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 general election campaign for president is (unofficially) on, as President Joe Biden and former President Donald Trump have each apparently secured enough delegates to become his respective party’s nominee. And health care is turning out to be an unexpectedly front-and-center campaign issue, as Trump in recent weeks has suggested he may be interested in cutting Medicare and taking another swing at repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act.

Meanwhile, the February cyberattack of Change Healthcare, a subsidiary of insurance giant UnitedHealth Group, continues to roil the health industry, as thousands of hospitals, doctors, nursing homes, and other providers are unable to process claims and get paid.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, and Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories.

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's articles.

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• It is unclear exactly what Trump meant in his recent remarks about possible cuts to Medicare and Social Security, though his comments provided an opening for Biden to pounce. By running as the candidate who would protect entitlements, Biden could position himself well, particularly with older voters, as the general election begins.
• Health care is shaping up to be the sleeper issue in this election, with high stakes for coverage. The Biden administration’s expanded subsidies for ACA plans are scheduled to expire at the end of next year, and the president’s latest budget request highlights his interest in expanding coverage, especially for postpartum women and for children. Plus, Republicans are eyeing what changes they could make should Trump reclaim the presidency.
• Meanwhile, Republicans are grappling with an internal party divide over access to in vitro fertilization, and Trump’s mixed messaging on abortion may not be helping him with his base. Could a running mate with more moderate perspectives help soften his image with voters who oppose abortion bans?
• A federal appeals court ruled that a Texas law requiring teenagers to obtain parental consent for birth control outweighs federal rules allowing teens to access prescription contraceptives confidentially. But concerns that if the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case a conservative-majority ruling would broaden the law’s impact to other states may dampen the chances of further appeals, leaving the law in effect. Also, the federal courts are making it harder to file cases in jurisdictions with friendly judges, a tactic known as judge-shopping, which conservative groups have used recently in reproductive health challenges.
• And weeks later, the Change Healthcare hack continues to cause widespread issues with medical billing. Some small providers fear continued payment delays could force them to close, and it is possible that the hack’s repercussions could soon block some patients from accessing care at all.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Kelly Henning of Bloomberg Philanthropies about a new, four-part documentary series on the history of public health, “The Invisible Shield.”

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Navy Demoted Ronny Jackson After Probe Into White House Behavior,” by Dan Diamond and Alex Horton.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “Frigid Offices Might Be Killing Women’s Productivity,” by Olga Khazan.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Stat’s “Rigid Rules at Methadone Clinics Are Jeopardizing Patients’ Path to Recover From Opioid Addiction,” by Lev Facher.

Anna Edney: Scientific American’s “How Hospitals Are Going Green Under Biden’s Climate Legislation,” by Ariel Wittenberg and E&E News.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• KFF Health News’ “Energy-Hog Hospitals: When They Start Thinking Green, They See Green,” by Julie Appleby.
• Stat’s “The War on Recovery: How the U.S. Is Sabotaging Its Best Tools to Prevent Deaths in the Opioid Epidemic,” by Lev Facher.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Maybe It’s a Health Care Election After All

[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 14, at 10 a.m. Happy Pi Day, everyone. 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 Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hi there.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everyone.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Dr. Kelly Henning, head of the public health program at Bloomberg Philanthropies. She’ll give us a preview of the new four-part documentary series on the history of public health called “The Invisible Shield;” It premieres on PBS March 26. But first this week’s news. We’re going to start here in Washington with the annual State of the Union / budget dance, which this year coincides with the formal launch of the general election campaign, with both President Biden and former President Donald Trump having clinched their respective nominations this week.

Despite earlier claims that this year’s campaign would mostly ignore health issues, that’s turning out not so much to be the case. Biden in his speech highlighted reproductive health, which we’ll talk about in a minute, as well as prescription drug prices and the Affordable Care Act expansions. His proposed budget released on Monday includes suggestions of how to operationalize some of those proposals, including expanding Medicare’s drug negotiating powers. Did anything in particular in the speech or the budget jump out at any of you? Anything we weren’t expecting.

Edney: I wouldn’t say there was anything that I wasn’t expecting. There were things that I was told I should not expect and that I feel like I’ve been proven right, and so I’m happy about that, and that was the Medicare drug price negotiation. I thought that that was a win that he was going to take a lap on during the State of the Union, and certainly he did. And he’s also talking about trying to expand it, although that seems to face an extremely uphill battle, but it’s a good talking point.

Rovner: Well, and of course the expanded subsidies from the ACA expire at the end of next year. I imagine there’s going to be enough of a fight just to keep those going, right?

Edney: Yeah, certainly. I think people really appreciate the subsidies. If those were to go away, then the uninsured rate could go up. It’s probably an odd place in a way for Republicans, too, who are talking about, again, still in some circles, in some ways, getting rid of Obamacare. We’re back at that place even though I don’t think anyone thinks that’s entirely realistic.

Rovner: Oh, you are anticipating my next question, which is that former President Trump, who is known for being all over the place on a lot of issues, has been pretty steadfast all along about protecting Medicare and Social Security, but he’s now backing away from even that. In an interview on CNBC this week, Trump said, and I’m quoting, “There is a lot you can do in terms of entitlements in terms of cutting” — which his staff said was referring to waste and fraud, but which appears to open that up as a general election campaign issue. Yes, the Biden people seem to be already jumping on it.

Sanger-Katz: Yes. They could not be more excited about this. I think this has been an issue that Biden has really wanted to run on as the protector of these programs for the elderly. He had this confrontation with Congress in the State of the Union last year, as you may remember, in which he tried to get them to promise not to touch these programs. And I think his goal of weaponizing this issue has been very much hindered by Trump’s reluctance to take it on. I think there are Republicans, certainly in Congress, and I think that we saw during the presidential primary some other candidates for president who were more interested in rethinking these programs and concerned about the long-term trajectory of the federal deficit. Trump has historically not been one of them. What Trump meant exactly, I think, is sort of TBD, but I think it does provide this opening. I’m sure that we’ll see Biden talking about this a lot more as the campaign wears on and it wouldn’t surprise me at all to see this clip in television ads and featured again and again.

Kenen: So it’s both, I mean, it’s basically, he’s talked about reopening the repeal fight as Julie just mentioned, which did not go too well for the Republicans last time, and there’s plenty to cut in Medicare. If you read the whole quote, he does then talk about fraud and abuse and mismanagement, but the soundbite is the soundbite. Those are the words that came out of his mouth, whether he meant it that way or not, and we will see that campaign ad a lot, some version of it.

Rovner: My theory is that he was, and this is something that Trump does, he was on CNBC, he knew he was talking to a business audience, and he liked to say what he thinks the audience wants to hear without — you would think by now he would know that speaking to one audience doesn’t mean that you’re only speaking to that one audience. I think that’s why he’s all over the place on a lot of issues because he tends to tailor his remarks to what he thinks the people he is speaking directly to want to hear. But meanwhile, Anna, as you mentioned, he’s also raised the specter of the Affordable Care Act repeal again.

Sanger-Katz: I do think the juxtaposition of the Biden budget and State of the Union and these remarks from Trump, who now is officially the presumptive nominee for president, I think it really does highlight that there are pretty high stakes in health care for this election. I think it’s not been a focus of our discussion of this election so far. But Julie, you’ve mentioned the expiration of these subsidies that have made Affordable Care Act plans substantially more affordable for Americans and substantially more appealing, nearly doubling the number of people who are enrolled in these plans.

That is a policy that is going to expire at the end of next year. And so you could imagine a scenario, even if Trump did not want to repeal the Affordable Care Act, which he does occasionally continue to make noises about, where that could just go away through pure inertia if you didn’t have an administration that was actively trying to extend that policy and you could see a real retrenchment: increases in prices, people leaving the market, potentially some instability in the marketplace itself, where you might see insurers exiting or other kinds of problems and a situation much more akin to what we saw in the Trump administration where those markets were “OK, but were a little bit rocky and not that popular.”

I think similarly for Medicare and Medicaid, these big federal health programs, Biden has really been committed to, as he says, not cutting them. The Medicare price negotiation for drugs has provided a little bit more savings for the program. So it’s on a little bit of a better fiscal trajectory, and he has these additional proposals, again, I think long shots politically to try to shore up Medicare’s finances more. So you see this commitment to these programs and certainly this commitment to — there were multiple things in the budget to try to liberalize and expand Medicaid coverage to make postpartum coverage for women after they give birth, permanently one year after birth, people would have coverage.

Right now, that’s an option for states, but it’s not required for every state. And additionally to try to, in an optional basis, make it a little easier to keep kids enrolled in Medicaid for longer, to just allow states to keep kids in for the first six years of life and then three years at a time after that. So again, that’s an option, but I think you see the Biden administration making a commitment to expand and shore up these programs, and I do think a Trump administration and a Republican Congress might be coming at these programs with a bit more of a scalpel.

Rovner: And also, I mean, one of the things we haven’t talked about very much since we’re on the subject of the campaign is that this year Trump is ready in a way that he was not, certainly not in 2016 and not even in 2020. He’s got the Heritage Foundation behind him with this whole 2025 blueprint, people with actual expertise in knowing what to turn, what to do, actually, how to manipulate the bureaucracy in a way that the first Trump administration didn’t have to. So I think we could see, in fact, a lot more on health care that Republicans writ large would like to do if Trump is reelected. Joanne, you wanted to add something.

Kenen: Yeah, I mean, we all didn’t see this year as a health care election, and I still think that larger existential issues about democracy, it’s a reprise. It’s 2020 all over again in many ways, but abortion yes, abortion is a health care issue, and that was still going …

Rovner: We’re getting to that next.

