion about: Where can I get my covid vaccine? Am I going to have to pay? Do I qualify? Especially being in D.C., which has less generous, I guess, pharmacy laws, because of this. So people are confused. If I go to Maryland, which is really close, does that matter even though I live in D.C.? And it’s just all these things we kind of know end up leading to less people getting vaccinated. Because even if they want to do it, the hurdles end up driving people away. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think something you’d said earlier about the fact that we’re seeing kind of a covid spike, so people are anxious to get covid vaccines, I think, a little bit earlier than normal. It’s usually kind of a fall thing and it’s only the beginning of September, but I think there’s just this combination, this confluence of events that has a lot of people very excited about this right now. 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think it does. And covid has been, I think there’s been lots of hope in the public health world that covid would become a little bit like the flu, where we could predict a little bit more when it would really peak and get everybody vaccinated around the same time as they’re getting flu vaccines. Just again, because we know when we make it easier on people to get vaccinated, if you could just one-and-done it, it would be good. Unfortunately, covid has tended to also still have summer peaks, and this year again it’s kind of a late summer peak. And a lot of people, including seniors, are still recommended really actually to get two vaccines a year. So many people are kind of coming due for that second update right now. 

Rovner: Well, we’ll keep watching that space. Moving on, as we kind of pointed out already, Congress is back in town, with just a couple weeks to go before the start of fiscal 2026 on Oct. 1. This was the year Congress was really, truly going to get all of its spending bills passed in time for the start of the new year. How’s that going, Jessie? 

Hellmann: It’s going great. I’m just kidding. There’s a lot of friction on the Hill right now. The White House budget chief is talking about doing more clawbacks of foreign aid, which is frustrating both Democrats and Republicans. It’s about $5 billion, and we’re seeing Democrats kind of start to put their neck out there a little more than they did earlier in the year when they were also kind of making noise about government funding. And they’re now saying that Republicans are going to have to go this alone and they’re not going to support partisan spending bills. So it’s kind of difficult to see where we go from here. And then— 

Rovner: Are we looking at a shutdown on Oct. 1? I mean, that’s what happens if the spending bills aren’t done. 

Hellmann: It’s hard to say. There might be a short-term spending bill, but anything longer-term than that, it seems really difficult at this point. And there are just massive differences between the health bills that the House came out with and the Senate came out with. I mean, there’s differences in all the other appropriations bills, too, but I was just going to focus on health. 

Rovner: Yes, please. 

Hellmann: The Senate bill would allow an increase for HHS, and the House bill would cut it pretty significantly. So it’s kind of hard to see how they could do anything more substantive when there’s so much light between the two. 

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, on the one hand, we have both the Senate and the House subcommittee that’s marked up the Labor HHS [Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies] appropriation on record as not supporting at least the very deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health that were proposed by President Trump. But on the other hand, as you mentioned, we still have the administration, primarily budget office chief Russell Vought, making the case that the administration doesn’t have to spend money that Congress appropriates. And from all we can tell, at least as of now, there’s a lot of money that won’t be spent as of the end of the fiscal year, despite the fact that that is illegal. It’s known as a pocket rescission, a term I think we’re about to hear a lot more about. Alice, you referred to this earlier: Is Congress just going to quietly ignore the fact that the administration is usurping their power? 

Ollstein: I think that in many areas of politics, there is a faction that wants to play hardball and really use whatever leverage is possible and there’s a faction that wants to play nice and try to get what they can get by negotiation. And I think both parties always fear being blamed for shutdowns, and so that drives a lot of it. But I think there’s mounting frustration with Democratic leadership about not playing hardball enough. I mean, the jokes I hear are Democrats like to bring a spreadsheet to a gunfight, just seen as being unwilling, in the face of what many see as lawlessness, being unwilling to really put a check on that using the levers they have, including this federal spending. But I think we’ve seen that there are risks no matter what they do, and so I think people make reasonable points about the pros and cons of various strategies. 

Rovner: Well, we know that [Sen.] Susan Collins, who’s now the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, is very, very concerned — because Susan Collins is always very, very concerned. But she’s the one whose power is basically being thwarted at this point. People have gotten a lot of gray hair waiting for Susan Collins to stand up and be combative, but one would think if there was ever a time for her to do it, this would be it. Jessie, are we seeing, I was going to say, any indication that the appropriators are going to say, Hey, this is our job and our constitutional responsibility, and you’re supposed to do what we say when it comes to money? 

Hellmann: They are saying these things. I feel like we are seeing more Senate Republicans, at least, express discomfort with what the Trump administration is doing, saying things like: This is Congress’ job. We have the power of the purse. And then they are passing some of these spending bills through committee. But what else are they supposed to do? Unless Susan Collins wants to get on Fox News and start screaming about government funding, which I don’t really see happening and I don’t know if it would be effective, you kind of just wonder: What other options do they have at this point? 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we’ll sort of see how this plays out over the next few weeks. Meanwhile, it’s not just the spending bills that Congress is facing deadlines for. This month is basically the last chance to re-up those, quote, “expanded subsidies” for Affordable Care Act plans before the sticker shock hits 24 million people in the face. Not only are premiums going up by an average of 18% from this year to next — that’s for a lot of reasons: increasing costs of health care, tariffs, drug prices — but eliminating those additional subsidies, or actually letting them expire, will cause some people to have to pay double or triple what they pay now. And it’s going to hit folks in red states like Georgia and Florida and Texas even harder because more folks there are on the Affordable Care Act plans, because those states didn’t expand Medicaid. Do Republicans not understand what’s about to happen to them? 

Hellmann: I think they understand, but they keep acting like there’s no urgency to the situation. They keep saying: We still have time. We have till the end of the year. Which I guess is technically true, but we’re already seeing insurers proposing these giant rate hikes. And it’s not easy to just go back and make changes to some of this. I guess the idea is— 

Rovner: So they really don’t have until the end of the year, though. Because people are going to get, they’re going to see the next year’s premiums that they have to start signing up in November. So, I mean, they basically have this month. 

Ollstein: If there’s uncertainty, they’re going to price very conservatively, aka high. They don’t want to be left holding the bag. And so, yeah, you and Jessie are exactly right that there isn’t time. These decisions are being made now. Even if they pass something to kick the can until after the midterms, I think some damage will already have been done. 

Rovner: Yeah. Jessie, I cut you off, though. I mean, the idea is that sort of their one chance to maybe do this before people actually start to get these bills, or at least see what they’re going to have to pay, would be wrapped into this end-of-fiscal-year continuing resolution. And maybe they can kick the appropriations down the road until November or December, but they can’t really kick the question of the subsidies down the road until November or December. 

Hellmann: Yeah. I think something would have to happen really quickly. We’re seeing some politically vulnerable Republicans, in the House, specifically, say that they want at least a year-long extension. It’s just a really difficult issue. We know, obviously, the Freedom Caucus is already making threats about it. They hate the ACA, maybe more than anything. It’s going to be really interesting how this turns out. I’ve also heard that maybe there might be a paired-back version of an extension that they could do, maybe messing with some of the income parameters. But I don’t know if that kind of compromise would be enough unless Republicans work with Democrats, which as we already said is complicated for other reasons. So it’s just a mess right now. 

Rovner: I love September on Capitol Hill. All right, finally this week Medicare has announced it will launch a pilot program next January to test the use of artificial intelligence to perform prior authorization for Medicare fee-for-service patients in six states. The program is aimed at just a handful of services right now that are considered to be often wasteful and of dubious value to patients. So, honestly, what could possibly go wrong here? This is a serious question. I mean, isn’t using AI to do prior authorization what got a lot of these private health plans in trouble over the last year? 

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, they did. UnitedHealthcare I think is sort of infamous for that. There was a lot of irony when they first announced this concept of doing a little more prior auth, essentially, in Medicare. It came right after they made another announcement where they were trying to say, We’re actually going to crack down on prior authorization for a health plan. So there’s a bit of, and I think they were trying to not have the, in this second announcement, not have the words “prior auth,” so that they kind of could get wins on both levels. Because I think they know that prior authorization is generally not popular with health consumers. People see it as kind of a barrier to care that their doctor has said they need and is largely stopped because of cost reasons. And then I think once you add in this idea that artificial intelligence is doing it, not a human being, I think people have less trust that it’s being done in the proper way and really that they’re stopping inappropriate care. 

Rovner: Well, to paraphrase RFK Jr. at the Senate Finance hearing, who said many times, both things can be true, even if they are contradictory. All right, that is this week’s news, or at least as much as we have time for. Now we’ll play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

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

Tony Leys: Glad to be here. Thanks, Julie. 

Rovner: So this month’s patient got a literal mouthful when she went to photograph the night sky in Arizona. Who is she and what happened? 

Leys: While Erica Kahn was taking photos at Glen Canyon last summer, a bat flew up, landed on her, and jammed itself between her camera and her face. Kahn screamed, as anyone would, and the bat went into her mouth. It only was in there for a few seconds, and she didn’t feel a bite. But she feared it could have infected her with a rabies virus, which bats frequently carry. 

Rovner: Yeah, not a great thing. So as with any run-in with a bat, Erica wisely reported to the nearest emergency room for preventive rabies treatment, which we know from previous “Bills of the Month” can total many thousands of dollars. How much did her treatment cost? 

Leys: Nearly $21,000, mostly for a series of vaccinations and other treatments, over the course of two weeks, aimed at preventing the deadly virus from gaining a foothold. 

Rovner: Yikes. 

Leys: Yikes, indeed. 

Rovner: Now, the problem here wasn’t so much that she was charged as what her insurance status was. What was her health insurance status? 

Leys: Well, Kahn had been laid off from her job as a biomedical engineer in Massachusetts, and she had turned down the COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] plan, which would’ve allowed her to stay on her employer’s insurance plan. The plan would’ve cost her about $650 a month, which seemed too much for her. And she was a young, healthy adult who was confident that she would quickly find a new job with health insurance. She also thought that if she became ill in the meantime, she could buy a private plan that would cover preexisting health conditions. 

Rovner: Yeah. That was the big problem, right? 

Leys: Right. 

Rovner: So what did she do? And then what happened? 

Leys: So before she went to the hospital for rabies prevention treatment, she signed up for a policy she found online. The policy, which she thought was full-fledged health insurance, apparently wasn’t. But she says the company selling it told her it would cover treatment of a life-threatening emergency, which this sure seemed to be. But the company later declined to cover any of the bills, citing a 30-day waiting period for coverage. 

Rovner: Yeah. Now, I mean, you can’t generally buy any kind of insurance after an insurable event happens. You can’t buy fire insurance the day after a fire or car insurance the day after an accident. Health insurance is no different. Although in her case, she could have actually resumed her previous coverage through COBRA, right? How would that have worked? 

Leys: So after you lose coverage from an employer, you generally have 60 days to decide whether to sign up for COBRA coverage, which would be retroactive to the day your old policy lapsed. Khan was within that period when the bat went in her mouth. So she could have retroactively bought COBRA coverage, but she didn’t know about that option. 

Rovner: Yeah. A lot of people, they initially lose their job or they leave their job and they don’t take COBRA, because it’s really expensive, as a rule — because it’s employer insurance and employer insurance is usually pretty generous — and they think they don’t need it. But this is one of those cases where she actually probably could have gotten it covered, right? 

Leys: Right, right. And in fairness, I’d never heard about that 60-day thing, either, and I’ve covered this, so— 

Rovner: I had, but I was there when COBRA was started. So what’s the takeaway here about people who don’t have insurance or think they can buy it at the last minute? 

Leys: Well, two things. One is you should have health insurance. 

Rovner: Because you never know when a bat’s going to fly in your mouth. 

Leys: And that a bat in the mouth does not count as a preexisting condition. 

Rovner: True. 

Leys: We know that now. 

Rovner: And what happened with this bill? 

Leys: She is still trying to get it worked out. 

Rovner: And presumably she’s going to be paying it off for some time to come. 

Leys: That’s what it sounds like. Yep. 

Rovner: But she won’t get rabies. 

Leys: Nope. 

Rovner: So happy ending of a sort. Tony Leys, thank you so much. 

Leys: Thank you for having me. Appreciate it. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And 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’ll put the links in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, you were the first to come up with your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it? 

Karlin-Smith: I picked a piece that ran in NPR from KFF’s Blake Farmer, “Leniency on Lice in Schools Meets Reality,” because it’s about the one-year anniversary of my family getting lice from school. And I actually was exposed to this new reality, which is since I was in school, and it’s, I guess, a broader national policy that they no longer kick kids out of school once you see lice and make it kind of difficult before you can go back to school. And I guess the public health rationale is generally that lice is actually, while it’s quite itchy, it’s not really harmful. So trying to think about the best way to cause the least harm, letting kids stay in school while you treat the infection is seen as most appropriate now. 

But there’s been, as a story goes into, some pushback from parents who feel that then it’s just getting them in these cycles where they’re constantly getting lice and having to deal with it. And dealing with getting the shampoos and stuff for lice can be kind of costly. So I thought it was a slightly lighter health care story for people to think about in these times. 

Rovner: Yeah. Risks and benefits. Classic case of risks and benefits. Alice. 

Ollstein: Well, this is definitely more on the risks than the benefits side of things, but I have a very good piece from Vox. It’s an exclusive. It’s called “RFK Jr. and the White House Buried a Major Study on Alcohol and Cancer.” And so they talked to these scientists who were commissioned to compile all of the data about the risk of drinking alcohol to having cancer. And it was compiling high-quality data that was already out there. And it really shows that no amount of drinking is totally safe. Even a very small, moderate amount of drinking includes a cancer risk, and that goes up the more you drink. 

And now, according to this report, the administration is not going to publish this. The authors turned it in in March, and they’ve just been sitting on it and they said they have no plans to publish it. And this is coming as the alcohol industry does a lot of lobbying to try to prevent stuff like this from being put out in the public consciousness. I just found this really fascinating. Already the younger generations are drinking a lot less. And so there does seem to be a growing awareness of the health risks of even moderate drinking. But I think that anything that keeps people from seeing this information is worrying, although this report did say that they are planning on publishing it in a peer-reviewed medical journal, which they were always planning anyways. But not having the federal government’s backing is a big deal. 

Rovner: It’s not exactly “radical transparency” is what they’ve been talking about. Jessie. 

Ollstein: And it’s not exactly “MAHA” [“Make America Healthy Again”]. They’re talking MAHA. They’re talking about lifestyle stuff. They’re talking about what you eat, but apparently not about what you drink. 

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: My story is from KFF Health News, from Bram Sable-Smith. It’s called “When Hospitals and Insurers Fight, Patients Get Caught in the Middle.” It is about what happens when providers and insurers have contract disputes. The one example in this story is in Missouri, and it kind of focuses on this family that’s caught in the middle of a dispute between the University of Missouri Health Care system and Anthem. And it means patients don’t get care. There’s not a lot of protections for them. There are provisions that were in the No Surprises Act kind of intended to ensure there was some continuity of care in these situations. But at least for this couple, they weren’t really able to access those protections. So unclear if those are working as intended. 

I just thought it was really interesting because it’s not a new problem, but it’s definitely something that we are hearing more and more. It just happened in the D.C .area a few weeks ago. It just happened in New York. And it kind of raises questions about: What are policymakers going to do about this? They complain about rising health care costs, but they don’t often do very much. They complain about competition and consolidation, and this is one of the effects of that. People lose access to care. So I thought this was a really interesting story. 

Rovner: Yeah. These are all the policy issues that policymakers are not working on but could be. My extra credit this week is from ProPublica. It’s called “Gutted: How Deeply Trump Has Cut Federal Health Agencies,” by Brandon Roberts, Annie Waldman, Pratheek Rebala, and Sam Green. And it’s a deep data dive that found that more than 20,500 workers, or about 18% of the Health and Human Services Department workforce, have left or been pushed out in the first month of Trump 2.0. That includes more than a thousand regulators and safety inspectors and 3,000 scientists and public health specialists. The agency, in its official response to the story, said, quote, “Yes, we’ve made cuts — to bloated bureaucracies that were long overdue for accountability.” I guess we will have to see if America gets healthier. In the meantime, it’s good to have some data on where we were and now where we are at HHS. 

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

Karlin-Smith: Kind of everywhere. At Bluesky, X, LinkedIn — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Jessie. 

Hellmann: I am on X, @jessiehellman. I’m also on LinkedIn. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

A new executive order from President Donald Trump has potentially broad implications for the future of the federal research enterprise by transferring direct funding decisions away from career professionals to political appointees.

And a gunman, reportedly disgruntled over covid vaccines, attacked the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, highlighting how increasingly inflammatory rhetoric from health critics endangers the public health workforce.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefali.bsky.social

Read Shefali's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Trump’s executive order highlights the tension between how Congress has directed federal science funding and what the administration can do to alter that course. Congress has traditionally set the parameters and experts have made the judgments for moving forward. The National Institutes of Health, considered an American crown jewel, specifically has remained apolitical. But this step opens the door to concerns about grant cancellation and adds to growing uncertainty in scientific research. Even investors are starting to hold back. The ripple effects could be much bigger than the Trump administration anticipates.
• Many CDC staffers blame Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and other agency leaders for stoking the negative climate that led to last week’s attack. Kennedy appears to have doubled down on his language, however, announcing decisions and policies that continue to fuel vaccine opposition and hesitation.
• This week, Kennedy also made the unprecedented move of calling on the Annals of Internal Medicine, a medical journal, to retract a study that found that the aluminum adjuvant in many childhood vaccines did not cause harm. The journal refused to retract the study based on Kennedy’s scientifically unsubstantiated claims that the additive was damaging.
• More fallout is emerging about the GOP-backed sweeping budget law enacted this summer. Republicans have argued that its cuts to Medicaid — most of which will not kick in until after the midterm elections — would touch only waste, fraud, abuse, and people who weren’t entitled to the coverage. In reality, the sprawling nature of Medicaid is already becoming clear as institutions — ranging from hospitals to community health centers — prepare for cuts that could limit their ability to provide services.
• The CDC reported this week that Americans are eating less ultra-processed food but that it is still a big part of the American diet. The Trump administration has talked a big game about addressing this public health issue yet has seemed loath to require the food industry to do anything. Much of the administration’s efforts have focused on “voluntary” changes. Former FDA chief David Kessler this week highlighted a regulatory, legal way the administration could compel more action.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Aaron Carroll, president and CEO of the health services research group AcademyHealth, about how to restore the public’s trust in public health.

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

Julie Rovner: ProPublica’s “Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump as Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals,” by David Armstrong, Eric Umansky, and Vernal Coleman.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times-KFF Health News’ “Why Young Americans Dread Turning 26: Health Insurance Chaos,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal and Hannah Norman.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “This Ohio Farm Community Is a Mecca for the ‘MAHA Mom,’” by Caroline Kitchener.

Shefali Luthra: Stat’s “Inside the American Medical Association’s Sudden Strategy Shift in Washington,” by Theresa Gaffney.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Washington Post’s “This Phrase Was Meant To Increase Trust in Science. It Backfired,” by Aaron E. Carroll.
• Stat’s “Former Surgeon General: The CDC Shooting Must Be a Wakeup Call,” by Jerome Adams.
• PBS NewsHour’s “Federal mRNA Funding Cut Is ‘Most Dangerous Public Health Decision’ Ever, Expert Says,” by Geoff Bennett and Karina Cuevas.
• The Washington Post’s “How Schools Could Be Hit by Medicaid Cuts,” by Terell Wright.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump Further Politicizes Science

[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, Aug. 14, 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: Good morning, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Aaron Carroll, president and CEO of AcademyHealth. He’ll talk about how the public has lost trust in public health and how public health might win it back again. But first, this week’s news. 

I want to start this week with a story that maybe hasn’t gotten as much attention as I think it should. Last week, President [Donald] Trump issued yet another executive order, this one called “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking.” It really should be called “Implementing Political Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” because that’s what it does. Sarah, before we get into this, explain how federal science grants work now and the role of political appointees vis-à-vis career and outside experts. 

Karlin-Smith: I guess I would say right now there’s very little political oversight. You have various scientific committees and federal experts that make the decision of how to reward the money, and it’s going to be very broken down by people’s areas of scientific specialty. So, and this order is really trying to put it more in the hands of political people that have a lot less scientific knowledge. 

Rovner: That’s a polite way to put it. 

Karlin-Smith: I think the reason why maybe it hasn’t gotten attention is this is sort of an extension of a lot of stuff they have tried to do throughout the administration, but they’ve either gotten pushback from universities or other parties or through the courts. And part of what seems to be going on here is they maybe have learned some lessons about their legal failures and they are trying to see if they can kind of adjust their strategy to maybe make it more foolproof. But there’s a lot of tension between how Congress has directed this federal funding to be spent and what the administration can really do to change the process around it. 

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I feel like until now this has been very much Congress setting the parameters and career people and outside experts making the judgments about what kind of science should be funded, right? Am I missing something here? 

Karlin-Smith: I don’t think you are. I guess one thing that strikes me about this is I think that the U.S. scientific infrastructure and NIH [the National Institutes of Health] in general has not been political in the way I think other parts of our health system, our public health system in particular, have been over the years. Like, NIH, it’s gone through some periods maybe in the past decade or so where the funding wasn’t quite where people want it. But in general it’s been a pretty bipartisan priority. People do not want to mess with this system. It’s kind of a crown jewel of the U.S. that has helped spur both our universities and private industry and technology. So I think this is just a bit of a very different kind of strategy and approach from the Trump administration than we’ve seen from other administrations in terms of even trying to do this. 

Rovner: It has been political in the sense of Disease Group A goes to members on Capitol Hill and say, Please fund our disease, and then they’ll put a line in the Appropriations Committee report to Please fund this disease. But when it comes to how, what specifically the kinds of research for that disease gets funded, that’s been left up to experts. So, under this order, not only will political appointees be in charge of potential funding announcement as well as grant approvals, but it also orders creation of a system to cancel ongoing grants for, quote, “convenience,” meaning apparently any reason that the administration might want to invoke. That’s something, as Sarah points out, that this administration has been doing since January, although various courts have pointed out kind of repeatedly that that’s not legal. But this could create so much uncertainty in scientific research so as to just basically bring things to a screeching halt. I see you nodding, Alice. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I think that this is going to deter a lot of researchers from even embarking on the process, because why would you pour years of effort into writing these grants, recruiting subjects, setting up these labs when you know that the funding could be yanked at any time? That kind of uncertainty doesn’t comport with the years-long stability required to really get somewhere with this kind of research. And it’s no wonder that other countries right now are aggressively recruiting American scientists and American scientists are saying, Yeah, I would rather go abroad and have more stability, more of a guarantee that my research won’t be messed with and won’t be suddenly defunded, rather than stay here. And that’s going to be an enormous loss of knowledge here and an enormous loss of economic power over time. 

Karlin-Smith: The other thing about, in talking to some of the groups that advocate for the universities here, that they were saying even prior to this order, with some of the earlier actions, what they were hearing, what was happening is is that other countries are actually recruiting scientists to work for them or fund them, but letting them stay in the U.S. And here so they’ve even come up with ways to even make it pretty easy for people to switch. But then the catch is probably that that research or IP [intellectual property] and so forth will actually belong to other countries, particularly China is one that is interested in that, in the many ways an adversary of the U.S. 

Rovner: So, yeah, because I was going to say, one of the headlines I saw this morning was of investors who were starting to hold back because of all the uncertainty about the U.S. research establishment. I mean, this is a big chunk of the economy. I mean, it feels like the Trump administration trying to punish Harvard and Columbia and other universities, but I feel like the ripple effects of this could be much bigger than even they anticipate. 

