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.

When it comes to health care, this year’s presidential campaign is increasingly a matter of which candidate voters choose to believe. Democrats, led by Vice President Kamala Harris, say Republicans want to further restrict reproductive rights and repeal the Affordable Care Act, pointing to their previous actions and claims. Meanwhile, Republicans, led by former President Donald Trump, insist they have no such plans.

Meanwhile, with open enrollment approaching for Medicare, the Biden administration dodges a political bullet, avoiding a sharp spike next year in Medicare prescription drug plan premiums.

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

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week, Sen. JD Vance of Ohio muddled his ticket’s stances on health policy during the vice presidential debate, including by downplaying the possibility of a national abortion ban. And Melania Trump, the former president’s wife, spoke out in support of abortion rights. Their comments seem designed to soothe voter concerns that former President Donald Trump could take actions to further block abortion access.
• Vance raised eyebrows with his debate-night claim that Trump “salvaged” the Affordable Care Act — when, in fact, the former president vowed to repeal the law and championed the GOP’s efforts to deliver on that promise. Meanwhile, Trump deflected questions from AARP about his plans for Medicare, replying, “What we have to do is make our country successful again.”
• On the Democratic side, Vice President Kamala Harris is campaigning on health, in particular by pushing out new ads highlighting the benefits of the ACA and Trump’s efforts to restrict abortion. Polls show health is a winning issue for Democrats and that the ACA is popular, especially its protections for those with preexisting conditions.
• Also in the news, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services reported a slight dip in average Medicare drug plan premiums for next year. Coming in an annual report — out shortly before Election Day — it looks as though government subsidies cushioned changes to the system, sparing seniors from potentially paying in premiums what they may save under the new $2,000 annual out-of-pocket drug cost cap, for instance.
• And in abortion news, a judge struck down Georgia’s six-week abortion ban — but many providers have already left the state. And a new California law protects coverage for in vitro fertilization, including for LGBTQ+ couples.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-Washington Post “Bill of the Month,” about a teen athlete whose needed surgery lacked a billing code. 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: KFF Health News’ “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” by Ronnie Cohen.

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees,” by John Tozzi.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene,” by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus.

Sandhya Raman: The Asheville Citizen Times’ “Without Water After Helene, Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” by Jacob Biba.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• SisterSong v. State of Georgia: Superior Court of Fulton County decision.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Health of the Campaign

[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, October 4th, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go. 

Rovner: Today we are joined via teleconference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico. 

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello. 

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call. 

Raman: Hello, everyone. 

Rovner: And Anna Edney of Bloomberg News. 

Anna Edney: Hi there. 

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my “Bill of the Month” interview with my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser. This month’s patient is a high school athlete whose problem got fixed, but his bill did not. But first, the news. 

We’re going to start this week with the campaign. It is October. I don’t know how that happened. On Tuesday, vice-presidential candidates Senator JD Vance of Ohio and Governor Tim Walz of Minnesota held their first and only debate. It felt very Midwestern nice, with Walz playing his usual Aw shucks self and Vance trying very hard to seem, for want of a better word, likable. Did we learn anything new from either candidate? 

Edney: I don’t think I heard anything new, no — not that I can remember. 

Rovner: I know, obviously, they exchanged some views on abortion. Vance tried very hard to distance himself from his own hard-line views on the subject, including denying that he’d ever supported a national abortion ban, which he did, by the way. Meanwhile, during the debate, former President [Donald] Trump announced on social media that he would veto a national abortion ban, something he’d not said in those exact words before. Alice, you’ve got a pretty provocative story out this week suggesting that this all might actually be working on a skeptical public. Is it? 

Ollstein: Yes. This has been a theme I’ve been tracking for a little bit. It was part of the reporting I was doing in Michigan a couple weeks ago. One, what I thought was interesting about that night was Trump and Vance have been talking past each other on abortion and contradicting each other, and now … 

Rovner: Oh, yeah. 

Ollstein: … it finally seems that they are on the same page, in terms of trying to convince the public: Nothing to see here. We won’t do a national ban. Don’t worry about it. Democrats and abortion rights groups are running around screaming: They’re lying. Look at their record. Look at what their allies have proposed in things like Project 2025. But the Republican message on this front does seem to be working. Polls show that even people who care about abortion rights and support abortion rights in some of these key battleground states still plan to vote for Trump. It’s a continuation of a pattern we’ve seen over the past few years where a decent chunk of people vote for these state ballot initiatives to protect abortion but then also vote for anti-abortion politicians. 

Voters contain multitudes. We don’t know exactly if it’s because they are not worried that Trump and Vance will pursue national restrictions. We don’t know if it’s because just other issues are more important to them. But I think it’s really worth keeping an eye on in terms of a pattern. And KFF has done some really interesting polling showing that people in states where the ballot initiatives have already passed sort of view it as, Oh, we took care of that, it’s settled, and they don’t see the urgency and the threat of a national ban in the way that Democrats and abortion rights groups want them to. 

Rovner: Which we’ll talk about separately in a minute. In late breaking news, Melania Trump this week came out and said that she supports abortion rights. Is this part of the continuing muddle where everybody can see what it is that they want to see, or is this going to have any impact at all? 

Ollstein: Can I say one more thing about the debate first? 

Rovner: Sure. 

Ollstein: OK. So what really struck me about what Vance said about abortion at the debate is he really portrayed two arguments that I’ve seen sort of trickle up from the grass roots of the anti-abortion movement. So one, there were some semantics quibbles around what is a ban. There’s really been an effort in the anti-abortion movement to say that only a total ban throughout pregnancy with no exceptions, only that they call a ban. Everything else, they don’t consider it a ban. 

Rovner: It’s a national standard. 

Ollstein: Yeah, minimum standard, federal standard. There’s a lot of different words they use — “limit,” “restriction.” But what they’re describing is what others call a ban. It’s not a different policy, and so we saw that on full display on the debate stage. We also saw this argument sort of that these government programs and funding and support are the answer to abortion, so, basically, promoting the idea that with enough child care supports and health care supports, fewer people would have abortions — which the data is mixed on that, I will say, from the U.S. and from other countries. But financial hardship is just one of many reasons people have abortions, so that would impact some people and not others. It also goes against a lot of the sort of traditional small-government, cut-government-spending Republican ethos, and so it is this really interesting sort of pro-natalist direction that some of the party wants to go in and some of the activist movement wants to go in. But there’s definitely some tension around that. And, of course, we’ve seen Republicans vote against those programs and funding at the state and federal level. 

Rovner: Things like paid family leave have been a Democratic priority much, much longer than it’s been a Republican priority, if it ever was and if it is now. 

Ollstein: But it’s interesting that he was promoting that to sort of show a kinder, gentler face to the anti-abortion movement, which has been a trend we’ve been seeing. 

Rovner: Yes. Yes, not just from JD Vance but from lots of Republicans on the anti-abortion side. And Melania— 

Ollstein: Sorry, back to Melania. 

Rovner: Is there any impact from this? 

Edney: Oh, it’s certainly worked for the Trump campaign to muddy the waters on any subject. If you think about immigration, certainly that worked before, and I think you can see where they’re realizing that. And they are coming together, like Alice mentioned, with JD Vance and Trump talking on the same page now a bit better but using sort of a, I don’t want to say “underling,” but like a second … 

Rovner: A surrogate. 

Edney: Yeah, a surrogate, a secondary character to say, I support abortion rights. And she has Trump’s ear, and that could really be a solid salve to a lot of people. 

Rovner: I was fascinated because she’s been pretty much invisible all year. I think this is the first time we have actually heard her voice, the first time I have heard her voice in 2024. 

Raman: I would add that it’s not unprecedented for a first lady on the Republican side to come out in favor of abortion rights. I think what makes it so interesting is, A, how close we are to the election and that we are actively in a campaign. When we look at the remarks that Laura Bush made several years ago, it was after [former President George W.] Bush had left office for a few years. And so this, I think, is just what really makes it, if the book is going to come out about a month or so before the election that … 

Rovner: Melania’s book. 

Raman: Yeah, Melania’s book, yes. 

Rovner: So yes, we will see. All right. Well, abortion was not the only health issue that came up during the debate. So did the Affordable Care Act. JD Vance went as far to claim that Donald Trump is actually the one that saved the Affordable Care Act. That’s not exactly how I remember things happening. You’re shaking your head. 

Raman: I think this was one of the most striking parts of the debate for me, just because he made several comments about how this was a bipartisan process and Trump was trying to salvage the ACA. And for those of us that were reporting in 2017, he was kind of ringleading the effort to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. And I guess there were just numerous claims within the few statements he made that were just all incorrect. He was talking about how Trump had divided risk pools, and that was not something that happened. I think that we assume that he was referring to the reinsurance waivers, but those were also created under the Obama administration, so it wasn’t like a Trump invention. We just had some approved under Trump. And he’d mentioned that enrollment was reaching record heights. Health enrollment grew more under the Biden administration than it did under Trump. 

Rovner: Yeah, I went back and actually looked up those numbers because I was so, like, “What are you talking about?” Actually, it was the moderator question: Didn’t enrollment go up during the Trump administration? No, it went down every year. 

Ollstein: The number of uninsured went up, in fact, during the Trump administration. 

Rovner: That’s right. 

Ollstein: But, I mean, this is, again, part of a long pattern. Trump has routinely taken credit for things that were the decisions of other administrations, both before and after him. 

Rovner: And things that he tried to do and failed to do. 

Ollstein: Right. 

Rovner: Like lowering drug prices. 

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. Exactly. Exactly. Like Anna said, there was very little new that was revealed in this exchange. 

Rovner: Well, elsewhere on the campaign trail, the Harris campaign is working hard to elevate health care as an issue, including rolling out not just a 60-second ad warning of what repealing the Affordable Care Act could mean, but also issuing a 43-page white paper theorizing what Trump and Vance are likely to have in mind with their, quote, “concepts” of a health care plan based on what they’ve said and done in the past. They must be seeing something in the polls suggesting this could have some legs, don’t you think? I’m a little surprised, because everybody keeps saying: Not a health care election. This is not a health care election. But I don’t know. The Harris campaign sure keeps behaving like it might be. 

Raman: Hammering in on the preexisting conditions and protecting those, just because that is such a popular part of the ACA across the board, is probably a good strategy for them, just because that is something that is not the most wonky with that and that people can understand in a campaign ad and kind of distill down. 

Edney: Yeah, that was what I was thinking as well, is it’s a popular issue for, certainly, to be talking about, but also just the idea that he’s talking about it in a way that people think, Oh, we don’t have to worry. And Alice has made this point on abortion before. There’s a lot that he can do through executive order and things like that, and did do like taking away money for the navigators and things to help people enroll. So even if they don’t think it’s maybe going to be about health care fully, it makes sense to try to counter some of that. And you can’t do that on a debate stage most of the time, not in an effective way, but certainly putting out this paper, I mean, it did get some press and things like that, and if you really wanted to go read it, you could. 

Rovner: Even I didn’t want to read all 43 pages. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: Well, as Anna previewed, the AARP released what’s normally a pretty routine interview with both candidates about issues important to Americans over age 50, things like Medicare, Social Security, and caregiving. But I think it’s fair to say that, at least, former President Trump’s answers were anything but routine. Asked how he would protect Medicare from cuts and improve the program, he said, and I quote: “What we have to do is make our country successful again. This has to do with Medicare and Social Security and other things. We have to let our country become successful, make our country successful again, and we’ll be able to do that.” How do you even respond to things like that? Or is this campaign now so completely divorced from the issues that literally nothing matters? 

Edney: Well, I kind of noticed a trend in between that answer and one JD Vance gave when he was talking about abortion, and he said: We just need to make women trust us. They need to trust us again. We need to make them trust us. I was like, I don’t understand how that even connects. But also, how are you going to do that? And I think that this is the same thing. You’re just saying these words over and over again in relation. So in somebody’s mind, Medicare and success is Trump’s word, and trust and abortion as JD Vance’s thing, and you’re connecting these in their minds. And I was seeing this as a trend. It just felt familiar to me after listening to the vice-presidential debate. They’re not going to talk about any policy or anything, but repeating these words over and over again like you were listening to morning affirmations or something was going to really get that through in a voter’s mind is maybe what they’re going for. 

Rovner: And I have to say, I mean, when candidates start to talk about actual policy ideas, it gets really wonky really fast. Sort of going back to the debate, JD Vance was talking about visas and immigration, and I think it’s an app that he was talking about. I know this stuff pretty well. I had no idea what he was talking about. I mean, maybe it does work better when Trump says, I’m not going to cut Medicare or Social Security, and leave it at that. 

Ollstein: Well, right, because when you talk specific policies, that opens it up to critique. And when you just talk total platitudes, then it’s harder to pick apart and criticize, even though it’s clearly not an answer to the questions they’re asking. And it was even a little bit funny to me for the AARP interview, because I believe they sent in written responses, and so they had the ability— 

Rovner: I think they also talked on the phone. 

Ollstein: Oh, OK. 

Rovner: So I think it was a little bit of both. 

Ollstein: Right. Right, right, right. It wasn’t the sort of live televised interview. They could have looked up — it was an open-book test. 

Rovner: It was. 

Ollstein: And yet all of the responses from Trump were just like, We’re going to do something and it’s going to be great and awesome and it’ll fix everything, and it was completely devoid of policy specifics, which again may be smarter politically than actually saying what you plan to do, which as we’ve seen in Project 2025, generates a lot of backlash. But it is also a little bit dangerous to go into the election not knowing the specifics of what someone wants to do on health care. 

Rovner: Yeah, I know. I find when I listen to some of these focus groups with undecided voters, we want to know what exactly they’re going to do, except they don’t really want to know what exactly they’re going to do. They think they do, but it appears that that is not necessarily the case. One thing that we know does matter, at least to people on Medicare, is the premiums they pay for their coverage. And unfortunately, for every administration, that announcement comes just weeks before Election Day every year. So this year, the Biden administration was worried about big jumps in premiums for Medicare Part D drug coverage, mostly thanks to the new caps on spending that will save consumers money but will cost insurers more. That didn’t happen, though. And in fact, average premiums will actually fall slightly next year. 

Now, I’m not sure I understand exactly what the administration did to avoid this, but they used existing demonstration authority to boost payments to insurers. And, not surprisingly, Republicans are pretty furious. On the other hand, Republicans used pretty much this same authority to avoid Medicare premium spikes in the past. Anna, is this just political manipulation or good governing, or a little bit of both? 

Edney: Yeah, it is certainly very timely and probably necessary also because the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, kept the seniors’ out-of-pocket pay at $2,000 a year. And so that was going to skyrocket premiums, and they did not want to face that, particularly in an election year. And as you mentioned, this all happens around that time. And so they did this demonstration, and I have read a few things trying to figure out exactly what it does, and I can’t. 

Rovner: So it’s not just me. It’s complicated. 

Edney: It’s not just you. It’s really complicated, and it has to do with payments that usually come at the end that insurers are now going to get upfront. And that’s the best I can tell you. But they’ll be getting some subsidies upfront, and it’s to try to spread these premium increases to help mitigate those so that seniors don’t have to then pay on that end instead of for their drugs out-of-pocket. So I think that they need to do something. I mean, already, the premiums were able to go up. I think it’s $35 a month, and some plans did elect to do that and others have them staying even. And you even have some with them going down a little bit. So I guess the moral of the story is for consumers to shop around this year, certainly. 

Rovner: That’s right, and we will talk more about Medicare open enrollment, which opens in a couple of weeks, because it’s October, and all of these things happen at once. Moving back to abortion, a judge in Georgia struck down, at least for now, the state’s six-week abortion ban, quoting from “The Handmaid’s Tale” about how the law requires women to serve as human incubators. And I’ll put a link to the decision, because that’s quite the decision. But Alice, this is far from the last word on this, right? 

Ollstein: Yes. It’s just so fascinating what a slow burn these lawsuits are. I mean, this, the one in North Dakota recently that restored access, these just sort of simmer under the radar for months or even years, and then a decision can have a major impact. And so access has been restored in some of these states. Some interesting things that came to mind were, one, it could be reversed again and pingpong back and forth, and all of that is very challenging for doctors and patients to manage. 

But also — and I’m thinking more of North Dakota, because Georgia is sort of a medical powerhouse with a lot of providers and hospitals and facilities and stuff — but in North Dakota, the state’s only abortion clinic moved out of state, and they do not plan to move back as a result of this decision. This isn’t a switch you can flip back and forth. And so when access is restored on paper in the law, that doesn’t mean it’s going to be restored in practice. You need doctors willing to work in these states and provide the procedure. And even with the court rulings, they may not feel comfortable doing so, or the logistics are just too daunting to move back. So I would urge people to keep that in mind. 

Rovner: Yeah, and the state’s already said that it’s going to appeal to the next-higher court. So we will see this continue, but I think it was definitely worth mentioning. We’ve talked a lot this year about women experiencing pregnancy complications not being able to get care in states with abortion bans and restrictions. Well, it’s happening in states where abortion is supposed to be widely available, too. 

In California, the state’s attorney general filed suit this week against a Catholic hospital in the rural northern part of the state that refused to terminate the doomed pregnancy of a woman carrying twins after her water broke at 15 weeks, because they said one of the twins still had a heartbeat. She eventually was driven to the only other hospital within a hundred miles of the labor and delivery unit, where she did get the care that she needed, although she was hemorrhaging, but not until after a nurse at the Catholic hospital gave her a bucket of towels, quote, “in case something happens in the car.” Meanwhile, the labor and delivery unit at the hospital she was taken to is itself scheduled to close. Are women starting to get the idea that this is about more than just selective abortions and that no matter where they live, that being pregnant could be more dangerous than it has been in the past? 

Raman: I was going to say this is something that abortion rights advocates have been saying for years now, that it’s not just abortion, that they point to things like the whole ordeal that we’ve been having with IVF [in vitro fertilization] and birth control and so many other things. Even in the last couple years, people trying to get other medications that have nothing to do with pregnancy and not being able to get those because they might have an effect or cause miscarriage or things like that. So I think in one way, yes. But at the same time, when you look at something like what we saw happen with the two deaths in Georgia, right? The messaging from the anti-abortion crowd has been that this was not because of the abortion ban but because of the regulations that allowed these people to get a medication abortion and that’s what’s driving the death. 

So we think that, in some ways, there’s certain camps that are just going to be focused on a different side of how the emergency might not be related to abortion at all, or the branding is that this is not an abortion in certain cases versus an abortion, it’s just semantics. So I don’t know how many minds it’s changing at this point. 

Ollstein: Like Sandhya said, the awareness that this is not just for so-called elective abortions. Obviously, that term is disputed and there’s gray area of what that means. I think the overwhelming focus in messaging — from Democrats, anyway — has been about these wanted pregnancies that suffer medical complications and people can’t get care, and so the spillover effect on miscarriage care. But I think the piece that’s new that this could emphasize is that it’s not a strict red-state-blue-state divide, that Catholic hospitals and other facilities in states with protections, like California — it could happen there, too. So I think that’s what this case may be contributing in a new way to people’s understanding. 