Kenen: I know, but I mean we all knew that was still going to be a ballot driver, a voter driver. But Trump, with two remarks, however, well, there’s a difference between the people at the Heritage Foundation writing detailed policy plans about how they’re going to dismantle the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] as we currently know it versus what Trump says off the cuff. I mean, if you say to a normal person on the street, we want to divide the CDC in two, that’s not going to trigger anything for a voter. But when you start talking about we want to take away your health care subsidies and cut Medicare, so these are sort of, some observers have called them unforced errors, but basically right now, yeah, we’re in another health care election. Not the top issue — and also depending on what else goes on in the world, because it’s a pretty shaky place at the moment. By September, will it be a top three issue? None of us know, but right now it’s more of a health care election than it was shaping up to be even just a few weeks ago.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, one thing, as you said, that we all know will be a big campaign issue this fall is abortion. We saw that in the State of the Union with the gallery full of women who’d been denied abortion, IVF services, and other forms of reproductive health care and the dozens of Democratic women on the floor of the House wearing white from head to toe as a statement of support for reproductive health care. While Democrats do have some divides over how strongly to embrace abortion rights, a big one is whether restoring Roe [v. Wade] is enough or they need to go even further in assuring access to basically all manner of reproductive health care.

It’s actually the Republicans who are most on the defensive, particularly over IVF and other state efforts that would restrict birth control by declaring personhood from the moment of fertilization. Along those lines, one of the more interesting stories I saw this week suggested that Donald Trump, who has fretted aloud about how unpopular the anti-abortion position is among the public, seems less likely to choose a strong pro-lifer as his running mate this time. Remember Mike Pence came along with that big anti-abortion background. What would this mean? It’s not like he’s going to choose Susan Collins or Lisa Murkowski or some Republican that we know actually supports abortion rights. I’m not sure I see what this could do for him and who might fit this category.

Kenen: Well, I think there’s a good chance he’ll choose a woman, and we all have names at the tip of our tongues, but we don’t know yet. But yeah, I mean they need to soften some of this stuff. But Trump’s own attempt right now bragging about appointing the justices that killed Roe, at the same time, he’s apparently talking about a 15-week ban or a 16-week ban, which is very different than zero. So he’s giving a mixed message. That’s not what his base wants to hear from him, obviously. I mean, Julie, you’ll probably get to this, but the IVF thing is also pitting anti-abortion Republican against anti-abortion Republican, with Mike Pence, again, being a very good example where Mike Pence’s anti-abortion bona fides are pretty clear, but he has been public about his kids are IVF babies? I’m not sure if all of them are, but at least some of them are. So he does not think that two cells in a freezer or eight cells or 16 cells is the same to child. In his view, it’s a potential child. So yeah.

Edney: I think you can do a lot with a vice president. We see Biden has his own issues with the abortion issue and, as people have pointed out, he demurred from saying that word in the State of the Union and we see just it was recently announced that Vice President Kamala Harris is going to visit an abortion clinic. So you can appease maybe the other side, and that might be what Trump is looking to do. I think, as Joanne mentioned, his base wants him to be anti-abortion, but now you’re getting all of these fractures in the Republican Party and you need someone that maybe can massage that and help with the crowd that’s been voting on the state level, voting on more of a personal level, to keep reproductive rights, even though his base doesn’t seem to be that that’s what they want. So I feel like he may be looking to choose someone who’s very different or has some differences that he can, not acknowledge, but that they can go out and please the other side.

Rovner: Of course, the only person who really fits that bill is Nikki Haley, who is very, very strongly anti-abortion, but at least tried, not very well, but tried to say that there are other people around and they believe other things and we should embrace them, too. I can’t think of another Republican except for Nikki Haley who’s really tried to do that. Margot, you wanted to say something?

Sanger-Katz: Oh, I was just going to say that if this reporting is correct, I think it does really reflect the political moment that Trump finds himself in. I think when he was running the last time, I think he really had to convince the anti-abortion voter, the evangelical voter, to come along with him. I think they had reservations about his character, about his commitment to their cause. He was seen as someone who maybe wasn’t really a true believer in these issues. And so I think he had to do these things, like choosing Mike Pence, choosing someone who was one of them. Pre-publishing a list of judges that he would consider for the Supreme Court who were seen as rock solid on abortion. He had to convince these voters that he was the real deal and that he was going to be on their side, and I just don’t think he really has that problem to the same degree right now.

I think he’s consolidated support among that segment of the electorate and his bigger concern going into the general election, and also the primaries are over, and so his bigger concern going into the general election is how to deal with more moderate swing voters, suburban women, and other groups who I think are a little bit concerned about the extreme anti-abortion policies that have been pursued in some of these states. And I think they might be reluctant to vote for Trump if they see him as being associated with those policies. So you see him maybe thinking about how to soften his image on this issue.

Rovner: I should point out the primaries aren’t actually over, most of states still haven’t had their primaries, but the primaries are effectively over for president because both candidates have now amassed enough delegates to have the nomination.

Sanger-Katz: Yes, that’s right. And it’s not over until the convention, although I think the way that the Republicans have arranged their convention, it’s very hard to imagine anyone other than Trump being president no matter what happens.

Rovner: Yes.

Sanger-Katz: Or not being president. Sorry, being the nominee.

Rovner: Being the nominee, yes, indeed. Well, we are only two weeks away from the Supreme Court oral arguments in the abortion pill case and a little over a month from another set of Supreme Court oral arguments surrounding whether doctors have to provide abortions in medical emergencies. And the cases just keep on coming in court this week. A three-judge panel from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld in part a lower court ruling that held that Texas’ law requiring parents to provide consent before their teenage daughters may obtain prescription birth control, Trump’s federal rules requiring patient confidentiality even for minors at federally funded Title X clinics.

Two things about this case. First, it’s a fight that goes all the way back to the Reagan administration and something called the “Squeal Rule,” which I did not cover, I only read about, but it’s something that the courts have repeatedly ruled against, that Title X is in fact allowed to maintain patient privacy even for teenagers. And the second thing is that the lower court ruling came from Texas federal Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk, who also wrote the decision attempting to overturn the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone. This one, though, we might not expect to get to the Supreme Court.

Kenen: But we’re often wrong on these kinds of things.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true.

Kenen: I mean, things that seem based on the historical pathway that shouldn’t have gotten to the court are getting to the court and the whole debate has shifted so far to the right. An interesting aside, there is a move, and I read this yesterday, but now I’m forgetting the details, so one of you can clarify for me. I can’t remember whether they’re considering doing this or the way they’ve actually put into place steps to prevent judge-shopping.

Rovner: That’s next.

Kenen: OK, I’m sorry, I’m doing such a good job of reading your mind.

Rovner: You are such a good job, Joanne.

Kenen: But I mean so many in these cases go back to one. If there was a bingo card for reproductive lawsuits, there might be one face in it.

Rovner: Two, Judge [Reed] O’Connor, remember the guy with the Affordable Care Act.

Kenen: Right. But so much of this is going back to judge-shopping or district-shopping for the judge. So a lot of these things that we thought wouldn’t get to the court have gotten to the court.

Rovner: Yeah, well, no, I was going to say in this case, though, there seems to be some suggestion that those who support the confidentiality and the Title X rules might not want to appeal this to the Supreme Court because they’re afraid they’ll lose. That this is the Supreme Court that overturned Roe, it would almost certainly be a Supreme Court that would rule against Title X confidentiality for birth control, that perhaps they want to just let this lie. I think as it stands now it only applies to the 5th Circuit. So Texas, Louisiana, and I forget what else is in the 5th Circuit, but it wouldn’t apply around the country and in this case, I guess it’s just Texas because it’s Texas’ law that conflicts with the rules.

Kenen: Except when one state does something, it doesn’t mean that it’s only Texas’ law six months from now.

Rovner: Right. What starts in Texas doesn’t necessarily stay in Texas.

Kenen: Right, it could go to Nevada. They may decide that they have a losing case and they want to wait 20 years, but other people end up taking things — I mean, it is very unpredictable and a huge amount of the docket is reproductive health right now.

Rovner: I would say the one thing we know is that Justice Alito, when he said that the Supreme Court was going to stop having to deal with this issue was either disingenuous or just very wrong because that is certainly not what’s happened. Well, as Joanne already jumped ahead a little bit, I mentioned Judge Kacsmaryk for a specific reason. Also this week, the Judicial Conference of the United States, which makes rules for how the federal courts work, voted to make it harder to judge-shop by filing cases in specific places like Amarillo, Texas, where there’s only one sitting federal judge. This is why Judge Kacsmaryk has gotten so many of those hot-button cases. Not because kookie stuff happens all the time in Amarillo, but because plaintiffs have specifically filed suit there to get their cases in front of him. The change by the judicial conference basically sets things back to the way they used to be, right, where it was at least partly random, which judge you got when you filed a case.

Kenen: But there are also some organizations that have intentionally based themselves in Amarillo so that they’re there. I mean, we may also see, if the rules go back to the old days, we may also still say you have a better case for filing in where you actually operate. So everybody just keeps hopping around and playing the field to their advantage.

Rovner: Yeah. And I imagine in some places there’s only a couple of judges, I think it was mostly Texas that had these one-judge districts where you knew if you filed there, you were going to get that judge, so — the people who watch these things and who worry about judge-shopping seem to be heartened by this decision by the judicial conference. So I’m not someone who is an expert in that sort of thing, but they seem to think that this will deter it, if not stop it entirely.

Moving on, remember a couple of weeks ago when I said that the hack of UnitedHealth [Group] subsidiary Change Healthcare was the most undercovered story in health? Clearly, I had no idea how true that was going to become. That processes 15 billion — with a B — claims every year handles one of every three patient records is still down, meaning hospitals, doctor’s offices, nursing homes, and all other manner of health providers still mostly aren’t getting paid. Some are worrying they soon won’t be able to pay their employees. How big could this whole mess ultimately become? I don’t think anybody anticipated it would be as big as it already is.