Ollstein: Well, absolutely, and I know we’re going to talk a lot about trust in health science and where that’s going, but I think there are two sides to people’s fears about this right now. One, that good, gold-standard, important research won’t get funded but also that shoddy or biased research will get funded. If you politicize that, you have both risks. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true. Well, to segue, meanwhile, as if federal health officials aren’t uncertain enough right now, a gunman shot up the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta last week, killing a law enforcement official. Reports differ, but there’s evidence that the gunman, who apparently shot himself, blamed his covid vaccine for his mental health woes and wished to get back at the public health agency. To quote Jerome Adams, surgeon general in Trump’s first administration, in a Stat op-ed published over the weekend, quote: “One thing is clear: This tragedy is not an isolated event. It is a dire reflection of ever escalating threats public health workers face in a climate increasingly shaped by misinformation, politicization, and inflammatory rhetoric,” close quote. And it’s not just the shooting itself. Apparently the way higher HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] officials have tried to calm the nerves of CDC staff hasn’t really worked very well, from what we’re hearing. 

Karlin-Smith: I mean, I think there’s a lot of CDC staff, and people in the public health space, blame the leadership of this current HHS for stoking these fears, and the rhetoric that they were using for a number of years prior to coming into office, for kind of creating a situation where this happened. And not only have they not really wanted to take that on head-on and talk about it or take any responsibility for it, they’ve sort of fueled the flames with comments HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy has made since the incident on news outlets, continuing to kind of double down on the language that suggested. And of course in the past few weeks they’ve made other decisions that have, I think, to people who have questioned vaccines and some of the technology that this person might’ve been upset about, sort of seem to back up their concerns, unfortunately, unscientifically, like pulling back on mRNA vaccine research funding. 

Luthra: I was going to say, I think there’s another point that you made, Julie, that’s really important, which is looking at this in the broader context even of the past five years. And we’ve seen this real escalation of threats against public health workers across the country, and that really took off in a different way with the right-stoked skepticism around the covid vaccine, which we’ll talk about in a moment. But that’s had consequences already, whether that is people not wanting to enter public health, people leaving the profession, and it’s affecting our ability to monitor diseases, to do public health prevention, to do all those kinds of things that are becoming even more important and even more difficult as other parts of the health care safety net are being constrained. 

Rovner: Yeah. And the mantra that we keep repeating is that public health, when it works, is invisible. Well, if it’s not there and it doesn’t work, it’s not going to be invisible anymore. 

Ollstein: Well, and also this is coming at a time when a lot of people, if they’re not being straight-up laid off from these agencies, are feeling driven out in other ways by the uncertainty, by My department was cut, and then it was restored because of a lawsuit, and then it was cut again, and thinking, Why should I put up with this, the way the administration has disparaged bureaucrats, basically? But also these nonpartisan scientists who work for the government. And so this is coming on top of all of that. And so if someone was on the fence about, Should I stay and keep working for CDC or not? — this certainly isn’t going to convince them to stay, both the fear as well as the agency’s response to the incident. 

Rovner: So HHS Secretary Kennedy was not very quick to respond to the CDC shootings, but he has been busy with other things this past week. One was an unsuccessful effort to get a prominent medical journal, the Annals of Internal Medicine, to retract a large vaccine study out of Denmark — and by “large” I mean 1.2 million children — that found that cumulative aluminum exposure to children via vaccines is not a safety risk. I honestly can’t remember an HHS secretary ever demanding a study be retracted because they disagreed with its finding. How unusual is this? 

Karlin-Smith: Very unusual. I mean, I think the scientific basis for what he’s saying and pushing for. And the journal has already said, No, we are not retracting this, pretty bluntly. And this adjuvant has been something people have been worried about Kennedy going after. It came up a little bit the last CDC advisory committee on vaccines. 

Rovner: Yeah, explain what aluminum adjuvant is. 

Karlin-Smith: And it’s basically something they’ve been putting in vaccines since I think the 1930s. And it helps basically boost your body’s response to it. So it makes the vaccines better. And the last CDC advisory committee on vaccines, after Kennedy sort of overhauled the panel and put a lot of his people on there who don’t really trust vaccines very much, they removed thimerosal as an adjuvant for a flu vaccine, which I think was seen as problematic but won’t have huge, huge consequences, especially for the U.S. But they did— 

Rovner: Because it had already been removed from most vaccines. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. But they did also sort of tease that they were going to look at this adjuvant. And when I talked to people about that, they were much more concerned about it, because it’s in many more products and they don’t believe there’s really good alternatives for it. And it could basically be a move to push companies out of this space of making a lot of vaccines that children really need and benefit from. 

Rovner: Or make vaccines less effective. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So they just don’t have good alternatives. So, yeah, it’s one thing people have been watching, is kind of the next step of where they go in vaccine politics here. 

Rovner: What they’re going to go after. Well, meanwhile, the fallout continues over Kennedy’s cancellation of half a billion dollars in research on mRNA vaccines, which somebody mentioned earlier. This week, an international virologist group representing more than 80 labs reaffirmed their support for the technology. Michael Osterholm, one of the nation’s very top epidemiologists, said on the “PBS News Hour” that this was, quote, “unequivocally … the most dangerous public health decision I have ever seen made by a government body.” Why are scientists reacting so strongly to this particular policy change? 

Karlin-Smith: One of the big reasons is because of how fast this technology can be used to develop vaccines and the ability for it to be helpful in a pandemic. So while we have other, older vaccine technologies, this one is really much faster in being able to update vaccines and make new vaccines. So that’s a crucial public health benefit to it, and that, I think, really scares people. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know that the flu vaccine is still made using chicken eggs, right? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. It’s grown in an egg. So, right, if you think about potential of flu pandemics, bird flu comes up. That’s one place where having the new mRNA technology would be really valuable. It’s also being studied for all different types of diseases outside of it, the infectious disease space, and cancer. And people are really excited about that, too. At this point, it doesn’t seem like the administration is as interested in cutting off that sort of funding. 

Rovner: Yeah, well, we will have to see. Well, meanwhile, over at the FDA [Food and Drug Administration], we note the return of Vinay Prasad as head of the Center for Biologics. Sarah, didn’t he quit just, like, two weeks ago? What is going on over there? 

Karlin-Smith: Strange times. Yeah, I think he was gone for maybe it might’ve been about 10 days. I don’t even think it was two weeks. He was kind of forced out. He drew attention from some right-wing allies of Trump, particularly Laura Loomer, after he halted the shipping of a gene therapy product after some safety events, some deaths. And that caused a lot of right-wing people that hadn’t really maybe paid much attention to the FDA or Prasad to look into his history. They pulled up some of his past, which was, he was probably, he was fairly Democratic and aligned with more of the left wing prior to maybe the covid pandemic. He had really strongly criticized Trump and made pretty, I mean, he’s quite a character in his colorful statements. So he had talked about having a voodoo doll of Trump, and I think if you know Trump, that’s not the kind of thing he’s probably going to personally stand for. 

So it seems as if the White House pushed him out. But Martin Makary, the head of the FDA, and even HHS Secretary Kennedy seemed to eventually sort of convince the White House to let him back. And here he is. The question, I think, in a lot of people’s minds is does he have to sort of modify his decision-making or regulatory philosophy now that he’s brought back, whether it’s to sort of appeal to these right-wingers who basically have heralded Trump as this sort of head of a right-to-try movement, and this idea that there should be a more libertarian attitude toward regulation of medicine and people should basically have more options to try things. 

Rovner: Yeah. It goes back to sort of the whole right-to-try thing and this drug for muscular dystrophy, right? Isn’t that sort of what prompted the big kerfuffle? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. Right. So this Duchenne muscular dystrophy treatment has a really sort of long, complicated, controversial track record because Peter Marks, who used to have Vinay Prasad’s job before him, actually overruled a lot of his scientific reviewers in approving the product. And Prasad had a long history of criticizing Marks for doing that. And then right over the past few months it came out there had been some deaths in the space, mostly in non-ambulatory people. So this is a very devastating muscle-wasting disease, and eventually most people end up wheelchair-bound. And what ended up happening right before Prasad left is they agreed to let the drug back on the market for people that are still ambulatory, where they think the safety risk is less. And it’s still right now off the market for those. 

But yeah, it’s sort of ironic because Prasad, while he’s sort of repeated a lot of the anti-vaccine rhetoric of Kennedy and Makary, particularly when it comes to covid vaccines, his philosophy, and what he was known for prior to coming to the FDA, was actually having kind of stricter standards for approval than many at FDA maybe had, or he would argue. And that doesn’t really align with the Trump philosophy or this libertarian, right-wing philosophy around this idea of right to try and people should have access to things if they’re willing to take the risks. So that’s where I think we’re watching moving forward, because actually outside of the covid vaccine space where he was sort of heavy-handed, he also made a number of decisions around gene therapies besides this one in his first, short stent at the FDA that did seem, again, a little bit more anti that right-to-try philosophy. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we will definitely be watching that one closely. All right, moving on. We are seeing still more fallout of the big budget bill that passed earlier this summer. In rural New Hampshire, a community health center is closing at the end of October, citing Medicaid cuts, among other things. The Washington Post has a story this week about how the Medicaid reductions could lead to a decrease in services and an increase in wait times for things like counseling and speech therapy provided at schools for children with disabilities. I know Republicans were counting on these cuts not really having much of an impact prior to next year’s midterms. And they keep swearing that services won’t be cut except for people who are undocumented or who refuse to work. But that’s not how this is all playing out, right? 

Luthra: There’s just no way that is how it can play out. And I think what we’re seeing in real time is how sprawling Medicaid is. It touches so many corners of so many people’s lives. There’s a reason it became this really sacred-cow component of things you can and can’t touch. And I think one thing that will be really interesting is, just again, as we think about something like community health centers, which Republicans also often tout as this really great model. We talk about that for family planning, especially. Oh, you can go there — you don’t need your Planned Parenthood, for instance. And what does happen when all of these places that so many people rely on are gone? 

And I think one thing that you pointed out, Julie, that’s also so important is that many cuts may not be taking effect right away, but institutions have to make plans now. They are anticipating that that money isn’t coming back. And even if we don’t see some of the formal cuts having their start date until later on, it’s just not possible, I think, to imagine that we won’t see institutions have to adapt and scale back and see people navigate what that means. 

Rovner: Yeah. If there are 10 million more people mostly without Medicaid, all of these places like community health centers who get a lot of their funding from Medicaid are going to lose a lot of their funding. I think this just didn’t carry through. I mean, we heard a lot from the hospitals, but it didn’t carry through to the other providers whose livelihoods basically depend on their patients having some form of insurance. And usually that’s Medicaid. 

Ollstein: Right, and even with the hospitals, Congress was pressured into creating this kind of rural hospital slush fund to prop up the places that might be most impacted by this. But if all of the people who will be going to those hospitals lose their coverage, that might not be enough to make up for the loss, not to mention all of the hospitals that aren’t eligible for that money. And so I think Shefali’s absolutely right. The lesson in 2017 that Medicaid is not just the poor-people program was not learned. It didn’t stick. And now you’re seeing people relearning that, Oh, this impacts seniors in nursing homes. Oh, this impacts kids getting special services in schools. Oh, this impacts all of these groups that aren’t the working poor. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think we’re going to continue to see this sort of spool out as we go. Well, finally this week, a priority for the Trump administration that’s shared by most of the public — cutting down on so-called ultraprocessed food. The CDC reported last week that Americans are eating fewer of their calories via ultraprocessed food, but it is still more than half of the calories consumed. And pushing for at least a partial solution is not the current FDA commissioner but a former one, David Kessler, who served under Presidents George H.W. Bush and [Bill] Clinton and has campaigned against processed food for pretty much as long as I can remember. While Trump administration officials have been urging food companies to do things voluntarily, Kessler this week filed a petition arguing that the FDA has the authority to declare certain ingredients used in ultraprocessed food as not, quote, “generally recognized as safe.” Making food companies prove these processed ingredients actually are safe could be a real tool in the fight against these foods, right? I mean, Sarah, this whole “generally recognized as safe” has been one of the big FDA loopholes over the years. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So, basically since the 1990s, due in some degree to probably staffing shortages and so forth, FDA has kind of allowed companies to self-certify that a lot of these ingredients are considered “generally recognized as safe.” And I think now there’s sort of some sense that maybe that wasn’t scientifically, and health, the best idea. So, Kessler’s basically saying you should give companies some cushion, maybe like 12 months or so, and say, Look, you either need to pull these ingredients out of your food or really, truly prove to us with the science that these are safe. Then he’s kind of calling Kennedy’s bluff a little bit and basically being like: Look, you keep talking about this. You’re really furious about the ultraprocessed food. Look, I found your regulatory hook, your legal way to do it. Now go do it. 

And I think the food industry, like many other big industries in the U.S., are pretty powerful, as you said. Given the amount of food we consume with these ingredients, it’s a huge — it would be probably quite difficult to make these changes in a year or so forth. But Kessler’s pretty smart. He was the person that really led the regulation of tobacco at FDA. And so I think he’s basically trying to say, Look, here’s a strategy — now go do it, and see if they’ll really follow through on anything. 

Rovner: Yeah, I was absolutely fascinated by this in terms of sort of calling the bluff, because that’s what you were saying. On the one hand, they’ve talked a big game on something that, unlike the Medicaid cuts, is popular with the public. On the other hand, they seem very loath to require the food industry to do anything. 

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, their main food achievement so far is getting commitments on certain food dyes, which for the most part actually aren’t that used anymore. And I think even the safety concern around them is generally seen as pretty low. Now they’re not really adding anything to your food other than color. So there’s an argument that even if there’s just even some slight hypothesis that there’s the danger, you should get them out. But the theme, and we talked a lot about this a little bit last week in the podcast, is they’re talking a lot more than they’re actually making achievements so far in the public health space. 

Rovner: I guess you can sum this up in: It’s less What color are your Froot Loops? than Should you be eating Froot Loops at all? Or, Should you be feeding them to your children? 

Karlin-Smith: That’s perfect. 

Rovner: Yeah. All right. Well, I’ll be fascinated to see if they actually follow up on this. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we’ll play my interview with AcademyHealth president and CEO Aaron Carroll, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Aaron Carroll to the podcast. Aaron is president and CEO of AcademyHealth, the leading national organization for health system researchers, in addition to being a top-notch health policy expert himself. Aaron is also a pediatrician and formerly a pediatrics professor and associate dean at the Indiana University School of Medicine. Aaron Carroll, thanks so much for joining us. 

Aaron Carroll: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So, I wanted to talk to you mostly about your op-ed published in The Washington Post last week. We will link to it in our show notes. It’s called: “This Phrase Was Meant To Increase Trust in Science. It backfired.” The phrase in question is “Follow the science.” Tell us why you think it backfired. 

Carroll: Well, for a couple of reasons. The biggest is that I think it to some extent conflates science and policy, and it makes it sound like that once we have science that policy naturally follows from it and that anyone who is rational will know the right answer. The problem with that is that science is sort of a set of facts, or an explanation of the world as we best understand it, but policy should take good science, and then it has to incorporate societal values, people’s preferences, what I would call utility values almost, and all the trade-offs that come with policy. And so good science should inform policy, but good science is not the same as policy. 

I provide a number of examples. One would be like, look, we have great science that shows vaccines are unsurpassed to preventing infectious disease. We also have science that shows that eating raw or undercooked eggs can cause salmonella. The first might justify vaccine mandates in schools. The second certainly doesn’t mandate banning sunny-side eggs. Just because something is true, you have to think about their differences when you come into policy. And too often we use that phrase almost as a cudgel to say: We have science, therefore this is the only policy that makes sense. And if you disagree, then you’re not following science. That’s just not the case. 

Rovner: And that’s pretty much what happened during the pandemic, wasn’t it? 

Carroll: Yeah. I mean there were so many times where we were making the best guess, because you have science, but the science isn’t terribly great and it’s not really up to date. So you have to make policy decisions from that. But different people are going to make different policies, and different groups, depending upon where they’re focusing, might make different policies. And that is OK. But we sort of fell into a trap where there could only be one voice, one truth. It really brooked no dissent, and it had to be sort of put out nationwide. And when there was pushback that the policy decisions didn’t necessarily follow from the science, everyone didn’t always react to that as well as they should have. 

Rovner: And now it’s being hung around people’s necks, whichever side they were on. 

Carroll: Yeah. 

Rovner: Even if the science has changed since then. 

Carroll: Yeah. I mean, I helped to run Indiana University’s pandemic response, and we used to do at least a weekly webinar where we would answer questions, and all the time I would say things like: This is the best answer we have right now. That’s why we’re going with this. And let me explain to you why. And these are the trade-offs. We’re trying to do the best by everyone. These are the pros. These are the cons. Let’s talk it out. And if the data change in the future, we’ll change the policy. We’re doing the best we can. But that kind of nuance, that kind of long-form answer, was too often not acceptable or not possible during the pandemic, because we wanted things to be reduced to sound bites. We wanted things reduced to easy algorithms. We wanted everyone to sort of do whatever our chosen sort of arbiter of truth said. And if people disagreed, we really accused them of disagreeing with science. And there’s a real difference between science and policy. 

Rovner: So, how do we start to win back that trust? 

Carroll: I think a couple of ways. One is, I think, we have to start listening as well as we do speaking. I think too few of us actually are willing to spend time talking with people who truly disagree with us, and that’s going to limit our ability to enact good policy. I like to point to the fact that there are change management experts who will argue that there are three reasons people resist change. They don’t understand it, they don’t like it, or they don’t like you, which is really about trust. But we treat too many things as if they only fall into that first bucket. It’s a knowledge dissemination problem. And if we just speak out facts louder and louder and more stridently, then everyone will come and listen to us. So if we just keep broadcasting facts over social media, then everyone’s going to agree with us. 

It completely ignores that there’s a section of people who are completely rational but don’t like the change, because of trade-offs. I hated wearing a mask. It fogged up my glasses completely. I would do it, but I hated it. And every time someone lectured me on how easy it was and I should just get over it, I got angry. We’ve got to be better about understanding there are trade-offs in policy, and we have to address those trade-offs. And of course there’s that huge third bucket of people that don’t trust us. That’s only going to come from slow, honest conversation with people who disagree with us. And we don’t want to do that, either. We want to shout at people over social media. We want to push people away who don’t agree with us. We want to belittle them. 

That’s a problem. In the op-ed, I talked about that, as a pediatrician, I’ve been dealing with parents that don’t want to do what I tell them is best for decades. I don’t slap ’em. You have to build trust. You have to listen to them empathetically. You have to discuss the reasons why you might want to do something or not do something. And you have to build those kinds of relationships over time. It’s slow. It can be tedious. But that’s how you get people to change their mind, not by just shouting or belittling them. And we do that too often. 

Rovner: One thing I’ve noticed over almost 40 years of doing this is that some of the best explainers of policy have been pediatricians — C. Everett Koop, David Kessler, Bill Roper, all pediatricians of one sort or another. What is it that they teach you that lets you communicate so well? 

Carroll: I trained in Seattle. People were refusing vaccines back in the ’90s, and they weren’t the same people who are refusing vaccines today. You had to learn to deal with that. I would make recommendations about how to sleep, how to eat, how to control tantrums, how to do behavior change, how to parent. And I’m competing with Grandma, and I’m competing with other relatives who have very wildly different opinions about how things should be done. And you have to learn how to deal with that, with people who just don’t agree with you right away and who aren’t swayed by data and evidence but by trust. And people get more riled up about when they’re pregnant and, I think, when they have small children, than almost any other time in their lives, about they can’t make a mistake, they’ve got to do the right thing, and they’ve got to balance competing voices who are telling them very different information. Maybe we’re just better used to it or trained to it, but a lot of this stuff that we’re arguing about now, a lot of pediatricians have been dealing with for a long time. 

Rovner: So, this administration, obviously, for anybody who’s listened to the podcast for more than five minutes knows, is not really helping matters right now, are they? 

Carroll: I mean, we’re not doing a lot of really good communication and a lot of really good listening. I think we’re seeing a lot of top-down decisions that are not perhaps based on the best data and evidence, are not as justified as well as you might want to expect, and who are dismantling or removing many of the tools that we use to produce the data and evidence that can produce sound policy. No one would argue, I think, that the NIH couldn’t have reform. No one could argue that the USPSTF [U.S. Preventive Services Task Force] is perfect and never needs to be touched. ACIP [The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] could be refined. I think there were decisions made about covid vaccines and boosters that produced hearty debate years ago, and lots of decisions on ways that some of these organizations work could be refined. But we don’t want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. A lot of the infrastructure that we have in place is to make sure that things are nonpartisan, that we’re relying on the best evidence, that we’re doing the best job that we can to make sure that these things are not biased or partisan in any way. 

And a lot of the steps, I think, that are being taken to wipe away a lot of this infrastructure are not going to reinforce trust. The answer isn’t to shut down discussion, which is happening too often around the country. It’s to move and lean into open dialogue. We have a meeting coming up in the next few months, Health Datapalooza, which really brings together lots of people from the current administration who should be there, plus lots of people from industry, plus researchers, plus health systems, and those who provide the care, coming together and having an open dialogue, open discussion, learning to listen to each other, and learning to realize we’re all really human beings and we need to be able to learn. Both ways is how we move forward. And unfortunately, we’re moving in a direction that tries to shut down that kind of debate and just shouting that the other side is wrong. 

Rovner: I know AcademyHealth has been pretty outspoken about the disappearing databases at HHS in particular. I mean, what could that mean for public health? And, I mean, now it’s not just databases that are being taken down but there’s a concern about data being put up that’s not necessarily trustworthy. 

Carroll: I mean, again, we can’t improve what we can’t measure, and we can’t make change if we don’t know where we’re starting from or where we need to go. And you can make an argument, I suppose, that a lot of these data would still be available without the federal government collecting it, but no one is as good or thorough or has the mandate of law to pull a lot of these data sources together in ways that people can use. And these aren’t just, like, esoteric research things. Some of these are, like, how public health officials monitor the health of their citizens. Some of these are about what clinicians might want to know to talk to their patients about what’s going on in their area, or what trends are in certain diseases, or how things work. People, clinicians, patients need these data. There are — a lot of them are mandated by law, and if we don’t have them up, people suffer. 

This isn’t, again, like we’re just punishing researchers or scientists. This is punishing people, and, again, at AcademyHealth, our mission is to promote the creation and use of data and evidence to improve health and health care for all. You can’t do that without the data, and no one can do it if they don’t trust the data. So much of this, again, is about trust, which is about transparency, which should be a nonpartisan issue. We advocated for this same kind of thing under the Biden administration when they tried to restrict Medicare data and how researchers could get and use it. And we were out in front saying: That’s not OK. People need access to this data. And that the same thing is true under the Trump administration. We want more people to have more access to the best and most trustworthy data, always. 

Rovner: Well, thank you for fighting the fight for good science and good policy. Aaron Carroll, thanks a lot. 

Carroll: Thank you. 

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

Luthra: Absolutely. My story is by Theresa Gaffney from Stat News. The headline is “Inside the American Medical Association’s Sudden Strategy Shift in Washington.” I picked this because I knew Julie and I would both get a real kick. There’s just a lot of fun in following the political trajectory of the AMA, which as we know began as this more conservative political organization, has undergone this transformation in more recent years, becoming more interested in causes, sometimes aligned with more of the political left, whether that is expanding access to health care, whether that is opposing abortion restrictions, and then had really gone quiet when we saw this big attack on a lot of medical institutions from the new administration. And this story looks at how that is starting to shift and the AMA is now trying to actually act in response to all of the things that have been happening to scientists and health care providers, and where that is coming from within the medical community and what it could mean. 

Rovner: It’s a really interesting story. And Shefali’s right. One of my hobbies is following the AMA’s political trajectory. Alice. 

Ollstein: So I have a piece in The New York Times by some KFF stalwarts, and it’s called “Why Young Americans Dread Turning 26: Health Insurance Chaos.” So, it sets up that if Congress doesn’t renew the ACA [Affordable Care Act] subsidies that are expiring later this year, people are going to face an even worse cliff when they turn 26 and they have to start buying their own insurance. But the article talks about all of the ways that cliff is already worse now before that even happens, largely because there’s just less regulation of plans, and so people are buying crappier plans that don’t adequately cover them when they actually need them and get sick, and the process, because the navigators have been defunded, and there just isn’t a lot of outreach and promotion going on under the Trump administration. 