Rovner: And, of course, this was happening long before Dobbs — I mean, with Catholic hospitals, particularly Catholic hospitals in areas where there are not a lot of hospitals, denying care according to Catholic teachings and women having basically no place, at least nearby, to go. So I think people are seeing it in a new light now that it seems to be happening in many, many places at the same time. Well, while we are visiting California, Governor Gavin Newsom this week signed legislation requiring large group health insurance plans to cover IVF and other fertility treatments starting next year. California is far from the first state to do this. I think it’s now up to over a dozen. But it’s by far the most populous state to do this. Do we expect to see more of this, particularly given, as you were saying, Sandhya, the attention that IVF is suddenly getting? 

Raman: I think we could. We’ve had a lot of states do different variations of those so far, and they haven’t necessarily been blue versus red. I think one thing that was interesting about the California law in particular was that it included LGBTQ people within the infertility definition, which we’ve been having IVF laws for over 20 years at this point and I don’t know that that has been necessarily there in other ones. So I would be watching for more things like that and seeing how widespread that would be in some of the bills coming up in the next legislative cycle. 

Rovner: Yes, and another issue that I suspect will continue to simmer beyond this election. Well, finally this week, two big business-of-health-related stories: Over the summer, we talked about how the CEO of Steward Health Care, which is a chain of hospitals bought out by private equity and basically run into bankruptcy, refused to show up to testify before the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Well, in the last two weeks, the committee, followed by the full Senate, voted to hold CEO Ralph de la Torre in criminal contempt. And as of last week, he is now ex-CEO Ralph de la Torre, and now he is suing the Senate over that contempt vote. If nothing else, I guess this raises the stakes in Congress to continue to look at the impact of private equity in health care? 

Edney: Yeah, I think it’s interesting, because when you look at [Sen.] Bernie Sanders calling in pharmaceutical CEOs, they typically show up and they take their hits and they go home. And in this case, it probably kind of heightens that idea that private equity is the evil person. And I’m not saying everyone thinks pharma is not, but they do understand Washington. And there’s a chance that a lot of New York–focused, Wall Street–focused private equity folks may not get that quite in the same way or just may not view it as important. But now, that may be changing. 

Rovner: I was surprised by how bipartisan this was. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Rovner: I mean, beating up on pharma tends to be a Democratic thing, but this was bipartisan in the committee and bipartisan in the Senate. I mean, it’s also important to remember that Steward Health Care is a chain of hospitals in a whole bunch of states, so there are a lot of senators who are seeing hospitals in, now, dire straits through this whole private equity thing, who I imagine are not very happy about it. And their constituents are not very happy about it. But I think the bipartisanship of it is what sort of stuck out to me. 

Raman: I was just going to say hospitals are such a big employer for so many districts that I think that, but I would say this was the first time in 50 years they’ve sent a contemptor to the DOJ [Department of Justice]. And especially doing that in a unanimous fashion is just very striking to me, and I’m curious if DOJ kind of goes forth and does, takes penalty and action with it. 

Rovner: Yeah, this is a real under-the-radar story that I think could explode in a big way at some point. Well, the other big, evolving business story this week involves Medicare Advantage, the private sector alternative that gives enrollees extra benefits and makes insurance shareholders rich, mostly at taxpayer expense. Well, the party is, if not ending, then at least slowly closing down. Humana’s stock price dropped dramatically this week after the company reported the new way Medicare officials are calculating quality scores from Medicare Advantage. They get stars. The more stars, the better. The new way that Humana appears to be getting its stars could effectively deprive it of its entire operating profit. 

In separate news, UnitedHealthcare is suing Medicare over its Medicare Advantage payments in one of those single-judge conservative districts in Texas, of course. Democrats have been working to at least somewhat rein in these excess payments to Medicare Advantage for the past, I don’t know, two decades or so, but I assume this will all likely be reversed if Trump wins. And Medicare Advantage has been a troublesome issue because it’s really popular with beneficiaries, but it’s really expensive, because it’s really popular, because they get extra money, and some of that extra money goes to give extra benefits. Talk about things that are hard to explain to people. It’s great that you get all these extra benefits, but it’s costing the government more than it should. 

Edney: Yeah. 

Raman: I guess I do wonder if people, how much attention they’re paying. Are they going to switch plans if it’s dropping that many stars? If you’re on a Humana plan and a huge number of them got demoted to a lower rating, the next time you’re looking for a plan, are you going to switch to something else? And how often people are doing that and just if that would move the needle, because it’s just a longer process than overnight. 

Rovner: Although, I think it isn’t just that people have to switch. If people stay in those plans with fewer stars, the company gets less money. 

Raman: Yeah. 

Rovner: Because they get bonuses when people are in the, quote-unquote, “higher quality” plan. So even if their four-star plan is now a three-star plan and they stay in it, the company’s going to lose money, which I think is why the stock price took such a quick and dramatic bath. 

Edney: Yeah, I was surprised. It’s such a seemingly wonky issue, but it did really hit Humana very hard in the stock price. Technically, I think — correct me if I’m wrong — the stars aren’t even out yet. This is people doing searches to see if they can find some of them that have been changed at all, and so they’re coming out soon, but Humana particularly is very Medicare-focused out of all of the insurers. They rely on that for a large part of their revenue, so it is a big deal for them. I don’t know how much, but certainly Wall Street was. And as you mentioned with Trump, the Republicans typically really have supported Medicare Advantage because it is private insurers offering this instead of being just government-run Medicare. So that could have an effect. 

It’s hard to tell why their stars went down currently. With UnitedHealth, you at least get a little insight. They’re suing because, last year, their star rating went down for some plans, they said, because of one bad customer service phone call. So someone from Medicare calls and does a test thing, and UnitedHealth says they didn’t ask the right question, so the person never got a chance to answer it correctly, and then their star ratings went down. So, it does feel like it could happen at any point for any reason, so I don’t know how conducive that is, how much that actually plays into people who might have a Humana plan that think, “Oh, I haven’t had any issues, so why would I change?” 

Rovner: Yeah. All these under-the-hood things, as you point out, we have all looked at and don’t quite understand is worth billions and billions and billions of dollars. It’s one of the reasons why health care is so expensive and such a big part of the economy. All right. Well, we will continue to watch that space, too. That is the news for the week. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Lauren Sausser, and then we will come back with our extra credits. 

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Lauren Sausser, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News “Bill of the Month.” Lauren, thanks for joining us. 

Lauren Sausser: Thanks for having me. 

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

Sausser: This month’s patient is a young man named Preston Nafz. He’s 17. He’s a senior in high school. He lives in Hoover, Alabama, which is right outside of Birmingham. And he played youth sports his whole life and recently is focused on lacrosse, but like many kids in this country, he has sort of cycled through a bunch of different sports, and ended up injured last year. 

Rovner: And what happened? 

Sausser: He had really debilitating pain in his hip, and the pain was progressive. And, obviously, they tried some treatments on one end of the spectrum, but it kept growing worse and worse. And at one point last year, he ended up limping off of the lacrosse field. He couldn’t do really simple things like turning over in bed or getting in and out of a car. These things were really painful for him. So he ended up as a patient at a sports medicine clinic, and providers at that clinic recommended surgery. 

Rovner: And to cut to the chase, the story, at least medically, has a happy ending, right? The surgery worked? He’s better? 

Sausser: Yes, the surgery worked. He ended up getting something late last year, a procedure called a sports hernia repair, which is a little bit of a misnomer because he didn’t actually have a hernia. But it’s kind of a catchall phrase that orthopedic surgeons use to talk about a procedure to relieve this type of pain that he was having in his pelvis, groin area. And the recovery was longer than he was anticipating, but yes, it medically does have a happy ending. He was able to play lacrosse again, although the last time I spoke to him, he had another sports-related injury. But the sports hernia repair did do what it was supposed to do, so that’s the good news. 

Rovner: So it sounded like it should have been routine. Kid growing up, gets hurt playing sports, family has health insurance, goes to sports medicine, doctor fixes problem. Except for the bill, right? 

Sausser: Yeah. So the interesting thing about this story, and this is really why we pursued it, is because there is no CPT [Current Procedural Terminology] code for a sports hernia repair. CPT codes, your listeners are probably familiar with, but they’re the medical codes that providers and insurers use to figure out how things get paid for. And it can become more complicated when there’s no code for a procedure, which was the case here. So Preston’s dad was told before the surgery that he was going to have to pay upfront because his insurance company, which was Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama, likely wasn’t going to pay for it. 

Rovner: And how much was it upfront? 

Sausser: It was just over $7,000. So the surgery itself was $6,000. There was, I think, almost $500 for anesthesia, a little over $600 for the facility fee. And Preston’s dad paid for it on a few different credit cards. 

Rovner: So kid has the surgery, is in rehab, and Dad is now trying to recoup this money that he has paid for upfront. And what happened then? 

Sausser: Yeah. Before the surgery even happened, Preston’s dad tried to call his insurance company and say: Can I get this covered? My son’s doctor says this is medically necessary. And initially, he got good news. His insurer said: It sounds like this is something that should be covered. If this is something that’s medically necessary, your insurance plan generally covers those things. As the date of the surgery grew closer and closer, he found that the people he was talking to at the insurance company weren’t being as definitive with their answers. And so before the surgery, he got a no. He said he got a no from his insurer saying that they were not going to cover this. Now, on the back end of the surgery, after he’d paid the bill with those credit cards, he tried to appeal that decision by filing a lot of paperwork. And he did end up getting a few hundred dollars reimbursed, but when the insurer sent him that check, it was unclear exactly what they were covering. And, obviously, that didn’t come close to the $7,000-plus that they had paid for it. 

Rovner: So that’s what eventually happened with the bill, right? He ended up getting stuck with almost all of it? 

Sausser: Yeah. 

Rovner: Is there anything he could have done differently that might’ve helped this get reimbursed? 

Sausser: That’s the tricky thing about this story, because they did do almost everything right. But it’s almost a cautionary tale for people who are faced with this prospect in the future. So if your provider is recommending something that doesn’t have a CPT code, it is going to be harder to get reimbursed from your insurer. You should assume that. That’s not to say it’s impossible, but it’s going to take more work on your end. It’s going to take more paperwork, it may take more work on your doctor’s end, and you should be prepared to get some pushback, if that makes sense. 

Rovner: And has he just sort of written this off? 

Sausser: I mean, he paid off the surgery using the credit cards. And the last I spoke to this family, they were still getting some confusing communication from their insurer. I don’t know that they’ve gotten the final, final no yet. I think that he still is invested in getting reimbursed if he can. But at this point, we’re approaching almost the one-year anniversary of the surgery, so it’s looking less likely. 

Rovner: Well, we will keep following it. Lauren Sausser, thank you so much. 

Sausser: Thanks for having me. 

Rovner: OK, we’re back. Now 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. Don’t worry if you miss the details. We’ll include links to all these stories in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. We have two hurricane-related extra credits this week. Sandhya, why don’t you go first? 

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Without Water After Helene: Residents at Asheville Public Housing Complex Fear for Their Health,” and it is from the Asheville [North Carolina] Citizen Times, by Jacob Biba. And the story just looks at the residents of a specific complex in Asheville that have been hit really hard by the hurricane. And, when this was written, they’d been without water for two days and it might not come back for weeks, and just some of the public health impacts they were facing. One person couldn’t clean their nebulizer or their tracheostomy tube. Others were worrying about sanitation from not being able to flush toilets. I think it’s a good one to check out. 

Rovner: Yeah. We think about so many things with hurricanes. We think about being without power. We don’t tend to think about being without water. Alice, you have a related story. 

Ollstein: Yeah, and this is more of a supply chain story but really shows that these hurricanes and natural disasters can have really widespread impacts outside the region that they’re in. And so this is from The Wall Street Journal. It’s called “Hospitals Hit With IV Fluid Shortage After Hurricane Helene.” It’s by Joseph Walker and Peter Loftus, and it’s about a facility in North Carolina that produces, like I said, IV bag fluids that hospitals around the country depend on. And yeah, we’ve talked before about just how vulnerable our medical supply chains are and we don’t spread the risk around maybe as much as we need to in this age of climate instability. And so, yeah, hospitals, they’re not rationing the fluids, but they are taking steps to conserve. And so they’re thinking, OK, certain patients can take fluids orally instead of intravenously in order to conserve. And so that’s happening now. Hopefully, it doesn’t become rationing down the road. But, yeah, with the long recovery the region is expecting, it’s a bit scary. 

Rovner: Anna. 

Edney: I did one from a colleague of mine at Bloomberg, John Tozzi. It’s “A Free Drug Experiment Bypasses the US Health System’s Secret Fees.” So he looked at this Blue Shield of California plan that is deciding to just bypass the pharmacy benefit managers and go directly to a drugmaker to get a biosimilar of Humira, the rheumatoid arthritis and many other ailments drug. And they’re going to be getting it for $525 a month for this drug that a lot of the PBMs are offering for more than a thousand dollars. And so the PBMs mentioned to him, We give rebates, and it’s less than a thousand dollars. But they didn’t say if it was as low as $525. And Blue Shield of California seems to think that this is a really good deal and that they’re basically going to give it for free just to show that it can reach Americans affordably. And so I thought it was a good look at this plan and at maybe a trend, I don’t know, that plans might start going outside of the PBM network. 

Rovner: We shall see. Well, I chose a story from KFF Health News this week from Ronnie Cohen, and it’s called “Doctors Urging Conference Boycotts Over Abortion Bans Face Uphill Battle,” and it’s a really thoughtful piece about how to best protest things you disagree with. In this case, some doctors want medical groups to move professional conferences out of states with abortion bans, in order to exert financial pressure and to make a point. But there are those who worry that that amounts to punishing the victims and that it won’t do much anyway, frankly, unless you’re the Super Bowl or the baseball All-Star Game. It’s not like your conference is going to make or break some city’s annual budget. But it’s a microcosm of a bigger debate that’s going on in medicine that I’ve been covering. How do doctors balance their duty to serve patients with their duty to themselves and their own families? There are obviously pregnant medical professionals who do not wish to travel to states with abortion bans lest something bad happens. It’s a struggle that is obviously going to continue. It’s a really interesting story. 

OK. That is our show. Before we go this week, it is October and we want your scariest Halloween haikus. The winner will get their haiku illustrated by our award-winning in-house artists, and I will read it on the podcast that we tape on Halloween. We will have a link to the entry page in our show notes. 

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, all one word, @kff.org, or you can still find me at X. I’m @jrovner. Sandhya? 

Raman: @SandhyaWrites. 

Rovner: Anna? 

Edney: @annaedney. 

Rovner: Alice. 

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein. 

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).

View the full post Procurement and pension legislations for approval in 2024/2025 parliamentary year on NOW Grenada.

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).

Before Ohio voters amended their constitution last year to protect abortion rights, the state’s attorney general, an anti-abortion Republican, said that doing so would upend at least 10 state laws limiting abortions.

But those laws remain a hurdle and straightforward access to abortions has yet to resume, said Bethany Lewis, executive director of the Preterm abortion clinic in Cleveland. “Legally, what actually happened in practice was not much,” she said.

Today, most of those laws limiting abortions — including a 24-hour waiting period and a 20-week abortion ban — continue to govern Ohio health providers, despite the constitutional amendment’s passage with nearly 57% of the vote. For abortion rights advocates, it’s going to take time and money to challenge the laws in the courts.

Voters in as many as 13 states could also weigh in this year on abortion ballot initiatives. But the seven states that have voted on abortion-related ballot measures since the Supreme Court overturned federal abortion protections two years ago in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization show that an election can be just the beginning.

The state-by-state patchwork of constitutional amendments, laws, and regulations that determine where and how abortions are available across the country could take years to crystallize as old rules are reconciled with new ones in legislatures and courtrooms. And even though a ballot measure result may seem clear-cut, the residual web of older laws often still needs to be untangled. Left untouched, the statutes could pop up decades later, like an Arizona law from 1864 did this year.

Michigan was one of the first states where voters weighed in on abortion rights following the Dobbs decision in June 2022. In November of that year, Michigan voters approved by 13 percentage points an amendment to add abortion rights to the state constitution. It would be an additional 15 months, however, before the first lawsuit was filed to unwind the state’s existing abortion restrictions, sometimes called “targeted regulation of abortion providers,” or TRAP, laws. Michigan’s include a 24-hour waiting period.

The delay had a purpose, according to Elisabeth Smith, state policy and advocacy director at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit: It’s preferable to change laws through the legislature than through litigation because the courts can only strike down a law, not replace one.

“It felt really important to allow the legislative process to go forward, and then to consider litigation if there were still statutes that were on the books the legislature hadn’t repealed,” Smith said.

Michigan’s Democratic-led legislature did pass an abortion rights package last year that was signed into law by the state’s Democratic governor in December. But the package left some regulations intact, including the mandatory waiting period, mandatory counseling, and a ban on abortions by non-doctor clinicians, such as nurse practitioners and midwives.

Smith’s group filed the lawsuit in February on behalf of Northland Family Planning Centers and Medical Students for Choice. Smith said it’s unclear how long the litigation will take, but she hopes for a decision this year.

Abortion opponents such as Katie Daniel, state policy director for Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, are critical of the lawsuit and such policy unwinding efforts. She said abortion rights advocates used “deceptive campaigns” that claimed they wanted to restore the status quo in place before the Dobbs decision left abortion regulation up to the states.

“The litigation proves these amendments go farther than they will ever admit in a 30-second commercial,” Daniel said. “Removing the waiting period, counseling, and the requirement that abortions be done by doctors endangers women and limits their ability to know about resources and support available to them.”

A lawsuit to unwind most of the abortion restrictions in Ohio came from Preterm and other abortion providers four months after that state’s ballot measure passed. A legislative fix was unlikely because Republicans control the legislature and governor’s office. Preterm’s Lewis said she anticipated the litigation would take “quite some time.”

Dave Yost, the Ohio attorney general, is one of the defendants named in the suit. In a motion to dismiss the case, Yost argued that the abortion providers — which include several clinics as well as a physician, Catherine Romanos — lacked standing to sue.

He argued that Romanos failed to show she was harmed by the laws, explaining that “under any standard, Dr. Romanos, having always complied with these laws as a licensed physician in Ohio, is not harmed by them.”

Jessie Hill, an attorney representing Romanos and three of the clinics in the case, called the argument “just very wrong.” If Romanos can’t challenge the constitutionality of the old laws because she is complying with them, Hill said, then she would have to violate those laws and risk felonies to honor the new amendment.

“So, then she’s got to go get arrested and show up in court and then defend herself based on this new constitutional amendment?” Hill said. “For obvious reasons, that is not a system that we want to have.”

This year, Missouri is among the states poised to vote on a ballot measure to write protections for abortion into the state constitution. Abortions in Missouri have been banned in nearly every circumstance since 2022, but they were largely halted years earlier by a series of laws seeking to make abortions scarce.

Over the course of more than three decades, Missouri lawmakers instituted a 72-hour waiting period, imposed minimum dimensions for procedure rooms and hallways in abortion clinics, and mandated that abortion providers have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals, among other regulations.

Emily Wales, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood Great Plains, said trying to comply with those laws visibly changed her organization’s facility in Columbia, Missouri: widened doorways, additional staff lockers, and even the distance between recovery chairs and door frames.