Sanger-Katz: I think it’s affecting a number of federal programs, too, that rely on this data, like quality measurement. And it really is a reflection, first of all, obviously of the consolidation of all of this, which I know that you guys have talked about on the podcast before, but also just the digitization and interconnectedness of everything. All of these programs are relying on this billing information, and we use that not just to pay people, but also to evaluate what kind of health care is being delivered, and what quality it is, and how much we should pay people in Medicare Advantage, and on all kinds of other things. So it’s this really complex, interconnected web of information that has been disrupted by this hack, and I think there’s going to be quite a lot of fallout.

Edney: And the coverage that I’ve read we’re potentially, and not in an alarmist way, but weeks away from maybe some patients not getting care because of this, particularly at the small providers. Some of my colleagues did a story yesterday on the small cancer providers who are really struggling and aren’t sure how long they’re going to be able to keep the lights on because they just aren’t getting paid. And there are programs now that have been set up but maybe aren’t offering enough money in these no-interest loans and things like that. So it seems like a really precarious situation for a lot of them. And now we see that HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] is looking into this other side of it. They’re going to investigate whether there were some HIPAA violations. So not looking exactly at the money exchange, but what happened in this hack, which is interesting because I haven’t seen a lot about that, and I did wonder, “Oh, what happened with these patients’ information that was stolen?” And UnitedHealth has taken a huge hit. I mean, it’s a huge company and it’s just taken a huge hit to its reputation and I think …

Rovner: And to its stock price.

Edney: And it’s stock price. That is very true. And they don’t know when they’re actually going to be able to resolve all of this. I mean, it’s just a huge mess.

Rovner: And not to forget they paid $22 million in ransom two weeks ago. When I saw that, I assumed that this was going to be almost over because usually I know when a hospital gets hacked, everybody says, don’t pay ransom, but they pay the ransom, they get their material back, they unlock what was locked away. And often that ends it, although it then encourages other people to do it because hey, if you do it, you can get paid ransom. Frankly, for UnitedHealthcare, I thought $22 million was a fairly low sum, but it does not appear — I think this has become such a mess that they’re going to have to rebuild the entire operation in order to make it work. At least, not a computer expert here. But that’s the way I understand this is going on.

Kenen: But I also think this, I mean none of us are cyber experts, but I’m also wondering if this is going to lead to some kind of rethinking about alternative ways of paying people. If this created such chaos, and not just chaos, damage, real damage, the incentive to do something similar to another, intermediate, even if it’s not quite this big. It’s like, “Wait, no one wants to be the next one.” So what kind of push is there going to be, not just for greater cybersecurity, but for Plan B when there is a crisis? And I don’t know if that’s something that the cyberexperts can put together in what kind of timeline — if HHS was to require that or whether the industry just decides they need it without requirements that this is not OK. It’s going to keep happening if it’s profitable for whoever’s doing it.

Rovner: I remember, ruefully, Joanne and I were there together covering HIPAA when they were passing it, which of course had nothing whatsoever to do with medical privacy at the time, but what it did do was give that first big push to start digitizing medical information. And there was all this talk about how wonderful it was going to be when we had all this digitally and researchers could do so much with it, and patients would be able to have all of their records in one place and …

Kenen: You get to have 19 passwords for 19 different forums now.

Rovner: Yes. But in 1995 it all seemed like a great, wonderful new world of everything being way more efficient. And I don’t remember ever hearing somebody talking about hacking this information, although as I point out the part of HIPAA that we all know, the patient medical records privacy, was added on literally at the last minute because someone said, “Uh-oh, if we’re going to digitize all this information, maybe we better be sure that it doesn’t fall into the wrong hands.” So at least somebody had some idea that we could be here. What are we 20, 30 … are we 30 years later? It’s been a long time. Anyway, that’s my two cents. All right, next up, Mississippi is flirting with actually expanding Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. It’s one of only 10 remaining states that has not extended the program to people who have very low incomes but don’t meet the so-called categorical eligibility requirements like being a pregnant woman or child or person with a disability.

The Mississippi House passed an expansion bill including a fairly stringent work requirement by a veto-proof majority last week, week before.

Kenen: I think two weeks ago.

Rovner: But even if it passed the Senate and gets signed by the governor, which is still a pretty big if, the governor is reportedly lobbying hard against it. The plan would require a waiver from the Biden administration, which is not a big fan of work requirements. On the other hand, even if it doesn’t happen, and I would probably put my money at this point that it’s not going to happen this year, does it signal that some of the most strident, holdout states might be seeing the attraction of a 90% federal match and some of the pleas of their hospital associations? Anna, I see you nodding.

Edney: Yeah, I mean it was a little surprising, but this is also why I love statehouses. They just do these unexpected things that maybe make sense for their constituents sometimes, and it’s not all the time. I thought that it seemed like they had come around to the fact that this is a lot of money for Mississippi and it can help a lot of people. I think I’ve seen numbers like maybe adding 200,000 or so to the rolls, and so that’s a huge boost for people living there. And with the work requirement, is it true that even if the Biden administration rejects it, this plan can still go into place, right?

Kenen: The House version.

Edney: The House version.

Kenen: Yes.

Edney: Yeah.

Rovner: My guess is that’s why the governor is lobbying so hard against it. But yeah.

Kenen: I mean, I think that we had been watching a couple of states, we keep hearing Alabama was one of the states that has been talking about it but not doing anything about it. Wyoming, which surprised me when they had a little spurt of activity, which I think has subsided. I mean, what we’ve been saying ever since the Supreme Court made this optional for states more than 10 years ago now. Was it 2012? We’ve been saying eventually they’ll all do it. Keeping in mind that original Medicaid in [19]65, it took until 1982, which neither Julie nor I covered, until the last state, which was Arizona, took regular Medicare, Medicaid, the big — forget the ACA stuff. I mean, Medicaid was not in all states for almost 20 years. So I think we’ve all said eventually they’re going to do it. I don’t think that we are about to see a domino effect that North Carolina, which is a purple state, they did it a few months ago, maybe a year by now.

There was talk then that, “Oh, all the rest will do it.” No, all the rest will probably do it eventually, but not tomorrow. Mississippi is one of the poorest states in the country. It has one of the lowest health statuses of their population, obesity, diabetes, other chronic diseases. It has a very small Medicaid program. The eligibility levels are even for very, very, very poor childless adults, you can’t get on their plan. But have we heard rural hospitals pushing for this for a decade? Yes. Have we heard chambers of commerce in some of these states wanting it because communities without hospitals or communities without robust health systems are not economically attractive? We’ve been hearing the business community push for this for a long time. But the holdouts are still holdouts and I do think they will all take it. I don’t think it’s imminent.

Rovner: Yeah, I think that’s probably a fair assessment.

Kenen: It makes good economic sense, I mean, you’re getting all this money from the federal government to cover poor people and keep your hospitals open. But it’s a political fight. It’s not just a …

Rovner: It’s ideology.

Kenen: Yes, it’s not a [inaudible]. And it’s called Obamacare.

Edney: And sometimes things just have to fall into place. Mississippi got a new speaker of the House in their state government, so that’s his decision to push this as something that the House was going to take up. So whether that happens in other places, whether all those cards fall into places can take more time.

Kenen: Well, the last thing is we also know it’s popular with voters because we’ve seen it on the ballot in what, seven states, eight states, I forgot. And it won, and it won pretty big in really conservative states like Idaho and Utah. So as Julie said, this is ideology, it’s state lawmakers, it’s governors, it’s not voters, it’s not hospitals, it’s not chambers of commerce. It’s not particularly rural hospitals. A lot of people think this makes sense, but their own governments don’t think it makes sense.

Rovner: Yes. Well, another of those stories that moves very, very slowly. Finally, “This Week in Medical Misinformation”: I want to call out those who are fighting back against those who are accusing them of spreading false or misleading claims. I know this sounds confusing. Specifically, 16 conservative state attorneys general have called on YouTube to correct a, quote, “context disclaimer” that it put on videos posted by the anti-abortion Alliance Defending Freedom claiming serious and scientifically unproven harms that can be caused by the abortion pill mifepristone.

Unfortunately, for YouTube, their context disclaimer was a little clunky and conflated medication and surgical abortion, which still doesn’t make the original ADF videos more accurate, just means that the disclaimer wasn’t quite right. Meanwhile, more anti-abortion states are having legal rather than medical experts try to “explain” — and I put explain in air quotes — when an abortion to save the life of a woman is or isn’t legal, which isn’t really helping clarify the situation much if you are a doctor worried about having your license pulled or, at best, ending up having to defend yourself in court. It feels like misinformation is now being used as a weapon as well as a way to mislead people. Or am I reading this wrong?

Edney: I mean, I had to read that disclaimer a few times. Just the whole back-and-forth was confusing enough. And so it does feel like we’re getting into this new era of, if you say one wrong thing against the disinformation, that’s going to be used against you. So everybody has to be really careful. And the disclaimer, it was odd because I thought it said the procedure is [inaudible]. So that made me think, oh, they’re just talking about the actual surgical abortion. But it was clunky. I think clunky is a good word that you used for it. So yeah.

Rovner: Yeah, it worries me. I think I see all of this — people who want to put out misinformation. I’m not accusing ADF of saying, “We’re going to put out misinformation.” I think this is what they’ve been saying all along, but people who do want to put out misinformation for misinformation’s sake are then going to hit back at the people who point out that it’s misinformation, which of course there’s no way for the public to then know who the heck is right. And it undercuts the idea of trying to point out some of this misinformation. People ask me wherever I go, “What are we going to do about this misinformation?” My answer is, “I don’t know, but I hope somebody thinks of something.”