People are very confused and overwhelmed by all of the options and are largely going without insurance. And I think what’s important from the story is you may think: Oh, this doesn’t affect me. I’m not a 26-year-old. I have my insurance. I’m fine. As we learned in the past, this impacts everybody. If young and healthy people are driven out of these markets, that impacts everybody’s costs and makes things more expensive for the rest of us. So definitely worth paying attention to. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good piece. Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a piece in The New York Times by Carolyn Kitchener, “This Ohio Farm Community Is a Mecca for the” quote “‘MAHA Mom.’” And it’s about what is essentially sort of a — the story kind of describes it as the idea of the 1960s, 1970s, like, hippie farm commune but kind of MAHA [“Make America Healthy Again”] style, and maybe a bit more luxurious. And it’s essentially a look at how this community develops and operates and tries to live by some of the, quote-unquote, “MAHA principles” around how the foods you eat or grow. And it’s kind of a fascinating look as to what they’re trying to do and how they want to live their lives. 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s the new age of the New Age. Fascinating. Well, my extra credit this week is from the “Who Could Possibly Have Seen This Coming” category. It’s from ProPublica. It’s called “Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump as Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals,” by David Armstrong, Eric Umansky, and Vernal Coleman. And despite vows by Trump officials that they could cut tens of thousands of jobs at the department without harming clinical care, it turns out that the cuts are deterring clinical care workers from signing up to work at the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] in the first place. It seems that 40% of doctors offered work at the VA in the first quarter of this year said no. That’s quadruple the rate of rejection from just the year before. And between January and June, the VA lost twice as many nurses as it hired. 

While VA officials accused ProPublica of cherry-picking numbers, I will point out that separately this week, the VA’s inspector general, in its annual report, found that every one of the VHA’s [Veterans Health Administration’s] 139 medical centers reported staff shortages, with those reporting, quote, “severe shortages” for specific jobs up 50% from the year before. So, that doesn’t sound very much like cherry-picking. 

OK. That is this week’s show. Thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our fill-in editor today, Stephanie Stapleton, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe where you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can find me still on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you guys hanging these days? Shefali? 

Luthra: I’m at Bluesky, @shefali. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Bluesky, X, LinkedIn — @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: We’re going to take a little bit of a summer break for the rest of the month. Next week we’ll have a special episode on the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, and the week after we’ll be dark so our hardworking staff can have some time off. We’ll be back in your feed with all the news on the Thursday after Labor Day. Until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Emmarie Huetteman
KFF Health News

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Kennedy Cancels Vaccine Funding

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

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

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

Lauren Weber: Hey, everybody. 

Huetteman: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huetteman: Yikes.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Huetteman: Sarah?  

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

Huetteman: And Lauren?  

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

In his ongoing effort to reshape health policy, Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. reportedly plans to overhaul two more government entities: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force and the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Ousting the existing members of the task force would give Kennedy a measure of control in determining the kinds of preventive care that are covered at no cost to patients in the United States. And while it’s unclear what the secretary would do to the vaccine injury program, Kennedy has made no secret of his belief that vaccines can do more harm than good.

Meanwhile, last week marked the 35th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and President Donald Trump signed an executive order that would enable local and state governments to forcibly hospitalize some people who are homeless and struggling with mental health problems.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefali.bsky.social

Read Shefali's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Less than two months after Kennedy removed all members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, he is reportedly considering a similar purge of members of the task force that recommends the preventive services insurers must cover — a list whose services, some of them controversial among Trump officials, include drugs that prevent HIV and certain cancer screenings. He is also considering changes to the federal program that compensates people who experience adverse effects from immunizations.
• This week Vinay Prasad, the Food and Drug Administration’s top vaccine official, resigned just months into his tenure. Prasad had come under attack, notably by right-wing personality Laura Loomer, and had been blasted for some agency decisions about new drugs for rare diseases — despite his work limiting the use of covid shots.
• Trump’s newly announced trade deal with the European Union includes a 15% tariff on brand-name pharmaceuticals, which would include, for example, the diabetes drug Ozempic, often used for weight loss. But it would be difficult to lower prices on brand-name drugs through tariffs; it is unlikely that drugmakers, facing higher import costs, would relocate production to the United States.
• Also, Trump’s big tax and spending law, hastened through Congress weeks ago, renders some lawfully present immigrants ineligible for Affordable Care Act subsidies. But a new KFF Health News column points out that the change would actually raise premiums for everyone else, taking more healthy people out of the insurance pool.

Also this week, Rovner interviews George Washington University health policy professor Sara Rosenbaum, one of the nation’s leading Medicaid experts, to mark Medicaid’s 60th anniversary this week.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Cosmetic Surgeries Led to Disfiguring Injuries, Patients Allege,” by Fred Schulte.

Anna Edney: The Washington Post’s “Morton Mintz, Post Reporter With a Muckraker Spirit, Dies at 103,” by Stefanie Dazio.

Joanne Kenen: ScienceAlert’s “New Kind of Dental Floss Could Replace Vaccine Needles, Study Finds,” by David Nield.

Shefali Luthra: The New Yorker’s “Mexico’s Molar City Could Transform My Smile. Did I Want It To?” by Burkhard Bilger.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Top F.D.A. Official Resigns Under Pressure,” by Christina Jewett.
• KFF Health News’ “Lawfully Present Immigrants Help Stabilize ACA Plans. Why Does the GOP Want Them Out?” by Bernard J. Wolfson.
• The Texas Tribune’s “Texas Man Sues California Doctor in Federal Court, Testing a New Angle to Crackdown on Abortion Pills,” by Eleanor Klibanoff.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Next on Kennedy’s List? Preventive Care and Vaccine Harm

[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, July 31, 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 Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine. 

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the second of our two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which was yesterday, for those keeping track. This week, Sara Rosenbaum of George Washington University, one of the nation’s leading Medicaid experts, takes us through the history of that program and what the next 60 years could bring. And if you want to hear more from both our Medicare and Medicaid experts, we’re going to put the full-length versions of both interviews together for a special episode later in August. But first, this week’s news. 

Before we start, I hope you’ll bear with me this week. I slipped and fell and broke my wrist. So my typing and some of my thinking skills are a little lacking at the moment. But on this week of the 35th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which we will talk about in a few minutes, I am very grateful for all the various technological advances that are now available to those of us with disabilities, whether permanent or temporary, and which allowed the podcast to actually come to you this week. So, now, here we go. 

It was another busy week at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services]. Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., having already fired all the members of the vaccine advisory board, is reportedly now taking aim at the U.S. preventive health services task force. Now, this was not wholly unexpected. When the Trump administration switched sides on that lawsuit over the task force brought in Texas earlier this year, we assumed that RFK Jr. wanted to do something exactly like this. Right, Shefali? 

Luthra: We certainly did, because it wouldn’t have otherwise made a lot of sense to argue that they could continue to make recommendations unless, perhaps, RFK Jr. wasn’t going to listen to them. It just, once again, really bears noting that this was something many people discussed as a likely possibility, given his record, when he was nominated to be secretary. And there were some senators who suggested that perhaps he had made individual promises, commitments, to actually keep the expert panels in place. And here we are. He did not do that. 

Rovner: Yeah. And we should say he has, at least as of this moment, he has not yet fired all of the members, but certainly there are indications that he’s considering it. And obviously that was what they argued to the court, was that, Hey, it’s OK for the Senate not to confirm the members of this task force, because the secretary has control over them. So here’s the secretary suggesting that he’s going to take control over them. 

Edney: And now the senators show support for the task force. It’s just this circle that keeps on going where they need to try to bolster the backing, but the writing was on the wall when they voted to confirm him. 

Rovner: Well, apparently the secretary isn’t finished with vaccine policy, either. He’s also taking aim at the 1980s-era Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or VICP. That’s what provides a no-fault way for people injured by vaccine side effects to get compensation for those injuries. This program was literally created to prevent the vaccine industry from going out of business in the 1980s because it was being sued into oblivion. I know that RFK Jr. said the program is, quote, “broken” and he intends to, quote, “fix it.” But does anybody have any idea what he might be planning for it? I will remind people, like, I’m shouting into the wind, that this was an act of Congress created by Congress, reformed by Congress. I don’t know whether the secretary can just take it apart on his own. 

Kenen: He can try, or leave it intact but create some kind of barriers to filing, or— 

Rovner: Actually, I think he wants to make it easier for people to get compensation. 

Kenen: He wants it easier to get compensation. We don’t know what it will do. But they keep finding workarounds or just ignoring things. So we can’t say we can or cannot do, because we don’t know what they’re going to do. But his whole health persona really is built on the fact that he believes that vaccines are damaging or dangerous and they kill more people than they save. And therefore, apparently all of us could just get a payout because we had a shot. But it’s not as much of a moneymaking business in general, not for a specific new shot, but vaccination is not as profitable as the public may perceive. Yes, the covid shots, there was some exceptional things about the speed and scale, etc.— 

Rovner: Right. Because everybody got one at the same time. 

Kenen: And they’re subsidized, etc., or some of them were. So Anna knows more about this than I do. Basically, it was designed to both protect people who were — nobody, even the strongest pro-vaccine people, nobody denies that there is such a thing as an injury. They would say it’s rare and not autism, but when it is, it is rare, but someone should get compensation and the care they need. 

Rovner: And Anna, we’re really looking at the potential for some of these vaccine makers to just say, We’re going to wash our hands of making vaccines. Right? 

Edney: Yeah, absolutely. The point of this program was to, like Joanne said, admit that there can be injury but to make it no-fault so that the vaccine makers could continue providing vaccines for the majority of people who respond well to them and to not be caught up in court battles for millions and billions of dollars all the time. And there may be some complaints, but it does seem that people, by and large, are able to get some compensation from this. And you mentioned covid vaccines. Those aren’t included in this program, so that may be something he is looking at, because they’re done through a different program, which is maybe some complaints about it or that it’s a little less likely to pay out or to give as much compensation. And so maybe a way of expanding it is to include the covid vaccines. But if it becomes that — Well, you can keep using this program, but we’re also going to make it easier to sue the vaccine makers — we’re going to see the companies be wary of being involved in providing vaccines at that point. 

Rovner: Well, in still more vaccine-related news, the controversial head of the FDA’s [Food and Drug Administration’s] vaccine division resigned unexpectedly this week. Anna, tell us why Vinay Prasad was so controversial. And why did he leave after only three months on the job? 

Edney: Yeah, this was a huge amount of drama at the FDA. So Prasad himself can be a polarizing figure. He has been at UCSF [the University of California-San Francisco] for a long time and gained prominence as someone who criticized the agency for what’s called accelerated approvals, getting certain drugs, particularly cancer drugs, quickly to patients even when they hadn’t proven necessarily that they worked. And he criticized that program. He got to the FDA. He was head of the vaccines division, which also covers biologic drugs. And under this division was a drug made by a company called Sarepta. Every one of their drugs that has come to market has had a lot of drama surrounding it because these are drugs for very, very sick, usually young boys who have Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and it’s a huge parent population that wants these drugs, even when maybe they don’t always show that they work very well. 

Well, a few kids have unfortunately died while taking these drugs in recent months, and so the FDA was looking at that, and it came out that there was another death in a clinical trial of an older gentleman, and no one knew definitely if it was related to the drug. And so once that became public, it’s not like the FDA or the company came out with it, but once it became public, the FDA kind of seemed to overcorrect and try to have the drug be paused, and then maybe take it off the market. And so Vinay Prasad was at the center of this debate. Already he was disliked by some of [President Donald] Trump’s higher-up people, particularly Laura Loomer. We may have heard her name before. 

Rovner: We have. 

Edney: She goes after some nominees, successfully in many cases. And Rick Santorum also got involved at this point. He has a daughter with a rare disease and didn’t like the way that this rare-disease drug was being treated. So essentially Prasad, who clearly for the last several years has only wanted to be at the FDA, has left after three months, was pushed out after three months. 

Rovner: Wow. It’s quite the drama. I’ll link to a story or two if you actually want to go deeper. 

Kenen: But one of the criticisms that Laura Loomer had is that he used to be a Democrat. 

Edney: Right. 

Kenen: Well, that would also apply to RFK Jr. 

Edney: Right. That’s true. 

Rovner: It would. Oh, I’m sure the drama, both at FDA and at HHS writ large, is far from over. Well, speaking of turning the clock back, President Trump issued a new executive order that would end the, quote, “housing first” policy that has driven homelessness strategy since the late 1990s. I guess this is also not a surprise. Trump complained repeatedly on the campaign trail about how homeless encampments were destroying cities. We’ve had a recent Supreme Court case on this, but this new policy seeks to not just allow but encourage localities to force at least some homeless people off the streets and into residential treatment. I imagine this is going to make for another long line of lawsuits, right? 

Kenen: Well, there’s housing first itself. It’s not without controversy. There’s a philosophical divide. Housing first means you house people and then you deal with their social and economic and physical and psychological and drug abuse, etc. Get a roof over their head and then you deal with everything else. Other people say, No, get them into treatment and stabilize them, and then you put them in housing, and they have to … Housing first has been the dominant philosophy in addressing homelessness in recent years. That’s a different debate. This is, like, put them in an institution against their will, which the courts have power to do in limited cases. There are times when a court can say, This individual doesn’t want to be hospitalized, but for their own safety they really need to be. But that’s one by one and not that common, and it’s limited. I believe it’s 30 days. I might be wrong about that. 

But this is a whole different thing. It’s a combination of this, We’re going to force them into institutional settings for treatment, whether they want it or not, combined with the Supreme Court decision of about a year ago allowing cities and local government, not just cities but governments, to forcibly clear away, to dismantle encampments, to force people out. So you have it coming from both the administration’s policies and the court decisions. This creates a whole — and housing money is being cut. Housing assistance is being cut. So you really have this tremendous shift in how we approach homelessness at a time when homelessness is high, while homelessness has been high. And nobody’s saying that there’s not a mental health component for some, but by no means all, people who are homeless. But this is not in accord with how the health and homelessness advocacy and treatment world has been approaching it. This is a significant shift. 

Rovner: And as you point out, this is a health and social service issue, too, because we are seeing money cut and money diverted that, basically this executive order will say, We’re going to give more money to localities that sort of handle this the way we want and less money to others. So I imagine this is going to have trickle-down effects for some time to come. 

Kenen: Yeah. And the clearing the encampments is going on, and we should know it’s not only a conservative state. California has done it. Other states have done it. So the idea of dismantling these — we’ve all seen these encampments — that is happening in various places in the country already, and this is sort of an extra step. It’s not only do you clear them, but this would envision forcing them into treatment, often in an institutional setting. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, as I mentioned at the top, this week marks the 35th anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which I also covered, by the way. Secretary Kennedy spoke at an event marking the occasion on Monday. But an awful lot of the disability community is up in arms about the cuts to Medicaid, which they say will roll back much of the progress the movement has made in the past three and a half decades, much of it for people getting in-home types of assistance. And yet the ADA was pushed hard and signed by a Republican administration, that of President George H.W. Bush. Is this yet another formerly Republican priority being kind of tossed out the window? 

Luthra: I think to your point, a lot of things that used to be bipartisan in the health policy world are not anymore. The other example is something like Title X, and it’s just we have really seen this shift of things that used to be broadly uncontroversial, because the health implications are clear, become much more so and largely become rejected by Republicans in a way that is just really, really different from what you might’ve imagined even, I don’t know, 10, 15 years ago. 

Rovner: And my favorite piece of Title X trivia: It was signed by Richard Nixon, but it was sponsored in the House by then-Rep. George H.W. Bush. So he both sponsored Title X, the Family Planning Program, and signed the ADA into law. Boy, it feels like a million years ago and not 35. 

Well, moving on to health care costs. It is tariff week in Washington — again — and not surprisingly, prescription drugs are a big part of that conversation. The trade deal that President Trump announced with the EU while he was in Scotland last weekend includes a 15% tariff on brand-name prescription drugs imported from Europe. That will include things like, I don’t know, the blockbuster weight loss drug Ozempic? Anna, how does Trump think this is going to eventually lower drug prices in the U.S.? It sounds like it’s just going to raise them. 

Edney: Yeah. I think most people agree with your sentiment that it’s going to raise them. I think a lot of this is focused on bringing drug-making back to the United States and trying to get companies to do more of that here. Whether you see that from brand-name companies seems like it could be really difficult. I know Botox is made in Ireland, and this is a facility where, because it’s essentially a toxin, a very deadly toxin if released— 

Rovner: Yes, it’s botulism. 

Edney: Right. This is a facility that is highly guarded. A colleague of mine wrote a story on it many years ago now, but you had to go underground. They’re not just moving this thing over to the United States. So I think for brand-name drugs that it’s going to be particularly difficult to lower the prices based on tariffs, or to say We’re moving production over here in any capacity. So what the thinking of how exactly this works or is beneficial will be interesting to see, because they’re also still doing — this would not apply to these — but they’re doing this national security assessment for tariffs on drugs from other places and trying to figure out if there’s a national security reason to be putting tariffs on them. For the most part, when drug quality comes into question, it’s not usually the European drugmakers that we’re concerned about. 

Rovner: And we’re still waiting to hear about the generic-drug makers in India and China, right? 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. We’re waiting to see what they’ll decide. They’re still doing their investigation, the administration is, to see what those tariffs might be from India or China, or any other countries that are making generic drugs. 

Rovner: Another story that we will continue to watch, and glad to have Anna here to continue to help us watch that. Now, it’s time for this week in what we’re still learning about the impact of the big tax and spending bill that President Trump signed on July Fourth. This week’s installment comes from my KFF Health News colleague Bernard Wolfson, whose column points out that eliminating eligibility for Affordable Care Act subsidies for immigrants who are here legally will mostly just raise premiums for everyone else by taking more healthy people out of the insurance pool. I get the administration’s insistence on not having people who are not here legally collecting benefits. We’ve talked about emergency Medicaid, but that’s a different issue. But what’s the justification for taking coverage away for people who are here because they’re refugees or victims of abuse, or those with temporary protected status? I don’t honestly understand what the point is of this. 

Kenen: There’s a stigmatization across the board as being an immigrant, right? So the administration is not embracing immigrants who are here legally. We’ve all seen reports of people who are here legally still being picked up by immigration officials. It’s very messy. Sometimes people just say, OK, we’ll save money this way, not understanding that the costs pop up someplace else in the system and it may be more expensive. So not just in terms of that individual, but if things are going untreated in communities because people aren’t seeking care, communicable diseases can also spread. So there have been attempts to blame disease outbreaks on immigration when that’s not the case. 

Rovner: Going back hundreds of years. 

Kenen: Right. Smallpox was brought here by immigrants, right? 

Rovner: Yeah. 

Kenen: Hundreds of years ago. 

Rovner: By the European immigrants. 

Kenen: Right. That’s what I— 

Rovner: And given to the Native population. 

Kenen: Right. Right. So it’s just part of an overall gestalt about immigrants and immigration, and sort of treating them as leeches, not as people who live here. 

Rovner: But I feel like both — it’s funny because this connects back to the whole tariff issue. The idea that Trump has here is to make things more “America First,” have more things made in America, and obviously more people made in America, and more Americans here to be served in America. But both of these things would take a long time. I guess the idea of not allowing legal immigrants to have benefits is to discourage people from coming here legally. One can’t see any other thing that would make that logical. And the idea of the tariffs, Anna, as you said, is to have companies build more manufacturing here. Both of those things would take a lot longer than Donald Trump is likely to be president. He doesn’t usually have a long-term view of things, and yet both of these issues are long-term issues, right? 

Edney: Yeah. I think at least for the tariffs and for — there’ve been these small announcements with certain companies where they’ll say, Well, because of Trump, we’re going to build a new plant in Indianapolis. And that plant sure isn’t, like, it’s five years away, but he can make these announcements. And Joanne, and you’re absolutely right that he obviously wants to degrade immigrants in any way that he can, but also Obamacare, right? That’s still a thing that they’re in certain ways willing to go after. 

Rovner: Good point. It’s a twofer. 

Edney: Yeah, exactly. Exactly. So if you can erode Obamacare some and have a sicker population, and people being angry that they had to pay more, but Republicans have been good at still attaching that to Democrats: Oh, Obamacare. So I don’t know, maybe that comes back around. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, question answered. OK. Turning to abortion, the on-again, off-again Planned Parenthood funding is apparently on again, at least for now. You may recall last week a judge had allowed some of the defunding included in the budget bill to begin, but now another federal judge has said, Nope, you’ve got to keep letting Planned Parenthood collect from Medicaid for non-abortion-related services. Shefali, what comes next? 

Luthra: The case continues to go through the courts. We know that right now that is in a federal district court. It could eventually go to the appellate courts. It could eventually make its way to the Supreme Court, including the debate over whether this proceeding is allowed to take effect or not. In the meantime, I’ve been talking to a lot of clinics, and they are preparing for the real possibility that they lose their Medicaid funding. Some of them are not optimistic about the long-term legal viability of this injunction, and so they’re thinking: What will we do if we lose all of these Medicaid dollars? Will we be able to see patients in the volume that we do? Will we be able to get funds from the state? Some are in active conversations with state governments. Some are looking to private fundraising. Others are thinking about which clinics they would close and also how they would do that in a way that minimizes service loss to patients, while acknowledging that some ability to access care — whether that is abortion or STI [sexually transmitted infection] screening or contraception or cancer screening — will simply not be replaced. 

Rovner: Yeah, and I have to say, for all the million times I have said on this podcast, an administration can’t cut off Planned Parenthood from Medicaid, because it’s written into the Medicaid law, that doesn’t mean that Congress can’t cut off Planned Parenthood, because they can change the law. So I’m also a little bit wondering what the justification for Planned Parenthood being able to argue — I know that they’re arguing that they’re going after Planned Parenthood specifically, and that that’s not allowed. But certainly Congress can change the Medicaid law if it wants to. Congress wrote the Medicaid law. 

Luthra: And I think it’s worth throwing in a couple of other components as well, considering there are multiple lawsuits at play right now, not just the original from Planned Parenthood. There’s the liberal states’ attorneys general. There’s the Maine Family Planning suit, as well. But conservative states do have an avenue to block Medicaid funds going to Planned Parenthood now, if they choose. The Supreme Court gave them that opportunity in the South Carolina case earlier this year. So no matter what happens in this case, there is a very real likelihood that in many parts of the country, Planned Parenthood clinics will lose funding they are reliant on and will probably have to close many facilities. 

Rovner: Yeah. And just to reiterate, this goes back to the Title X Family Planning Program that we were talking about earlier, so it all comes full circle this week. This week we also have the latest chapter in the continuing fight between states with abortion bans and those with shield laws to try to protect doctors who are sending abortion pills through the mail into those states with abortion bans. According to The Texas Tribune, a man from Galveston is suing a doctor in California for sending his girlfriend pills to end her pregnancy. The man is being represented by Jonathan Mitchell, whose name may well be familiar to you as the originator of, most now, of Texas’s various abortion bans. The suit seeks both damages for the man who’s suing and an injunction on behalf of, quote, “all current and future fathers of unborn children in the United States.” Shefali, that feels pretty broad. 

Luthra: It certainly does feel very broad. When I read it, I really wondered: How do you decide who are future potential parents of unborn children? Is that— 

Rovner: Fathers, fathers. 

Luthra: Excuse me. Yes. Potential fathers. Even more, how — is it everyone who has sperm? I don’t know. But this is part of a really central strategy to where the anti-abortion movement is right now. They are very upset about shield law prescription and provision of abortion medication. In Texas, they are trying a bunch of things to try and block this, whether that is this particular suit, whether that is one from the attorney general that continues to move back and forth, whether that is trying to get new state laws enacted during this special session. We’ll see if that happens with all the redistricting that is going on. 

Rovner: This is all about Texas, by the way. 

