The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As expected, the presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris offered few new details of their positions on abortion, the Affordable Care Act, and other critical health issues. But it did underscore for voters dramatic differences between the two candidates.

Meanwhile, the Biden administration issued rules attempting to better enforce mental health parity — the federal government’s requirement that services for mental health care and substance use disorders be covered by insurance to the same extent as other medical services.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News, and Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Riley Griffin
Bloomberg

@rileyraygriffin

Read Riley's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Trump declined to say during the debate whether he’d veto legislation implementing a nationwide abortion ban. But he could effectively ban the procedure without Congress passing anything because of the 150-year-old Comstock Act. And Project 2025, a policy blueprint by the conservative Heritage Foundation, calls for doing just that.
• There is a good chance that enhanced federal subsidies for ACA coverage that were introduced during the pandemic could expire next year, depending on which party controls Congress. The subsidies have helped more people secure zero-premium health coverage through the ACA exchanges, though Republicans say the subsidies cost too much to keep. Residents in states that haven’t expanded Medicaid coverage — including Florida and Texas — would be most affected.
• The Census Bureau reports that the uninsured rate didn’t change much last year after hitting a record low in the first quarter. But the report’s methodology prevented it from capturing the experiences of many people disenrolled and left uninsured after what’s known as the Medicaid “unwinding” began. Meanwhile, a Treasury Department report sheds light on just how many Americans have benefited from the ACA, as polls show the health law has also grown more popular.
• And Congress has yet to pass key government spending bills, meaning the nation (again) faces a possible federal government shutdown starting Oct. 1. It remains to be seen what could pass during a lame-duck session after the November elections. In 2020, the end-of-the-year spending package featured many health care priorities — and that could happen again.

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

Julie Rovner: The Wall Street Journal’s “A Nurse Practitioner’s $25,000 in Student-Debt Relief Turned Into a $217,500 Bill From the Government,” by Rebecca Ballhaus.  

Lauren Weber: Stat’s “Youth Vaping Continues Its Tumble From a Juul-Fueled High,” by Lizzy Lawrence.  

Riley Griffin: Bloomberg News’ “Lilly Bulks Up Irish Operations in Obesity Drug Production Push,” by Madison Muller.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: ProPublica’s “‘I Don’t Want To Die’: Needing Mental Health Care, He Got Trapped in His Insurer’s Ghost Network,” by Max Blau.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “US Uninsured Rate Was Stable in 2023, Even as States’ Medicaid Purge Began,” by Phil Galewitz.
• Louisiana Illuminator’s “Doctors Grapple With How To Save Women’s Lives Amid ‘Confusion and Angst’ Over New Louisiana Law,” by Lorena O’Neil.
• ProPublica’s “Why I Left the Network,” by Annie Waldman, Maya Miller, Duaa Eldeib, and Max Blau.
• The New York Times’ “How a Leading Chain of Psychiatric Hospitals Traps Patients,” by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Katie Thomas.
• Stat’s “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names,” by Tara Bannow.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump-Harris Debate Showcases Health Policy Differences

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Sept. 12, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

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

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Riley Griffin of Bloomberg News.

Riley Griffin: Hey, hey.

Rovner: And Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: I hope you enjoyed last week’s special episode on health equity from the Texas Tribune Festival. Now we have a lot of news to catch up on, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with politics and with the much-anticipated presidential debate Tuesday night, obviously the big health issue was abortion. And as I said afterwards on the radio, the most consistent thing about former President Trump’s abortion position is how inconsistent it has been. Did we learn anything new from everything he tried to say about abortion?

Cohrs Zhang: I think he didn’t provide a lot of clarity on the issue of whether he would veto a nationwide abortion ban, and I think that has been the question that is kind of hard to nail down. And his response is that, Well, that’s not going to pass Congress, so I won’t have to worry about it.

Rovner: Which is kind of true. I mean, it’s not going to pass Congress. That was Nikki Haley’s point.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, so I think we have seen, though, some talk floating around about ending the filibuster for abortion from [Sen.] Chuck Schumer’s side of things, at least. So I think it’s not completely out of the question to think that things could be different in the future. We don’t entirely know. But that’s his argument that I don’t really have to answer that question, because it’s not actually going to happen. So I think that’s not really an answer to the question.

Rovner: Riley?

Griffin: It does beg the question what he has to gain from answering that question. If he says he supports vetoing a national abortion ban, it’s certain to anger some of his base, and the opposite is true, too. He’s been threading a really tenuous needle here in trying to appease very different crowds within the Republican Party. And I think that is perhaps, at this point, more interesting to think about his positioning around abortion than the Democratic Party’s.

Rovner: So this is where I get to jump up and down and say for the millionth time: He doesn’t have to sign a nationwide ban to ban abortion nationwide. This is where the Comstock Act comes in that we have talked about so many times and that Project 2025 talks about starting to enforce it, which it has not been in decades and decades, but it is still on the books. And a lot of people say, oh, they could ban the abortion pill by enforcing the Comstock Act, which bans the mailing of things that can be used for abortion. But as others point out, it could be not just the abortion pill. Anything that is used to perform any sort of abortion travels in the mail or FedEx or UPS, all of which are covered by the Comstock Act. So in fact, he could support a nationwide abortion ban and still say that he would veto legislation calling for a nationwide abortion ban.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. And it seems like when he’s been questioned about this in the past, he hasn’t quite understood or seems like he understands the nuances of that. And I think our frequent panelist Alice Ollstein had some good reporting indicating that the pro-life groups wanted more commitments from him on the Comstock Act and aren’t getting them. So I think there are certainly some questions out there. But as a reporter in D.C., we have the privilege of covering health care almost exclusively, and sometimes you can tell when a lawmaker or a public official doesn’t understand the question, and I think that’s a little bit of what’s happening here. But obviously it’s his campaign’s job to prep him and make clear what his position is so voters can make an informed decision.

Rovner: And, of course, with Trump, you’re never sure whether he really doesn’t understand it or whether he’s purposely pretending that he doesn’t understand it.

Cohrs Zhang: Right, right.

Rovner: Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: On a lot of issues, Trump doesn’t necessarily always give a straight answer and often walks them back. So it’s somewhat representative of also playing, as Riley pointed out, to political points as we get so very close to the election and to pick up some of the folks that are undecided. So as you said, we didn’t learn much.

Rovner: So what about Vice President [Kamala] Harris? Those of us sitting here and those of us who listen to the podcast know that she’s been on the trail talking about reproductive health since before the fall of Roe. It’s an issue that she is super comfortable with. I was, I think, surprised at how surprised people watching were when she was able to articulate a really thorough answer. Did that surprise any of you?

Weber: That did not surprise me at all. But I think what was so shocking about it was everyone remembers where they were when Joe Biden got the abortion question at the debate, not so long ago, and truly butchered that answer. That was one of the worst moments of the debate for him. He really could not get through it. The man has notoriously not felt comfortable talking about abortion — older man, Catholic, et cetera. But the contrast, I think, is what was so surprising, because Democrats consider this very much an essential issue for winning the election. Abortion issues are polling incredibly well, obviously with women. You have abortion rights on the ballot in several states, including swing states. This is kind of a make-or-break issue to win the presidential for Democrats. And for Kamala Harris to be able to give not just a coherent answer but one that actually had some resonance, I think, was just so markedly different that people ended up as surprised as you pointed out.

Griffin: Just want to add here that this is a space that she is so incredibly comfortable talking about on the campaign trail. Even before she assumed the top of the ticket, this had been her marquee subject. And I’ve been moonlighting as a Kamala Harris campaign reporter for the last few months. Every rally you go to, this is where she gets the biggest applause. This is the note that strikes, that resonates with the crowd. She had been doing what she called a “Reproductive Freedom” tour through swing states four months prior to assuming the top of the ticket. So it’s no surprise that she is quick not just to talk about the stakes of the overturning of Roe v. Wade but also fact-check the former president. There was a really fitting moment during the debate where she said: “Nowhere in America is a woman carrying a pregnancy to term and asking for an abortion. That is not happening.” So that she could not only come and deliver the lines but also listen to Donald Trump respond to some of the factual errors in real time was again a marked difference from President Joe Biden.

Rovner: Yes, it was a very different debate, I will say. There was actually, a bit surprising to me also, some discussion of the Affordable Care Act. Apparently Donald Trump is now saying that he’s the one who saved it, which is not exactly how I remember things going down. Is that an acknowledgment that the ACA is now here to stay? Or should we still assume that if Republicans take control of the White House and Congress they will, at the very least, let those expanded ACA subsidies expire?

Cohrs Zhang: I think there’s a very good chance that those subsidies do expire. It just obviously depends on control of Congress and how much leverage Democrats have and what they’re willing to give up to get them. And again, it’s kind of difficult because a lot of the states that benefit the most from these subsidies are Republican states that have not expanded Medicaid. So I think there are some difficult political considerations for the Republican Caucus on that issue. But I think Trump was implying that maybe he could have done more to sabotage the ACA without actually revealing it.

Rovner: That’s kind of true.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, so I think that was an interesting point. And of course he returned to the refrain that he’s going to have a plan. We haven’t seen a plan for nine years.

Rovner: He has the …

Rovner and Weber (together): … “concepts” of a plan.

Cohrs Zhang: We’ll see it soon.

Weber: I think it’s important to also fact-check Trump on saying he improved the ACA. I want to read a list of things from a great Stat article: “While in office, Trump’s administration shortened open enrollment periods, cut funding for navigators who help people enroll … expanded short-term insurance plans, lowered standards for health benefits provided by small employers that banded [together] into larger groups and enabled employers with religious or moral objections to contraceptive coverage to opt out of requirements to provide no-cost coverage.” So I think some of his as assertations about improving the ACA are up for debate, depending on how you feel about that list of things I just read.

Griffin: And you can also see the impact in enrollment. We had some really interesting data released just before the debate, conveniently, by the Treasury Department showing that the Biden administration had ushered in this all-time-high enrollment in the ACA insurance marketplaces. But what was also tucked into that data was that under the Trump administration, there was also pretty significant lows compared to the other parts of the last 10 years. So that’s notable, too.

Rovner: Yes. And actually you’re anticipating my very next question, which is, while we are on the subject of the ACA, the Census Bureau was also out this week with its annual estimate of people without insurance, and, surprise, even with the Medicaid unwinding and people being dumped off of the Medicaid rolls, the 2023 uninsured rate of about 8% remained near the all-time low that it achieved under the Biden administration. Now, this is not the complete picture of the uninsured. Those who lost coverage at any point during 2023, which is when everybody on the unwinding lost coverage, wouldn’t be counted as uninsured for the purposes of this particular survey, which counts people who were uninsured for the entire year. But the Biden administration, the day before, released an analysis finding that over the 10 years that the Affordable Care Act marketplaces have been operational, 1 in 7 Americans has been enrolled in one of the plans. Is this a first election where the ACA could turn out to be a boon for its backers rather than an albatross around their necks?

Weber: I think KFF polling, recent numbers say some 60% of Americans support the ACA. So that would be a majority of Americans that would be very unhappy if it was repealed. So I mean to your point, Julie, I think the popular opinion has shifted on the ACA and we’re in new ground here.

Cohrs Zhang: Even in 2020, I think after all of that happened, I think there was this realization that maybe this isn’t a viable option, so we should stop promising it to people. And I think Democrats had gotten so much momentum on all of the claims that Republicans did want to take apart the ACA, and we saw that conversation in the Supreme Court as well. And I think that reality has just become so much more real with Dobbs and seeing that when the makeup of a court changes, court decisions can change, and that elections matter in that calculus. So I think we started to see the movement in 2020, but obviously there was so much pandemic going on that I think some of these other health care lines got lost in that election, that we’re seeing come out a little more clearly this time around.

Rovner: And, of course, despite Donald Trump now becoming a latter-day champion of the ACA — sort of — if Republicans win back control of Congress and the White House, we’ve got both these expanded subsidies — that, as we pointed out, have enabled this big enrollment — expiring, and the Trump tax cuts expiring. It’s hard to imagine both of those getting extended. One would think that the Republicans’ priority would be the tax cuts and not the subsidies, right?

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah. Again, depends on whether Democrats are able to hold a chamber of Congress and what kind of leverage they have.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s obviously a 2025 issue. Well, turning to elected officials who are already in office, today is Sept. 12, and that means Congress has basically eight more working days to avoid a government shutdown by either passing all of the 12 regular spending bills or some sort of continuing resolution to keep agencies funded after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. This is where I get to say for the millionth time that when Congress settled the funding for fiscal 2024 last — checks notes — March, House Republicans vowed again to have this year’s funding bills finished on time. Rachel, that did not happen. So where are we?

Cohrs Zhang: It does not happen. Yeah, I think it’s business as usual around here. I think, honestly, the posturing has started earlier than I expected with the House speaker, Mike Johnson, putting out this proposal for a CR [continuing resolution] that he couldn’t even get through the House. He kind of pulled that before it came to a vote on the floor. So I guess that’s, at least, an opening salvo earlier than we see, usually, early in September.

Rovner: Well, this was the big fight about: Do we want a CR that goes to after Thanksgiving, which would be the typical CR, and then we’ll come back after the election and fight about next year’s funding? Or, in this case, they wanted a CR that went until next March, I guess betting that maybe the Republicans will be in charge then and they’ll have more of a say over this year’s spending than they do now?

Cohrs Zhang: Right. I think that’s certainly an open question, and I think it seems like Senate appropriators are not necessarily on board with that March timeline at this point. They really would like to wrap things up in December. And again, I think, looking back in 2020, we did see a really significant appropriations package with a lot of health care policy pass at the end, kind of in the December time frame of 2020, in lame-duck. So I think it’s a really big question.

And then the other question is: Do all these expiring health care programs that are currently slated to end in December get extended with that appropriations package? I think there’s just a lot of moving parts here, and we don’t exactly know what the deadlines are going to be yet. But at least they’re arguing about it in the public sphere, so that’s a start.

Rovner: They’re legislating. That’s what they do. Lauren?

Weber: I just wanted to say, Julie, I think you should have a segment that’s a tally of how many times you ask on this podcast if the funding bill has passed. Because I know myself, I’ve been on many, and I really think it’d be kind of funny. So I’m just saying it’s quite fascinating over the years, the many, many times these bills do not seem to make it.

Rovner: Well, this is just me as the lifelong Capitol Hill reporter who — we’re always talking about what’s going to happen next year and the year after. It’s like: You have a job to do this year. Let’s see how you’re doing in the job that you have to do this year. Does anybody think there’s actually going to be a shutdown? I mean, that’s still a possibility if they don’t get a deal, although that would be — I’m trying to remember if we’ve ever seen a government shutdown in a presidential election year. That seems risky politically? Riley, I see you sort of raising your eyebrows.

Griffin: Yeah, it’s definitely risky and clearly something right now you can see that the Biden administration wants to avoid. I was sitting in the White House press briefing room on Monday and Karine [Jean-Pierre], the press secretary, was like: This is Congress’ one job. This is their main job. It’s to keep the government open. So there’s a level of frustration that, I think, this is coming into the discourse yet again, but to be expected.

Rovner: Yeah. And I should point out, it’s not just Republicans that are unable to get funding bills done on time. The Democrats are unable to get their funding bills done on time, either. I believe that the last time all of the funding bills were actually passed before Oct. 1 was the year 2000.

Weber: This is why this should be a Julie segment. I’m telling you, you should run a tally.

Rovner: Yes. Well, it is kind of a Julie segment.

Weber: Yes.

Rovner: And I will keep at it, because this is my job, too. All right, turning back to abortion, in the debate Tuesday night, Vice President Harris talked at some length about some of the unintended consequences of abortion bans, as we discussed — women unable to get miscarriage care, girls being forced to carry pregnancies resulting from incest all the way to term. Now we have another new potential health risk in Louisiana. The new law that makes the abortion medications mifepristone and misoprostol controlled substances is resulting in a major disruption to hemorrhage care. It seems that misoprostol, which is used for a variety of purposes other than abortion — it was originally an ulcer drug — is a key emergency drug used in a wide variety of reproductive health emergencies. And it’s not clear what will take its place on emergency carts, since you can’t have controlled substances just hanging around in the hallways. Is this yet another example of lawmakers basically practicing medicine without a license?

Weber: I think that’s right, Julie. I spoke to a Louisiana ER doctor last week who put it pretty bluntly. He’s like, Look, I have a woman who’s bleeding out in front of me, and I need to call down to the pharmacy and put in an order? That could take not just seconds, not just minutes, but many minutes, even longer in possibly rural pharmacieswhere the access may not be as readily available. He’s like, This is truly a life-or-death issue. Women, when you are bleeding out from post-birth complications, which by the way is not as uncommon as people would like to think it is, this is really quite something. And so folks in Louisiana are obviously very up in arms.

And I think it speaks, as you pointed out, to the larger environment that Kamala Harris has pointed to — and many reporters that have been on your show and that we have discussed many times on the show — is that there are many unintended consequences for laws that limit abortion and for women seeking access to care where hospitals afraid that they’re not going to interpret the law correctly are leaving women to seek care elsewhere. And what are the health ramifications of that? But this is a pretty frightening unintended consequence.

Rovner: Yeah, this was something that I was not aware of, that I had not seen. Of course, Louisiana is the first state to basically declare these controlled substances. So it seems that every time we get a new restriction, there’s a new twist to it that I think most people did not expect.

There’s also been lots of court actions, obviously, on abortion in the past few weeks. In Missouri, last week a judge tried to strike the state’s abortion rights referendum from the ballot, although this week a higher court ordered it back on the ballot. I believe that’s the final word on Missouri. They will vote on it in November. In Alaska, a judge struck down a state law that limited who could perform abortions to just doctors rather than doctors and other medical professionals. And in Texas, Attorney General Ken Paxton filed suit against a new federal rule that shields the medical records of women who cross state lines to obtain an abortion in a state where it’s legal, which it’s not in Texas. It would seem the implication here is that Texas wants to prosecute women who leave the state for a legal medical procedure. Or am I misinterpreting that somehow?

Griffin: That’s my understanding as well. And it’s a development that, I believe the rule was announced in April when Biden had said that no one should have their medical records used against them, and lo and behold we’re a few months later, but this Texas lawsuit does suggest that this could be a part of criminal prosecution.

Rovner: I know. I mean this seems to be sort of this underlying issue of what happens to women who live in banned states who go to other states to obtain abortions. And there’s been a lot of back-and-forth and a lot of people, even on the anti-abortion side, trying to say that this is not our intent. But this certainly seems to be the intent of some people. Seeing nods all around. We will continue to follow this string.

Finally this week, I want to talk about mental health. Over the objections of some insurers and large employer groups, the Biden administration finalized the latest set of rules attempting to guarantee parity between coverage for mental health and substance abuse and every other type of medical care. This is literally a 30-year fight that’s been going on to regularize, if you will, coverage of mental health. This action comes just as ProPublica is unveiling a pretty remarkable series on the inability of patients, even patients with insurance — in fact, mostly patients with insurance — to obtain needed health care, often with catastrophic consequences. Rachel, one of those stories is your extra credit this week. Why don’t you tell us about it?

Cohrs Zhang: It is, yes. So my extra credit is “‘I Don’t Want To Die’: Needing Mental Health Care, He Got Trapped in His Insurer’s Ghost Network,” by Max Blau and ProPublica. And I think this story kind of really makes clear the consequences for certain patients, especially mental health patients in crisis, of when the list that you get from your insurer of in-network providers is inaccurate.

And I think ghost networks, it’s kind of a weird, jargon-y term, I think. There have been some hearings on the issue on the Hill. But when we think about somebody who desperately needs some crisis counseling and they’re doing everything they can, they’re exhausted, they’re already dealing with so much to already have to call provider after provider who doesn’t take their insurance anymore, doesn’t know what they’re talking about, it’s just such a frustrating process that I think many of us have experienced. I personally have experienced it getting an MRI in Los Angeles, and the list is out of date. And I think there’s definitely room for regulation here. And I think that mental health care, through this series, was just highlighted as such an important part of that conversation.

Rovner: Yeah, we’ve all had this, and we’ve all written the stories about people who have lists of in-network providers and can’t find one or can’t find one who’s taking new patients, or the provider there does not do what the directory suggests that they do. They may say they may only treat children, or they may not treat children. But I think in mental health, these are people in mental health crises trying to get care that they are guaranteed by law and guaranteed under their insurance and being unable to do it — and as I say, often, sometimes, not un-often with catastrophic consequences. Needing mental health care is not just somebody who says, “Oh, I don’t feel well today.” These often are people who are in actual crisis situations.

So speaking of people who are in actual mental health crisis situations, The New York Times has a piece this week on a chain of mental hospitals that’s basically holding patients in their facilities against their will to get as much as they can collect from insurance. In some cases, patients’ relatives have had to get court orders to get their patients released. How did we let our mental health system get so far off the tracks? Either you can’t get care or you get care that you can’t get out of.

Weber: Well, this piece by Jessica Silver-Greenberg and Katie Thomas, which is truly phenomenal — everyone who’s listening to this should read it — makes a very astute point, which is that the government and nonprofits have really gotten out of the psychiatric hospital business, and for-profit companies have swept in. And they interview several former employees who make it very clear that these were run with profit incentives in mind, of holding patients to maximize the insurance money they could get, to catastrophic effects. The details in this are wild. They talk about people having to go to court to get folks out, very clear violations. And again, they speak to not just one, not just two, but multiple former employees who allege that this company was acting in such a way that was not for its patients’ best interest.

Cohrs Zhang: And I do have to do a plug for my colleague Tara Bannow, who also reported on Acadia and how they’re kind of operating mental health institutions under the brand names of Catholic hospitals. So people might even think that they’re going to a well-respected community hospital under the name, but these for-profit institutions have even made their way into not-for-profit spaces, and these services are just being contracted out, because they’re simply unprofitable.

Rovner: And we talked about Tara’s story when it came out.

Cohrs Zhang: We did, yeah.

Rovner: A month or two ago.

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, this next story is a great — kind of building on, building just a fuller story around the implications of for-profit.

Rovner: It does sort of, both this and, I think, the ProPublica series highlight in the ’60s and ’70s, the problem was people who were in state-run facilities. And they were warehoused, and they were underfunded, and people just didn’t get the care that they needed. And that was one of the things that led to deinstitutionalization, which of course is one of the things that ended up leading us to the homeless, because when they deinstitutionalized these patients, they were promised outpatient care which never materialized. So now we’ve kind of profitized this, if you will, and we have a different set of problems. It’s every bit as bad. It’s kind of a microcosm of the entire health care system. It’s like, well, we don’t really trust the nonprofit sector to run it right, because they don’t have enough money. And now we don’t trust the for-profit sector to run it right, because they have too much of a profit motive. Is there any middle ground here?

Griffin: I think we could spend weeks, you could have a whole podcast just dedicated to this question, and it’s a harrowing one. And there’s a parallel discussion to be had also about the centers that navigate patients who are seeking treatment for substance use, right? Often those are one and the same, but I think the same dynamics are playing out here. And to the mental health parity regulation that was finalized, that included substance use benefits, too. It wasn’t just mental health. So yeah, I don’t know. I say with a heavy heart that we could talk about this a long time, but I don’t have any answers for where the best care is going to be.

Rovner: Yeah, none of us, I think, does. And that’s why we were all going to have jobs from now until eternity as we at least keep working on this.

All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra credits. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week, we think you should read, too. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We will include links to all these stories in our show notes, on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, you’ve already done yours. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: So I picked a story from Stat titled “Youth Vaping Continues Its Tumble From a Juul-Fueled High,” written by Lizzy Lawrence. And I was really struck, I’m sure public health officials are really struck, by how far vaping rates have gone. I mean, they’re down to 6% of middle and high school students using vapes in 2024. That’s down from 8% last year and 20% in 2019. I mean, that is a marked change. And I expected to read this article and see, Oh, but don’t worry, they’re all using Zyn, which is another nicotine product. But, actually, that had only gone up to about 1.8%. It was not nearly the same bit. And I think if you’re a public health official, you’ve got to be pretty pleased with yourself, because this would seem to show that the public health action that they very aggressively took at both the federal, national, and in some places locality level to limit flavored vapes and have other actions for kids has resulted in a pretty steep decline, much faster than you saw cigarette use decline. So I was really impressed to see these numbers. It’s quite a change.

Rovner: Yeah. Yay public health. Riley?

Griffin: Yeah, I want to tout a story from my colleague Madison Muller. It’s titled “Lilly Bulks Up Irish Operations in Obesity Drug Production Push.” And she’s actually in Ireland right now. She was reporting out this story. Ultimately, we all know there’s been this immense demand for obesity drugs — Eli Lilly and Co. has two, Mounjaro and Zepbound — and they just can’t seem to build out production quickly enough. My colleague did some data analysis here and actually found that since 2020, believe it or not, Lilly has poured 17.3 billion [dollars] into weight-loss drug manufacturing. I mean, what an insane number. And the latest push is in Ireland, which is notable because here in Washington there’s been a lot of work to scrutinize and even prevent U.S. drugmakers from collaborating with Chinese manufacturers of biologics. So sometimes they talk about “near-shoring” or “friend-shoring” in D.C., which is really a kitschy term to refer to seeing more friendly countries to the United States bolstering up manufacturing, and here you see Lilly doing just that. So it’s a fun story, and kudos to Madison, who went out to Ireland to tell it.

Rovner: I’d love to be sent to Ireland.

Weber: Yeah, I need to get more stories in Ireland. I mean, what? That’s amazing.

Rovner: Just saying. It is a good story. All right. Well, my story this week is from The Wall Street Journal, by Rebecca Ballhaus, and it’s called “A Nurse Practitioner’s $25,000 in Student-Debt Relief Turned Into a $217,500 Bill From the Government.” And it’s a really infuriating story about a really excellent government program called the National Health Service Corps that helps medical professionals pay off their loans if they agree to practice in underserved areas. The problem is that there are penalties if you fail to complete your term of service, which obviously there should be.

But in this case, one of the nurse practitioners’ supervising physicians died, and the other one retired, and there were no other eligible placements within two hours of her Alabama home, where she cared for her three young children as well as her elderly parents. Obviously there should be consequences for breaching a contract, but this is far from the only case where people who are obviously deserving of exceptions are being denied them. The National Student Legal Defense Network has filed suit on the nurse practitioner’s behalf, and I’ll be watching to see how this all turns out.

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

Griffin: I’m on X, though infrequently, @rileyraygriffin.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still only on X, @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: Still on X, @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The term “health equity” means different things to different people. It’s about access to medical care — but not only access to medical care. It’s about race, ethnicity, and gender; income, wealth, and class; and even geography — but not only those things. And it’s about how historical and institutional racism, manifested in things like over-policing and contaminated drinking water, can inflict health problems years and even generations later.

In a live taping on Sept. 6 at the Texas Tribune Festival, special guests Carol Alvarado, the Texas state Senate’s Democratic leader, and Ann Barnes, president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation, along with KFF Health News’ Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice and Midwest correspondent Cara Anthony, joined KFF Health News’ chief Washington correspondent, Julie Rovner, to discuss all that health equity encompasses and how current inequities can most effectively be addressed.

Anthony also previewed “Silence in Sikeston,” a four-part podcast and documentary debuting this month exploring how a history of lynching and racism continues to negatively affect the health of one rural community in Missouri.

Panelists

Carol Alvarado
Texas state senator (D-Houston)

Cara Anthony
Midwest correspondent, KFF Health News

Ann Barnes
President and CEO, Episcopal Health Foundation

Sabriya Rice
Southern bureau chief, KFF Health News

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast, from KFF Health News’ “Systemic Sickness” project:

• “A Teen’s Murder, Mold in the Walls: Unfulfilled Promises Haunt Public Housing,” by Fred Clasen-Kelly and Renuka Rayasam.
• “Med Schools Face a New Obstacle in the Push To Train More Black Doctors,” by Lauren Sausser.
• “‘I Feel Dismissed’: People Experiencing Colorism Say Health System Fails Them,” by Chaseedaw Giles.
• “As Record Heat Sweeps the US, Some People Must Choose Between Food and Energy Bills,” by Melba Newsome.
• “Black Hospitals Vanished in the U.S. Decades Ago. Some Communities Have Paid a Price,” by Lauren Sausser.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Live from Austin, Examining Health Equity

[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 usually I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. But today we have a special episode for you all about health equity taped before a live audience at the Texas Tribune Festival on Sept. 6, 2024. I hope you enjoy it. We’ll be back with our regular panel and all the news on Sept. 12. So here we go.

I am pleased to be joined on this panel by two of my KFF Health News colleagues, Southern bureau chief Sabriya Rice, who’s right here next to me, and Midwest correspondent Cara Anthony, down at the end. We are also honored to be joined by two guests with a lot of combined expertise on this issue, [Texas] Senate Democratic leader Carol Alvarado, who represents the 6th District of Texas, which includes parts of Houston, and Dr. Ann Barnes, president and CEO of the Episcopal Health Foundation, also based in Houston.

We’re going to talk amongst ourselves for the next, I don’t know, 40 minutes or so. Then we will go to you in the audience for your questions. So go ahead and be thinking. I have to say I am personally really excited about this episode because health equity is something I think about a lot, but I’ve never been able to accurately define, even for myself. I know it’s about race and ethnicity and gender, but it’s not just about race and ethnicity and gender. It’s about income and wealth and class, but it’s not just about income and wealth and class. It’s about geography, but not just about geography. And it’s about medical care, but not just about medical care. So I want to kick off this discussion by asking each of you how you define health equity. And why don’t we just sort of go down the row? So we’ll start with you, Sabriya.

Sabriya Rice: Really great question and it gave me a lot of things to think about. And I want to start with a little anecdote from something that happened yesterday evening. I was having a conversation with a group of visitors from South Africa who work for an investigative news site there called The Daily Maverick, and my colleague, Aneri Pattani, who’s also a KFF Health News reporter. We were explaining some of the things about the U.S. health care system and just some basic stuff like how a lot of people can’t afford to just go for preventive care, how you may or may not have access to care in your neighborhood, and what that means in terms of your health outcomes.

And in the middle, they paused us and were like, “Wait a minute, wait a minute. This doesn’t make any sense. We have these things in South Africa.” It’s something you hear regularly from other people who are visiting here and they’re like, “But you’re like the wealthiest country in the world. How do you not have these things?” And I was thinking about that and thinking of, in terms of your question. So, for me, I think of health equity as just creating the opportunity for everyone to be able to achieve their optimal health no matter their background. And I think that’s something we could really work on in the U.S.

Ann Barnes: Great.When I think about health equity, I share a similar definition where folks have a just and fair opportunity to live their healthiest lives. And this is largely from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s definition of health equity. But coupled with that is the requirement to dismantle barriers to health. And so we have to remember that that is part of the equation, not just dreaming that we all have optimal health, but thinking about how we’re going to eliminate the barriers, especially for populations that are most vulnerable.

Carol Alvarado: I think about accessibility and affordability. And if you don’t have those two things in health care, then you create this environment of the haves and the have-nots, those who can afford to have health insurance and those who can’t. Maybe it’s because of their job, their social economic status. And I also think that we have to take partisanship and politics out of health care. I mean, when did that become such a divisive issue that really reached the height during the Obamacare debate and the many, many times to repeal it? And I know we’re going to dive into this a little bit more, but health care and access should never be political.

Cara Anthony: When I think about health equity, I agree with all of the panelists here today, but I’m also thinking about the future and the next generation. I’m a single mom. I have a 7-year-old daughter, and I think about how is she going to be able to live a longer and healthier life than previous generations. I’m going back home tomorrow and one of the first things that I’m going to do is sign my daughter up for a swim lesson, right? That’s health equity because I’m also signing up for a lesson as well. Why? Because I never learned to swim. It’s about each generation doing better. And why didn’t I learn to swim? Because my parents were born in 1948 in the South and did not have access to swimming pools. So it’s those daily practical applications that I think about when I think about health equity. So yeah.

Rovner: Sen. Alvarado and Dr. Barnes, I want to talk about Texas a little bit since, obviously, we’re sitting here. Texas is, we try not to think about just insurance when we talk about health equity, although it’s a big deal, and in Texas it’s still a big deal as opposed to a lot of other states. What impact does Texas’ failure to, so far at least, expand Medicaid have on health equity in this state?

Barnes: Well, we know that health care and access to health care is critically important to health. It accounts for 20% of a person’s health, and nonmedical drivers account for the other 80%. But 20% is important. We still have the highest rate of uninsured. So that means that there are parts of our community that can’t get the preventive care that they need, that can’t talk to people who might connect them to social services to support their nonmedical needs. And so the larger conversation is about increasing health coverage overall in Texas. And certainly expansion of Medicaid is one piece of that. About 5 million people are uninsured right now in our state, and so we’ve got a lot of ground to cover. Affordable Care Act is one way, Medicaid expansion is another. And so a lot of work to do, for sure.

Alvarado: And I’ll pick up where you left off. Medicaid expansion has been, believe it or not, a hot political hot potato here in Texas. I’ve been filing, along with many of my colleagues, bills every session since 2009, maybe. We can’t get hearings. And no one really gives you a good explanation why. They’ll have things that really don’t make a lot of sense that there are too many strings attached. Well, somehow 40 other states don’t have that problem.

And we’ve seen that the cost that we’re leaving on the table, millions of dollars. I think the last number I saw was 2023, maybe $11 billion just there on the table; other states are utilizing it. And then here in Texas, it’s kind of complicated. I’ll just give you the elevator speech on that. But they kept the Medicaid enrollment going during the pandemic, and then afterwards they did this winding, what they called winding down, and almost 2 million people were left without Medicaid. And a good portion of that are children, and a good portion of those children are Black and brown kids who are already living in environments where they don’t have access to green space or grocery stores, fresh fruits and vegetables. So you pile all of that together and that’s why we are in this place of many uninsured, almost twice the number of the national rate, which is at 8[%]. We’re at 17[%]. Yeah, everything’s bigger in Texas especially the number of uninsured.

Rovner: So, Dr. Barnes, I want you to talk about what it is that your foundation does. I find it fascinating that even though you would think that you’re all about medical care, you’re really not all about medical care, right?

Barnes: No, that’s right. So we are committed to promoting equity by addressing health and not just health care. And so we use our resources in partnership with community members and organizations and change-makers to address factors that occur outside of the clinical setting and the doctor’s office. And representative [Sen.] Alvarado listed so many of them: housing, food security, employment, education. All of these are critically important to health. And so we use our resources to help address those needs because we know that that will set people up for a healthy life and not just a sick life that ends them up in clinical care at the very tail end of their illness. One of the things I wanted to share, I’m a physician by training, in internal medicine and primary care, and my patients taught me so much when I saw them and I prescribed medicines for diabetes or high blood pressure. It was the stories about their lives outside of the clinic that really helped me understand what was impacting their health, which is why I got into this space of health and not just the clinical side.

Rovner: Cara, you’re about to debut a project that you’ve been working on for four years that has to do with exactly this, with sort of the nonmedical implications of other things and the lack of health equity. So why don’t you tell us a little bit about it?

Anthony: Yeah, so coming up next week, we’re going to premiere a new podcast, and also it’s a documentary film, called “Silence in Sikeston.” It focuses on police violence and police killings, but looking at them not as crime stories, but more as a public health threat. Also looking at the lynchings of yesterday as a public health threat. Maybe people didn’t use those terms back then, but certainly we recognize them as such now.