Kenen: I mean, if you word something poorly, you got to fix it. I mean, that’s just the bottom line. Just like we as journalists have to come clean when we make a mistake. And it feels bad to have to write a correction, but we do it. So Google has been working on — there’s a group convened by the Institute of Medicine [National Academy of Medicine] and the World Health Organization and some others that have come out with guidelines and credible communicators, like who can you trust? I mean, we talked about the RSV [respiratory syncytial virus] story I did a few weeks ago, and if you Google RSV vaccine on and you look on YouTube or Google, it’s not that there’s zero misinformation, but there’s a lot less than there used to be. And what comes up first is the reliable stuff: CDC, Mayo Clinic, things like that. So YouTube has been really working on weeding out the disinformation, but again, for their own credibility, if they want to be seen as clean arbiters of going with credibility, if they get something mushy, they’ve got to de-mush it at the end.

Rovner: And I will say that Twitter of all places — or X, whatever you want to call it, the place that everybody now is like, “Don’t go there. It’s just a mess” — has these community notes that get attached to some of the posts that I actually find fairly helpful and it lets you rate it.

Kenen: Some of them, I mean overall, there’s actually research on that. We’ll talk about my book when it comes out next year, but we have stuff. I’m in the final stages of co-authoring a book that … it goes into misinformation, which is why I’ve learned a lot about this. Community Notes has been really uneven and …

Rovner: I guess when it pops up in my feed, I have found it surprisingly helpful and I thought, “This is not what I expect to see on this site.”

Kenen: And it hasn’t stopped [Elon] Musk himself from tweeting misinformation about drugs …

Rovner: That’s certainly true.

Kenen: … drugs he doesn’t like, including the birth control pill he tells people not to use because it promotes suicide. So basically, yeah, Julie, you’re right that we need tools to fight it, and none of the tools we currently have are particularly effective yet. And absolutely everything gets politicized.

Sanger-Katz: And it’s a real challenge I think for these social media platforms. You know what I mean? They don’t really want to be in the editorial business. I think they don’t really want to be in the moderation business in large part. And so you can see them grappling with the problem of the most egregious forms of misinformation on their platforms, but doing it clumsily and anxiously and maybe making mistakes along the way. I think it’s not a natural function for these companies, and I think it’s not a comfortable function for the people that run these companies, who I think are much more committed to free discourse and algorithmic sharing of information and trying to boost engagement as opposed to trying to operate the way a newspaper editor might be in selecting the most useful and true information and foregrounding that.

Kenen: Yeah, I mean that’s what the Supreme Court has been grappling with too, is another [inaudible] … what are the rules of the game? What should be legally enforced? What is their responsibility, that the social media company’s responsibilities, to moderate versus what is just people get to post? I mean, Google’s trying to use algorithms to promote credible communicators. It’s not that nothing wrong is there, but it’s not what you see first.

Rovner: I think it’s definitely the issue of the 2020s. It is not going away anytime soon.

Kenen: And it’s not just about health.

Rovner: Oh, absolutely. I know. Well, that is the news for this week. Now, we will play my interview with Dr. Kelly Henning of Bloomberg Philanthropies, and then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am so pleased to welcome to the podcast Dr. Kelly Henning, who heads the Bloomberg Philanthropies Public Health program. She’s here to tell us about a new documentary series about the past, present, and future of public health called “The Invisible Shield.” It premieres on PBS on March 26. Dr. Henning, thank you so much for joining us.

Kelly Henning: Thank you for having me.

Rovner: So the tagline for this series is, “Public health saved your life today, and you don’t even know it.” You’ve worked in public health in a lot of capacities for a lot of years, so have I. Why has public health been so invisible for most of the time?

Henning: It’s a really interesting phenomenon, and I think, Julie, we all take public health for granted on some level. It is what really protects people across the country and across the world, but it is quite invisible. So usually if things are working really well in public health, you don’t think about it at all. Things like excellent vaccination programs, clean water, clean air, these are all public health programs. But I think most people don’t really give them a lot of thought every day.

Rovner: Until we need them, and then they get completely controversial.

Henning: So to that point, covid-19 and the recent pandemic really was a moment when public health was in the spotlight very much no longer behind an invisible shield, but quite out in front. And so this seemed like a moment when we really wanted to unpack a little bit more around public health and talk about how it works, why it’s so important, and what some of the opportunities are to continue to support it.

Rovner: I feel like even before the pandemic, though, the perceptions of public health were changing. I guess it had something to do with a general anti-science, anti-authority rising trend. Were there warning signs that public health was about to explode in people’s consciousness in not necessarily a good way?

Henning: Well, I think those are all good points, but I also think that there are young generations of students who have become very interested in public health. It’s one of the leading undergraduate majors nowadays. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health has more applications than ever before, and that was occurring before the pandemic and even more so throughout. So I think it’s a bit of a mixed situation. I do think public health in the United States has had some really difficult times in terms of life expectancy. So we started to see declines in life expectancy way back in 2017. So we have had challenges on the program side, but I think this film is an opportunity for us to talk more deeply about public health.

Rovner: Remind people what are some of the things that public health has brought us besides, we talk about vaccines and clean water and clean air, but there’s a lot more to public health than the big headlines.

Henning: Yeah, I mean, for example, seat belts. Every day we get into our vehicle, we put a seat belt on, but I think most people don’t realize that was initially extremely controversial and actually not so easy to get that policy in place. And yet it saved literally tens of hundreds of thousands of lives across the U.S. and now across the world. So seat belts are something that often come to mind. Similar to that are things like child restraints, what we would call car seats in the U.S. That’s another similar strategy that’s been very much promoted and the evidence has been created through public health initiatives. There are other things like window guards. In cities, there are window guards that help children not fall out of windows from high buildings. Again, those are public health initiatives that many people are quite unaware of.

Rovner: How can this documentary help change the perception of public health? Right now I think when people think of public health, they think of people fighting over mask mandates and people fighting over covid vaccines.

Henning: Yeah, I really hope that this documentary will give people some perspective around all the ways in which public health has been working behind the scenes over decades. Also, I hope that this documentary will allow the public to see some of those workers and what they face, those public health front-line workers. And those are not just physicians, but scientists, activists, reformers, engineers, government officials, all kinds of people from all disciplines working in public health. It’s a moment to shine a light on that. And then lastly, I hope it’s hopeful. I hope it shows us that there are opportunities still to come in the space of public health and many, many more things we can do together.

Rovner: Longtime listeners to the podcast will know that I’ve been exploring the question of why it has been so difficult to communicate the benefits of public health to the public, as I’ve talked to lots of people, including experts in messaging and communication. What is your solution for how we can better communicate to the public all of the things that public health has done for them?

Henning: Well, Julie, I don’t have one solution, but I do think that public health has to take this issue of communication more seriously. So we have to really develop strategies and meet people where they are, make sure that we are bringing those messages to communities, and the messengers are people that the community feels are trustworthy and that are really appropriate spokespeople for them. I also think that this issue of communications is evolving. People are getting their information in different ways, so public health has to move with the times and be prepared for that. And lastly, I think this “Invisible Shield” documentary is an opportunity for people to hear and learn and understand more about the history of public health and where it’s going.

Rovner: Dr. Kelly Henning, thank you so much for joining us. I really look forward to watching the entire series. 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. Joanne, you have everybody’s favorite story this week. Why don’t you go first?

Kenen: I demanded the right to do this one, and it’s Olga, I think her last name is pronounced Khazan. I actually know her and I don’t know how to pronounce her name, but Olga Khazan, apologies if I’ve got it wrong, from The Atlantic, has a story that says “Frigid Offices Might Be Killing Women’s Productivity.” Well, from all of us who are cold, I’m not sure I would want to use the word “frigid,” but of all of us who are cold in the office and sitting there with blankets. I used to have a contraband, very small space heater hidden behind a trash basket under my desk. We freeze because men like colder temperatures and they’re wearing suits. So we’ve been complaining about being cold, but there’s actually a study now that shows that it actually hurts our actual cognitive performance. And this is one study, there’s more to come, but it may also be one explanation for why high school girls do worse than high school boys on math SATs.

Rovner: Did not read that part.

Kenen: It’s not just comfort in the battle over the thermostat, it’s actually how do our brains function and can we do our best if we’re really cold?

Rovner: True. Anna.

Edney: This is a departure from my normal doom and gloom. So I’m happy to say this is in Scientific American, “How Hospitals Are Going Green Under Biden’s Climate Legislation.” I thought it was interesting. Apparently if you’re a not-for-profit, there were tax credits that you were not able to use, but the Inflation Reduction Act changed that so that there are some hospitals, and they talked to this Valley Children’s in California, that there had been rolling blackouts after some fires and things like that, and they wanted to put in a micro-grid and a solar farm. And so they’ve been able to do that.

And health care contributes a decent amount. I think it’s like 8.5% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. And Biden had established this Office of Climate Change [and Health Equity] a few years ago and within the health department. So this is something that they’re trying to do to battle those things. And I thought that it was just interesting that we’re talking about this on the day that the top story, Margot, in The New York Times is, not by you, but is about how there’s this huge surge in energy demand. And so this is a way people are trying to do it on their own and not be so reliant on that overpowered grid.

Rovner: KFF Health News has done a bunch of stories about contribution to climate change from the health sector, which I had no idea, but it’s big. Margot.

Sanger-Katz: I wanted to highlight the second story in this Lev Facher series on treatment for opioid addiction in Stat called “Rigid Rules at Methadone Clinics Are Jeopardizing Patients’ Path to Recovery From Opioid Addiction,” which is a nice long title that tells you a lot about what is in the story. But I think methadone treatment is a really evidence-based treatment that can be really helpful for a lot of people who have opioid addiction. And I think what this story highlights is that the mechanics of how a lot of these programs work are really hard. They’re punitive, they’re difficult to navigate, they make it really hard for people to have normal lives while they’re undergoing methadone treatment and then, in some cases, arbitrarily so. And so I think it just points out that there are opportunities to potentially do this better in a way that better supports recovery and it supports the lives of people who are in recovery.