Luthra: And Texas is a really important player. But we did just see a group of attorneys general around the country from conservative states just reach out to members of Congress this week and say, Can you pass some kind of law that will block shield law prescription? We’ve also seen a case out of Louisiana that is held up in court right now because it’s a criminal case. But this is just such an important goal for them, because the reason abortions haven’t gone down is because people can keep accessing care through the mail. And if they can stop that, it will have tremendous implications for people in states with abortion bans, but also in other parts of the country where maybe it’s just too much of a pain or too far to go to a clinic and you can have a doctor mail you that care. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, clearly the abortion fights continue. We will continue to follow them. All right, that is this week’s news. Now, we’ll play excerpts of my interview with Medicaid expert Sara Rosenbaum, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Sara Rosenbaum to the podcast. Sara is professor emerita of health law and policy at George Washington University, one of the, if not the, leading experts on Medicaid. She’s also the person who has taught me at least 80% of what I know about the program. So I am extra thrilled that she’s agreed to come be our guide. Sara, welcome. 

Sara Rosenbaum: Well, and thank you for having me. It’s such a pleasure to be on the show. 

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. Medicaid was kind of an afterthought to Medicare when they were both created 60 years ago. How did Medicaid come to be? 

Rosenbaum: It’s a really interesting question. This is, of course, the lore, that Medicaid was an afterthought. If you look at the original act, which had been enacted about five years before, and you read the original statutory language — which we lawyers revel in doing — you are amazed. This was not such a big afterthought. I would say that Wilbur Cohen and Wilbur Mills and Lyndon Johnson and everybody else had a good idea of what they were doing. They knew that they were planting the seeds for a program that ultimately would come to be the foundation of health insurance for low-income people across the United States, as well as, of course, specific categories such as people with very severe disabilities. 

Rovner: So what was the difference between Medicare and Medicaid supposed to be when they were signed into law 60 years ago? 

Rosenbaum: Yeah. So Medicaid was very much structured in the classic style of a state grants program. It has come, of course, to be so much more than that, but it was a grant to states, and states would set up state plans. This is all language that has become very familiar to us. And they would provide medical assistance, as it was called, to certain categories of poor people. And the theory was that the program would start with these people, but tucked into — the categories were cash welfare recipients — but tucked in there were a group of people known as the medically needy, in the early days. And the medically needy, I always felt, was sort of the first seeds of something much bigger, because the point was that it was a program for people who were low-income, who couldn’t afford their medical care, but didn’t get cash welfare. 

So the theory was exactly the theory that has carried the program for 60 years now. And originally the thought was that it would really — and of course, this has turned out to be the case — that that would enable people who had very serious health care costs for things that Medicare did not cover — nursing home care, home health benefits ultimately, those kinds of really big-ticket long-term care items outside of Medicare — because Medicare was really sort of like Blue Cross Blue Shield for old people like me. 

Rovner: You weren’t old at the time though? 

Rosenbaum: I was not. Right. I was just a kid. But the program was meant to replicate what folks had had during their working years, and so it was very important and very profound, but limited. 

Rovner: So Medicare’s long been the more politically popular of the two programs. 

Rosenbaum: Yes. 

Rovner: Primarily because of the political clout of older voters, which is how it was created. How was it that Medicaid became the program that grew so much? 

Rosenbaum: What would propel Medicaid forward is that, unlike Medicare, which is tied to a premium structure, right? Medicare is funded through premium payments, which is great, but premium payments are quite unique. Because they are actuarially based, they are a very tightly controlled form of financing, because you’re asking — whether it’s the government or, now, of course, private insurers that contracted the government — you’re asking them to take on a lot of financial risk, and so everybody wanted the assurance of premium structure. Well, Medicaid was not. Medicaid is a classic public health statute. It’s general revenue. And so every time something happened that required an intervention by the federal government where health care was concerned, you could just add a few pages to the Medicaid statute and end up with, voilà, a fix. And by the mid-’70s, people said, Well, what if we decoupled this category from cash welfare funding levels and just let poor children have Medicaid? And there then ensued, essentially, a decade-long effort to add poor children and pregnant women as groups in their own right to the Medicaid program. 

Rovner: I feel like in 2017, in the fight over the repeal of the Affordable Care Act, that was sort of a big change for Medicaid. I think people had finally realized that Medicaid had grown larger than— 

Rosenbaum: Yes. 

Rovner: —Medicare, that it was not just a program for the poorest of the poor, that it did all of these other things that you’re talking about, and that really a lot of, I guess, the stigma had been taken away. And yet this Congress felt comfortable — I don’t know if I’d say comfortable — but a majority of them voted to make these really deep, profound changes. What is that going to mean going forward, both to the health care system and to the political system? 

Rosenbaum: Well, I’ve spent a lot of time thinking in this post-enactment period about when was the die cast that’s had everybody spinning. And I think congressional leaders and the White House leadership understood the fatal error they’d made in 2017, which was separating the tax reforms from the spending reforms. Because, of course, we were then able to battle the spending reforms on our own turf, right?. Here, because of the decision that was made back, I’m sure, almost a year ago— 

Rovner: Literally the idea to do one “big, beautiful” bill. 

Rosenbaum: Yes. And that meant that Medicaid, along with food stamps, or SNAP [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], along with everything else, just became pay-fors. They just became offsets. And the name of the game then became beating back every attempt to deprive Congress of pay-fors to do the thing that it really wanted to do, which was tax reform. And so we were all reduced to — “we” in the sense of people who worked on social welfare policy — to bystanders in this effort to get to a trillion dollars. And therefore— 

Rovner: A trillion dollars in cuts. 

Rosenbaum: A trillion dollars in cuts, and therefore it opened the door to extraordinary things. 

Rovner: So what happens next? Does this happen? And if it happens, does it undergird or take out the underpinnings of the entire health care system? Or does Congress eventually realize what it’s done and change its mind? 

Rosenbaum: Well, I think the hope is that — some people are saying: Well, the two-year runway. It’s like two years until it becomes effective. The two-year runway is sort of going to make people forget about this, and then boom, it’ll be upon us. I don’t think so. I think the two-year runway will end up shining a huge light on the fact that states cannot implement the whole system. While we are very focused on the number of people who will lose their coverage, the states are confronting an insurmountable problem here. They’ve never had to link Medicaid to work records, and Congress did everything it could to make matters so much worse. For example, they could have just said that, We’re going to import the same requirements that apply to SNAP to Medicaid, and so if you’re getting SNAP in your working age, then you automatically enroll in Medicaid. They didn’t do that. They didn’t do that. It’s a different-enough set of eligibility criteria and exemption categories. For example, SNAP ends, I think, at about 60, and the Medicaid work requirements go all the way to 65. 

Rovner: Age 60 and 65. 

Rosenbaum: Yes, exactly. But the exemptions are different. The requirements are different. And so states — people are talking about, Oh, well, it’s just the line reporting systems. No, no, no, no. You are liable for all kinds of error rate penalties. If you just rely on SNAP, you can’t. So states have no way to deal with this. So there’s no mitigation strategy for this, and I think the hope is that Congress will call it back. 

Rovner: If it doesn’t, is this — the one sort of silver lining that I’d been sort of thinking about is, well, maybe if we tear down the health care system, we’ll have to start again and build a better one. Is it possible that we could get there, or are we just going to limp along? 

Rosenbaum: I have those thoughts often, and then I stop and think, well, those of us with health insurance could sit there and say, Yeah, maybe we just tear down the health system to start again. Meanwhile, of course, we will have millions of people without health care. So I — interestingly, the Affordable Care Act, of course, was designed not to tear down the health care system but to strengthen the health care system. But it was the brilliance of the Affordable Care Act was that it saw the holes and it sort of tried to fix them. And if we’d left it alone with everybody in this what I consider to be sort of an intermediate arrangement, we could have done exactly what you are talking about. With just about everybody in the United States covered, we could have begun to really do the serious work of moving to something more unified, better— 

Rovner: Cheaper. 

Rosenbaum: And of course, cheaper. 

Rovner: More efficient. 

Rosenbaum: More efficient. That’s right. Far easier to use. But we have decided instead to tear the Affordable Care Act apart, both the access to the marketplace by rolling back the assistance and, of course, the Medicaid reforms. 

Rovner: Well, happy birthday, Medicaid. 

Rosenbaum: Happy birthday, Medicaid. 

Rovner: Thank you so much, Sara Rosenbaum. 

Rosenbaum: Thank you for having me. It was a — it was both uplifting and sad. 

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

Kenen: The story I’m doing is in ScienceAlert: “New Kind of Dental Floss Could Replace Vaccine Needles, Study Finds,” by David Nield. OK, I should begin with a caveat, which is I basically don’t like it when journalists hype findings. It’s something that was only in a dozen mice or something. My exception is when something is really, really sort of just interesting to learn about. Then it’s OK to report it as long as you just sort of shout: This is only in mice! We don’t know if it’s going to work in people! But it is an interesting study. 

One reason people don’t get vaccines is they’re afraid of needles. And if you could actually apply the vaccine to a dental floss pick and get it — because the line between our gums and our teeth is permeable, stuff can get in and out. That’s why we have to clean it. If you could treat a dental floss with the vaccine instead of just plain old dental floss or a needle in your arm or leg or whatever, maybe that could be a way of improving. And so these animal studies have been suggestive that this is a worthwhile course to follow. But before you go out to the drugstore with your dental floss and ask them to put the vaccine stuff on it — they’ve done it with a couple of people with dye, not with vaccine, just to sort of trace it. We are a long way away, but it was interesting enough for me to decide that we could discuss it. 

Rovner: I thought it was pretty cool. Shefali? 

Luthra: My piece also is dentistry adjacent, even dentistry directly relevant. It is from The New Yorker. It is by Burkhard Bilger. The headline is “Mexico’s Molar City Could Transform My Smile. Did I Want It To?” This is a really fun read. He travels to this town. Los Algodones, in Mexico, is right across the border, and it is where a lot of people go to get dental work. It is much cheaper there than getting it in America. So he goes through the history of dental work, why it has been something that people really do not enjoy, the pain associated with it, how many bad dentists are out there, also the stigma and violence against dentists. And then he talks through his own personal journey of trying to figure out: Does he need this dental work? How much would it cost to get it in this Mexican town compared to getting it in the U.S.? 

He talks to a dentist there, talks to a celebrity dentist as well, and in the end decides to keep his teeth as they are, which is very beautiful to me as someone who hates going to the dentist. But it’s a really fun read to think about how expensive health care is, how often things are marketed to us that maybe we do or don’t need, and also why dentistry has really been siloed out of all other health care for basically all of our history. 

Rovner: Yeah, it really has. It’s a wonderful combination of stories. Anna. 

Edney: Mine is not dental-related. I apologize. But this is an obit in The Washington Post by Stefanie Dazio, “Morton Mintz, Post reporter with a muckraker spirit, dies at 103.” And I wanted to talk about him because he was the reporter responsible for bringing to light everything that was going on with thalidomide. He wrote a 1962 front-page Washington Post profile on Francis Kelsey, the FDA pharmacologist who essentially blocked thalidomide from getting to market in the U.S., and she faced a lot of pressure and a lot of name-calling and things to stand in the way. And he took on the story, and he did many amazing stories, so it’s just, it’s worth a read. He wrote a lot about the pharmaceutical industry as well, and so I think it’s just nice to remember him. 

Rovner: It is. I will point out he was a fellow Michigan Daily alum, a close family friend. My mother actually worked on the Michigan Daily with his younger sister and then later worked with him at The Washington Post for years, so I can attest, not just a great reporter but a really swell guy. All right, well, my extra credit is not dental-related, either. It’s another great investigation from my KFF Health News colleague Fred Schulte. It’s called, “Cosmetic Surgeries Led to Disfiguring Injuries, Patients Allege.” And it’s mostly about a chain you’ve probably seen advertised called Sono Bello and how this private-equity-owned business and some others like it are being sued in scores of medical malpractice and negligence lawsuits, claiming under-trained medical professionals have caused disfiguring injuries and, in at least a dozen cases, wrongful deaths. The subtext of this story, of course, is that this is another one of those not quite med spa but not quite ambulatory surgery center categories that’s not very well regulated by either the FDA or most states. So it’s yet another good case of buyer beware when it comes to protecting your health. 

OK. That’s this week’s show. As always, thanks as always to our editor, Emmarie Huetteman, and our producer-engineer, Francis Ying. Extra-special thanks this week to Taylor Cook, who’s editing our Medicare and Medicaid anniversary interviews. If you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us, too. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me on X, @jrovner, or on Bluesky, @julierovner. Where are you folks hanging these days? Shefali. 

Luthra: I am at Bluesky, @shefali. 

Rovner: Joanne. 

Kenen: Bluesky and LinkedIn, @joannekenen. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: Bluesky or X, @annaedney. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

Much of the hubbub in health care this year has been focused on Medicaid, which faces dramatically reduced federal funding as the result of the huge budget bill signed by President Donald Trump earlier this month. But now the attention is turning to the Affordable Care Act, which is facing some big changes that could cost many consumers their health coverage as soon as 2026.

Meanwhile, changes to immigration policy under Trump could have an outsize impact on the nation’s health care system, both by exacerbating shortages of health workers and by eliminating insurance coverage that helps keep some hospitals and clinics afloat.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Julie Appleby of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Julie Appleby
KFF Health News

@julie_appleby

Read Julie's stories.

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

@jessiehellmann.bsky.social

Read Jessie's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Many Americans can expect their health insurance premiums to rise next year, but those rate hikes could be even bigger for the millions who rely on ACA health plans. To afford such plans, most consumers rely on enhanced federal government subsidies, which are set to expire — and GOP lawmakers seem loath to extend them, even though many of their constituents could lose their insurance as a result.
• Congress included a $50 billion fund for rural health care in Trump’s new law, aiming to cushion the blow of Medicaid cuts. But the fund is expected to fall short, especially as many people lose their health insurance and clinics, hospitals, and health systems are left to cover their bills.
• Abortion opponents continue to claim the abortion pill mifepristone is unsafe, more recently by citing a problematic analysis — and some lawmakers are using it to pressure federal officials to take another look at the drug’s approval. Meanwhile, many Planned Parenthood clinics are bracing for an end to federal funding, stripping money not only from busy clinics where abortion is legal but also from clinics that provide only contraception, testing for sexually transmitted infections, and other non-abortion care in states where the procedure is banned.
• And as more states implement laws enabling doctors to opt out of treatments that violate their morals, a pregnant woman in Tennessee says her doctor refused to provide prenatal care, because she is unmarried.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jonathan Oberlander, a Medicare historian and University of North Carolina health policy professor, to mark Medicare’s 60th anniversary later this month.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife with Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules,” by Katheryn Houghton.  

Julie Appleby: NPR’s “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Jessie Hellmann: Roll Call’s “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel,” by Ariel Cohen.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Associated Press’ “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals Are Ultraprocessed,” by Amanda Seitz and Jonel Aleccia.  

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Insurers and Customers Brace for Double Whammy to Obamacare Premiums,” by Julie Appleby.
• The Congressional Budget Office’s “Estimated Budgetary Effects of Public Law 119-21, to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Title II of H. Con. Res. 14, Relative to CBO’s January 2025 Baseline.”
• The CBO’s “How Changes to Funding for the NIH and Changes in the FDA’s Review Times Would Affect the Development of New Drugs.”
• KFF’s “KFF Health Tracking Poll: Public Views on Recent Tax and Budget Legislation,” by Grace Sparks, Shannon Schumacher, Julian Montalvo III, Ashley Kirzinger, and Liz Hamel.
• The Washington Post’s “Digging Into the Math of a Study Attacking the Safety of the Abortion Pill,” by Glenn Kessler.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Here Come the ACA Premium Hikes

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

Today we are joined via videoconference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call. 

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there. 

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Julie Appleby. 

Julie Appleby: Hi. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have the first of a two-part series marking the 60th anniversary of Medicare and Medicaid, which is July 30. Medicare historian and University of North Carolina professor Jonathan Oberlander takes us on a brief tour of the history of Medicare. Next week we’ll do the same with Medicaid. But first, this week’s news. 

So, we have talked a lot about the changes to Medicaid as a result of the Trump tax and spending law, but there are big changes coming to the Affordable Care Act, too, which is why I have asked my colleague Julie Appleby to join us this week. Julie, what can people who buy insurance from the ACA marketplaces expect for 2026? 

Appleby: Well, there’s a lot of changes. Let’s talk about premiums first, OK? So there’s a couple of things going on with premiums. It’s kind of a double whammy. So, on the one hand, insurers are asking for higher premiums next year to cover different things. So in the summer they put out their rates for the following year. So there’s been a lot of uncertainty this year, so that’s playing into it as well. But what they’re asking for is some money for rising medical and labor costs, the usual culprits, drug costs going up, that kind of thing. But they’re tacking on some extra percentages to deal with some of the policy changes advanced by the Trump administration and the Republican-controlled Congress. And one key factor is the uncertainty over whether Congress is going to extend those more generous covid-era tax subsidies. So we’re looking at premiums going up, and the ask right now, what they’re asking for, the median ask, is 15%, which is a lot higher. Last year when KFF did the same survey, it was 7%. So we’re getting premium increase requests of a fairly substantial amount. In fact, they say it’s about the highest in five years.  

And then on top of that, it’s still not clear what’s going to happen with those more generous subsidies. And if the more generous subsidies go away, if Congress does not reinstate them, there’ll be costs from that, and people could be paying maybe 75% more than they’re paying this year. And we could talk some more about that. But that’s kind of the double whammy we’re looking at, rising premiums and the potential that these more generous subsidies won’t be extended by Congress. 

Rovner: So there were some things that were specifically in that tax and spending bill that drive up premiums for the ACA, right? Besides not extending the additional subsidies. 

Appleby: Well, that’s the biggest piece of it, but yes. They’re tacking on about 4% of that 15% medium increase is related to the uncertainty. Well, they’re assuming that the tax credits will expire. It was not in the bill. Congress could still act. They have until the end of the year. They could extend those subsidies. So that’s about 4%. But one of the things that people haven’t really been talking about are tariffs, and some of the insurers are asking for 3% because they expect drug costs to go up. So there’s those things that are going on. And then there’s just sort of the uncertainty going forward for insurers about what’s going to happen with enrollment as a result of both these premium increases, and then looking a little bit further down the line, there are some changes in the tax and spending bill and some rules that are going to substantially reduce enrollment. 

So insurers are worried that the people who are going to sign up for coverage are the ones who are most motivated, and those are probably going to be the people who have some health problems. And the folks who aren’t as motivated are going to look at the prices and maybe the additional red tape and will drop out and leave them with a sicker and more expensive pool to cover. So all of that is factoring in with these premium rate increases that they’re trying to put together. Now remember, a lot of these insurers put in these premium increase requests before they knew the outcome of the tax and spending legislation. They could still modify them. 

Rovner: And Jessie, as Julie said, there’s still a chance that Republicans will change their minds on the increased subsidies and tack them onto something. And there’s a big bipartisan health bill on drug prices and other expiring programs that still could get done before the end of the year? Yes? 

Hellmann: There have been discussions about a bipartisan health bill, though the main author of it, Sen. Bill Cassidy, himself even seems kind of skeptical. I talked to him this week, and he’s like, It might happen, it might not. But there are a bunch of other health extenders that Congress will need to get to, like telehealth, some Medicare and Medicaid payment things. So there’s definitely something to attach it to. Republicans are not friendly to the ACA. As you mentioned, they made a bunch of changes to it in this tax and spending bill. So I think the people I talk to think it’s a long shot that they’re going to pass billions of dollars in a subsidy extension in this bill. Though there are Republicans who do care about this issue, like Sen. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. She’s kind of been sounding the alarm on this. She thinks that Congress needs to do something to mitigate which could be very big premium increases for people. So there is some pressure there, but it doesn’t seem like the people who should be thinking about this right now have started thinking about it much yet. 

Rovner: One presumes they’ll start thinking about it when they start seeing these actual premium increases. I sound like a broken record, but we keep saying, the people who these premium increases are going to hit the hardest are voters in red states. 

Appleby: Last year, in 2024, 56% of ACA enrollees lived in Republican congressional districts and 76% were in states won by President [Donald] Trump. So I’ve got to think they’re thinking about it. When I did the reporting on this story, I spoke with a couple of folks, and they said that some people in Congress are looking at maybe they can mess around or maybe they can do something with the subsidies that’s not keeping them as they are but might deal with a piece of it. For example, there is something called a subsidy cliff. So if you make more than 400% of the federal poverty level, you used to not get any subsidies. That would come back if they don’t extend this. And so 400% of the federal poverty level, you make a dollar more, you don’t get a subsidy. So this year — and this year will be the numbers that next year’s rates are based on — $62,600 for one person is 400% of the federal poverty level and $84,600 for a couple. So people are going to start getting, if they don’t extend the tax credits, they’re going to start getting notification about how much they owe for premiums next year. 

And this is going to be one of the first effects that people are going to see from all these changes in Washington, the tax and spending bill and the other things, when they get these premiums for January. And if they make even a dollar over that, they’re not going to get any subsidy at all. So what I’m told by some of my sources is that maybe they’re thinking about raising that cliff, maybe keeping the cliff but maybe moving it up a little bit to 500% or 600%. But it’s totally unclear. Like you all are saying, nothing may happen. We may go through Dec. 31 and nothing happens, but I’m hearing that they are maybe talking a little bit about that. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: Yeah. And there’s a couple interesting dynamics that I think could influence the politics of this and what Congress feels motivated to do or not do. So, like Julie was saying, this would hit in January. And a lot of the stuff in the bill they just passed is designed to not hit until the midterms, but this would hit before the midterms. And so that’s got to be on their minds. And then, like you were saying, not only would this hit Republican voters the hardest, but a reason that’s more true today than it was the last time they took a round at the Affordable Care Act in 2017 is because all of these red states have expanded since then. You have a lot more enrollment, even in states that didn’t expand, and so, like we mentioned, are going to have a lot of Republican voters who get hit and have this sticker shock. And the party in power in Congress and the White House could be to blame. 

Rovner: Yeah. One of the things in 2017, there were, what, 12 million people who were buying coverage on the marketplaces. And now there’s 24 million people who are buying coverage on the marketplaces. So it’s a lot more people, just plain, in addition to a lot more people who are likely in some of these red states. So we will follow this closely. 

Meanwhile, the fallout continues as people find out more about the new tax and spending law. The Congressional Budget Office is out with its final numbers on the bill as enacted. It’s now estimating that 10 million more people will be uninsured in 2034 as a result of the new law. That’s down from the 11.8 million estimate of the original Senate bill. That’s because the parliamentarian bounced the provisions that would’ve punished states using their own money to cover undocumented people. That was not allowed to be considered under the reconciliation procedure. 

We also have a brand-new poll from my colleagues here at KFF that find that more people know about the law than did before it passed, and it’s still unpopular. We’ll post a link to those numbers so you can see just how unpopular it is. As we’ve discussed, lots of Republican senators and House members expressed concern about the impact the Medicaid cuts could have on rural hospitals in particular. So much so that a $50 billion fund was eventually added to the bill to offset roughly $155 billion in rural Medicaid cuts. Even more confusing, that $50 billion is likely to be distributed before some of the cuts begin — as you were just saying, Alice — and not necessarily to just rural areas. So is this $50 billion fund really just a big lobbying bonanza? 

Ollstein: Well, it’s certainly designed to function as softening the blow. But these are different things. The hospital could be propped up and stay open, but if no one has Medicaid to go there, that’s still a problem. And the money is sort of acknowledging that a bunch of people are going to lose their coverage, because it’s meant to give the hospital something to use for uncompensated care for people who have no coverage and come to the ER. But that still means that people who lost their insurance because of other provisions in the bill, they might not be going to their preventive care appointments that would avoid them having to go to the emergency room in the first place, which costs all of us more in the long run. So there’s a lot of skepticism about the efficacy of this. 

Rovner: Jessie, are you seeing the lobbying already begin for who’s going to get this $50 billion? 