Even so, by 2018 the organization had to halt abortion services at that Columbia location, she said, with recovery chairs left in position for a final inspection that never happened. That left just one abortion clinic operating in the state, a separate Planned Parenthood affiliate in St. Louis. In 2019, that organization opened a large facility about 20 miles away in Illinois, where lawmakers were preserving abortion access rather than restricting it.

By 2021, the last full year before the Dobbs decision opened the door for Missouri’s ban, the number of recorded abortions in the state had dwindled to 150, down from 5,772 in 2011.

“At that point, Missourians were generally better served by leaving the state,” Wales said.

Both of Missouri’s Planned Parenthood affiliates have vowed to restore abortion services in the state as swiftly as possible if voters approve the proposed ballot measure. But the laws that diminished abortion access in the state would still be on the books and likely wouldn’t be overturned legislatively under a Republican-controlled legislature and governor’s office. The laws would surely face challenges in court, yet that could take a while.

“They will be unconstitutional under the language that’s in the amendment,” Wales said. “But it’s a process.”

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.

Some justices suggested the Supreme Court had said its piece on abortion law when it overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022. This term, however, the court has agreed to review another abortion case. At issue is whether a federal law requiring emergency care in hospitals overrides Idaho’s near-total abortion ban. A decision is expected by summer.

Meanwhile, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid finalized the first-ever minimum staffing requirements for nursing homes participating in the programs. But the industry argues that there are not enough workers to hire to meet the standards.

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

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins University and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Tami Luhby
CNN

@Luhby

Read Tami's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• This week’s Supreme Court hearing on emergency abortion care in Idaho was the first challenge to a state’s abortion ban since the overturn of the constitutional right to an abortion. Unlike previous abortion cases, this one focused on the everyday impacts of bans on abortion care — cases in which pregnant patients experienced medical emergencies.
• Establishment medical groups and doctors themselves are getting more vocal and active as states set laws on abortion access. In a departure from earlier political moments, some major medical groups are campaigning on state ballot measures.
• Medicaid officials this week finalized new rules intended to more closely regulate managed-care plans that enroll Medicaid patients. The rules are intended to ensure, among other things, that patients have prompt access to needed primary care doctors and specialists.
• Also this week, the Federal Trade Commission voted to ban most “noncompete” clauses in employment contracts. Such language has become common in health care and prevents not just doctors but other health workers from changing jobs — often forcing those workers to move or commute to leave a position. Business interests are already suing to block the new rules, claiming they would be too expensive and risk the loss of proprietary information to competitors.
• The fallout from the cyberattack of Change Healthcare continues, as yet another group is demanding ransom from UnitedHealth Group, Change’s owner. UnitedHealth said in a statement this week that the records of “a substantial portion of America” may be involved in the breach.

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

Julie Rovner: NBC News’ “Women Are Less Likely To Die When Treated by Female Doctors, Study Suggests,” by Liz Szabo.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: States Newsroom’s “Loss of Federal Protection in Idaho Spurs Pregnant Patients To Plan for Emergency Air Transport,” by Kelcie Moseley-Morris.  

Tami Luhby: The Associated Press’ “Mississippi Lawmakers Haggle Over Possible Medicaid Expansion as Their Legislative Session Nears End,” by Emily Wagster Pettus.  

Joanne Kenen: States Newsroom’s “Missouri Prison Agency To Pay $60K for Sunshine Law Violations Over Inmate Death Records,” by Rudi Keller.  

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• American Economic Review’s “Is There Too Little Antitrust Enforcement in the U.S. Hospital Sector?” by Zarek Brot-Goldberg, Zack Cooper, Stuart Craig, and Lev Klarnet.
• KFF Health News’ “Medical Providers Still Grappling With UnitedHealth Cyberattack: ‘More Devastating Than Covid,” by Samantha Liss.

CLICK TO OPEN THE TRANSCRIPT

Transcript: Abortion — Again — At the Supreme Court

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

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

Tami Luhby: Hello.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: No interview this week, but wow, tons of news, so we are going to get right to it. We will start at the Supreme Court, which yesterday heard oral arguments in a case out of Idaho over whether the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or EMTALA, trumps Idaho’s almost complete abortion ban. This is the second abortion case the high court has heard in as many months and the first to actively challenge a state’s abortion ban since the overturn of Roe v. Wade in 2022. Last month’s case, for those who have forgotten already, was about the FDA approval of the abortion pill mifepristone. Alice, you and I both listened to these arguments. Did you hear any hints on which way the court might be leaning here?

Ollstein: The usual caveat that you can’t always tell by the questions they ask. Sometimes they play devil’s advocate or it’s not indicative of how they will rule on the case, but it did seem that at least a couple of the court’s conservatives were interested in really taking a tough look at Idaho’s argument. Obviously, some of the other conservatives were very much in support of Idaho’s argument that its doctors should not be compelled to perform abortions for patients experiencing a medical emergency. It really struck me from the arguments how much it focused on what’s actually going on on the ground.

That was a huge departure from a lot of other Supreme Court arguments and a lot of Supreme Court arguments on abortion where it’s a lot of hypotheticals and getting into the legal weeds. This was just like they were reading these concrete, reported stories of what’s been happening in Idaho and other states because of these abortion bans. People turned away while they were actively miscarrying, people being flown across state lines to receive timely care. I think whether that will make a difference that the justices are sort of being confronted with the concrete ramifications of the Dobbs [v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization] decision or not remains to be seen.

Rovner: I thought one of the things that it looked like very much like last month’s argument is that the women justices were very much about real details and talking about medical conditions, about ectopic pregnancies and premature rupture of membranes and things that none of the men mentioned at all. The men were sort of very legalistic and the women, including Amy Coney Barrett, who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade, were very much all about, as you said, what’s going on on the ground and what this distinction means. I mean, where we are is that Idaho has an exception in its abortion ban, but only for the life of the woman. Whereas EMTALA says you have to stabilize someone in an emergency situation and it’s been interpreted by the federal government to say sometimes that stabilization means terminating a pregnancy, as in the case of premature rupture of membranes or an ectopic pregnancy or a case where the woman is going to hemorrhage and is actively hemorrhaging.

That question of where that line is, between what’s an immediate threat to life and what’s just a threat to health or a threat to life soon, was the crux of this case. And it really does feel uncomfortably like we have nine Supreme Court justices making, really, medical decisions.

Ollstein: Yeah, it struck me how Amy Coney Barrett seemed to get pretty frustrated with Idaho’s attorney at a couple points. Idaho’s attorney was saying kind of, “Nothing to see here. There’s no problem. Since we allow lifesaving abortions and that’s what is required under EMTALA, there’s no conflict.” So Amy Coney Barrett was like, “Well, why are you here then? Why are you before us?” The reason is that they’re trying to get this lower-court injunction lifted even though it’s not in effect right now. The other point she got kinda testy was when Idaho was saying that their law is clear, doctors know what to do, and Amy Coney Barrett asked, “Well, couldn’t a prosecutor come in later and disagree and said, “Oh, you performed an abortion you said was to save someone’s life, but I don’t think it was necessary to save her life and I’m going to charge you criminally?” And the Idaho attorney conceded that that could happen.

So I think her vote could potentially be in play, but I don’t know if it’s going to be enough to overcome the court’s conservatives who are very skeptical that EMTALA should compel states to do anything.

Rovner: So the medical community has been quite outspoken in this case. The American Medical Association, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Emergency Physicians have all filed briefs saying the Idaho ban could require them to violate professional ethics, wrote the immediate president of the AMA, Jack Resnick, in an op-ed. “It is reckless for Idaho to tell emergency physicians that they must ignore their moral and ethical standards and stand by while a septic patient begins to lose kidney function or when a hemorrhaging patient faces only a 30% chance of death.” But I feel like the medical profession has long since lost control of the abortion issue. I mean, is there any chance here that they might prevail? I have to say this week I’ve gotten so many emails from so many doctor groups saying, “Oh my goodness, look what’s happening. They’re going to put us in this impossible situation.” To which I want my response to be, “Where have you been for the last 20 years?”

Ollstein: I mean, I think it is notable that these establishment medical groups are becoming more vocal. I mean, some might say better late than never, and I think in some instances they are having an impact at the state level. They have pushed some state legislatures to add or expand exemptions to abortion bans. But a lot of times Republican lawmakers have rejected calls from state medical associations to do that, and so I think filing amicus briefs is a way to have your say, lobbying at the state level is a way to have your say. Some doctors are even running for office specifically on this issue. And also, medical groups are campaigning hard on these state abortion referendums. I reported on doctor groups door-knocking in Ohio, for instance, before that referendum won big.

I think it’s really interesting to see the medical community get a lot more vocal on something they’ve either tried to stay out of or been vocal on the other side on in the past, but we’ll have to see how much impact that actually has.

Rovner: Well, one thing this case highlights is how pregnant women who experience complications that can threaten their health or future fertility, but are not immediately life-threatening, can end up in really terrible circumstances, as we heard in a number of anecdotes at the oral arguments. The Associated Press “FOIA’d”[requested Freedom of Information Act] EMTALA pregnancy complaint records from several states with abortion bans and found some pretty horrific examples, including one woman who miscarried in the emergency room lobby restroom after she was turned away from the registration desk. Another who was turned away and ended up giving birth in a car on the way to another hospital. That baby died. These are not people who go to the emergency room in search of abortions. They’re women who are trying to maintain pregnancies. Is the concept that people ending up in the most horrific situations are often those who most want children, is that finally getting through here?

Ollstein: What struck me most about that reporting is that the documents they got were just from the first few months after Roe v. Wade was overturned, so we have no idea what’s happening now. It could be better, it could be much worse, it could be the same. I think that lack of transparency makes this really hard to report on accurately. And the fact that it took The AP a year to even get those few heavily redacted documents speaks to the challenge here. We want an accurate picture of how these bans are impacting the provision of health care around the country, and it’s really hard to get.

Rovner: I know the Biden administration has been kind of trying to keep this quiet. I mean, not out there sort of blaring what’s happening. They’ve been sort of leaving that to the politics side and this is obviously the policy side. Obviously on the politics side, the Biden administration is getting bolder about using abortion as a campaign issue. The president himself gave a speech in Florida where a six-week ban is set to take effect next week and pinned all the abortion restrictions directly on former President Trump, who he pointed out has taken credit for them. Biden actually said the word abortion twice in that speech. I was listening very closely and went back and counted. I think that’s a first. They’re definitely stepping up the pressure politically, right?

Ollstein: Yes. The Biden campaign is leaning very hard on this. Even in states where it’s debatable whether they have a chance, like Florida, I think that there’s an interest, especially after seeing all of these referendums and ballot measures win big. It’s really shown Democrats that this is a very popular issue to run on, that they shouldn’t be afraid of it, that they should lean into it. I think you are seeing attempts to do that. It’s not always the language that the abortion rights advocacy community wants to hear, but it’s definitely more than we’ve heard from the Biden administration in the past.

I think you’re also seeing an attempt to sort of take the air out of Trump’s “Let’s leave it to states. I am reasonable and moderate” sort-of pitch. By highlighting what’s happening on the ground in certain states, it’s an attempt to say, “OK, you want to leave it to states? Then you own all of this. You own every woman being turned away from a hospital while she’s miscarrying. You own every instance of a ban going into effect and people having to travel across state lines,” et cetera. But whether just blaming Trump and arguing that he would be worse is enough versus saying what Biden would actually do and continue to do, I think that’s what we’ve heard people want to hear more of. Although there has been some action from the Biden administration recently.

Rovner: That was just going to be my next question. The one policy change the Biden administration did do this week was finalized a rule expanding the health records protections under HIPAA to abortion information. Why was this important? It sounds pretty nerdy.

Ollstein: This has been in the works for more than a year. A lot of people have been wondering why it’s been taking so long and worried that if it took even longer, it would be easier to get rid of it if a new administration takes over. But essentially this is to make it harder for states to reach across state lines to try to obtain information and use it to prosecute for having an abortion. It’s an attempt to better protect that data and so we heard a lot of praise after the announcement came out from abortion rights groups and some medical groups, and I would anticipate some groups on the right would sue. I’ve seen some complaints saying this will prevent law enforcement from investigating actual crimes against people, and so I expect to see some legal challenges soon.

Kenen: There are all sorts of efforts to stop both travel for abortion. There are also laws on books already, there have been for a number of years, about helping a minor cross state lines for abortion. There’s the attempts to stop the shipment of abortion pills from a legal state into a state that has a ban. There’s all sorts of things where, whether the intent is to actually prosecute a woman or a pregnant person, versus collecting evidence for some kind of larger crackdown or prosecution, this is potentially a piece … patient records are potentially a piece of that. We’ve talked a few weeks ago, maybe a month or two ago by now, about some Texas communities that wanted to say, “If you drive on the road in our town on the way to an abortion, we’re going to arrest you.” How they figure out logistically and practically … What are you going to do? Stop everybody on the road and give them a pregnancy test?

I mean, I don’t know how you enforce that, but just that these ideas are out there and on the books through this privacy shield. We have privacy under HIPAA, all of us, so to interpret it this way, or reinforce it depending on your political point of view, undermine excessively, whatever, but this is sort of pivotal because there’s so many ways these records could be used in various kinds of legislative and prosecutorial ways.

Rovner: As you point out, it’s not theoretical. We’ve seen attorneys general — Indiana and Kansas — and some other states, actually, and Texas say that they want to go after these records, so it’s not …

Kenen: Right and we’ve seen cases of the child rape victim and the prosecutor, what happened with the doctor, and so it’s not theoretical. It’s not widespread right now, but it’s not theoretical. Whether the pregnancy was planned and wanted or it was unplanned and ended up being wanted, going through a pregnancy loss is not just medically difficult, depending on when in pregnancy it occurs and under what circumstances. It can be medically quite complicated and it’s emotionally devastating. So to just get pulled into these political legal fights when you’ve already been bleeding in the parking lot or whatever, or having lost a pregnancy, it’s like you forget these are human beings. These are people going through medical crises.

Rovner: Indeed. Well, abortion is far from the only big health news this week. On Monday, the Biden administration finalized more long-awaited rules regarding staffing in nursing homes that participate in Medicare or Medicaid. Tami, what’s in these rules and why is the concept that nursing homes should have nurses on duty so controversial?

Luhby: It is very controversial and it’s also very consequential. So on Monday, as you said, the Biden administration finalized the first-ever minimum staffing rules at nursing homes involved in Medicare and Medicaid, and they say it’s crucial for patient safety and quality of care. It requires that all nursing homes provide a total of at least 3.48 hours of nursing care per resident per day, including defined periods of care from registered nurses and from nurses’ aides. Plus, nursing homes must have a registered nurse on-site at all times, which is different than the rules now. Now, CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] is giving the nursing homes some time to staff up. The mandate will be phased in over three years with rural communities having up to five years and they’re also giving temporary exemptions for facilities in areas with workforce shortages that demonstrate a good faith effort to hire. When I spoke to [Department of Health and Human Services] Secretary [Xavier] Becerra about the nursing home industry’s vocal concerns that this could cause a lot of nursing homes to close or limit admissions, he said, “Well, a business model that is based on understaffing is not a very good business model and is dangerous for patients.”

So, it’s going to be a heavy lift for nursing homes. According to HHS, 75% of them will have to hire staff, including 12,000 registered nurses and 77,000 aides. And also, 22% of them will need to hire registered nurses to meet the around-the-clock mandate. The nursing home operators, not surprisingly, have strongly pushed back on this rule even back when it was first proposed in September, saying that they’re already having staffing problems amid a nationwide shortage of nurses. The American Health Care Association called the mandate an unreasonable standard that only threatens to shut down more nursing homes, displace hundreds of thousands of residents, and restrict seniors’ access to care.

Rovner: We should point out the American Health Care Association is the lobbying group for nursing homes.

Luhby: Yes. What’s interesting also, though, is that on the other side, you have advocacy groups that are saying that it doesn’t go far enough and they’re citing a 2001 CMS study that found that nursing home residents need at least 4.1 hours of daily care. To add to all of this, if it’s not complicated and controversial enough, Congress is getting involved and is also split over the rules. Some lawmakers, like Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bob Casey, generally support it, but nearly a hundred House members from both parties wrote to HHS Secretary Becerra expressing their concern that the mandate could lead to nursing home closures. And there’s a bipartisan Senate bill and a House Republican bill that would prohibit HHS from finalizing the rule. So we have time before this goes into effect. It goes into effect in phases, and we’ll see if lawmakers move to block the mandate or if the courts do, but it’s going to be interesting to watch how this plays out.

Rovner: Joanne wanted to add something.

Kenen: Well, first of all, as we say frequently, there’s always lawsuits. We have a health care/lawsuit system, so it’s not over. But I think the other thing is I think families who put a loved one in a nursing home don’t understand how little nursing, let alone doctoring, goes on. The name is “nursing” home and people expect there to be a nurse there, meaning a registered nurse. I think people often think there’s a doctor there, where the doctors are not there very much. That’s one reason the lack of medical care on-site, not only could there be emergencies, but I mean even things that could be treated in place if there is a physician. I mean, it’s just dial 911 and put them in an ambulance and send them to the hospital. And we do have this problem with hospital readmission, which is not just a cost problem and a regulatory problem, it’s really bad for patients to … the continuity of care is good and lack of continuity and handoffs and change, sending people back-and-forth is not good for them.

Obviously, there are times there’s an emergency and you need to send someone to a hospital, but not always. If there was a doctor or nurse, there’s some things that you don’t have to call 911 for. Because you don’t know or don’t learn about nursing homes until you have a relative there or until you’re a reporter who has to write about them. You don’t realize that they’re very custodial and there’s not a lot of taken care of in terms of getting assistance in bathing and walking and things like that. There’s less medical care, including nursing care, than people realize until your loved one is there. I mean, when I covered them the first time, I was really shocked. I mean, it’s 20 years ago the first time I wrote about it, but my assumption of what was there and what is actually there was a big gap.

Rovner: Tami.

Luhby: One thing also, though is … I mean, yes, that is definitely true about the medical care, but we’re also talking about just the care, not only the nursing. But that’s why so many aides need to be hired because you also have situations in nursing homes where people aren’t getting help to go to the bathroom, aren’t getting showered regularly, aren’t being watched. Maybe they’re trying to go to the bathroom themselves and they’re falling because they have to go. I mean, unfortunately, I’ve had experience with nursing homes with my family and I’ve seen this. But also I think it’s been pretty well reported in a lot of publications and studies and such. But there are a lot of problems in nursing homes, in general, and staffing.

Rovner: Well, just to talk about how long this is going on, former Sen. David Pryor died this week. When he was a House member, he rather famously went undercover at a nursing home to try and spotlight. That was when we first started to hear about some of the conditions in nursing homes. He was instrumental in doing the work that got the original federal nursing home standards passed in 1987, which was the first time I covered this issue, and even then there was a big fight in 1987 about should there be a staffing mandate? It’s like, hello, if we’re going to improve care in nursing homes, maybe we should make sure there are enough people to provide care. Even then the nursing home industry was saying, “But we have a shortage. We can’t hire enough people to actually do this if you give us a staffing mandate.” So literally, this has gone back-and-forth since 1987. And, as Joanne points out, it’s still in all likelihood not over, but one could sort of think, gee, they’ve had two generations now to come up with enough people to work in these nursing homes. Maybe Becerra is right. Maybe there’s something wrong with the business model?