Rovner: Yeah, it used the phrase “liquid handcuffs,” which I had not seen before, which was pretty vivid. For those of you who weren’t listening, the Part One of this series was an extra credit last week, so I’ll post links to both of them. My story’s from our friend Dan Diamond at The Washington Post. It’s called “Navy Demoted Ronnie Jackson After Probe Into White House Behavior.” Ronnie Jackson, in case you don’t remember, was the White House physician under Presidents [Barack] Obama and Trump and a 2021 inspector general’s report found, and I’m reading from the story here, quote, “that Jackson berated subordinates in the White House medical unit, made sexual and denigrating statements about a female subordinate, consumed alcohol inappropriately with subordinates, and consumed the sleep drug Ambien while on duty as the president’s physician.” In response to the report, the Navy demoted Jackson retroactively — he’s retired —from a rear admiral down to a captain.

Now, why is any of this important? Well, mainly because Jackson is now a member of Congress and because he still incorrectly refers to himself as a retired admiral. It’s a pretty vivid story, you should really read it.

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. Margot, where are you these days?

Sanger-Katz: I’m at all the places @Sanger-Katz, although not particularly active on any of them.

Rovner: Anna.

Edney: On X, it’s @annaedney and on Threads it’s @anna_edneyreports.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: I’m Threads @joannekenen1, and I’ve been using LinkedIn more. I think some of the other panelists have said that people are beginning to treat that as a place to post, and I think many of us are seeing a little bit more traction there.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

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 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.

For the first time, a jury has convicted a parent on charges related to their child’s mass-shooting crime: A Michigan mother of a school shooter was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. What remains unclear is whether this case succeeded because of compelling evidence of negligence by the shooter’s mother or if this could become a new avenue for gun control advocates to pursue.

Meanwhile, a prominent publisher of medical journals has retracted two articles that lower-court judges used in reaching decisions that the abortion pill mifepristone should be restricted. The case is before the Supreme Court, with oral arguments scheduled for March 26.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories.

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories.

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories.

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Sage Journals, a major medical publisher, has retracted two studies central to abortion opponents’ arguments in a federal court case over access to the abortion pill mifepristone. Although the retraction came before next month’s Supreme Court hearing on the case, the now-discredited studies have permeated the public debate over mifepristone.
• Florida’s Supreme Court has until April 1 to stop a measure about the availability of abortion from appearing on the November ballot. The decision could be pivotal in determining abortion access in the South, as Florida’s current 15-week ban (compared with near-total bans in surrounding states) has made it a regional destination for abortion care.
• In Medicaid news, the nation is about halfway through the “unwinding,” the redetermination process states are undergoing to strip ineligible beneficiaries from the program’s rolls. Although the process will amount to the biggest purge of the Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program rolls in a one-year period, it is expected that, when all is said and done, overall enrollment will look much as it did before the pandemic — though how many people are left uninsured remains to be seen.
• In the states, Georgia is suing the Biden administration to extend its Medicaid work-requirement program. Meanwhile, some states are using Medicaid funding to address housing issues. Despite evidence that addressing housing insecurity can improve health, it is also clear that state budgets would need to be adjusted to meet those needs.
• And in “This Week in Health Misinformation,” PolitiFact awarded a “Pants on Fire!” rating to the claim — in a fundraising ad for Rep. Matt Rosendale (R-Mont.) — that Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “brought COVID to Montana” a year before it spread through the U.S., among other spurious claims.

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

Julie Rovner: Alabama Daily News’ “Alabama Lawmakers Briefed on New ‘ALL Health’ Insurance Coverage Expansion Plan,” by Alexander Willis.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “FDA Urged to Move Faster to Fix Pulse Oximeters for Darker-Skinned Patients,” by Usha Lee McFarling.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Atlantic’s “GoFundMe Is a Health-Care Utility Now,” by Elisabeth Rosenthal.

Rachana Pradhan: North Carolina Health News’ “Atrium Health: A Unit of ‘Local Government’ Like No Other,” by Michelle Crouch and the Charlotte Ledger.

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Sage Journals’ “Retraction Notice.”
• KFF Health News’ “Halfway Through ‘Unwinding,’ Medicaid Enrollment Is Down About 10 Million,” by Phil Galewitz.
• KFF Health News’ “Congressman Off-Base in Ad Claiming Fauci Shipped Covid to Montana Before the Pandemic,” by Katheryn Houghton.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: To End School Shootings, Activists Consider a New Culprit: Parents

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: To End School Shootings, Activists Consider a New Culprit: ParentsEpisode Number: 333Published: Feb. 8, 2024

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

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: No interview today, so we will get straight to the news. We’re going to start in Michigan this week, where a jury convicted the mother of a teenager, who shot 10 of his high school classmates and killed four of them, of involuntary manslaughter. This is the first time the parent of an underage mass school shooter has been successfully prosecuted. The shooter’s father will be tried separately starting next month. Some gun control advocates say this could open the door to lots more cases like this, but others think this may have been a one-off because prosecutors had particularly strong evidence that both parents should have known that their son was both in mental distress and had easy access to their unlocked gun. Is this possibly a whole new avenue to pursue for the whole “What are we going to do about school shooters?” problem?

Ollstein: I mean, it seems like we’re just in an era where people are just trying various different things. I mean, there was ongoing efforts to try to hold gun manufacturers liable. There were efforts on a lot of different fronts. And the goal is to prevent more shootings in the future and prevent more deaths. And so, I think the goal here is to impress upon other parents to be more responsible in terms of weapon storage and also in terms of being aware of their child’s distress.

So, whether or not that happens, I think, remains to be seen, but these shootings have just gone on and on and on and not slowed down. And so, I think there’s just a desperation to try different solutions.

Rovner: Yeah. Apparently in other states they’re starting to look at this, but I guess we talk so much about the chilling effect. That’s actually what they’re going for here, right? As you say, to try and get parents to at least be more careful if they have guns in the house of how they’re storing them, and who has access to them.

Well, we will turn to abortion now. As we noted last week, the Supreme Court will hear the case challenging the FDA’s approval of the abortion drug mifepristone on March 26. We’ll get to some of the amicus briefs that are flooding in, in a minute. But I think the most surprising thing that happened this week is that two of the journal studies that the appeals court relied on in challenging the FDA’s actions were officially retracted this week by the journal’s publisher, Sage.

In a very pointed statement, Sage editors wrote that it had been unaware that the authors, and in one case one of the peer reviewers, were all affiliated with anti-abortion advocacy organizations and that the articles were found by a new set of peer reviewers to have, “fundamental problems with study design and methodology, unjustified or incorrect factual assumptions, material errors in the author’s analysis of the data.” And a lot more problems I won’t get into, but we will post the link to the entire statement in our show notes.

Now, close listeners to the podcast might remember that we talked about this last August, when a pharmacy professor in Georgia alerted the journals to some of the substantive and political problems, and Sage printed something at the time called an expression of concern. Alice, these articles were cited many times in both the lower-court and the appeals-court rulings. What does it mean that they’ve been formally disavowed by their publisher?

Ollstein: It’s really hard to tell what it’s going to mean because we’re in an era where facts don’t always matter in the courts. I mean, we had recently a whole Supreme Court case about a wedding website designer that was based on facts that did not turn out to be true about their standing. The football coach who prayed on the 50-yard line turned out to not be a true story.

And so, it’s really hard to tell. And pro-abortion rights groups have been arguing that evidence cited by the lower court was not scientifically sound. And so, it’s this “flood the zone with competing studies.” And the average person is just confused and throws up their hands. So, in terms of how much it’ll matter, I’m not sure. You already have the groups in question behind the retracted study accusing the publisher of bias. I think this back-and-forth and finger-pointing will continue, and it’s unclear what effect it’ll actually have in court.

Pradhan: I think the thing that I find troubling about it is it’s … and it’s happened with other issues too. It certainly happened during the covid-19 pandemic, where people would say that there would be research or science via press release instead of academic research really undergoing the controls that it is meant to undergo before it’s released and published in a journal. And I hope at the very least that it leads to this, if we’re going to get some amount of good change, it’s that it really does reinforce the need for really rigorous checks, regardless of what the subject of the study is, because clearly these things, it has real consequences.

And frankly, I mean, look at one of the best-known examples of a retracted study which links vaccines to autism. I mean, that happened. It was widely discredited after the fact, and it is still doing harm in society, even though it’s been retracted and the researcher discredited. So, I think it really underscores the importance. I hope that frankly some of these journals get their act together before they publish things that … because it’s too little too late by the time that the damage has been done already.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like I would say the judicial version of the journalistic “he said, she said.”

Ollstein: I mean, that’s such a good point by Rachana about how the damage is already done in the public understanding of it. But I also am pretty cynical about the ramifications in court specifically, particularly given the fact that the same lower court that cited these studies also cited things that weren’t peer-reviewed or published in medical journals at all. Things that were just these online surveys of self-reported problems with abortion pills. And so, there doesn’t seem to be a clear bar for scientific rigor in the courts.

Karlin-Smith: I was going to say that gets to this fundamental issue in this case, which is: Are judges capable of really assessing the kinds of evidence you need to make these decisions or whether we should trust the FDA and the people we’ve charged with that to do that? Because they know how to look at research papers and the range of research papers out there and evaluate what science is credible, what’s been replicated, look for these problems.

Because if you want to make an argument, you probably can always find one scientific paper or two scientific paper that might seem like it was published in some journal somewhere that can help support your point, but it’s being able to really understand how science works and back it up with that breadth of evidence and the accurate and really reliable evidence.