And so I hope everyone checks this out because it really talks about how racism and chronic stress are linked. And so oftentimes it can weigh not only on your mental health — anxiety, depression, you can become suicidal because of these things — but also you can have physical health effects as well, higher rates of high blood pressure, cancer, et cetera. And so I’ve been traveling for the last four years to Sikeston, Missouri. It’s a small community in rural Missouri where there was a man who was lynched there in 1942. His name was Cleo Wright. This is America’s first federally investigated lynching, the first time the FBI decided to look at lynching as a federal crime. They came to Sikeston, Missouri. But the story has never really been told and not in this way, not looking at it as a public health story, because as public health reporters we’re tasked with looking at what makes a community sick, what’s harming a community, and sometimes that can be something like lynching, something like police killings. And so we’re looking at that head-on and talking about the health impacts there.

Rovner: And Sabriya, obviously this is a big project that we’ve been working on, but we’ve been working on a lot of other health equity stories that you’re sort of in charge of. So why don’t you tell us about some of those?

Rice: Yeah, certainly. And it’s a great parallel to the work that Cara’s been doing. I came to KFF in 2022, and my charge was to start up a Southern bureau and look at the health equity disparities that happen across the South. So my team ranges from Texas to Florida up until North Carolina, and we meet weekly and have conversations. And one thing I was constantly hearing from the reporters — I’m not a policy expert and I’m not a statistician, but I’m a people person and I listen to people — and my reporters were saying over and over again, “Yeah, we spoke to this expert about Medicaid expansion, but they were like, ‘Yeah, we could do that, but it’s not going to stop the root of the problem, which is racism.’”

“Yeah, we wrote about maternal mortality or infant mortality, but still at the root of this is racism.” So that term kept coming up. And so we decided this year to take a look at systemic racism in the health care system, and our series is called “Systemic Sickness,” and it looks at some of the things that Cara talked about, including policing, but we also look at redlining or the history of redlining, of public housing challenges. We’re looking modern-day, like attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in education, specifically the field of medicine. So that’s the nature of our project that we have for this year. And it’s been just a real fascinating experience.

Rovner: I think I’ve heard this come up a couple of times in the panels we’ve had this morning about some of the other issues that really impact this in a bigger way than many people think. And I think housing is definitely one of those. You talked about redlining. A lot of this is historic racism and literal redlining: “You cannot live here. If you live here, you cannot get a mortgage.” There’s been a lot of that. How significant, I assume, the problem is here in Texas?

Barnes: Yeah, it is significant in a lot of those racist structures. We continue to experience the aftereffects of those. Even today, those neighborhoods are still under-resourced, and that includes, like you mentioned, grocery stores, safe spaces to play, green spaces, good transportation options. And so those old and, I suppose, acceptable forms of structural racism that were enacted are still playing out today in the health of people.

Alvarado: It’s very important. And housing doesn’t get a lot of attention. It’s not a very glamorous or sexy issue, but I’m glad to hear presidential candidate Kamala Harris, she talked about housing and what she would like to see to build more affordable housing, or I guess we’re calling it “workforce housing” now. And then our state comptroller, Glenn Hegar, recognizing how many people we have moving to Texas all the time. And to accommodate that, we’d need about 300,000 new units or housing. So people don’t have a place to lie their head that’s comfortable and a place to cook meals. And then if they don’t have those safety nets, then their last concern is probably, “Oh, am I getting my workout in today?” Or “Am I eating enough fruits and vegetables?” when they’re in survival mode.

Rice: And I’ll piggyback on what representative [Sen.] Alvarado said. It’s hard for people to see how this kind of plays out in real time. And two of our reporters on the Southern team just recently looked at a community in Savannah, Georgia, called Yamacraw Village. It’s a public housing community that started around World War II. And historically, at that time, the residents were white. Disinvestment happened within this community over the years and the population of the community changed.

So now it’s a predominantly Black and Latino community, but what you see is a large amount of disinvestment. People can’t get things fixed, so you’re living in very unhealthy housing, when you do have housing. There’s no playgrounds, there’s no green space, there’s an extreme amount of violence. But one man told our reporters, “The walls sweat like working men.” This person moved into this community and got vouchers to be able to live there and immediately developed asthma and has been taking medication even years after he left the community. So when you think about how the system is harming people, these communities are there and they’re not being invested in. Instead, people are given things like Section 8, if they can get the vouchers, and then if you can find affordable living that will take your Section 8 voucher. So it’s a really big problem. And housing is often not talked about as a public health crisis.

Barnes: Absolutely. And not just the place that you lay your head, but high-quality housing, not substandard that actually can impact your health.

Rovner: One of the things we’ve seen, I guess in the last couple of years, are these extraordinarily hot summers. And I know the government has always helped underwrite heating assistance in the winter, but apparently air-conditioning assistance is not considered of the same importance. I just read Phoenix has been 100 degrees every day for the last hundred days. I know that here in Texas you’ve had some pretty extended heat waves. I mean, how big an issue is heat as a public health and equity issue?

Alvarado: It’s a big problem, and especially when we’ve had things like power outages, storms that we had very close to one another. We had the derecho in May and then we had followed by the Hurricane Beryl, and that was tough. I mean, people were out of power anywhere from a couple of days to 10 days, and for some, it’s life or death, especially if they have medical equipment that they have to be hooked up to. We’re going to be tackling some of those issues in this session, but our city does a good job in our county of opening cooling centers so that people have a place to go and retreat and charge their devices. But the weather is getting much more turbulent. The summers are getting hotter, the hurricane season is more active. And until people realize that there’s a reason all this is happening and people don’t want to talk about it or put policy forth that addresses what’s taking place in our environment. So they go hand in hand.

Barnes: One of the other things, as we talk about communities where there isn’t investment, is that there are these heat islands, and typically they are where people are low-income communities of color where simple things like trees being planted that could cool the temperature in the area, these neighborhoods don’t have those amenities. So there are efforts in Texas and in Houston to try to green up some of those communities, but it requires investment and attention and acknowledging that we have these disparities across the community.

Rovner: Yeah, there was a study, I think it was in Baltimore a couple of years ago, where the temperature differential was like 15 degrees. I mean, it would be 85 in the suburbs and it would be 100 in some of these sort of concrete jungles downtown where the buildings hold onto the heat. And, of course, those are places where people live and often can’t afford their utilities, and obviously their utility bills would be higher because it’s going to cost more to cool those places.

Barnes: And as representative [Sen.] Alvarado mentioned, heat, when you have chronic conditions, so the elderly in particular, these are the communities that have the greatest burden of those conditions. And so it’s particularly alarming. That need is there and we really have to pay attention to it.

Rice: One of the things we just looked at in a story was this idea of energy poverty. And one interesting factoid that I learned from that that I was unaware of myself is the idea that many of our federal policies tend to focus on cold weather and that this idea, in federal and state, so for example in North Carolina where the story was centered, there are requirements that apartments and other kind of housing that they mandate that you have heat in the winter. It’s not the same for AC in the summer, and that’s probably something that should be looked at.

Rovner: I want to talk about women. When we talk about health equity differences between men and women, where one of the first places we saw before the Affordable Care Act, insurers were allowed to charge women more simply because they were women and they lived longer and had more health expenses associated with being pregnant and having children. That was eliminated. But, obviously, there are still a lot of inequities between men and women and it’s there. I know that they’re exacerbated by race, but it’s not purely race. I mean, how big an issue is this still? Obviously, reproductive health in general, abortion in specific, is the central health issue in this year’s campaigns. So where does it fall in the pantheon of health equity?

Alvarado: I think if we had more women elected to office, definitely in Texas and in statewide positions, that things like Medicaid would pass, expansion of Medicaid. And it does matter who is at the table, who is making the decisions. And this happened just on one side of the aisle, but just 12-month postpartum for women, so that they can take advantage of Medicaid, and it finally got done. But that’s the only piece that we’ve been able to do. And they were two women, Democrat and Republican, Toni Rose and Sen. Huffman, who led that effort. And I just know if we had more women in the right places, that issues like health care wouldn’t be so partisan and divisive.

Barnes: Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. We finally got 12 months of coverage postpartum, and it’s really unfortunate that we have to piecemeal the care that women need. I think about the fact that we expect good pregnancy outcomes when someone hasn’t had care until they’re pregnant, and up until recently, only eight weeks after they were pregnant. And so yeah, there are a lot of disparities, and for many women being pregnant is their ticket to Medicaid. And so it just perpetuates this fragmented continuum of health, and women are falling out of it regularly.

Alvarado: And especially with women of color, 64% of Latinas and 62% of African American women will at some point be on Medicaid.

Anthony: I just want to chime in here too. You talk about reproductive rights. I considered, Julie, writing a personal essay about, at the time I was 35, I went on … I’m only 37 now, but as a Black woman in the U.S., going on birth control for the first time in my life. Now, I mentioned I’m a single mom, so that wasn’t always my story, but I think we’re in an era of progress and education that is still really, really important. So I just wanted to share that.

Rovner: So I want to talk a little bit about the actual inequities within medical care. One thing, Stat News has a wonderful story that’s part of a series they’re starting this week on algorithms that are embedded into care — when doctors make a diagnosis and then the algorithm comes up and shows all the things you should consider in deciding what kind of treatment. And a lot of these now have: Is the patient Black? And some of them, I think, were originally, I assume most of them, were originally born out of some sort of thought that there’s a differential in risk depending on skin color, but obviously a lot of them … have been completely overturned by science and yet they’re still there. What impact does embedded racism in medicine, in general, have on health equity?

Barnes: Yeah, specific to that, in particular, what it resulted in is individuals who had evidence of risk, because they were Black there was a higher threshold that had to be crossed before they got additional testing or additional treatment, which means that there are populations of people who didn’t get timely care because of those embedded algorithms. One of the other things, there’s not an overriding body — I guess CMS could be that overriding body — but right now no one is standing up saying, “Absolutely you cannot use race-based algorithms.” And so it’s really up to individual health systems. States could implement penalties if you use them, but right now it’s up to an individual institution, and it takes a lot to undo an algorithm and change an electronic medical record. But we are at the threshold, I think, of that beginning to happen.

Anthony: And it’s such a common issue. I spent the last few years looking particularly at kidney disease testing, and if you put a Black person’s kidney on a table and you put a white person’s kidney on the table, you would not be able to tell the difference. People really need to understand that race and biology are not the same, but for years, I mean decades, people have mixed this up and it has delayed care from people who are not getting the treatment that they need.

We wrote a story a couple of years ago about a Black man who needed a kidney, a white woman read the story and decided to donate a kidney to him, but that’s not everybody’s case. I can only write about so many patients that are in that same scenario. And so there’s still a lot of work that needs to be done, but progress is being made. The hospital in particular that we were looking at in St. Louis, they’ve made some policy changes since we published that particular article, but we still have a long way to go. I can’t say that enough. Race and biology are not the same.

Rovner: I mentioned at the top geography, and we talk about people who are grouped together because they have to be, but it’s also about where people decide to live, in rural versus urban. I mean, how can we look population-wide and try to even out, I mean, we talk constantly about the closures of rural hospitals and the difficulty of getting care in far-flung areas, and obviously Texas has a lot of far-flung areas, I know. That is another issue that sort of plays into this whole thing, right?

Alvarado: Oh, absolutely. And one of the arguments, again, this all keeps going back to Medicaid expansion, but you’re talking to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, I said, your districts, some of your rural districts are suffering the most. Hospitals have shut down. They have to drive to the next big city. It might be Houston or Dallas or San Antonio, but it has, I think, disproportionately hurt rural areas. And until folks want to own that, embrace that, and try to fix it, we’re going to continue to be in this place and probably the gap will widen even more.

Rice: And I’d say we saw this kind of play out in Georgia this week. I live in Atlanta, and there was the unfortunate school shooting incident that happened there. And the community that that school is in had no hospital in that area. So the closest place would’ve been 40 miles away in either direction to Athens, Georgia, which is about 40 miles from the Barrow County and then Atlanta. So even in an incident like that, just coordinating to get people treatment in a major incident is just another example of why we need to do something, right? It’s not just Black communities or Hispanic communities. I think it’s all of us and any given moment may need access to care. And if you think about it, in light of that, 40 miles is no easy feat on Atlanta highways in rush-hour traffic or even being airlifted, it’s still a distance and you have a small window of time to save a life.

Barnes: And there’s been specific conversations in Texas about access to maternal health care in rural communities. And so again, the distance that someone would have to drive is hard for many of us to imagine, especially in a time of crisis.

Rovner: One of the other continuing issues when we talk about health equity is the desire of people to be treated by people who look like them or people who have similar backgrounds to them. That’s obviously been an issue for years that the medical community has been trying to deal with. I want to ask specifically what impact the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action is going to have on the future of the medical workforce and the few strides that have been made to get more people of color, not just into medical school, but into practice.

Rice: I’d say that was pretty immediate, and especially in some of our Southern states, given the history. But I think there were immediate bans on DEI programs or dismantling of those at schools across the South. I can think of Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, even Georgia introduced a bill. It didn’t pass, but I think we saw that happen pretty immediately. And the doctors that at least reporters on my team have spoken to have said, even in their programs, they can’t even say, “We’re trying to increase the number of Black doctors or Hispanic doctors or Native American doctors.” You can’t target those groups to come to special programs, to have access to visitations to schools or that sort of thing. You can’t even say it. So they’re having to kind of circumvent how they reach people to increase the low numbers of doctors of these ethnic groups.

Alvarado: I think we’ve only begun to see the consequences that have taken place because of that. When you mentioned the medical center, we have people that come from all over the world and having physicians that they can relate to or just speaking the language, 48% of people from Houston speak other languages other than English at home. So Houston is known for being very international, very diverse, and it’s only going to continue to grow. So having the language barrier also contributes to many other issues regarding your health. But having that comfort with someone that understands your background, may understand your challenges, that’s important. And I don’t think that the people who were coming up with DEI legislation here in Texas and, those things don’t cross their mind because they’re shortsighted. They’re trying to check a box or get that “A-plus” on their whatever scorecard by whatever group in their party.

Rovner: But people think, well, a doctor is a doctor is a doctor. Why does it matter if that doctor, if you’re able to relate to that doctor, how important is it really to have a medical community that looks like the community it’s serving?

Barnes: Yeah, I would say it’s a huge trust issue. I remember having patients in my practice, African American patients, and there was a wonderful trust that we had with one another. And then I would refer them to a specialist who didn’t look like them, and they would ask me questions, “Do you really think they’re going to do the procedure that they said?” And I was just thinking, “Oh my gosh, I am taking for granted that someone would trust me.” And when we think about how we make recommendations to patients, if the trust isn’t there, why would they listen to what you had to say? And then that will, of course, put you at a disadvantage from a health perspective. And in terms of eliminating affirmative action, I don’t know the medical school data, but a lot of higher education institutions are already reporting lower numbers in their incoming classes. And that certainly is going to be the same in medical schools, nursing schools, PA schools.

Rovner: I did have in my notes that medical schools are freaked out by this.

Anthony: And it’s really …

Barnes: Absolutely.

Anthony: And what you’re talking about, and I’ve written a lot about this topic, and just to name it, we’re talking about “culturally competent care,” and culturally competent care is really, really hard to find because the numbers are low, because there has been a shift. But I think the conversation is also shifting towards culturally humble care or cultural humility in health care. So even if I can’t find a doctor who looks like me, I need someone who’s culturally humble to say, “You know what? I don’t understand everything that you’re going through as a Black woman raising a child in America, but I can admit that, I can say that out loud, and I can maybe direct you towards someone who can be more helpful. Or maybe we could just have a really candid conversation about that.” And so I just want to give people the terminology that I think could be useful if you want to learn more.

Rice: We also just did a story looking at colorism in the U.S. and the impact that that has on people. Interviewed a woman, for example, who had been bleaching her skin for all of these years, had these side effects from that, but clinicians weren’t catching it. They didn’t know to look for specific things. So there were mental health challenges there because of feeling unhappy being in her own body, but there were also manifestations on her physical health because the chemicals that she was introducing were causing harm. So I think that kind of cultural competence, someone that looked like her and could relate to her background might be like, “Wait a minute, is this what’s happening here?” And that’s what happened in the case of that particular patient.

Rovner: So at our session this morning on why does care cost so much? My colleague Noam Levey talked about something he calls a culture of greed in health care, it does seem as if every aspect of the system is or has been monetized. I mean, it really is all about the money. How does that impact health equity? I mean, you could think that if the incentives were in the right place, it might be able to help.

Alvarado: And it drives up the cost of insurance too. I mean, if you’ve ever had a loved one in the hospital, they don’t want you to bring your medications from home. So you have to take what they have there. And it is the same thing, but it’s very expensive. You can buy a bottle of Advil for 5, 6 bucks; each pill is about that much, and then it drives up cost of insurance, and it has an economic impact that trickles down to the consumer.

Barnes: And then it becomes a barrier. So if you are paying out-of-pocket and things are incredibly expensive and you also have to buy food and pay your rent, you may forgo or delay care, which again is going to leave you in a worse situation from a health standpoint and just perpetuate the disparities.

Rovner: Now we have managed-care companies who serve not just most of the Medicare population, but most of the Medicaid population, who get paid for presumably the incentive there was, you’re going to take care of these people and we’re going to pay you, and the more people you can find to take care of, the more we’re going to pay you. And in theory, they have adequate networks where people can actually find care, which is not always the case with Medicaid. It’s hard to find providers who will take Medicaid. I’ve started seeing ads for managed-care companies for people who are eligible for both Medicare and Medicaid, the “dual eligibles.” They don’t call them that, but it’s like, “Wow, I’m looking at TV ads for dual eligibles.” Somebody must be making some amount of money off of these people. Is anything good coming from it?

Alvarado: I mean, the pharmaceutical companies are raking it in pretty good. And in some countries you can’t even have direct promotion for pharmaceuticals from the pharmaceutical company to the consumer.

Rovner: Most other countries.

Alvarado: Yeah, except I mean every commercial. I mean, you pick your drug, what is it, Skyrizi or Cialis, whatever. I mean, it’s out there.

Rovner: Yes, we all know the names of the drugs now.

Alvarado: Something for everybody.

Rovner: I’m going turn it over to questions in a minute, but before I do, I don’t want this to be a complete downer. So I would like each of you to talk about something that you’ve seen in the last year or two that’s made you optimistic about being able to at least address the issue of health equity.

Rice: I mean, the fact that we’re having these conversations more, I think, is something that brings optimism, for me. I don’t remember my family having these conversations as a kid. It was just like, “Well, this is just the way it is. Or “This is how the system is.” And I think it’s positive that we’re having conversations not just about how the system is currently, but about changing it, as Cara mentioned, for the next generation.

Barnes: As a philanthropy, I can talk about some specific investments that we’ve made that have allowed community health workers to work with women throughout their pregnancy period. And so in a small way, for those women, we have increased the opportunity for them to have a healthy outcome. But we’ve also done some policy work. We were part of a large coalition of folks pushing for 12 months of Medicaid coverage postpartum. And those system-level changes affect millions of Texans. And so again, we felt that was really an important way to change the health equity equation.

Alvarado: And thank you for your work on that. Many of us on my side of the aisle have been filing those bills to get it extended to 12 months. But again, everything goes back to politics. They weren’t going to let somebody in the minority party carry it. And at that point, you don’t care who gets the credit, just get it done. Or as we say in Texas, “Git-er-done” and take care of folks. But another thing that we’ve been talking about on our side of the aisle was the tampon tax, the pink tax, and wow, all of a sudden my colleagues on the other side thought, “Oh, that’s a good idea.” And so anyway, we didn’t get to carry it. They passed it, OK, it’s done. So we’ve got to play this game, dance this dance here, and we’ll do it. The most important thing is to make things accessible and affordable to people.

And one of the other things too, we didn’t get to talk about this much, but when you talk about the environment and health impacts, my district has so many concrete batch plants. And so we are seeing more people become aware of particulate matter and the negative impact that these facilities have. And they’re almost all, I’d say 99% all, located in African American and Latino neighborhoods. And Harris County has the largest number of concrete batch plants in any other county in Texas. And a third of those concrete batch plants are walking distance to schools and to day cares. We have more work to do in this area, but at least now the public is holding people accountable and we’re putting more pressure on the agencies that regulate these facilities.

Anthony: We often think about data and there’s negativity associated with that. But one thing that I’ve learned, particularly in the last four years, is that there’s good data too. There’s change that is happening, right? I mentioned early on in our conversation about the swim lesson with my daughter, and that’s progress, right? There’s institutional change happening as well. We talk about the algorithms and the issues there, but we know that there are institutions that have said, “Yes, this is a mistake.” I have concerns, and this is another conversation about what’s going to happen with AI. But I think that there are positive ways to look at that as well. So change is happening, and we have to think about also moving forward, and we want to tell those stories too.

Rovner: All right, well, I’m going to turn it over to the audience now. I see we already have someone waiting to ask a question. Please, before you ask your question, tell us who you are and where you’re from and please make it a question. Go ahead.

Abimisola: Hi, my name is Abimisola. I am from Nigeria, but I live in Austin, Texas. My question is about education. I feel like a big part of access and equity is education. So what are we doing to let people know that there are some services that are available to help them access the care that they need? I imagine that as, I guess, working through the pandemic, health literacy is not really a thing in the public. And so what are we doing to let people know that some of these services exist? And then also on the cultural humility end of things, what are we doing to make sure that providers are aware of this gap and how can they be helpful in their own way to make sure that equitable care does exist when people come in?

Barnes: So I think that we are at a moment of awakening when it comes to recognizing that you need trusted messengers in communities to actually engage in conversations about navigating health care systems or engaging in preventive health measures. Community health workers are really starting to have their day, and there is recent legislation that will actually allow them to be reimbursed for case management services related to their care of pregnant women. And so we are in a moment, that same legislation will also cover doulas and their case management services. But I think to your point, education, health literacy, having someone you trust who can walk you through that process is so critically important and those caregivers are finally getting the recognition that they deserve and being elevated and reimbursed. And so I think that that is a great step.

Linda Jackson: Hello, thank you for the information that you’ve provided. So I’m Linda Jackson and I’m with Huston-Tillotson University, which is a historically Black university a few miles from here. And I want to talk about the speed. One thing that happened again during the coronavirus is that because the university had systems in place, for example, the university was able to move from on-campus, on-ground, to online almost immediately with all of those funds and programs that were available. We’re in that same situation now with what we’re experiencing now, we have an increase in the number of students who want to attend college, an increase in our enrollment. We are a pipeline for the health industry, for some of the issues that we have to deal with, but the issue is that we can move quickly, but to get to all of those entities that are out there that can provide the funding that’s needed.

We have students we turned away who are waiting to get into college, and they’re interested in computer science and they’re interested in the health care industry and they’re interested in all those fields, but it’s the speed. We are here waiting, but the speed for which all of those resources have to come into place. And for example, we had entities who came to us with a doula program, with a doula idea, and we offer a certificate in the doula program to ensure that there are more doulas to provide that culturally sensitive care. And so my question is we’re here. We’re waiting. The resources need to come faster. And so I guess that’s a statement as opposed to a question.

Rovner: But thank you for raising the topic.

Barnes: I will just say, well, first off, my mother and my aunt are both graduates of Huston-Tillotson. So very excited to have you here. I think connecting the industries that need the workforce with the institutions who can provide the training is a key connection that we haven’t figured out how to do well because that’s where your resources would come to be able to support students getting trained to then fill the jobs where we have needs in the health care setting.

Rovner: And this is not just a health equity issue, this is the entire health system writ large.

Barnes: Absolutely.

Rovner: The difficulties with matching workforce needs with patient needs.

Robert Lilly: Good afternoon. Thank you very much for this lively conversation. My name is Robert Lilly. I am a criminal justice participatory defense organizer with Grassroots Leadership, and I’m also justice-impacted, formerly incarcerated, 54 years old with 21 years of my life spent in some institution or another. I want to just comment or not comment, but inquire from the two points that were made about equity. You mentioned that you wanted to, equity was about optimal health, no matter the background of the individual and also to eliminate barriers, especially for populations that are most vulnerable.

Texas has over 110 prisons, 135,000 people currently incarcerated, 600,000 every year exiting the system. Medicaid expansion is a challenge in Texas. My question before you is, in this era of mass incarceration, what options do we have? If policy can’t fix this problem, what other options exist? With the creative minds that you have, the thoughtful insights that you’re gaining from your research and reflection, how can you advise us to move, if our legislature won’t move? Do we depend on them alone to solve these problems, or is there an alternative route that supersedes them? And the last thing I’ll ask is how much of what we’re experiencing today, and we know America’s been historically racist, but how much of what we experiencing is a backlash to George Floyd?

Rovner: Oh, excellent question. Somebody want to take him on?

Anthony: I really think about if policy can’t do it, what can? And that’s where I think about for me, often it’s the institution of the Black family and starting young, what conversations do we need to have with our children as we move forward? That’s one thing that I, in particular, think about because I really think it comes down to literacy, education, being made aware, and also thinking about what can we do as individuals? But it really requires institutional change. I don’t want to act like that’s not at the core of the issue, but really want to talk about our future a lot and think about our future a lot. And so I think it starts at a really young age.

Rice: I wish we could tackle the whole iceberg all at once and just tear the whole thing down and start over. But the reality is we have to chip at it. And I think as we continue to do that, I think it starts to dismantle. And I don’t know that that offers much hope, but I think it’s kind of where we’re at and what we have to do is to keep moving because we wouldn’t have had this progress without that kind of fight.

Rovner: But … go ahead.

Rice: And vote.

Carley Deardorff: Hi, y’all. My name is Carley Deardorff, born and raised in Texas. I have lived in Texas my whole life, except I ran away to Spain for a little bit. Born in Lubbock, been in Austin for about 15 years now. I want to say one, thank you so much for your question previously. My question involves both formerly incarcerated but also aging. So aging parents, aging families. My partner and I were both raised by single moms, and so the outcomes for them, health-wise and also financially in terms of retirement and things like that are very, very slim. And so now in this next phase of life, navigating equity and health outcomes for them, it’s really scary because I don’t know. So before I cry, what do y’all have as opportunities and resources as you help someone age, and what that can look like in the space of life?

Barnes: So, thank you for being so vulnerable in talking about how incredibly challenging navigating the health care system and the systems that address nonmedical factors are for individuals. I don’t have an easy answer. There are organizations, and some that we have funded, that provide navigation services so that folks who know how to walk their way through these complicated systems can be helpful and maybe we can talk offline after we’re done. Again, they rely on trusted messengers in the communities who know what’s going on in the environment and then can actually help with the complicated side of things as well. And I think that’s probably the best bet for traversing something that doesn’t have to be as complicated as it is, but it is what it is at this point.

Meer Jumani: Do we have time for one more?

Barnes: We do.

Jumani: Perfect.

Rovner: Go ahead.

Jumani: So Meer Jumani, I work as a public health policy adviser to Commissioner Adrian Garcia, Harris County, Precinct 2. Sen. Alvarado’s District and Precinct 2 overlap a ton, but Precinct 2 has approximately 1.1 million constituents, of which 65% are Hispanic. We also have some of the most vast health disparities ranging from the highest mortality rate to the lowest home ownership rate. We touched on that amongst others, and despite launching programs ranging from free community-based clinics to lead abatement programs, we see a trend that these are most underutilized by the most vulnerable populations. So my question is, can you speak to what measures can be taken or what folks are not doing to change the mindset of these populations from a curative mindset to a preventative mindset?

Rice: I think it’s, as you mentioned before, trust, right? Those community navigators and making sure they’re out there giving voice to the community and sharing what resources are there. During covid, there was a community in northeast Georgia with a large immigrant population, and they actually ended up having some of the lowest rates of covid for the state because of those community navigators. They really hit the ground and it was kind of amazing what they did, going door to door if they had to, having weekly events and having conversations, making screenings accessible to everyone, and having navigators that spoke various different languages. I think those kind of things continue to help with that kind of outreach.

Anthony: I totally agree. And acknowledging painful history too. I think we have to realize who is tasked to do the fixing, and are we really giving agency and empowering those that need help the most? I’m thinking about particularly in Sikeston, Missouri, where the police chief tried to institute a program where people were to come, particularly Black residents in town. He wanted to have meetings with them and have conversations, but it just didn’t take off. But part of the reason why is because the level of mistrust, but also some acknowledgment of the history of racial violence that had gone on in the past in that community that people were still trying to heal from today. So I think that there’s so much work that has to be done in institutions. One of the first steps that they can take is acknowledging painful history as a way to move forward because we have to acknowledge our pain to have some joy too.

Rovner: I think that’s a wonderful place to leave it. I want to thank our panel so much and thank you to the audience for your great questions.

I hasten to add, if you enjoyed the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d always appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru back in Washington, D.C., Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. And thanks to the kind folks here at TribFest for helping us put this all together. We’ll be back in D.C. with our regular panel and all the news on Sept. 12. Until then, everyone, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The conventions are over, and the general-election campaign is officially on. While reproductive health is sure to play a key role in the race between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, it’s less clear what role other health issues will play.

Meanwhile, Medicare recently announced negotiated prices of the first 10 drugs selected under the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. The announcement is boosting attention to what was already a major pocketbook issue for both Republicans and Democrats.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Politico and Johns Hopkins University’s schools of nursing and public health, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Democratic National Convention highlighted reproductive rights issues as never before, with a parade of public officials and private citizens recounting some of their most personal, painful memories of needing abortion care. But abortion rights activists remain concerned that Harris has not promised to push beyond codifying the rights established under Roe v. Wade, which they believe allows too many barriers to care.
• As reproductive rights have taken center stage in her campaign, Harris has been less forthcoming about her other health policy plans so far. In her career, she has embraced fights against anticompetitive behavior by insurers and hospitals and in drug pricing.
• Would former President Donald Trump make Robert Kennedy Jr. his next health secretary? Even many Republicans would consider his elevation a bridge too far. Polls show Trump stands to gain from Kennedy’s departure from the presidential race, but likely only slightly more than Harris.
• In other national health news, abortion access will be on the ballot this fall in Arizona and Montana, and the federal government recently announced the first drug prices secured under Medicare’s new drug-negotiation program.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment about a woman who fought back after being charged for two surgeries despite undergoing only one. Do you have a confusing or outrageous medical bill you want to share? Tell us about it!

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’ “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications,” by Emily Baumgaertner.

Joanne Kenen: The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel’s “Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?” by Natalie Eilbert. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care,” by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans.  

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods,” by Ariana Eunjung Cha. 

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Let the General Election Commence

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Let the General Election Commence’Episode Number: 361Published: Aug. 23, 2024

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

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, Aug. 23, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via teleconference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month,” about a woman who got two bills for the same surgery and refused to back down. But first, this week’s news. So, now both conventions are over. Labor Day is just over a week away. And I think it’s safe to declare the general election campaign officially on. What did we learn from the just-completed Democratic [National] Convention, other than that Beyoncé didn’t show up?

Luthra: I think the obvious thing we learned is there is a lot of abortion for Democrats to talk about and very little abortion Republicans would like to. I did the fun brain exercise of going back through old Democratic conventions to see how much abortion came up. It might be interesting to note that in 2012, for instance, [the former president of Planned Parenthood] Cecile Richards spoke, never mentioned abortion.

A Planned Parenthood patient came and didn’t talk about abortion, talked about endometriosis care. And I think that really underscores what a shift we have seen in the party from treating abortion as an issue for the base, but not one that got center stage very often. And that shifted a bit in 2016, but is really very different now.

We had abortion every night, and that is just such a marked contrast from the RNC, where Republicans went to great lengths to avoid the topic because Democrats are largely on the winning side of this issue and Republicans are not.

Rovner: I’ve watched every Democratic convention since 1984. I have to say, I’m still trying to wrap my brain around the idea of all of these, and not just women, but men and [Sen.] Tammy Duckworth talking about IVF and women who had various difficulties with pregnancy. Usually, it would be tucked into a section of one night, but every single night we had people getting up and telling their individual stories. I was kind of surprised. Alice, you wanted to add something?

Ollstein: Yeah. We also wrote about how the breadth of the kinds of abortion stories being told has also changed. There’s been frustration on the left for a while that only these medical emergency cases have been lifted up.

Rovner: The good abortions.

Ollstein: Exactly. So there’s a fear that that further stigmatizes people who just had an abortion because they simply didn’t want to be pregnant, which is the majority of cases. These really awful medical emergencies are the minority, even though they are happening, and people do want those stories told. But I think it was notable that the head of Planned Parenthood talked about a case that was simply someone who didn’t want to be pregnant and the lengths she had to go through to get an abortion.

I think we’re still mostly seeing the more politically palatable, sympathetic stories of sexual assault and medical emergencies, but I think you’re starting to see the discourse broaden a little bit more. It’s still not what a lot of activists want, but it’s widening. It’s opening the door a little bit more to those different stories.

Rovner: And certainly having [Kamala] Harris at the top of the ticket rather than Biden, I mean, she’s been the point person of this administration on reproductive health even before Roe v. Wade got overturned.

Ollstein: Right. And I think it’s been interesting to see the policy versus politics side of this, where politically she’s seen as such a stronger ally on abortion rights, and her messaging is much more aggressive than [President Joe] Biden’s, a lot more specific. But when it comes to the policy, she’s exactly where Biden was. She says, “I want to restore Roe v. Wade,” where a lot of activists say that’s not enough. Roe v. Wade left a lot of people out in the cold who couldn’t get an abortion that they wanted later in pregnancy, or they ran into all these restrictions earlier in pregnancy that were allowed under Roe. And so I think we’re going to see that tension going forward of the messaging is more along the lines of what the progressive activists want, but the policy isn’t.

Luthra: And to build on Alice’s point, I mean, a lot of the speakers we had this week are speakers who would’ve been there for a Biden campaign as well. Amanda Zurawski was a very effective Biden surrogate. She is now a Harris surrogate.

And I think what’s really important for us to remember as we look not just to November, but to potentially January and beyond, is that what Harris is campaigning on, what Biden tried to campaign on, although he struggled to say the words, is something that probably isn’t going to happen because they’re talking about signing a law to codify Roe’s protections and they in all likelihood won’t have the votes to do so.

Rovner: Yes. And they either have to get rid of the filibuster in the Senate or they have to have 60 votes, neither of which seems probable. And as I have pointed out many times, the Democrats have never had enough votes to codify Roe v. Wade. There’s never actually been a basically pro-choice Congress. The House has never been pro-choice until Trump was president, when obviously there was nothing they could do.

It’s not that Congress didn’t want to, or the Democrats in Congress didn’t want to or didn’t try, they never had the votes. For years and years and years, I would say, there were a significant number of Republicans who were pro-abortion rights and a significant, even larger number of Democrats who were anti-abortion. It’s only in the last decade that it’s become absolutely partisan, that basically each party has kicked out the ones on the other side. Joanne, you wanted to add something?

Kenen: Remember that the very last snag that almost pulled down the Affordable Care Act at zero hour, or zero minus, after zero hour, was anti-abortion Democrats. And that was massaged out and they cut a deal and they put in language and they got it through. But no, the phenomenon Julie’s talking about was that the dynamics have changed because of the polarization.

I mean, it wasn’t just abortion; there were centrists in both parties, and they’re pretty much gone. The other thing that struck me last night is there was rape victims and victims of traffic and abuse speaking both within the context of abortion. I mean, that was a mesmerizing presentation by a really courageous young woman.

And then there were other episodes about sexual violence against women, a nod to Biden a couple of times, who actually wrote the original Violence Against Women Act in ’94, part of the crime bill, but also in terms of liberal Democrats or progressives who … “prosecutor” isn’t their favorite title. But because they tied these themes together or at least link them or they were there in a basket together of her as a protector of victims of trafficking, rape, and abuse, starting when she was in high school with her friend.

So I thought that that was another thing that we would not have spoken about. You did not have young women talking about being raped by their stepfather and impregnated at age 12.

Rovner: So aside from reproductive rights, which was obviously a headline of this convention, it’s almost impossible to discern what a second Trump administration might mean for health because Trump has been literally all over the place on most health issues. And he may or may not hire back the former staffers who compiled Project 2025.