Luhby: I was going to say, we know the business model is also moving more towards private equity, which is not necessarily going to be as concerned with the staffing levels. We know that the staffing levels … I think there’ve been studies that show that staffing levels are generally lower in investor-owned nursing homes. So there’s that.

Kenen: There’ve been a lot of demographic changes. I mean, you live longer, but you don’t always live healthier. We have families that are spread out. Not everybody’s living in the same town anymore. I mean, they haven’t for a number of decades now, but your daughter-in-law is 3,000 miles away. She can’t come to your house every day. At the same time, we do have a push and it’s not brand-new, it’s a number of years now, to do more home- and community-based care, but there are shortages and waiting lists and problems there, too. So there are a lot of people who need institutional care. Whether they wanted to have that or not, that’s where they go because either there’s not enough community support or they don’t have the family to fill in the gaps or they’re too medically complicated or whatever. Given the demographic trends and the degree of chronic disease and disability, this is not going away. It’s like Julie said, it’s way overdue. We need to figure it out. There are workforce shortages to train more CRNAs [certified registered nurse anesthetists] like the trained aides. It’s not a five-, six-year program. I mean, this can be done and is done somewhere in community colleges. You can do this. You can improve at all levels. You need more nurse RNs, nurses or advanced practice nurses, but you also need more of everything else. People who go to work in these jobs, by and large, do want to provide quality, compassionate care, and it’s hard to do if there are not enough of you.

Rovner: But they’re also super hard jobs and super stressful and super physically demanding.

Kenen: Hoisting and …

Rovner: Yeah, yeah. And not well-paid.

Kenen: Keeping track of a lot of stuff.

Rovner: Well, in a related move, the Biden administration this week also finalized rules that will attempt to make the quality of Medicaid managed-care plans more transparent. Among other things, the rules establish national wait time limits for certain types of medical care and require states to conduct secret shopper surveys of insurance provider networks to make sure there are enough practitioners available to serve the patient population. The administration says these rules are needed because so many Medicaid patients are now in managed care and regulations just haven’t kept up. Will these be enough to actually protect these often very vulnerable populations? I mean, obviously these people are not quite as vulnerable as people in nursing homes, but they’re kind of the next level down.

Kenen: Well, I think that we’ve seen a history of waves of regulation. Then whatever the status quo becomes, it doesn’t stay the status quo. Whether, as Tami mentioned, there’s more private equity or there’s monopolization and consolidation or just new state regulation. I mean, it’s not static. Do we know how this move is going to play out? No. Do we assume that the bad actors who don’t want to comply will find new ways of doing things that in five years we’ll have another set of regulations that we’ll be talking about? I mean, unfortunately, that’s the way things work. Some regulatory approaches or legal approaches work and others just sort of morph. There’s a lot of history of innovative great actors and lousy bad actors.

Rovner: I say it’s been a big week for federal regulation because we also have breaking news from the Federal Trade Commission, of all places. On Tuesday, the commissioners voted to finalize rules banning most noncompete clauses in employment contracts. At an event here at KFF, the FTC chair, Lina Kahn, said a surprisingly large number of comments about that proposed rule came from health care workers. Here’s a snippet from that conversation.

Lina Khan: There were a whole bunch of comments that said, “I signed this, but it’s not like I was exercising real choice. It felt coercive.” We also heard a lot about the effect of these noncompetes and the way that, especially in rural areas, if you want to switch employers and there’s really only one other option locally, if a noncompete is barring you from taking a job with that other hospital, practically to change jobs you have to leave the state. Right? And just how destructive and devastating that is for people and their families, especially if they’re choosing between staying in a job where the employer realizes that this is a captive employee and they don’t really have to compete in offering them better opportunities, better wages, and having to instead think about uprooting their family. We also heard from doctors who did not uproot their families, but instead just commuted hours and hours a day driving. People saying, “For five years I didn’t really see my kids at all awake, ever, because I was always on the road because of this noncompete.” So just really vivid stories from people.

Rovner: So even though the vote was less than 48 hours ago, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has already filed suit to block the rules as have some smaller business groups. Why do businesses think they need to prevent workers from changing jobs near where they live? I mean, you could see it for people who’ve invented something. You don’t want them to walk out the door with proprietary secrets, but baristas at Starbucks and even nurses are not walking out with trade secrets.

Kenen: Well, I mean, this is common in doctors’ employment contracts, nurses, it’s everything. I think it’s partly because there are provider shortages in some places and they want to keep the workforce they have instead of having them be lured across town to a competitor where they could be paid more and then you have to pay even more to hire the next one. So that’s part of it. It’s economic. A lot of it’s economic. I mean, there’s some fear of patients going with a certain beloved provider, a doctor goes somewhere else. But I think it’s basically they don’t want churn. They don’t want to have to keep paying more. Somebody gets a job offer across the street and they don’t want to take it. They like where they are, but they’re going to ask for more money. It’s largely economic in a market where there’s scarcity of some specialties and certainly nursing. I mean, there’s questions about are there are not enough nurses? Or are we just putting them in the wrong places? But speaking generally, there’s a nursing shortage and physicians, we don’t have enough primary care providers. We certainly don’t have enough geriatricians. We don’t have enough mental health providers. We don’t have enough of a lot of things. This helps the employer, in this case, the health system, usually.

Rovner: I have to say it was only in the last couple of years that I even became aware there were noncompetes in health care. I mean, I knew about them for weathercasters on local stations. It’s like if you leave, you have to go to another station in another city. I had absolutely no idea that they were so common, as you point out, for so many economic reasons. Obviously this has also already been challenged in court, so we’ll have to see how that plays out.

Also this week on the antitrust front, we have a paper from three health economists published in the American Economic Review who calculated that if the Federal Trade Commission had been more aggressive about flagging and potentially blocking hospital mergers just between 2010 and 2015, health care prices could have been 5% lower. Researchers blame the FTC’s limited budget, but you have to wonder if that budget is limited because business has so much clout in Washington and really doesn’t want eager regulators snooping into their potentially anticompetitive practices. I mean, the FTC has been around for 120-some years now. Occasionally it tries to do big things like with these noncompetes, but mostly it doesn’t do as much as obviously economists and people who study it think that it could do. I mean, we certainly have problems with lack of competition in health care.

Ollstein: I think we have an unusually aggressive FTC right now, so it’ll be really interesting to see what they can accomplish in whatever time this administration has remaining to it, which remains to be seen. I have seen some more aggressive action from the agency in the past on things like payday lending and some of these other sort of maybe more fringy sectors of the economy. So to take on health care, which is so central and such a behemoth and, like you said, there’s so much political power behind it, as Joanne said, guarantee of lawsuits and coverage from us forever basically.

Kenen: The other point that’s worth making, I don’t think any of us have said this, it doesn’t apply to nonprofit hospitals or health systems, and that’s a lot of … market-dominant health care systems that are nonprofits, nominally their tax status is nonprofit. It’s a very confusing term to normal people, but these bans on noncompetes do not apply to the nonprofit sector, which is a lot of health care.

Rovner: Yet still it’s set off quite a conflagration since they passed this on Tuesday. Well, finally this week, speaking of big health care business, we are still seeing ramifications from that Change Healthcare hack back in February. While UnitedHealth Group, which owns Change, says things are approaching normality, that’s not the case for providers who still can’t submit bills or collect payments except doing it on paper. Meanwhile, in what’s going to be some kind of movie or miniseries someday, a second group is now demanding ransom after publishing some of the stolen data. If you’ve been following this story along with us, you’ll remember that United reportedly already paid a ransom of $22 million, except that it appears that the group that got that money stiffed the group that actually has control of the pirated data.

Oh, and buried in UnitedHealthcare’s news “update” posted on its website, it says protected health information, “which could cover a substantial proportion of people of America,” is involved in the hack. Can this get any worse?

Kenen: Snakes? I don’t think any of us journalists can quite comprehend. I mean, we understand intellectually, but I don’t think we understand what it’s like to be the billing clerk at a major practice right now trying to figure out what’s where and how to get paid and what it means for patients and what’s next. I mean, this is a tremendous hack, but it’s not the last.

Rovner: Yeah, and the idea that I think — what did they say? — 1 out of every 3 health care transactions goes through Change, I certainly wasn’t aware of. I think most reporters who are covering this weren’t aware of. I think certainly none of the public was aware of, that there’s that much of the money-changing that goes on from one, as we now know, vulnerable organization is a little bit scary.

Luhby: It shows the power of UnitedHealth[care] in the market. I mean, it’s the largest insurer and people think of it, “OK, I have insurance through it,” but they don’t realize all of the other tentacles that are attached.

Kenen: It also shows that there’s hack after hack after hack after hack. This company knew that they were big and powerful and central, and many of us never heard of them or barely knew what they were. But they knew what they were and despite all the warnings of the need for better and higher protection, cybersecurity protections, these things are going on still. I don’t have the technical expertise to know, well, OK, everybody’s doing everything they’re supposed to do as a health system, but the hackers are just always a step ahead. Or whether they’re really not doing everything they’re supposed to do and weak links in their own chains. Is it the diabolical geniuses? Or is it people still not taking this seriously enough?

Rovner: I will add that in our discussion with FTC Chair Lina Kahn, she did talk about cybersecurity as something that the FTC is going to be looking at in deciding whether there is unfair competition going on. Also, she has promised to come on the podcast, so hopefully we will get her in the next several weeks.

All right, that is the news for this week. Now 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. Tami, you were the first in, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: Well, my extra credit is an AP story by Emily Wagster Pettus titled “Mississippi Lawmakers Haggle Over Possible Medicaid Expansion as Their Legislative Session Nears End.” This story brings us up to date on the negotiations between the House and Senate in Mississippi over expanding Medicaid. Just a quick refresher for listeners: Mississippi is one of 10 states that hasn’t expanded Medicaid yet, and this is the first time, and it’s really very consequential that the Republican-led legislature has seriously considered doing so. The problem is the House and Senate versions are very, very different. The House bill is more like a traditional Medicaid expansion, providing coverage for those earning up to 138% of the poverty level, although it would also try to institute a work requirement, and about 200,000 people would gain coverage. But the Senate version would only extend coverage to those earning up to 100% of the poverty level, which the Senate Medicaid committee chair thought would add about 40,000 to the program, and it would also come with a very strict work requirement.

So on Tuesday, lawmakers met to try to hash out a compromise. They did so in public. It was a public meeting recorded, which was very unusual, and apparently there were people waiting hours to get in. It was standing room only. The House offered a plan that would cover people earning up to 100% of the poverty level under Medicaid, while those earning between 100% and 138% would receive subsidies to buy insurance through the ACA exchange. But the Senate did not offer a proposal nor immediately respond to the one in the House. There are more meetings scheduled. I think there was another one yesterday. It remains to be seen what will happen, but the clock is ticking. The state legislature only is in session until May 5, and it doesn’t give them much time.

Another wrinkle is that it’s important to note that Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, has repeatedly voiced his opposition to Medicaid expansion in recent months and is likely to veto any bill. So if lawmakers do eventually agree on a compromise, they may very well also have to vote on whether to override the veto by the governor. This happened in Kansas in 2017 where the legislature did pass Medicaid expansion, Republican governor vetoed it, and the legislature was not able to override the veto and it never got that far again.

Rovner: So yes, we will keep our eyes on Mississippi. Thank you for the update. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I have a piece from States Newsroom related to the Supreme Court arguments on Idaho’s abortion ban and its impact on pregnant patients. The piece [“Loss of Federal Protection in Idaho Spurs Pregnant Patients To Plan for Emergency Air Transport”] is about the increase in patients being airlifted out of the state on these Life Flight [Network] emergency transports and the situation and doctors’ hesitancy to provide abortion care, even when they feel it’s medically necessary, is leading to this increase in flying patients to Oregon and Washington and Utah and neighboring states. It’s getting to the point where some doctors are even recommending people who are pregnant or planning to be pregnant purchase memberships in these flight companies, which normally is only recommended for people who do extreme outdoor sports who may need to be rescued or who ride motorcycles. So the fact that just being pregnant is becoming a category in which you are recommended to have this kind of insurance is pretty wild.

Rovner: Yeah. Welcome to 2024. Joanne.

Kenen: This is a piece from the Missouri Independent, which is also part of the States Newsroom, by Rudi Keller, and the headline is “Missouri Prison Agency To Pay $60K for Sunshine Law Violations Over Inmate Death Records.” That doesn’t sound quite as dramatic as this story really is. It’s about a mother who’s been trying to find out how her son was left unprotected, and he died by suicide, hanged himself in solitary confinement, when he had a history of mental illness. He was serving time for robbery. He wasn’t a murderer. I mean, he was obviously in prison. He had done something wrong, very wrong. He had had a 13-year sentence. But he had a history of mental illness. He had a history of past suicide attempts. He had been taken off some of his drugs, and she has been trying to find out what happened. But it’s not just her. There are other cases. The number of deaths in Missouri prisons has actually gone up in the last few years, even though the prison population itself has gone down. The headline is sort of the tip of a rather sad iceberg.

Rovner: Prison health care, I think, is something that people are starting to look at more closely, but there’s a lot of stories there to be done. Well, my story this week is from my friend and former colleague Liz Szabo, and it’s called “Women Are Less Likely To Die When Treated by Female Doctors, Study Suggests.” Now, this was a study of women on Medicare who were hospitalized, so not everybody, and the difference was small, but statistically significant. Those women treated by women doctors were slightly less likely to die in the ensuing 30 days than those treated by male doctors. It’s not entirely clear why, but at least part of it is that women tend to take other women’s problems more seriously, and women patients may be more likely to open up to other women doctors.

It’s another data point in trying to close the gap between women and men and the gap between people of color and white people when it comes to health care. So more studies to come.

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 to whatthehealth, all one word, @kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, I’m @jrovner. Joanne, where do you hang these days?

Kenen: Occasionally on X @JoanneKenen, but not very much, and on threads @joannekenen1.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: Best place is cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Alice?

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

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).

— Nearly a half-million health workers who stand to benefit from California’s nation-leading $25 minimum wage law could be in for a rude awakening if hospitals and other health care providers follow through on potential cuts to hours and benefits.

A medical industry challenge to a new minimum wage ordinance in one Southern California city suggests layoffs and reductions in hours and benefits, including cuts to premium pay and vacation time, could be one result of a state law set to begin phasing in in June. However, some experts are skeptical of that possibility.

The California Hospital Association brought a partly successful legal challenge to Inglewood’s $25 minimum wage ordinance, which barred employers from taking those sorts of steps to offset their higher costs.

“Layoffs, reductions in premium pay rates, reductions in non-wage benefits, reductions in hours, and increased charges are consequences of an employer having less money to spend—which will necessarily be the case given the significant increase in spending on wages due to the minimum wage,” the association said in its lawsuit. Additional examples include reducing health coverage and charging for parking or work-related equipment.

Inglewood voters approved the ordinance in November 2022, nearly a year before California legislators enacted a $25 minimum wage for health workers. Those statewide higher wages are to be phased in starting in June under California’s first-in-the-nation law, but Gov. Gavin Newsom has since said they are too expensive as the state faces a deficit estimated between $38 billion and $73 billion. It’s unclear if lawmakers will agree to a delay or take other steps to reduce the cost.

U.S. District Judge Dale S. Fischer agreed with the hospital industry in a March 11 tentative ruling when he shot down the portion of Inglewood’s ordinance banning layoffs and clawbacks by employers, while allowing the rest of the ordinance to remain in effect. He gave the sides time to object to his preliminary decision, though none did.

The California Hospital Association represents more than 400 hospitals and was a key backer of the state’s carefully crafted compromise law, which notably contains none of the employee safeguards included in the Inglewood ordinance.

Spokesperson Jan Emerson-Shea said the association doesn’t know how providers will react once the state law takes effect. “We don’t have any insights,” she said.

“The challenge for any health care organization is figuring out how to pay for the higher wages,” said Joanne Spetz, director of the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies at the University of California-San Francisco. “Since labor costs are the largest part of any health care organization’s costs, it’s hard to figure out how to reduce spending without looking at labor costs.”

Providers can try to increase revenues by bargaining for higher reimbursements from commercial insurers, she said. Public hospitals, nursing homes, and community clinics get most of their money through Medi-Cal, the state’s Medicaid program.

Providers could reduce the services they offer, pare back charity care, and cut or delay capital investments, Spetz said. In the long term, she expects some combination of spending cuts and revenue increases.

Both the state law and local ordinance cover far more than doctors and nurses, with a definition of health worker that includes janitors, housekeepers, groundskeepers, security guards, food service workers, laundry workers, and clerical staff.

The most recent estimate by the Health Care Program at the University of California-Berkeley Labor Center is that as many as 426,000 health workers would make an average of $6,400 extra in the law’s first year, a 19% average pay bump mainly benefiting lower-income workers of color and women. State finance officials project that well over 500,000 workers will benefit.

Researchers didn’t include layoffs and other potential staffing and benefit reductions when they projected the state law’s costs and benefits, said Laurel Lucia, the program’s director. But she pointed to initial projections by hospitals, doctors, and business and taxpayer groups that the wage hike would cost $8 billion annually, thereby imperiling services and resulting in higher premiums and higher costs for state and local governments.

“It seems like a contradiction to say this law’s going to cost billions of dollars while at the same time saying it’s going to reduce workers’ total compensation,” said Lucia, who projects a far lower price tag.

She added that state finance officials had anticipated that Medi-Cal reimbursements would reflect the increased labor costs, while Medicare would eventually at least partially compensate for the higher labor costs.

Michael Reich, chair of the Center on Wage and Employment Dynamics at UC Berkeley’s Institute for Research on Labor and Employment, and affiliated economist Justin Wiltshire recently argued that California’s new $20 minimum wage law for fast-food workers won’t result in mass layoffs and price increases, as some have predicted.

Health care is much different than fast food, Reich acknowledged, but he argued for much the same positive result.

“A higher minimum wage will make it easier and cheaper for hospitals to recruit and retain these workers. The cost savings, and the productivity benefits of more experienced workers, could offset much of the labor cost increase,” Reich said.

The hospital association filed its lawsuit against Inglewood’s ordinance in July, while it was still opposing early versions of the statewide minimum wage legislation. Among many other provisions, the statewide law put on hold an initiative to cap hospital executives’ salaries in Los Angeles.

The hospital association’s legal challenge referenced in part layoffs and reduced working hours imposed by Centinela Hospital Medical Center after Inglewood’s ordinance took effect.

But Centinela said the reduction was entirely unrelated to the ordinance and that all staff were offered alternate positions, which many accepted.

“Centinela Hospital also has since added many more jobs in new clinical positions above minimum wage scale,” the hospital said in a statement.

Service Employees International Union-United Healthcare Workers West, the prime backer of both the local ordinance and the statewide law, sued the hospital in April 2023 alleging that it cut workers’ hours to offset the higher minimum wage. The case is still pending.

The union did not respond to repeated requests for comment.