Rovner: Yeah. I would note that one of the amicus briefs came from a bunch of former heads of the FDA who are very concerned that judges are taking on, basically, the kind of scientific questions that have been ceded to the expertise of the FDA over many, many generations. I don’t remember another amicus brief like this coming from former FDA commissioners banding together. Have you seen this before?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. I mean, I certainly can’t think of something like it, but I haven’t necessarily scoured the history books to make sure of it, but it is pretty unusual. I did actually note that [former President Donald] Trump’s two FDA commissioners are not among the alive possible FDA commissioners who could have joined in, that didn’t join in on this one, which is interesting.

Ollstein: Oh, I just think that we’re seeing a lot of the medical community that has previously tried to stay above the fray now feeling like this is such a threat to the practice of medicine and regulatory scientific bodies that they feel like they have to get involved, where they didn’t before. And now you’ve reported a lot on how much the AMA [American Medical Association] has changed over time.

But I think seeing these folks in the medical community that aren’t exactly waving a flag at the front of the abortion rights parade really speaking out about this, and it’s a really interesting shift.

Pradhan: It’s certainly a case that challenges the administrative state, if you will, right? Like the one about mifepristone, about FDA’s expertise in science and scientific background in assessing whether a drug should be approved or not.

But as you all know, there’s another case going before the Supreme Court that challenges what’s known as the Chevron doctrine, which is how the agencies are relied upon to interpret federal laws and court rulings, and it’s their expertise that is deferred to, that also is now, I think being questioned and very well could be undermined potentially next year. So, who else? I guess it’s either judges or lawmakers that are supposed to be the ones that truly know how to implement various laws, instead of the folks that are working at these agencies.

Rovner: As you say, this is a lot broader than just the abortion pill. One of the briefs that I didn’t expect to see came from the former secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force who argued that restricting medication abortion would threaten military readiness by hurting recruitment and retainment and the ability for active women service members in states that ban abortion to basically be able to serve. I did not have that particular amicus on my bingo card, but, Alice, this is becoming a bigger issue. Right?

Ollstein: Well, it’s just interesting because I think about the Biden administration policy supporting service members traveling across state lines for an abortion if they’re stationed in a state where it’s now banned. And the administration has been defending that policy from attacks from Capitol Hill, et cetera, and saying, “Look, we’re not backing this policy because it’s some high-minded abortion right priority. We’re backing this because they think it’s good for the military itself.”

And so, I think this amicus brief is making that same case and saying, having tens of thousands of service members lose access to decision-making ability would really hurt the military. So, I think that’s an interesting argument. Again, like these medical groups, you don’t see the military making this kind of case very often and you might not see it under a different administration.

Rovner: Yeah. It’s yet another piece of this that’s flowing out. Well, not everything on abortion is happening in Washington. The states are still skirmishing over whether abortion questions should even appear on ballots this fall. The latest happened in Florida this week, where the Supreme Court there heard arguments about a ballot question that would broadly guarantee abortion rights in the state. Alice, you were watching that, yes?

Ollstein: Yeah. It was an interesting mixed bag because most of the current state Supreme Court was appointed by [Republican Gov.] Ron DeSantis. These are very conservative people, a lot of them are very openly anti-abortion, and were making that clear during the oral arguments, and they were repeating anti-abortion talking points about what the amendment would do. But at the same time, they seemed really skeptical of the state’s argument that they should block it and kill it.

They were saying, “Look, it’s not our job to decide whether this amendment is good or not. It’s our job to decide whether the language is deceptive or not, whether voters who go to vote on it will understand what they’re voting for and against.” And so, they had this whole analogy of, “Is this a wolf in sheep’s clothing or is it just a wolf?” They seem to be leaning towards “it’s just a wolf” and voters can decide for themselves if they think it’s good or bad.

Rovner: Well, my favorite fun fact out of this case yesterday is that one of the five Republican members of the seven-member Florida Supreme Court is Charles Kennedy, who, when he was serving in the House in the 1990s, was the first member of Congress to introduce a bill to ban “partial-birth” abortion. So, he was at the very, very forefront of that very, very heated debate for many years. And now he is on the Florida Supreme Court, and we will see what they say.

Do we have any idea when we’re expecting a decision? Obviously, ballots are going to have to be printed in the not-too-distant future.

Ollstein: Yes. So, the court has to rule before April 1, otherwise the ballot measure will automatically go forward. And so, they can either rule to block it and kill it, they can rule to uphold it, or they can do nothing and then it’ll just go forward on its own.

Pradhan: The thing that — what I keep thinking about too is so, OK, they’ve indicated that they have to rule, right, by April 1. But then we also have this separate pending matter of what is the status of the six-week ban that is still blocked currently? And I just keep wondering, I’m like, how much could change over the course of 2024? We still don’t have a decision on that, even though that’s been pending for much longer. No?

Rovner: Yeah. Where is the Florida six-week ban? It’s not in effect, right?

Ollstein: Yes. There was the hearing on the 15-week ban, and if that gets upheld, the six-week ban automatically goes into effect after a certain period of time. So, we’re waiting on a ruling on the 15-week ban, which will determine the fate of the six-week ban, and then the ballot measure could wipe out both, potentially.

Pradhan: Right. So, it’s very topsy-turvy.

Ollstein: It’s very simple, very simple.

Pradhan: Right. Yeah. I mean, even just the 15-week ban and the six-week ban, to me, at first it was counterintuitive to think, “Oh, so either both of them stand or neither of them do.” So, it seems like we could be in for many, many changes in Florida this year, but I’m very curious about when that is going to happen because it’s been much longer since … rather than the abortion rights ballot measure for this year.

Rovner: And meanwhile, I mean, Florida is a really key state in this whole issue because it’s one of the only states in the South where abortion is still available, right?

Ollstein: Right. And we saw how important it’s become in the data where the number of abortions taking place plummeted in so many states, but in Florida, they’ve actually gone up since Dobbs, even with the 15-week ban in place. A lot of that is people coming from surrounding states. And so, it is really pivotal, and I think that’s why you’re seeing these big national groups like Planned Parenthood really prioritizing it, and there’s so many different ballot measure fights going on, but I think you’re seeing a lot of resources go to Florida, in part for that reason.

Rovner: We will keep an eye on it. Well, we have not talked about Medicaid in a while, and conveniently, my KFF Health News colleague Phil Galewitz has an interesting story this week that halfway through the largest eligibility redetermination in history, Medicaid rolls nationwide are down net about 10 million people or at roughly the number that they were before the pandemic. Rachana, you spend a lot of time looking at Medicaid. Does that surprise you, that the rolls ended up where they were before?

Pradhan: I think, no, not necessarily. Our esteemed KFF colleague Larry Levitt put it really well in the story Phil wrote, which is that the rapid clip at which this is happening is obviously notable, right? It is not normal for how fast enrollment is declining.

I do think the thing that I wish we had, and we only, I think maybe from a state or two know this, but we certainly don’t have nationwide data and won’t for several years, but how many of these people are becoming uninsured? I think at the end of the day, that’s really what big picture-wise matters. Right? But I think certainly, I mean, the unwinding is still occurring. We’re still probably going to have disenrollments that will, I think at least through basically the first half of this year, certain states are still going to take that long. And so, we really won’t know the full picture for obviously a little bit, but I thought that Phil’s piece was really interesting and on point, for sure.

Rovner: Yeah. We talked about how many more people joined the exchanges this year, on now ACA [Affordable Care Act] coverage. Anecdotally, we know that a lot of those came from being disenrolled from Medicaid, and obviously Medicaid is always full of churn. People get jobs and they get job insurance, and they go on, and then other people lose jobs and they lose their job insurance and they qualify for Medicaid. So, there’s always a lot of ups and downs.

But I’m just wondering, the rolls had gotten so swell during the pandemic when states were not allowed to take people off, that I think it will be interesting that when this is all said and done, Medicaid rolls end up where you would’ve expected them to be had there not been a pandemic, right?

Pradhan: Right. I think that what’ll be interesting to see is, I mean, we have some sense of ACA marketplace enrollment, the way it increased this past open enrollment, but again, we don’t know if some of those Medicaid enrollees, how many of them have shifted to job-based plans, if they have at all, or if they’ve just fallen off the rolls entirely.

One of the other things I think about also is the macro-level picture, of course, is important and good, but knowing who has lost their coverage is also … and so, children, I think have been impacted quite a lot by these disenrollments, and so that’s certainly something to keep in mind and keep an eye on. Right?

Rovner: Yeah. And I know, I mean, the federal government obviously has, I think, more data than they’re sharing about this because we know they’ve quietly or not so quietly told some states that they wish they were doing things differently and they should do things differently. But I think they’re trying very hard not to politicize this. And so, I think it’s frustrating for people who are trying to follow it because we know that they know more than we know, and we would like to know some of the things that they know, but I guess we’re not going to find out, at least not right away.

Well, so remember that work requirement that Georgia got permission to put in, as opposed to just expanding Medicaid? Georgia, remember, is one of the 10 states that have yet to expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act. Well, now Georgia is suing the Biden administration to try to keep their experiment going, which seems like a lot of trouble for a program that has enrolled only 2,300 of a potential pool of 100,000 people. Why does Georgia think that extending its program is going to increase enrollment substantially? Clearly, this is not going over in a very big way for the work requirements. Alice, you’ve been our work-requirement person. I’ll bet you’re not surprised.

Ollstein: So, the state’s argument is that all of the back-and-forth with the administration before they launched this partial, limited, whatever you want to call it, expansion, they say that that didn’t give them enough time to successfully implement it and that they shouldn’t be judged on the small amount of people they’ve enrolled so far. They should be given more time to really make it a success.