Hellmann: Yeah, because the legislation leaves a lot of how the money will be handed out to the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] secretary, and so that’s something that they’re going to start thinking about. It reminds me a lot of the provider relief fund that was set up during covid. And that didn’t go very well. There were lots of complaints that providers were getting the funding that didn’t need the funding, and the small safety net hospitals weren’t getting enough of the funding. So I’m wondering if they’re going to revisit how that went and try to learn any lessons from it. And then at the same time, like Alice said, this just isn’t a lot of money. It’s not going to offset some of the pain to rural providers that the bill has caused. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another piece that we will be watching. Meanwhile, the cuts to SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] food benefits conflict with another stated goal of this administration, improving health by getting people to eat healthier food. Except, as we know, healthier food is often more expensive. Other than not letting people buy soda and candy with their SNAP cards, has the administration tried to address this contradiction at all? I’m seeing a lot of blank stares. I’m assuming that the answer to that is no. We’re hearing so much about food and unhealthy food, and we’re getting rid of seed oils and we’re getting rid of dyes, but at the same time, it’s the biggest cut ever to nutrition assistance, and yet nobody’s really talking about it, right? 

Appleby: Sounds like, I think, the states are really worried, obviously, because they’re going to have to make up the difference if they can. And so what other programs are they going to cut? So I’m sure they are talking with folks in Congress, but I don’t know how much leverage they’re going to have. Do you guys have any idea whether the states, is there anything else that they can do to try to get some of this funding? 

Rovner: There’s no — I’ve seen no indication. As we said, there’s already some buyer’s remorse on the health side. Last week we talked about [Sen.] Josh Hawley introducing legislation to restore some of the Medicaid cuts that he just voted for, but I haven’t seen anybody talking about restoring any of these nutrition assistance cuts or any of the other cuts, right? 

Appleby: Right. And from what I’ve read, the SNAP cuts won’t fully take effect until after the midterm elections. So maybe we’re just not hearing about it as much because it hasn’t really hit home yet. People are still trying to figure out: What does all this mean? 

Rovner: Well, one thing that has hit home yet, I’ve wanted for a while to highlight what some of the changes to immigration policy are going to mean for health care. It’s not just ending legal status for people who came and have lived in the U.S. legally for years, or reinterpreting, again, the 1996 welfare law to declare ineligible for Medicaid and other programs many legal immigrants who are not yet permanent residents but who have been getting benefits because they had been made legally eligible for them by Congress and the president. One of the big changes to policy came to light last week when it was revealed that immigration officials are now being given access to Medicaid enrollment information, including people’s physical addresses. Why is this such a big deal? Alice, you’ve been following this whole immigration and health care issue, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. Experts are warning that this is very dangerous from a public health perspective. If you deter people from physically wanting to visit a clinic or a doctor out of fear of ICE [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] enforcement there, which we’ve already seen — we’ve already seen ICE try to barge into hospitals and seize people. And so fear of that is keeping people away from their appointments. That makes it harder to manage chronic illnesses. That makes it harder to manage infectious diseases, which obviously impacts the whole community and the whole society. We all bear those costs. We live in an interconnected world. What impacts part of the population impacts the rest of the population. 

And so what you mentioned about the Medicaid data, as well, deters people who are perfectly eligible, who are not undocumented, who have legal status, who are eligible for Medicaid. It deters them from enrolling, which again deters people from using that health care and keeping their conditions in check. And so there’s a lot of concern about how this could play out and how long the effect could last, because there are studies showing that policies from the first Trump administration were still deterring immigrants from enrolling even after they were lifted by the Biden administration. 

Rovner: And we should point out that this whole address thing is a big issue because, as you say, there, maybe, there are a lot of families where there are people who live there who are perfectly, as you say, perfectly eligible. You’re not eligible for Medicaid if you’re not here legally. But they may live in a family, in a household with people who are not here with documentation, and they’re afraid now that if they have their addresses, that ICE is going to come knocking at their door to get, if not them, then their relatives or people who are staying with them. 

Appleby: Yeah. And I think it’s also affecting employment. So nursing homes are already saying that they’re losing some people who are losing their protected status or this or that. So they’re losing employees. Some of them are reporting, from what I’ve read, that they are getting fewer applicants for jobs. This is going to make it even tougher. Many of them already have staffing issues, and the nursing home industry has said, Hey, how come we’re not getting any special consideration? Like maybe some of the farmers or other places are supposedly getting, but I don’t know if that’s actually happening. But why aren’t they being considered and why are they losing some of their workers who are here under protected status, which they’re going to lose? And some of them may also be undocumented — I don’t know. But that’s just the nursing homes. Think of all the people around the country who need help in their homes, and maybe they’re taking care of elderly parents and they hire people, and some of those people may not be documented. And that’s a vast number of folks that we’re never going to hear about, but if they start losing their caregivers as well, I think that’s going to be a big impact as we go forward. 

Rovner: And it’s also skilled health workers who are here on visas who are immigrants. 

Appleby: Right. 

Rovner: In rural areas in particular, doctors and nurses are usually people who have been recruited from other countries because there are not enough people or not health professionals living in those rural areas. The knock-on effect of this, I think, is bigger than anybody has really sort of looked at yet. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. States have even been debating and in some cases passing legislation to make it easier for foreign medical workers to come practice here, making it so that they don’t have to redo their residency if they already did their residency somewhere abroad, things like that, because there’s such shortages right now, especially in primary care and maternal care and a lot of different areas. 

Rovner: Yeah. This is another area that I think we’re only just beginning to see the impact of. Well, there is also news this week in Trump administration cuts that are not from the budget bill. In a report from the Congressional Budget Office that’s separate from the latest budget reconciliation estimate, analysts said that the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to the budgets of the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration could reduce the number of new drugs coming to market. That would not only mean fewer new treatments and cures but also a hit to the economy. And apparently it doesn’t even take into account the uncertainty that’s making many researchers consider offers to decamp to Canada or Europe or other countries. There’s a real multiplier effect here on what’s a big part of U.S. innovation. 

Hellmann: I’ve been talking to people on the Hill about this who traditionally have been big supporters of the NIH and authorizing and appropriating increases for the NIH every year. And they are still kind of playing a little coy. The White House is suggesting a budget cut at the NIH of 40%, which would be massive. It’s so massive that the CBO report was like: We cannot estimate the impact of this. We’re going to estimate a smaller hypothetical. Because they just can’t. 

And so I think it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out in the appropriations process. You do have senators who are more publicly concerned about it, like Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who obviously is on the Appropriations Committee. So we might see a situation where Congress ignores the budget request. That usually happens, but these are weird times. And so I think there are questions about, even if they do, if Congress does proceed as normal and appropriate the money that they typically do for NIH, what is the administration going to do with it? They’ve already signaled that they’re fine not spending money that has been appropriated by Congress. And so I think that there’s a big question about that. 

Rovner: At some point, this has to come to a head. We’ve been — as I say, I feel like a broken record on this. We talk about it a lot, that this is money that’s been appropriated by Congress and signed by the president and that we keep hearing that people, particularly at NIH, are not being allowed, for one reason or another, to send out. This is technically illegal impoundment. And at some point it comes to a head. We know that Russ Vought, the head of the Office of Management Budget, thinks that the anti-impoundment law is illegal and that he can just ignore it. And that’s a lot of what’s happening right now. I’m still surprised that it’s the end of July and Congress is going out for the August recess — and Jessie, I know you’re talking to people and they’re playing coy — that they haven’t jumped up and down yet. The NIH in particular has been such a bipartisanly supported entity. If you’ve ever been around the campus in Bethesda, all of the buildings are named after various appropriators of both parties. This is something that is really dear to Congress, and yet they are just basically sitting there holding their tongues. At some point, won’t it stop? 

Hellmann: I think maybe they’re hoping to say something through whatever legislation that they come out with, whatever spending legislation. But, yeah, they’re not being very forceful about it. And I think people are obviously just very afraid of making the Trump administration angry. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has said this, like she kind of fears the repercussions of making the president mad. And he’s on this spending-cut spree. So I definitely expected more anger, especially the bipartisan history of the NIH has lasted so long. It’s kind of a weird thing to see happen. 

Rovner: Yeah. Of all the things that I didn’t expect to see happen this year, that has to be the thing that I most didn’t expect to see happen this year, which was basically an administration just stopping funding research and Congress basically sitting back and letting it happen. It is still sort of boggling to my mind. Well, we also learned this week about hospitals stopping gender-affirming care of all kinds for minors, under increasing pressure from the administration. And we’re not just talking about red states anymore. Children’s hospitals in California and here in Washington, D.C., have now announced they won’t be offering the care anymore. Wasn’t it just a few months ago when people were moving from red states to blue states to get their kids care? Now what are they going to be able to do? 

Ollstein: I think a lot of what we’re seeing play out in the gender-affirming care fight, it reminds me of the abortion rights fight. There are a lot of themes about the formal health care system being very, very risk-averse. And so rather than test the limits of the law, rather than continuing to provide services while things are still pingponging back and forth in courts, which is the case, they’re saying, just out of caution, We’re just going to stop altogether. And that is cutting off a lot of families from care that they were relying on. And there’s a lot of concern about the physical and mental health impacts on — again, this is very small compared to the general population of trans kids — but it’s going to hit a lot of people. And yeah, like you said, this is happening in blue states as well. There’s sort of nowhere for them to go. 

Rovner: Yeah. We’re going to see how this one also plays out. Well, turning to abortion, we talked last week about how a federal appeals court upheld a West Virginia law aimed at banning the abortion pill mifepristone. And I wondered why we weren’t hearing more from the drug industry about the dangers of state-by-state undermining of the FDA. And lo and behold, here come the drugmakers. In comments letters to the FDA, more than 50 biotech leaders and investors are urging the agency to disregard a controversial study from the anti-abortion think tank the Ethics and Public Policy Center that officials are citing as a reason to reopen consideration of the drug’s approval. Alice, remind us what this study is and why people are so upset about it. 

Ollstein: So it’s not a study, first of all. Even its supporters in the anti-abortion movement admitted, in private in a Zoom meeting that I obtained access to, that it is not a study. This is an analysis that they created. They are not disclosing the dataset that it is based on. It did not go through peer review. And so they are citing their own sort of white-paper analysis put out by an explicitly anti-abortion think tank to argue that abortion pills are more dangerous than previously known or that the FDA has previously acknowledged. There’s been a lot of fact checks and debunks of some of their main points that we’ve been through on this podcast also before. The Washington Post did an in-depth fact check if people want to look that up. But suffice it to say that that has not deterred members of Congress from citing this and to pressure the FDA. 

And now you have the FDA sort of promising to do a review. If you look at the exact wording of what [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary said, I’m not sure. He said something like, Like we monitor the safety of all drugs, we’re going to blah, blah, blah. And so it’s unclear if there’s anything specific going on. But the threat that there could be, like you said, is really shaking up the drugmaking industry. And you’re hearing a lot of the same alarms that we heard from the pharmaceutical industry when this was before the Supreme Court, when they were afraid the Supreme Court would second-guess the FDA’s judgment and reimpose restrictions on mifepristone. And they’re saying, Look, if we can’t count on this being a process that just takes place based on the science and not politics and not courts coming in 25 years later and saying actually no, then why would we invest so much money in developing drugs if we can’t even count on the rules being fair and staying the same? 

Rovner: Yeah. We will see how this goes. I was surprised, though. We know that that Texas case that the Supreme Court managed to not reach the point of, because the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, is still alive elsewhere. But I didn’t realize that this other case was still sort of chugging along. So we’ll see when the Supreme Court gets another bite at it. Meanwhile, the fight over funding for Planned Parenthood — whose Medicaid eligibility, at least for one year, was canceled by the new budget law — continues in court. This week a judge in Massachusetts gave the group a partial win by blocking the defunding for some smaller clinics and those that don’t perform abortions, but that ruling replaced a more blanket delay on the defunding. So many clinics are now having their funding stopped while the court fight continues. Alice, what’s the impact here of these Planned Parenthood clinics closing down? It’s not just abortion that we’re talking about. In fact, it’s not even primarily abortion that we’re talking about. 

Ollstein: Absolutely. So this is one, it’s set to hit a lot of clinics in states where abortion is legal. And so these are the clinics that are serving a lot of people traveling from red states. And so there’s already an issue with wait times, and this is set to make it worse. But that’s just for abortion. Like you said, this is also set to hit a bunch of clinics in states where abortion is illegal and where these clinics are only providing other services, like birth control, like STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing. And at the same time we’re having a lot of other funding frozen, and so this could really be tough for some of these areas where there aren’t a lot of providers, and especially there are not a lot of providers who accept Medicaid. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, a number of states are passing conscience laws that let health professionals opt out of things like doing abortions or providing gender-affirming care if they violate their beliefs. Well, in Tennessee now we have a story of a pregnant woman who says her doctor refused to provide her with prenatal care, because she’s not married to her partner of 15 years. She said at a congressional town hall that her doctor said her marital status violated his Christian beliefs, and he’s apparently protected by the new Tennessee state law called the Medical Ethics Defense Act. I’ve heard of doctors refusing to prescribe birth control for unmarried women, but this is a new one to me, and I’ve been doing this for a very long time. Are these just unintended consequences of these things that maybe state lawmakers didn’t think a lot about? Or are they OK with doctors saying, We’re not going to provide you with prenatal care if you’re pregnant and not married? 

Ollstein: So one, as we just said, we’re in a situation where there is such a shortage of providers and such a shortage of providers who accept certain coverage that being turned away by one place, you might not be able to get an appointment somewhere else, depending where you live. And so this isn’t just an issue of, Oh, well, just don’t go to that doctor who believes that. People have very limited choices in a lot of circumstances. But I— 

Rovner: Apparently this woman in Tennessee said she’s having to go to Virginia to get her prenatal care. 

Ollstein: Well, exactly. Yeah. Exactly. This isn’t like people have tons of options. And also this is an example of a slippery slope, of if you allow people to be able to refuse service for this reason, for that reason, what else could happen? And some states have more legal protections for things like marital status, and some do not. And so it’s worth thinking through what could be sort of the next wave. 

Rovner: Well, we’re certainly going to see what the outcome of this could be. Well, before we end our news segment this week, I want to give a shoutout to tennis legend Venus Williams, who at age 45 won a singles match at a professional tournament here in Washington this week and said in her post-match interview that she came back to playing because she needed the pro tour’s health insurance to take care of several chronic conditions that she has. So see, even rich athletes need their health insurance. All right. That is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Medicare historian Jonathan Oberlander, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am so pleased to welcome Jonathan Oberlander to the podcast. He’s a professor of social medicine, professor of health policy and management, and adjunct professor of political science at the University of North Carolina School of Medicine in Chapel Hill and one of the nation’s leading experts on Medicare. Jon, welcome to “What the Health?” 

Jonathan Oberlander: Great to see you, Julie. 

Rovner: So Medicare, to me at least, remains the greatest paradox in the paradox that is the U.S. health care system. It is at once both so popular and so untouchable that it’s considered the third rail of politics, yet at its core it’s a painfully out-of-date and meager benefit that nevertheless threatens to go bankrupt on a regular basis. How did we get here? 

Oberlander: Wow. So let’s talk about the benefits for a minute. And I think one of the things we can say about Medicare in 2025 as we mark this 60th anniversary is it still bears the imprint of Medicare in 1965. And when Medicare was designed as a program — and the idea really dates back to the early 1950s — it was not seen as a comprehensive benefit. It was intended to pay for the most consequential costs of medical care, for acute care costs. And so when it was enacted in 1965, the benefits were incomplete. And the problem is, as you know very well, they haven’t been added to all that much. And here we have a population, and all of us know as we get older, we generally don’t get healthier. I wish it was true, but it’s not. Older persons deal with all kinds of complex medical issues and have a lot of medical needs, and yet Medicare’s benefits are very limited, so limited that actually a very small percentage of Medicare beneficiaries have only Medicare. Most Medicare beneficiaries have Medicare plus something else. And that may be an individual private plan that they purchase called a Medigap plan, or maybe a declining number of people have retiree health insurance that supplements Medicare. 

Some low-income Medicare beneficiaries have Medicaid as well as Medicare and they are dual-eligible. Some Medicare beneficiaries have extra benefits through the Medicare Advantage program, which I’m sure— 

Rovner: We’ll get to. 

Oberlander: —we’ll have a lot to say. So the bottom line, though, is Medicare has grown. It has, what, about 70 million Americans rely on Medicare. But the benefit package — with some intermittent exceptions that are significant, such as the addition of outpatient prescription drugs in 2006 — really has not kept pace. 

Rovner: So let’s go back to the beginning. What was the problem that Medicare set out to solve? 

Oberlander: Well, it was both a substantive problem and a political problem. The origins of Medicare are in the ashes, the failure, of the Truman administration proposals for national health insurance during the mid- and late 1940s. And after they had lost repeatedly, health reformers decided they needed a new strategy. So instead of national health insurance, what today we would call a single-payer, federal-government-run program for everybody, they trimmed their ambitions down to, initially, just hospital insurance, 60 days of hospital insurance for elderly Social Security beneficiaries. And that was it. And they thought if they just focused on older Americans, maybe they would tamp down the controversy and the opposition and the American Medical Association and charges of socialized medicine, all things that are really throwing a wrench into plans for national health insurance. It didn’t quite work out as they thought. It took about 14 years from the time Medicare was proposed to enact it. And there was a big, divisive, controversial debate about Medicare’s enactment. But it was fundamentally a solution to that political problem of, how do you enact government health insurance in the United States? You pick a more sympathetic population. 

Now, there was a substantive problem, which was in the 1940s and especially 1950s, private health insurance was growing in the United States for Americans who are working-age, and that growth of employer-sponsored health insurance really left out retirees. They were expensive. Commercial insurers didn’t want to cover them. And the uninsured rate, if you can believe it, for people over age 65, before Medicare, was around 50%. Not 15 but five zero, 50%. And so here you had a population that had more medical needs, was more expensive, and they had less access to health insurance than younger people. And Medicare was created in part to end that disparity and give them access to reliable coverage. 

Rovner: So as you mentioned, Medicare was initially just aimed at elderly Social Security recipients. What were some of the biggest benefit and population changes as the years went by? 

Oberlander: So in terms of populations in 1972, Medicare added coverage for persons who have end-stage renal disease, so people who need dialysis no matter what the age. It’s a lifesaving technology. They can qualify for Medicare. It didn’t really make sense to add it to Medicare — it’s just it was there. So they added it to Medicare. And also a population we don’t talk nearly enough about, younger Americans with permanent disabilities who are recipients of Social Security Disability Insurance. For a couple of years they qualify for Medicare as well and are a very important part in the Medicare population. Beyond that, Medicare’s covered population has not really changed all that much since the beginning, which actually would be a great disappointment to the architects of Medicare, who thought the program would expand to eventually cover everybody. 

In terms of benefits, the benefit package has been remarkably stable, for better and actually probably for worse, with the exception of, for example, the addition of outpatient prescription drug coverage, which came online in 2006, the addition of coverage for various preventive services such as mammography and cancer screenings. But Medicare still does not cover long-term stays in nursing homes. Many Americans think it does. They will be disappointed to find out it does not. Medicare does not cover, generally, hearing or vision or dental services. Traditional Medicare run by the government does not have a cap on the amount of money that beneficiaries can spend in a year on deductibles and copayments and so forth. So really its benefits remain quite limited. 

Rovner: So Medicare is also the biggest payer in the nation’s health care system and for decades set the standard in how private insurance covered and paid for health care. So let’s talk about privatization. Medicare Advantage, the private health plan alternative to traditional Medicare, is now more than half the program, both in terms of people and in terms of budget. Is this the future of Medicare? Or will we look back in many years and see it as kind of a temporary diversion? 

Oberlander: I think it’s the present and probably the future. The future is always so hard to predict, Julie, because it’s unwritten. But this is really a shocking outcome historically, because what Medicare’s architects expected was that the program was going to expand government health insurance to all Americans, first with the older population, then adding children, then adding everybody. Did not turn out that way. The original aspiration was Medicare for all, through any incremental means. Instead, 60 years later, we don’t have Medicare for all, but Medicare is mostly privatized. It’s a hybrid program with a public and private component that increasingly is dominated by private insurance. And the fact that over half of Medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in these private plans is a stunning development historically, by the way with lots of implications politically, because that’s an important new political force in Medicare that you have these large private plans and it’s changed Medicare politics. 

I don’t think Medicare Advantage is going anywhere. I think the question is, how big is it going to get? And I’m not sure any of us know. It’s been on a growth trajectory for a long time. And the question is — given that all the studies show that Medicare Advantage plans are overpaid, and overpaid by a lot, by the federal government, and it’s losing a lot of money on Medicare Advantage, and it’s never saved money — is there going to come a point where they actually clamp down? There’ve been some incremental efforts to try and restrain payments. Really haven’t had much effect. Are we actually going to get to a place where the federal government says: We need savings, yeah. This 22% extra that you’re getting, no, we can’t do that anymore. So I think it’s an open question about, how big is it going to get? Is it going to be two-thirds of the Medicare program, three-quarters of the Medicare program? And if so, then what is the future, turning the question on its head, of traditional Medicare if it’s that small? And that’s one of the great questions about Medicare in the next decade or two. 

Rovner: Thank you so much. 

Oberlander: Oh, thanks for having me. It was great to see you. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And 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 devices. Julie, why don’t you go first this week? 

Appleby: Yeah. I found this story on NPR quite interesting. It’s maybe something that a lot of us have thought about, but it just added a lot of numbers to the question of how many chemicals are in our beauty products — basically, the makeup we use, the lotions, our hairspray, the stuff that happens at the salon, that kind of thing. And it’s called “Many Beauty Products Have Toxic Ingredients. Newly Proposed Bills Could Change That.” And it was written by Rachel Treisman. Basically it says that the average American adult uses about 12 personal care products a day, resulting in exposure to about 168 chemicals, which can include things like formaldehyde, mercury, asbestos, etc., etc. OK, so that’s interesting. But it also talks about how the European Union has banned more than 2,000 chemicals, basically, but the FDA puts limits on only about a dozen. 

So this has caused four Democratic lawmakers to introduce a package of legislation, actually they’re calling the Safer Beauty Bill Package, and it’s four bills. And basically one of them would ban two entire classes of chemicals, phthalates and formaldehyde-releasing chemicals. And it also calls for some other things as well, which they say hasn’t been done and needs to be looked at. So I just thought it was an interesting thing that pulled together a lot of data from various sources and talked about this package of bills and whether or not it might make a difference in terms of looking at some of these chemicals in the products we use all the time and requiring a little bit more transparency about that. It’s a step. I don’t know if it’s going to resolve everybody’s concerns about this, but I just thought it was an interesting little piece looking at that topic. 

Rovner: It’s worth remembering that the FDA’s governing statute is actually called the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 

Appleby: That’s right. 

Rovner: The cosmetics often gets very short shrift in that whole thing. Alice, why don’t you go next? 

Ollstein: Yeah. So I have a piece from The Associated Press. It’s called “RFK Jr. Promoted a Food Company He Says Will Make Americans Healthy. Their Meals are Ultraprocessed.” And so this really gets at something we’ve been talking about on the podcast, where the administration is really fixated on a few kind of superficial food health things like colored dyes in food and frying something in beef tallow instead of vegetable oil. But something fried in beef tallow is still unhealthy. Froot Loops without the color dye are still unhealthy. And these meals that he is promoting as a service for Medicare and Medicaid enrollees are unhealthy. So this article is about how they do have chemical additives, they are high in sodium and sugar and saturated fats, and so it’s not in sort of keeping with the overall MAHA [Make America Healthy Again] message. But in a way it kind of is. 

Rovner: From the oops file. Jessie. 

Hellmann: My extra credit is from my colleague Ariel Cohen at Roll Call. It’s called “Kennedy’s Mental Health Drug Skepticism Lands at FDA Panel.” She did a story about something that kind of, I think, flew under the radar this week. The Trump administration is starting to make good on its promise to look at SSRIs [selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors], and the panel was very much full of skeptics of SSRIs who sought to undermine the confidence in using them while pregnant. And Marty Makary himself, FDA commissioner, claimed it could cause birth defects and other fetal harm. That was a statement that was echoed by many of the panelists. There was only one panelist who talked about the benefits of SSRIs in pregnant people who need them, the risks of postpartum depression to both the mom and the baby. And so I think this is definitely something to keep an eye on, is it looks like they’re going to keep looking more at this and raising questions about SSRIs without having much of a nuanced conversation about it. 