In a court filing, however, the union and city of Inglewood said similar employer restrictions in previous minimum wage laws have survived.

The ordinance “merely sets the backdrop for collective bargaining negotiations,” and does not bar employers from locking out employees or hiring replacement workers during a strike. Employers can still lay off workers or reduce their hours, they said, so long as they don’t do so to fund the higher minimum wage.

But Fischer agreed with the hospital association that layoffs and reductions in employees’ total compensation packages are “obvious responses by an employer to rising compensation costs.”

Restricting employers’ options would violate federal labor relations rules, he said.

“The minimum wage an employer has to pay its employees will invariably affect the total amount of compensation it is able or willing to pay,” he wrote “This will then invariably affect the number of employees it can retain and the number of hours those employees will be scheduled to work.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

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.

President Joe Biden is working to lay out his health agenda for a second term, even as Congress races to finish its overdue spending bills for the fiscal year that began last October.

Meanwhile, Alabama lawmakers try to reopen the state’s fertility clinics over the protests of abortion opponents, and pharmacy giants CVS and Walgreens announce they are ready to begin federally regulated sales of the abortion pill mifepristone.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers in Washington are completing work on the first batch of spending bills to avert a government shutdown. The package includes a bare-bones health bill, leaving out certain bipartisan proposals that have been in the works on drug prices and pandemic preparedness. Doctors do get some relief in the bill from Medicare cuts that took effect in January, but the pay cuts are not canceled.
• The White House is floating proposals on drug prices that include expanding Medicare negotiations to more drugs; applying negotiated prices earlier in the market life of drugs; and capping out-of-pocket maximum drug payments at $2,000 for all patients, not just seniors. At least some of the ideas have been proposed before and couldn’t clear even a Democratic-controlled Congress. But they also keep up pressure on the pharmaceutical industry as it challenges the government in court — and as Election Day nears.
• Many in public health are expressing frustration after the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention softened its covid-19 isolation guidance. The change points to the need for a national dialogue about societal support for best practices in public health — especially by expanding access to paid leave and child care.
• Meanwhile, CVS and Walgreens announced their pharmacies will distribute the abortion pill mifepristone, and enthusiasm is waning for the first over-the-counter birth control pill amid questions about how patients will pay its higher-than-anticipated list price of $20 per month.
• Alabama’s governor signed a law protecting access to in vitro fertilization, granting providers immunity from the state Supreme Court’s recent “embryonic personhood” decision. But with opposition from conservative groups, is the new law also bound for the Alabama Supreme Court?

Also this week, Rovner interviews White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden about Biden’s health agenda.

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 “How States Giving Rights to Fetuses Could Set Up a National Case on Abortion,” by Regan McCarthy.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Stat’s  “The War on Recovery,” by Lev Facher.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: KFF Health News’ “Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America,” by Christine Spolar.

Sandhya Raman: The Journal’s “‘My Son Is Not There Anymore’: How Young People With Psychosis Are Falling Through the Cracks,” by Órla Ryan.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• NBC News’ “CDC Updates Covid Isolation Guidelines for People Who Test Positive,” by Erika Edwards.
• New York Magazine’s “Did Trump Really Vow to Defund Schools With Vaccine Mandates?” by Margaret Hartmann.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The State of the Union Is … Busy

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The State of the Union Is … BusyEpisode Number: 337Published: March 7, 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, March 7, at 9 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: Sarah Karlin-Smith, of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman, of CQ Roll Call.

Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden about the Biden administration’s health accomplishment so far and their priorities for 2024. But first, this week’s news. It is a big week here in the nation’s capital. In addition to sitting through President Biden’s State of the Union address, lawmakers appear on the way to finishing at least some of the spending bills for the fiscal year that began last Oct. 1. Good thing, too, because the president will deliver to Congress a proposed budget for the next fiscal year that starts Oct. 1, 2024, next Monday. Sandhya, which spending bills are getting done this week, and which ones are left?

Sandhya Raman: We’re about half-and-half as of last night. The House is done with their six-bill deal that they released. Congress came to a bipartisan agreement on Sunday and released then, so the FDA is in that part, in the agriculture bill. We also have a number of health extenders that we can …

Rovner: Which we’ll get to in a second.

Raman: Now it’s on to the Senate and then to Biden’s desk, and then we still have the Labor HHS [Department of Labor and Department of Health and Human Services] bill with all of the health funding that we’re still waiting on sometime this month.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s fair to say that the half that they’re getting done now are the easy ones, right? It’s the big ones that are left.

Ollstein: Although, if they were so easy, why didn’t they get them done a long time ago? There have been a lot of fights over policy riders that have been holding things up, in addition to disagreements about spending levels, which are perennial of course. But I was very interested to see that in this first tranche of bills, Republicans dropped their insistence on a provision banning mail delivery of abortion pills through the FDA, which they had been fighting for for months and months and months, and that led to votes on that particular bill being canceled multiple times. It’s interesting that they did give up on that.

Rovner: Yes. I shouldn’t say these were the easy ones, I should say these were the easier ones. Not that there’s a reason that it’s March and they’re only just now getting them done, but they have until the 22nd to get the rest of them done. How is that looking?

Raman: We still have not seen text on those yet. If they’re able to get there, we would see that in the next week or so, before then. And it remains to be seen, that traditionally the health in Labor HHS is one of the trickiest ones to get across the finish line in a normal year, and this year has been especially difficult given, like Alice said, all of the different policy riders and different back-and-forth there. It remains to be seen how that’ll play out.

Rovner: They have a couple of weeks and we will see. All right, well as you mentioned, as part of this first spending minibus, as they like to call it, is a small package of health bills. We talked about some of these last week, but tell us what made the final cut into this current six-bill package.

Raman: It’s whittled down a lot from what I think a lot of lawmakers were hoping. It’s pretty bare-bones in terms of what we have now. It’s a lot of programs that have traditionally been added to funding bills in the past, extending the special diabetes program, community health center funding, the National Health Service Corps, some sexual risk-avoidance programs. All of these would be pegged to the end of 2024. It kind of left out a lot of the things that Congress has been working on, on health care.

Rovner: Even bipartisan things that Congress has been working for on health care.

Raman: Yeah. They didn’t come to agreement on some of the pandemic and emergency preparedness stuff. There were some provisions for the SUPPORT Act — the 2018 really big opioid law — but a lot of them were not there. The PBM [pharmacy benefit managers] reform, all of that, was not, not this round.

Rovner: But at least judging from the press releases I got, there is some relief for doctor fees in Medicare. They didn’t restore the entire 3.3% cut, I believe it is, but I think they restored all but three-quarters of a percent of the cut. It’s made doctors, I won’t say happy, but at least they got acknowledged in this package and we’ll see what happens with the rest of them. Well, by the time you hear this, the president’s State of the Union speech will have come and gone, but the White House is pitching hard some of the changes that the president will be proposing on drug prices. Sarah, how significant are these proposals? They seem to be bigger iterations of what we’re already doing.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Biden is proposing expanding the Medicare Drug [Price] Negotiation program that Congress passed through the Inflation Reduction Act. He wants to go from Medicare being able to negotiate eventually up to 20 drugs a year to up to 50. He seems to be suggesting letting drugs have a negotiated price earlier in their life, letting them have less time on the market before negotiation. Also, thinking about applying some of the provisions of the IRA right now that only apply to Medicare to people in commercial plans, so this $2,000 maximum out-of-pocket spending for patients. Then also there are penalties that drugmakers get if they raise prices above inflation that would also apply to commercial plans. He’s actually proposed a lot of this before in previous budgets and actually Democrats, if you go back in time, tried to actually get some of these things in the initial IRA and even with a Democratic-controlled capital, could not actually get Democratic agreement to go broader on some of the provisions.

Rovner: Thank you, Sen. [Joe] Manchin.

Karlin-Smith: That said, I think it is significant that Biden is still pressing on this, even if they would really need big Democratic majorities and more progressive Democratic majorities to get this passed, because it’s keeping the pressure on the pharmaceutical industry. There were times before the IRA was passed where people were saying, “Pharma just needs to take this hit, it’s not going to be as bad as they think it is. Then they’ll get a breather for a while.” They’re clearly not getting that. The public is still very concerned about drug pricing, and they’re both fighting the current IRA in court. Actually, today there’s a number of big oral arguments happening. At the same time, they’re trying to get this version of the IRA improved somehow through legislation. All at the same time Democrats are saying, “Actually, this is just the start, we’re going to keep going.” It’s a big challenge and maybe not the respite they thought they might’ve gotten after this initial IRA was passed.

Rovner: But as you point out, still a very big voting issue. All right, well I want to talk about covid, which we haven’t said in a while. Last Friday, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention officially changed its guidance about what people should do if they get covid. There’s been a lot of chatter about this. Sarah, what exactly got changed and why are people so upset?

Karlin-Smith: The CDC’s old guidance, if you will, basically said if you had covid, you should isolate for five days. If you go back in time, you’ll remember we probably talked about how that was controversial on its own when that first happened, because we know a lot of people are infectious and still test positive for covid much longer than five days. Now they’re basically saying, if you have covid, you can return to the public once you’re fever-free for 24 hours and your symptoms are improving. I think the implication here is, that for a lot of people, this would be before five days. They do emphasize to some degree that you should take precautions, masking, think about ventilation, maybe avoid vulnerable people if you can.

But I think there’s some in the public health world that are really frustrated by this. They feel like it’s not science- and evidence-based. We know people are going to be infectious and contagious in many cases for longer than periods of time where the CDC is saying, “Sure, go out in public, go back to work.” On the flip side, CDC is arguing, people weren’t really following their old guidance. In part because we don’t have a society set up to structurally allow them to easily do this. Most people don’t have paid sick time. They maybe don’t have people to watch their children if they’re trying to isolate from them. I think the tension is that, we’ve learned a lot from covid and it’s highlighted a lot of the flaws already in our public health system, the things we don’t do well with other respiratory diseases like flu, like RSV. And CDC is saying, “Well, we’re going to bring covid in line with those,” instead of thinking about, “OK, how can we actually improve as a society managing respiratory viruses moving forward, come up with solutions that work.”

I think there probably are ways for CDC to acknowledge some of the realities. CDC does not have the power to give every American paid sick time. But if CDC doesn’t push to say the public needs this for public health, how are we ever going to get there? I think that’s really a lot of the frustration in a lot of the public health community in particular, that they’re just capitulating to a society that doesn’t care about public health instead of really trying to push the agenda forward.

Rovner: Or a society that’s actively opposed to public health, as it sometimes seems. I know speaking for my NF1, I was sick for most of January, and I used up all my covid tests proving that I didn’t have covid. I stayed home for a few days because I felt really crappy, and when I started to feel better, I wore a mask for two weeks because, hello, that seemed to be a practical thing to do, even though I think what I had was a cold. But if I get sick again, I don’t have any more covid tests and I’m not going to take one every day because now they cost $20 a pop. Which I suspect was behind a lot of this. It’s like, “OK, if you’re sick with a respiratory ailment, stay home until you start to feel better and then be careful.” That’s essentially what the advice is, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Although one other criticism I heard was specifically basing the new guidance on being fever-free, a lot of people don’t get a fever, they have other symptoms or they don’t have symptoms at all, and that’s even more insidious for allowing spread. I heard that criticism as well, but I completely agree with Sarah, that this seems like allowing public behavior to shape the guidance rather than trying to shape the public behavior with the guidance.

Rovner: Although some of that is how public health works, they don’t want to recommend things that they know people aren’t going to do or that they know the vast majority of people aren’t going to do. This is the difficulty of public health, which we will talk about more. While meanwhile, speaking in Virginia earlier this week, former President Donald Trump vowed to pull all federal funding for schools with vaccine mandates. Now, from the context of what he was saying, it seemed pretty clear that he was talking only about covid vaccine mandates, but that’s not what he actually said. What would it mean to lift all school vaccine mandates? That sounds a little bit scary.

Raman: That would basically affect almost every public school district nationwide. But even if it’s just covid shots, I think that’s still a little bit of a shift. You see Trump not taking as much public credit anymore for the fact that the covid vaccines were developed under his administration, Operation Warp Speed, that started under the Trump administration. It’s a little bit of a shift compared to then.

Rovner: I’m old enough to remember two cycles ago, when there were Republicans who were anti-vaccine or at least anti-vaccine curious, and the rest of the Republican Party was like, “No, no, no, no, no.” That doesn’t seem to be the case anymore. Now it seems to be much more mainstream to be anti-vax in general. Cough, cough. We see the measles outbreak in Florida, so we will clearly watch that space, too.

All right, moving on to abortion. Later this month, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case that could severely restrict distribution of the abortion pill mifepristone. But in the meantime, pharmacy giants, CVS and Walgreens have announced they will begin distributing the abortion pill at their pharmacies. Alice, why now and what does this mean?

Ollstein: It’s interesting that this came more than a year after the big pharmacies were given permission to do this. They say it took this long because they had to get all of these systems up in place to make sure that only certified pharmacists were filling prescriptions from certified prescribing doctors. All of this is required because when the Biden administration, when the FDA, moved to allow this form of distribution of the abortion pill, they still left some restrictions known as REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategies] in place. That made it take a little more time, more bureaucracy, more box checking, to get to this point. It is interesting that given the uncertainty with the Supreme Court, they are moving forward with this. It’s this interesting state-versus-federal issue, because we reported a year ago that Walgreens and CVS would not distribute the pills in states where Republican state attorneys general have threatened them with lawsuits.

So, they’ve noted the uncertainty at the state level, but even with this uncertainty at the federal level with the Supreme Court, which could come in and say this form of distribution is not allowed, they’re still moving forward. It is limited. It’s not going to be, even in blue states where abortion is protected by law, they’re not going to be at every single CVS. They’re going to do a slower, phased rollout, see how it goes. I’m interested in seeing if any problems arise. I’m also interested in seeing, anti-abortion groups have vowed to protest these big pharmacy chains for making this medication available. They’ve disrupted corporate meetings, they’ve protested outside brick-and-mortar pharmacies, and so we’ll see if any of that continues and has an effect as well.

Rovner: It’s hard to see how the anti-abortion groups though could have enough people to protest every CVS and Walgreens selling the abortion pill. That will be an interesting numbers situation. Well, in a case of not-so-great timing, if only for the confusion potential, also this week we learned that the first approved over-the-counter birth control pill, called Opill, is finally being shipped. Now, this is not the abortion pill. It won’t require a prescription, that’s the whole point of it being over-the-counter. But I’ve seen a lot of advocacy groups that worked on this for years now complaining that the $20 per month that the pill is going to cost, it’s still going to be too much for many who need it. Since it’s over-the-counter, it’s not going to be covered by most insurance. This is a separate issue of its own that’s a little bit controversial.

Karlin-Smith: You can with over-the-counter drugs, if you have a flexible spending account or an HSA or something else, you may be able to use money that’s somehow connected to your health insurance benefit or you’re getting some tax breaks on it. However, I think this over-the-counter pill is probably envisioned most for people that somehow don’t have insurance, because we know the Affordable Care Act provides birth control methods with no out-of-pocket costs for people. So if you have insurance, most likely you would be getting a better deal getting a prescription and going that route for the same product or something similar.

The question becomes then, does this help the people who fall in those gaps who are probably likely to have less financial means to begin with? There’s been some polling and things that suggest this may be too high a price point for them. I know there are some discounts on the price. Essentially if you can buy three months upfront or even some larger quantities, although again that means you then have to have that larger sum of money upfront, so that’s a big tug of war. I think the companies argue this is pretty similar pricing to other over-the-counter drug products in terms of volume and stuff, so we’ll see what happens.

Rovner: I think they were hoping it was going to be more like $5 a month and not $20 a month. I think that came as a little bit of a disappointment to a lot of these groups that have been working on this for a very long time.

Ollstein: Just quickly, the jury is also still out on insurance coverage, including advocacy groups are also pressuring public insurance, Medicaid, to come out and say they’ll cover it as well. So we’ll keep an eye on that.

Rovner: Yeah, although Medicaid does cover prescription birth control. All right, well let us catch up on the IVF [in vitro fertilization] controversy in Alabama, where there was some breaking news over last night. When we left off last week, the Alabama Legislature was trying to come up with legislation that would grant immunity to fertility clinics or their staff for “damaging or killing fertilized embryos,” without overtly overruling the state Supreme Court decision from February that those embryos are, “extrauterine children.” Alice, how’s that all going?

Ollstein: Well, it was very interesting to see a bunch of anti-abortion groups come out against the bill that Alabama, mostly Republicans, put together and passed and the Republican governor signed it into law. The groups were asking her to veto it; they didn’t want that kind of immunity for discarding or destroying embryos. Now what we will see is if there’s going to be a lawsuit that lands this new law right back in front of the same state Supreme Court that just opened this whole Pandora’s box in the first place, that’s very possible. That’s one thing I’m watching. I guess we should also watch for other states to take up this issue. A lot of states have fetal personhood language, either in their constitutions or in statute or something, so really any of those states could become the next Alabama. All it would take is someone to bring a court challenge and try to get a similar ruling.

Rovner: I was amused though that the [Alabama] Statehouse passed the immunity law yesterday, Wednesday during the day. But the Senate passed it later in the evening and the governor signed it. I guess she didn’t want to let it hang there while these big national anti-abortion groups were asking her to veto it. So by the time I woke up this morning, it was already law.

Ollstein: It’s just been really interesting, because the anti-abortion groups say they support IVF, but they came out against the Democrats’ federal bill that would provide federal protections. They came out against nonbinding House resolutions that Republicans put forward saying they support IVF, and they came out against this Alabama fix. So it’s unclear what form of IVF, if any, they do support.

Rovner: Meanwhile, in Kentucky, the state Senate has overwhelmingly passed a bill that would permit a parent to seek child support retroactively to cover pregnancy expenses up until the child reaches age 1. So you have until the child turns 1 to sue for child support. Now, this isn’t technically a “personhood” bill, and it’s legit that there are expenses associated with becoming a parent even before a baby is born, but it’s skating right up to the edge of that whole personhood thing.

It brings me to my extra credit for this week, which I’m going to do early. It’s a story from NPR called, “How States Giving Rights to Fetuses Could Set Up a National Case on Abortion,” by Regan McCarthy of member station WFSU in Tallahassee. In light of Florida’s tabling of a vote on its personhood bill in the wake of the Alabama ruling last week, the story poses a question I hadn’t really thought about in the context of the personhood debate, whether some of these partway recognition laws, not just the one in Kentucky, but there was one in Georgia last year, giving tax deductions for children who are not yet born as long as you could determine a heartbeat in the second half of the year, because obviously in the first half of the year the child would’ve been born.

Whether those are part of a very long game that will give courts the ability to put them all together at some point and declare not just embryos but zygotes children. Is this in some ways the same playbook that anti-abortion forces use to get Roe [v. Wade] overturned? That was a very, very long game and at least this story speculates that that might be what they’re doing now with personhood.

Ollstein: Some anti-abortion groups are very open that it is what they want to do. They have been seeding the idea in amicus briefs and state policies. They’ve been trying to tuck personhood language into all of these things to eventually prompt such a ruling, ideally from the Supreme Court and, in their view. So whether that moves forward remains to be seen, but it’s certainly the next goal. One of many next goals on the horizon.