We don’t have a ton of data of what it looks like when states really go all in on these work requirements, but what we have shows that it really limits enrollment and a lot of people who should qualify are falling through the cracks. So, I don’t know if more time would help here, in Georgia and in some other states that haven’t expanded yet. There’s a real tussle right now between the people who just want to take the federal help and just do a real, full expansion like so many other states have done, and those who want to put more of a conservative stamp on the idea and feel like they’re not just wholeheartedly embracing something that they railed against for so many years.

Rovner: Yeah. Just a gentle reminder that the majority of people on Medicaid either are working or cannot work or are taking care of someone who cannot work. And that in the few states that tried to implement work requirements, the problem wasn’t so much that they weren’t working, it’s that they were having trouble reporting their work hours, that that turned out to be a bigger issue than actually whether or not they were … the perception that, I guess, from some of these state leaders that people on Medicaid are just sitting at home and collecting their Medicaid, turns out not to be the case, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t get kicked off the program likely when they shouldn’t.

I mean, that’s what we saw, Alice, you were in … it was Arkansas, right, that tried to do this and it all blew up?

Ollstein: That’s right. And there were other factors there that made it harder for folks to use the program. But I mean, everywhere that’s tried this, it shows that the administrative burdens of having to report hours trip people up and make it so that people who are working still struggle to prove they’re working or to prove they’re working in the right way in order to qualify for insurance that they theoretically should be entitled to.

Rovner: Well, before we leave Medicaid for this week, I want to talk about the newest state trend, which is using Medicaid money to help pay for housing for people who are homeless or at risk of eviction. California is doing it, so are Arizona and Oregon; even Arkansas is joining the club. All of them encouraged by the Biden administration.

The idea is to keep people from ending up in places that are even more expensive for taxpayers, in hospitals or jails or nursing homes, and that so very many health problems cannot be addressed unless patients have a stable place to live. But pouring money earmarked for health services into housing is a really slippery slope, isn’t it? I mean, we obviously have a housing crisis, but it’s hard to feel like Medicaid’s going to be able to plug that hole very effectively.

Karlin-Smith: I feel like that’s where some of the debate is moving next, which is there’s certainly lots of evidence that shows how much being unhoused impacts somebody’s health and their life span and so forth. But state Medicaid programs have to balance their budget and are usually not unlimited. And for me, in following drugs, that’s been a big issue with some of the really new expensive drugs coming on the market is it’s not that Medicaid doesn’t necessarily want to cover it, it’s that if they cover it, they might have to cut some other health service somewhere else, which they also don’t want to cut.

So, I think maybe this evidence of the ability to improve health through housing might have to lead to thinking about, OK, how do we change our budgets or our systems to ensure we’re actually tackling that? But I’m not sure that long-term, unless we really expand the funding of Medicaid, you can really continue doing that and serve all the traditional health needs Medicaid serves.

Pradhan: Yeah, I mean, if you think about Medicaid, I mean, just going back to the bread and butter of reimbursement of providers. I mean, everyone knows that it’s bad, right? It’s too low, it’s lower than Medicare, it’s lower than commercial insurance, and it affects even a Medicaid enrollee’s ability to see a primary care doctor, specialists. I mean, because there are clinicians that will not accept Medicaid as a form of insurance because they lose too much money on it.

And so, I think this is, it’s interesting, I think there’s this big philosophical debate of, is this Medicaid’s problem? Should it be paying for this type of need when there are so many other, you could argue, unmet needs in the program that you could be spending money on? But these states are not necessarily doing that. And so, I think, obviously, I think it would help to have housing stability, but it, for me, raises these broader questions of, but look at all these other things. Like Sarah said, being able to afford drugs that are expensive, but also are quite effective potentially and could really help people. But they’re already scrambling to do those basic things and now they’re moving on to, is it a new shiny toy? Or, something that’s obviously important, but then you’re ignoring some of the other challenges that have existed for a long time.

Rovner: And housing is only one of these social determinants of health that people are trying to address. And it’s absolutely true. I mean, nobody suggests that not having housing and nutrition and lots of other things very much affect your health, and if people have them, they’re very much likely to do better health-wise. But whether that should all fall to the Medicaid program is something that I think is going to have to be sorted out.

Well, back here in Washington, Congress is having some kind of week, mostly not on health care. So, if you’re interested in the gory details, you’re going to have to find them someplace else. But in the midst of the chaos, the House yesterday did manage to pass a bill called the Protecting [Health] Care for [All] Patients Act [of 2022], which certainly sounds benign enough. Its purpose is to ban the use of a measurement called quality-adjusted life years or QALYs, as they’re known. But Sarah, this is way more controversial than it seems, right? Particularly given the bill passed on a party-line vote.

Karlin-Smith: To back up a little bit, quality-adjusted life years, or QALYs, it’s basically a way to figure out cost-effectiveness or what’s a fair price of a product based on the dollar amount that they’re saying it costs per year of quality of your life extended. So, it’s not just taking into account if your life’s extended, but the quality of your life during that time.

And a lot of people have trouble with that metric because they feel like it unfairly penalizes people with disabilities or conditions where the quality of your life might not seem quite the same as somebody who a drug can make you almost perfectly healthy, if that makes sense? And so actually, Democrats are fairly in alignment with Republicans on not being huge fans of the QALY, that particular measure. It’s actually already banned in Medicare, but they are concerned that the way Republicans drafted this bill, it could make it pretty much hard to use any kind of metric that tries to help programs, state agencies, the VA, figure out what’s a fair price to pay for a drug. And then you get into really difficult problems figuring out what to cover, how to negotiate with a drug company for that.

So, Democrats have actually been pushing Republicans to take out some language that might basically narrow the bill or ensure you could use some other measures that are similar to QALYs, but they argue is a bit fairer for the entire populace. So, something that potentially down the road there could be some bipartisan agreement to ban this measure. I think the concern from people who work in the health economist space is that it does make people, I think, uncomfortable thinking about placing this dollar value on life.

But the flip side is, is that again, every drug that saves your life, we can’t spend a billion dollars on it. Right? And so, we have to come up with some way to effectively figure out how to bargain and deal with the drugmakers to figure out what is a fair price for the system. And these are tools to do it, and they’re really not meant to penalize people on an individual basis, because, again, if the drug is priced way too high, regardless of how beneficial it is, the system and you are not going to be able to afford it. It’s a way of figuring out, OK, what is a fair price based on what this does for you? And also then incentivize drug companies to develop drugs that at the price are really a good benefit for the price.

Rovner: It’s so infuriating because I mean, Congress and health policy experts and economists have been talking about cost-effectiveness measures for 30 years, and this was one of the few that there were, and obviously everybody agrees that it is far from perfect and there are a lot of issues. But on the other side, you don’t want to say, “Well, we’re just not going to measure cost-effectiveness in deciding what is allowed.” Which essentially is where we’ve been and what makes our system so expensive, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, you can imagine, like, if you thought about other things that are crucial in your life, like I sometimes think about it, it makes it easier if I think about water, OK, everybody needs water to live. If we let the water utilities charge us $100,000 for every jug of water, we would get into problems.

So again, I think the people that use these metrics and try and think about it, they’re not trying to penalize people or put a price on life in the way I think the politicians use it to get out of this. They’re trying to figure out, how do we fairly allocate resources in society in an equitable way? But it can be easily politicized because it is so hard to talk about these issues when you’re thinking about your health care and what you have access to or not.

Rovner: We will watch this as it moves through what I’m calling the chaotic Congress. Turning to “This Week in Health Misinformation,” we have a story from KFF Health News’ Katheryn Houghton for PolitiFact that earned a rare “Pants on Fire!” rating. It seems that a fundraising ad for Republican congressman Matt Rosendale of Montana, who’s about to become Senate candidate Matt Rosendale of Montana, claims that former NIH [National Institutes of Health] official Tony Fauci brought covid to Montana a year before the pandemic. In other forums, Rosendale has charged that an NIH researcher at Rocky Mountain Laboratories infected bats with covid from China. It actually turns out that the laboratory was studying another coronavirus entirely, not the coronavirus that causes covid, the covid that we think of, and that the virus wasn’t actually shipped, but rather its molecular sequence was provided. To quote from this story, “Rosendale’s claim is wrong about when the scientists began their work, what they were studying, and where they got the materials.” But other than that, these kinds of scary claims keep getting used because they work in campaigns. Right?

Karlin-Smith: It taps into this theme that we’ve seen that Republicans on the Hill have certainly been tapping into over the past year or two of whether covid came from a lab and what funding from the U.S. to China contributed to that, and what do people in the U.S., particularly connected to Democrats, know that they’re not saying.

So, even though as you start to dig into this story and you see every level how it’s just not true, the surface of it, people have already been primed to believe that this is occurring, and it’s been how we do this sort of research in this country has already been politicized. So, if you just see a clip, people are easily persuaded.

Rovner: Yes. I think it was Alice, we started out by saying we’ve become a fact-free society. I think this is another example of it. All right, well that is this week’s news.

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

Pradhan: Oh, sure. The story I wanted to highlight was from North Carolina Health News. It is focusing on a very large health system known as Atrium Health, which is based in Charlotte, North Carolina. And basically, it’s really interesting, it talks about how Atrium actually operates under a public hospital authority. So, it enjoys certain benefits of being a public or government entity, including they avoid millions in state and federal taxes. They have the power of eminent domain, and they are not subject to antitrust regulations.

And again, this is one of the largest health systems in North Carolina, but it’s playing it both ways. Right? It tries to use the advantages of being a public entity like the ones I just named, but when it comes to other requirements to have checks and balances in government, as we do with various levels of government, like having open public meetings, being able to ask for public comment at these meetings and the like, Atrium does not behave like a government entity at all.