Rovner: Yeah. I did see something from ACOG, from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, this week pushing back very hard on the anti-SSRI-during-pregnancy push. So we’ll see how that one goes, too. My extra credit this week is from my KFF Health News colleague Katheryn Houghton, and it’s called “Republicans Call Medicaid Rife With Fraudsters. This Man Sees No Choice but To Break the Rules.” And it’s about something that didn’t really come up during the whole Medicaid debate, the fact that if Republicans really want people to go to work, well, then maybe they shouldn’t take away their health insurance if they get a small raise or a few extra hours. The subject of this story, only identified as James, technically makes about $50 a week too much to stay on Medicaid, but he otherwise can’t afford his six prescription medications and he can’t afford the care that he needs through even a subsidized Affordable Care Act plan, or his employer’s plan, either. 

The point of the ACA was to make coverage seamless so that as you earn more, you can still afford coverage even if you’re not on Medicaid anymore. But obviously that isn’t happening for everyone. Quoting from the story: “‘I don’t want to be a fraud. I don’t want to die,’ James said. ‘Those shouldn’t be the only two options.’” Yet for a lot of people they are. It’s not great, and it’s not something that’s currently being addressed by policymakers. 

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

Hellmann: I’m @jessiehellmann on Twitter and Bluesky. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: Julie. 

Appleby: @julie_appleby on X. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Senate has passed — and sent back to the House — a bill that would allow the Trump administration to claw back some $9 billion in previously approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. But first, senators removed from the bill a request to cut funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, President George W. Bush’s international AIDS/HIV program. The House has until Friday to approve the bill, or else the funding remains in place.

Meanwhile, a federal appeals court has ruled that West Virginia can ban the abortion pill mifepristone despite its approval by the Food and Drug Administration. If the ruling is upheld by the Supreme Court, it could allow states to limit access to other FDA-approved drugs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

@joannekenen.bsky.social

Read Joanne's bio.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefali.bsky.social

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Senate approved the Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid and public broadcasting, a remarkable yielding of congressional spending power to the president. Before the vote, Senate GOP leaders removed President Donald Trump’s request to cut PEPFAR, sparing the funding for that global health effort, which has support from both parties.
• Next Congress will need to pass annual appropriations bills to keep the government funded, but that is expected to be a bigger challenge than the recent spending fights. Appropriations bills need 60 votes to pass in the Senate, meaning Republican leaders will have to make bipartisan compromises. House leaders are already delaying health spending bills until the fall, saying they need more time to work out deals — and those bills tend to attract culture-war issues that make it difficult to negotiate across the aisle.
• The Trump administration is planning to destroy — rather than distribute — food, medical supplies, contraceptives, and other items intended for foreign aid. The plan follows the removal of workers and dismantling of aid infrastructure around the world, but the waste of needed goods the U.S. government has already purchased is expected to further erode global trust.
• And soon after the passage of Trump’s tax and spending law, at least one Republican is proposing to reverse the cuts the party approved to health programs — specifically Medicaid. It’s hardly the first time lawmakers have tried to change course on their own policies, though time will tell whether it’s enough to mitigate any political (or actual) damage from the law.

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

Julie Rovner: The New York Times’ “UnitedHealth’s Campaign to Quiet Critics,” by David Enrich.

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “Can A.I. Find Cures for Untreatable Diseases — Using Drugs We Already Have?” by Dhruv Khullar.

Shefali Luthra: The New York Times’ “Trump Official Accused PEPFAR of Funding Abortions in Russia. It Wasn’t True,” by Apoorva Mandavilli.

Sandhya Raman: The Nation’s “‘We’re Creating Miscarriages With Medicine’: Abortion Lessons from Sweden,” by Cecilia Nowell.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The Atlantic’s “The Trump Administration Is About To Incinerate 500 Tons of Emergency Food,” by Hana Kiros.
• KFF Health News’ “Vested Interests. Influence Muscle. At RFK Jr.’s HHS, It’s Not Pharma. It’s Wellness,” by Stephanie Armour.
• The Washington Post’s “A Clinic Blames Its Closing on Trump’s Medicaid Cuts. Patients Don’t Buy It,” by Hannah Knowles.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Senate Saves PEPFAR Funding — For Now

[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, July 17, 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 Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th. 

Shefali Luthra: Hello. 

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news. So we will get right to it. 

We’re going to start on Capitol Hill, where in the very wee hours of Thursday morning, the Senate approved the $9 billion package of rescissions of money already appropriated. It was largely for foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which oversees NPR and PBS. Now, this bill represents pennies compared to the entire federal budget and even to the total of dollars that are appropriated every year, but it’s still a big deal because it’s basically Congress ceding more of its spending power back to the president. And even this small package was controversial. Before even bringing it to the floor, senators took out the rescission of funds for PEPFAR [the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief], the bipartisanly popular international AIDS/HIV program begun under President George W. Bush. So now it has to go back to the House, and the clock on this whole process runs out on Friday. Sandhya, what’s likely to happen next? 

Raman: I think that the House has been more amenable. They got this through quicker, but if you look— 

Rovner: By one vote. 

Raman: Yeah. But I think if you look at what else has been happening in the House this week that isn’t in the health sphere, they’ve been having issues getting other things done, because of some pushback from the Freedom Caucus, who’s been kind of stalling the votes and having them to go back. And other things that should have been smoother are taking a lot longer and having a lot more issues. So it’s more difficult to say without seeing how all of that plays out, if those folks are going to make a stink again about something here because some of this money was taken out. It’s a work in progress this week in the House. 

Rovner: Yeah, that’s a very kind way to put it. The House has basically been stalled for the last 24 hours over, as you say, many things, completely unrelated, but there is actually a clock ticking on this. They had 45 days from when the administration sent up this rescission request, and we’re now on Day 43 because Congress is the world’s largest group of high school students that never do anything until the last minute. So Democrats warned that this bill represents yet another dangerous precedent. They reached a bipartisan agreement on this year of spending bills in the spring, and this basically rolls at least some of that back using a straight party-line vote. What does this bode for the rest of Congress’ appropriations work for the fiscal year that starts in just a couple of months? 

Raman: I think that the sense has been that once this goes through, I think a lot of people have just been assuming that it’ll take time but that things will get passed on rescissions. It really puts a damper on the bipartisan appropriations process, and it’s going to make it a lot harder to get people to come to the table. So earlier this week we had the chair of the Appropriations Committee and the chair of the Labor, HHS [Health and Human Services], Education subcommittee in the House say that the health appropriations they were going to do next week for the House are going to get pushed back until September because they’re not ready. And I think that health is also one of the hardest ones to get through. There’s a lot more controversial stuff. It’s setting us up to go, kind of like usual at this point, for another CR [continuing resolution], because it’s going to be a really short timeline before the end of the fiscal year. But if you look at some— 

Rovner: Every year they say they’re going to do the spending bills separately, and every year they don’t. 

Raman: Yeah, and I think if you look at how they’ve been approaching some of the things that have been generally a little bit less controversial and how much pushback and how much more difficulties they’ve been having with that, even this week, I think that it’s going to be much more difficult to get that done. And the rescissions, pulling back on Congress’ power of the purse, is not going to make that any easier. 

Rovner: I think what people don’t appreciate, and I don’t think I appreciated it either until this came up, is that the rescissions process is part of the budget act, which is one of these things that Congress can do on an expedited basis in the Senate with just a straight majority. But the regular appropriations bills, unlike the budget reconciliation bill that we just did, need 60 votes. They can be filibustered. So the only way to get appropriations done is on a bipartisan basis, and yet they’re using this rather partisan process to take back some of the deal that they made. The Democrats keep saying it, and everybody’s like, Oh, process, process. But that actually could be a gigantic roadblock, to stopping everything in its tracks, right? 

Raman: I really think so. And if you look at who are the two Republicans in the Senate that voted against the rescissions, one of them is the Senate Appropriations chair, Susan Collins. And throughout this, one of her main concerns was when we still had the PEPFAR in there. But it just takes back her power as the highest-ranking appropriator in the Senate to do it through this process, especially when she wasn’t in favor of the rescissions package. 

So it’s going to make things, I think, a lot more complicated, and one of her concerns throughout has just been that there wasn’t enough information. She was pulling out examples of rescissions in the past and how it was kind of a different process. They were really briefed on why this was necessary. And it was just different now. So I think what happens with appropriations and how long it’ll take this year is going to be interesting to watch. 

Rovner: And it’s worth remembering that it’s when the appropriations don’t happen that the government shuts down. So, but that doesn’t happen until October. Well, separately we learned that — oh, go ahead, Joanne. 

Kenen: There’s also sort of a whole new wrinkle, is that rescissions is, if you’re a Republican and you don’t like something and you end up, to avoid a government shutdown or whatever reason, you end up having to vote for a bill, you just have the president put out a statement saying, If this goes through, I’m going to cut it afterwards. And then the Republican who doesn’t like it can give a floor speech saying, I’m voting for it because I like this in it and I know that the president’s going to take care of that. It really — appropriations is always messy, but there’s this whole unknown. The constitutional balance of who does what in the American government is shifting. And at the end of the day, the only thing we do know after both the first term and what’s happened so far even more so in the second term, is what [President Donald] Trump wants, Trump tends to get. 

So, Labor-H [the appropriations for Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies], like Sandhya just pointed out, the health bill is one of the hardest because there’s so much culture-war stuff in it. But, although, the Supreme Court has put some of that off the table. But I just don’t know how things play out in the current dynamic, which is unprecedented. 

Rovner: And of course, Labor-HHS also has the Department of Education in it. 

Kenen: The former Department of Education. 

Rovner: To say, which is in the process of being dismantled. So that’s going to make that even more controversial this year. Moving back to the present, separately we learned this week that the administration plans to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to destroy stocks of food and contraceptives and other medical devices rather than distribute them through some of the international aid programs that they’re canceling. Now, in the case of an estimated 500 tons of high-energy biscuits bought by USAID [the U.S. Agency for International Development] at the end of the Biden administration, you can almost understand it because they’re literally about to expire next week. According to The Atlantic, which first reported this story, this is only a small part of 60,000 metric tons of food already purchased from U.S. farmers and sitting in warehouses around the world, where the personnel who’d be in charge of distributing them would’ve been fired or transferred or called back to the U.S. 

At the same time, there are apparently also plans to destroy an estimated $12 million worth of HIV prevention supplies and contraceptives originally purchased as part of foreign aid programs rather than turn them over or even sell them to other countries or nonprofits. This feels like maybe the not most efficient use of taxpayer dollars? 

Luthra: I think this is something we’ve talked about before, but it really bears repeating. As a media ecosphere, we’ve sort of moved on from the really rapid dismantling of USAID. And it was not only without precedent. It was incredibly wasteful with the sudden way it was done, all of these things that were already purchased no longer able to be used, leases literally broken. And people had to pay more to break leases for offices set up in other countries, all these sorts of things that really could have already been used because they had been paid for. And instead, the money is simply lost. 

And I think the important thing for us to remember here is not only the immense waste financially to taxpayers but the real trust that has been lost, because these were promises made, things purchased, programs initiated, and when other countries see us pulling back in such a, again, I keep saying wasteful, but truly wasteful manner, it’s just really hard to ever imagine that the U.S. will be a reliable partner moving forward. 

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. I understand the food thing to some extent because the food’s going to expire, but the medical supplies that could be distributed by somebody else? I’m still sort of searching for why that would make any sense in any universe, but yeah I guess this is the continuation of, We’re going to get rid of this aid and pretend that it never happened. 

Well, meanwhile, it’s only been a couple of weeks, but we’re starting to see the politics of that big Trump tax and spending measure play out. One big question is: Why didn’t Republicans listen to the usually very powerful hospital industry that usually gets its way but did not this time? And relatedly, will those Republicans who voted with Trump but against those powerful hospital interests do an about-face between now and when these Medicaid cuts are supposed to take effect? We’ve already seen Sen. Josh Hawley, the Republican from Missouri who loudly proclaimed his opposition to those Medicaid cuts before he voted for them anyway, introduce legislation to rescind them. So is this the new normal? I think, Joanne, you were sort of alluding to this, that you can now sort of vote for something and then immediately say: Didn’t mean to vote for that. Let’s undo it. 

Kenen: You could even do it before you vote for it, if they play it right. If Congress passes these things, we’re not going to pay attention. We’re already in that moment. But also, when I was working on a Medicaid piece, the magazine piece like four or five months ago, one of the most cynical people I know in Washington told me, he said, Oh, they’ll pass these huge cuts because they need the budget score to get the taxes through, and then they’ll start repealing it. And it seemed so cynical at the time, only he might’ve been right. 

So I don’t think they’re going to cut all of it. Republicans ideologically want a smaller Medicaid program. They want less spending. They want work requirements. You’re not going to see the whole thing go away. Could you see some retroactive tinkering or postponement or something? Yeah, you could. It’s too soon to know. Hospitals are the biggest employer in many, many congressional districts. This is a power— 

Rovner: Most of them. 

Kenen: Most, yeah. I don’t think it’s quite all, but like a lot. It’s the biggest single employer, and Medicaid is a big part of their income. And they still by law have to stabilize people who come in sick, and there’s emergency care and all sorts of other things, right? They do charity care. They do uninsured people. They do all sorts. They still treat people under certain circumstances even when they can’t pay. But right now, the threat of a primary opponent is more powerful than the threat of your local hospital being mad at you and harming health care access in your community. So much in the Republican world revolves around not getting the president mad enough that he threatens to get you beaten in a primary. We’ve seen that time and again already. 

Rovner: Right. And I will also say there’s precedent for this, for passing something and then unpassing it. Joanne and I covered in 19— 

Kenen: But it wasn’t the plan. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know. But remember, back in 1997 when they passed the Balanced Budget Act, every year for the next — was it three or four years? They did what we came to call “give back” bills. 

Kenen: Or punting, right? 

Rovner: Yeah, where they basically undid, they unspooled, some of those cuts, mostly because they’d cut more deeply than they’d intended to. And then we know with the Affordable Care Act, I’ve said this several times, they passed all of these financing mechanisms for it and then one by one repealed them. 

Kenen: And the individual mandate — I mean everything- 

Rovner: And the individual mandate, right. 

Kenen: They kept the dessert and they gave away everything. They undid everything that paid for the dessert, basically. 

Rovner: Right. Right. 

Kenen: And so it was the Cadillac — because people don’t remember anymore — the Cadillac tax, the insurance tax, the device tax. They all were like, One at a time! And they were repealed because lobbying works. 

Rovner: The tanning tax just went. 

Kenen: Right, right. So that dynamic existed, passing something unpopular and then redoing it, but the dynamic now really just comes — basically this is Donald Trump’s town. He has had a remarkable success in not only getting Congress to do what he wants but getting Congress to surrender some of its own powers, which have been around since Congress began. This is the way our government was set up. So there’s a very, very different dynamic, and it’s still unpredictable. None of us thought that the biggest crisis would be the [Jeffrey] Epstein case, right? Which is not a health story, and we don’t have to spend any time on it except to acknowledge— 

Rovner: Please. 

Kenen: —that there’s stuff going on in the background that people who had been extremely loyal to the president are now mad. And we don’t know how long. He’s very good at neutralizing things, too. He’s blaming it on the Democrats. 

But there is a different dynamic. Congress has less power because Congress gave up some of its power. Are they going to want to reassert themselves? There is no sign of it right now, but who knows what happens. I thought they would cut Medicaid. I thought they would do work requirements. I thought they would let the enhanced ACA subsidies expire. But I did not think the cuts would go this deep and this extensive — really transformationally pretty historic cuts. 

Rovner: Shefali, you wanted to say something? 

Kenen: Not pretty historic cuts, very historic cuts. Unprecedented. 

Luthra: I was thinking Joanne made such a good point about how, for all of the talk now about trying to mitigate that backlash, a lot of this is in line ideologically with what Republicans want. They do want a smaller Medicaid program. And I think a really interesting and still open question is whether they are willing and able to actually create policy that does reverse some of these cuts or not, and even if they do, if it’s sufficient to change voters’ perception, because we know that these cuts are very unpopular. Democrats are talking about them a lot. Hospitals are talking about them a lot. And just the failed attempt to repeal the ACA led to the 2018 midterms. And I think there is a real chance that this is the dominant topic when we head into next year’s elections. And it’s hard to say if Josh Hawley putting out a bill can undo that damage, so—. 

Rovner: Well, I’m so glad you mentioned that, because The Washington Post has a really interesting story about a clinic closing in rural Nebraska, with its owners publicly blaming the impending Medicaid cuts. Yet its Trump-supporting patients are just not buying it. Now in 2010, Republicans managed to hang the Affordable Care Act around Democrats’ necks well before the vast majority of the changes took place. Are Democrats going to be able to do that now? There’s a lot of people saying, Oh, well, they’re not going to be able to blame this on the Republicans, because most of it won’t have happened yet. This is really going to be a who-manages-to-push-their-narrative, right? 

Kenen: This really striking thing about that story is that the people who were losing access, they’re not losing their Medicaid yet, but they’re losing access to the only clinic within several — they have to drive hours now to get medical care. And when they were told this was because the Republican Congress and President Trump, they said, Oh no, it can’t be. First of all, a lot of people just don’t pay attention to the news. We know that. And then if you’re paying attention to news that never says anything negative about the president, that blames everything on Joe Biden no matter — if it rains yesterday, it was his fault, right? 

So the sort of gap between — there are certain things that are matters of opinion and interpretation, and there are certain things that are matters of fact, but those facts are not getting through. And we do not know whether the Democrats will be able to get them through, because the resistance, it’s almost magical, right? My clinic closed because of a Republican Medicaid bill? Oh no, it’s hospital greed. They just don’t want to treat us anymore. They just, it doesn’t compute, because it doesn’t fit into what they have been reading and hearing, to the extent that they read and hear. 

Rovner: Sandhya, you want to add something? 

Raman: The one thing that as I’ve been asking around on Capitol Hill about the Hawley bill — and there was one from Sen. Rand Paul, and a House counterpart, from [Rep.] Greg Steube, does sort of the opposite — it wants to move up the timeline for one of the provisions. So one important thing to consider is neither of these bills have had a lot of buy-in from other members of Congress. They’ve been introduced, but the people that I’ve talked to have said, I’m not sure. 

And I think something interesting that Sen. Thom Tillis had said was: If Republicans had a problem with what some of the impacts would be, then why were they denying that there would be an effect on rural health or some of those things to begin with? And I think a lot of it will take some time to judge to see if people will move the needle, but if we’re going to change any of these deadlines through not reconciliation, you need 60 votes in the Senate and you’ll need Democrats on board as well as Republicans. And I think one interesting thing to watch there is that I think some of the Democrats are also looking at this in a political way. If there’s a Republican that has a bill that is trying to tamp down some of the effects of their signature reconciliation law, do they want to help them and sign on to that bill or kind of illustrate the effects of the bill before the midterms or whatever? 

Rovner: A lot more politics to come. 

Raman: Yeah. Yeah. 

Rovner: Meanwhile, over at HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], there is also plenty of news. Many of the workers who’ve been basically in limbo since April when a judge temporarily halted the Trump administration’s efforts to downsize have now been formally let go after the Supreme Court last week lifted that injunction. What are we hearing about how things are going over at HHS? We’ve talked sort of every week about this sort of continuing chaos. I assume that the hammer falling is not helping. It’s not adding to things settling down. 

Kenen: No. And then Secretary [Robert F.] Kennedy [Jr.] just fired two top aides because — no one knows exactly the full story but it’s — and I certainly do not know the full story. But what I have read is that the personality conflict with his top aide — and that happens in offices, and he’s not the first person in the history of HHS to have people who don’t get along with one another. But it’s just more unsettled stuff in an agency already in flux, because now in addition to all these people being let go in all sorts of programs and programs being rolled back, you also have some leadership chaos at the top. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, HHS Secretary Kennedy took office with vows to eliminate the financial influence of Big Pharma, Big Food, and other industries with potential conflicts of interests. But shoutout here to my KFF Health News colleague Stephanie Armour, who has a story this week about how the new vested interests at HHS are the wellness industry. Kennedy and four top advisers, three of whom have been hired into the department, wrote Stephanie, quote, “earned at least $3.2 million in fees and salaries from their work opposing Big Pharma and promoting wellness in 2022 and 2023, according to a KFF Health News review of financial disclosure forms filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and the Department of Health and Human Services; published media reports; and tax forms filed with the IRS. That total doesn’t include revenue from speaking fees, the sale of wellness products, or other income sources for which data is not publicly available.” Have we basically just traded one form of regulatory capture for another form of regulatory capture? 

Kenen: And one isn’t covered by insurance. Some of it is, but there’s a lot of stuff in the, quote, “wellness” industry that providers and so forth, certain services are covered if there’s licensed people and an evidence base for them, but a lot of it isn’t. And these providers charge a lot of money out-of-pocket, too. 

Rovner: And they make a lot of money. This is a totally — unlike Big Pharma, Big Food, and Big Medicine, which is regulated, Big Wellness is largely not regulated. 

Kenen: I think Stephanie — that was a really good piece — and I think Stephanie said it was, what, $6.3 trillion industry? Was that— 

Rovner: Yeah, it’s huge. 

Kenen: Am I remembering that number right? It’s largely unregulated. Many of the products have never gone through any review for safety or efficacy. And insurance doesn’t cover a lot of it. It doesn’t mean it’s all bad. There are certain things that are helpful, but as an industry overall, it leaves something for us to worry about. 

Rovner: Well, in HHS-adjacent breaking news that could turn out to be nothing or something really big, an appeals court in Richmond on Tuesday ruled 2-1 that West Virginia may in fact limit access to the abortion pill, even though it’s approved by the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]. It’s the first time a federal appeals court has basically said that states can effectively override the FDA’s nationwide drug approval authority. And it’s the question that the Supreme Court has already ducked once, in that case out of Texas last year where the justices ruled that the doctors who were suing didn’t have standing, so they didn’t have to get to that question. But, Shefali, this has implications well beyond abortion, right? 

Luthra: Oh, absolutely. We are seeing efforts across the country to restrict access to certain medications that are FDA-approved. Abortion pills are the obvious one, but, of course, we can think about gender-affirming care. We can think about access to all sorts of other therapeutics and even vaccines that are now sort of coming under political fire. And if FDA approval means less than state restrictions, as we are seeing in this case, as we very possibly could see as these kinds of arguments and challenges make their way to the Supreme Court. The case you alluded to earlier with the doctors who didn’t have standing is still alive, just with different plaintiffs now. And so these questions will probably come back. There are just such vast ramifications for any kind of medication that could be politicized, and it’s something that industry at large has been very worried about since this abortion pill became such a big question. And it is something that this decision is not going to alleviate. 

Rovner: Yes. Speaking of Big Pharma, they’re completely freaked out by this possibility because it does have implications for every FDA-approved drug. 

Luthra: And they invest so much money in trying to get products that have FDA approval. There’s a real promise that with this global gold standard, you will be able to keep a drug on the market and really make a lot of money on it. There’s also obviously concerns for birth control, which we aren’t seeing legally restricted in the same way as abortion yet, but it is something that is so deeply subject to politics and culture-war issues that that’s something that we could see coming down the line if trends continue the way they are. 

Rovner: Well, we will watch that space. Moving on. Wednesday was the third anniversary of the federal 988 federal crisis line, which has so far served an estimated 16 million people with mental health crises via call, text, or chat. An estimated 10% of those calls were routed through a special service for LGBTQ+ youth, which is being cut off today by the Trump administration, which accused the program, run by the Trevor Project, as, quote, “radical gender ideology.” Now, LGBTQ+ youth are among those at the highest risk for suicide, which is exactly what the 988 program was created to prevent. Yet there’s been very little coverage of this. I had to actually go searching to find out exactly what happened here. Is this just kind of another day in the Trump administration? 