Rovner: Yes, one of many. All right, well moving on. Last week I called the cyberattack on Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the biggest under-covered story in health care. Well, it is not under-covered anymore. Two weeks later, thousands of hospitals, pharmacies, and doctor practices still can’t get their claims paid. It seems that someone, though it’s not entirely clear who, paid the hackers $22 million in ransom. But last time I checked the systems were still not fully up. I saw a letter this morning from the Medicaid directors worrying about Medicaid programs getting claims fulfilled. How big a wake-up call has this been for the health industry, Sarah? This is a bigger deal than anybody expected.

Karlin-Smith: There’s certainly been cyberattacks on parts of the health system before in hospitals. I think the breadth of this, because it’s UnitedHealth [Group], is really significant. Particularly, because it seems like some health systems were concerned that the broader United network of companies and systems would get impacted, so they sort of disconnected from things that weren’t directly changed health care, and that ended up having broader ramifications. It’s one consequence of United being such a big monolith.

Then the potential that United paid a ransom here, which is not 100% clear what happened, is very worrisome. Again, because there’s this sense that, that will then increase the — first, you’re paying the people that then might go back and do this, so you’re giving them more money to hack. But also again, it sets up a precedent, that you can hack health systems and they will pay you. Because it is so dangerous, particularly when you start to get involved in attacking the actual systems that provide people care. So much, if you’ve been in a hospital lately or so forth, is run on computer systems and devices, so it is incredibly disruptive, but you don’t want to incentivize hackers to be attacking that.

Rovner: I certainly learned through this how big Change Healthcare, which I had never heard of before this hack and I suspect most people even who do health policy had never heard of before this attack, how embedded they are in so much of the health care system. These hackers knew enough to go after this particular system that affected so much in basically one hack. I’m imagining as this goes forward, for those who didn’t listen to last week’s podcast, we also talked about the Justice Department’s new investigation into the size of UnitedHealth [Group], an antitrust investigation for… It was obviously not prompted by this, it was prompted by something else, but I think a lot of people are thinking about, how big should we let one piece of the health care system get in light of all these cyberattacks?

All right, well we’ll obviously come back to this issue, too, as it resolves, one would hope. That is the news for this week. Now we will play my interview with White House domestic policy adviser Neera Tanden, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Neera Tanden, domestic policy adviser to President Biden, and director of the White House Domestic Policy Council. For those of you who don’t already know her, Neera has spent most of the last two decades making health policy here in Washington, having worked on health issues for Hillary Clinton, President Barack Obama, and now President Joe Biden. Neera, thank you so much for joining us.

Neera Tanden: It’s really great to be with you, Julie.

Rovner: As we tape this, the State of the Union is still a few hours away and I know there’s stuff you can’t talk about yet. But in general, health care has been a top-of-mind issue for the Biden administration, and I assume it will continue to be. First, remind us of some of the highlights of the president’s term so far on health care.

Tanden: It’s a top concern for the president. It’s a top issue for us, but that’s also because it’s really a top issue for voters. We know voters have had significant concerns about access, but also about costs. That is why this administration has really done more on costs than any administration. This is my third, as you noted, so I’m really proud of all the work we’ve done on prescription drugs, on lowering costs of health care in the exchanges, on really trying to think through the cost burden for families when it comes to health care.

When we talk about prescription drugs, it’s a wide-ranging agenda, there are things or policies that people have talked about for decades, like Medicare negotiating drug prices, that this president is the first president to truly deliver on, which he will talk about in the State of the Union. But we’ve also innovated in different policies through the Inflation Reduction Act, the inflation rebates, which ensure that drug companies don’t raise the price of drugs faster than inflation. When they do, they pay a rebate both to Medicare but also ultimately to consumers. Those our high-impact policies that will really take a comprehensive approach on lowering prices.

Rovner: Yet for all the president has accomplished, and people who listen to the podcast regularly will know that it has been way more than was expected given the general polarization around Washington right now. Why does the president seem to get so little credit for getting done more things than a lot of his predecessors were able to do in two terms?

Tanden: Well, I think people do recognize the importance of prescription drug coverage. And health care as an issue that the president — it’s not my place to talk about politics, but he does have significant advantages on issues like health care. That I think, is because we’ve demonstrated tangible results. People understand what $35 insulin means. What I really want to point to in the Medicare negotiation process is, Sept. 1, Medicare will likely have a list of drugs which are significantly lower costs, that process is underway. But my expectation, you know I’m not part of it, that’s being negotiated by CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] and HHS, but we expect to have a list of 10 drugs that are high-cost items for seniors in which they’ll see a price that is lower than what they pay now. That’s another way in which, like $35 insulin, we’ll have tangible proof points of what this administration will be delivering for families.

Rovner: There’s now a record number of people who have health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, which I remember you also worked on. But in surveys, as you noted, voters now say they’re less worried about coverage and more worried about not being able to pay their medical bills even if they have insurance. I know a lot of what you’re doing on the drug side is limited to Medicare. Now, do you expect you’re going to be able to expand that to everybody else?

Tanden: First and foremost, our drug prices will be public, as you know. And as you know, prices in Medicare have been able to influence other elements of the health care system. That is really an important part of this. Which is that again, those prices will be public and our hope is that the private sector adopts those prices, because they’re ones that are negotiated. We expect this to affect, not just seniors, but families throughout the country.

There are additional actions we’ll be taking on Medicare drug negotiation. That will be a significant portion of the president’s remarks on health care, not just what we’ve been able to do in Medicare drug negotiation, but how we can really build on that and really ensure that we are dramatically reducing drug costs throughout the system. I look forward to hearing the president on that topic.

Rovner: I know we’re also going to get the budget next week. Are there any other big health issues that will be a priority this year?

Tanden: The president will have a range of policies on issues like access to sickle cell therapies, ensuring affordable generic drugs are accessible to everybody, ensuring that we are building on the Affordable Care Act gains. You mentioned this, but I just really do want to step back and talk about access under the Affordable Care Act. Because I think if people started off at the beginning of this administration and said the ACA marketplaces close to double, people would’ve been shocked. You know this well, a lot of people thought the exchanges were maximizing their potential. There are a lot of people who may not be interested in that, but the president had, in working with Congress, made the exchanges more affordable.

We’ve seen record adoption: 21 million people covered through the ACA exchanges today, when it was 12 million when we started. That’s 9 million more people who have the security of affordable health care coverage. I think it’s a really important point, which is, why are people signing up? Because it is a lot more affordable? Most people can get a very affordable plan. People are saving on average $800, and that affordability is crucial. Of course we have to do more work to reduce costs throughout the health care system. But it’s an important reminder that when you lower drug costs, you also have the ability to lower premiums and it’s another way in which we can drive health care costs down. I would be genuinely honest with you, which is, I did not think we would be able to do all of these things at the beginning of the administration. The president has been laser-focused on delivering, and as you know from your work on the ACA, he did think it was a big deal.

Rovner: I have that on a T-shirt.

Tanden: A lot of people have talked about different things, but he has been really focused on strengthening the ACA. He’ll talk about how we need to strengthen it in the future, and how that is another choice that we face this year, whether we’re going to entertain repealing the ACA or build on it and ensure that the millions of people who are using the ACA have the security to know that it’s there for them into the future. Not just on access, but that also means protections for preexisting conditions, ensuring women can no longer be discriminated against, the lifetime annual limits. There’s just a variety of ways that ACA has transformed the health care system to be much more focused on consumers.

Rovner: Last question. Obviously reproductive health, big, big issue this year. IVF in particular has been in the news these past couple of weeks, thanks to the Alabama Supreme Court. Is there anything that President Biden can do using his own executive power to protect access to reproductive health technology? And will we hear him at some point address this whole personhood movement that we’re starting to see bubble back up?

Tanden: I think the president will be very forceful on reproductive rights and will discuss the whole set of freedoms that are at stake and reproductive rights and our core freedom at stake this year. You and I both know that attacks on IVF are actually just the effectuation of the attacks on Roe. What animates the attacks on Roe, would ultimately affect IVF. I felt like I was a voice in the wilderness for the last couple of decades, where people were saying … They’re just really focused on Roe v. Wade. It won’t have any impact on IVF or [indecipherable] they’re just scare tactics when you talk about IVF.

Obviously the ideological underpinnings of attacks on Roe ultimately mean that you would have to take on IVF, which is exactly what women are saying. I think the president will speak forcefully to the attacks on women’s dignity that women are seeing throughout this country, and how this ideological battle has translated to misery and pain for millions of women. Misery and pain for their families. And has really reached the point where women who are desperate to have a family are having their reproductive rights restricted because of the ideological views of a minority of the country. That is a huge issue for women, a huge issue for the country, and exactly why he’ll talk about moving forward on freedoms and not moving us back, sometimes decades, on freedom.

Rovner: Well, Neera Tanden, you have a lot to keep you busy. I hope we can call on you again.

Tanden: There’s few people who know the health care system as well as Julie Rovner, so it’s just a pleasure to be with 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. I already did mine. Sandhya, why don’t you go next?

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “My Son Is Not There Anymore: How Young People With Psychosis Are Falling Through the Cracks,” and it’s by Órla Ryan for The Journal. This was a really interesting story about schizophrenia in Ireland and just how the earlier someone’s symptoms are treated the better the outcome. But a lot of children and minors with psychosis and schizophrenia struggle to get access to the care they need and just fall through the cracks of being transferred from one system to another, especially if they’re also dealing with disabilities. If some of these symptoms are treated before puberty, the severity is likely to go down a lot and they’re much less likely to experience psychosis. She takes a really interesting look at a specific case and some of the consequences there.

Rovner: I feel like we don’t look enough at what other countries health systems are doing because we could all learn from each other. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: I have a piece by KFF Health News called “Why Even Public Health Experts Have Limited Insight Into Stopping Gun Violence in America.” It’s looking at the toll taken by the long-standing restrictions on federal funding for research into gun violence, investigating it as a public health issue. Only recently this has started to erode at the federal level and some funding has been approved for this research, but it is so small compared to the death toll of gun violence. This article sort of argues that lacking that data for so many years is why a lot of the quote-unquote “solutions” that places have tried to implement to prevent gun violence, just don’t work. They haven’t worked, they haven’t stopped these mass shootings, which continue to happen. So, arguing that, if we had better data on why things happen and how to make it less lethal, and safe, in various spaces, that we could implement some things that actually work.

Rovner: Yeah, we didn’t have the research just as this problem was exploding and now we are paying the price. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at the first in a Stat News series by Lev Facher, “The War on Recovery: How the U.S. Is Sabotaging Its Best Tools to Prevent Deaths in the Opioid Epidemic.” It looks at why the U.S. has had access to cheap effective medicines that help reduce the risk of overdose and death for people that are struggling with opioid-use disorder haven’t actually been able, in most cases, to get access to these drugs, methadone and buprenorphine.

The reasons range from even people not being allowed to take the drugs when they’re in prison, to not being able to hold certain jobs if you’re taking these prescription medications, to Narcotics Anonymous essentially banning people from coming to those meetings if they use these drugs, to doctors not being willing or open to prescribing them. Then of course, there’s what always seems to come up these days, the private equity angle. Which is that methadone clinics are becoming increasingly owned by private equity and they’ve actually pushed back on and lobbied against policies that would make it easier for people to get methadone treatment. Because one big barrier to methadone treatment is, right now you largely have to go every day to a clinic to get your medicine, which it can be difficult to incorporate into your life if you need to hold a job and take care of kids and so forth.

It’s just a really fascinating dive into why we have the tools to make what is really a terrible crisis that kills so many people much, much better in the U.S. but we’re just not using them. Speaking of how other countries handle it, the piece goes a little bit into how other countries have had more success in actually being open to and using these tools and the differences between them and the U.S.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a really good story. 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, or @julierovner at Bluesky or @julie.rovner at Threads. . Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: Trying mostly to be on Blue Sky, but on X, Twitter a little bit at either @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @alicemiranda on Blue Sky, and @AliceOllstein on X.

Rovner: Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites on X and on Blue Sky.

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 Alabama Supreme Court’s groundbreaking ruling last week that frozen embryos have legal rights as people has touched off a national debate about the potential fallout of the “personhood” movement. Already the University of Alabama-Birmingham has paused its in vitro fertilization program while it determines the ongoing legality of a process that has become increasingly common for those wishing to start a family. 

Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump is reportedly leaning toward endorsing a national, 16-week abortion ban. At the same time, former aides are planning a long agenda of reproductive health restrictions should Trump win a second term.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Alabama Supreme Court’s decision on embryonic personhood could have wide-ranging implications beyond reproductive health care, with potential implications for tax deductions, child support payments, criminal law, and much more.
• Donald Trump is considering a national abortion ban at 16 weeks of gestation, according to recent reports. It is unclear whether such a ban would go far enough to please his conservative supporters, but it would be far enough to give Democrats ammunition to campaign on it. And some are looking into using a 19th-century anti-smut law, the Comstock Act, to implement a national ban under a new Trump presidency — no action from Congress necessary.
• New reporting from KFF Health News draws on many interviews with clinicians at Catholic hospitals about how the Roman Catholic Church’s directives dictate the care they may offer patients, especially in reproductive health. It also draws attention to the vast number of religiously affiliated hospitals and the fact that, for many women, a Catholic hospital may be their only option.
• Questions about President Joe Biden’s cognitive health are drawing attention to ageism in politics — as well as in American life, with fewer people taking precautions against the covid-19 virus even as it remains a serious threat to vulnerable people, especially the elderly. The mental fitness of the nation’s leaders is a valid, relevant question for many voters, though the questions are also fueled by frustration with a political system in which many offices are held by older people who have been around a long time.

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

Julie Rovner: Stat’s “New CMS Rules Will Throttle Access Researchers Need to Medicare, Medicaid Data,” by Rachel M. Werner.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “They Take Kratom to Ease Pain or Anxiety. Sometimes, Death Follows,” by David Ovalle.

Rachana Pradhan: Politico’s “Red States Hopeful for a 2nd Trump Term Prepare to Curtail Medicaid,” by Megan Messerly.

Victoria Knight: ProPublica’s “The Year After a Denied Abortion,” by Stacy Kranitz and Kavitha Surana.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• The New York Times’ “Trump Privately Expresses Support for a 16-Week Abortion Ban,” by Maggie Haberman, Jonathan Swan, and Lisa Lerer.
• The New York Times’ “Trump Allies Plan New Sweeping Abortion Restrictions,” by Lisa Lerer and Elizabeth Dias.
• Politico’s “Trump Allies Prepare to Infuse ‘Christian Nationalism’ in Second Administration,” by Alexander Ward and Heidi Przybyla.
• KFF Health News’ “The Powerful Constraints on Medical Care in Catholic Hospitals Across America,” by Rachana Pradhan and Hannah Recht.
• The Washington Post’s “Tax Records Reveal the Lucrative World of Covid Misinformation,” by Lauren Weber.
• KFF Health News’ “Do We Simply Not Care About Old People?” by Judith Graham.
• Stat’s “A Neuropsychologist Clarifies Science on Aging and Memory in Wake of Biden Special Counsel Report,” by Annalisa Merelli.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Alabama Court Rules Embryos Are Children. What Now?

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Alabama Court Rules Embryos Are Children. What Now?Episode Number: 335Published: Feb. 22,2024

[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, Feb. 22, 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 Lauren Weber of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hello, hello.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Hi, there. Good to be back.

Rovner: Congress is out this week, but there is still tons of news, so we will get right to it. We’re going to start with abortion because there is lots of news there. The biggest is out of Alabama, where the state Supreme Court ruled last week that frozen embryos created for IVF [in vitro fertilization] are legally children and that those who destroy them can be held liable. In fact, the justices called the embryos “extrauterine children,” which, in covering this issue for 40 years, I never knew was a thing. There are lots of layers to this, but let’s start with the immediate, what it could mean to those seeking to get pregnant using IVF. We’ve already heard that the University of Alabama’s IVF clinic has ceased operations until they can figure out what this means.

Pradhan: I think that that is the immediate fallout right now. We’ve seen Alabama’s arguably flagship university saying that they are going to halt. And I believe some of the coverage that I saw, there was even a woman who was about to start a cycle or was literally about to have embryos implanted and had to encounter that extremely jarring development. Beyond the immediate, and of course, Julie, I’m sure we’ll talk about this, a bit about the personhood movement and fetal rights movement in general, but a lot of the country might say, “Oh, well, it’s Alabama. It’s only Alabama.” But as we know it, it really just takes one state, it seems like these days, to open the floodgates for things that might actually take hold much more broadly across the country. So that’s what I’m …

Rovner: It’s funny, the first big personhood push I covered was in 2011 in Mississippi, so next door to Alabama, very conservative state, where everybody assumed it was going to win. And one of the things that the opposition said is that this would ban most forms of birth control and IVF, and it got voted down in Mississippi. So here we are, what, 13 years later. But I mean, I think people don’t quite appreciate how IVF works is that doctors harvest as many eggs as they can and basically create embryos. Because for every embryo that results in a successful pregnancy, there are usually many that don’t.

And of course, couples who are trying to have babies using IVF tend to have more embryos than they might need, and, generally, those embryos are destroyed or donated to research, or, in some cases — I actually went back and looked this up — in the early 2000s there was a push, and it’s still there, there’s an adoption agency that will let you adopt out your unused embryos for someone else to carry to term. And apparently, all of this, I guess maybe not the adoption, but all the rest of this could theoretically become illegal under this Alabama Supreme Court ruling.

Pradhan: And one thing I just want to say, too, Julie, piggybacking on that point too is not just in each cycle that someone goes through with IVF — as you said, there are multiple embryos — but it often takes two people who want to start a family, it often takes multiple IVF cycles to have a successful pregnancy from that. It’s not like it’s a one-time shot, it usually takes a long time. And so you’re really talking about a lot of embryos, not just a one-and-done situation.

Rovner: And every cycle is really expensive. I know lots of people who have both successfully and unsuccessfully had babies using IVF and it’s traumatic. The drugs that are used to stimulate the extra eggs for the woman are basically rough, and it costs a lot of money, and it doesn’t always work. It seems odd to me that the pro-life movement has gotten to the point where they are stopping people who want to get pregnant and have children from getting pregnant and having children. But I guess that is the outflow of this. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to chime in on that. I mean, I think we’re really going to see a lot of potential political ramifications from this. I mean, after this news came down, and just to put in context, the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] reported in 2021 that there were 91,906 births via IVF. So that’s almost 92,000 families in 2021 alone. You have a political constituency of hundreds of thousands of parents across the U.S. that feel very strongly about this because they have received children that they paid a lot of money for and worked very hard to get. And it was interesting after this news came down — I will admit, I follow a lot of preppy Southern influencers who are very apolitical and if anything conservative, who all were very aggressively saying, “The only reason I could have my children is through this. We have to make a stand.”