But we don’t really know what a Harris administration would mean either. There is still no policy section on the official Harris for President website. One thing we do seem to know is that she seems to have backed away from her support for “Medicare for All,” which she kind of ran on in 2019.

Luthra: Sort of.

Rovner: Yeah, kind of, sort of. What else do we know about what she would do on health care other than on reproductive health, where she’s been quite clear?

Ollstein: So the focus on the policies that have been rolled out so far have been cost of living and going after price-gouging. She also has a history, as California attorney general, of using antitrust and those kinds of legal tools to go after monopolistic practices in health care. In California, she did that on the insurance front and the hospital front and the drug pricing front. So there is an expectation that that would be a focus. But again, they have not disclosed to us what the plans are.

Kenen: I mean, one of the immediate things, and I watched a fair amount of the convention and none of us absorbed every word, but I don’t think I heard a single mention of it was the extension of the ACA subsidies, which expire next year. I mean, if they mentioned it, it was in passing by somebody. So you didn’t really hear too much ACA, right? You hear that wonderful line from President [Barack] Obama when he said the Affordable Care Act, and then he said that aside: “Now that it’s popular, they don’t call it Obamacare anymore.”

But you didn’t hear a lot of ACA discussion. You heard a lot of drug price and you heard a lot of some vague Medicare, mostly in the context of drug prices. But there wasn’t a segment of one night devoted to the health policy. So I mean, I think we can assume she’s pretty much going to be Biden-like. I would be surprised if she didn’t fight to preserve the subsidies.

The Medicare drug stuff is in law now and going ahead. I think Julie wants to come back to that, but I don’t think we know what’s different. And I don’t know what, in that to-do list, I don’t think she articulated the priorities, although I would imagine she’ll start talking about the subsidies because the Republicans are probably going to oppose that. But no, it wasn’t a big focus. It was like sprinkles on an ice cream cone instead of serving a sundae.

Rovner: It’s hard to remember that just four years ago in 2020, there was this huge fight about the future of health care. Do we want to go to Medicare for All? What do we want to do about the ACA? Biden was actually the most conservative, I think, of the Democratic candidates when it came to health care.

Kenen: And then he expanded things way more than people expected him to.

Rovner: Yes, that’s true. I was going to say, but the other thing that jumped out at me is how many liberals, [Rep.] Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, talking like a moderate basically, I mean, giving this big speech. It feels like the left wing of the Democratic Party, at least on health care, has figured out that it’s better to be pragmatic and get something done, which apparently the right wing of the Republican Party has not figured out.

Luthra: Well, part of what happened, right, is, I mean, the left lost in 2020. Joe Biden won. He became president. And there’s this real interesting effort that we saw this week to try and recapture the energy of 2008, 2012, the Obama era, and that wasn’t a Medicare-for-All-type time. That was much more vibes and pragmatism, which is what we are seeing now.

Kenen: The other thing is that the progressives, more centrist, more moderate, whatever you call the mainstream bring, they kissed and made up. I mean, [Sen.] Bernie Sanders became an incredible backer of Biden. I mean, they fought on the original Bring [Build] Back Better. That became the watered-down Inflation Reduction [Act]. They had some policy differences and some of which were stark.

But basically, Bernie Sanders became this bulwark for it, helped create party unity, helped move it ahead, supported Biden when he was thinking about staying in the race. So I think that Bernie’s support of Biden, who did do an awful lot of things on the progressive agenda; he did expand health care, although not through single-payer, but through expanded ACA. He did do a lot on climate. He did do a lot of things they cared about, and the party is less divided. We don’t know how long that’ll last. We had, not just unusual, but unprecedented last two months. So these things like Medicare for All versus strengthening the ACA, they’ll bubble up again, but they’re not going to divide the party in the next seven weeks, eight weeks, whatever we’re out: 77 days. Do the math, 10 weeks.

Rovner: Seventy-some days. In other political news, third-party candidate and anti-vax crusader Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is going to drop out of the race later today and perhaps endorse Donald Trump. The rumor is he’s hoping to win a position in a second Trump administration, if there is one, possibly even secretary of Health and Human Services. What would that look like? A lot of odd faces from our panelists here.

Ollstein: I’m always skeptical. There’s also talk about Elon Musk getting a Cabinet job. I’m always skeptical of these incredibly wealthy individuals — who, currently, as private citizens, can basically do whatever they want — I have a hard time imagining them wanting to submit to the constrictures and the oversight of being in the Cabinet. I would be surprised. I think that it sounds good to have that power, but to actually have to do that job, I think, would not be appealing to such people. But I could be surprised.

Rovner: We did have Steve Mnuchin as secretary of the Treasury, and he seemed to have a pretty good time doing it.

Ollstein: I guess so, but I think his background was maybe a little more suited to that. I don’t know.

Kenen: Mnuchin, you’ve also had Democrats who appoint Wall Street types. Rubin being one of several, at least.

Rovner: We tend to have billionaires at the Treasury Department.

Kenen: The idea of Bobby Kennedy running HHS, I think even many Republicans who support Trump would find a bridge too far. And remember they want … if you look at the part of the Republican Party that really equate … their priority is anti-abortion, that’s it for them. There’s some on the right who talked about — I’m pretty sure this is in 2025, but at least it’s out there — change it to the Department of Life.

There’s a faction within the Republican Party who sees HHS as the way of driving an anti-abortion agenda. What’s left of abortion, right? It has oversight over the NIH [National Institutes of Health] and FDA [Food and Drug Administration] and CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], et cetera. You can’t say that Trump won’t do something because he is a very unpredictable person. So, who knows what Donald Trump would do? I don’t think it’s all that likely that Bobby Kennedy gets HHS.

But I do think that in order to get the endorsement that Trump wants, he’d have to promise him something in the health realm — whether it’s a special adviser for vaccine safety, who knows what it would be? But something that makes him feel like he got something in exchange for the support.

Rovner: I do wonder what the support would mean politically to have prominent anti-vaxxer. If Trump is out trying to capture swing voters, this doesn’t seem necessarily a way to appeal to suburban moms.

Kenen: Remember the vaccine commission to study vaccine safety? And it was Bobby Kennedy who came out of a meeting with Trump and said it was going to happen, that he was going to be the chair of it. The commission didn’t happen, and Bobby Kennedy didn’t chair it. So we already know that this goes back, what, eight years now. So there’s going to be a tit-for-tat. That’s politics. Whether the tat is HHS secretary, I’m skeptical. But again, I’d never say anything isn’t possible in Washington.

Rovner: If nothing else, this year has shown us that …

Kenen: I think it’s extremely unlikely.

Luthra: To your point about who Bobby Kennedy appeals to, the polls tell us that everyone who supports him, by and large, would vote for Trump if he dropped out. So I mean, that’s obviously why this would happen. It’s because it is a net gain for Trump and his calculus is probably that it would outweigh the losses he might get from having someone with a strong anti-vax bent on his side. I think that’s a pretty obvious, to me at least, gain for him rather than loss, especially given how close the race is.

Rovner: While we are on the subject of national politics and abortion, former President Trump this week said in an interview with CBS that he would not enforce the Comstock Act to basically impose a national abortion ban, reiterating that he wants to leave it to the states to decide what they want to do. Alice, it’s fair to say this did not go over very well with the anti-abortion base, right?

Ollstein: That’s right. It’s interesting. I reached out to lots of different folks in the anti-abortion movement to get their take, and I expected at least some of them to say, “Oh, Trump’s just saying that. He doesn’t really mean it. He’ll still do it anyways.” None of them said that. They all completely took him seriously and said that they were extremely upset about this. I mean, it’s also not happening in a vacuum.

They were already upset about the RNC [Republican National Convention] platform having some anti-abortion language being taken out of it. There is still some anti-abortion language in there. Folks should remember him declining to endorse a national abortion ban. Him refusing to say how he plans to vote in Florida’s referendum on abortion coming up. So this is one more thing that they’re upset about. And they told me that they think it could really cost him some votes and enthusiasm from the base.

He’s having trouble winning over these moderate swing voters. If that’s true, then he needs every vote on the more religious right/conservative wing of things. And they’re saying, look, most people are probably going to vote for him anyways because they don’t want Kamala Harris to be president. But will they volunteer? Will they tell a friend? Will they go knock on doors? Begrudgingly voting for someone versus being enthusiastic difference.

Rovner: I think it’s fair to say that it was the anti-abortion right that basically got him over the finish line in 2016 when he put out that list of potential Supreme Court nominees and signed a now-infamous letter that Marjorie Dannenfelser of the SBA [Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America] list put together. Then the anti-abortion movement put a lot of money into door-knocking and getting out the vote. And obviously, as we all remember, it was just a few thousand votes in a couple of states that made him president.

So I was a little bit surprised that he was that definitive — although as we said 14 times already this morning — he often says one thing and does another, or says one thing and says another thing later, right.

Kenen: In the same day!

Rovner: Or in the same conversation sometimes. I was interested to see Kamala Harris in her speech refer to the Comstock Act without doing it by name. I thought that was artfully done.

Ollstein: Yeah, and several other speakers did talk about it by name, which is interesting because I think earlier this year there was this attitude among Democrats and some abortion rights leaders that there should not be a lot of talk about the Comstock Act because they didn’t want to give the right ideas. But I think now it’s pretty clear that the right doesn’t need to be given ideas. They already had these ideas. And so there’s a lot more open talk about it.

And just this piece of Project 2025, along with all of the focus on Project 2025 in general, just really seemed to resonate with voters in a really unusual way. And no matter how much Trump tries to disavow it or distance himself from it, it doesn’t seem like people are convinced, because these are very close allies of Trump who worked for him, who are likely to work for him in the future, who are the authors of this.

Rovner: And who put together this whole list of people who could work in a second administration. It’s basically the second Trump term all ready to go. It’s hard to imagine where he would then find a list of people to populate his agencies if not turning to the list that was put together by Project 2025.

So Trump says, as we’ve mentioned, that he wants voters in each state to decide how to regulate abortion. And that’s pretty much what he’s getting. Since we last talked, several states have finalized abortion rights ballot questions. But some have come with a couple of twists. Alice, where are we on the state ballot measure checklist?

Ollstein: It’s been a crazy couple of weeks. So we have Arizona and Montana certified for the ballot. Those are two huge states that also have major Senate races. Arizona is a presidential swing state. Montana, arguably not. But these are states that are going to get a blitz of ads and campaign attention. I think there is an expectation that the abortion measures on the ballot will benefit the Democratic candidates.

I would caution people to be skeptical about this. We’ve done analyses of the abortion ballot measures that have been on the ballot in the past couple of years in other states, and they did not always benefit the Democratic candidates who shared the ballot. Of course, this is a presidential year. It could be totally different.

At the same time, the big news this week was that a Arkansas Supreme Court ruling means that their abortion rights ballot measure will almost certainly not be on the ballot in November. And there’s a lot of consternation about that. The dissenting justices accused the majority of making up rules out of whole cloth and treating different ballot measures differently based on the content.

So basically there was a medical marijuana ballot measure and the sponsors of it wrote a brief saying, “Hey, we made the same alleged paperwork error that the abortion rights folks are accused of making, yet ours was certified for the ballot and theirs wasn’t. What gives?” So there are accusations of the conservative officials of Arkansas making these rulings to prevent a vote on abortion rights in that state. So they could try again in 2026. They are weighing their options right now.

Rovner: So abortion issues are not just bubbling among voters and in the elections. We now have a series of lawsuits with patients accusing hospitals that deny them emergency care of violating the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. Some may remember this was also the subject of a Supreme Court case this term. For those who have forgotten, Shefali, what happened with that Supreme Court case? Where are we with EMTALA?

Luthra: Great question, Julie. We are waiting, as ever, and we will be waiting for a long time because the Supreme Court after taking up that case said, “Actually, never mind. We were wrong to take this case up now. It should go back to the lower courts and continue to progress.” And what that means is uncertainty. It does mean that EMTALA’s protections exist for now in Idaho. They do not exist in Texas, where there is a related corresponding case going through the courts as well.

But regardless, EMTALA’s protections are quite meaningful for providers compared to not having them. But they are still pretty vague and pretty limited in terms of how abortion can come up in pregnancy. And that’s why we are still seeing patients filing these complaints saying, “My rights were violated. I did not get this emergency care I needed until it was very late.” But the problem there is that: A, EMTALA is retroactive.

So these complaints only come up when people know to file them; when they have perhaps already suffered medical consequences such as losing a fallopian tube, as two women in Texas both reported experiencing. You know, serious implications for their future fertility. And the other thing that’s important to note is that complaints are one step, but enforcement is another one.

And we haven’t seen a ton of hospitals being penalized by the federal government for not giving people care in these medical emergencies. And so if you’re a hospital, the dilemma is complicated, but in some ways not. Because if you provide care for someone and you find yourself in violation of state law, that’s a felony, potentially. But if you are going against EMTALA, well, maybe it’ll be reported, maybe it won’t be. Maybe you’ll be fined or penalized by the federal government, but maybe you won’t be. And that creates a real challenge for patients in particular because they are once again caught in a situation where they need emergency medical care, and the incentives are against hospitals providing it.

Ollstein: The Biden administration has not been transparent on how many complaints have been filed, how many hospitals they’ve investigated, what measures they’ve taken to make hospitals correct their behavior, whether they’ve come into compliance or not, whether they are getting these penalties, including losing Medicare status, which is one of the most severe penalties possible.

We just don’t know. And so they say they’re making this big focus on EMTALA enforcement, but we are not really seeing the evidence of that. And the only way we even know anything is happening is when the patients themselves are choosing to disclose it, either to advocacy groups or the media.

Rovner: Or the Democratic National Convention, where we saw several of these stories. It is a continuing theme as we go forward. Well, moving on. While we were celebrating the 50th anniversary of ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] here on “What the Health?” last week — and if you did not hear that special episode, I highly recommend it — the Biden administration unveiled negotiated prices for the first 10 drugs chosen under the new authority granted by the Inflation Reduction Act.

It’s hard to tell how much better the prices that they got are because so much of the information remains proprietary. But Joanne, what’s the reaction been, both in the drug industry and larger in the political realm?

Kenen: The drug industry obviously doesn’t like it. This is only 10 drugs this year, but it’ll be more in the future. Look, I’m not so sure how well that message has gotten through yet. The Medicare drugs came under what ended up being called the Inflation Reduction Act. There’s several measures in it. There’s protection for everybody in Medicare, how much you spend on drugs in a year, it’s $2,000. That’s it. Which is a big difference from what some of the out-of-pocket vulnerabilities people had in the past.

When you look at the polls or you look at interviews with undecided voters, you wonder who’s paying attention other than us? The Democrats have wanted this for more than 20 years. Twenty years is a conservative estimate. I mean, it was part of the fight over what became the Medicare Modernization Act in 2003.

They fought for it every year. They lost every year. They finally got it through. So the idea of having Medicare negotiating drug prices is a huge victory for the Democrats. Ten drugs, not a big deal for the industry, but they know something changed. They will fight every opportunity for a lawsuit or a lobbying campaign or blocking a new regulation or the next round of negotiations.

This is going to be probably just like these annual fights we have about physician pay. This’ll be an annual fight about how much can PhRMA punch back. That would assume that a Democrat wins and that these policies don’t get rescinded. It’s a big deal. It’s not a big deal for individual pocketbooks yet, but it’s a big, big deal on the balance of power between PhRMA, which is so powerful, and the federal government, which pays for these drugs.

Rovner: I’m reminded of a sentence I wrote about the Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act, which was passed and repealed much at the behest of the drug industry because it had what would’ve been the first Medicare outpatient drug benefit ever. And I wrote, the drug industry fought this tooth and nail because they were concerned that if Medicare started covering drugs, they would want to have some say in how much they cost. That was, I think, 1989.

Kenen: Right.

Rovner: And here we are, however many years later it is.

Kenen: It’s really hard to take away a benefit, as the Republicans learned when they spent all that energy trying and failing to repeal the ACA. Once people have a benefit, it’s hard to say, “Whoops! No more.” However, that doesn’t mean there’s not fights about technical matters or how the regulations are worded or how deep discounts are or what other things they could get in exchange that make up for the losses on this.

I mean, PhRMA is really a huge lobby, hugely influential, and sympathetic in some ways because they do create a pro … — unlike something like tobacco — they do create products that saves our lives, right? And their argument, innovation, and those arguments resonate with people. But I don’t really see this turning back. I don’t think any of us can predict how PhRMA will regain some of the influence that it did lose in this battle.

It’s certainly not permanent defeat of PhRMA. I mean, PhRMA is powerful. PhRMA has allies in both parties. But this was a huge victory for the Democrats. They got something after 20-plus years.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, earlier this spring we talked at some length about the Biden administration’s Federal Trade Commission proposal to ban noncompete clauses, which in health care often applied to even the lowest-level jobs. It was supposed to take effect Sept. 4, but a federal district court judge in Texas has ruled in favor of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that the agency lacks the authority to implement such a sweeping rule.

And the appeals court there in the 5th Circuit is notoriously conservative and unlikely to overturn that lower-court decision even if Vice President Harris wins and becomes president. Are we just going to continue to see every agency effort blocked by some Trump-appointed judge in Texas? That seems to be what’s happening now.

Ollstein: I mean, I think especially with the recent Supreme Court rulings on Chevron, I think we’re just … I mean, that plus the makeup of the judiciary means that executive power is just a lot more curtailed than it used to be. Theoretically, that should apply to both parties to whoever is president, but we have seen courts be very politicized and treat different things differently. So I think that it will be a special challenge for a Democratic or progressive administration to push those policies going forward.

Rovner: And of course in Texas, as we have pointed out on many occasions, there are all these single-judge districts, where if you file in certain places you know which judge you’re going to get. I mean, it’s the ultimate in judge shopping.

Luthra: I was just thinking about [U.S. District Judge] Reed O’Connor and [U.S. District Judge] Matthew Kacsmaryk, two names that listeners know well.

Rovner: Yes, that’s right. And this was a third judge, by the way. This was neither Reed O’Connor nor Matthew Kacsmaryk in this case.

Ollstein: But a secret third thing.

Rovner: A secret, a secret third thing.

Kenen: I mean, what Alice just referred to as the Supreme Court reducing the power of the regulators, and they said Congress has to pass the laws. You’re not going to get something this sweeping through Congress. But could you end up getting bits of it written into legislation about hospital personnel or doctors or things like that? I can see nibbles added in certain fields. And also you’re going to see some of it at the state level. I’m pretty sure Maryland has passed some kind of a noncompete.

Rovner: Yeah, there are states that have their own noncompete laws.

Kenen: I think they’ll go at it piecemeal. They may not be able to do anything that huge, all noncompetes, but by profession, or sector by sector, I think they may try to keep nibbling away at it. But the effort that we saw is gone.

Rovner: I mean, just to broaden it out, obviously this was something that the Biden administration has relied on the power of the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission, something that the Biden administration has highlighted. It’s something that I think Vice President Harris is relying on going forward. So this is probably not a good sign for wanting to make policy in this way.

See, nods all around. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Tony Leys, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Tony Leys, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Tony, welcome back to “What the Health?”

Tony Leys: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: So tell us about this month’s patient: who she is, where she’s from, and what kind of medical care she got.

Leys: The patient is Jamie Holmes, who lives in Washington state. In 2019, she went to a surgical center to have her fallopian tubes tied. While she was on her anesthesia, the surgeon noticed early signs of endometriosis, a common condition in which fibrous tissue grows in and around the uterus. The surgeon took care of that secondary issue. Holmes said he later told her the whole operation was done within the allotted time for the original surgery, which was about an hour.

Rovner: As one who’s had and knows a lot of people who’ve had endometriosis, it is extremely painful and very difficult to treat. So medically, at least this story seems to have a happy ending, a doctor who was on his toes spotted an impending problem and took care of it on the spot. But then, as we say, the bill came.

Leys: The bill came. The surgery center billed her for two separate operations, $4,810 each.

Rovner: So even though she only went under anesthesia once and simply had two different things done to her at the time.

Leys: Right. And the surgery center is the place that does the support work for the operation. And there was just one operation.

Rovner: So obviously she figured this must be a mistake and complained. What happened?

Leys: She thought once she explained what really happened, they would go, “Oh,” and they would fix it. But that didn’t work. And after adjustments and the insurance payment for the one operation, they said that she still owed the surgery center $2,605, and she said, “Nope.”

Rovner: This was in 2019. So obviously things have happened since then.

Leys: Right. The bill was turned over to a collections agency, which wound up suing Holmes last year for about $3,800, including interest and fees.

Rovner: Now, to be clear, Jamie says she doesn’t object to paying extra for the extra service that she got. What she does object to is being charged as if it was two separate surgical procedures. So what happened next?

Leys: I mean, she joked that it was as if she went to a fast-food restaurant and ordered a value meal, ended up with one extra order of fries and then got charged for two full meals. The collections agency went to court. They asked for a summary judgment, which could have allowed the collection agency to garnish Holmes’ wages.

But she went to a couple of court hearings and explained her side, and the judge ruled last February that he wasn’t going to grant summary judgment to the collection agency. And if it really wanted to pursue the matter, it would have to go to trial. And she has not heard from them since then.

Rovner: Because presumably it would cost them more to go to trial than it would to collect her … however many couple of thousand dollars they say she still owes, right?

Leys: That could certainly be the explanation. We don’t know.

Rovner: So what’s a takeaway here?

Leys: The takeaway is if you get a bill that’s totally bogus, don’t necessarily pay it. Don’t be afraid to fight it. And if someone sues you, don’t be afraid to go to court and tell your side of it.

Rovner: Yeah, because I mean, that’s mostly what happens is that these collection agencies go to court, nobody shows up on the other side, and they get to start garnishing wages, right?

Leys: Exactly. That’s probably what would’ve happened here.

Rovner: She didn’t even have to hire a lawyer. She just showed up and told her side of the story.

Leys: And her take on it is she could have arranged to pay it. It’s not a huge, huge amount of money. But she just wasn’t going to do it. So she stood her ground.

Rovner: And as we pointed out, she was willing to pay for the extra order of fries. She just wasn’t willing to pay for an entire second meal that she didn’t get.

Leys: Right. I mean, she told me, “I didn’t get the extra burger and drink and a toy.”

Rovner: There we go. So basically fight back if you have a problem, and don’t be afraid to fight back.

Leys: Exactly.

Rovner: Tony Leys, thank you so much.

Leys: Thanks, Julie.

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

Ollstein: Sure. So I had an interesting piece from The Wall Street Journal by Theo Francis and Melanie Evans called “The Fight Against DEI Programs Shifts to Medical Care.” So we’ve seen this growing effort from conservative activists to go after so-called DEI [diversity, equity, and inclusion] programs, to go after affirmative action, to go after a lot of various programs in government and in the private sector that take race into account when allocating resources.

And so now this is coming to health care where you have a lot of major players. This story is about a complaint filed against the Cleveland Clinic. But throughout health care, you have efforts to say, OK, certain racial groups and other demographics have higher risk and are less likely to get treatment for various diseases. This one is about strokes, but it applies in many areas of health care. And so they have created these targeted programs to try to help those populations because they are at higher risk and have been historically marginalized and denied care. And now those efforts are coming under attack. And so it’s unclear. So this is a federal complaint, and so the federal government would have to agree with it and take action. I don’t think that’s super likely from the Biden administration to crack down on a minority health care program. But this could be yet another thing people should keep in mind regarding the stakes of the election because a conservative administration could very well take a different approach.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from The Washington Post. It is by Ariana Eunjung Cha, and the headline is “Weight-Loss Drugs Are a Hot Commodity. But Not in Low-Income Neighborhoods.” I think this is a really smart framing and it gets at something that folks have been worried about for a long time, which is that we have these revolutionary drugs like Ozempic and Wegovy. They show massive improvements for people with diabetes, for people with obesity. And they are so expensive and often not covered by Medicaid. Or if you are uninsured, you cannot get them. And what this story gets at really …

Rovner: If you’re insured, you can’t get them in a lot of cases.

Luthra: It’s true. What I love about this story is it sets us in place. It takes us to Atlanta and helps us see in the different parts of the city, based on income, on access to all sorts of other, to use the jargon, race, social determinants of health, obesity and diabetes are already very unequal diseases. They hit people differently because of access to safe places to exercise, walkable streets, affordable groceries, time to cook, all of that. And then you add on it another layer, which is this drug that can be very helpful is just out of reach for people who are already at higher risk because of systemic inequalities. The story also gets into some of the more social challenges that you might see from a drug like Ozempic. People saying, “Well, I know that rich people get that drug, but how do I know they would be giving the same thing to me? How do I know that the side effects will not be really damaging down the line because these drugs are so new?” And what it speaks to, in a way that I think we’re seeing a lot more journalism do very intelligently, is that there are going to be very real challenges — economic and cultural and social and political — to helping these drugs have the impact that they were touted as potentially able to have.

Rovner: Indeed. Joanne.

Kenen: Well, after that amazing moment with Gus Walz and his dad on the convention floor, I looked up the quick 24-hour coverage of what was going to best explain what a nonverbal learning disorder is and a little bit about who Gus Walz is. And Natalie Eilbert of The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did a nice piece [“Who Is Gus Walz and What Is a Non-Verbal Learning Disorder?”]

Nothing I read yesterday answered every question I had about this particular processing disorder, but this was a good one and it explained what kind of things kids with these kinds of issues have trouble comprehending, and also what kind of things they’re really good at. This is not a learning disability. You can be really, really smart and still have a learning disability.

There’s actually an acronym, as there always is, which is GTLD: gifted and talented and learning disabled. Much of the country responded really warmly, as we all saw, and some of the country did not. But in terms of just what is this disorder and how does it affect your ability to communicate, which is part of what it is, understanding language cues, Natalie Eilbert did a good job.

Rovner: And no matter what you can be proud of your dad, particularly when he’s just been nominated to run for vice president. All right, my extra credit this week is from The New York Times. It’s called “Hot Summer Threatens Efficacy of Mail-Order Medications.” And it’s something I’ve been thinking about for a while because packages get subjected to major extremes of temperature in both the summer and the winter.

Indeed, now we have studies that show particularly that heat can degrade the efficacy and safety of some medications. One new study that embedded data-logging thermometers in packages found that those packages spent more than two-thirds of their transit time outside the recommended temperature range.

While the FDA has very strict temperature guidelines for shipping and storing medications between manufacturers and wholesalers and pharmacies, once it leaves the pharmacy it’s apparently up to each state to regulate. Just one more unexpected consequence of climate change.

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

Luthra: I am on the former Twitter platform @shefalil.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: On X @aliceollstein.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: On X @JoanneKenen and on Threads @JoanneKenen1.

Rovner: Before we go, a quick note about our schedule. We are taking next week off. I’m going to the beach. The week after that, we’ll have a very special show from The Texas Tribune TribFest in Austin. We’ll be back with our regular panel and all the news we might’ve missed on Sept. 12. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

On September 2, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed into law the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, better known as ERISA. While the law was primarily intended to regulate and protect worker pensions, it also fundamentally changed how health insurance is provided and regulated in the United States. Fifty years on, ERISA plays a role in nearly every detail of health insurance and has had a profound impact on the entire health care sector.

To note this anniversary, in this week’s special episode of KFF Health News’ “What the Health?”, host and KFF Health News chief Washington correspondent Julie Rovner discusses the law’s past, present, and future with three experts on ERISA: Larry Levitt of KFF, a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News; Paul Fronstin of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonprofit; and Ilyse Schuman of the American Benefits Council, a trade group advocating for employers that sponsor worker benefit plans.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Happy 50th, ERISA

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Happy 50th, ERISA’ Episode Number: 360Published: Thursday, Aug. 15, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News. Usually, I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington, but today, we have a special episode for you. We’re taping this week on Monday, Aug. 12th, at 2 p.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this — although this time, I hope not. So here we go.

So if you follow health policy, you’re likely familiar with the big federal laws that have shaped how health care in the U.S. is organized and delivered and paid for. Medicare and Medicaid in 1965, HIPAA in 1996, and the Affordable Care Act in 2010, just to name a few.

One you may not have heard as much about is ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, which was signed in 1974 by then-President Gerald Ford. This fall marks 50 years since ERISA became law. ERISA, as its name suggests, is mostly about protecting pension benefits for workers. It was inspired, at least in part, by the collapse of a pension fund when a plant that built Studebaker cars in Ohio shut down in 1963. But, at least as legend has it, at the very last minute in the House-Senate Conference in 1974, someone decided to add health benefits to ERISA’s scope, and that literally changed the entirety of how health benefits are regulated in the U.S.

I am pleased to have an all-star panel here to join us to talk about what ERISA has meant to health policy and what it’s likely to mean going forward as it begins its second half-century. Larry Levitt is executive vice president for policy here at KFF and one of only a few people in the organization even nerdier than I am about things like ERISA. Paul Fronstin is director of health benefits research at the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan think tank that does research and education. Paul has also taught me more about ERISA over the years than probably any other single person.

Finally, Ilyse Schuman is senior vice president of the American Benefits Council, which represents large employers and other providers of health and retirement benefits through employer-sponsored plans. Ilyse also spent several years on Capitol Hill working on the Senate committee that oversees ERISA policy. So, a lot of knowledge here in our podcast box. Thanks for all of you for being here.

Ilyse Schuman: Thank you

Larry Levitt: Great to be here.

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. How did health benefits wind up being covered in a law that was aimed at retiree pensions?

Paul Fronstin: None of us were here or there at the time, so I think anything we know is second- or third-hand information. And like you said, the provision was inserted at the last minute, but I think there were a lot of conversations about it leading up to it being inserted at the last minute. I think a lot of it had to do with some tensions between state regulation and federal regulation, because there were self-insured health plans in existence and self-insured benefits more generally in existence before ERISA passed.

And clearly those plans wanted some federal protection regarding what they were doing, and the states wanted more regulation. And I’ve read a little bit about this over the years, and there was certainly some lobbying for and against having a provision in there to protect self-insured plans from state regulation. So the conversations were happening. It just … the language probably just didn’t make it into the legislation till the last minute.

Schuman: And I think certainly the landscape back in 1974, as Paul talked about, was that more and more states were creating, with respect to health care, their own versions of various laws. And so self-funded plans, large employers like our members — a number of them were back in existence 50 years ago, some weren’t — were finding it increasingly difficult to be able to administer their self-funded plans on a uniform basis nationwide.

So it wasn’t in the backrooms when they were actually drafting the legislation, but certainly note that the nationwide landscape in this growing patchwork of state health laws was becoming increasingly problematical for self-funded health plans.

Levitt: Yeah. I mean, this was also a period when health insurance was changing quite dramatically. I mean, before this time health insurance was pretty simple. It was called indemnity insurance, right.

You went to the doctor, you went to the hospital, you got a claim, you filed it with your insurance company, and they paid 80% of it. This was a time when PPOs [preferred provider organizations] were starting, managed care, HMOs were really just getting their start. So there was a need for much more regulation because insurance was getting more complicated.

Fronstin: Yeah. To some degree, the HMO Act of, what, 1973, right, just the year before. So HMOs were just coming on the scene, and that may have played into this as well.

Rovner: So back in 1945, when really none of us were in the room, Congress passed something called the McCarran-Ferguson Act, which was supposed to ensure that states rather than the federal government retained the authority to regulate insurance. What happened in ERISA to change that? Ilyse, I think you were already sort of referring to this. And what do we mean when we talk about ERISA preemption? That’s a phrase that people hear a lot and their eyes glaze over.

Schuman: Sure. Well, their eyes may glaze over but it really is foundational to millions of Americans and their families that are covered by employers who decide that they want to self-fund their plans. That means that they’re the ones that decide that, “Hey, we’re going to take the risk as offering these benefits instead of the carrier.”

Rovner: So they’re not actually buying insurance because …

Schuman: That’s …

Rovner: … they’re paying the bills.

Schuman: They’re doing more than just paying the bill. They’re the ones that are ultimately assuming the risks of those claims, too. And I think the value. So maybe — just to step back before we talk about what a preemption is — is what we talk about employers who decide to self-fund versus those that don’t. Admittedly, many of those that self-fund are larger employers, but again, they say that “We will take the risk of paying for the claims of our health insurance coverage instead of the carrier. But along with that, we get the flexibility and we get the ability to design and implement health coverage that we think meets the needs of our population. That’s enabled us to” — speaking again from self-funded employers — “to implement innovative designs with the assurances that they could implement those, they could administer that on a uniform basis nationwide.” So that’s really what we’re talking about. Preemption is the ability of self-funded employers to administer those benefits on a uniform basis nationwide.

And yes, getting back to McCarran-Ferguson, and if you want to talk through the sort of various layers of ERISA preemption, is there’s something called the savings clause, which is OK. So ERISA says: “First threshold level, we are going to preempt state laws.” But there’s a savings provision that says basically: “If you’re in the business of insurance, states can regulate that.” But then there’s this deemer clause — this is really nerdy now, so some of your audience may be wondering here what we’re talking about …

Rovner: I remember learning this many, many years ago.

Schuman: No. Yeah. So if you’re in law school, take note that the deemer clause means that self-funded group health plan is deemed not to be in the business of insurance; meaning that they don’t have to comply with those state insurance laws.

Levitt: And here’s where this gets really tangible for people, right? So 150 million people have insurance coverage through an employer. It’s the biggest source of health coverage. But 65% of them are in self-insured plans, like Ilyse was talking about. And those self-insured plans are exempt from state regulation.

So if a state is regulating insurance, let’s say mandating benefits, mandating coverage of IVF, mandating coverage of preventive care, mastectomies, whatever — those regulations that states are putting in place do not apply to most people with employer-sponsored insurance because they are in these self-funded plans.

Rovner: And, of course, the continuing complications that a lot of people who are in these self-funded plans don’t know it because they have an insurance card and it says Blue Cross or Aetna or whatever, because, in their case, they have an insurance card, but the insurer is not providing insurance, right?

Levitt: No, it’s remarkable. We did a survey of consumers about their experiences with health insurance. And we asked them, “What government agency do you think you would turn to with a problem with your insurance?” And literally zero people said the Department of Labor, which is the government agency that actually enforces ERISA.

Rovner: But I guess what I was asking about are third-party administrators, which I think most people have never heard of until they discover that they’re not subject to their state’s requirement.

Levitt: Absolutely. I mean, it gets really confusing, right? Because it might be that UnitedHealthcare is administering this self-funded plan, but you, as an employee in this plan, have no way of really understanding is that a self-insured plan administered by UnitedHealthcare? Or is that an insurance plan administered by UnitedHealthcare? And then there are these third-party administrators that you’ve never even heard of that are administering them for many employers.

Rovner: Paul, you wanted to add something.

Fronstin: We need to distinguish between ERISA and self-insured plans, right, because they’re not one and the same. ERISA also covers fully insured plans.

Schuman: Right.

Fronstin: So fully insured plans are regulated both by ERISA and at the state level. And then you’ve got some self-insured plans like government plans that are not covered by ERISA, right? But they’re self-insured. So it’s even more complicated than what we’re making it out to be when we talk about ERISA, preemption, and self-insurance. That’s just one aspect of ERISA.

Schuman: And I think to the point about employees not sure what covers them, what doesn’t cover them. Again, for self-funded large employers, I mean, I think most of the employees understand from their employer, from the group health plan, what the terms of the plan are, and what the benefits are. And I think in some ways, perhaps less complex than, OK, if you’re an employee working in Kentucky, you have one plan. If you’re an employee working in New York, you have another plan. And employees talking to each other and saying, “Hey, how come you have that and I don’t have this?”