Raman: I think a lot of it stems back to some of those initial executive orders related to gender ideology and DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] and things like that. The Trump administration’s kind of argument is that it shouldn’t be siloed. It should be all general. There shouldn’t be sort of special treatment, even though we do have specialized services for veterans who call in to these services and things. But I— 

Rovner: Although that was only saved when members of Congress complained. 

Raman: Yeah. But I do think that when we have so much happening in this space focused on LGBTQ issues, it’s easier for things to get missed. I think the one thing that I did notice was that California announced yesterday that they were going to step up to do a partnership with the Trevor Project to at least — the LGBTQ youth calling from California to any of those local 988 centers would be reaching people that have been trained a little bit more in cultural competency and dealing with LGBTQ youth. But that’s not going to be all the states and it’s going to take time. Yeah. 

Rovner: Yeah, we’re going to continue to see this cobbled together state by state. It feels like increasingly what services are available to you are going to be very much dependent on where you live. That’s always been true, but it feels like it’s getting more and more and more true. Shefali, I see you nodding. 

Luthra: Something you alluded to that I think bears making explicit is public health interventions are typically targeted toward people who are in greater danger or are at greater risk. That’s not discrimination — that’s public health efficiency. And suggesting that we shouldn’t have resources targeted toward people at higher risk of suicide is counter to what public health experts have been arguing for a very long time. And that’s just something that I think really bears noting and keeping in mind as we see what the impact of this is moving forward. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s a very good point. Thank you. 

Well, speaking of popular things that are going away, a federal judge appointed by President Trump last week struck down the last-minute Biden administration rule from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that tried to bar medical debt from appearing on credit reports. This had been hailed as a major step for the 100 million Americans with medical debt, which is not exactly the same as buying a car or a TV that you really can’t afford. People don’t go into medical debt saying, Oh, I think I’m going to go run up a big medical bill that I can’t pay. But this strikes me as yet another way this administration is basically inflicting punishment on its own voters. Yes? 

Kenen: Yes, except we just don’t know. Some red states are so red that you don’t need every voter. We don’t know who actually votes, and we don’t know whether people make these connections, right? What we were talking about before with Medicaid — do they understand that this is something that President Trump not just urged but basically ordered Congress to do? So do people pay attention? How many people even know if their medical debt is or is not on their credit report? They know they have the medical debt, but I’m not sure everybody understands all the implication, particularly if you’re used to being in debt. You may be somebody who’s lost a job or couldn’t pay your mortgage or couldn’t pay your rent. Some of the people who have medical debt have so many other financial — not all — that it’s just part of a debt soup and it’s just one more ingredient. 

So how it plays out and how it’s perceived? It’s part of this unpredictable mix. Trump is openly talking about gerrymandering more, and so it won’t matter what voters do, because they’ll have more Republican seats. That’s just something he’s floating. We don’t know whether it’ll actually happen, but he floated it in public, so— 

Rovner: So much of this is flooding the zone, that people — there’s so much happening that people have no idea who’s responsible for what. There’s always the pollster question: Is your life better or worse than it was last year? Or four years ago, whatever. And I think that when you do so much so fast, it’s pretty hard to affix blame to anybody. 

Raman: And most people aren’t single-issue voters. They’re not going to the polls saying, My medical debt is back on my credit report. There’s so many other things, even if with the last election, health care was not the number one issue for most voters. So it’s difficult to say if it will be the top issue for the next election or the next one after that. 

And I guess just piggybacking that a lot of the times when there’s these big changes, they don’t take effect for a while. So it’s easier to rationalize, Oh, it may have been this person or that person or the senator then, or who was president at a different time, just because of how long it takes to see the effects in your daily life. 

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

Luthra: Sure. My piece is from The New York Times, by Apoorva Mandavilli. The headline is “Trump Official Accused PEPFAR of Funding Abortions in Russia. It Wasn’t True.” And she takes a look at when the head of the OMB [Office of Management and Budget] told the Senate that PEPFAR had spent almost $10 million advising Russian doctors on abortions and gender analysis. And she goes through and says this isn’t true. PEPFAR hasn’t been in Russia. They cannot fund abortions. And she talks with people who were there and can say this simply isn’t true and this is very easy to disprove. And I like this piece because it’s just a reminder that a lot of things are being said about government spending that are not true. And it is a public service to remind readers that they are very easily disproven. 

Rovner: Yeah, and to go ahead and do that. Sandhya. 

Raman: My extra credit is “‘We’re Creating Miscarriages With Medicine’: Abortion Lessons From Sweden,” and it’s from Cecilia Nowell for The Nation, my co-fellow through AHCJ [the Association of Health Care Journalists] this year. Cecilia went to Kiruna, which is an Arctic village in Sweden, to look at how they’re using mifepristone for abortions up to 22 weeks in pregnancy, compared to up to 10 weeks in the U.S. And it’s a really interesting look at how they’re navigating rural access to abortion in very remote areas. Almost all abortions in Sweden are done through medication abortion, and while the majority here are in the 60% versus high 90s. So just interesting how they’re taking their approach there as rural access is limited here. 

Rovner: Really interesting story. Joanne. 

Kenen: This is a piece in The New Yorker by Dhruv Khullar, and it’s “Can A.I. Find Cures for Untreatable Diseases — Using Drugs We Already Have?” And what I found interesting, we’ve been hearing about: Can AI do this? It’s sort of been in the air since AI came around. But what was so interesting about this article is there’s a nonprofit that is actually doing it, and they have this sort of whole sort of hierarchy of why a drug may be promising and why a disease may be a good target. And then the AI look at genetics and diseases, and they have four or five factors they look at. And then there’s this just sort of hierarchy of which are the ones we can make accessible. 

So A, it’s actually happening. B, it has promise. It’s not a panacea, but there’s promise. And C, it’s being done by a nonprofit. It’s not a cocktail for an individual patient. It’s trying to figure out: What are the smartest drugs to be looking at and what can they treat? And they give examples of people who have gone into remission from rare diseases. And also it says there are 18,000 diseases and only 9,000 have treatment. So this is huge, right? Rare diseases may only affect a few people, but there are lots of rare diseases. So cumulatively some of the people they strike are young. So for someone who doesn’t always read about AI, I found this one interesting. 

Rovner: Also, we read somebody’s story about how AI is terrible for this, that, and the other thing. It is very promising for an awful lot of things. 

Kenen: No. Right. 

Rovner: There’s a reason that everybody’s looking at it. 

All right, my extra credit this week is also from The New York Times. It’s called “UnitedHealth’s Campaign to Quiet Critics,” by David Enrich, who’s The Times’ deputy investigations editor and, notably, author of a book on attacks on press freedoms. That’s because the story chronicles how UnitedHealth, the mega health company we have talked about a lot on this show, is taking a cue from President Trump and increasingly taking its critics to court, in part by claiming that critical reporting about the company risks inciting further violence like the Midtown Manhattan murder of United executive Brian Thompson last year. 

I hasten to add, this isn’t a matter of publications making stuff up. United, as we have pointed out, is a subject of myriad civil and criminal investigations into potential Medicare fraud as well as antitrust violations. This is still another chapter unfolding in the big United story. 

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

Raman: I’m at Bluesky, @shefali. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

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

Rovner: Joanne? 

Kenen: I’m mostly at Bluesky, @joannekenen.bsky, and I’ve been posting things more on LinkedIn, and there are more health people hanging out there. 

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

With only a single vote to spare, the House passed a controversial budget bill that includes billions of dollars in tax cuts for the wealthy, along with billions of dollars of cuts to Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act, and the food stamp program — most of which will affect those at the lower end of the income scale. But the bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate.

Meanwhile, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. released a report from his commission to “Make America Healthy Again” that described threats to the health of the American public — but notably included nothing on threats from tobacco, gun violence, or a lack of health insurance.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

@sarahkarlin-smith.bsky.social

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

@alicemiranda.bsky.social

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• House Republicans passed their “big, beautiful” bill 215-214 this week, with one Republican critic voting present. But the Senate may have its own “big, beautiful” rewrite. Some conservative senators who worry about federal debt are concerned that the bill is not fully paid for and would add to the budget deficit. Others, including some red-state Republicans, say the bill’s cuts to Medicaid and food assistance go too far and would hurt low-income Americans. The bill’s cuts would represent the biggest reductions to Medicaid in the program’s 60-year history.
• Many of the bill’s Medicaid cuts would come from adding work requirements. Most people receiving Medicaid already work, but such requirements in Arkansas and Georgia showed that people often lose coverage under these rules because they have trouble documenting their work hours, including because of technological problems. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated an earlier version of the bill would reduce the number of people with Medicaid by at least 8.6 million over a decade. The requirements also could add a burden for employers. The bill’s work requirements are relatively broad and would affect people who are 19 to 64 years old. 
• People whose Medicaid coverage is canceled also would no longer qualify for ACA subsidies for marketplace plans. Medicare also would be affected, because the bill would be expected to trigger an across-the-board sequestration cut.
• The bill also would impact abortion by effectively banning it in ACA marketplace plans, which would disrupt a compromise struck in the 2010 law. And the bill would block funding for Planned Parenthood in Medicaid, although that federal money is used for other care such as cancer screenings, not abortions. In the past, the Senate parliamentarian has said that kind of provision is not allowed under budget rules, but some Republicans want to take the unusual step of overruling the parliamentarian.
• This week, FDA leaders released covid-19 vaccine recommendations in a medical journal. They plan to limit future access to the vaccines to people 65 and older and others who are at high risk of serious illness if infected, and they want to require manufacturers to do further clinical trials to show whether the vaccines benefit healthy younger people. There are questions about whether this is legal, which products would be affected, when this would take effect, and whether it’s ethical to require these studies. 
• HHS released a report on chronic disease starting in childhood. The report doesn’t include many new findings but is noteworthy in part because of what it doesn’t discuss — gun violence, the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States; tobacco; the lack of health insurance coverage; and socioeconomic factors that affect access to healthy food.

Also this week, Rovner interviews University of California-Davis School of Law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler about her new book on the past and future of the “personhood” movement aimed at granting legal rights to fetuses and embryos.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: NPR’s “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago,” by Chiara Eisner.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug,” by Anna Edney.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Farmingdale Observer’s “Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier,’” by Bob Rubila.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “As Congress Debates Cutting Medicaid, a Major Study Shows It Saves Lives,” by Sarah Kliff and Margot Sanger-Katz.
• NBC News’ “Georgia Mother Says She Is Being Forced To Keep Brain-Dead Pregnant Daughter Alive Under Abortion Ban Law,” by Minyvonne Burke.
• The Washington Post’s “Trump and GOP’s Tax Bill Would Force Cuts to Medicare, CBO Says,” by Jacob Bogage and Abha Bhattarai.
• The New England Journal of Medicine’s “An Evidence-Based Approach to Covid-19 Vaccination,” by Vinay Prasad and Martin A. Makary.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Bill With Billions in Health Program Cuts Passes House

[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 Friday, May 23, at 10 a.m. As always, and particularly this week, 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 Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hello there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, who has a new book out on the history and possible future of the “personhood” movement. But first, this week’s news. 

So, against all odds and many predictions, including my own, the House around 7 a.m. Thursday morning, after being in session all night, passed President [Donald] Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill — that is its actual, official name — by a vote of 215-214, with one Republican voting present. Before we get into the details of the House-passed bill, what are the prospects for this budget reconciliation bill in this form in the Senate? Very different, I would think. 

Ollstein: Yeah, this is not going to come out the way it went in. Senate is already openly talking about a “‘One, Big Beautiful’ Rewrite” — that was the headline at Politico. 

And you’re going to see some of the same dynamics. You’re going to see hard-liners saying this doesn’t go far enough, this actually adds a lot to the deficit even with all of the deep cuts to government programs. And you’re going to have moderates who have a lot of people in their state who depend on Medicaid and other programs that are set to be cut who say this goes too far. And so you’re going to have that same push and pull. And the House, barely, by one vote, got this through. And so we’ll see if the Senate is able to do the same. 

Rovner: Yeah, so all eyes on [Sen.] John McCain in 2017. This year it could be all eyes on Josh Hawley, I suspect, the very conservative senator from Missouri who keeps saying “Don’t touch Medicaid.” 

But back to the House bill. We don’t have official scores yet from the Congressional Budget Office, and we won’t for a while, I suspect. But given some last-minute changes made to pacify conservatives who, as Alice pointed out, said this bill didn’t cut deeply enough, I think it’s clear that if it became law in this form, it would represent the biggest cuts to federal health programs in the 60-year history of Medicare and Medicaid. 

Those last-minute changes also took pretty square aim at the Affordable Care Act, too, so much that I think it’s safe to call this even more than a partial repeal of the health law. And Medicare does not go unscathed in this measure, either, despite repeated promises by President Trump on the campaign trail and since he took office. 

Let’s take these one at a time, starting with Medicaid. I would note that at a meeting with House Republicans on Tuesday, President Trump told them not to expletive around with Medicaid. You can go look up the exact quote yourself if you like. But apparently he’s OK with the $700 billion plus that would be cut in the bill, which Republicans say is just waste, fraud, and abuse. Where does that money come from? And would Medicaid really continue to cover everyone who’s eligible now, which is kind of what the president and moderate Republicans are promising? 

Edney: Well, it sounds like the bulk of it is coming from the work requirements that Alice mentioned earlier. And would it be able to cover them? Sure, but will it? No, in the sense that, as Alice has talked about often on this podcast, it’s basically a time tax. It’s not easy to comply with. All federal regulations, they’re not going to a website and putting in what you did for work. Particularly, if you are a freelancer or something, it can be really difficult to meet all the requirements that they’re looking for. And also, for some people, they just don’t have the ability, even the internet, to be able to do that reliably. So they’re going to save money because people are going to lose their health care. 

Rovner: I saw a lot of people referring to them this week not as work requirements anymore but as work reporting requirements. Somebody suggested it was like the equivalent of having to file your income taxes every month. It’s not just check a box and say, I worked this month. It’s producing documentation. And a lot of people have jobs that are inconsistent. They may work some hours some week and other hours the other week. And even people who work for small businesses, that would put an enormous burden on the employers to come up with all this. 

Obviously, the CBO thinks that a lot of people won’t be able to do this and therefore people are going to lose their health insurance. But Alice, as you have told us numerous times when we did this in Arkansas, it’s not that people aren’t working — it’s that people aren’t successfully reporting their work. 

Ollstein: Right. And we’ve seen this in Georgia, too, where this has been implemented, where there are many different ways that people who are working lose their insurance with this. People who don’t have good internet access struggle. People who have fluctuating work schedules, whether it’s agricultural work, tourism work, things that are more seasonal, they can’t comply with this strict monthly requirement. 

So there are numerous reports from the ground of people who should be eligible losing their coverage. And I’ll note that one of the last-minute changes the House made was moving up the start date of the requirements. And I’m hearing a lot of state officials and advocates warn that that gives states less time to set up a system where people won’t fall through the cracks. And so the predicted larger savings is in part because they imagine more people will be kicked off the program. 

Rovner: It’s also the most stringent work requirement we’ve seen. It would cover people from age 19 through age 64, like right up until you’re eligible for Medicare. And if you lose Medicaid because you fail to meet these reporting requirements, you’re no longer eligible for a subsidy to buy insurance in the ACA exchange. Is there a policy point to this? Or are they just trying to get the most people off the program so they can get the most savings? 

Edney: If you ask Republicans, they would tell you: We’re going to get people back working. We’re going to give them the pride of working — as if people don’t want that on their own. But the actual outcome is not that people end up working more. And there are cases even where they lose their health insurance and can’t work a job they already had. On the surface, and this is why it’s such a popular program, because it seems like it would get more people working. Even a large swath of Democrats support the idea when they just hear the name — of voters. But the actual outcome, that doesn’t happen. People aren’t in Medicaid because they aren’t working. 

Rovner: Right. And I get to say for the millionth time, nobody is sitting on their couch living on their Medicaid coverage. 

Edney: Right, right. 

Rovner: There’s no money that comes with Medicaid. It’s just health insurance. The health providers get paid for Medicaid and occasionally the managed-care companies. But there’s no check to the beneficiary, so there’s no way to live on your Medicaid. 

As Alice points out, most of the people who are working and have Medicaid are working at jobs, obviously, that don’t offer employer health insurance. So having, in many cases, as you say, Anna, having Medicaid is what enables you to work. 

All right, well, our podcast pals Margot Sanger-Katz and Sarah Kliff have an excellent Medicaid story out this week on a new study that looks very broadly at Medicaid and finds that it actually does improve the health of its beneficiaries. Now this seems logical, but that has been quite a talking point for Republicans for many years, that we spend all this money and it doesn’t produce better health, because we’ve had a lot of studies that have been kind of neither here nor there on this. 

Do we finally have proof that Democrats need? Because I have heard, over many years — there was a big Oregon study in 2011 that found that it helped people financially and that it helped their mental health, but there was not a lot of physical health benefit that they saw. Of course, it was a brief. It was like two years. And it takes a longer time to figure out the importance of health insurance. But I’m wondering if maybe the Democrats will finally be able to put down that talking point. I didn’t hear it, actually, as much this week as I have in years past: Why are we spending all this money on Medicaid when we don’t know whether it’s producing better health? 

Karlin-Smith: One of the interesting things I thought about this study and sort of the timing of it, post-Obamacare expansion of Medicaid and more younger people being covered, is that it seems to really show that, not only does this study show it saves lives, but it’s really helping these younger populations. 

And I think there are some theories as to why it might have been harder to show the economic cost-effectiveness benefits people were looking for before, when you had Medicaid covering populations that were already either severely ill or older. Which doesn’t mean it’s not valuable, right? To provide health coverage to somebody who’s 75 or 80, but unfortunately we have not found the everlasting secret to life yet. 

So, but I think for economists who want to be able to show this sort of, as they show in this paper, this “quality-adjusted life year” benefit, this provides some really good evidence of what that expansion of Medicaid — which is a lot of what’s being rolled back, potentially, under the reconciliation process — did, which is, helps younger people be healthier and thus, right, hopefully, ideally, live a higher quality of life, and where you need less health coverage over time, and cost the government less. 

It’s quite interesting, for people who want to go look at the graph The New York Times put in their story, of just where Medicaid fits, in terms of other sort of interventions we spend a lot of money on to help save lives. Because I was kind of surprised, given how much health insurance does cover, that it comes out on sort of the lower end, as being a pretty good bargain. 

Rovner: Yeah. Well, we don’t have time to get into everything that’s in this bill, and there is a lot. It also includes a full ban of Medicaid coverage for gender-affirming care for both minors and adults. And it cuts reimbursement to states that use their own funds to provide coverage to undocumented people. Is this a twofer for Republicans, saving money while fighting the culture wars? 

Edney: Certainly. And I was surprised to see some very liberal states on the immigration front saying: We just have to deal with this. And this really sucks, but we have to balance our budget. And if we’re not going to get those tax dollars, then we aren’t going to be able to offer health insurance to people who are undocumented, or Medicaid to people who are undocumented. 

Rovner: Yeah, California, most notably. 

Edney: Yeah, California for sure. And they found a way to do it, hit them in the pocketbook, and that that’s a way for them to win the culture war, for sure. 

Rovner: Alice, you’ve spent a lot of time looking at gender-affirming care. Were you surprised to see it banned for adults, too? Obviously the gender-affirming care for minors has been a continuing issue for a while. 

Ollstein: Yeah, I would say not surprised, because this is sort of a common pattern that we see across different things, including in the abortion space, where first policies are targeted just at minors. That often is more politically palatable. And then it gets expanded to the general population. And so I think, given the wave of state bans on care for minors that we’ve seen, I think a lot of people had been projecting that this was the trajectory. 

I think that there’s been some really good reporting from The 19th and other outlets about what an impact this would have. Trans people are disproportionately low-income and dependent on Medicaid, and so this would have really sweeping impacts on a lot of people. 

Rovner: Well, turning to the Affordable Care Act, if you thought Republicans weren’t going to try to repeal the health law this time around, you thought wrong. There are a bucket of provisions in this bill that will make the Affordable Care Act coverage both more expensive and harder to get, so much that some analysts think it could reduce enrollment by as much as half of the 24 million people who have it now. Hasn’t someone told Republicans that many of these people are their voters? 

Edney: Yeah, that’s a good question. I don’t know what the Republican strategists are telling them. But certainly they needed to save money. And so they found their loopholes and their different things that they thought they could scrape from. And maybe no one will notice? But I don’t think that’s going to happen. 

A lot of people suddenly have much higher ACA premiums because of the way they’re going to take away this ability that the insurers have had to silver-load, essentially, the way that they deal with the premium tax credits by setting some of the savings, kind of the cost sharing that they need to do, right into the silver plan, because the silver plan is where the premiums are set off of. And so they were able to offer the plans with lower premiums, essentially, but still get paid for cost-sharing reductions. So they were able to still get that money taken away from them. 

Rovner: So let me see if I can do it. It was, and this was something that Trump tried to do in 2017, that he thought was going to hurt the marketplace plans. And it ended up doing the opposite— 

Edney: Right. 

Rovner: —because it basically shifted money from the insurance companies and the beneficiaries back to the federal government, because it made the premium subsidies bigger. 

So I think the point I want to make is that we’ve been talking all year about these extra subsidies that are going to expire, and that will make premiums go up, and the Republicans did not move to extend those subsidies. But this going back to the government paying these cost-sharing reduction payments is going to basically reverse the accidental lowering of premiums that Trump did in 2017. And therefore, raise them again. 

So now we have a double whammy. We have premiums going up because the extra subsidies expire, and then we’ll have premiums going up even more because they’re going back to this original cost-sharing reduction. And yet, as we have said many times, a lot of these additional people who are now on the Affordable Care Act are people in the very red states that didn’t expand Medicaid. These are Republican voters. 

Karlin-Smith: We haven’t talked a lot about the process of how they got this bill through this week. It was incredibly fast and done literally in the dead of night. 

Ollstein: Multiple nights. 

Karlin-Smith: So you have to wonder, particularly, if you think back to the last time Republicans tried to overturn Obamacare — and they did come pretty close — eventually, I think, that unpalatableness of taking away health care from so many of their own constituents came back to really hurt them. And you do have to wonder if the jamming was in part to make more people unaware of what was happening. You’d still think there’d be political repercussions later down the line when they realize it. But I think, especially, again, just thinking back on all the years when Republicans were saying Democrats were pushing the ACA through too fast and nobody could read the bill, or their CBO scores. This was a much, much faster version of that, with a lot less debate and public transparency and so forth. 

Rovner: Yeah, they went to the Rules Committee at 1 a.m. Wednesday, so Tuesday night. The Rules Committee went until almost 9 o’clock the next evening, just consecutively. And shout out to Rules Committee chairman Virginia Foxx, who sat there for, I think, the entire time. And then they went straight from rules to the floor. 

So it’s now Wednesday night at 10 o’clock at night, and then went all the way through and voted, I think, just before 7 a.m. I’ve done a lot of all-nighters in the Capitol. I haven’t seen one that was two nights in a row like this. And I have great admiration for the people who really were up for 48 hours to push this thing through. 

Well, finally, let’s remember President Trump’s vow not to touch Medicare. Well, Medicare gets touched in this bill, too. In addition to restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants who are able to get coverage now, and making it harder for some low-income Medicare beneficiaries to get extra financial help, mostly through Medicaid, the bill as a whole is also likely to trigger a 4% Medicare sequester. Because, even all those other health cuts and food stamp cuts and other cuts don’t pay for all the huge tax breaks in the bill. Alice, you pointed that out. Is there any suggestion that this part might give people some pause, maybe when it gets to the Senate? 