I mean, these are not political people. These are people that are — you could even argue, veering into tradwife [traditional wife] territory in terms of social media. I think we’re really going to see some political ramifications from this that already are reflected in what Donald Trump has recently been reported as feeling about how abortion limits could cost him voters. I do wonder if IVF limits could really cause quite an uproar for conservative candidates. We’ll see.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, Nikki Haley’s already gotten caught up in this. She’s very pro-life. On the other hand, she had one of her children using IVF, which she’s been pretty frank about. She, of course, got asked about this yesterday and her eyes had the deer-in-the-headlights look, and she said, “Well, embryos are children,” and it’s like, “Well, then what about your extra embryos?” Which I guess nobody asked about. But yeah, I mean clearly you don’t have to be a liberal to use IVF to have babies, and I think you’re absolutely right. I want to expand this though, because the ruling was based on this 2018 constitutional amendment approved by voters in Alabama that made it state policy to, quote, “Recognize and support the sanctity of unborn life and the rights of unborn children.”

I should point out that this 2018 amendment did not directly try to create fetal personhood in the way that several states tried — and, as I mentioned, failed — in the 2010s, yet that’s how the Alabama Supreme Court interpreted it. Now, anti-abortion advocates in other states, Rachana, you mentioned this, are already trying to use this decision to apply to abortion bans and court cases there. What are the implications of declaring someone a person at the moment of fertilization? It obviously goes beyond just IVF, right?

Knight: Well, and I think you mentioned already, birth control is also the next step as well. Which basically they don’t want you to have a device that will stop a sperm from reaching an egg. And so I think that could have huge ramifications as well. So many young women across the U.S. use IUDs or other types of birth control. I know that’s one application that people are concerned about. I don’t know if there are others.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve seen things like, if you’re pregnant, can you now drive in the HOV [high-occupancy vehicle] lane because you have another person?

Pradhan: I think that’s one of the more benign, maybe potential impacts of this. But I mean, if an embryo is a child, I mean it would affect everything from, I think, criminal laws affecting murder or any other … you could see there being criminal law impacts there. I think also, as far as child support, domestic laws, involving families, what would you — presumably maybe not everyone that I imagine who are turning to fertility treatments to start a family or to grow a family may not have a situation where there are two partners involved in that decision. I think it could affect everything, frankly. So much of our tax estate laws are impacted by whether people have children or not, and so …

Rovner: And whether those children have been born yet.

Pradhan: … tax deductions, can you claim an embryo as a dependent? I mean, it would affect everything. So I think they’re very wide, sweeping ramifications beyond the unfortunate consequences that some people might face, as Lauren said, which is that they’re just trying to start a family and now that’s being jeopardized.

Rovner: I think Georgia already has a law that you can take a tax deduction if you’re pregnant. I have been wondering, what happens to birthdays? Do they cease to mean anything? It completely turns on its head the way we think about people and humans, and I mean obviously they say, “Well, yeah, of course it is a separate being from the moment of fertilization, but that doesn’t make it a legal person.” And I think that’s what this debate is about. I did notice in Alabama — of course, what happened, what prompted this case was that some patient in a hospital got into the lab where the frozen embryos were kept and took some out and literally just dropped them on the floor and broke the vial that they were in. And the question is whether the families who belong to those embryos could sue for some kind of recourse, but it would not be considered murder because, under Alabama’s statutes, it has to be a child in utero.

And obviously frozen embryos are not yet in utero, they’re in a freezer somewhere. In that sense it might not be murder, but it could become — I mean, this is something that I think people have been thinking about and talking about obviously for many years, and you wonder if this is just the beginning of we’re going to see how far this can go, particularly in some of the more conservative states. Well, meanwhile, The New York Times reported last week that former President Trump, who’s literally been on just about every side of the abortion debate over the years, is leaning towards supporting a 16-week ban — in part, according to the story, because it’s a round number. Trump, of course, was a supporter of abortion rights until he started running for president as a Republican.

And, in winning the endorsement of skeptical anti-abortion groups in 2016, promised to appoint only anti-abortion judges and to reimpose government restrictions from previous Republican administrations. He did that and more, appointing the three Supreme Court justices who enabled the overturn of Roe v. Wade. But more recently, he’s seen the political backlash over that ruling and the number of states that have voted for abortion rights, including some fairly red states, and he’s been warning Republicans not to emphasize the issue. So why would he fail to follow his own advice now, particularly if it would animate voters in swing states? He keeps saying he’s not in the primaries anymore, that he’s basically running a general-election campaign.

Knight: I mean, I think to me, it seems like he’s clearly trying to thread the needle here. He knows some of the more social conservative of his supporters want him to do something about abortion. They want him to take a stand. And so he decided on allegedly 16 weeks, four months, which is less strict than some states. We saw Florida was 10 weeks. And then some other states …

Rovner: I think Florida is six weeks now.

Knight: Oh, sorry, six weeks. OK.

Rovner: Right. Pending a court decision.

Knight: Yeah. And then other states, in Tennessee, complete abortion ban with little room for exceptions. So 16 weeks is longer than some other states have enacted that are stricter. Roe v. Wade was about 24 weeks. So to me, it seems like he’s trying to find some middle ground to try to appease those social conservatives, but not be too strict.

Rovner: Although, I mean, one of the things that a 16-week ban would not do is protect all the women that we’ve been reading about who are with wanted pregnancies, who have things go wrong at 19 or 20 or 21 weeks, which are before viability but after 16 weeks. Well, unless they had — he does say he wants exceptions, and as we know, as we’ve talked about every week for the last six months, those exceptions, the devil is in the details and they have not been usable in a lot of states. But I’m interested in why Trump, after saying he didn’t want to wade into this, is now wading into this. Lauren, you wanted to add something?

Weber: Yeah, I wanted to echo your point because I think it’s important to note that 16 weeks is not based, it seems like, on any scientific reason. It sounds like to me, from what I understand from what’s out there, that 20 weeks is more when you can actually see if there’s heart abnormalities and other issues. So it sounds like from the reporting the Times did, was that he felt like 16 weeks was good as,  quote, “It was a round number.” So this isn’t exactly, these weak timing of bans, as I’m sure we’ve discussed with this podcast, are not necessarily tied towards scientific development of where the fetus is. So I think that’s an important thing to note.

Rovner: Yes. Rachana.

Pradhan: I mean, I think, and we’ve talked about this, but it’s the perennial danger in weighing in on any limit, and certainly a national limit, but any limit at all, is that 16 weeks, of course as the anti-abortion movement and I think many more people know now, the CDC data shows that the vast majority of abortions annually occur before that point in pregnancy. And so there are, of course, some anti-abortion groups that are trying to thread the needle and back a more middle-ground approach such as this one, 15 weeks, 16 weeks, banning it after that point. But for many, it’s certainly not anywhere good enough. And I think if you’re going to try to motivate your conservative base, I still have a lot of questions about whether they would find that acceptable. And I think it depends on how they message it, honestly.

If they say, “This is the best we can do right now and we’re trying,” that might win over some voters. But on the flip side, it’s still enough for Democrats to be able to run with it and say any national ban obviously is unacceptable to them, but it gives them enough ammunition, I think, to still say that former President Trump wants to take your rights away. And I think, as Lauren noted, genetic testing and things these days of course can happen and does happen before 16 weeks. So there might be some sense of whether there might be, your child has a lethal chromosomal disorder or something like that, that might make the pregnancy not viable. But the big scan that happens about midway through pregnancy is around 20 weeks, and that’s often when you, unfortunately, some people find out that there are things that would make it very difficult for their baby to survive so …

Rovner: Well, it seems that no matter what Trump does or says he will do if he’s elected in November, it’s clear that people close to him, including former officials, are gearing up for a second term that could go way further than even his very anti-abortion first term. According to Politico, a plan is underway for Trump to govern as a, quote, “Christian nationalist nation,” which could mean not just banning abortion, but, as Victoria pointed out, contraception, too, or many forms of contraception. A separate planning group being run out of the Heritage Foundation is also developing far-reaching plans about women’s reproductive health, including enforcement of the long-dormant 19th century Comstock Act, which we have talked about here many times before. But someone please remind us what the Comstock Act is and what it could mean.

Weber: I feel like you’re the expert on this. I feel like you should explain it.

Rovner: Oh boy. I don’t want to be the expert on the Comstock Act, but I guess I’ve become it. It’s actually my favorite tidbit about the Comstock Act is that it is not named after a congressman. It is named after basically an anti-smut crusader named Anthony Comstock in the late 1800s. And it bans the mailing of, I believe the phrase is “lewd or obscene” information, which in the late 1880s included ways to prevent pregnancy, but certainly also abortion. When the Supreme Court basically ruled that contraception was legal, which did not happen until the late 1960s — and early 1970s, actually —, the Comstock Act sort of ceased to be. And obviously then Roe v. Wade, it ceased to be.

But it is still in the books. It’s never been officially repealed, and there’s been a lot of chatter in anti-abortion movements about starting to enforce it again, which could certainly stop if nothing else, the distribution of the abortion pill in its tracks. And also it’s anything using the mail. So it could not just be the abortion pill, but anything that doctors use to perform abortions or to make surgical equipment — it seems that using Comstock, you could implement a national ban without ever having to worry about Congress doing anything. And that seems to be the goal here, is to do as much as they can without even having to involve Congress. Yes.

Pradhan: Julie, I’m waiting for the phrase “anti-smut crusader” to end up on a campaign sign or bumper sticker, honestly. I feel like we might see it. I don’t think this election has gotten nearly weird enough yet. So we still have nine months to go.

Rovner: Yeah. I’m learning way more about the Comstock Act than I really ever wanted to know. But meanwhile, Rachana, it does not take state or federal action to restrict access to reproductive health care. You have a story this week about the continuing expansion of Catholic hospitals and what that means for reproductive health care. Tell us what you found.

Pradhan: Well, yes, I would love to talk about our story. So myself and my colleague Hannah Recht, we started reporting the story, just for background, before the Supreme Court’s Dobbs decision, obviously anticipating that that is what was going to happen. And our story really digs into, based on ample interviews with clinicians, other academic experts, reading lots of documents about what the ethical and religious directives for Catholic health care services, which is what all, any health facility, a hospital, a physician’s office, anything that deems itself Catholic, has to abide by these directives for care, and they follow church teaching. Which we were talking about fertility treatments and IVF earlier actually, so in vitro fertilization is also something that the Catholic Church teaches is immoral. And so that’s actually something that they oppose, which many people may not know that.

But other things that the ERDs [ethical and religious directives] so to speak, impact are access to contraception, access to surgeries that would permanently prevent pregnancy. So for women that would be removing or cinching your fallopian tubes, but also, for men, vasectomies. And then, of course, anything that constitutes what they would call a direct abortion. And that affects everything from care for ectopic pregnancies, how you can treat them, to managing miscarriages. The lead story or anecdote in our story is about a nurse midwife who I spoke with, who used to work at a Catholic hospital in Maryland and talked to me about, relayed this anecdote about, a patient who was about 19 or 20 weeks pregnant and had her water break prematurely.

At that point, her fetus was not viable and that patient did not want to continue her pregnancy, but the medical staff there, what they would’ve done is induce labor with the intent of terminating the pregnancy. And they were unable to do that because of ERDs. And so, we really wanted to look at it systemically, too. So we looked at that combined with state laws that protect, shield hospitals from liability when they oppose providing things like abortions or even sterilization procedures on religious grounds. And included fresh new data analysis on how many women around the country live either nearby to a Catholic hospital or only have Catholic hospitals nearby. So we thought it was important.

Rovner: That’s a little bit of the lead because there’s been so much takeover of hospitals by Catholic entities over the last, really, decade and a half or so, that women who often had a choice of Catholic hospital or not Catholic hospital don’t anymore. That Catholic hospital may be the only hospital anywhere around.

Pradhan: Right and if people criticize the story, which we’ve gotten some criticism over it, one of the refrains we’ll hear is, “Well, just go to a different hospital.” Well, we don’t live in a country where you can just pick any hospital you want to go to — even when you have a choice, insurance will dictate what’s in-network versus what’s not. And honestly, people just don’t know. They don’t know that a hospital has a religious affiliation at all, let alone that that religious affiliation could impact the care that you would receive. And so there’s been research done over the years showing the percentage of hospital beds that are controlled by Catholic systems, et cetera, but Hannah and I both felt strongly that that’s a useful metric to a point, but beds is not relatable to a human being. So we really wanted to boil it down to people and how many people we’re talking about who do not have other options nearby. How many births occur in Catholic hospitals so that you know those people do not have access to certain care if they deliver at these hospitals, that they would have in other places.

Rovner: It’s a continuing story. We’ll obviously post the link to it. Well, I also want to talk about age this week. Specifically the somewhat advanced age of our likely presidential candidates this year. President [Joe] Biden, currently age 81, and former President Trump, age 77. One thing voters of both parties seem to agree on is that both are generically too old, although voters in neither party seem to have alternative candidates in mind. My KFF Health News colleague Judy Graham has a really interesting piece on increasing ageism in U.S. society that the seniors we used to admire and honor we now scorn and ignore. Is this just the continuing irritation at the self-centeredness of the baby boomers or is there something else going on here that old people have become dispensable and not worth listening to? I keep thinking the “OK, boomer” refrain. It keeps ringing in my ears.

Weber: I mean, I think there’s a mix of things going on here. I mean, her piece was really fascinating because it also touched upon the fact — which all of us here reported on; Rachana and I wrote a story about this back in 2021 — on how nursing homes really have been abandoned to some extent. I mean, folks are not getting the covid vaccine. People are dying of covid, they die of the flu, and it’s considered a way of life. And there is almost an irritation that there would be any expectation that it would be any differently because it’s a “Don’t infringe upon my rights” thought. And I do think her piece was fascinating because it asks, “Are we really looking at the elderly?”

I mean, I think that’s very different when we talk about politicians. I mean, the Biden bit is a bit different. I mean, I think there is some frustration in the American populace with the age of politicians. I think that reached a bit of a boiling point with the Sen. [Dianne] Feinstein issue, that I think is continuing to boil over in the current presidential election. But that said, we’re hurtling towards an election with these two folks. I mean, that’s where we’re at. So I think they’re a bit different, but I do think there is a national conversation about age that is happening to some degree, but is not happening in consideration to others.

Well, I was going to say, I think the other aspect is that these people are in the public all the time, or they’re supposed to be. President Biden is giving speeches. Potential candidate President Trump, GOP main candidate, he’s in the spotlight all the time, too. And so you can actually see when they mess up sometimes. You can see potentially what people are saying is signs of aging. And so I think it’s different when they’re literally in front of your eyes and they’re supposed to be making decisions about the direction of this country, potentially. So I think it’s somewhat a valid conversation to have when the country is in their hands.

Rovner: Yeah, and obviously the presidency ages you. [Barack] Obama went in as this young, strong-looking guy and came out with very gray hair, and he was young when he went in. Bill Clinton, too, was young when he was elected and came out looking considerably older. And so Biden, if people have pointed out, looks a lot older now than he did when he was running back in 2020. But meanwhile, despite what voters and some special councils think — including the one who said that Biden was what a kindly old man with a bad memory — neuroscientists say that it’s actually bunk that age alone can determine how mentally fit somebody is, and that even if memory does start to decline, judgment and wisdom may improve as you age. Why is nobody in either party making this point? I mean, the people supporting Biden are just saying that he’s doing a good job and he deserves to continue doing a good job. I mean, talk about the elephant in the room and nobody’s talking about it at all with Trump.

Pradhan: Yeah, I mean, I think probably the short answer is that it’s not really as politically expedient to talk about those things. I thought it was really interesting. Yeah, I really appreciated Stat News had this really interesting Q&A article. And then also there was this opinion piece in The New York Times that, this line struck me so much about, again, both about Biden’s age and his memory. And this line I thought was so fascinating because it just is telling how people’s perceptions can change so much depending on the discourse. So it pointed out that Joe Biden is the same age as Harrison Ford, Paul McCartney, Martin Scorsese. He’s younger than Berkshire Hathaway CEO Warren Buffett, who is considered to be one of the shrewdest and smartest investors, I think, and CEOs of modern times. And no one is saying, “Well, they’re too old to be doing their jobs” or anything. I’m not trying to suggest that people who have concerns about both candidates’ age[s] are not valid, but I think we sometimes have to double-check why we might be being led to think that way, and when it’s not really the same standards are not applied across the board to people who are even older than they are.

Rovner: I do think that some of the frustration, I think, Lauren, you mentioned this, is that in recent years, the vast majority of leadership positions in the U.S. government have been held by people who are, shall we say, visibly old. I mean Nancy Pelosi is still in Congress, but she at least figured out that she needed to step down from being speaker because I think the three top leaders in the House were all in their either late 70s or early 80s. The Senate has long been the land of very old people because you get elected to a six-year term. I mean, Chuck Grassley is 90 now, is he not? Feinstein wasn’t even, I don’t think, the oldest member of the Senate. So I think it’s glaring and staring us in the face. Rachana, you wanted to add something before we moved on.

Pradhan: Well, I think probably, and a lot of that too is just I think probably a reflection of voters’ broader gripes or concerns about the fact that we have people who hold office for an eternity, to not exaggerate it. And so people want to see new leadership, new energy, and when you have public officeholders who hold these jobs for … they’re career politicians, and I think that that is frustrating to a lot of people. They want to see a new generation, even regardless of political party, of ideas and energy. And then when you have these octogenarians holding onto their seats and run over and over and over again, I think that that’s frustrating. And people don’t get energized about those candidates, especially when they’re running for president. They just don’t. So it’s a reflection of just, I think, broader concerns.

Knight: And I think one more thing too was, I mean, Sen. Feinstein died while she was in office. I mean, people also may be referencing Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court, and it’s the question of, should you be holding onto a position that you may die in it, and not setting the way for the new person to take over and making that path available for the next people? Is that the best way to lead in whatever position you’re in? I think, again, Rachana said that’s frustrating for a lot of people.

Rovner: And I think what both parties have been guilty of, although I think Democrats even more than Republicans, is preparing people, making sure that that next generation is ready, that you don’t want to go from these people with age and wisdom and experience to somebody who knows nothing. You need those people coming up through the ranks. And I think there’s been a dearth of people coming up through the ranks lately, and I think that’s probably the big frustration.

Pradhan: I’m not sure if this is still true now, but I certainly remember, I think when Paul Ryan was speaker of the House, I remember the average age of the House Republican conference was significantly younger than that of Democrats. And they would highlight that. They would say, “Look, we are electing a new generation of leaders and look at these aging Democrats over here.” And that might still be true, but I certainly remember that that was something that they tried to capitalize on, oh-so-long ago.

Rovner: As we talked about last week, there are now a lot of those not-so-young Republicans, but not really old, who are just getting out because it is no fun anymore to be in Congress. Which is a good segue because … oh, go ahead.

Knight: Oh, I was just saying one thing Republicans do do in the House, at least they do have term limits on the chairmanships to ensure people do not hold onto those leadership positions forever. And Democrats do not have that. That’s at least in the House.

Rovner: But then you get the expertise walking out the door. It’s a double-edged sword.

Knight: Which is, not all the ones that are leaving have reached their term limits, which is the interesting thing actually. But yes, that expertise can walk out the door.

Rovner: Well, speaking of Congress, here in Washington, as I mentioned at the top, Congress is in recess, but when they come back, they will have I believe it is three days before the first raft of temporary spending bills expire. Victoria, is this the time that the government’s going to actually shut down, or are we looking at yet another round of short-term continuing resolutions? And at some point automatic cuts kick in, right?