So I think that the clarity or the consistency is important not just for employers who are administering the plan, but for employees understanding what the terms of the plans are. And also, two things about sort of the benefits and what’s covered. There’s a difference between a state saying, “OK, you have to cover this benefit and have to cover it in precisely this way” versus employers who say, “Look, it’s really important for our population, to be healthy and productive, to have these benefits, and so we’re going to offer this benefit. We’re just going to do it in the same way nationwide.”

And remember, ERISA, if the federal government, as it has done over the past, wants to make changes to … that are applicable to group health plans, it can amend and has amended ERISA to do that. So the market reforms, for example, in the Affordable Care Act, were applicable, and the Public Health Service Act, were sort of incorporated into ERISA. The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, for example, amended ERISA. So it’s like that’s the lever to make changes to ERISA that will be applicable to self-funded plans as well is at the federal level.

Rovner: When I was first covering Congress in the 19… late-1980s and early-1990s, you didn’t go there. If you wanted to do something about health policy, you didn’t touch ERISA. I think lawmakers were afraid of reopening it and getting into all kinds of fights. Why did that finally change?

Levitt: I mean, I think there was a growing recognition, particularly with the Affordable Care Act, that there were just some minimum thresholds that health coverage had to meet to be legitimate coverage. So if you look at what the ACA did, and as Ilyse said, those applied to all employers, all group health plans through the amendments to ERISA.

And these were things like no preexisting condition exclusions, coverage of preventive services with no patient cost sharing, no annual on lifetime limits, a cap on out-of-pocket costs. And probably the most popular provision of the ACA, coverage of dependents up to age 26. There was no way to reach everyone with insurance without amending ERISA under the Affordable Care Act.

Fronstin: Yeah. But there were examples, pre-ACA, that affected all plans, or most plans, like mental health parity we didn’t mention. Well, there’s been a couple of instances of that. And certainly the Clinton health plan tried this and didn’t succeed in the early 1990s.

Rovner: And HIPAA …

Levitt: I mean …

Rovner: … which was, I guess, the first major walk into ERISA since ERISA had been passed.

Levitt: Right. Or even COBRA. The ability to continue your insurance after you leave an employer was an amendment to ERISA.

Rovner: That’s right. And that was in 1986.

Fronstin: Yeah, and even that could be confusing because it exempts smaller employers, right. But you got the mini-COBRA laws at state level that affect some of those employers, but not every state has one.

Rovner: Yeah. And Paul, you were referring to this. We should probably talk about who’s not subject to ERISA because I don’t think anybody mentioned church plans. There’s a rule, and then there’s all these exceptions.

Fronstin: I think the two major categories are church plans, and I’m not sure we even have a good handle on how many people are covered by church plans because a lot of them tend to be small businesses, and they may not even offer coverage. And federal, state, and local government. I’m not sure if there’s another category in there that’s not covered by ERISA. I believe that the state and local governments have their own law that’s similar to ERISA, but it’s not ERISA.

Schuman: And I think when we talk about covered by ERISA, certainly it’s, What does ERISA afford? It’s not just about self-funded employers being able to offer uniform benefits nationwide. There are important protections. There are important disclosure requirements for employees, for participants that are included in there that are applicable to all ERISA plans, self-funded and insured plans, and obviously on the retirement plans, too.

But I just think it’s really important that we look to see the idea behind ERISA was that, yes, there will be this uniformity for self-funded plans. But for all ERISA plans, there are these protections and safeguards in there that are embedded in the law for the benefit of participants.

Rovner: And that’s why you used to get a phone-book-thick, “This is your plan documentation.” Now, it’s all online, and it’s all in 4-point type. But that’s where that comes from, right? At the requirement that you be told everything that your plan covers.

Schuman: Right. Correct.

Rovner: So, Larry, you kind of referred to this earlier. Self-funded ERISA plans are regulated not by the states but by the Department of Labor, which most people don’t know. And for a long time, if you were injured or someone died as a result of being denied care, the only thing that they could recover was the cost of the care that was denied. Not any damages for what happened. When did that finally change? And has it finally changed? What do you do now if you’re injured — you can’t go to your state regulatory agency?

Levitt: No, there have been some changes to that, but enforcement of ERISA is still relatively light at the administrative level compared to what state insurance departments do. And the Department of Labor just seems very far away to people compared to a state insurance department.

I think it’s really this structure of ERISA that, Julie, you said people were always resistant to amending in Congress, that has been resistant to amendment, right? I mean, this idea that states regulate insurance directly but that states cannot regulate group health plans under ERISA. And that’s had far-reaching health policy implications. So states looking to do employer mandates or anything that directly affects those group health plans, employer health plans, and that’s maybe …

Rovner: Also, states looking to do single-payer plans, right?

Levitt: Yeah. No, I mean, single-payer there might be some ways around ERISA through single-payer and taxation, but ERISA has been a barrier to state health reform efforts, for better or for worse.

Schuman: If maybe we can just step back 50 years, I think it’s … I wrote down this quote from one of the authors of ERISA, specifically on the ERISA preemption, and that was by Rep. John Dent, who was a Democrat from Pennsylvania who identified the ERISA preemption as the law’s crowning achievement.

And he said it was the crowning achievement because, without it, the legislation would not have enjoyed the support of both labor and management since it’s so fundamental for the ability of multistate employers to sponsor benefit plans to workers nationwide. So I think just kind of getting back into the minds of the drafters of ERISA, that bargain, if you will, that became ERISA preemption was really foundational to the law passing.

Rovner: And you could see why it would make sense. If you work for a national company and you get transferred from one state to another, your insurance shouldn’t change dramatically.

Schuman: Yeah. And I think fast-forward 50 years, and we’ve got, certainly, post-pandemic or after the pandemic, an increasingly mobile and remote workforce. And we have heard repeatedly about how ERISA preemption really promotes that worker mobility and the ability to work out of your house in another state or to be able to transfer from one location to another.

So think a little bit if we just see how the workforce itself has evolved, I think that ERISA preemption provision may become even more important. And I think increasingly, it’s not just large employers that find themselves — like nationwide or multistate employers — but because the workforce is more remote and mobile, and wants to be, that more and more employers of multistate employers, too.

Levitt: I would say we have increasingly seen smaller employers self-funding, and there are some advantages to that, right? They don’t necessarily have to pay premium taxes to states, and they are exempt from state benefit mandates that apply over and above beyond the Affordable Care Act. I mean, insurers have come up with very creative ways of allowing smaller businesses to self-fund and avoiding some of the risk by layering lots of reinsurance on top of that.

Fronstin: I was going to say, along with self-funding comes ease of administration here. Ilyse, you call it uniformity of benefits. But I think of employers, they don’t want to be offering 50 different health plans in 50 different states. And to the degree you’ve got the states doing something — whether it’s a single-payer or something short of that — employers, they just want to offer everyone the same benefit and make it as easy as possible to do so.

And my concern is if they had to comply with 50 different state laws to do so or create 50 different benefit plans, especially today with the ACA guaranteed issue and subsidized coverage, you’ll get to the point where if employers didn’t have the ability to provide one benefit plan across all 50 states, they’re not going to do it anymore, right? They’ve got … pre-ACA might’ve been different, but now they’ve got an alternative where their employees could get coverage if they didn’t offer coverage themselves.

Rovner: So that was all predicted. This huge movement away from employer-provided coverage after the ACA passed was predicted, and it didn’t happen.

Fronstin: I was one of those people predicting it. Yeah. Before the ACA passed, I was one of those people predicting it. And I think what happened is: One, being employers, they still value the benefit. They still understand there are business reasons to offer it, and they haven’t had a good excuse to get rid of it.

We haven’t had — other than the recession tied to covid — we haven’t had a recession. Our unemployment rate has been at historically low rates. And I think employers, they don’t want to mess with something that’s working for the most part because they use it to recruit and retain employees for the same thing they were doing back in the 1940s and ’50s when they first started offering it.

Schuman: I think it’s important to delineate the employer voice in here. And I think maybe there’s a perception that employers are just writing the checks or employers and health plans are kind of conflated. But employers are doing a lot more than just writing a check. And I think those, again, that have decided to self-fund want to be able to have control over how they’re spending their health care dollars. So again, they can try to drive more affordable, higher-value, higher-quality health care.

And so it’s not just about who writes the check, but the reasons behind employers saying, “Hey, we’re going to be spending … we spend a whole lot of money on our health benefits because we recognize that it’s good business. It’s good for employees. But we want to be able to have the ability to try to drive improvements in that to drive higher-value care.” And so that’s enabled by ERISA. So the health reforms and the health innovation, certainly there’s a lot coming from the states, but there’s a lot coming from employers, too.

Rovner: So what are the big issues going forward for ERISA? I mean, obviously, there’s still, if you Google ERISA, you get all kinds of lawsuits and challenges. And I mean, it’s still a very lively part of the law 50 years on.

Levitt: I mean, I think, Julie, you mentioned these lawsuits, and that is potentially a big issue going forward. Something called the Consolidated Appropriations Act added some transparency in fees that self-insured employer plans paid to providers. And that’s opened the door to some lawsuits challenging whether group health plans, ERISA plans, are acting as appropriate fiduciaries in trying to get the lowest costs, particularly for prescription drugs. And these started out as kind of a fringe movement, but I think pose some potential risks for group health plans.

Rovner: Ilyse, what are employers most concerned about?

Schuman: Well, I think that employers seeing the growing number of states that are trying to chip away, if not erode in a fundamental way, ERISA preemption is really alarming. A lot of these efforts have come up around pharmacy benefit managers and efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers at the state level.

But the way that they’ve done it, the states have really taken direct aim at ERISA preemption and self-funded plans and, I think, has much broader implications for self-funded group health plans beyond just the PBM context. And so I think that they’re looking at the growing number of states that are interested in passing laws that really erode ERISA preemption as very alarming.

Rovner: So I want to go around the table before we end. Sort of what do you think has been the biggest impact on the health system of ERISA, both for good and for not so good? I mean, it’s certainly one of the things that makes it so confusing to understand and explain. Larry, you want to go first?

Levitt: I think the biggest impact of ERISA has been putting the brakes on some state health reform efforts. States have found ways to get around it. Some raise some issues for employers, like Ilyse was saying, but it has really circumscribed what states can do around health reform. That said, ERISA has provided a very stable regulatory environment for employers and likely allowed employer coverage to grow over time in that environment.

Rovner: Paul?

Fronstin: Yeah, I’d say, in addition to that, it’s allowed employers to be innovative. Not every self-insured employer has been innovative, right? And there’s something like a million employers out there with a thousand or more employees. And the smaller of those are not necessarily being innovative, but they’re learning from the largest ones, right? The jumbo employers, who are trying to do different things when it comes to engaging the health system, right? Engaging hospitals and physicians and pharmaceutical managers.

And I think that that … the lessons learned from what they’re doing trickles down to the smaller self-insured employers, and it trickles out to the health insurers that are offering fully insured plans to small employers.

Rovner: Ilyse.

Schuman: I think ERISA has allowed employers to provide value-driven, comprehensive, affordable, higher-quality health coverage to working families across the country — 150 million, 180 million, guess it depends what stats you’re looking at, and that it’s withstood the test of time.

And I think that probably no stressor, like the pandemic, where many wondered what would emerge from that, and with some dents, but also with a lot of silver linings in terms of employers offering benefits to help their employees navigate through the pandemic. And so I think there’s a resiliency to the employer-sponsored system coupled with the innovation that Paul has mentioned.

Rovner: Last question. Yes or no? Is ERISA going to be around in another 50 years? In other words, are we still going to have this system of health coverage? I promise I will not hold you to it. Just best guess. Larry.

Levitt: I say no.

Rovner: Paul.

Fronstin: I answer “don’t know.”

Rovner:: That’s OK. Ilyse.

Schuman: Well, I will say that I just recently got a tortoise for my family that I’ve found will live 50 or 100 years, so beyond me. So will ERISA be around as long as Veggie, the tortoise? I don’t know.

I think that there’s really an important inflection point. And I think if addressing some of the underlying drivers of rising health care costs and consolidation, I think that if those are addressed, I think employer-provided coverage certainly has the ability to withstand the test of time over the next 50 years.

Rovner: Good. Thank you all so much. This has been great.

Schuman: Thanks a lot.

Levitt: Great. Thanks, Julie.

Schuman: Thank your team.

Levitt: Thanks all.

Schuman: Bye-bye.

Fronstin: Take care, everybody.

Levitt: Bye.

Rovner: Bye. OK, that’s our ERISA anniversary show. Big thanks to our guests, Larry Levitt of KFF, Paul Fronstin of EBRI, and Ilyse Schuman of the American Benefits Council. And before we go this week, we’re looking for your help on a project here at KFF Health News. Are you a young adult confused about navigating the exchanges used to pick plans? Have you bought a plan on an ACA exchange and found that it didn’t cover care you needed? Have you married or taken a job just to get insurance? Did you decide to go without coverage?

Whatever your story, KFF Health News and The New York Times want to hear it. Email your experience to Elisabeth Rosenthal — that’s elisabethr with an S, not a Z — @kff.org. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as usual, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org, where you can still find me. I’m @jrovner on X. We’ll be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is Vice President Kamala Harris’ choice of running mate. Walz — also a former U.S. congressman, high school teacher, and member of the National Guard — has a folksy, Midwestern affect and a liberal record. He has signed bills expanding abortion rights and medical care for transgender people as governor and represented a swing district in the House of Representatives.

Meanwhile, the number of abortions taking place in the U.S. since the overturn of Roe v. Wade continued to rise into early this year, according to a new study. That is frustrating abortion opponents, who are seeking more ways to bring the numbers down, even if it means barring pregnant women from traveling to other states.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Panelists

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Walz has been active on health issues, including capping insulin prices, codifying access to abortion and gender-affirming care, and supporting veterans’ health, as well as challenging hospital consolidation efforts. In fact, the similarities between him and Harris highlight unity among Democrats on key health issues.
• Meanwhile, the GOP vice presidential nominee, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio, said in an interview that reforming the Affordable Care Act would still be on the table if Trump were reelected, though he did not elaborate. The lack of specificity in the GOP’s plans leaves a lot unknown about what a second Trump administration would do with health policy.
• A recent report shows the number of abortions continued to rise amid restrictions. How? Telehealth is a major reason for the trend. And a separate report shows hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars have been funneled to crisis pregnancy centers since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, reflecting an effort in conservative state legislatures to steer funding to centers that discourage abortion.
• And Congress has departed for its August recess without funding the federal government, again. Those eyeing other must-pass legislation, such as extended telehealth flexibilities and pharmacy benefit manager reform, are banking on the lame-duck session after the election.

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

Julie Rovner: JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons,” by Emily Lupton Lupez; Steffie Woolhandler; David U. Himmelstein; et al.

Shefali Luthra: KFF Health News’ “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion,” by Stephanie Armour.

Sandhya Raman: The War Horse’s “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them,” by Hope Hodge Seck.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, But No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.
• Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.
• Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Turned a Questionable Artery-Screening Program Into a Gold Mine,” by Casey Ross, Lizzy Lawrence, Bob Herman, and Tara Bannow.
• The Wall Street Journal’s “The One-Hour Nurse Visits That Let Insurers Collect $15 Billion From Medicare,” by Anna Wilde Mathews, Christopher Weaver, Tom McGinty, and Mark Maremont.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Walz Record

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘The Walz Record’Episode Number: 359Published: Aug. 8, 2024

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

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

We are joined today via videoconference by Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: No interview this week, but plenty of news for a hot summer week so we will get right to it. So for the second time in three weeks, we have a new vice-presidential nominee to talk about. Newly minted Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris has chosen former congressman and current Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz to be her running mate. What do we know about Walz’s record on health care?

Raman: We know a lot. I think it’s easier to draw from his record compared to JD Vance, who was only elected for the first time in 2022. Tim Walz has had six terms in the House. He’s on his second term as governor. And from that you can see what his priorities are, how he’s drawn from his personal experience and the things that he’s been doing that are very in line with what either Biden and Harris or just Harris have done. When we had Biden, we hear a lot of talk about capping insulin costs, and that’s something that Walz signed a Minnesota bill for a few years ago. And he’s also been very active in reproductive health issues. He signed a couple abortion-related laws last year. That’s been a key focus of the Harris and Biden-Harris campaigns. He’s been active in talking about IVF and how his family has used that, also pretty in line with that.

Rovner: I love that he had a daughter using IVF, whose name is Hope.

Raman: Yeah, yeah.

Rovner: Very Midwestern.

Raman: Yes, and I think he’s also been pretty active on some of the veterans’ issues as a former member of the Army National Guard for several years. And just some of the education and health issues as a former teacher. And he signed legislation related to gender-affirming care as governor. So I think we have a pretty good idea of the types of things that he’d be interested in if they were elected.

Luthra: And I think what’s striking as well is how in line he seems to be on so many policy fronts to what we know the vice president and, frankly, what we know about the other people who were in contention for the vice-presidential nomination. And what I think that tells us is how unified a lot of the party is right now on health care and health policy issues in general. I was pretty struck by how quickly we got reactions from both pro-abortion rights groups and anti-abortion rights groups. As soon as the news came, SBA [Susan B. Anthony] Pro-Life America, one of the biggest anti-abortion groups, is quick to say this is the most pro-abortion ticket in history. They might be right.

Rovner: I was going to say it’s probably true.

Luthra: Yeah. And they could have said that about any Harris, et cetera, ticket, whether that was Walz, whether that was [Pennsylvania Gov. Josh] Shapiro, whether that was someone else from her reported list of finalists. And at the same time, what we saw from abortion rights advocates is they’re equally thrilled about this because they look at Walz as an ally. They look at the work that was done in Minnesota around getting rid of abortion bans; codifying abortion rights in the state constitution; limiting requirements like the 24-hour waiting period: That is gone in the state. And passing a shield law.

All of that underscores that he’s very in line with the vice president. I think what’s worth asking ourselves is how much does that matter when we have someone like Kamala Harris who is very interested in these issues. And in a way, we know far less about JD Vance. But whatever we could find out about him probably matters a lot more because Donald Trump has never shown much interest in health care or health policy. So if we did get a Trump-Vance ticket, it feels like there is a real possibility we’d have a lot more Vance influence in this area as opposed to Walz in a Harris-Walz administration.

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second. Just something that jumped out at me when I was researching this is that there’d been much made about the fact that Harris is the first presidential candidate who’s actually visited an abortion clinic. Well, so has Walz. So we’ve now got a presidential candidate and a vice-presidential candidate who have visited an abortion clinic. And I’m thinking even 15, 20 years ago on a Democratic ticket, how much the world has changed since the fall of Roe [v. Wade], that that never would’ve been something that anybody would’ve wanted to advertise. I think it speaks volumes as to really how big reproductive health is going to be going forward in this campaign.

Raman: They went together when they visited a clinic together in St. Paul [Minnesota] earlier. So I think that speaks to it, too, that it is a very important issue for both of them and that it is definitely going to be something the other side is going to really seize on and a point of distinction.

Rovner: Meanwhile, as Shefali alluded to, the Republicans continue to bob and weave on health care issues. Republican vice presidential nominee JD Vance told the news site Notice earlier this week that the ACA [Affordable Care Act] is indeed on the agenda for a second Trump administration, although he didn’t say exactly how. “I think we’re definitely going to have to fix the health care problem in this country,” was his exact quote. Any hints to what that might entail?

Raman: Honestly, no. I think that everything that we’ve heard so far has really just put multiple things up on the table without giving any specifics. Is the ACA repeal-and-replace still on the table? It depends on do we have a majority, do we have a minority, in Congress? And what would that even entail given that we had the whole thing in 2017 where it didn’t work out for them? And Trump has hinted back and forth and not been very clear, so we’re still not sure without more clarity from them.

Rovner: The rest of what JD Vance said was “Obamacare is still too expensive and a lot of people can’t afford it, and if they can’t afford it, they don’t get high-quality care, and we’re going to give them high-quality care.” And my thought was, that would be great. How on earth do you plan to make Obamacare less expensive and care higher quality? That seems like a rather tall order, but a great goal.

Luthra: And realistically, right? We don’t have, as Sandhya pointed out, a real record for JD Vance to look at. We do have a record for Donald Trump, but we don’t have statements of principle or value that we can really attribute to him. We don’t know what he really would do because we don’t know what he believes in. And that, I think, is why we put so much attention in the press. And why we’ve seen Democrats put so much attention on what Republican think tanks are talking about. And what the people who would staff those administrations would say. That is why something like Project 2025 merits so much scrutiny because those are the people who will be in power in institutions of government and potentially interpreting these kinds of vague sentences into actual policy that touches our lives.

Rovner: We don’t know very much of what Donald Trump really thinks about health care because he wants it that way. He wants to keep all of his options open. But one of the things that we do know is that he’s repeatedly promised not to touch Social Security or Medicare, the so-called third rails of American politics. He has specifically declined, however, to include Medicaid on that list of things that he won’t touch. And now we’re reading various proposals — as you mentioned, from Project 2025 to the Paragon Institute, which is run by a former Trump official — that are proposing various ways to scale back Medicaid, particularly federal Medicaid spending, possibly dramatically. Did they not learn from the 2017 repeal-and-replace fight that Medicaid, now that it covers like 90 million people, is kind of pretty popular?

Raman: I think that even after that, we’ve had so many times that we’ve seen in that administration trying to modify the ways that they can with Medicaid. We had the try to push for block grant proposals multiple times. We’ve had the work requirements try to come to fruition in multiple states before being struck down by the courts. And those things are still pretty popular if you look at the documents put out by a lot of these think tanks as something that could be brought up again. Including pulling back on expansion as a way that they see as really reducing federal spending, especially as they’re trying to reduce the national debt and just bring down costs in general.

Rovner: Pulling back on the federal match for expansion, more to the point.

Raman: Because Medicaid expansion is largely funded by the federal government. And so I think those are things that we could see given the history and the people that are working in those places and their connections to the former administration.

Luthra: And I do think it’s worth noting that Trump has said right now that he would not want to touch Social Security or Medicare. I think we can also put a few grains of salt, maybe some more salt, in there, because that is also what he said when he ran for president in 2016. And again, that isn’t really what he was as committed to as president. It was: What does [House Speaker] Paul Ryan want to do? What will I be willing to negotiate on? And with Trump in particular, there is such a distinction between knowing what is politically pragmatic to say in a campaign versus what is on the table as an administration, that I just think that it is incumbent on all of us to not take that with too much credibility, just in this very specific case.

Rovner: And also Social Security and Medicare sometimes need touching, saying that you’re not going to touch, leaving them on autopilot, is not a very responsible public policy. You actually do have to get under the hood occasionally and do things to these programs. But before we get to that, I want to talk a little bit more about abortion. This week, the Society of Family Planning, which is tracking the number of abortions around the U.S. in the wake of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] ruling, reported that the volume of abortions continues to increase despite complete bans in 14 states and near-bans in several others. Shefali, how is this happening? Why is the number of abortions going up? One would think it would be going down.

Luthra: I think these numbers are really striking. They show a continuation of a trend, which is largely this increase in telehealth. More people getting abortion through, in some cases, shield law provision, living in states like Texas and getting pills mailed to them from doctors in New York. Or the fact that it is simply easier to get an abortion if you live in a state with abortion protections because telehealth is much more available right now. The numbers also do show more in-clinic care because people are traveling and overcoming great distances to get abortion.

One thing that I think is really important and that the authors had noted when this came out was these go through March. And on May 1, Florida’s abortion ban took effect, and that is one of the biggest abortion bans that we have seen since the Dobbs decision. And I think it will be really interesting to see whether the trend that we have been observing for quite some time — this steady increase and, in particular, growth of telehealth and continued travel — if that remains possible and viable when you lose a state with as many clinics and as many people as Florida had had.

Rovner: I saw Stephen Miller, the Trump adviser, on TV last night talking about “There will be no national abortion ban under Donald Trump,” which is a whole other discussion. But these numbers, and continuing to go up, must be making the anti-abortion movement crazy.

Luthra: They are losing their minds. They are deeply frustrated on two levels. They’re very concerned that people are finding ways to travel. That is not something they hoped for. And they are very concerned about telehealth in particular. And what they keep saying is they want to find some kind of legal strategy to challenge the shield law provision, but they haven’t quite figured out how. There is real talk in Texas among some of the anti-abortion activists. They’re trying to see is there a way we could pass legislation in a future session to perhaps ban internet providers from showing the websites that allow you to order medication abortion.

Something like that. All of this would be fought through the courts. All of this would be heavily litigated. But it is their No. 1 priority because it is an existential threat to abortion bans. Obviously, they are waiting to see what happens in the presidential election because if you do have an administration that is willing to restrict the ability to mail mifepristone through rehabilitating the Comstock Act — not passing a national abortion ban, but using older laws on the books — then that does some of the job for them and could very significantly put a dent in or even halt this trend.

Rovner: Well, speaking of the abortion pill, we’re seeing pressure campaigns from both sides now aimed at some of the big corporations, including Costco and Walmart, that could start selling the abortion pill in their brick-and-mortar pharmacies. This is something that the Food and Drug Administration, at least, started to make easier earlier in the Biden administration. Now we have institutional investors from blue states pushing companies to carry the drug to make it more available, or else they will divest their very large stock holdings. While we have institutional investors that represent anti-abortion groups, like the American Family Association, who are threatening to divest if the companies do start selling the abortion pills, I would not like to be on the board of any one of these big corporations right now. This seems like a rather uncomfortable place for them to be.

Luthra: Yeah, and none of this is surprising. Alice Ollstein, regular contributor to this podcast, broke a really great story, gosh, a year and a half ago now, when we saw that even CVS and Walgreens, for a time, didn’t want to distribute mifepristone in states where abortion was legal, but there were threats of litigation from attorneys general. And that has changed. The story points out that we have CVS and Walgreens carrying these pills and distributing them. But a lot of people do get medication from Costco. A lot of people do get medication from Walmart. What we’ll see is that this is just another way in which the fight over abortion, which has real meaning for so many people, just continues to play out in the corporate sector. It is something that has been true since Dobbs happened. It is just another sign of how much people care about this and the money behind it and the chaotic nature of banning a procedure in some states and heavily stigmatizing it even in others.

Rovner: The ripple effect of the Dobbs decision. I really do think the Supreme Court had no great appreciation for just how far into other facets of American life this was going to spread, which it definitely is. Well, even as abortions are going up, states with abortion bans are spending increasing amounts of taxpayer money on anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers that try to talk pregnant people out of terminating their pregnancies. This is flying under the radar, I feel like. We’ve seen these crisis pregnancy centers have been around for a very long time, but what we haven’t seen is the amount of money that states are now saying, “Well see, we care about pregnant women, even though we’re banning abortion, because we’re giving all this money to these crisis pregnancy centers.”

Luthra: And I was pretty struck by just how much money we have seen states put into these centers since the Dobbs decision. The report that you highlight, Julie, found that it was almost $500 million across all these states has gone in since 2022. That’s almost half a billion dollars going into these centers. And you’re right that they do fly, in some ways, under the radar. And part of that is because it is very hard to know how they spend that money. They have very, very little accountability built in place. They are not regulated the way that health care systems are. That also means if you’re a patient and you go there for seeking health care, you are not protected by HIPAA necessarily. And you often will get “care” that can be inaccurate or misleading because, fundamentally, these institutions exist to try and deter people from getting abortions, from … staying pregnant and having children.

I do think that we will see more and more of this happen, and in some ways Republicans have been very overt about that. This was the focus of the March for Life. We saw a bunch of bills in Congress that Republicans put forth talking very specifically about federal funding for anti-abortion centers. This was the biggest trend we saw in statehouses this year when it came to abortion, was passing bills that would add more funding to anti-abortion centers. It’s one area where they feel like the political consequences are far less than bans because bans are unpopular and people don’t fully understand and know what these are. And so they’re not going to get as upset with you when they hear, “Oh, you put more money into these places that are supposed to help pregnant people.” Even though the reality is we don’t actually have any metrics or data that show that they do, and we do have a lot of journalism that shows that they mislead people.

Rovner: Yeah. I will put the link back to the good investigation that ProPublica did that we talked about a couple of weeks ago about how all the money in Texas is impossible to track, basically. All right, well, the Senate last week followed the House’s lead and recessed until early September, which leaves them just a few legislative days when they get back to either finish up all 12 of the regular spending bills — spoiler, that is not going to happen — or else pass some sort-of continuing resolution to keep the government open after the Oct. 1 start of fiscal 2025. Sandhya, they went into this — we’ve said this before — with so much optimism from the Republicans: “We’re going to get these all done before Oct. 1.” Where are we?

Raman: So, at this point, we’ve gotten some work done, but it’s very unlikely we would have things done before the end of September. So the House was on track initially to vote on the House floor on their Labor HHS [Health and Human Services] spending bill, but it got derailed after there were some issues with another bill, the energy-water bill, and after they’d fallen short on their legislative branch spending bill, they recessed early.

Rovner: We should point out that while “Labor-H” is always hard to pass, those other ones tend not to be … those are ones that usually go through.

Raman: Yeah, Labor H generally is done near the end of the whole slate just because it is notoriously one of the trickier ones to get all the agreement on. And it is the biggest nondefense spending bill. So it takes longer, and so less far along on the progress with that, and we’re in August recess, both chambers are out. We won’t see any progress until September. Before the Senate left, they did advance their spending bill on the committee level. That went a lot differently than the House’s markup. So we had three people opposed, but everyone else was pretty much in agreement. A lot less eventful. It wasn’t focused on amendment debate and it was bipartisan, which is a big thing.

So we will see it when they come back, if they gravitate a little bit more towards this, if they’re shifting a little bit in between the two bills. But I think another thing to keep in mind is they have so little time this year to get so much done. They have so much recess this year for the election that it really puts a crunch on their timeline. And then there are certain people advocating that if this person wins, if that person wins, should we do a shorter-term plan spending bill so that we can get our priorities in if this party’s in control, this party has more control. So it’s a difficult situation.

Rovner: Yeah. Here we are basically heading into the home stretch for the spending bills with a gigantic question mark. As usual. Every year they say, “This won’t happen next year.” Every year this happens next year. Well, meanwhile, this is our midyear reminder that Congress also has to pass a bunch of other bills to do things like preventing some pretty big cuts to Medicare physician pay, to keep community health centers and safety-net hospitals up and running, and they have to do all this by the end of the year. I assume we’re still looking at a postelection, lame-duck session to try to wrap everything together.

Raman: I think that’s what we’re looking at. The big priority is going to be to get the government funded. And I think. as with previous years, will we get some of these other things tacked onto there? Will we get extension of telehealth flexibilities or some of the PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform or some of the other things that we’ve been discussing at the committee level and hoping to get across the finish line? But it’s really difficult, I think, to get some of those things done until we have this broader package. And I think it’s important that some of the times when we get the broader package, it can help pay for other of the programs that we’ve been considering at the committee level.

Rovner: That was just what I was going to say. The PBM reform, in particular, saves money. Gee, you can prevent the physician pay cut and fund community health centers.

Raman: Yeah. So I think a lot of it will depend on how quickly they’re able to get to an agreement. And if you look at the differences between the House and the Senate bills, it’s billions of dollars. I think just on health spending, it was like almost a $16 billion difference in the top line number between the bills. So getting to some sort of middle ground is going to take some time to get there.

Rovner: Well, before we leave the Hill for the rest of the summer, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, where Democrats and Republicans have not always seen eye to eye under Chairman Bernie Sanders, actually came together last month to open an investigation into, and issue a subpoena to, the CEO of Steward Health Care. You may remember we talked about Steward back in May. It’s a Dallas-based, physician-owned hospital group that was sold to a private equity firm, which promptly sold the real estate the hospitals were sitting on, forcing them to then pay rent. Then the private equity group basically cashed out. And now the hospitals are floundering financially, which is threatening patient care in several states. This is the first time the committee has issued a subpoena since 1981. I did not know that before this week. And it’s kind of a big deal. This is the first, I think, I feel like, big investigation, at least among this committee, about the consequences of private equity in health care.

Raman: Yeah, I would say that, and especially because this is bipartisan. And I think there have been so many bipartisan issues over the past couple of years that it has been difficult to get the chairman and the ranking member to see eye to eye on or to prioritize in the same order. And so I really do think it is a big deal to be able to issue that subpoena and have the CEO come in in September.

Rovner: Yeah, this will be interesting. [Sen.] Bernie Sanders made a big point of dragging up some of the drug company CEOs who said pretty much what we expected them to say. But this is a little bit of a different situation and there’s a bunch of senators from both parties who have hospitals in their states that are now being threatened by the bankruptcy of Steward Health Care, so we’ll see how that goes. Speaking of profiteering in health care, we have two really excellent stories this week on pretty much the same subject: Stat News as part of its continuing investigation into the way UnitedHealthcare is squeezing extra money out of the Medicare program, particularly the Medicare Advantage program, has a piece on the use of a questionable test that’s used to diagnose peripheral artery disease, which can dramatically increase the Medicare Advantage payment for a patient who has it, just kind of coincidentally.

Along similar lines, The Wall Street Journal has a story looking at how not just United, but other major Medicare Advantage insurers, including Humana and Aetna, are using the same test, often provided during a “free home visit” by a nurse practitioner, and scoring those very same extra Medicare Advantage payments. Now, I’m old enough to remember when the biggest knock on Medicare Advantage was that, because it had fixed payments, it gave insurers an incentive to skimp on care. So we had lots of patients who couldn’t get care that they needed. Now that the payments are risk-adjusted, there’s an incentive for insurers to give too much care, or at least to suggest that patients need more care than they do; like that maybe they have peripheral artery disease when they don’t, really. Are there any suggestions floating around how to fix this? Shefali, you were alluding to this, that Medicare Advantage, in particular, can be a little bit of a sinkhole for federal funds.

Luthra: I think this is something that we have struggled with for a long time, right. And I think I was always thrilled to see a Bob Herman byline and we get another one on this Stat story. And one thing that he has written about so compellingly is that the sheer power that health care providers have. And I think we just can’t really ignore the role that they play then in being able to get all of this federal money into their system for things that we don’t necessarily need. And that’s not an easy thing to address politically because people like their hospitals. And even when you hear from lawmakers who want to talk about better regulation of hospitals, they really only talk about for-profit hospitals. Even though if you were to go to a for-profit or not-for-profit, you might see some similarities in how they approach what they bill for. And this is something that we haven’t figured out a good solution to because of how our politics work. But I’m really grateful that we get more reporting like this that helps remind us just how skewed the incentives are in our system.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to blame them. These are for-profit companies that have shareholders, and their job is to figure out how to make money for their shareholders. And they do it extremely well. But the money that they’re making is coming from U.S. taxpayers, and there are patients who are caught in the middle. It’s been a thorny issue. This has been what we’ve been fighting about with Medicare for Medicare’s entire 59 years of its existence. So that will continue while we try to figure out everything else, like making this year’s budget work. Finally this week, we reported in July how Michael Bloomberg gave his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, another billion dollars that will, among other things, eliminate medical school tuition for most of its student body. We pointed out at the time that the schools that have gone tuition-free have not actually succeeded either in getting more students to go into primary care.

There’s the concern that if you have a lot of debt, you’re going to want to go into a specialty to pay it off. Nor has it enabled more students of color to become doctors. So now Bloomberg is making his philanthropy a little bit more direct. He’s giving a combined $600 million to the four historically Black colleges and universities that have their own medical schools, including Howard [University] here in D.C., in hopes of more directly addressing equity issues that go along with patients not being able to get culturally sensitive care. HBCUs educate the vast majority of the nation’s Black doctors, so is this finally a step in the right direction with the medical education and health equity?