Edney: I’ve heard the Senate mostly seem upset about Medicaid. And I also feel like this idea that sequestration is coming back up into our consciousness is a little bit new. Like you said, it was pushed through and it was like, Oh, wait, this is enough to trigger sequestration. I think it certainly could become a talking point, because Trump said he would not cut Medicare. I don’t think, if senators are worried about Medicaid — and I think maybe some of us were a little surprised that that is coming from some red-state senators. Medicare is a whole different thing, and in the sense of being even more wildly popular with a lot of members of Congress. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this whole thing hasn’t, you’re right, sort of seeped into the general consciousness yet. Alice, did you want to say something? 

Ollstein: Yeah, so a couple things, a couple patterns we’ve seen. So one, there are a lot of lawmakers on the right who have been discrediting the CBO, even in advance of estimates coming out, basically disparaging their methodology and trying to convince the public that it’s not accurate. And so I think that’s both around the deficit projections as well as how many people would be uninsured under different policies. So that’s been one reaction to this. 

We’ve seen a pattern over many administrations where certain politicians are very concerned about things adding to the deficit when the opposition party is in power. And suddenly those concerns evaporate when their own party is in power and they don’t mind running up the deficit if it’s to advance policies that they want to advance. And so I think, yes, this could bother some fiscal hawks, and we saw that in the House, but I think, also, these other factors are at play. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think this has a long way to go. There’s still a lot that people, I think you’re right, have not quite realized is in there. And we will get to more of it in coming weeks, because this has a long process in the Senate. 

All right, well, segueing to abortion, the One Big Beautiful Bill also includes a couple of pretty significant abortion provisions. One would effectively ban abortion and marketplace plans for people with lower incomes. Affordable Care Act plans are not currently a big source of insurance coverage for abortion. Many states already ban abortion from coverage in these plans. But this would disrupt one of the big compromises that ultimately got the ACA passed in 2010. 

The other provision would evict Planned Parenthood from the Medicaid program, even though federal Medicaid funds don’t and never have been used for abortions. Many, many Medicaid patients use Planned Parenthood for routine medical care, including contraception and cancer screenings, and that is covered by Medicaid. 

But while I see lots of anti-abortion groups taking victory laps over this, when the House passed a similar provision in 2017 as part of its repeal bill, the Senate parliamentarian ruled that it could not go in a budget reconciliation bill, because its purpose was not, quote, “primarily budgetary.” So is this all for show? Or is there a belief that something different might happen this time? 

Ollstein: Well, I think there is more interest in ignoring or overruling the parliamentarian among Senate Republicans than there has been in the past. We’re seeing that now on an unrelated environmental issue. And so that could signal that they’re willing to do it more in the future. Of course, things like that cut both ways, and that raises the idea that the Democrats could also do that the next time they’re in power. 

Rovner: And we should say, that if you overrule the parliamentarian in reconciliation — it’s a she right now — when she says it can’t go in reconciliation, that is equivalent to getting rid of the filibuster. 

Ollstein: Correct. 

Rovner: So I mean, that’s why both parties say, We want to keep the filibuster. But the moment you say, Hey, parliamentarian, we disagree with you and we’re just going to ignore that, that has ramifications way beyond budget reconciliation legislation. 

Ollstein: That’s right. And so that’s been a line that a lot of senators have not been willing to cross, but I think you’re seeing more willingness than before. So that’s definitely something to watch on that. But I think, in terms of abortion, I think this is a real expansion of trends that were already underway, in ever-expanding the concept of what federal dollars going to abortion means. And it’s now in this very indirect way, where it’s reaching into the private insurance market, and it’s using federal funding as a cudgel to prevent groups like Planned Parenthood, and then also these private plans, from using other non-federal money to support abortions. And so it’s a real expansion beyond just you can’t use federal money to pay directly for abortions. 

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, two other reproductive-associated health stories worth mentioning. In California, a fertility clinic got bombed. The bomber apparently died in the explosion, but this is the first time I can remember a purposeful bombing to a health center that was not an abortion clinic. How significant is it to the debate, that we’re now seeing fertility clinics bombed as well? And what do we know, if anything, about why the bomber went after a fertility clinic? 

Karlin-Smith: There has been, obviously, some pressure on the right, I think, to go after fertility processes, and IVF [in vitro fertilization], and lump that in with abortion. Although, I think Trump and others have pushed back a bit on that, realizing how common and popular some of these fertility treatments are. And also it conflicts, I think, to some extent with their desire to grow the American population. 

The motives of this particular person don’t seem aligned with, I guess, the anti-abortion movement. He sort of seems more anti-natalist movement and stuff. So from that perspective, I didn’t see it as being aligned with kind of a bigger, more common political debate we’ve had recently, which is, again, does the Republican Party want to expand the anti-abortion debate even further into fertility treatments and stuff. 

Rovner: I was going to say, it certainly has drawn fertility clinics into the abortion debate, even if neither side in the abortion debate would presumably have an interest in blowing up a fertility clinic. But it is now sort of, I guess, in the general consciousness of antisocial people, if you will, that’s out there. 

The other story in the news this week is about a woman named Adriana Smith, a nurse and mother from Georgia who was nine weeks pregnant in February when she was declared brain-dead after a medical emergency. Smith has been kept alive on life support ever since, not because her family wants that but because her medical team at Emory University Hospital is worried about running afoul of Georgia’s abortion ban, which prohibits terminations after cardiac activity can be detected. Even if the mother is clinically dead? I feel like this case could have really ominous repercussions at some point. 

Ollstein: Well, I just want to point out that, yes, the state’s abortion ban is playing a role here, but this was happening while Roe v. Wade was still in place. There were cases like this. Some of it has to do with legislation around advanced directives and pregnancy. So I will point out that this is not solely a post-Dobbs phenomenon. 

Rovner: Yeah, I think it also bears watching. Well, there was lots of vaccine news this week — I’m so glad we have Anna and Sarah here — with both the HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] declaring an end to recommending covid vaccines for what seems to be most of the population. Sarah, what did they do? And what does this mean? 

Karlin-Smith: So the new director of FDA’s biologics center and the FDA commissioner released a framework for approving covid shots moving forward. And basically they are saying that, because covid, the virus, shifts, and we want to try and update our vaccines at least yearly, usually, to keep up with the changing viruses, but we want to do that in a reasonable time so that by the time when you update the vaccine it’s actually available within that time — right? — FDA has allowed companies to do studies that don’t require full clinical trials anymore, because we sort of have already done those trials. We know these vaccines are safe and effective. We’re making minor tweaks to them, and they do immunogenicity studies, which are studies that basically show they mount the proper immune response. And then they approve them. 

FDA is now, seems to be, saying, We’re only going to allow those studies to approve new covid vaccine updates for people who are over 65, or under 65 and have health conditions, because they are saying, in their mind, the risk-benefit balance of offering these shots doesn’t necessarily pan out favorably for younger, healthier populations, and we should do clinical trials. 

It’s not entirely clear yet, despite them rolling out a framework, how this will actually play out. Can they relabel shots already approved? Will this only impact once companies do need to do a strain change next as the virus adapts? Did they go about doing this in a sort of legal manner? It came out through a journal kind of editorial commentary piece, not through the Federal Register or formal guidance. There’s been no notice of comment. 

So there’s a lot of questions to remain as to how this will be implemented, which products it would affect, and when. But there is a lot of concern that there may be reduced access to the products moving forward. 

Rovner: That’s because the vaccine makers aren’t going to — it’s not probably worth it financially to them — to remount all these studies. Right? 

Karlin-Smith: First off, a lot of people I’ve talked to, and this came up yesterday at a meeting FDA had, don’t believe it’s actually ethical to do some of the studies FDA is now calling for. Even though the benefits, particularly when you’re talking about boosting people who already had a primary vaccination series for covid, or some covid, is not the same as the benefits of getting an original covid vaccine series. 

There still are benefits, and there still are benefits for pretty much everybody that outweigh the risks. On average, these are extremely safe shots. We know a lot about their safety, and the balance is positive. So people are saying, once that exists, you cannot ethically test it on placebo. Even as [FDA Commissioner Marty] Makary says, Well, so many Americans are declining to take the shot, so let’s test it and see. A lot of ethicists would say it’s actually, even if people are willing to do something that may not be ideal for their health, that doesn’t mean it’s ethical to test it in a trial. 

So, I think there’s questions about, just, ethics, but also, right, whether companies would want to invest the time and money it would take to achieve and try to do them under this situation. So that is a big elephant in the room here. And I think some people feel like this is just sort of a push by Makary and his new CBER [Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research] director, essentially, to cut off vaccine access in a little bit of a sneaky way. 

Rovner: Well, I did see, also this week, was I think it was Moderna, that was going to make a combination flu covid vaccine, has decided not to. I assume that’s related to all of this? 

Karlin-Smith: Right. So Moderna had a, what people call a next-generation vaccine, which is supposed to be an improved update over the original shot, which is a bigger deal than just making a strain change. They actually think they provide a better response to protecting against the virus. And then they also added flu vaccine into it to sort of make it easier for people to get protected from both, and also provided solid data to show it would work well for flu. 

And they seem to have probably pulled their application at this point over, again, these new concerns, and what we know Novavax went through in trying to get their covid vaccine across the finish line dealing with this new administration. So I think people have their sort of alert lights up going forward as to how this administration is going to handle vaccine approvals and what that will mean for access going forward. 

Rovner: Well, in somewhat related news, we got the long-awaited report from Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again Commission, which is supposed to lay out a blueprint for an action plan that will come later this summer. Not much in the 68-page report seems all that surprising. Some is fairly noncontroversial, calling for more study of ultra-processed foods and less screen time and more physical activity for kids. 

And some is controversial but at this point kind of predictable, calling for another look at the childhood vaccine schedule, including, as we just discussed, more placebo studies for vaccines, and also less fluoride available, except in toothpaste. Anything jump out at you guys from the report that we should keep an eye on? 

Karlin-Smith: I think one thing to think about is what it doesn’t address and doesn’t talk about. It’s not surprising the issues they call out for harming health in America, and some of them are debatable as to how much they do or don’t harm health, or whether their solutions would actually address those problems. 

But they never talk about the U.S.’ lack of a health insurance system that assures people have coverage. They don’t mention the Republican Party’s and likely president’s willingness to sign onto a major bill that’s going to impact health. They don’t really talk about the socioeconomic drivers that impact health, which I find particularly interesting when they talk about food, because, obviously, the U.S. has a lot of healthy and unhealthy food available. And a lot of people know sort of how they could make better choices, but there are these situational factors outside of, often, an individual’s control to lead to that. 

And I think the other thing that jumped out to me is, I think The Washington Post had a good line in their paragraph about just how many of the points are either overstated or misstated scientific findings. And they did a pretty good job of going through some of those. And it’s a difficult situation, I think, for the public to grapple with when you have leadership and the top echelons of our health department that is pushing so much misinformation, often very carefully, and having to weed out what is correct, where is the grains of truth, where does it go off into misinformation. 

I don’t know. I find it really hard as a journalist. And so I do worry about, again, how this all plays into public perception and misunderstanding of these topics. 

Rovner: And apparently they forgot about gun violence in all of this, which is rather notably not there. 

Ollstein: Cars and guns are the big killers. And yeah, no mention of that. 

Edney: I thought another glaring omission was tobacco. Kids are using e-cigarettes at high rates. We don’t really know much about them. And to Sarah’s point about misinformation, too, I think the hard part of being able to discern a lot of this, even as a member of the public, is everything they’ve done so far is only rhetoric. There hasn’t been actual regulation, or — this could be anything that you’re talking about. It could be food dyes. It could be “most favored nations.” We don’t know what they actually want to implement and what the potential for doing so — I think maybe on vaccines we’re seeing the most action. But as Sarah mentioned, we don’t know how that, whether it legally is going to be something that they can continue doing. 

So even with this report, it was highly anticipated, but I don’t think we got anything beyond what I probably heard Kennedy say over and over throughout the campaign and in his bid for health secretary. So I am wondering when they actually decide to move into the policymaking part of it, instead of just telling us they’re going to do something. 

Rovner: And interestingly, Secretary Kennedy was interviewed on CNN last night and walked back some of the timelines, even, including that vow that they were going to know the cause of autism by September and that they were going to have an action plan for this ready in another, I think, a hundred days. So this is going to be a hurry-up-and-wait. 

All right, well, that is as much news as we have time for in this incredibly busy week. Now we will play my interview with law professor and abortion historian Mary Ziegler, and then we will come back and do our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Mary Ziegler, the Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis. She’s also a historian of the abortion movement. And her newest book, just out, is called “Personhood: The New Civil War Over Reproduction.” 

Mary Ziegler, thanks for joining us again. 

Mary Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: So we’ve talked about personhood a lot on our podcast, including with you, but it means different things to different people. What’s your working definition, at least for the purpose of this book? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I’m interested in this book in the legal fight for personhood, right? Some people have religious ideas of personhood. Bioethicists have ideas of personhood. Philosophers debate personhood. But I’m really interested in the legal claim that the word “person” in the 14th Amendment, which gives us liberty and equality, applies the moment an egg is fertilized. Because it’s that legal claim that’s had a lot of knock-on effects with abortion, with IVF, and potentially even beyond. 

Rovner: So if we as a society were to accept that fetuses or embryos or zygotes were people with full constitutional rights at the moment of creation, that can impact things way beyond abortion, right? 

Ziegler: Definitely, yeah, especially if you make the moves that the anti-abortion movement, or the pro-life movement, in the United States has made, right? So one of the other things that’s probably worth saying is, if you believe the claim I laid out about fetal personhood, that doesn’t mean you necessarily think abortion should be criminalized or that IVF should be criminalized, either. 

But the people who are leading the anti-abortion movement do, in large part, right? So it would have ramifications in lots of other contexts, because there’s a conclusion not only that human life begins at fertilization and that constitutional rights begin at fertilization but that the way you honor those constitutional rights is primarily by restricting or criminalizing certain things that threaten that life, in the views of the people who advocate for it. 

Rovner: Right. And that includes IVF and forms of contraception. That’s where we sort of get to this idea that an abortion is murder or that, in this case, doing anything that harms even a zygote is murder. 

Ziegler: Yeah. And it gets us to the Adriana Smith case in Georgia, too. So there’s sort of end-of-life cases that emerge. So, it obviously would have a big impact on abortion. So it’s not wrong to think about abortion in this context. It’s just that would definitely not be the stopping point. 

Rovner: So, many people have only talked about personhood, really, since the Supreme Court overturned Roe in 2022, but the concept is a lot older than that. I started covering personhood in like 2010, I think, when a couple of states were trying to vote on it. I didn’t realize until I read your book that it goes back well beyond even that. 

Ziegler: Yeah. So I think a lot of people had that conception. And in the 2010s, there were state constitutional amendment efforts to write the idea of fetal personhood into state constitutions. And they all failed. So I think the narrative coming out of that was that you had the anti-abortion movement on the one hand, and then you had this more extreme fetal personhood movement on the other hand. 

And that narrative fundamentally is wrong. There is no one in the anti-abortion movement who’s opposed to fetal personhood. There are disagreements about how and when it can be recognized. There’s strategic disagreements. There are no substantive disagreements much to speak of on the basics of fetal personhood. 

So the idea goes all the way back to the 1960s, when states were first reforming the 19th-century criminal laws you sometimes see coming back to life as zombie laws. And initially it started as a strategic necessity, because it was very hard for the early anti-abortion movement to stop this reform wave, right? They were saying things like, Oh, abortion is going to lead to more sexual promiscuity, or, No one really needs abortion, because pregnancy is no longer dangerous. And that just wasn’t getting the job done. 

So they began to argue that no one had a choice to legalize abortion in worse circumstances, because it would violate the rights of the unborn child. What’s interesting is that argument went from being this kind of strategic expedient to being this tremendously emotionally resonant long-term thing that has lived on the American right for now like a half-century. Even in moments when, I think arguably like right now, when it’s not politically smart to be making the argument, people will continue to, because this speaks to something, I think, for a lot of people who are opposed to abortion and other things like IVF. 

Rovner: I know you’ve got access in writing this book to a lot of internal documents from people in the anti-abortion movement. I’m jealous, I have to say. Was there something there that surprised you? 

Ziegler: Yeah, I think I was somewhat surprised by how much people talked this language of personhood when they were alone, right? This was not just something for the consumption of judges, or the consumption of politicians, or sort of like a nicer way to talk about what people really wanted. This was what people said when there was no one else there. 

That didn’t mean they didn’t say other things that suggested that there were lots of other values and beliefs underlying this concept of personhood. But I think one of the important lessons of that is if you’re trying to understand people who are opposed to abortion, just assuming that everything they’re saying is just pure strategy is not helpful, right? Any more than it would be for people who support reproductive rights, to have it assume that everything they’re saying is not genuine. You just fail to understand what people are doing, I think. And I think that was probably what I was the most surprised about. 

Rovner: I was struck that you point out that personhood doesn’t have to begin and end with the criminalization of abortion. How could more acceptance of the rights of the unborn change society in perhaps less polarized ways? 

Ziegler: Yeah, one of the things that’s really striking is that there are other countries that recognize a right to life for a fetus or unborn child that don’t criminalize abortion or don’t enforce criminal abortion laws. And often what they say is that it’s not OK for the state to start with criminalization when it isn’t doing things to support pregnant women, who after all are necessary for a fetus or unborn child to survive, right? 

So there are strategies that you could use to reduce infant mortality, for example, to reduce neonatal mortality, to reduce miscarriage and stillbirth, to improve maternal health, to really eliminate some of the reasons that people who may want, all things being equal, to carry a child to term. That’s not, obviously, going to be everybody. Some people don’t want to be parents at all. 

But there are other people for whom it’s a matter of resources, or it’s a matter of overcoming racial discrimination, or it’s a matter of leaving an abusive relationship. And if governments were more committed to doing some of those things, it’s reasonable to assume that a subset of those people would carry pregnancies to term, right? 

So there are lots of ways that if a state were serious about honoring fetal life, that it could. I think one of the other things that’s striking that I realized in writing the book is that that tracks with what a subset of Americans think. You’ll find these artifacts in polls where you’ll get something like 33% of people in Pew Forum’s 2022 poll saying they thought that life and rights began at conception, but also that abortion shouldn’t be criminalized. 

So there are a subset of Americans who, whether they’re coming from a place of faith or otherwise, can hold those two beliefs at once. So I think an interesting question is, could we have a politics that accommodates that kind of belief? And at the moment the answer is probably not, but it’s interesting to imagine how that could change. 

Rovner: It’s nice to know that there is a place that we can hope to get. 

Ziegler: Yeah, exactly. 

Rovner: Mary Ziegler, thank you so much for joining us again. 

Ziegler: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. And 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 devices. Sarah, you chose first this week. You go first. 

Karlin-Smith: I purposely chose a sort of light story from Australia, where scientists studied remote work, and the headline is “[Scientists Have Been Studying Remote Work for Four Years and Have] Reached a Very Clear Conclusion: ‘Working From Home Makes Us Happier.’” And it just goes through some of the benefits and perks people have found from working remotely, including more sleep, more time with friends and family, things like that. And it just felt like a nice, interesting read in a time where there’s a lot of heavy health news. 

Rovner: Also, scientific evidence of things that I think we all could have predicted. Anna. 

Edney: Apologies for going the other direction here, but it’s a story that I wrote this week, an investigation that I’ve been working on for a long time, “The Potential Cancer, Health Risks Lurking in One Popular OTC Drug.” So this is one, in particularly a lot of women have used. You can go in any CVS, Target, Walmart, stores like that, and buy it. Called Azo, for urinary tract infections. And all these stores sell their own generic versions as well, under phenazopyridine. 

And this drug, I was kind of shocked to learn, is not FDA-approved. There are prescription versions that are not FDA-approved, either. It’s just been around so long that it’s been grandfathered in. And that may not be a big deal, except that this one, the FDA has raised questions about whether it causes cancer and whether it needs a stronger cancer warning, because the National Cancer Institute found in 1978 that it causes tumors in rats and mice. But no other work has been done on this drug, because it hasn’t been approved. So no one’s looked at it in humans. And it masks issues that really need antibiotics and causes a host of other issues. 

There were — University of Virginia toxicologists told me they found, in the last 20 years, at least 200 suspected teen suicides where they used this drug, because of how dangerous this drug can be in any higher amounts than what’s on the box. So I went through this drug, but there are other ones on the market as well that are not approved. And there’s this whole FDA system that has allowed the OTC [over-the-counter] market to be pretty lax. 

Rovner: OK, that’s terrifying. But thank you for your work. Alice. 

Ollstein: Speaking of terrifying, I chose a piece from NPR called, “Diseases Are Spreading. The CDC Isn’t Warning the Public Like It Was Months Ago.” And this is a look at all of the ways our public health agency that is supposed to be letting us know when outbreaks are happening, and where, and how to protect ourselves, they’ve gone dark. They are not posting on social media. They are not sending out alerts. They are not sending out newsletters. And it walks through the danger of all of that happening, with interviews with people who are still on the inside and on the outside experiencing the repercussions. 

Rovner: Well, my extra credit, it helps explain why Alice’s extra credit, because it’s about all the people who were doing that who have been fired or laid off from the federal government. It’s called, “White House Officials Wanted To Put Federal Workers ‘in Trauma.’ It’s Working,” by William Wan and Hannah Natanson. 

And it’s the result of interviews with more than 30 current and former federal workers, along with the families of some who died or killed themselves. And it’s a review of documents to confirm those stories. It’s a super-depressing but beautifully told piece about the dramatic mental health impact of the federal DOGE [Department of Government Efficiency] layoffs and firings, and the impact that that’s been having on these workers, their families, and their communities. 

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

Edney: Both of those [X and Bluesky], @annaedney. 

Rovner: Sarah. 

Karlin-Smith: Everywhere — X, Bluesky, LinkedIn, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith. 

Rovner: Alice. 

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

Rovner: I am off to California next week, where we’ll be taping the podcast at the annual meeting of the Association for Health Care Journalists, which we won’t post until the following Monday. So everyone please have a great Memorial Day holiday week. And until then, be healthy. 

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Rebecca Adams
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).

Emrelis, an antibody drug conjugate developed by AbbVie, is now FDA approved for patients whose non-small cell lung cancer overexpresses the protein c-Met. The pharma company said this ADC is its first internally developed solid tumor medicine as well as its first solid tumor FDA approval in lung cancer.

The post AbbVie’s Solid Tumor Strategy Gets a Win With Accelerated FDA Approval in Lung Cancer appeared first on MedCity News.

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

@julierovner.bsky.social

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg News

@annaedney

@annaedney.bsky.social

Read Anna's stories.

Maya Goldman
Axios

@mayagoldman_

@maya-goldman.bsky.social

Read Maya's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

@SandhyaWrites.bsky.social

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Cutting Medicaid Is Hard — Even for the GOP

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

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

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

Anna Edney: Hi, everybody. 

Rovner: Maya Goldman of Axios News. 

Maya Goldman: Great to be here. 

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Sandhya Raman: Good morning, everyone. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Goldman: Yeah. 

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

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

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

Goldman: And President Trump has said that as well. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: That’s where. 

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

Edney: Right. 

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

Edney: Yeah. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re importing other countries’— 

Edney: —prices. 

Rovner: —price limits. 

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

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

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

Goldman: If I’m remembering— 

Rovner: But I think they won. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Raman: From both sides— 

Rovner: Go ahead, Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: He hasn’t yet. 

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

Rovner: Face-saving for Kennedy or for Cassidy? 

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

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

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

Lauren Sausser: Thank you. Thanks for having me. 

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

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

Rovner: And how big was the bill? 

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

Rovner: Which is a lot. 

Sausser: A lot. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: So what eventually happened with this bill? 

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

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

Sausser: Right. 

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

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

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

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

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

Sausser: Thank you. 

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

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

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

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

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

Edney: “Creative” is a nice word. 

Rovner: Sandhya. 

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: X and Bluesky, @annaedney. 

Rovner: Maya. 

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

GFNC encourages parents and caregivers to gradually replace processed snacks with said ingredients with healthier, real-food alternatives as snack options

View the full post Some snacks and hyperactivity: Is there a link? on NOW Grenada.