Knight: Yeah, the eternal question that we’ve had all of this Congress, I think both sides do not want to shut down. I saw some reporting this morning that was saying [Senate Majority Leader] Chuck Schumer is talking to [House Speaker] Mike Johnson, but he also, Schumer did not want to commit to a CR [continuing resolution] yet either. So it’s possible, but we said that every time and they’ve pulled it off. I think they just know a shutdown is so, not even maybe necessarily politically toxic, but potentially —because I don’t know how much the public understands what that means …

Rovner: Because they don’t understand who’s at fault.

Knight: Right. Who’s at fault …

Rovner: … when it does shut down. They just know that the Social Security office is closed.

Knight: Right, but I just know they know it’s dysfunctional or it just can make things messy when that happens; it’s harder for agencies and things like that. So we’ll see. So the deadline is next Friday for the first set of bills. It’s just four bills then, and then the next deadline is March 8 for the other eight bills. There’s some talk that we may see a package over the weekend, but it’s Mike Johnson’s deciding moment. Again, he’s getting pressure from the House Freedom Caucus to push for either spending cuts or policy riders that include anti-abortion riders, anti-gender-affirming care, a lot. There’s a whole list of things that they sent yesterday they want in bills, and so he’s going to have to …

Rovner: Culture wars is the shorthand for a lot of those.

Knight: Yes, exactly. And so House Freedom Caucus sent a letter yesterday, and so Mike Johnson’s going to have to decide does he want to acquiesce to any House Freedom Caucus demands or does he want to work? But if he doesn’t want to do that, then he’s going to have to pass any funding bills with Democratic votes because he does not have enough votes with the Republicans alone, if Freedom Caucus people and people aligned in that direction don’t vote for any funding bills. If he does that, if he works with Democrats, then there is talk that they might file a motion to vacate him out of the speakership. So it’s the same problem that Kevin McCarthy had. The one thing going for Johnson is that he doesn’t have the baggage that Kevin McCarthy had, a lot of political baggage. A lot of people had ill will towards him, just built up over the years. Johnson doesn’t seem to have that as much, and also Republicans, do they want to be leadership-less again?

Rovner: Because that worked so well the first two times.

Knight: Right, so he has got to decide again who he wants to work with. And it doesn’t seem like we know yet how that’s going to go, and that will determine whether the government shuts down or not.

Rovner: But somebody also reminded me that on April 1, if they haven’t done full-year funding, that automatic cuts kick in. I had forgotten that. So I mean, they can’t just keep rolling these deadlines indefinitely. This presumably is the last time they can roll a deadline without having other ramifications.

Knight: Absolutely. And Freedom Caucus, actually, I think that’s partly why they don’t want to agree to something, because they want the 1% cuts across the board. So that was part of the deal made last year under Kevin McCarthy was, if they don’t come up with full funding bills by April 1, there will be a 1% cut put into place. And so the more hard-liners [are] like, “Great, we’re going to cut funding, so we want to do that.” And then Democrats don’t want that to happen. And so yeah, it’s the last time that they can potentially do a CR before that.

Rovner: Yeah, just a reminder, for those who are not keeping track, that April 1 is six months, halfway through the fiscal year for them to have not finished the fiscal year spending bills.

Knight: And one more note is that usually they’re starting on this coming year spending bills by this point in Congress. So we’re still working on FY24 bills. We should be working on FY25 bills already. So they’re already behind. It’s dysfunctional.

Rovner: I think it’s fair to say the congressional budget process has completely broken down. Well, moving on to “This Week in Medical Misinformation,” we have a case of doing well by doing no good. Lauren, tell us about your story looking into the profits that accrued to anti-vaccine and anti-science groups during the pandemic.

Weber: So I took a look at a bunch of tax records, and what I found is that four major nonprofits that rose to prominence during the covid pandemic by capitalizing on the spread of misinformation collectively gained more than $118 billion from 2020 to 2022. And were able to deploy that money to gain influence in statehouses, courtrooms, and communities across the country. And it’s a pretty staggering figure to tabulate all together. And what was particularly interesting is there was four of these different groups that I was directed to look at by experts in the field, and one of them includes Children’s Health Defense, which was founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and they received, in 2022, $23.5 million in contributions, grants, and other revenue. That was eight times what they got before the pandemic. And that kind of story was reflected in these other groups as well. And it just shows that the fair amount of money that they were able to collect during this time as they were promoting content and other things.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean literally misinformation pays. While we’re on this subject, I would also note that this week there’s a huge multinational study of 99 million people vaccinated against covid that confirmed previous studies showing an association between being vaccinated and developing some rare complications. But a number of stories, at least I thought, overstated the risks of the study that it actually identified. Most failed to include the context that almost every vaccine has the possibility of causing adverse reactions in some very small number of people. The question of course, when you’re evaluating vaccines, is if the benefit outweighs the benefit of protecting against whatever this disease or condition outweighs the risk of these rare side effects.

I would also point out that this is why the U.S. actually has something called the [National] Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which helps provide for people, particularly children, who experience rare complications to otherwise mandatory vaccines. Anyway, that is the end of my rant. I was just frustrated by the idea that yes, yes, we know vaccines sometimes have side effects. That’s the nature of vaccines. That’s one of the reasons we study them.

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

Knight: So my extra credit this week is a story in ProPublica called “The Year After a Denied Abortion.” It’s by [photographer] Stacy Kranitz and [reporter] Kavitha Surana. And it was a very moving photo essay and story about a woman who was denied an abortion in Tennessee literally weeks to a month after Roe v. Wade was overturned in June 2022, and this was in July 2022. She got pregnant and was denied an abortion. And so it followed her through the next year of her life after that happened. And in Tennessee, it’s one of the strictest abortion bans in the nation. Abortion is banned and there are very rare exceptions. And so this woman, Mayron Michelle Hollis, she already had some children that had been taken out of her care by the state, and so she was already fighting custody battles and then got pregnant. And Tennessee is also a state that doesn’t have a very robust safety-net system, so it follows her as she has a baby that’s born prematurely, has a lot of health issues, doesn’t have a lot of state programs to help her.

She was afraid to go through unemployment because she had had issues with that before. The paperwork situation’s really tough. There’s just so much stress involved also with the situation. She eventually ends up kind of relapsing, starting drinking too much alcohol, and she ends up in jail at the end of the story. And so it just talks about how if there is not a robust safety net in a state, if you’re kind of forced to have a pregnancy that you maybe are not able to take care of, it can be really tough financially and psychologically and tough for the mother and the child. So it was a really moving story and there were photos following her through that year.

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: I wanted to shout out my colleague who I actually sit next to, David Ovalle, who is wonderful at The Washington Post. He wrote an article called “They Take Kratom to Ease Pain or Anxiety. Sometimes, Death Follows.” And, as our addiction reporter for the Post, he did a horribly depressing but wonderful job actually calculating how many kratom deaths or deaths associated with kratom have happened in recent years. And what he found through requests is that at least 4,100 deaths in 44 states and D.C. were linked to kratom between 2020 and 2022, which is public service journalism at its best. I mean, I think people are clear that there is more risks with this, but I think that it’s emerging actually how those risks are. And he catalogs through the hard numbers, which is often what it requires for folks to pay attention, that this is something that is interactive with other medications which is causing death, in some cases, on death certificates. So pretty moving story, he talked to a lot of the families of folks that have died and it really makes you wonder about the state of regulation around kratom.

Rovner: Yeah, and then, I mean, all food diet supplements that are basically unregulated by the FDA because Congress determined in the 1990s that they should be unregulated because the supplement industry lobbied them very heavily and we will talk about that at some other time. Rachana.

Pradhan: My extra credit is a story in Politico by Megan Messerly. It’s titled “Red States Hopeful for a 2nd Trump Term Prepare to Curtail Medicaid.” The short version is work requirements are in, again. There was an effort previously that Republicans wanted to impose employment as a condition of receiving Medicaid benefits, and then they were very quickly, a couple of states, were sued. Only one program really got off the ground, Arkansas. And what happened as a result is because of the paperwork burdens and other things, thousands of people lost coverage. So currently the Biden administration, of course, is not OK at all with tying any type of work, volunteer service, you name it, to Medicaid benefits. But I think Republicans would be — the story talks about how Republicans would be eager to go and pursue that policy push again and curtail enrollment as a result of that.

So I thought that was, it’s an interesting political story. One thing it did make me wonder though, just as an aside is, there’s also been discussion on the flip side, the states in the story, which focus on South Dakota and Louisiana, states that many of them have already expanded coverage to cover the ACA [Affordable Care Act] population, but there are also still states that have not expanded Medicaid under the ACA’s income thresholds. And those conservative states might find it slightly more palatable to do so if you allow them to impose these types of conditions on the program. And so I think we will see what happens.

Rovner: Although, as we talked about not too long ago, Georgia, one of the states that has not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act now has a work requirement for Medicaid. And they’ve gotten something in the neighborhood, I believe, of like 2,700 people who’ve signed up out of a potential 100,000 people who could be covered if they actually expanded Medicaid. So another space that we will watch.

Well, my extra credit this week is from Stat News and, warning, it’s super nerdy. It’s called “New CMS Rules Will Throttle Access Researchers Need to Medicare, Medicaid Data.” It’s by Rachel Werner, who’s a physician researcher at the University of Pennsylvania, and it’s about a change recently announced by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services that will make it more difficult and more expensive for researchers to work with the program’s data, of which there is a lot. Since the new policy was announced earlier this month, according to CMS, in response to an increase in data breaches, I’ve heard from a lot of researchers who are worried that critical research won’t get done and that new researchers won’t get trained if these changes are implemented because only certain people will have access to the data because you’ll have to pay every time somebody else gets access to the data. Again, it’s an incredibly nerdy issue, but also really important. So the department is taking comment on this and we’ll see if they actually follow through.

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. Rachana, where are you?

Pradhan: Still on X, hanging on, @rachanadpradhan.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I’m also on X @victoriaregisk.

Rovner: Lauren?

Weber: Still on X @LaurenWeberHP.

Rovner: I think people have come sort of slithering back. 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 ACA’s provision made medical and economic sense, encouraging Americans to use screening tools that could nip medical problems in the bud and keep patients healthy.

So when a bill for $236 arrived, Uddin — an occupational therapist familiar with the health care industry’s workings — complained to her insurer and the hospital. She even requested an independent review.

“I’m like, ‘Tell me why am I getting this bill?’” Uddin recalled in an interview. The unsatisfying explanation: The mammogram itself was covered, per the ACA’s rules, but the fee for the equipment and the facility was not.

That answer was particularly galling, she said, because, a year earlier, her “free” mammogram at the same health system had generated a bill of about $1,000 for the radiologist’s reading. Though she fought that charge (and won), this time she threw in the towel and wrote the $236 check. But then she dashed off a submission to the KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” project:

“I was really mad — it’s ridiculous,” she later recalled. “This is not how the law is supposed to work.”

The ACA’s designers might have assumed that they had spelled out with sufficient clarity that millions of Americans would no longer have to pay for certain types of preventive care, including mammograms, colonoscopies, and recommended vaccines, in addition to doctor visits to screen for disease. But the law’s authors didn’t reckon with America’s ever-creative medical billing juggernaut.

Over the past several years, the medical industry has eroded the ACA’s guarantees, finding ways to bill patients in gray zones of the law. Patients going in for preventive care, expecting that it will be fully covered by insurance, are being blindsided by bills, big and small.

The problem comes down to deciding exactly what components of a medical encounter are covered by the ACA guarantee. For example, when do conversations between doctor and patient during an annual visit for preventive services veer into the treatment sphere? What screenings are needed for a patient’s annual visit?

A healthy 30-year-old visiting a primary care provider might get a few basic blood tests, while a 50-year-old who is overweight would merit additional screening for Type 2 diabetes.

Making matters more confusing, the annual checkup itself is guaranteed to be “no cost” for women and people age 65 and older, but the guarantee doesn’t apply for men in the 18-64 age range — though many preventive services that require a medical visit (such as checks of blood pressure or cholesterol and screens for substance abuse) are covered.

No wonder what’s covered under the umbrella of prevention can look very different to medical providers (trying to be thorough) and billers (intent on squeezing more dollars out of every medical encounter) than it does to insurers (who profit from narrower definitions).

For patients, the gray zone has become a billing minefield. Here are a few more examples, gleaned from the Bill of the Month project in just the past six months:

Peter Opaskar, 46, of Texas, went to his primary care doctor last year for his preventive care visit — as he’d done before, at no cost. This time, his insurer paid $130.81 for the visit, but he also received a perplexing bill for $111.81. Opaskar learned that he had incurred the additional charge because when his doctor asked if he had any health concerns, he mentioned that he was having digestive problems but had already made an appointment with his gastroenterologist. So, the office explained, his visit was billed as both a preventive physical and a consultation. “Next year,” Opasker said in an interview, if he’s asked about health concerns, “I’ll say ‘no,’ even if I have a gunshot wound.”

Kevin Lin, a technology specialist in Virginia in his 30s, went to a new primary care provider to take advantage of the preventive care benefit when he got insurance; he had no physical complaints. He said he was assured at check-in that he wouldn’t be charged. His insurer paid $174 for the checkup, but he was billed an additional $132.29 for a “new patient visit.” He said he has made many calls to fight the bill, so far with no luck.

Finally, there’s Yoori Lee, 46, of Minnesota, herself a colorectal surgeon, who was shocked when her first screening colonoscopy yielded a bill for $450 for a biopsy of a polyp — a bill she knew was illegal. Federal regulations issued in 2022 to clarify the matter are very clear that biopsies during screening colonoscopies are included in the no-cost promise. “I mean, the whole point of screening is to find things,” she said, stating, perhaps, the obvious.

Though these patient bills defy common sense, room for creative exploitation has been provided by the complex regulatory language surrounding the ACA. Consider this from Ellen Montz, deputy administrator and director of the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, in an emailed response to queries and an interview request on this subject: “If a preventive service is not billed separately or is not tracked as individual encounter data separately from an office visit and the primary purpose of the office visit is not the delivery of the preventive item or service, then the plan issuer may impose cost sharing for the office visit.”

So, if the doctor decides that a patient’s mention of stomach pain does not fall under the umbrella of preventive care, then that aspect of the visit can be billed separately, and the patient must pay?

And then there’s this, also from Montz: “Whether a facility fee is permitted to be charged to a consumer would depend on whether the facility usage is an integral part of performing the mammogram or an integral part of any other preventive service that is required to be covered without cost sharing under federal law.”

But wait, how can you do a mammogram or colonoscopy without a facility?

Unfortunately, there is no federal enforcement mechanism to catch individual billing abuses. And agencies’ remedies are weak — simply directing insurers to reprocess claims or notifying patients they can resubmit them.

In the absence of stronger enforcement or remedies, CMS could likely curtail these practices and give patients the tools to fight back by offering the sort of clarity the agency provided a few years ago regarding polyp biopsies — spelling out more clearly what comes under the rubric of preventive care, what can be billed, and what cannot.

The stories KFF Health News and NPR receive are likely just the tip of an iceberg. And while each bill might be relatively small compared with the stunning $10,000 hospital bills that have become all too familiar in the United States, the sorry consequences are manifold. Patients pay bills they do not owe, depriving them of cash they could use elsewhere. If they can’t pay, those bills might end up with debt-collection agencies and, ultimately, harm their credit score.

Perhaps most disturbing: These unexpected bills might discourage people from seeking preventive screenings that could be lifesaving, which is why the ACA deemed them “essential health benefits” that should be free.

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).

Congress is back this week and feverishly working on a bipartisan agreement to fund the government for the rest of the 2024 fiscal year. Ahead of a potential vote, I spoke with Jesse Ehrenfeld, the president of the American Medical Association, the nation’s largest lobby group for doctors, about his organization’s priorities in Washington. 

Some background: Ehrenfeld is a Wisconsin anesthesiologist, researcher and medical school professor who also directs a health-care philanthropy in his state. He’s an Afghanistan combat veteran, the first openly gay president of the AMA and a national advocate for LGBTQ+ rights.

This transcript has been edited for clarity and brevity. You can hear the whole interview later today on “What the Health?”

Rovner: Congress is coming back and working on a budget, or so we hear. I know physicians are facing, again, a cut in Medicare pay, but that’s not the only AMA priority here in Washington at the moment, right? [Note: A 3.37 percent cut to Medicare physician payments took effect Jan. 1.]

Ehrenfeld: It’s unconscionable. And so we’re optimistic that we can get a fix, hopefully retroactive, as the omnibus consolidation work goes forward.

Physicians continue to struggle. My parents lost their own primary care physician because of a challenge with their primary care doctor not being able to take Medicare anymore. And what we’re seeing is more and more doctors just stopping seeing new Medicare patients, or opting out of the program entirely.

Rovner: Now we have the Supreme Court — none of whom have an M.D., as far as I know — about to decide whether doctors [treating] women with pregnancy emergencies should obey state abortion bans, the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, or their medical ethics, all of which may conflict. What’s the AMA doing to help doctors navigate these very choppy and changing legal waters?  

Ehrenfeld: Choppy is a good word for it. It’s confusing. And since the Dobbs decision, we have been working with all of our state and federation partners to try to help physicians navigate this. It’s unbelievable that now physicians are having to call their attorneys, the hospital legal counsel, to figure out what they can and can’t do. And, obviously, this is not a picture that supports women’s health. So we are optimistic that we might get a positive ruling with this EMTALA decision on the Supreme Court. But, obviously, there’s a long way that we need to go to make sure that we can maintain access for reproductive care.

Rovner: Do you think that’s something that has dawned on the rest of the members of the AMA that this is not necessarily about abortion, this is about the ability to practice medicine?  

Ehrenfeld: If you look at some of these socially charged restrictive laws, whether it’s in transgender health or abortion access, or other items, we take the same foundational approach, which is that physicians and patients ought to be making their health-care decisions without legislative interference. 

Rovner: It’s not just abortion and reproductive health where lawmakers are trying to dictate medical practice, but also care for transgender kids and adults and even treatment for covid and other infectious diseases. What are you doing to fight the sort of “pushing against” scientific discourse?  

Ehrenfeld: Our foundation in 1847 was to get rid of quackery and snake-oil salesmen in medicine. And yet here we are trying to do some of those same things with misinformation, disinformation. And obviously, even if you look at the attack on PrEP, preexposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention — making it basically zero out-of-pocket cost for many Americans — [not providing PrEP is] just unconscionable. We have treatments. We know that they work. We ought to make sure that patients and their physicians can have access to them.

Rovner: Artificial intelligence can portend huge advances and also other issues, not all of which are good. How is the AMA trying to push [medicine] more toward the former, the good things, and less toward the latter, the unintended consequences?  

Ehrenfeld: We need to make sure that we have appropriate regulation. The [Food and Drug Administration] doesn’t have the framework that they need.  We just need to make sure that those changes only let safe and effective algorithms, AI tools, AI-powered products come to the marketplace.

This article is not available for syndication due to republishing restrictions. If you have questions about the availability of this or other content for republication, please contact NewsWeb@kff.org.

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).