Raman: I would argue it is. Like you said, if you look at the data, the American Association of Medical Colleges [Association of American Medical Colleges] said half of Black doctors graduate from one of these schools. And that could really increase some of the uptake of preventative care and trust in medicine in the Black community who, I think they’ve done some polling, that are more comfortable a lot of times with other Black doctors. And I think that another point was the money is also starting another medical school to increase that pipeline as well. And that is another big thing where it’s broadening the pipeline, but also just really feeding into these goals, should be big over time.

Rovner: A continuing effort, I think there. All right, well, that is the news for this week. It’s time for our extra-credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sandhya, you got yours picked first this week. Why don’t you tell us about your extra credit?

Raman: So I chose, “‘I Had a Body Part Repossessed’: Post-9/11 Amputee Vets Say VA Care Is Failing Them.” And it’s by Hope Hodge Seck at The War Horse. And it is just a really excellent piece looking at some of the concerns that amputee vets have been having and what the shortcomings are in the care from the VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs], not having bills paid for some of the prosthetics or just delays in receiving them. And one interesting issue that was brought up there is that VA care for post-9/11 amputee veterans doesn’t take into account some of the needs for that population. They’re very different from maybe the needs of senior veterans. And it goes into more about how Capitol Hill is hearing some of these concerns. But read the story and learn more.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: This is from KFF Health News. It is by Stephanie Armour. It is on a topic we discussed earlier on this podcast. The headline is “Inside Project 2025: Former Trump Official Outlines Hard Right Turn Against Abortion.” And what I love about this piece is it does a great job going into detail about the reproductive health ideas and agenda that is outlined in Project 2025. But I also really love that it ties that to the people who are involved in Trump World. Right? And it talks about who are the people who wrote this. Roger Severino, obviously a huge name, very anti-abortion, was involved in Trump’s HHS when he was president last time, and …

Rovner: Did the Office for Civil Rights.

Luthra: Exactly, which has huge implications for abortion policy and reproductive health policy. And I think that Stephanie does a really great job of getting into the political back and forth that has emerged over Project 2025, in which Trump himself has tried to distance himself from the document, from what it outlines and what it says. But that doesn’t really stand up to scrutiny when we look at the authors because it is largely people who have worked for Trump, have advised him, and are likely to have influential roles coming forward. There’s also some ties between JD Vance and the folks at [The] Heritage [Foundation] and Project 2025 that really solidifies the notion that this is something that could be very influential in dictating what our country would look like under a Trump-Vance presidency. And I appreciate Stephanie’s work in clarifying what it says.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. Well, my extra credit this week is a study in JAMA Internal Medicine. It’s from the Cambridge [Health] Alliance at Harvard and is called “Health, Access to Care, and Financial Barriers to Care Among People Incarcerated in US Prisons.” And it looks at something that I didn’t even know existed: copays required in prisons for prison inmates in order to obtain medical care. The study found, not surprisingly, that copays can be equal to more than a week’s wage for some inmates, who often make just pennies an hour for the work that they do behind bars. And that many inmates end up going without needed care because they can’t afford said copays.

It’s pretty eye-opening and I hope it gets some attention. OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions; we’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: @shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The change at the top of the likely Democratic presidential ticket is prompting both abortion rights and anti-abortion organizations to recalibrate their campaigns, even as they fight over finalizing fall ballot proposals in many states.

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump’s campaign is trying to distance itself from “Project 2025,” the controversial plan reportedly designed for the next GOP administration and put together by the conservative Heritage Foundation and former Trump administration officials. Although the head of the project’s policy arm was pushed out this week, the part of the project creating a database of Trump loyalists to staff a potential new administration remains up and running.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Vice President Kamala Harris is promising to “restore reproductive freedom” if elected president; her campaign says that means restoring the constitutional right to an abortion under Roe v. Wade. Despite that goal having slim prospects in Congress, some abortion rights supporters are hoping the federal government would expand abortion access even beyond Roe under her presidency.
• President Joe Biden this week recommended a sweeping overhaul of the Supreme Court, including term limits for justices. Famously an institutionalist, Biden stopped short of embracing the progressive call to add more justices to the high court. Nonetheless, his proposal has been considered politically dangerous, even as the conservative-tilted court has overturned its own precedents and shrugged at its ethics policies — and shifts in the national conversation about the court could have a long-term effect.
• The Trump campaign’s attempts to distance itself from the controversial ideas of Heritage’s Project 2025 are more savvy marketing than anything: Even without adopting the document, the conservative policy personnel behind it could well become the conservative policy personnel of a second Trump administration.
• GOP state officials and anti-abortion groups are launching their next attempts to block potential abortion rights victories at the ballot box. The next few weeks will reveal whether voters in certain influential states — like Arizona and Florida — weigh in on abortion this fall.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment about a preauthorized surgery that generated a six-figure bill.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Online Portals Deliver Scary Health News Before Doctors Can Weigh In,” by Fenit Nirappil.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “A Lab Test That Experts Liken to a Witch Trial Is Helping Send Women to Prison for Murder,” by Duaa Eldeib.  

Lauren Weber: The Tributary’s “Testimony: Florida Wrongly Cut People From Medicaid Due to ‘Computer Error,’ Bad Data,” by Charlie McGee.  

Sarah Karlin-Smith: KFF Health News’ “Why Many Nonprofit (Wink, Wink) Hospitals Are Rolling in Money,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal; and The Hollywood Reporter’s “New York’s Largest Hospital System Is Setting Its Sights on the Entertainment Business,” by Alex Weprin. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

Politico’s “States Break Out New Tactics To Thwart Abortion Ballot Measures,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Abortion Heats Up Presidential Race 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘Abortion Heats Up Presidential Race’Episode Number: 358Published: Aug. 1, 2024

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

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Aug. 1, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might change by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Lauren Weber, of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

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

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about a woman who had a cochlear implant surgery that was preapproved by her insurer, but still, and say it with me, got an enormous bill anyway. But first, this week’s news.

We’re going to start this week with presidential politics, because I think everyone, or at least me, is still kind of processing the idea that the race is no longer Biden versus Trump, but Harris versus Trump. One thing we have already seen from Vice President [Kamala] Harris is a new focus on reproductive rights. As we mentioned last week, Iowa’s six-week abortion ban took effect this past Monday, making it the 22nd state to impose what the vice president is now calling a “Trump abortion ban,” referring to total bans as well as restrictions that wouldn’t have been allowed under Roe [v. Wade]. Alice, how are abortion rights groups refocusing themselves now that Harris, rather than Biden, is at the top of the ticket?

Ollstein: Well, in one sense, a lot has changed, and in another sense, nothing has changed. I mean, these groups were already holding events with Harris around the country. They stressed that when they endorsed Biden, they also endorsed Harris. They endorsed the ticket, and so it wasn’t a surprise or much of an internal discussion to decide to come out strong and endorse. What’s been sort of interesting for me is the politics and the messaging versus the policy on this front. So these activist groups were really excited about Harris and were saying that they’re confident that she’s going to both campaign and govern more aggressively in favor of abortion rights. And we haven’t really seen concrete signs that that’s the case. We wrote about how she was giving these speeches in her first week as the candidate at the top of the ticket, saying, “I’m going to restore reproductive freedom.” And she kept saying that over and over. And I saw that that became a Rorschach test for a lot of people. And some people said, “Oh, that is code for she’s going to go beyond Roe v. Wade.”

I saw a lot of projection on that front. But when we got the campaign to confirm, they said, “No, she means Roe v. Wade.” So she’s endorsing the exact same policy that Biden was endorsing, which a lot of abortion rights groups say is not good enough. They point out that many people were denied abortions under Roe v. Wade. States could impose all these restrictions, they could have bans on abortions later in pregnancy, they could have restrictions throughout pregnancy, they put clinics out of business, etc. And so the hopes that she would really advocate for going beyond restoring Roe v. Wade have sort of fizzled. Although there’s also a divide between sort of the big mainstream groups and the smaller, scrappier, more sort-of-militant progressive groups.

Rovner: It’s kind of the mirror image of what’s going on on the anti-abortion side.

Ollstein: Absolutely, absolutely. You have hard-liners and then you have more politically pragmatic, “Let’s just get done what we can get done.” And a lot of this conversation is theoretical because the likelihood of a Congress willing to pass either restoring Roe v. Wade, or going further, is very slim. What the administration could do on the executive front is also curtailed by recent Supreme Court opinions on Chevron. So, some of this is theoretical. It’s not totally clear to me what Kamala Harris would do on abortion rights that Biden has not already done. And it seems that a lot of this race is pledging to stop Donald Trump from undoing those things and imposing restrictions.

Rovner: So it looks like another issue that Harris is appearing to be highlighting is medical debt, something she’s been working on as vice president. The federal government this week approved a novel program out of North Carolina that would raise Medicaid rates for hospitals that forgive patient medical debt, as well as automatically enroll eligible low-income patients in financial assistance programs.

Now, there was a study a couple of months back that showed that forgiving medical debt after it’s gone to collections doesn’t actually help people all that much. Their credit rating is still a mess, and they still can’t afford a lot of things. What does seem to help is preventing those debts in the first place. So is this project — which includes some of these things like enrolling people automatically in assistance programs — maybe the beginning of an effort to address this debt further upstream?

Weber: I think, theoretically, it’s the beginning of an effort, but if you read the fine print, none of the hospitals have signed on yet, from what I understand. So, when you’ve got the hospital association saying, “Oh, we’re working on it,” but no one signed on, I don’t know that you have a deal yet. I mean, that remains to be seen. Obviously, this is something that they’re really hoping to get done. But if you don’t have hospital buy-in — which is the major player here — and the hospitals in lobbyists-speak are saying things like, “We think the insurers and other parts of the health care system should be involved,” I’m just hesitant to comment on the longevity of this project before these people actually sign on the dotted line.

Rovner: And it’s important to remember that hospitals are supposed to be doing this anyway. Nonprofit hospitals, at least, are supposed to be doing this anyway. That’s one of the things that they keep their nonprofit status for. And yet we have seen, obviously, rather painfully, over particularly more in this last decade or so, that that’s just not happening. And people are ending up with these big bills, and they’re being sent to collections, and their credit ratings are being ruined, and makes it harder for them to find a place to live, or in some cases get a job. I mean, this spin-out from unpaid medical debt is not great, and affects many other parts of people’s lives.

OK, well meanwhile, President Biden, who is still president for another five and a half months, this week proposed a pretty sweeping overhaul of the Supreme Court, including term limits and enforceable ethics requirements. This obviously isn’t going to happen while he’s still in office, but it lays down a marker going forward for Democrats. I know President Biden was very resistant to calls for major Supreme Court change earlier in his term. I guess some of the scandals that we’ve been hearing about with some of these Supreme Court justices have perhaps made him soften a little bit towards doing something.

Ollstein: I mean, this has kind of bubbled up for a while, and you’ve slowly seen more members of Congress endorsing these kinds of reforms. Biden has, he’s famously an institutionalist. He was resistant to calling for the end of the Senate filibuster. He was resistant to some of these big reforms. He sort of convened committees to study the issue and sort of kick it down the road a bit. But I think in the context of some of this was starting to be announced when he was attempting to save his own presidential candidacy and was shoring up support from progressives on that front. But there is not a Congress, and there is not likely to be a Congress, willing to pass these reforms. And so I think the shift in conversation is still important. And I think some of these reforms that were once considered crazy, fringe ideas are now being taken more seriously by top-level folks. Still, obviously a long way to go. But like you said, all of the scandals around ethics at the Supreme Court have really highlighted and brought this to the fore.

Karlin-Smith: It does seem notable to me that even though he did sort of tease this a little bit as he was still trying to save his campaign, he really didn’t lean into it until he was in this lame-duck period. And that gives you that sense of, it felt politically dangerous a bit to go this far, and gives you a sense of where we are on it. And that he has not brought up what I think some people on the left would like Democrats to think about, which is adding more justices to the Supreme Court, which could be something that I think might have a bigger impact. And there is some justification for that given that the expansion of the circuit court system and so forth over the years. So I think those are two big markers for me that give a sense of, there’s progress in this area, but for people that really want to see major reform, we’re a long way off from that.

Rovner: Yeah. It bears noting that the way that the term-limit proposal is structured, every president would get two appointments, because it would be 18 years and they would be staggered. So you wouldn’t have sort of the odd situation we’re in now, where Democrats have been in the presidency, in the nominating form, for more years than Republicans, and yet there’s now a 6 to 3, basically Republican-appointed majority, on the court. But as Alice says, I don’t think anybody thinks this is going to happen. Somewhat like medical debt, this is going to be a political talking point for this fall.

So, in Republican political news, the head of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 resigned this week, as top staff at the Trump campaign tried to distance their candidate from some of the really-out-there proposals in the 900-page blueprint for the next Republican administration. But while the policy part of Project 2025 may or may not be winding down, we’ve heard differing ideas about the personnel part of the project. The presidential personnel database, which is arguably even more important, remains up and running. Trump has said he wants to remove civil service protections from tens of thousands of federal workers and replace them with people loyal to him and his agenda. And Project 2025 is presumably going to have those people ready, and waiting, and vetted. Sarah, just as an example, what could this mean in an agency like the FDA [Food and Drug Administration]?

Karlin-Smith: The FDA has a pretty small amount of political appointees and so forth, but it could kind of impact tenure of people higher up in senior positions and their ability to stay in them. And even if it doesn’t impact, even if the Trump administration didn’t necessarily go after them directly, I have heard reports from people that suggest it might initiate a series of people leaving, and then trickle-down effect there. And it really makes career positions a lot less secure, in part because it could give a lot of ammunition to basically move people around to jobs they don’t want to be in, or don’t like.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean we saw this during the Trump administration, just with the Trump administration picked up the Bureau of Land Management, moved it to Colorado, and a lot of people quit their jobs. There was, I think a piece of the Ag[riculture] Department that they moved to Kansas City. And civil servants — we’re not talking about these top political appointees — civil servants have wives and spouses, and kids in school, and it’s hard for them to just sort of up and say, “I’m going to move to another part of the country,” without really very much warning.

Weber: If anybody’s wondering, they should probably pick up Michael Lewis’ The Fifth Risk. I would highly recommend it as a very interesting book that gets at what happens if you eliminate career federal employees that you have no idea how important their job is because they operate in the background. So, it’s really helpful background. I just wanted to also add, I think we have to read aloud what the Trump campaign said about Project 2025, which is reports of Project 2025’s demise would be greatly welcomed and serve as notice to anyone or any group trying to misrepresent their influence of President Trump in his campaign: it will not end well with you. Which I found to be just a particularly savvy bit of marketing. Because I mean, the president, former President Trump, has made it very clear that he’s not going to give positions on things that he thinks could cost him votes, which is what I think this statement is from. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s not going to take Project 2025’s guidebook by letter and key. I find this messaging moment to be very interesting.

Rovner: The people who wrote Project 2025 are people who are currently loyal to President Trump. Many of them are former Trump appointees, or people who worked for Trump. Basically what this is is a much more sophisticated preparation for if he gets back into office than he had in 2016 when he famously said he didn’t think he was going to win. And it took them months, and in some cases years, to actually get people into the administration.

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s become this interesting double-edged sword. Because like you said, when he was elected in 2016, they were clearly unprepared. And when they attempted to do all of these rule changes at federal agencies, a lot of them got blocked in court. They weren’t really ready for prime time. And so this was an attempt to have all of the groundwork laid, so that they could have this sort of blitz to remake federal law as soon as they entered office and have the loyal personnel ready to execute it. But it’s now backfiring politically, and Trump has always sort of been sensitive to portrayal of any group or person being the ideas generator and not himself. I’m thinking of “No puppet” from … if people remember that.

So any sort of portrayal of him as the mouthpiece or the puppet of some other group has always really sort of triggered him. And so you see him lashing out now and saying, “I have nothing to do with this group.” Even though, like you said, this group has lots and lots and lots of ties to him. And the repeated disavowals show that this is a sensitive point for them. But like Lauren said, there’s no sign this is stopping or severing ties to them in the future.

Rovner: And of course, Trump rather famously wants to preserve his ability to say different things to different audiences at different times. Sometimes he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. In fact, frequently he contradicts himself in the same paragraph. He’s thinking aloud, that’s sort of his thing. So he can pretend to be all things to all people. And having things written down, like Project 2025, sort of hamper his ability to do that. I think we all agree that the fact that this guy stepped down does not mean that this is not going to be what’s very much the plan for the administration, assuming he gets back into office.

Well, speaking of former President Trump, on Wednesday he took the stage at the National Association of Black Journalists conference in Chicago. And let us say, it was not very pretty. On abortion, he repeated his false claim that Democrats support abortion in the ninth month and even after birth. That’s murder, people. And he tried to make it clear that the issue is now successfully back to the states to decide, which is what he said he wanted. But Alice, you have a story this week about how anti-abortion forces in several different states are working hard to keep voters from getting to express their views on abortion-related ballot questions. So, what’s sort of the rundown here?

Ollstein: We’ve seen the states that are working to put this on the ballot. They’ve already overcome several waves of lawsuits and attempts by state legislatures to pass new rules, making the ballot initiative process more difficult. And so now we’re nearing the deadline, and we’re seeing a new blitz of efforts, both from Republican state officials and outside anti-abortion groups, to keep these off the ballot, or sort of put a thumb on the scale in terms of inserting wording that is favorable to the anti-abortion side. Inserting cost estimates saying, “Oh, if this passes, it’ll cost the state so much in litigation.” That’s happening in Florida.

And so I think the next few weeks, the certification deadlines, a lot of them are in late August so the next few weeks will be really crucial to see if these will or will not get on the ballot. In certain states, they could also have ripple effects on other political races by spurring higher turnout potentially. You see Democrats hoping that’s the case. But we’re seeing things are not yet settled in a lot of really major states — Arizona, Missouri, Montana, South Dakota, Florida — so wanting to keep a close eye on these fights. Obviously, all of the ones that have happened so far over the past two years have been victories for the pro-abortion-rights side. And knowing that, and anticipating that will continue, you see anti-abortion forces really mobilizing to make sure these votes don’t happen in the first place.

Weber: And as you pointed out, I mean, this is obviously important because this is a turnout election, especially now with the new Harris-Trump dynamic. And so all of these battles that are down-ticket have so much more emphasis now with what we’re looking at, especially as new poll results show this election could be pretty tight. We’ll still see. Obviously, there’s still a lot of adjustment to be done. But I think these battles that Alice reported on are so critical, because they have so much more reverberation than even just the abortion reverberation, but in the possible turnout that could drive other factors.

Rovner: In some of these very swingy states, too. Well, one final interesting piece of news on the reproductive health front this week. A patient in Kansas is suing the University of Kansas Health System for denying her an emergency abortion in 2022 in violation of the federal EMTALA law, the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act. This appears to be the first such lawsuit of its type, and the patient is seeking not just financial compensation — her water broke early and she ended up having to go to another state — but she wants the hospital to admit that it violated both federal and Kansas law so that this doesn’t happen to anybody else. Do we expect to see more of these kinds of actions? And somebody remind us what EMTALA does and doesn’t do, and how the fight over this is still live because Supreme Court decide the case out of Idaho anyway.

Ollstein: Yeah. So we have seen some other patients sue over being turned away from hospitals. But what I think is really interesting is that the Biden administration pledged really aggressive enforcement of EMTALA. But yet you’re not seeing this lawsuit come from the administration, you’re seeing it come from a patient, an outside advocacy group. So I think that’s really notable. Maybe the Biden administration is doing more behind the scenes that we don’t know about. I’ve tried to ask them and they have not said. Like you said, the Supreme Court punted on this issue of the intersection between federal patient protections under EMTALA and state abortion bans and where to draw the line. And which one takes precedence when they’re in conflict, or whether they’re in conflict, is also up for debate.

So we could see more of this, but we’ve also seen over the past two years that a lot of patients don’t want to put themselves out there like this and become a public figure in the face of a lawsuit for very understandable reasons in this really painful moment. And so I think that’s why you see groups wanting the administration to do more on the front end to prevent this from happening, rather than patients having to take this on after it happens to them in a devastating way.

Rovner: I have also talked to people in the administration who have suggested to me that they are in fact doing more on this. Although Alice, as you say, we haven’t really seen it publicly. But I mean, I had somebody approach me to make it known that this is something that they are extremely concerned about. There is some reporting out this week from my former colleague, Joan Biskupic, who covers the Supreme Court for CNN, about speculation about that Idaho case was exactly correct. They took the case and they didn’t decide it. They sent it back to the lower court, because they had split 3-3-3. That the liberals wanted to dismiss the case entirely. The three hard-line conservatives wanted to find that Idaho did not have to provide abortions in emergency cases unless the life, rather than both the life and the health, were threatened. And that Chief Justice [John] Roberts and Justice [Brett] Kavanaugh and [Justice] Amy Coney Barrett were concerned and were stuck in the middle.

And the deal that they struck was to put back the stay that had kept the Iowa law from taking effect, but send it back to the lower court, which, of course, is what they ended up doing. So, as we said at the time, this case continues to go on. There is still not sort of a judicial decision about the situations in which hospitals have to provide emergency abortions for people in these cases that are health-threatening, and/or life-threatening, but not imminently life-threatening, which is what we’ve been seeing. So this is obviously something that’s going to continue.

All right, moving on. Medicare and Medicaid turned 59 this week, making the program almost old enough to qualify for benefits. And as of today, we are exactly a month away from the first 10 negotiated drug prices being officially unveiled. Sarah, what are you hearing about how this is going? I think there was another court case this week that pharma lost. So I mean, this is definitely going forward, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. Novo Nordisk joined the slew of losses for the industry here. There are appeals, but I don’t think anybody is expecting anything to change the dynamic leading up to the announcements around this first set of drugs. The thing to remember is, and a number of the pharma companies that have drugs impacted have been speaking about the dynamics on their financial earnings calls, which just sort of are happening around now for this quarter of the year, and have kind of made some suggestions that have gone headlines like, “Oh, it’s not so bad, it’s fine.” But there’s sort of these caveats that, like, “We still hate the law!” And it’s still problematic. And I think it’s important to kind of understand the dynamics here. So one thing is this first set of drugs that’s going for negotiations are older drugs, just based on the way the law was written. The things around the money, and how long they have to be on the market. When you start a program like this, the first drugs are going to be older. So they’ve been on the market longer than drugs that’ll come up as part of the program in the past. A lot of them have competition, brand competition, are actually in some ways competitors to each other. So there’s a sense that Medicare Part D private plans are already getting pretty significant discounts through that private process.

So I think there’s not a ton of optimism in some ways that the government can do much better. And it’s going to be very hard to figure out whether they did or didn’t. Again, because so much of this is not transparent, right? We don’t actually know. Every Part D plan is going to have different discounts. And even one of the things that’s said is could we look at what other countries are paying compared to what the government gets. Well, even when many of these country systems negotiate discounts, we have a sense they’re getting better discounts than the U.S., but we don’t actually know what they are. So lack of transparency makes it hard.

So, it’s going to be a little bit of, I think, like this thing where the headlines are going to be a bit confusing for people to parse. That doesn’t mean that there may not be savings for taxpayers. There may not be savings for some consumers when they get their copay. But I think we’re going to have to wait and see later on as this law progresses what happens when drugs actually get thrown into the mix earlier on in their life cycle, and when we get what are known as Medicare Part B drugs, which are the drugs that you get at a doctor’s office administered to you, like say, an expensive chemotherapy or something. With those drugs, there really is no negotiation system going on now in the private sector, the government just pays a set formula that people say inflates the cost of drugs.

So, it’s going to be interesting to watch. Democrats are certainly going to highlight this. There’s some thought process they’ll actually try and time the government announcements to the Democratic [National] Convention. But I think it’s going to be really hard for people initially to make clear claims as to whether this is a success or a failure. And certainly industry is going to keep going after the law, particularly on the idea that just even this threat of government negotiation down the line impacts the amount of money and investment that goes into new innovation and treatments for people down the road.

Rovner: Well, I mean, obviously this was sort of a big deal for the administration. So one would think that they would want to have a chance. And of course, I think the first is the Friday before Labor Day. So it’s not the biggest news week in general. So yeah, I wouldn’t be surprised if they tried to do something a little bit beforehand.

OK, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my Bill of the Month interview with Elisabeth Rosenthal, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome back to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague, Elisabeth Rosenthal, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR Bill of the Month. Libby, of course, is the person who launched this entire project in the first place more than six years ago. Libby, welcome back to “What the Health?”

Elisabeth Rosenthal: Thanks for having me again.

Rovner: So, tell us about this month’s patient. Who she is, where she’s from, and what kind of medical care she got.

Rosenthal: Well, her name is Caitlyn Mai, and she’s this wonderful woman from Oklahoma who, basically she needed a cochlear implant, because she’s had single-sided deafness since an infection when she was 12. And people will go like, “Single-sided deafness, what’s the big deal? She has one hearing ear.” But she couldn’t locate where things were, she couldn’t have conversations because she didn’t know who was talking. So actually, over time it’s become a real impediment in school and in work life. She got approved to have a cochlear implant. She was so excited, because it really would change her life. And she gets the implant: It’s magic. She can suddenly find her phone if it’s lost when it rings. And she’s so excited, except then she gets a bill for $139,000.

Rovner: Yeah. So let’s go back a second. As you have advised us so many, many times, she did all of her homework before the surgery …

Rosenthal: Totally.

Rovner: … checking to make sure she had the paperwork for the prior authorization from her insurance company, and checking to make sure that the hospital and all of the doctors were in-network. And as you say, the bill came! So what happened here?

Rosenthal: Well, the problem is we say, “Oh, the patient’s not responsible, there’s prior authorization,” blah, blah, blah, but there’s no problem in trying. You generate a bill, you send it to a patient, it scares the pants off of them. She said she had to leave work she was so upset. And my first piece of advice, which I would never give people in any other part of their lives is, “Don’t pay the bill.” You get a bill, it says you owe $139,000. Of course, she couldn’t pay it. And I believe it also said, “Hey, if you don’t have $139,000, you can pay it off with $19,000-a-month payments.”

And this is a young woman, getting started in life, newly married. And I guess $19,000 a month wasn’t a viable alternative. So Caitlyn starts doing what many patients do, and we’ve seen this more and more in Bill of the Month: She calls the hospital, she calls the insurer. She’s like the referee. Like, the insurer says they didn’t do the billing codes right. She calls the hospital and says, “Oh, you didn’t give us an itemized bill. Can you generate one?” She calls the insurance, says they’re generating an itemized bill. They go back and forth, and back and forth. Then the itemized bill isn’t right, it contains the wrong codes. And in the meantime, for three months, or four months even, she’s getting these bills that say what you owe now: “prompt payment,” “discount,” and “overdue.” And many patients now are in the terrifying position of playing go-between between their provider and their insurance.

She actually said to the provider, “Send me an itemized bill. Send it to me and I will send it to the right person at the insurance company.” And she said to them, “Look, I’ve done all your work for you. Now just figure it out, you guys.” And, in the meantime, she wasn’t actually sent to collections, but threats were made and it was scary. And she spent endless amounts of time. She works for a nonprofit. She’s lucky, she has a job where she can play this kind of go-between role. But really it should be the provider and the insurer that work it out when you have preauth[orization]. There was no reason why any bills should be sent. And that’s one of my mantras. While you’re working this stuff out, don’t send patient bills, because they’re not responsible for this stuff.

Rovner: Well, that’s the whole point of Congress passing the No Surprises Act, that was supposed to take the patient out of the middle. Why is the patient still in the middle?

Rosenthal: Well, because the No Surprises Act did a lot of great things. It held the patient harmless. And this is actually not a surprise bill, it’s a slightly different issue. But even with the No Surprises Act and with surprise bills, it never said you can’t try. And that’s the problem. Americans are good bill-paying citizens. You send people a bill, and they think, “Wow, I guess I owe it.” So what should be added to the No Surprises Act — and I’m not supposed to use the word should — is you can’t send a bill until the insurer and the provider work it out. I know my mailbox is filled with medical bills that I know I don’t owe, right? But the mantra of the provider is, “Well, there’s no harm in trying. Let’s see if someone pays.”

Rovner: Eventually, she did get this worked out.

Rosenthal: She did get this worked out after hours of her time playing go-between, and many hours spent terrified that she would end up somehow having to foot this bill. Once again, the treatment is miraculous. The bills are not miraculous. I mean, they’re miraculous, but in a really different way. They’re horrifying.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, we’ve given all the advice, “Don’t pay the first bill. Do your homework in advance.” Is there anything else that you can do to avoid getting six-figure bills for preauthorized surgery?

Rosenthal: Well, there is that “don’t pay your bill” advice, and “don’t be scared by the prompt payment discount,” which she had, too. But I think, unfortunately, you have to be the go-between often. And that’s a terrible position for Americans to be in, because it’s really an equity issue. You and I have jobs and knowledge where we can navigate between these two warring parties, essentially, being the peacemaker. And Caitlyn was lucky she had that kind of job. But many Americans don’t have 20 hours to spend on the phone to avoid a huge bill, and they end up in collections if it’s huge. Or if it’s a small bill — and I’ve done this, and I feel like I’m so angry when I do — if it’s a small bill, you’re like, “All right, fine. I’ll just pay it to get this over with.” Even though I know I don’t owe it.

So I do think there should be a policy that you can’t try to send bills to patients that they don’t owe. They know the patients don’t owe these bills. But like I said, there’s no harm in trying, and there’s no HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] police force out there saying, “You shouldn’t do this.” So, it should have been part of the act, but I think the health care system is endlessly agile in figuring out ways to get around laws that Congress has passed to rein in some of their more outrageous practices.

Rovner: As I like to say, full employment for health care reporters. Libby Rosenthal, thank you so much.

Rosenthal: Take care, Julie. Thanks.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at a piece from Elisabeth Rosenthal, “Why Many Nonprofit (Wink, Wink) Hospitals Are Rolling in Money.” And we sort of alluded to this in the conversation around medical debt. But nonprofit hospitals are supposed to, as part of their nonprofit status, be providing certain sorts of commitments to how they serve patients and our greater society. And over the years, they have morphed from looking not much like nonprofits in many ways. And her lead sort of talks about the various for-profit businesses that they have acquired and lumped under their umbrella, and how that affects what they’re doing. And some of them do not even necessarily seem completely connected to health care.

And just, again, it raises this issue of if you’re going to have this nonprofit status you should be fulfilling that other end of the commitment for not paying taxes. And if you don’t, perhaps we need to rethink that, if we are not getting the charity care and the other commitments to society, is health that we should get. And I wanted to flag, it was a Hollywood Reporter article [“New York’s Largest Hospital System Is Setting Its Sights on the Entertainment Business,”] that I had seen last week about Northwell [Health] Hospital getting into the movie and filmmaking business. And that just gives you a crazy example of what some of these nonprofit systems are doing. And I think it’s why it’s become so egregious and people have been making marks about it.

Rovner: Congress has been talking about the “nonprofit” health entities, particularly hospitals, since the 1990s. It goes along with drug prices, this sort of evergreen issue on Capitol Hill. Lauren, why don’t you go next?

Weber: Yeah. I have something from The Tributary called “Testimony: Florida Wrongly Cut People From Medicaid Due to ‘Computer Error,’ Bad Data.” It’s a story we’ve heard over and over again, but I will just note that highlighted in this story is the company Deloitte, who my former colleagues, who I love dearly at KFF News, Rachana Pradhan and Samantha Liss, had a great investigation on just, I think, a month ago? So, I think that you see these stories about people being removed from Medicaid rolls. And to be clear, this was in Florida, and I believe it was a bunch of moms who were removed the year after they gave birth. So, these are serious consequences for “computer errors.” And I mean, we have no idea the catastrophic impact these could have had. But I think it’s important to keep an eye on this, and I know Racha and Sam certainly have. And pretty wild stuff to see continued reporting on that.

Rovner: We’ve seen a continuing software programs that went in and thought that they would sort of efficiently look at household income, and to determine whether people were still eligible. And forgot that when they were programming it, that eligibility varies by income, depending on whether you’re a kid, or a pregnant woman, or a mom who’s just given birth. That those eligibility amounts are not the same, and that you can’t just go in and say, “You’re over a certain cutoff, you’re off.” So we’re continuing to see this in the continuing unwinding. Alice.

Ollstein: So, I have a really interesting piece from ProPublica about something I had never heard about. It’s called “A Lab Test That Experts Liken to a Witch Trial Is Helping Send Women to Prison for Murder.” So this is about a forensic practice that some states and counties use for determining whether a baby was stillborn, or that the mother ended the baby’s life after it was born alive. Sorry if this is graphic, folks, but it involves removing the lungs and seeing if they float or not. The reasoning being that that will help you determine if the baby was born alive and took a breath before it died, or if it was stillborn. But we’ve been learning about a lot of forensic “tests.” This is pseudoscience. It is really inaccurate. There are many ways that this could inaccurately convict someone of murder when, in fact, they suffered a stillbirth. So I think people think it’s scientific, it’s unbiased, but science is more complicated than that. So this was a really fascinating story.

Rovner: Yeah, this is something that’s been around for a good while. I became aware of it in, I think, the 2010s, when it was used to convict someone who, I believe her conviction was eventually overturned.

Well, my extra credit this week is from The Washington Post by Fenit Nirappil, and it’s called “Online Portals Deliver Scary Health News Before Doctors Can Weigh In.” It’s about a likely unintended impact of the transparency provisions of the 2016 [21st Century] Cures Act, requiring that patients be given access to test results as soon as they’re available, even before their doctors in many cases. Doctors are lobbying for a change in the regulations so they can at least have time to review the results first, so patients don’t open up a portal and find out that they have cancer. But the Biden administration, at least so far, says it’s the patient’s own information and that the patients have a right to it.

The story’s a really very nuanced look at how the solution to just about every problem in health policy inevitably creates problems of its own.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP on X. “HP” is for health policy.

Rovner: Alice.

Weber: @AliceOllstein 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

Read Julie's stories.

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

As Vice President Kamala Harris appears poised to become the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee, health policy in general and reproductive health issues in particular are likely to have a higher profile. Harris has long been the Biden administration’s point person on abortion rights and reproductive health and was active on other health issues while serving as California’s attorney general.

Meanwhile, Congress is back for a brief session between presidential conventions, but efforts in the GOP-led House to pass the annual spending bills, due by Oct. 1, have run into the usual roadblocks over abortion-related issues.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Stephanie Armour of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Stephanie Armour
KFF Health News

@StephArmour1

Read Stephanie's stories.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• President Joe Biden’s decision to drop out of the presidential race has turned attention to his likely successor on the Democratic ticket, Vice President Kamala Harris. At this late hour in the campaign, she is expected to adopt Biden’s health policies, though many anticipate she’ll take a firmer stance on restoring Roe v. Wade. And while abortion rights supporters are enthusiastic about Harris’ candidacy, opponents are eager to frame her views as extreme.
• As he transitions from incumbent candidate to outgoing president, Biden is working to frame his legacy, including on health policy. The president has expressed pride that his signature domestic achievement, the Inflation Reduction Act, took on the pharmaceutical industry, including by forcing the makers of the most expensive drugs into negotiations with Medicare. Yet, as with the Affordable Care Act’s delayed implementation and results, most Americans have yet to see the IRA’s potential effect on drug prices.
• Lawmakers continue to be hung up on federal government spending, leaving appropriations work undone as they prepare to leave for summer recess. Fights over abortion are, once again, gumming up the works.
• In abortion news, Iowa’s six-week limit is scheduled to take effect next week, causing rippling problems of abortion access throughout the region. In Louisiana, which added the two drugs used in medication abortions to its list of controlled substances, doctors are having difficulty using the pills for other indications. And doctors who oppose abortion are pushing higher-risk procedures, like cesarean sections, in lieu of pregnancy termination when the mother’s life is in danger — as states with strict bans, like Texas and Louisiana, are reporting a rise in the use of surgeries, including hysterectomies, to end pregnancies.
• The Government Accountability Office reports that many states incorrectly removed hundreds of thousands of eligible people from the Medicaid rolls during the “unwinding” of the covid-19 public health emergency’s coverage protections. The Biden administration has been reluctant to call out those states publicly in an attempt to keep the process as apolitical as possible.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Wright spent the past two decades in California, working with, among others, now-Vice President Kamala Harris on various health issues.

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 “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges,” by Ed Silverman, and Politico’s “Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and David Lim. 

Stephanie Armour: Vox’s “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage,” by Dylan Scott.  

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Stat’s “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients,” by Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence. 

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• States Newsroom’s “Anti-Abortion Researchers Back Riskier Procedures When Pregnancy Termination Is Needed, Experts Say,” by Sofia Resnick.
• KFF Health News’ “Louisiana Reclassifies Drugs Used in Abortions as Controlled Dangerous Substances,” by Rosemary Westwood, WWNO.
• The New York Times’ “Biden and Georgia Are Waging a Fight Over Medicaid and the Future of Obamacare,” by Noah Weiland.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Harris in the Spotlight

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘Harris in the Spotlight’Episode Number: 357Published: July 25, 2024

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

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 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this, so here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs Zhang of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs Zhang: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast one of our original panelists, Stephanie Armour, who I am pleased to say has now officially joined us here at KFF Health News. Stephanie, so great to have you back.

Stephanie Armour: Great to be back.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we will have my interview with Anthony Wright, the new executive director of the consumer health advocacy group Families USA. Anthony previously spent two decades working on health issues in California so he’s pretty familiar with the health work of the current vice president and soon-to-be Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris, and he’ll share some of that knowledge with us. But first, this week’s news.

So it’s safe to say a lot has changed since the last time we met. In fact, it may be fair to say that just about everything has changed. President Joe Biden announced he would not seek reelection after all, he endorsed his vice president, Kamala Harris, and she proceeded to all but lock up the nomination in less than 48 hours. Obviously, this will be a huge deal for the fight over abortion and reproductive health care, which we will get to in a moment. But how is this going to impact health care, in general, as a campaign issue?

Ollstein: Yeah, it’s interesting because Kamala Harris has been a public figure for a while and has held a bunch of different offices, and so we can glean some clues as to where she is on various health care issues. But she’s been a bit hard to pin down. And when my colleagues and I were talking to a lot of folks throughout the health care industry over the past week, there were a lot of question marks on their end, so we know a few things. We know that she used the powers of the AG [attorney general] office to go after monopolies and consolidation and anticompetitive practices in California.

She did that in the insurance space, in the provider space, in the drug space, and so people are expecting that she would be maybe more aggressive on that front. We know that she did co-sponsor [Sen. Bernie Sanders’] “Medicare for All” bill, but then she also introduced her own, arguably more moderate, one that preserved private health insurance. And then, of course, abortion rights. She’s been very vocal on that front, but since becoming the presumptive nominee, she hasn’t really laid out what, if anything, she would do differently than Joe Biden. So like I said, a lot of question marks.

Rovner: Stephanie, you led our coverage of Harris’ health record. What did you learn?

Armour: Well, I think a number of the people that I’ve talked with really expect that she’ll be a standard-bearer to what Biden has already done, and I think that’s probably true. I don’t think she’s going to go back stumping for Medicare for All right now, for example. What I did find really interesting is, yes, she’s very much made abortion and reproductive rights a cornerstone of her vice presidency and, I assume, will be of her campaign. But based on where abortion is polling right now, a number of the strategists I spoke to said she really needs to do something pretty major on it in order to get a real uptick in terms of galvanizing voters, just because economy and immigration are so high. They’re saying that she really needs to do something like say that she’ll bring back legislation to restore Roe v. Wade, for example, to really make a difference. So I think it’ll be interesting to see how much that can really motivate voters when there’s so much competing for interest right now.

Cohrs Zhang: Oh, there is one other issue that I wanted to bring up. And I think especially from her time in the Senate, she didn’t sit on health care committees, but she did go out of her way to take ownership over concerns about maternal mortality. She was lead Senate sponsor of the Momnibus Act, which included a whole slew of different policies and programs that could help support mothers, especially Black mothers. And I think she has continued that interest in the White House and really championed health equity, which does, again, just draw a very stark contrast. So we haven’t seen a lot of passion or interest in the traditional health policy sense from her outside of abortion, but that is one issue she really has owned.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it has not been part of her quote-unquote “portfolio” as vice president, anything except, as I mentioned, reproductive rights, which will obviously be the biggest change from Biden to Harris. The president, as we all know, does not even like to say the word “abortion.” She, on the other hand, has been all over the issue since well before Roe got overturned and obviously particularly since then. Alice, how are advocates on both sides of this issue reacting to this switch at the top of the ticket?

Ollstein: Yeah, honestly, it’s been this interesting convergence because the pro-abortion-rights side is really jazzed. They’ve basically all rushed to endorse her and talk about how they’ve been working with her for years and really know her and trust her, and they believe she’ll be more aggressive than Biden was. But you also have the anti-abortion side being excited to have her as the villain, basically. They’ve had a hard time portraying Biden as extreme on this issue and they think they’ll have an easier time portraying Kamala Harris as extreme on abortion rights. One other thing from her record and background is her fight with the conservatives who recorded sting videos at Planned Parenthood that the anti-abortion movement still brings that up a lot. So yeah, it’ll be really interesting to see for which side this really lights a fire more because we’re hearing claims from both that it will fuel them.

Rovner: And, actually, I think it will actually fuel both sides of this. I would think that the abortion-rights groups were very — I mean everybody was pretty quick to endorse her — but the abortion-rights groups were right there right away, as were the anti-abortion groups saying she is extreme on abortion, which in some ways will fuel the abortion-right side. It’s like, “Oh good. The more the antis don’t like her, the stronger that means she is for us.” I mean, I literally could see this fueling both sides of this issue and …

Armour: Whereas you see Republicans backing away increasingly from abortion like the RNC [Republican National Committee] platform. And so it’s turning out to be still very much a hot-button issue and difficult issue for Republicans.

Rovner: So they say that the vice presidency is not very good for much, and I definitely agree with that. I mean, everybody always says, “The vice president hasn’t done anything.” Because the vice president doesn’t really have a job to do anything. Often the only time the vice president is on TV is when he or she sits behind the president at the State of the Union. But I feel like, in Harris’ case, it’s made her a much more confident and natural and comfortable campaigner. I watched her a lot when she was running for president in 2019 and 2020, and she was, to be kind, a little bit awkward; I mean she was just not one of those natural, had-that-rapport with a crowd, and I feel like that has changed a lot having watched her crisscross the country, particularly on reproductive health. Am I the only one that feels that way? I feel like people are going to see a very different vice president than they think they saw, while she was doing her due diligence as vice president.

Ollstein: Definitely, and I’ve found it interesting that it’s only been a few days since all of this went down, but I have noticed that while she has brought up abortion rights in pretty much every speech and appearance she’s given, she has not given specifics. She has not indicated if she is in the Biden camp of let’s restore Roe v. Wade, or with a lot of the rest of the movement that says Roe was never good enough, we need to aim for something much more expansive. So we didn’t know where she is on that. I mean, largely she’s been just saying, “Oh, I will stop Donald Trump from banning abortion nationally.” And using him as the foil and pledging to stop him. And so we haven’t really seen her make an affirmative case of what she would do on this front.

Rovner: Well, I think that would probably be as difficult for her as it is for the Republicans to try and figure out how far they want to go banning. Because yeah, as you mentioned, I mean, there’s a lot of the abortion-rights movement that think that restoring Roe, even if they could, is not enough because obviously under Roe, many, many types of restrictions were allowed and were in place. That is obviously not where the abortion-rights side wants to end up. And on the other side, as we’ve talked about ad nauseum, do anti-abortion forces, are they OK with state-by-state bans? Do they want a national ban? If so, what would it look like? So that will obviously continue.

Now that we have, relatively, mostly settled who’s going to be at the top of the ticket, we are once again, back to the “Who will be the VP pick?” sweepstakes. Now that we’ve finished the Republican side, we’re back to the Democratic side of the short list. We’ve all been hearing Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear, North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper, Arizona Sen. Mark Kelly, and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro. They all have significant health records, but mostly on different issues. Who do you think of the people who are being mentioned would make the biggest splash on the health care scene?

Ollstein: I’ve been hearing a lot of people talk about Gov. Beshear’s record on Medicaid expansion and pushing back against work requirements, and also opposing legislation to restrict trans care. And so there’s definitely a lot there. Really, a lot of them have something there, but I’ve been hearing the most about him.

Rovner: And Mark Kelly, of course, is married to Gabrielle Giffords, who was shot at a campaign event and is now a leading voice in the gun control movement. So they all seem to have slightly different major health issues. Roy Cooper in North Carolina got North Carolina to expand Medicaid, which was a very, very, very big deal with a very, very, very Republican legislature. I’m not going to ask anybody to guess who it’s going to be because I can’t imagine that any of us have any major insight into this. Whoever it turns out to be, and I imagine we’ll know in the next week or two, we will go in and examine their health care record. One of the advantages that Vice President Harris will have on the campaign trail is she gets to campaign on the Biden administration’s record, which is fairly accomplished on the health care front without the drag of being in her 80s. Somebody remind us of all the health policies the Biden administration has gotten done. Start with the Inflation Reduction Act.

Cohrs Zhang: The name of the legislation is very general, but I think President Biden, in his goodbye speech last night, did mention the drug pricing portion of that bill. He’s described it as beating Big Pharma. And I think that’s definitely something that he talked about in his State of the Union, that he wanted to expand some of those pricing mechanisms to more people, not just people in Medicare, but people in commercial health plans, too. So I think that’s been something that he has really felt passionate about and Vice President Harris now could certainly use on the campaign trail. It’s a really popular issue and, again, not a huge policy departure, but, certainly, there’s more work to be done there on Democrats’ side.

Armour: And also I think the ACA [Affordable Care Act] extensions in terms of how many more people have been eligible for coverage is something that will definitely be part of Biden’s legacy as well. And the record-low uninsurance that we saw is something I bet that will be remembered, too.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean I’ve been personally surprised at some of the things that he’s gotten done in a Congress with virtually minuscule majority. I mean, one vote in the Senate and, when the Democrats were controlling the House, it was, what, four votes in the House. That takes, I think, a certain kind of legislator to get things passed. I know people walk around and say, “Oh, the Biden administration hasn’t done anything.” And you want to pull your hair out because that’s all we’ve spent the last six years talking about, things that have actually gotten done and not gotten done.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. Well, I mean doing things and communicating well about doing things are different issues, and I think that’s going to be Vice President Harris’ challenge over the next few months.

Rovner: Yeah, and so we’ve seen, and I think the Biden administration has prevented a lot of things from happening, which is always very hard to campaign on. It’s like, “Well, if we hadn’t done this, then this might’ve happened.” I mean, I think that’s true about the pandemic. Things could have gone much, much worse and didn’t and that’s tricky to say, “Hey, we prevented things from getting even more terrible than they were.”

Ollstein: And on the drug pricing front, I mean it just always reminds me of the Affordable Care Act where the payoff is years down the road, and so selling it to voters in the moment when they’re not feeling the effects yet is really hard. So it makes sense that people aren’t aware that they got this major legal change that’s been decades in the making over the finish line because the drugs aren’t cheaper yet for a lot of people.

Rovner: That’s true. And the caps on spending haven’t really kicked in yet. It is a lot like the Affordable Care Act, which took four years from the time of passage to the time it was fully implemented.

Well, in other news, and there is some other news, Congress is back after a break for the Republican [National] Convention, although they’re about to leave again. At the top of the House’s list was passing the spending bills that they didn’t manage to pass last year. So how’s that all going, Rachel?

Cohrs Zhang: I think they’ve just thrown in the towel this week, given up a bit. I think there’s been an attitude of just apathy on the Hill and especially on health care issues that the sense has been, “We’ll return to this in December when we all have a little bit more information about the dynamics going to the lame-duck session.” And I think that clearly has bled over into any will that remains to pass appropriations bills before August recess. I think they’re ready to get out there, ready to be on the campaign trail and put this on the back burner.

Rovner: Yeah, and in an election year, you basically have the six months leading up to the first convention and then almost nothing until they come back after the election. They were going gangbusters on some of these spending bills. They were getting them out of committee even though they were obviously not in the kind of shape that they were going to become law. We talked at some length about all of the riders and all of the funding cuts that the Republicans have put in some of these bills, but they couldn’t even get them through the floor. I mean, Alice we’re hung up on abortion, again!

Ollstein: Oh, as always. And it’s the exact same policy fights as last time. The fight’s going to happen in the ag[riculture] bill, around FDA [Food and Drug Administration] regulation of abortion pills. There’s going to be fights about the provisions helping veterans and active-duty service members access abortion, knowing that these appropriations bills are the only real legislation that has any chance of going anywhere. People are putting all of their policy priorities in as riders. And last round of this, there were anti-abortion provisions tacked onto basically every single spending bill, and almost all of them got stripped out in the end and did not become law. Obviously, they kept long-standing things like the Hyde Amendment, but they didn’t add the new restrictions Republicans wanted to add. That is likely to happen again. We’ll see. This could drag past the election potentially. So the dynamics, depending on the outcome of the election, could be really different than they are today.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I guess the House is going out and they won’t be back until September. It used to be there would be an August recess in an election year, and they would come back in September, and they would actually work until the beginning or even the middle of October. And even that seems to have gone away. Now, once they’re gone for the quote-unquote “August recess,” it’s like, bye-bye getting much of anything done.

Well, there’s also some more news on the abortion front: The on-again off-again, on-again, off-again, six-week abortion ban in Iowa appears to be on again, possibly to start as soon as next week. Alice, I think we’ve mentioned this before, but this is going to affect a lot more than just people in Iowa.

Ollstein: Yeah, definitely. I mean, we’re seeing a big erosion of access across the Midwest Great Plains, like that whole area, that whole swath, the Dakotas, et cetera. And there’s already a lot of pressure on Illinois as the destination and clinics there are already overwhelmed with folks coming in from all over. And so this will add to that. As we’ve seen when this has happened in other states, wait times can go up, shortages of providers needed to care for everyone. Telemedicine does relieve some of that, and there are these groups that mail abortion pills into any state regardless of restrictions. But not everyone is comfortable doing that or knows how to do that or wants to do that or can afford to do that. And so this is said to have a big impact, and we’ll have to see what happens.

Rovner: There were two other pieces about abortion that caught my eye this week, and they’re both about things that we’ve talked about before. One is the push by anti-abortion doctors to change medical practice. In Louisiana, the abortion drugs mifepristone and misoprostol, both of which are used for many more things than just abortion, are now on the state’s list of controlled substances. And then from States Newsroom, there’s a piece about how anti-abortion OB-GYNs are trying to get medically necessary abortions that happen later in pregnancy, switched instead to C-sections or having the pregnant person go through and induce labor and delivery. I’ve been covering this issue, as I like to say, for nearly 40 years. This is the most intense effort I’ve ever seen from inside the medical profession to actually change how medicine is practiced in terms of what’s considered the standard of care, both for things like — not even so much mifepristone the abortion pill, but misoprostol, which is used for a lot of things other than abortion.

Armour: Was it initially an ulcer medication?

Rovner: Yes, yes, misoprostol.

Armour: That’s what I thought. Yeah.

Rovner: Cytotec. It was for a long time one of the go-to ulcer medicine. And in fact, the only reason it stopped becoming the go-to ulcer medicine because, if you were pregnant and wanted to be, it could help end your pregnancy. It is known to have that as a side effect, but yes, it’s an ulcer medication.

Armour: Yeah, this is the first I had seen anywhere, and I could be wrong, but of a real push to try and change the management of late-term medical miscarriages to how it would actually be carried out, which was just very interesting and to see what they were recommending instead.

Rovner: ACOG, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has put out guidelines — forever, that’s what they do — about how to handle pregnancy problems later in pregnancy. Generally using the least invasive procedure is considered the safest and, therefore, best for the patient. And that’s not necessarily having a C-section, which is major surgery, or going through labor and delivery. People forget that it’s really dangerous to be pregnant. I mean, it’s amazing that we have all of these kids and happy parents because if you go back and look in history, a lot of women used to die in childbirth. They still do. It’s obviously not as bad as it used to be, but it is not everything-goes-fine-99%-of-the-time thing that I think a lot of people think it is.

Armour: That’s right. Yeah.

Rovner: All right, well, meanwhile, before we bid Congress goodbye for the rest of the summer, the House Oversight Committee, which is usually as partisan a place as there is in this Congress, held a hearing this week on PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] and there seems to be pretty bipartisan support that something needs to be done. Rachel, I keep asking this question: It seems that just about everybody on Capitol Hill wants to do something to rein in PBM drug price abuse, and yet no one ever does. So are we getting closer yet?

Cohrs Zhang: We are getting closer, I think, as we approach December. My understanding was that lawmakers were pretty close on a deal on PBMs back in March. But I think it was just a symptom of “Appropriations Bill Has to Move.” They want it to be clean. If they add one committee’s extra stuff, they have to let other committees add extra stuff, too, and it gets too complicated on deadline. But it’s wild to me that we’re still seeing new PBM reform bills at this point. But there’s just a huge, huge pile of bills at this point, everyone wants their name on it. And so I really do believe that we’re going to see something in December. I think the big question is how far some of these reforms will reach: whether they’ll be limited to the Medicare program or whether some of these will start to touch private insurance as well. I think that’s what the larger industry is waiting to see. But I think there’s a lot of appetite. I mean with congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers retiring, she’s led a package on this issue …

Rovner: She’s chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which obviously has the main jurisdiction over this in the House.

Cohrs Zhang: Right. So if we’re thinking about legacy, getting some of these things across the finish line, it does depend how dynamics change in the lame duck. But I think there is a very good chance that we’re going to see some sort of action here.

Rovner: Congressman Jamie Raskin, at that hearing, had maybe my favorite line ever about PBMs, which is, he said, “The more I hear about this, the less I understand it.” It’s like you could put that on a T-shirt.

Ollstein: That’s great. Yeah.

Cohrs Zhang: Yes.

Rovner: The PBM debate in one sentence. All right. Finally, this week we have some Medicaid news, a new report from the GAO [Government Accountability Office] finds pretty much what we already knew: that states have been wrongly kicking eligible people off of their Medicaid coverage as they were, quote, “unwinding from the public health emergency.” According to the report, more than 400,000 people lost coverage because the state looked at the household’s eligibility instead of individual eligibility. Even though Medicaid income thresholds are much higher for many people, like children and pregnant women. So if the household wasn’t eligible, possibly, even probably, the children still were. It’s a pretty scathing report. Is anybody going to do anything about it? I mean, the GAO’s recommendation was that the administration act a little more strongly and the administration says, “We already are.”

Cohrs Zhang: Yeah, I actually had the chance to talk with a White House official about this dynamic, and just, I think there’s only so far that they’re willing to go, and I think might talk about, in a while. I think there’s been clashes between the Biden administration and conservative states, especially on Medicaid programs, and there’s really only so much influence they can exert. And I think without provoking an all-out war, I’m personally expecting them to get much more aggressive in the last six months of their administration, if they weren’t going to do it before, when they really could have potentially made a difference and really made it a calling card in some of these states. So I’m not expecting much change from the White House on this issue.

Rovner: Yeah, I remember the administration was so sensitive about this that when we were first learning about how states were cutting people off who they shouldn’t have been, the administration said, “We’re working with the states.” And we all said, “Which states?” And they said, “We’re not going to tell you.” I mean, that’s literally how sensitive it was. They would not give us the list of the states who they said were incorrectly knocking people off the roll. So yeah, clearly this has been politically sensitive for the administration, but I’m …

Armour: And the Medicaid directors, too. They really pushed back, especially initially, about not wanting it to be too adversarial. I think the administration really took that to heart. Whether that was the right call or not remains to be seen, but there was a lot of tension around that from the get-go.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, also this week, The New York Times has a deep dive into the one remaining Medicaid work requirement in the country, Georgia’s Pathways to Coverage. In case you don’t remember, this was the program that Georgia said would enroll up to 100,000 people, except, so far it’s only managed to sign up about 4,500. It feels relevant again though, because the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025, which is now all over the campaign trail, would go even further than previous Republican efforts to rein in Medicaid by possibly imposing lifetime caps on coverage. Cutting Medicaid didn’t go very well in 2017 when the Republicans tried to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. What makes them think an even bigger cutback would be more popular now?

Armour: Well, the study’s authors say to me that if they’re not cutting Medicaid, which goes back to the original debate back when they were talking about …

Rovner: The Project 2025 authors.

Armour: Yes, authors. Right. And that goes back to the original debate of how do you define it? A little bit of sleight of hand. And the other thing is that would definitely bring back the Medicaid work requirements and some premiums for some, which also turned out not to be super-popular as well. So it does dive right into an issue. But it’s also an issue that conservatives have been, boy, working on for years and years now to try and get this accomplished.

Rovner: Oh yeah, block-granting Medicaid goes back decades.

Armour: Exactly. Yeah.

Rovner: And there’ve been various ways to do it. And then work requirements, obviously Alice, you were the queen of our work requirement coverage in Arkansas because they put in a work requirement and it didn’t go well. Remind us.

Ollstein: Yeah. So this is what a lot of experts and advocates predicted, which is that we know from years of data that pretty much everybody on Medicaid who can work is already working and those who aren’t working are not working because they are a student or they have to care for a relative or they have a disability or there are all these reasons. And so when these work requirements actually went into effect, just a lot of people who should have been eligible fell through the cracks. It was hard to navigate the bureaucracy of it all. And so even people who were working struggled to prove it and to get their benefits. And so people really point to that as a cautionary tale for other states. But this is something conservatives really believe in ideologically, and so I don’t expect it to be going away anytime soon.

Rovner: To swing back to where we started. I imagine we will see more talk about health care on the presidential campaign trail as we go forward.

All right, well that’s as much news for this week as we can fit in. Now we will play my interview with Families USA’s Anthony Wright, and then we’ll come back and do our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Anthony Wright, the brand-new executive director of Families USA, one of the nation’s leading consumer health advocacy groups. And a big part of why we even have the ACA. Anthony is no stranger to health care battles. He spent more than 20 years heading up the group Health Access California, where he worked on a variety of health issues, large and small, and encountered someone who is suddenly very much in the news: Vice President Kamala Harris. Anthony Wright, welcome to “What the Health?”

Anthony Wright: Thank you so much for having me. I’m a longtime listener, but first-time caller.

Rovner: Awesome. So, for those who are not familiar with Families USA, tell us about the group and tell us what your immediate priorities are.

Wright: So, Families USA has been a longtime voice for health care consumers in Congress, at the administration, working nationally for the goal of quality, affordable, equitable health care for all Americans. I’m pleased to take on that legacy and to try to uplift those goals. I’m also particularly interested in continuing to uplift and amplify the voices of patients in the public in health policy debates. It’s opaque to try to figure out how normal people engage in the federal health policy discussions so that health reforms actually matter to them. I would like families to do more to provide pathways so that they have an effective voice in those policy discussion tables. There’s so many policy debates where it’s the fight between various parts of the industry, when, in fact, the point of the health care system is patients, is the public, and they should be at the center of these discussions.

Rovner: Yes, and I’m embarrassed to admit that we spend an enormous amount of time talking about the players in the health care debate that are not patients. They are basically the people who stand to make money from it. What’s your biggest priority for this year and next?

Wright: Yeah, I want to take some of the lessons that I’ve learned over the 22 years of working in California, where we had the biggest drop of the uninsured rate of all 50 states, mostly working to implement and improve the Affordable Care Act. And I recognize that some of those lessons will have to be adopted and changed for the different context of [Washington,] D.C., or the 49 other states. But there is work that we can do, and we should do, moving forward. There are things on the plate right now. For example, in the next year, the additional affordability assistance that people have in the exchanges is set to expire. And so we can either have a system where everybody has a guarantee that their premiums are capped at 8.5% of their income or less on a sliding scale, or we can let those enhanced tax credits expire and to have premiums go up by hundreds, or for many people, thousands of dollars literally in the next year or so.

So that’s a very important thing that will be on the ballot this fall, along with a number of other issues and we want to highlight that. But frankly, I’m also interested in the work around expanding coverage, including in those 10 states that haven’t expanded Medicaid yet. In California, we’ve done a lot of work on health equity dealing with racial and ethnic disparities and just meeting the specific needs of specific communities. That was an imperative in California with the diversity and the size and scale of that state. But there’s more we can do both in California, but nationally, with regard to that. And then I think there’s more to work on costs with regard to just how darn expensive health care is and how do we fix the market failures that lead to, not just high, but irrational and inflated health prices.

Rovner: So obviously a big part of what you will or won’t be able to do next year depends on who occupies the White House and who controls Congress. You’re from California and so is Vice President Harris. Tell us about her record on health care.

Wright: Yeah, she actually has a significant record, mostly from her time as attorney general of California. She didn’t have much of a portfolio as district attorney, but when she did become the attorney general — attorney generals have choices about where they focus their time and she made a point to focus more on health care and start an evolution of the attorney general being more involved in health care issues — on issues like reviewing mergers of hospitals and putting conditions to make sure that emergency rooms stayed open, that hospitals continued their commitments to charity care. She worked on broader issues of consolidation, for example, joining the [U.S.] Justice Department in opposing the merger of Anthem and Cigna.

And she took on, whether it’s the insurers or the drug companies or the hospital chains, on issues of pricing and anticompetitive practices, whether it was Bayer and Cipro and other drug companies with regard to pay-for-delay practices, basically schemes to keep the price of drugs inflated. Or on the issue of high hospital prices. She began the investigations that led to a landmark Sutter settlement where that hospital chain paid $575 million in fines, but also agreed to a series of conditions with regard to no longer engaging in anticompetitive contracting practices. And that kind of work is something that we worked on with her, and I think is really relevant to the moment we’re in now where we really do see that consolidation is one of the major drivers of why health care prices are so high. And that kind of experience that she could talk about as she talks about health care costs broadly, medical debt, and some of the issues that are on the campaign trail today.

Rovner: So, obviously, with the exception of reproductive health, health in general has not been a big part of the campaign this year. Do you think it’s going to get bigger now that Harris is at the head of the ticket?

Wright: One of the things that I’m happy with is that, after several weeks where the conversation has much been about the campaign processes, we can maybe focus back on policy and the very real issues that are at stake. Our health care is on the ballot, whether it is reproductive health and abortion care, but also there’s a very easy leap to also talk about the threats, not just to reproductive health, but also to the Affordable Care Act, to Medicaid, to Medicare. There’s very different visions and records of the last two administrations with regard to the Affordable Care Act, whether to repeal it or build upon it, on Medicaid and whether to bolster it or to block-grant it. And even on the question of something like prescription drug negotiation, whether we took some important steps under the Inflation Reduction Act. Do we now expand that authority to cover more drugs for more discounts for more people? Or do we give up that authority to negotiate for the best possible price?

Those are very key issues that are at stake in this election. We are a nonpartisan, non-endorsing organization, but we do want to make sure that health care issues are on people’s minds, and also, frankly, policymakers to make some commitments, including on something like what I was talking about earlier with those enhanced tax credits. Again, at a time when people are screaming about affordability, but we know that they’ve been actually screaming about health care affordability for not just years but decades. And that’s a very specific, concrete thing that literally means hundreds or thousands of dollars in people’s pockets.

Rovner: So then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris was a supporter of Medicare for All in 2020 when she ran. Do you expect that that may have changed, as she’s learned how hard it is even to make incremental change? I haven’t seen anybody ask her yet what her feeling is on systemic health reform.

Wright: I mean, she had a modified proposal that I think was trying to both take seriously the question of how do we get to universal coverage while also recognizing the politics and procedural barriers that exist. And so I think there’s a practical streak of how do we get the most help to the most people and help change, frankly, the financial incentives in our system, which are right now just to get bigger, not to get better. And so I think that there’s some very practical questions on the table right now, like these tax credits, this cap on how much a percentage of your income should go for premium. That’s something that’s front of mind because it literally expires next year. So it’s something that maybe gets dealt with in a lame duck, but hopefully early in the next year, since rates need to be decided early. And so those are the immediate things.

But I do think she’s also, in her record — I’m not going to talk about what may be — but in her record, she’s been supportive of the Affordable Care Act. I mean our biggest actual engagement with then-U.S. Sen. Harris was at a time when we all thought that the Affordable Care Act was a goner. It would be repealed and replaced. She was willing to be loud and proud at our rallies, in front of a thousand people, in front of a Los Angeles public hospital, talking about the need to defend the Affordable Care Act and protections for people with preexisting conditions. And she came again in July and just at a time where we needed that forceful defense of the Affordable Care Act. She was there and we very much appreciated that. I think she would continue to do that as well as want to work to build upon that financing and framework to make additional gains forward.

Rovner: This being Washington, everybody’s favorite parlor game this week is handicapping the vice presidential sweepstakes. And who about-to-be-candidate Harris is going to choose to be her running mate. Are any of the big names in contention more or less important in terms of their health care backgrounds?

Wright: I have my credentials to talk about the Californian on the ticket. I probably have less there. I do know that some of those governors and others have their own records of trying to take the framework of the ACA and adapt it to their state. And I think that would be a useful thing to continue to move forward on the trail. I’m not in a position, again, as a non-endorsing organization, we’re focused on the issues.

Rovner: You’re agnostic about the vice presidential candidate.

Wright: You’re right, I think the point is how can we make sure that people recognize what is at stake for the health care that they depend on and, frankly, the financial piece of it. Affordability has been something that has been talked about a lot and there is no greater source of economic anxiety and insecurity than the health care bill. A hospital bill is the biggest bill that anybody will get in their entire life. So how do you deal with it? And whether it’s a conversation about medical debt and how you deal with it, or what kind of tax credits we can provide to provide some security that you don’t pay more than the percentage of your income. Or how do you deal with the root causes of the market failures in our health care system, whether it’s consolidations and mergers or anticompetitive practices. Those are the things that I think we should have a bigger conversation in this campaign cycle about.

Rovner: Hopefully we’ll be able to do this again as it happens. Anthony Wright, thank you so much.

Wright: Thank you.

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

Cohrs Zhang: Sure. There’s a lot of good health journalism out there, but I have to highlight a new project from my colleagues. Bob Herman, Tara Bannow, Casey Ross, and Lizzy Lawrence are looking into UnitedHealth’s business practices, and there’s been a lot of buzz about UnitedHealthcare on the Hill, and the first part of their investigation is headlined “How UnitedHealth Harnesses Its Physician Empire To Squeeze Profits out of Patients.” It focuses on the trend that UnitedHealth has been acquiring so many physician practices and looks at the incentives of what actually happens when an insurer owns a physician practice.

What pressures are they putting on? What’s the patient experience? What’s the physician experience? Their physicians on the record were telling them about their experiences: having to turn through patients; feeling pressure to make patients look sicker on paper so UnitedHealth could get more money from the federal government to pay for them. And just, I mean, the documentation here is just really superb reporting. It’s part one of a series. And I think reporting like this really helps inform Washington about how these things are actually playing out and what’s next in terms of whether action should be taken to rein these practices in.

Rovner: I feel like the behemoth that is UnitedHealthcare is going to keep a lot of health reporters busy for a very long time to come. Alice.

Ollstein: Yeah. So there’s been a lot of news on the PrEP front recently. That’s the drug that prevents transmission of HIV. And so basically two steps forward, one step back. I chose this piece from Stat News [“A Pricey Gilead HIV Drug Could Be Made for Dramatically Less Than the Company Charges”], about a new form of PrEP that is an injection that you get just twice a year that has proven wildly effective in clinical trials. And so folks are really excited about that, and I think it could really make a difference because, as with birth control and as with lots of other medication, the effectiveness rate is only if you use it perfectly, which, you know, we’re humans. And humans don’t always adhere perfectly. And so something like just a couple injections a year that you could get from your doctor would go a long way towards compliance and making sure people are safe with their medications.

But my colleague and I also scooped this week that HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is ending one of its big PrEP distribution programs [“Federal HIV Program Set To Wind Down”]. It’s called Ready, Set, PrEP. It debuted under the Trump administration in 2019. And the reason given by HHS for it ending — which, by the way, they were very quiet about and didn’t even tell a lot of providers that it was ending — they said it was because there are all these other ways people can get PrEP now, that didn’t exist back then, like generic versions. And while that’s true, we also heard from a lot of advocates who said the program was just really flawed from the start and didn’t reach even a fraction of the people it should have reached. And so we’ll continue to dig on that front.

Rovner: Good stories. Stephanie.

Armour: Yes. I picked the story by Dylan Scott on Vox about “Free Medical School Won’t Solve the Doctor Shortage.” And it looks at Michael Bloomberg, who is donating a billion dollars to Johns Hopkins to try to pay for medical school for students there. The idea being that, “Look, there’s this doctor shortage and what can we do to help?” And what’s really interesting about the story is it goes beyond just the donation to look at the fact that it’s not really that there’s a doctor shortage, it’s that we don’t have the right kind of doctors and it’s the distribution. Where you don’t have nearly what we need when it comes to psychiatrists, for example. And there’s a real dearth of physicians in areas that are rural or in the Midwest. So I think what it raises is what resources do we want to spend and where? What other steps can we do that would really help drive doctors to where they’re most needed? So it’s a good story. It’s worth a read.

Rovner: Yeah, it is a good story. It is a continuing problem that I continue to harp on. But we now have quote-unquote “free medical school,” mostly in really urban, really expensive places.

Armour: Yes.

Rovner: New York, Los Angeles, Baltimore. That’s nice for the doctors who will now graduate without $200,000 in medical debt. But yeah, as Dylan points out, it’s not exactly solving the problem that we have. Well, I went cute this week. My extra credit this week is from NPR. It’s called “A Study Finds That Dogs Can Smell Your Stress — And Make Decisions Accordingly,” by Rachel Treisman. Now, we’ve known for a fairly long time that dogs’ sensitive noses can detect physical changes in their humans. That’s how alert dogs for epilepsy and diabetes and other ailments actually work.

But what we didn’t know until now is that if a dog smells a person’s stress, it can change the dog’s emotional reaction. It was a complicated experiment that you can read about if you want, but as somebody who competes with my dogs, and who knows how differently they act when I am nervous, this study explains a lot.

All right, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner. Alice, where are you?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs Zhang: @rachelcohrs on X.

Rovner: Stephanie.

Armour: @StephArmour1.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

The Republican National Convention highlighted a number of policy issues this week, but health care was not among them. That was not much of a surprise, as it is not a top priority for former President Donald Trump or most GOP voters. The nomination of Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio adds an outspoken abortion opponent to the Republican ticket, though he brings no particular background or expertise in health care.

Meanwhile, abortion opponents are busy trying to block state ballot questions from reaching voters in November. Legal battles over potential proposals continue in several states, including Florida, Arkansas, and Arizona.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins schools of public health and nursing and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sen. J.D. Vance of Ohio has cast few votes on health policy since joining Congress last year. He has taken a doctrinaire approach to abortion restrictions, though, including expressing support for prohibiting abortion-related interstate travel and invoking the Comstock Act to block use of the mail for abortion medications. He also speaks openly about his mother’s struggles with addiction, framing it as a health rather than criminal issue in a way that resonates with many Americans.
• Although Republicans have largely abandoned calls to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, it would be easy for former President Donald Trump to undermine the program in a second term; expanded subsidies for coverage are due to expire next year, and there’s always the option to cut spending on marketing the program, as Trump did during his first term.
• Trump’s recent comments to Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about childhood vaccinations echoed tropes linked to the anti-vaccination movement — particularly the false claim that while one vaccine may be safe, it is perhaps dangerous to receive several at once. The federal vaccination schedule has been rigorously evaluated and found to be safe and effective.
• Covid is surging once again, with President Joe Biden among those testing positive this week. The virus is proving a year-round concern and has peaked regularly in summertime; covid spreads best indoors, and lately millions of Americans have taken refuge inside from extremely high temperatures. Meanwhile, the virology community is concerned that the nation isn’t testing enough animals or humans to understand the risk posed by bird flu.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam, who wrote the June installment of KFF Health News-NPR’s “Bill of the Month,” about a patient who walked into what he thought was an urgent care center and walked out with an emergency room bill. If you have an exorbitant or baffling medical bill, you can send it to us here.

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

Julie Rovner: Time magazine’s “‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town,” by Andrew R Chow.

Joanne Kenen: The Washington Post’s “A Mom Struggles To Feed Her Kids After GOP States Reject Federal Funds,” by Annie Gowen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: ProPublica’s “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, but No One Knows if It Works,” by Cassandra Jaramillo, Jeremy Kohler, and Sophie Chou, ProPublica, and Jessica Kegu, CBS News.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “Promised Cures, Tainted Cells: How Cord Blood Banks Mislead Patients,” by Sarah Kliff and Azeen Ghorayshi.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

The Wall Street Journal’s “Mail-Order Drugs Were Supposed To Keep Costs Down. It’s Doing the Opposite,” by Jared S. Hopkins.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: At GOP Convention, Health Policy Is Mostly MIA

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: ‘At GOP Convention, Health Policy Is Mostly MIA’Episode Number: 356Published: July 18, 2024

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith at the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Schools of public health and nursing, and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Renuka Rayasam, about the latest “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient went to a facility with urgent care in its name but then got charged emergency room prices. But first, this week’s news.

So as of this morning, we are most of the way through the Republican National Convention, which obviously has a somewhat different tone than was expected, following last weekend’s assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump. The big news of the week is Trump’s selection of Ohio Republican Sen. JD Vance as his running mate. Vance has only been in the Senate since 2023, had not served previously in public office, and he doesn’t have much of a record on much of anything in health care. So, what do we know about what he thinks?

Ollstein: Well, I have been most focused on his abortion record, which is somewhat more extensive than his record on other health policy. Obviously, Congress has not done very much on abortion, but he’s been loud and proud about his anti-abortion views, including calling for national restrictions. He calls it a national minimum standard, but the idea is that he does not want people in conservative states where abortion is banned to be able to travel to progressive states where it is allowed. He has given interviews to that effect. He has signed letters to that effect. He has called for enforcement of the Comstock Act, which, as we’ve talked about before, is this long dormant statute that prohibits the mailing of abortion drugs or medical instruments that could be used to terminate a pregnancy. And so this is a very interesting moment to pick Vance.

The Republican Party is attempting to reach out to more moderate voters and convince them that they are hoping to leave this issue to the states. Vance’s record somewhat says otherwise. He also opposed efforts in his own state of Ohio to hold a referendum that ended up striking down that state’s abortion ban. So, definitely a lot for Democrats to go after in his record and they are not wasting any time; they are already doing it.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m kind of surprised because Vance, very much like Trump, has been kind of everywhere, or at least he has said that he’s kind of everywhere on abortion. But as you mentioned, Alice, you don’t have to look very hard to see that he’s pretty doctrinaire on the issue. Do you think people are going to buy this newer, softer Republicanism on abortion?

Ollstein: Well, abortion rights groups that I’ve spoken to are worried that people are buying it. They’re worried as they campaign around the country that the Republican Party’s attempt to walk away from their past calls for national restrictions on abortion are breaking through to people. And so they are trying really hard to counter that message and to stress that Republicans can and would pursue national restrictions, if elected.

I think both Democratic candidates and abortion rights groups are working to say even the leave-it-to-states position is too extreme and is harming people. And so they’re lifting up the stories of people in Texas and other states with bans who have experienced severe medical harm as a result of being denied an abortion. And so they’re lifting up those stories to say, “Hey, even saying let’s leave it to the states, let’s not do a national ban — even that is unacceptable in the eyes of the left.”

Kenen: The other issue obviously with his life story is opioids. His mother was addicted. Originally it began with being prescribed a legal painkiller. It’s a familiar story: became addicted, he was raised by his grandmother. His mother, who he showed on TV last night and she was either in tears or really close to tears, she’s 10 years sober now. He had a tough life and opioids was part of the reason he had a tough life. And whatever you think of his politics, that particular element of his life story resonates with people because it may explain some of his political views. But that experience is not a partisan experience and he was a kid. So I think he clearly does see opioids as a medical problem, not just, oh, let’s throw them in jail. I mean, the country and the Republican Party, that has been a change. It’s not a change that’s completed, but that shift is across party lines as well. That’s part of him that — it’s something you listen to when he tells that story.

I mean also, he told a story about his grandmother late in life, the grandmother who raised him, having, when she died, they found 19 handguns in the house all over the place. And he told sort of a funny story that she was old and frail and she always wanted to have one within reach. And all I could think of is, all these unlocked handguns with kids in the house! I mean, which is not a regulatory issue, but there’s a gun safety issue there. I’m just thinking, oh my God, 19 guns in drawers all over the house. But he’s obviously a very, the Republican Party is … I mean, after the assassination attempt, you have not heard Donald Trump say, “Maybe I need to rethink my position on gun control.” I mean, that’s not part of the dialogue right now.

I think having someone with that experience, talking about it the way he does, is a positive thing, really. Saying, “Here’s what we went through. Here’s why. Here’s how awful it was. Here’s how difficult it was to get out of it. And this is what these families need.” I mean, that is …

Rovner: Although it’s a little bit ironic because he’s very anti-social programs, in general.

Karlin-Smith: And he’s had a bad track record of trying to address the opioid crisis. He had a charity he started that he ended I guess about when he was running for Senate that really was deemed nonsuccessful. It also had questionable ties to Purdue Pharma, that’s sort of responsible for the opioid crisis. And the other thing that you sometimes hear in both him and Trump’s rhetoric is the blaming of immigrants and the drug cartels and all of that stuff for the opioid crisis. So, there’s a little bit of use of the topic, I think, to drop anti-immigrant sentiment and not really think about how to address the actual health struggles.

Kenen: When he talks about his family, he’s not saying China sent my mother fentanyl. I think it is good for people to hear stories from the perspective of a family who had this, as it is a health problem, reminding people that this is not thugs on the street shooting heroin. It’s a substance abuse disorder, it’s a disease. And so I think the country has come a long way, but it isn’t where it needs to be in terms of understanding that it’s a behavioral health problem. So I think in that sense he will probably be a reminder of that. But he doesn’t have a health record. I mean, he wasn’t there during the Obamacare wars. We don’t really know what he thinks about. I’m not aware of anything he’s really said about entitlements and Medicare. He does come from the state … I mean, Trump is saying he won’t touch it. But I mean if he said Medicare stuff, I missed it. I mean, if one of you knows, correct …

Karlin-Smith: Well, he has actually said that he supports Medicare drug price negotiation at times, which is interesting and unique for a Republican. And I mean Trump, as well, has been a bit different from the traditional Republican, I think, when it comes to the pharma industry and stuff, but I think that maybe is even a bridge too far in some ways.

Rovner: Yeah, he’s generally pretty anti-social program, so it’ll be interesting to see how he walks that line.

Well, this is all good segue into my next question, which is, health in general has been mostly MIA during this convention, including any update on Trump’s ear injury from the attempted assassination. Are we finally post-repeal-and-replace in the Republican Party? Or is this just one of those things that they don’t want to talk about but might yet take up if they get into office?

Kenen: We don’t know what the balance of power is in the Senate and the House, right? I mean, that’s probably going to be part of it. I mean, if they have huge … if they capture both chambers with huge majorities, it’s a new ballgame. Whether they actually try to repeal it, versus there’s all sorts of ways they can undermine it. Trump did not succeed in repealing it. Trump and the House Republicans did not, the Republicans in general did not succeed in repealing it, despite a lot of effort. But they did undermine it in all sorts of ways and coverage actually fell during the Trump administration. ACA [Affordable Care Act] coverage did drop; it didn’t vanish completely, but it dropped. And under Biden it continued to grow. Now, the Republicans get their health care through the ACA, so it’s become much more normalized, but we don’t know what they will do. Trump is not a predictable politician, right? I mean, he often made a big deal about trying to lower drug prices early in his term, and then nothing. And then he even released huge, long list of things …

I remember one of our reporters — Sarah and I were both … Sarah, Alice, and I were all at Politico — and I think it was David who counted the number of question marks in that report. And at the end of the day, nothing much happened. I don’t think the ACA is untouchable; it may or may not be unrepealable in its entirety, but it’s certainly not untouchable.

Rovner: Well, he also changes positions on a whim, as we’ve seen. Most politicians you can at least count on to, when they take a position, to keep it at least for a matter of days or weeks, and Trump sometimes in the same interview can sort of contradict himself, as we know. But I mean, obviously a quick way to undermine the ACA, as you say, would just be to let the extended subsidies expire because they would need to be re-upped if that’s going to continue and there are many millions of people that are now …

Kenen: And they expire next year.

Rovner: … Yes, that are …

Kenen: And there are also two other things. You cut the navigating budget. You cut advertising. You don’t try to sell it. I don’t mean literally sell it, but you don’t try to go out and urge … I mean, that was their playbook last time, and that’s why — it’s one reason enrollment dropped. And that was, the subsidies were under Biden, the extended subsidies. So that’s one year away.

Ollstein: But it’s no surprise that this hasn’t been a big topic of discussion at the RNC [Republican National Convention]. I mean, polling shows that voters trust Democrats more on health care; it’s one of their best issues. It’s not a good issue for Republicans. And so it was fully expected that they would stick to things that are more favorable to them: crime, inflation, whatnot. So, I do expect to hear a lot about health care at the DNC [Democratic National Convention] in a few weeks. But beyond that, we do not know what’s going to happen at the DNC.

Rovner: Yeah.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say, the one health issue we haven’t really touched on, which the Republicans have been hammering on, is transgender health care and pushing limits on it, especially for people transitioning, children, and adolescents. And I think that’s clearly been a strategic move, particularly as they’ve gotten into more political trouble with abortion and women in the party. They clearly seem to think that the transgender issue, in general, appeals more to their base and it’s less risky for them.

Rovner: Their culture warrior base, as you will. Yeah, and we have in fact seen a fair bit of that. Well, before we leave the convention, one more item: It seems that Trump and RFK Jr. [independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr.] had a phone conversation, which of course leaked to the public, during which they talked about vaccine resistance. Now we know that RFK Jr. is a longtime anti-vaxxer. What, if anything, does the recounting of this conversation suggest about former President Trump’s vaccine views? And we’ve talked about this a little bit before, he’s been very antimandate for the covid vaccine, but it’s been a little bit of a blank on basic childhood vaccines.

Karlin-Smith: And I mean, his remarks are, they’re almost a little bit difficult to parse, they don’t quite make sense, but they seem to be essentially repeating anti-vax tropes around, well, maybe one vaccine on their own isn’t dangerous, but we give kids too many vaccines at a time or too close together. And all of that stuff has been debunked over the years as incorrect. The vaccine schedule has been rigorously evaluated for safety and efficacy and so forth.

That said, Trump obviously was in office when we spearheaded the development of covid vaccines, which ended up being wildly successful, and he didn’t really undermine that process, I guess, for the most part when he was in office. So it’s hard to know. Again, there’s a lot of difficulty in predicting what Trump will actually do and it may depend a lot who he surrounds himself with and who he appoints to key positions in his health department and what their views are. Because he seems like he can be easily persuaded and right now he may just be in, again, campaign mode, very much trying to appeal to a certain population. And you could easily see him — because he doesn’t seem to care about switching positions — just pivoting and being slightly less anti-vax. But it’s certainly concerning to people who have been even more about the U.S. anti-vax sentiments since covid and decreases in vaccination rates.

Rovner: It did feel like he was trying to say what he thought RFK Jr. wanted to hear, so as to win his endorsement, which we know that Trump is very good at doing. He channels what he says depending on who he’s talking to, which is what a lot of politicians do. He just tends to do it more obviously than many others.

Kenen: Julie, we heard this at the tail end of the 2016 campaign. He made a few comments, exactly, very, very similar to this, the size of a horse vaccine and you see the changes — there’s too many, too many vaccines, too large doses. We heard this briefly in the late 2016, and we heard it at the very — I no longer remember whether it was during transition in 2016 or whether it was early in 2017 when he was in the White House — but we heard a little bit of this then, too. And he had a meeting with RFK then. And RFK said that Trump was talking about maybe setting up a commission and RFK at one point said that Trump had asked him to head the commission. We don’t think that was necessarily the case.

First of all, there was no commission. The White House never confirmed that they had asked RFK to lead it. Who knows who said what in a closed room, or who heard what or what they wanted to hear; we don’t know. But we heard this whole episode, including Trump and RFK, at approximately the beginning of 2017, and it did go away. Covid didn’t happen right away; covid was later. There was no anti-vax commission. There was no vax commission. There was no change in vaccination policy in those early years prepandemic. And as Sarah just pointed out, Trump was incredibly pro-vaccine during the pandemic. I mean, the Operation Warp Speed was hailed by even people who didn’t like anything else about Trump. When public health liked Operation Warp Speed, he got vaccines into arms fast, faster than many of us thought, right?

The difference — there were anti-vaxxers then; there have been since smallpox — but it is much more politicized and much more prominent, and in some ways it has almost replaced the ACA as your identifying health issue. If you talk to somebody about the ACA, you know what party they are, you even know where within the party they are, what wing. And that’s not 100% true of anti-vaxxers. There are anti-vaxxers on both sides, but the politicization has been on the Republican-medical-libertarian side, that you-can’t-tell-me-what-to-do-it’s-my-body side. It is much more part of his base and a more intense, visible, and vocal part of his base. So, it’s the same comments, or very similar comments, to the same person in a different political context.

Rovner: Well, I think it’s safe to say that abortion does remain the most potent political health issue of the year, and there was lots of state-based abortion election news this week. As we’ve been discussing all year, as many as a dozen states will have abortion questions on the ballot for voters this November, but not without a fight. Florida has just added an addendum to its ballot measures, suggesting that if passed, it could cost the state money. And in Arkansas and Montana, there are now legal fights over which signatures should or shouldn’t be counted in getting some of those questions to the ballot.

Alice, in every state that’s voted on abortion since Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization], the abortion-right side has prevailed. Is the strategy here to try to prevent people from voting in the first place?

Ollstein: Oh, yes. I wrote a story about this in January. It’s been true for a while, and it’s been true in the states that already had their votes, too. There were efforts in Ohio to make a vote harder or to block it entirely. There were efforts in Michigan to do so. And even the same tactics are being repeated. And so the fight over the cost estimate in Florida, which is usually just a very boring, bureaucratic, routine thing, has become this political fight. And that also happened in Missouri. So, we’re seeing these trends and patterns and basically any aspect of this process that can be mobilized to become a fight between conservative state officials and these groups that are attempting to get these measures on the ballot, it has been. And so Arizona is also having a fight over the language that is going to go in the voter guide that goes out to everybody. So there’s a fight going on there that’s going to go to court next week about whether it says fetus or unborn child. So, all of these little aspects of it, there’s going to be more lawsuits over signature, validation, and so it’s going to be a knockdown, drag-out fight to the end.

It’s been really interesting to see that conservative efforts to mount these so-called decline-to-sign campaigns, where they go out and try to just convince people not to sign the petition — those have completely failed, even in states that haven’t gotten the kind of national support and funding that Florida and Nevada and some of these states have. Even those places have met their signature goals and so they’re now moving to this next phase of the fight, which is these legal and bureaucratic challenges.

Rovner: This is going to play out, I suspect, right, almost until the last minute, in terms of getting some of these on the ballot.

Meanwhile, here on Capitol Hill, there’s an effort underway by some abortion rights backers to repeal the 1873 Comstock Act, which some anti-abortion activists say could be used to establish a national abortion ban. On the one hand, repealing the law would take away that possibility. On the other hand, suggesting that it needs to be repealed undercuts the Biden administration’s contention that the law is currently unenforceable. This seemed to be a pretty risky proposition for abortion rights forces no matter which way they go, right?

Ollstein: Well, for a while, the theory on the abortion rights side was, oh, we shouldn’t draw attention to Comstock because we don’t want to give the right the idea of using it to make a backdoor abortion ban. But that doesn’t really hold water anymore because they clearly know about it and they clearly have the idea already and are open about their desire to use it in documents like Project 2025, in letters from lawmakers urging enforcement of the Comstock Act. And so the whole …

Rovner: In concurring opinions in Supreme Court cases.

Ollstein: … Exactly, exactly. In legal filings in Supreme Court cases from the plaintiffs. So clearly, the whole “don’t give the right the idea thing” is not really the strategy anymore; the right already has the idea. And so now I think it’s more like you said, about undercutting the legal argument that it is not enforceable anyway. But those who do advocate for its repeal say, “Why wouldn’t we take this tool out of contention?” But this is sort of a philosophical fight because they don’t have the votes to repeal it anyway.

Rovner: Yeah, though I think the idea is if you bring it up you put Republicans on the record, as …

Ollstein: Sure, but they’ve been doing that on so many things. I mean, they’ve been doing that on IVF [in vitro fertilization], they’ve been doing that on contraception, they’ve been doing that on abortion, they’ve been doing it on the right to travel for an abortion. They’ve been doing it over and over and over and I don’t see a lot of evidence that it’s making a big impact in the election. I could be wrong, but I think that’s the current state of things.

Rovner: Yeah, I’m with you on that one.

All right, well, while we are all busy living our lives and talking about politics, covid is making its now annual summer comeback. President Biden is currently quarantining at his beach house in Rehoboth after testing positive. HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary Xavier Becerra was diagnosed earlier this week. And wastewater testing shows covid levels are “very high” in seven states, including big ones like Florida, Texas, and California. Sarah, do we just not care anymore? Is this just not news?

Karlin-Smith: Probably, it depends on who you ask, right? But I think obviously with Biden getting covid, it’s going to get more attention again. I think that a lot of health officials, including in the Biden administration, spent a lot of time trying to maybe optimistically hope that covid was going to become a seasonal struggle, much like flu, where we really sort of know a more defined risk period in the winter and that helps us manage it a bit. And always sort of seemed a little bit more optimistic than reality. And I think recently I’ve listened to some CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] meetings and stuff where — it’s not really, it’s a little bit subtle — but I think they’re finally kind of coming around to, oh wait, actually this is something where we probably are going to have these two peaks every year. They’re sort of year-round risk. But there hasn’t been a ton done to actually think through, OK, what does that mean for how we handle it?

In this country, every year they have been approving a second vaccine for the people most at risk, although uptake of that is incredibly low. So it does seem like it’s become a little bit of a neglected public health crisis. And certainly in the news sometimes when something kind of stays at this sort of constant level of problem, but nothing changes, it can sometimes, I think, be harder for news outlets to figure out how to draw attention to it.

Rovner: It does seem like, I mean, most of the prominent people who have been getting it have been getting mild cases. I imagine that that sort of has something to do … We’re not seeing … even Biden, who’s as we all know, 81, is quarantining at his beach house, so.

Karlin-Smith: Right, I mean, if you kind of stay up to date, as the terminology is, on your vaccinations, you don’t have a lot of high-risk conditions, if you are in certain at-risk groups you get Paxlovid. For the most part a lot of people are doing well. But that said, I think, I’m afraid to say the numbers, but if you look up the amount of deaths per week and so forth, it’s still quite high. We’re still losing — again, more people are still dying from covid every year, quite a few more than from the flu. I mean, one thing I think people have also pointed out is when new babies are born, you can’t get vaccinated until you’re 6 months. The under-6-month population has been impacted quite a bit again. So, it is that tension. And we saw it with the flu before covid, which is every year flu is actually a very big issue in the U.S. and the public health world for hospitals and stuff but the U.S. never quite put enough maybe attention or pressure to figure out how to actually change that dynamic and get better flu vaccine uptake and so forth.

Kenen: And the intense heat makes it, I mean — covid is much, much, much, much more transmissible inside than outside. And the intense heat — we’re not sitting around enjoying warm weather, we’re inside hiding from sweltering weather. We’re all in Washington or the Washington area, and it’s been hot with a capital H for weeks here, weeks. So people are inside. They can’t even be outside in the evening, it’s still hot. So we think of winter as being the indoors time in most of the country, and summer sort of the indoors time in only certain states. But right now we are in more transmissible environments for covid and …

Rovner: Meanwhile, while we’re all trying to ignore covid, we have bird flu that seems to be getting more and more serious, although people seem to just not want to think about it. We’re looking at obviously in many states bird flu spreading to dairy cows and therefore spreading to dairy workers. Sarah, we don’t really even know how big this problem is, right? Because we’re not really looking for it?

Karlin-Smith: That seems to be one of the biggest concerns of people in the public health-virology community who are criticizing the current response right now, is just we’re not testing enough, both in terms of animal populations that could be impacted and then the people that work or live closely by these animal populations, to figure out how this virus is spreading, how many people are actually impacted. Is the genetics of the virus changing? And the problem of course then is, if you don’t do this tracking, there’s a sense that we can get ourselves in a situation where it’s too late. By the time we realize something is wrong, it’s going to already be a very dangerous situation.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, before covid, the big concern about a pandemic was bird flu. And was bird flu jumping from birds to other animals to humans, which is exactly what we’re seeing even though we’re not seeing a ton of it yet.

Kenen: We’re not seeing a ton of it, and in its current form, to the best of our knowledge, it’s not that dangerous. The fear is the more species it’s in and the more people it’s in, the more opportunities it has to become more dangerous. So, just because people have not become seriously ill, which is great, but it doesn’t mean it stays great, we just don’t — Sarah knows more about this than I do, but the flu virus mutates very easily. It combines with other flu viruses. That’s why you hear about Type A and Type B and all that. I mean, it’s not a stable virus and that is not, I’m not sure if stable is the right …

Rovner: It’s why we need a different flu shot every year.

Kenen: Right, and the flu shots we have, bird flu is different.

Rovner: Well, we will continue to watch that.

Kenen: Sarah can correct anything I just got wrong. But I think the gist was right, right?

Rovner: Sarah is nodding.

All right, well finally, one follow up from last week in the wake of the report from the Federal Trade Commission on self-dealing by pharmacy benefits managers: We get a piece from The Wall Street Journal this week [“Mail-Order Drugs Were Supposed To Keep Costs Down. It’s Doing the Opposite.”] documenting how much more mail-order pharmacies, particularly mail-order pharmacies owned by said PBMs [pharmacy benefit managers] are charging. Quoting from the story, “Branded drugs filled by mail were marked up on average three to six times higher than the cost of medicines dispensed by chain and grocery-store pharmacies, and roughly 35 times higher than those filled by independent pharmacies.” That’s according to the study commissioned by the Washington State Pharmacy Association. It’s not been a great month for the PBM industry. Sarah, I’m going to ask you what I asked the panel last week: Is Congress finally ready to do something?

Karlin-Smith: It seemed like Congress has finally been ready to do something for a while. Certainly, both sides have passed legislation and committees and so forth, and it’s been pretty bipartisan. So we’ll see. I think some of it costs — I forget if some of it costs a little money — but some of it does save. And that’s always an issue. And we know that Congress is just not very good at passing stand-alone bills on particular topics, so I think the key times will be to look at when we get to any big end-of-year funding deals and that sort of thing, depending on all the dynamics with the election and the lame duck, but …

Rovner: I mean, this has been so bipartisan. I mean, there’s bipartisan irritation in both houses, in both parties.

Karlin-Smith: Right, and I think the antitrust sort of element of this with PBMs kind of appeals to the Republican side of the aisle quite a bit. And that’s why there’s always been a bit of bipartisan interest. And the question becomes: PBMs sort of fill the role that in other countries government price negotiators fill. And that’s not particularly popular in the U.S., particularly on the Republican side of the aisle. And so most of the legislation that is pending, I think, will maybe hopefully get us to some transparency solutions, tweak some things around the edges, but it’s not really going to solve the crisis. It’s going to be, I mean, a very [Washington,] D.C. health policy move, which is kind of, take some incremental steps that might eventually move us down to later reforms, but it’s going to be slow-moving, whatever happens. So, PBMs are going to be in the spotlight for probably a while longer.

Rovner: Yes, which popular issue moves slower: drug prices or gun control?

All right, well finally this week the health policy community has lost another giant. Gail Wilensky, who ran Medicare and Medicaid under the first President Bush, and the advisory group MedPAC for many years after that, died of cancer last week at age 81. Gail managed to be both polite and outspoken at the same time. A Republican economist who worked with and disagreed with both Democrats and Republicans, and who, I think it’s fair to say, was respected by just about everyone who ever dealt with her. She taught me, and lots of others, a large chunk of what I know about health policy. She will be very much missed. Joanne, I guess you worked with her probably as long as I did.

Kenen: Yeah, I’m the one who told you she had died, right?

Rovner: That’s true.

Kenen: I think that when I heard her speak in a professional setting in the last few years, she talked to her about herself not as a Republican health economist, but as a free market health economist. She was very well respected and very well liked, but she also ended up being a person without a party. But she was a fixture and she was a nice person.

Rovner: And she wasn’t afraid to say when she was the head of MedPAC she made a lot of people angry. She made a lot of Republicans angry in some of those sort of positions that she took. She basically called it as she saw it and let the chips fall.

Kenen: And Julie, she went to Michigan, right?

Rovner: Yes, and she went to Michigan. That’s true. A fellow Michigan Wolverine. All right, well, that is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with Renuka Rayasam, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Renuka Rayasam, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” It’s about what should have been a simple visit to an urgent care center but of course turned out to be anything but. Renu, thanks for joining us.

Renuka Rayasam: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So, tell us about this month’s patient, who he is, and what kind of medical problem he had.

Rayasam: Sure, let me tell you about the patient in this month’s “Bill of the Month.” His name is Tim Chong. He’s a Dallas man, and last December he felt severe stomach pain and he didn’t know what it was from. And he thought at first maybe he’d had some food poisoning. But the pain didn’t subside and he thought, OK, I don’t want to have to pay an ER bill, so let me go to an urgent care. And he opted to visit Parkland Health’s Urgent Care Emergency Center, where he learned he had a kidney stone and was told to go home and that it would pass on its own.

Rovner: Now, we’re told all the time exactly what he was told, that if we have a health problem that needs immediate attention but probably not a hospital-level emergency, we should go to an urgent care center rather than a hospital emergency room. And most insurers encourage you to do this; they give you a big incentive by charging a far smaller copay for urgent care. So, that’s what he tried to do, right?

Rayasam: That’s what he tried to do, at least that’s what he thought he was doing. Like I said, this is a facility, it’s called Urgent Care Emergency Center. He told me that he walked in, he thought he was at an urgent care, he got checked out, was told it was a kidney stone. He actually went back five days later because his stomach pain worsened and didn’t get better. And it wasn’t until he got the bills the following month that he realized he was actually at an emergency center and not an urgent care center. His bill was $500 for each visit, not $50 for each visit as he had anticipated.

Rovner: And no one told him when he went there?

Rayasam: He said no one told him. And we reached out to Parkland Health and they said, “Well, we have notices all over the place. We label it very clearly: This is an emergency care center, you may be charged emergency care fees,” but they also sent me a picture of some of those notices and those are notices that are buried among a lot of different notices on walls. Plus, this is a person who is suffering from severe stomach pain. He was really not in a position to read those disclosures. He went by what the front desk staff did or didn’t tell him and what the name of the facility was.

Rovner: I was going to say, there was a sign that said “Urgent Care,” right?

Rayasam: Right, absolutely. Urgent Care Emergency Center, right? And so when we reached out to Parkland, they said, “Hey, we are clearly labeled as an emergency center. We’re an extension of the main emergency room.” And that’s the other thing you have to remember about this case, which is that this is the person who knew Parkland’s facility. He knew they had a separate emergency room center and he said, “I didn’t go into that building. I didn’t go into the building that’s labeled emergency room. I run into this building labeled Urgent Care Emergency Center.” Parkland says, hey, this is an extension of their main emergency room. This is where they send lower-level emergency cases, but obviously it’s a really confusing name and a really confusing setup.

Rovner: Yeah, absolutely. So, how did this all turn out? Medically, he was OK eventually, right?

Rayasam: Medically he was OK eventually. Eventually the stone did pass. And it wasn’t until he got these bills that he kind of knew what happened. When he first got the bills, he thought, well, obviously there’s some mistake. He talked to his insurer. His insurer, BlueCross and BlueShield of Texas, told him that Parkland had billed these visits using emergency room codes and he thought, wait a second, why are they using emergency room codes? I didn’t go into the emergency room. And that’s when Parkland told him, “Hey, you actually did go into an emergency room. Sorry for your confusion. You still owe us $1,000 total.” He paid part of the bills. He was trying to challenge the bills and he reached out to us at “Bill of the Month,” but eventually his bill got sent to collection and Parkland’s sort of standing by their decision to charge him $500 for each visit.

Rovner: So he basically still owes $1,000?

Rayasam: Yes, that’s right.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? This feels like the ultimate bait and switch. How do you possibly make sure that a facility that says urgent care on the door isn’t actually a hospital emergency room?

Rayasam: That’s a great question. When it comes to the American medical system, unfortunately patients still have to do a lot of self-triage. One expert I’ve talked to said it’s still up to the patients to walk through the right door. Regulators have done a little bit, in Texas in particular, of making sure these facilities, these freestanding emergency room centers, as they’re called — and this one is hospital-owned, so the name is confusin, but it’s technically a freestanding emergency center, so it did have the name emergency in the name of the facility, and I think that that’s required in Texas — but I’ve talked to others who’ve said, you should ban the term urgent care from a facility that’s not urgent care. Because this is a concept that’s very familiar to most Americans. Urgent care has been around for decades; you have an idea of what an urgent care is.

And when you look at this place on its website, it’s called Urgent Care Emergency Center, it’s sort of advertised as a separate clinic within Parkland structure. It’s closed on nights, it’s closed on Sundays. The list of things they say they treat very much resembles an urgent care. So, this patient’s confusion I think is very, very understandable and he’s certainly not the only one that’s had that confusion at this facility. Regulators could ban the term urgent care for facilities that bill like emergency rooms. But until that happens it’s up to the patients to call, to check, and to ask about billing when they show up, which isn’t always easy to do when you’re suffering from severe stomach pain.

Rovner: Another thing for patients to watch out for.

Rayasam: Yes, absolutely, and worry about.

Rovner: Yes, Renuka Rayasam, thank you so much for joining.

Rayasam: Thank you, Julie.

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

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure, I looked at a New York Times piece called “Promised Cures, Tainted Cells: How Cord Blood Banks Mislead Patients.” And it’s about the often very aggressive sort of tactics of these banks to convince women to save some of the cord blood after they give birth with the promise that it may be able to help treat your child’s illness down the road. And the investigation into this found that there’s a number of problems. One is that, for the most part, the science has progressed in a way that some of what people used to maybe use some of these cells for, they now use adult stem cells. The other is these banks are just not actually storing the products properly and much of it gets contaminated so it couldn’t even be used. Or sometimes you just don’t even collect enough, I guess, of the tissue to even be able to use it.

In one instance, they documented a family that — the bank knew that the cells were contaminated and were still charging them for quite a long time. And the other thing that I actually personally found fascinated by this — because my OB-GYN actually did kind of, I feel like, push one of these companies — was that they can pay the OB-GYNs quite a hefty fee for what seems like a very small amount of work. And it’s not subject to the same sort of kickback type of regulation that there may be for other pharmaceutical/medical device interactions between doctors and parts of the biotech industry. So I found that quite fascinating as well, what the economic incentives are to push this on people.

Rovner: Yeah. One more example of capitalism and health care being uncomfortable bedfellows, Chapter 1 Million. Joanne?

Kenen: There was a fantastic piece in The Washington Post by Annie Gowan: “A Mom Struggles To Feed Her Kids After GOP States Reject Federal Funds,” which was a long headline, but it was also a long story. But it was one of those wonderful narrative stories that really put a human face on a policy decision.

The federal government has created some extra funds for childhood nutrition, childhood food, and some of the Republican governors, including in this particular family’s case, the Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt in Oklahoma, have turned down these funds. And families … So this is a single, full-time working mom. She is employed. She’s got three teenagers. They’re all athletic and active and hungry and she doesn’t have enough food for them. And particularly in the summer when they don’t get meals in school, the struggle to get enough food, she goes without meals. Her kids — one of the kids actually works in the food pantry where they get their food from. The amount of time and energy this mom spends just making sure her children get fed when there is a source of revenue that her state chose not to us: It’s a really, really good story. It’s long, but I read it all even before Julie sent it to me. I said, “I already read that one.” It’s really very good and it’s very human. And, why?

Rovner: Policy affects real people.

Kenen: This is hungry teenagers.

Rovner: It’s one of things that journalism is for.

Kenen: Right, right, and they’re also not eating real healthy food because they’re not living on grapefruits and vegetables. They’re living on starchy stuff.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I chose a good piece from ProPublica called “Texas Sends Millions to Crisis Pregnancy Centers. It’s Meant To Help Needy Families, but No One Knows if It Works.” And it is about just how little oversight there is of the budgets of taxpayer dollars that are going to these anti-abortion centers that in many cases use the majority of funding not for providing services. A lot of it goes to overhead. And so there’s a lot of fascinating details in there. These centers can bill the state a lot of money just for handing out pamphlets, for handing out supplies that were donated that they got for free. They get to charge the state for handing those out. And there’s just not a lot of evaluation of, is this serving people? Is this improving health outcomes? And I think it’s a good critical look at this as other states are moving towards adopting similar programs to what’s going on in Texas.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re seeing a lot of states put a lot of money towards some of these centers.

Well, my extra credit this week is from Time magazine. It’s called, “‘We’re Living in a Nightmare:’ Inside the Health Crisis of a Texas Bitcoin Town,” by Andrew Chow. And in case we didn’t already have enough to worry about, it seems that the noise that comes from the giant server farms used to mine bitcoin can cause all manner of health problems for those in the surrounding areasm from headaches to nausea and vomiting to hypertension. At a local meeting, one resident reported that “her 8-year-old daughter was losing her hearing and fluids were leaking from her ears.”

The company that operates the bitcoin plant says it’s in the process of moving to a quieter cooling system. That’s what makes all the noise. But as cryptocurrency mining continues to grow and spread, it’s likely that other communities will be affected in the way the people of Granbury, Texas, have been.

All right. That is our show for this week. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks as always to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m mostly on X @SarahKarlin or on some other platforms like Bluesky, at @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: I’m on X @AliceOllstein and on Bluesky @alicemiranda.

Rovner: Joanne?

Kenen: A little bit on X @JoanneKenen and a little bit on Threads @joannekenen1.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

Republicans released a draft party platform in advance of the GOP national convention next week, and while it is being described as softening the party’s stance opposing abortion, support from major groups that oppose abortion suggests that claim may be something of a mirage.

Meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission is taking on the pharmacy benefits management industry as it prepares to file suit charging that the largest PBMs engage in anticompetitive behavior that raises patients’ drug costs.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th News, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories.

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@shefalil

Read Shefali's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• For the first time in decades, the GOP presidential platform will not include a call for a national abortion ban. But Republicans are hardly soft-pedaling the issue: The new platform effectively asserts that abortion violates the 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law for all citizens — including, under their reading, human embryos. Under that argument, abortion opponents may already have the constitutional justification they need to defend in court further restrictions on the procedure.
• Lawmakers in Washington are making early progress on government spending bills, including for the Department of Health and Human Services. Some political issues, like access to gender-affirming care for service members and minors, are creating wrinkles. Congress will likely need to pass a stopgap spending measure to avoid a government shutdown this fall.
• And a new report from the Federal Trade Commission illuminates the sweeping control of a handful of pharmacy benefits managers over most of the nation’s prescription drugs. As the government eyes lawsuits against some of the major PBMs alleging anticompetitive behavior, the findings bolster the case that PBMs are inflating drug prices.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council, about the Biden administration’s policies to ensure access to reproductive health care.

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

Julie Rovner: STAT News’ “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names,” by Tara Bannow.

Jessie Hellmann: North Carolina Health News’ “N.C. House Wants to Spend Opioid Money on Multiple Abstinence-Based Recovery Centers, While Experts Stress Access to Medication,” by Grace Vitaglione.

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “These GOP Women Begged the Party to Abandon Abortion. Then Came Backlash,” by Caroline Kitchener.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “For at Least One Abortion Clinic, Dobbs Eased Stressors,” by Sandhya Raman.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: GOP Platform Muddies Abortion Waters

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’ Episode Title: ‘GOP Platform Muddies Abortion Waters’Episode Number: 355Published: July 11, 2024

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

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 11, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today by a video conference by Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann, also of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hi there.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with White House Gender Policy Council Director Jennifer Klein about how the administration is dealing with the recent Supreme Court decisions about abortion access. But first, this week’s news. So, the Republican National Convention is next week. I have no idea how that happened already.

And in preparation, the party’s platform committee, behind closed doors, overwhelmingly approved a document that, depending on who you believe, either weakens the party’s longtime anti-abortion stance or cleverly disguises it. Shefali, what exactly did they do and how is this a change from the last Republican platform, which was actually written in 2016?

Luthra: So this is pretty interesting because there was a lot of attention paid to the fact that this is the first Republican platform in decades to not include a national abortion ban at 20 weeks. And so that got a lot of headlines. People saying, “This is really backpedaling, this is softening the GOP’s abortion stance.” But if you look at the text, that’s not really true. Because while they don’t talk about a national abortion ban, they do cite one of the anti-abortion movement’s favorite legal theories, the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

And they argue that states when banning abortion can use the 14th Amendment, and they recognize that as protecting essentially the rights of fetuses and embryos. It’s kind of having it both ways because while they argue this is a state decision in the language, they’re using the federal Constitution. And every anti-abortion group that I’ve spoken with sees this as a victory, at least the major ones do. Because if you’re citing the Constitution, you’re opening a door to a national abortion ban through our founding documents.

And that is something that they have been working for for a long time. And so I think it’s really important for us to understand just how drastic in some ways this really is. It is not really soft peddling in terms of what they’re ultimately hoping to achieve.

Rovner: Yeah, I think people have not pointed out that this is the first Republican platform post-Roe v. Wade. So they don’t need to call for federal legislation because they have a court that will basically, as they put in the platform, guarantee what they are asserting, which is that basically the 14th Amendment already effectively bans abortion. So the heck with Congress,

Luthra: And one thing that I do think is worth noting is, in some ways, why, and many have made this point, why would they care about a national 20-week abortion ban? Most abortion opponents don’t see that as a victory because most abortions occur well before that. They would much rather have national restrictions, or at the very least, six or 15.

Rovner: Yeah, and somebody, now I can’t remember who it was, wrote about this. There’s a reference in the platform language to, I think I can’t remember, whether it’s late term or later abortions, but that can be defined many, many, many, many ways, not just… I mean, 20 weeks is, like, that is so three years ago.

Raman: Oh, I was going to say I would agree in part. I do think that, yes, it lets you cater to an array of people, because you can either have someone follow the 14th Amendment language or the only other sentence that anything in this realm says, advocating for prenatal care and access to birth control and IVF. And then with certain forms of birth control, with IVF, we still have some of the same people that are citing personhood concerns as their opposition for that. So it’s playing both ways.

And yes, I would say that most of the anti-abortion groups have been saying that they’re OK with this. But then at the same time, we have someone like former Vice President Mike Pence, who came out pretty strongly against this and is really disappointed, and he’s been a huge player in the anti-abortion advocacy. But I think one thing that was interesting was we focused a lot on just the limit not being in this version.

But the older version also had just more language on preventing fetal tissue research from abortions or federal funding from abortions or sex-specific or disability-specific abortions. It’s just a smaller social issue, I think, in the overall platform, whereas I think they’ve really been playing up some of the other things like gender-affirming care and pushing back against that as you can see throughout ads and stuff.

Rovner: But of course, all of those things are in Project 2025, right?

Raman: Yeah.

Luthra: And part of that also is that this is a fairly short platform as Republican platforms go. It’s clearly written in the Trump voice. Detail is not its desired narrative.

Rovner: It’s not the 900-page Project 2025 …

Luthra: Absolutely not.

Rovner: … that Trump now insists he knows nothing about. Which seems was written, in fact, I think almost exclusively by people who worked for him and who I believe plan to work for him in his second term.

Luthra: And if you see photos from the RNC, it’s very clear that Heritage [Foundation], the organization behind Project 2025, has a strong presence there.

Rovner: Yes, we’ll all be watching the convention carefully next week. I assume that they’re going to do the job that they’ve done so far, which is to keep everybody singing from the same songbook. That’s clearly the goal of every party convention, and so far they seem to have managed to play this both ways enough. As you mentioned, they have the anti-abortion groups on board, but they’ve gotten the mainstream media, if you will, to say, “Oh, look, they’re softening their abortion stance.” We’ll see if that lasts through the week.

So in my conversation with Jen Klein, which we will hear a little bit later, we talked about how the two abortion cases at the Supreme Court this term challenging the abortion pill and the federal emergency abortion requirements under EMTALA [Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act] are likely to come back at some point since the court didn’t reach the merits of either case.

But those are far from the only cases that could come back to the justices in the next year or so, regardless of who gets elected president. There are also going to be cases about whether women who live in states with abortion bans can travel to other states where abortion is legal. And whether states can really shield doctors who prescribe abortion pills to patients who are residents of states where abortion is banned. The court by itself could effectively ban abortion no matter who’s elected president or controls Congress, right?

Luthra: There’s definitely a lot of unanswered legal questions that we will see coming to the court. The shield law question is one that I think is incredibly interesting with significant tremendous ramifications for how people get abortion. I don’t know that we’ve seen incredible test cases yet that could become the one that the court weighs in on. But it really is only a matter of time until abortion opponents in particular find a way to develop a legal challenge and then advance it.

Rovner: I’m watching the travel cases, because I mean, even [Supreme Court Justice] Brett Kavanaugh wrote in one of these abortion decisions that you cannot ban travel from one state to another. There certainly seem to be ways of trying. I know that there’s been a bill that’s been kicking around in Congress for three decades to make it a crime to take a minor across state lines without the minor’s parents’ permission.

It was based off a case where the guy’s mom took the kid from Pennsylvania to New York. That was the origin of this case in 1997. But certainly that was the first bit of, maybe we should do something about people trying to travel from state to state since we now have cases where abortion is legal in some and not legal in others.

Raman: We’ve definitely seen that historically that certain types of things that if it starts with minors and things like that, that it can grow. I mean, that’s a thing that they’ve been messaging a lot on with the gender-affirming care. If it’s starting with youth, that slowly the age range creeps up. So that even if this is something that starts just in a few states like with what Idaho has been doing with minors, it could change.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the number of states with complete bans or major restrictions continues to grow. The Iowa Supreme Court, which ruled as recently as 2018 that abortion was “a fundamental right under the state constitution,” has now reversed itself and has allowed a six-week ban to take effect. Shefali, that’s going to have ramifications way beyond Iowa, right?

Luthra: It always does. We are now up to 14 states with near-total abortion bans and four more with six-week bans. That means Iowa. That is South Carolina. That is Georgia. That is Florida. And what we know is people try and travel from one state to another to access care. And there weren’t a large number of abortions being done in Iowa. I checked the data after this ban took effect, and it’s a small state.

But we’ll see what we always see, which is people trying to travel somewhere else where they can get care, creating longer wait times at clinics that are under-resourced already, overtaxed, making it harder for everyone to access not only abortion, but any other health service they might provide, whether that is STI [sexually transmitted infection] testing, whether that is family planning services, whether that’s cancer screenings.

Rovner: And we’re also seeing doctors leaving some of these states with bans, which means that there’s simply less care available in those states.

Luthra: Absolutely. We’re seeing people have to go from their home states to neighboring states just for basic pregnancy care for when they deliver, because they don’t have maternal fetal medicine specialists. They don’t have OB-GYNs. And eventually they’re going to have fewer family physicians and doctors of all kinds practicing in these states for the reasons, as you’ve reported so often, Julie, that in part they don’t want to practice somewhere where their profession isn’t fully legal. And also they would like full access to health care themselves.

Rovner: Yes, for themselves or their partners. Well, back here in Washington, it’s a million degrees this week and Congress is back, not that those two things are connected, just mentioning. Anyway, unlike last year when the House basically abandoned the appropriations process, culminating in the spending bills for the current fiscal year not being finalized until this past spring, like more than halfway through the year, House Republicans are in fact moving the 12 regular appropriations for next year. Although not in a way that’s likely to become law.

Sandhya, you’re following the gigantic Labor, Health and Human Services, Education spending bill that got marked up in a full committee yesterday. What’s it look like at the moment?

Raman: So yesterday we had our monster markup. Six hours that it took just to get through that bill to approve the Labor-HHS-Education bill. We had 15 different amendments come up, which takes up the bulk of the conversation. What we had approved on a party-line vote was $107 billion in discretionary money for HHS. So if that were to become law, that’s a drop of about $8.5 billion from what we currently have.

And so this is just the first step because the Senate will put out their version in the coming weeks. We can help and they’ll come together on a deal. And even during the markup, it was acknowledged by leadership that this is the first step. This was on party lines. This is not what we’re going to get when we come to law. Democrats had a lot of issues that they voiced throughout the process about the big cuts.

Rovner: Oh, there’s some pretty dramatic cuts in this bill.

Raman: Yeah. The bill, as it stands, would cut a lot of the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] prevention programs. It would cut all the funding for Title X family planning funding. It would cut a lot of HIV prevention funding, and has smaller numbers for a variety of programs throughout. And that has just been a nonstarter.

Ranking member [Rep.] Rosa DeLauro has said that she wants at least a 1% increase over what was there last year, and she cited the budget deal that Congress and the White House had agreed to last year, whereas Republicans had said that the numbers in the bill that was approved reflects what they see as following that model. So we’ll see as the Senate moves and then this should eventually get to the House floor if they stick to it.

I mean, last year we had a subcommittee markup and it never went to full committee because of various issues there, but they did take it to the floor. It’s been a different process.

Rovner: It was basically too extreme to pass last year.

Raman: Yeah. Well, last year they also revised it to make it more conservative. And so that also brought up some issues there to get everyone on board. But this is just the first step and we will see what happens in the coming weeks with what the Senate puts out.

Rovner: One of the things that interested me in the bill is that it looks like these are the appropriators. They’re not supposed to be making policy. They’re just supposed to be setting spending, but they seem to want to completely overhaul the National Institutes of Health: cut the number of institutes in half or more; eliminate the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Where did this come from? Does anybody know?

Raman: So this has been like a pet project of [Rep. Robert] Aderholt, the subcommittee chairman of Labor-H, as well as [Rep.] Cathy McMorris Rodgers, the [House] chairwoman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and they …

Rovner: Which is the authorizing committee.

Raman: … Yeah. So they came together and did an op-ed a little while ago about how this was something that they wanted to do and they’ve put it in this bill. But a thing that has come up at both of the markups on this has been that we have not had hearings on this. This should come up through an authorizing committee, like Energy and Commerce, if you want to make changes.

And I think there are people like Rep. Steny Hoyer who were like, “We’re not against reforming different parts of NIH, but it needs to come through that process rather than this,” especially when this is a partisan bill if we’re going to do something as big as that. Because NIH is one of the biggest agencies in any department. And so changes of that grand of scale need to be done through that process rather than in appropriations.

Rovner: And it has been bipartisanly popular over the years. It was the Republicans who first proposed doubling funding for NIH. So it’s interesting that that popped up. Well, meanwhile, we’ll see how this bill fares when it comes to the House floor and how it changes in the Senate.

Congress is also moving on separate must-pass bills, including the annual defense authorization. There’s a defense appropriation, too, but the authorization is where the policy is supposed to be made, as we just said. And as in years past, the defense authorization is picking up riders that don’t have a lot to do with defense, right?

Raman: Yeah. I think that this is increasingly where we’re seeing some of the varied riders related to gender-affirming care. The Senate and the House’s versions both had provisions related to that. I mean, you could see that, again, as the broad issue for Republicans. Even within the labor age bill, we had different things related to that within the education portion. And so I think that has been the big thing that people are watching there on the health front.

Rovner: And abortion too, right? This continuing concern about allowing service women and dependents to travel for abortion if they’re in states with bans.

Raman: Yeah, and we had that whole issue just last year when we had the Defense nominees held up over a hold from Sen. [Tommy] Tuberville over that policy. So the pushback against those kind of policies in the Defense Department, the VA [Veterans Administration], are not ending here.

Rovner: Yeah.

Luthra: What I find so striking, Julie, if I can add something on, in particular, the exclusion of gender-affirming care, is that trans service members have seen what the laws and their protections are really zigzag back and forth over the past several administrations. And there’s something that I think we haven’t fully grappled with or articulated about the implications for that, right?

Because if you start accessing health care that you want to stay with for the rest of your life, in theory, and you keep seeing your benefits change on and off, that’s not adequate health care, that’s not appropriate. Because your ability to access your medications — for instance, is really subject to the whims of Congress in a way that wouldn’t be the case for other forms of medication — wouldn’t really be tolerated. And I think we haven’t fully understood exactly what this means for service members’ long-term lives and health outcomes.

Rovner: And as we say, and their family members. And when you sign up for the military, I mean, it’s not like you can just get another job with different health benefits. You make a commitment. And you’re right, the commitment that’s made back to you keeps changing. That’s probably not great for military morale.

All right, well, turning to health industry news, the Federal Trade Commission is taking square aim at pharmaceutical benefit managers. On Tuesday, it released the results of a two-year investigation that found the three largest PBMs now control 80% of the nation’s prescriptions while the six largest control 90%. The study also demonstrates what we’ve known for a long time: PBMs tend to steer patients to their own pharmacies even when that tends to cost patients more. And the PBMs pay themselves more than they pay independent pharmacies for the same drugs.

After letting that all settle in for about 24 hours, the agency then leaked the news that it plans to sue those three largest PBMs — the ones owned by UnitedHealthcare, Cigna, and CVS — for a variety of their practices, including steering patients towards more expensive insulin products that the PBMs get larger rebates for. In other words, the patients have to pay more so the PBMs can get more money.

Jessie, PBMs have been targets for several years now. Is this finally something that could take them down a peg? I know Congress has been wringing its hands over this for the last four or five years.

Hellmann: So the announcement hasn’t been officially made, but the FTC has been talking about this for several years. I guess they just wanted to wait until they had this big report out to bolster their case against PBMs. But it seems like this lawsuit specifically might be looking at the rebate situation. According to the report, they just have a lot of concerns about how the rebate structure can favor more expensive drugs, more expensive branded drugs over generics. And they think that that’s anticompetitive.

I know they have said in the past that they think these structures could potentially violate antitrust laws. And so if there is a lawsuit filed targeting these kinds of structures, that could chip out away at a major revenue source for PBMs. The rebates that they get on some of these expensive drugs are really large. In many cases, the patients don’t see those benefits when they’re paying for a drug at the pharmacy counter.

So if you’re a patient and your formulary says, “If you want to access this type of drug, you have to go for this branded amount,” that could increase your out-of-pocket costs. So any kind of lawsuit could take years. But Congress has also been really interested in the rebate issue. There has been many bills that, I think there’s some consensus on that would tie these rebates, basically making them a flat fee versus tying them to the list price. So it’ll be interesting to see where that goes.

There’s been questions about whether that should extend to the private market, and I think that’s what’s been holding up some of the action on this front. But …

Rovner: Rather than just Medicare and Medicaid?

Hellmann: Yeah, exactly. Because Congress prefers to just tweak Medicare and Medicaid and hope that that will change how private insurers behave. But maybe this report, it does have some new details. The FTC was able to access some contracts. It shined more of a light on it. So maybe this report will change that conversation in Congress. We’ll see.

Rovner: I must have gotten a hundred emails from Congress after this report came out and it’s like, yes, you guys have had legislation on this since 2015, and it’s bipartisan. It just never seems to make it over the finish line.

Hellmann: Yeah, it’s going to be interesting to see what happens over the next six months because some of these PBM bills could save money. And Congress wants to pay for a lot of things at the end of the year, like telehealth expansion and things like that. So I think if they can figure it out in the next few months, that could definitely happen this year.

Rovner: What they’re doing on their summer vacation. Also, this week, updating something that we’ve talked about a lot on this podcast; the future of the medical workforce. A billion-dollar gift from Johns Hopkins alum Michael Bloomberg will enable the Johns Hopkins Medical School to go tuition-free for students whose families earn less than $300,000 per year, and will pay tuition and living expenses for those families who earn under $175,000 a year.

Johns Hopkins thus joins NYU, UCLA, and a couple of other medical schools, in helping prevent medical students from graduating with crippling debt that all but forces them into the highest-paying specialties rather than primary care, which is where, of course, they’re most needed. Except that it seems that a lot of these subsidized doctors still aren’t going into primary care. So maybe it’s going to take more than just money to get people to do the hardest job in medicine.

Hellmann: Yeah, I feel like even if someone’s tuition is fully paid for, I don’t know if that’s enough to make them want to go into these lower-paid specialties like primary care. It’s a trend that we’ve seen for a long time that people just want to make more money. And primary care, there’s been a lot of conversation lately about how it’s just the most unappreciated specialty that you can go into. Especially there’s been a lot of frustration around dealing with insurance companies. So I don’t know if this is it.

Rovner: And PBMs.

Luthra: Building on Jessie’s point, we have programs that make it easier to become teachers. That does not mean we have a glut of teachers because of the longer-term underappreciation we have for professions that are quite valuable in our society. And having those benefits early on doesn’t make up for yearslong lower pay and general career frustrations that have only grown in recent decades.

Whether that is because of physician practice consolidation. Whether that is because of electronic health records that doctors find to be so frustrating. Whether that’s just having to navigate patients’ different insurance. And now on top of that, more and more restrictions on health care that you provide. It’s already a really tough industry to go into.

And if you’re going to go into it, there are arguments that you might benefit from a higher-paid specialty and one where you don’t have to navigate as many of these really frustrating challenges that doctors still have to deal with.

Rovner: Yeah, a lot of it is lifestyle. I mean, it’s not just that you get paid less. Even if you got paid more, you’re on call a lot. We’ve seen graduating medical students gravitating towards things like dermatology, and emergency medicine, even, because there’s a shift; you’re either on or you’re off, or you don’t get called in the middle of the night.

Being a primary care doctor is hugely stressful and hugely time-consuming and not the greatest lifestyle. And yes, having $200,000 of debt is a good reason to not go into it. But apparently not having $200,000 of debt is still not enough of a reason not to go into it. Sandhya, you wanted to add something?

Raman: No, I was just going to say that part of this is just that we have to broaden the pipeline in general, and these are careers that take years and years of study and training to get to. So I think a lot of this we’ll have to wait and see that if someone is excited by something like this now, getting up to making this a possibility for them and then going through the training is going to take a while to dig through and see how that data is really affecting people.

Rovner: Yeah, we will. Another space we shall continue to watch. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with the White House’s Jen Klein, and then we will come back with our extra credit.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Jennifer Klein, director of the White House Gender Policy Council. Jen oversees administration policy on a wide range of subjects, domestic and international, affecting women’s health, economic security, and gender-based violence. Jen, welcome to “What The Health?”

Jennifer Klein: Thank you so much for having me.

Rovner: So I want to start with the Supreme Court. In the last few weeks of the term, the court punted on two big abortion cases, one challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion pill mifepristone, and the other challenging the Biden administration’s interpretation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, EMTALA. What’s the status of both of those and has anything changed as a result of these cases?

Klein: Well, as you noted, the Supreme Court didn’t really reach the merits on either of those cases, and in fact, both will be ongoing. And so I won’t get into the back and forth on the litigation, which the Department of Justice is tracking that closely. But I will say, first of all, on the first case, the case about access to mifepristone, we are going to continue to fight to make mifepristone medication abortion available. As you know, this is a drug that has proven to be safe and effective.

Twenty years ago, the FDA approved it. And in 2023, the FDA took independent evidence-based action to give women more options about how and where to pick up their prescription for medication abortion, just as they would for any other medication, including through telehealth and through a retail pharmacy. And earlier this year, two major retail pharmacy chains became newly certified to dispense medication abortion under a new pathway created by the FDA in 2023.

And so we’re continuing to encourage all pharmacies that want to pursue this option to seek certification so that this medication can be widely available. Because back to point one about the Supreme Court, it still is. While they didn’t reach the merits of the case and they sent the case back on standing grounds, they didn’t actually resolve the underlying legal issues.

So we will continue to defend our legal point of view and also make sure that people, first of all, know that this drug should remain available and people should be able to access it, and then do everything we can to make sure that that is easy for people who actually need access to the medication.

Rovner: And then on EMTALA?

Klein: On EMTALA, same issue. As you noted, the Supreme Court didn’t actually reach the merits of the case. So it’s first very important to point out that currently in Idaho, which was the state where the Department of Justice brought this suit to ensure that women in Idaho could have access to emergency medical services when they’re in the middle of an obstetrical emergency. And so they are in Idaho still able to access care.

And we are going to continue to make clear both our legal point of view, but also our policy point of view, that all patients, including women experiencing pregnancy loss and other pregnancy complications in the middle of an emergency, should be legally able to access emergency care under federal law. The federal law is called the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act.

And what that says is that if somebody is in the middle of a medical emergency and they need care and that care includes abortion, that care is legally available to them. And so what we’ve done, and we are going to continue to do, is make sure that patients know what their rights are and that, importantly, that providers know what their responsibilities are under EMTALA.

So HHS, the Department of Health and Human Services, has issued a number of comprehensive plans to make sure that people know their rights and responsibilities. They have created new patient-facing resources, offer training to doctors and health care providers. They actually created a dedicated team of experts at HHS to educate patients and hospitals about their rights and obligations under EMTALA.

And most recently, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] launched a new option on CMS.gov, which is the ability in both, by the way, English and Spanish, to allow individuals to more easily file a complaint themselves if they have been denied emergency care. The reason that’s important is because previously that had to be done through a state agency, which in some states you might imagine is less possible, less easy to do, than in others.

Rovner: So obviously, as we mentioned, both of these cases are likely to come back to the Supreme Court in the next couple of years. Is there anything that you can do to shore up either of these policies to try to legally brace against what’s likely to be another assault? And we already know, I guess in both cases, the next assault is already ongoing.

Klein: Yeah. I mean, as I said, the Department of Justice is going to be defending our legal point of view, and I can’t really get into that. But what I can say is that we strongly believe that both the medication abortion should be legally available, and is now legally available, and emergency medical services should be legally available, and are legally available under EMTALA. And we are going to continue to do whatever we can through executive action.

This was the subject of … Actually the president has issued three executive orders and a presidential memorandum. The presidential memorandum was focused specifically on medication abortion. The other three were broader, covered all sorts of reproductive health services, including contraception, as well as abortion. And we’re continuing to implement those, every day.

And I will add that today, actually, there’s a new regulation, a notice of proposed rulemaking, I shouldn’t say a regulation, that has come out today from the Department of Health and Human Services, which builds on work we’ve done to improve maternal health and reduce maternal mortality. And what that does is proposes the first-ever baseline health and safety requirements for obstetric services in hospitals.

So separate and apart from EMTALA, which speaks more generally to the services that you get when you walk into an emergency room, what this proposed rule would do is make sure that there are protocols and standards in place for obstetrical emergencies, and also procedures for transfers when somebody is in the middle of an obstetrical emergency or pregnancy complication and that hospital where they are can’t provide the care that they need.

Rovner: So we’ll see how that one goes. After last month’s debate, a lot of abortion rights supporters were dismayed that President Biden didn’t very effectively defend abortion access and didn’t really rebut falsehoods repeated by former President Trump. We know that reproductive health isn’t the issue that the president feels most comfortable talking about anyway. What do you say to those who are worried that the president won’t go far enough or isn’t the right messenger for this extremely critical moment?

Klein: I would say a couple of things: I would say look at what this administration has done under his leadership. I was with him in the Oval Office the day the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision came down and he was angry. And why was he angry? The same reason we were all angry, because never before had the Supreme Court taken away a fundamental constitutional right. And he has been fighting and asked me to help lead the fight for the last two-plus years to do whatever we can.

And he also was quite clear on that day that the only way to replace a constitutional right that was lost is to restore the protections that existed under Roe v. Wade for nearly 50 years. And that’s what we intend to do, what he intends to do. And he has said many, many times, while the other side would actually ban abortion nationwide, what he is attempting to do and what he will sign the minute a bill reaches his desk is to restore the protections of Roe in federal law so that every woman in every state has the right to access abortion care and other reproductive health services.

By the way, as you well know, many other reproductive health services like contraception, like in vitro fertilization, and other fertility services, are on the chopping block as well. And Republican elected officials, whether that’s in Congress or in states, have been not only unwilling but dramatically invested in reducing access to care and restricting access to care. And so what this president is doing is fighting to make sure that people do have access to abortion and the full range of reproductive health services.

And I think the second point I would make is the contrast could not be clearer. And so as people think about who is protecting their rights and their access to health care, I think that the choice is obvious. And then the third thing I would say is we also have a vice president who has really led and traveled, I think, to 20 states around the country, met with 250 state legislators, state attorneys general, presidents, met with governors. We are here to support the states, which are really the front lines. And she has really led the charge for reproductive freedom.

Rovner: And obviously it is an issue that she does feel comfortable talking about, and does a lot. Speaking of restoring Roe v. Wade, there are a lot of people in the abortion rights community who say that that’s actually not far enough. That even under Roe, there were many, many restrictions on abortion that were still allowed, most notably, the Hyde Amendment that bans virtually all federal funding of abortion. Would the administration support efforts to expand abortion rights beyond Roe?

Klein: Well, the president has been on record, obviously also the vice president, against the Hyde Amendment, would remove the Hyde Amendment to address exactly the issue that you just raised. And yes, what we want to do is ensure that people have access to health care. In the moment we are in, we are fighting that in states across the country, and also want to have a national law that protects access to abortion and all of the other reproductive health services that were lost.

Rovner: So we’ve seen a lot of predictable outcomes of abortion bans around the country, but also some that were more maybe unexpected, including a spike in infant mortality in Texas and graduating medical students avoiding doing their residencies in states with abortion bans. Are you working on policies to address those issues? I guess you mentioned infant mortality already.

Klein: Yes. We’re very focused, as we have been, by the way, the administration released a maternal health blueprint two years ago, actually before the Dobbs decision came down. And we are continuing to work on that. So in addition to what I mentioned earlier, another great example of the work we’ve done is to extend Medicaid postpartum coverage from two to 12 months. That now exists in 46 states, plus the District of Columbia.

The other thing I would say is you raised a very important point, which is, first of all, clinics are closing because of extreme abortion bans across the country. Secondly, training. People are not able to get the training to provide the services that their patients will need in many states. And so we are very focused on addressing issues of training, issues of access to clinics, and other reproductive health services across the country. That’s why we’ve increased Title X funding for family planning clinics.

So the short answer is, yes, we have a very broad agenda. And by the way, this week in Congress there have been several bills introduced on issues like training, to ensure that people have access to care. So the three that were introduced were, first, the freedom to travel for health care, which is obviously another very important issue. Which, by the way, there are states and state attorneys general who are attempting to block people from traveling to seek legal reproductive health care in other states.

There’s another unanimous consent resolution this week to protect health care providers from being held liable for providing services to patients from other states. And third, a unanimous consent resolution to protect reproductive health care training. So those are what our colleagues on the Hill are working on and we firmly support efforts to do that.

Rovner: And obviously two of them got tried yesterday and blocked. And so we know that Congress has stuck on this issue. Even if President Biden is reelected and Democrats keep the Senate and take the majority in the House, it’s unlikely that Congress will be able to pass broad legislation to protect abortion rights.

There has actually never been a pro-choice majority in Congress while a Democrat was in the White House. So how will the administration be able to advance reproductive rights, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision striking down the Chevron doctrine that’s going to make it easier for outsiders to challenge administration actions in court?

Klein: Yeah, this is not easy. We have seen a very concerted effort on the other side. First of all, to pass extreme abortion bans at the state level. We now have 20-plus states with extreme abortion bans in place. One in three women of reproductive age live in a state with an abortion ban right now. And yes, we see that the courts are also challenging. On the other hand, you raised the question earlier about being frustrated with only restoring Roe.

I think our view, my view, is that we need to start somewhere. And while, yes, it has been very difficult at the national level to pass any legislation to support reproductive freedom, I remain optimistic. The president, as we all know, is an eternal optimist. I remain optimistic that we can do that and that we can get bipartisan support.

Because what you’ve seen across the country in states that might not have been obvious, but when people have had the opportunity to speak out about this, state ballot initiatives, we’ve had states like Kansas and Montana. And most recently there’s a few states that have just put abortion ballot initiatives on the ballot for November, like Florida, like Colorado, like Nevada.

There is a broad range of states where when people are given the opportunity to speak to these issues, they speak really loudly and clearly for reproductive freedom. So that’s why I actually remain very optimistic, despite the odds that you rightfully point out, that actually Congress could pass federal legislation which the president would sign.

Rovner: Last question, there’s been a lot of talk about the Comstock Act, it’s 1873 anti-vice law, and whether a future Republican administration could use it to basically ban abortion nationwide. Congress, as I mentioned, seems unlikely to have the votes to repeal it. Is there anything the administration can do to try and forestall that for a future administration?

Klein: Not for a future administration, which is why our interpretation of what the Comstock Act does and doesn’t do is really important. So this Department of Justice under the Biden-Harris administration has made it clear that the Comstock Act does not apply to lawful abortion. And by the way, four appellate courts, Congress for more than 50 years, agreed with that interpretation.

So we stick by our interpretation, which means that there’s no restriction on the transport, shipping of medication abortion or, by the way, any other supply that’s used in abortion for lawful purposes. And there is a lawful purpose, by the way, in every state for medication abortion because it is also used for miscarriage management, for example. And there are states which have exceptions for rape or incest, where obviously medication abortion could be used in those cases.

So our interpretation I think is not only legally viable, but just makes a lot of sense. And I do think that people should really understand that a future administration could come in with a very different view, and actually have completely signaled that they would do that. If you look at some of the policy papers and documents, it makes really clear that the other side doesn’t think they need to pass a national abortion ban. They think they have one on the books, and they think that’s the Comstock Act.

Rovner: Jen Klein, thank you so much for joining us. I hope we can do this again.

Klein: Thank you so much. It was great to be with you.

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

Luthra: I’m very excited about this story. It’s by Caroline Kitchener at The Washington Post, who everyone should be reading all the time. The headline: “These GOP Women Begged the Party to Abandon Abortion. Then Came Backlash.” And the story fits into a pattern of reporting that we’ve started to see about what it means to be a Republican woman in state politics at a time when the party’s views on abortion are out of step with the national norm.

We saw these effects happen in South Carolina where the Republican women who opposed their state’s abortion ban have all lost their seats. And Caroline’s story does a really good job of getting into the tensions that have come up at the state GOP convention and how these women have said, “Hey, maybe abortion is not a winning issue. We already have an abortion ban. Maybe we shouldn’t make this the thing that is our No. 1 concern. Maybe we should focus on other things.”

And at the same time, you have very influential anti-abortion organizations in the state that are not satisfied with the status quo and want a place like Texas to go much further, and to find ways to ban medication abortion from being mailed into states or find ways to restrict travel. And what happened to these women in Caroline’s story is they fought at the convention to have abortion not be an issue, and then afterward they were ostracized.

And that I think is going to be very indicative of what we will see in the Republican Party moving forward. And it’s something that has come up over and over again; is that lawmakers on a state level are really nervous about the politics of pursuing further abortion restrictions. But also there is a very influential group of people who do not want them to stop. And this is only going to be a tension that keeps coming to a head and very often on lines of gender.

Rovner: I’m old enough to remember when abortion was not a completely partisan issue, when there were lots and lots and lots of Republicans who supported abortion rights and lots and lots and lots of Democrats who didn’t. I think in both cases they’re being… Each is being shoved into the other party. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: So I picked “For at Least One Abortion Clinic, Dobbs Eased Stressors,” and that’s by me this week on Roll Call. So following the Dobbs decision, North Dakota’s only abortion clinic of the past 20 years moved to Minnesota. And so I spent a week there in June in Moorhead, Minnesota, where they moved, which is on the border with Fargo, North Dakota, and just looked at the mental well-being of people associated with the clinic and the community and was surprised by what I found.

Rovner: Well, I’m looking forward to reading it because I haven’t actually read it yet. Jessie?

Hellmann: My story is from North Carolina Health News [“N.C. House Wants to Spend Opioid Money on Multiple Abstinence-Based Recovery Centers, While Experts Stress Access to Medication,”] and it’s looking at this debate I think a lot of states are going to be facing pretty soon, about how to spend the massive amount of money that’s coming in from these opioid settlements. And in North Carolina specifically, there is a little bit of a push to award funds to clinics that may not be using evidence-based approaches to the opioid epidemic. Some of these centers, they don’t offer medication at all, which is the gold standard for treating opioid use disorder.

Some of these centers go even further and say, “If you are on these medications, you cannot stay in our facilities,” which is very antithetical to how you should treat someone with opioid use disorder. And then some of these centers are not licensed. So I think this is definitely something that we’re going to be seeing coming up in the next few years about who is qualified to treat people for opioid use disorder and how are they doing it.

Rovner: Yeah, lots of important stories for local reporters to pursue. Well, my extra credit this week is an investigation from Stat News by Tara Bannow called “Troubled For-Profit Chains Are Stealthily Operating Dozens of Psychiatric Hospitals Under Nonprofits’ Names.” And it’s about how nonprofit hospital systems, who are in many cases desperate for places to put psychiatric patients who are crowding their emergency departments, are creating these joint ventures with the two major national for-profit psychiatric hospital chains, UHS and Acadia, both of which have been cited repeatedly by state and local regulators for lack of staffing, lack of training, and lack of security that’s resulted in patient injuries and deaths.

Under these deals, the psychiatric hospitals operate under the banner of the nonprofits, which are usually well-known in their communities, and then the revenues get split. But some of the stories here are pretty hair-raising, and you really should read the whole story because it is quite an investigation.

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

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X.

Rovner: Shefali?

Luthra: I’m @shefalil on the same platform.

Rovner: Jessie?

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann 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

Read Julie's stories.

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

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

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

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

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

click to open the transcript

SCOTUS Ruling Strips Power From Federal Health Agencies

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

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

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

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Oh, yeah.

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

Rovner: At least hundreds of thousands.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: Correct.

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

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

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

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

Rovner: But that’s where we are.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: They have to basically start from scratch?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Maybe they don’t have standing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: When everybody has suffered more, basically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: Title X is a federal [indecipherable].

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: We’re getting to that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rovner: They interviewed like 300 people, right?

Knight: Yes, it said 300.

Rovner: A large bunch.

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

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

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

Rovner: Yes, indeed. Joanne?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ollstein: I’m @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Victoria?

Knight: I’m @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Joanne?

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

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).