I would also note, as an aside, Atrium was, in the past, one of the most litigious hospital systems in North Carolina. They sued their patients for outstanding medical debt until they ended the practice last year. And so, it’s a really interesting story. So, I enjoyed it.

Rovner: It was a really interesting story. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a piece in the Atlantic from KFF [Health] News editor Elisabeth Rosenthal, “GoFundMe Is a Health-Care Utility Now,” and she tracks the rise of people in the U.S. using GoFundMe to help pay for medical bills, which I think, at first, maybe doesn’t seem so bad if people are having another way to help them pay for medical expenses. But she shows how it’s a band-aid for much bigger problems in an unfair and inequitable system. And, really, also documents how it tends to perpetuate the already existing socioeconomic disparities.

So, if you’re somebody who’s famous or has a lot of friends or just has a lot of friends with money, you’re more likely to actually have your crowdfunding campaign succeed than not. And talking about how health systems are actually directing patients there to fund their medical debt. So, it’s just one of those trends that highlights the state of where the U.S. health system is and that our health insurance system, which is in theory supposed to do what GoFundMe is now an extra band-aid for, which is, you pay money over time so that when you are sick, you’re not hit with these huge bills. But that obviously isn’t the case for many people.

Rovner: Indeed. Alice.

Ollstein: So, I have a piece from Stat’s Usha Lee McFarling, and it’s about the FDA coming under pressure to act more quickly now that they know that pulse oximeters, which were really key during the worst months of the covid pandemic for detecting who needed to be hospitalized, that they don’t work on people of color, they don’t work as well on detecting blood oxygen.

And so, it’s a really fascinating story about, now that we know this, how quickly are regulators going to act and how can they act? But also going forward, this is what happens when there’s not enough diversity in clinical trials. You don’t find out about really troubling racial disparities in efficacy until it’s too late and a lot of people have suffered. So, really curious about what reforms come out of this.

Rovner: Yeah, me too. Well, my extra credit this week is from the Alabama Daily News, and it comes with the very vanilla-sounding headline “Alabama Lawmakers Briefed on New ‘ALL Health’ Insurance Coverage Expansion Plan,” by Alexander Willis. Now, Alabama is also one of the 10 remaining states that have not expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, much to the chagrin of the state’s hospitals, which would likely have to provide much less free care if more low-income people actually had insurance, even Medicaid, which, as Rachana points out, doesn’t pay that well. The plan put forward by the state hospital association would create a public-private partnership where those who are in the current coverage gap, the ones who earn too much for Medicaid now, but not enough to qualify for Affordable Care Act subsidies, would get full Medicaid benefits delivered through a private insurer. Ironically, this is basically how neighboring Arkansas, another red state, initially expanded Medicaid back in 2013. I did go and look this up when this happened. And it wasn’t even new then. But still, the plan could provide a quarter of a million people in Alabama with insurance at apparently no additional cost to the state for at least the first five years and maybe the first 10. So, another place where we will watch that space.

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 and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m on Twitter a little bit, @SarahKarlin. And Bluesky, I’m @sarahkarlin-smith, other platforms as well.

Rovner: Alice?

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

Rovner: Rachana?

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X, although my presence lately has been a little lacking.

Rovner: Well, you can definitely find all of us. And we will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KFF Health News

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

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

As this election year begins in earnest, making it harder for Congress to pass bills, lawmakers on Capitol Hill are still struggling to fund the government for the fiscal year that began last October. And many health priorities hang in the balance.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is again wading into the abortion debate, accepting a case out of Idaho that pits a federal law requiring emergency care, including for pregnant women, against the state’s strict abortion ban.

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

Panelists

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

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:

• In Washington, lawmakers have reportedly reached a deal that could pave the way for passing necessary government spending bills. But it is unlikely they will pass a full package before the current extensions end, leaving many federal health programs hanging. And ahead of next week’s Iowa caucuses, it bears asking what Republicans would do in health if the party reclaims the White House.
• The Supreme Court is again stepping into the fray over abortion rights, choosing to review the conflict between Idaho’s abortion ban and a federal law requiring emergency medical care. It is notable that justices did not have to take this case and, by swooping in now, are setting up another major abortion ruling before the 2024 election.
• The Biden administration announced it will scale back so-called conscience protections for health providers that the Trump administration sought to beef up. The back-and-forth over the policy — which was created during the George W. Bush administration — reinforces the importance of pressing presidential candidates about what they would do administratively on abortion policy, rather than asking what bills they might sign into law.
• News out of Florida this week: Newly introduced legislation there would, among other things, classify abortion as a felony and penalize those outside the state involved in the sale or distribution of abortion pills if they are “likely to be used in Florida” — a concerning example of a state effort to regulate access to abortion nationwide.
• And the FDA approved Florida’s request to import drugs from Canada, a change for which Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis is taking credit — though both President Joe Biden and former president Donald Trump could also claim some of that credit. But there are a lot of hurdles left before the state receives its first shipments, and due to the way the policy will be implemented, it may not save the state much money anyway.

“This Week in Health Misinformation” highlights Olympic gold medalist and medical crowdfunding beneficiary Mary Lou Retton, who said this week she could not afford health insurance before her headline-grabbing bout of pneumonia because her preexisting conditions made having insurance too expensive. But a decade into the existence of the Affordable Care Act, the fact is that patients can no longer be penalized on the insurance market for preexisting conditions — and, as the record 20 million Americans who enrolled in ACA coverage this year may attest, there are plenty of federal subsidies available to help afford insurance, too.

Also this week, Rovner interviews American Medical Association President Jesse Ehrenfeld, whose focus is helping the nation’s physicians navigate a rapidly changing health care system.

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

Julie Rovner: CNN’s “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says,” by Sandee LaMotte. Also, ScienceAlert’s “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too,” by Carly Cassella. Also, The Washington Post’s “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products,” by Michael J. Coren.

Tami Luhby: KFF Health News’ “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by Phil Galewitz.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University,” by Rachel Cohrs.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” by Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: All About the (Government) Funding

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 329Episode Number: All About the (Government) FundingPublished: Jan. 11, 2024

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

Julie Rovner: Hello, and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent for KFF Health News, and I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Jan. 11, 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: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Tami Luhby of CNN.

Tami Luhby: Good morning.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with Jesse Ehrenfeld, this year’s president of the American Medical Association. It’s a bumpy time to be a doctor, and the AMA is more relevant than it’s been for quite a few years. But first, this week’s news. So we heard over the weekend that House and Senate negotiators reached a deal on top-line spending ceilings for defense and non-defense discretionary spending.

Actually, they were kind of the top lines, I believe, that they agreed to last summer, and then the House Republicans tried to change. That is all well and good, and it is definitely a prerequisite for passing full-year appropriations bills, but that’s not going to happen between now and Jan. 19, when the first of two temporary spending bills expires. So what do we expect to happen?

Ollstein: I was up on the Hill yesterday, and it’s a very “what they’re saying vs. what they’re doing” situation. They’re talking a lot about, “We got this top line. We’re moving forward. People are somewhat warming to the idea of another short-term CR [continuing resolution] to give them a little breathing room to get this done.” But then Republicans who were pissed about the entire process voted down an unrelated rule on an unrelated bill just to say, “We’re mad.” So that’s obviously not a good sign for getting big things done quickly in the next few weeks.

An issue I’m tracking is also conservatives who are disgruntled about the level of spending being higher than they wanted, saying, “Well, if we’re going to agree to this, we might as well get some policy wins out of it.” And they’re digging in harder on some of these anti-abortion provisions, other culture war things. I think the health care ones are being somewhat overshadowed right now by the immigration border stuff, but the health care things are still in the mix, for sure.

Rovner: Yeah. The CR that expires first also includes continuing authorizations for a bunch of health programs like community health centers and a delay of a bunch of scheduled Medicare payment cuts. Tami, you’re following WIC [Women, Infants, and Children nutrition program], I know, and food stamps. Do we have any idea what the fate is going to be of these things that will also expire when that first CR expires? Do we expect they’ll continue until Congress decides what to do?

Luhby: Well, actually things are looking a little better for WIC participants in terms of a shutdown, not necessarily in terms of full-year funding. But if the government had shut down in October, the USDA warned that it actually only had a few days left of money to provide for WIC. But if the government does shut down next week, then the USDA has told me that SNAP participants, food stamp participants, and WIC participants can expect to continue to get their benefits for food stamps January and February and for WIC January, February, March.

But separate from that, one of the issues that WIC participants have — and WIC, by the way, is the program that provides funding for pregnant women, new moms, infants, and young children to buy groceries. The WIC program is underfunded because there’s actually a big growth in enrollment. And so, even though the Senate provided some more money in their initial bill, they actually need more than a billion dollars more to continue the program at the current participation levels.

And a lot of folks are warning that if Congress doesn’t provide more money, there could actually be waiting lists for the first time in decades. So it’s a big issue that’s continuing because, as we know, the Republicans are not looking to add more money to nutrition assistance.

Rovner: Jumping ahead, it’s a little bit to the abortion debate. This is the argument that if you’re basically going to force women to have babies, you’re going to need to help support them if the women otherwise would’ve had an abortion because they couldn’t afford it. I think where we are with WIC, I think, is sort of the leading edge of this.

Luhby: And WIC is actually very important to that because it also provides breastfeeding assistance and guidance as well as other supports for new moms.

Rovner: So there were things, though, that didn’t even make it into the CR. One of them is the 3.4% cut in Medicare doctor pay. That took effect Jan. 1. Doctors I know would like to get that rolled back. There’s other things that are hoping to catch a ride on whatever the next vehicle is, right?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, one thing I had been watching is PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform. There seemed like there was some bipartisan and bicameral momentum to try and tack that on to the next big moving package. And one positive thing for that is that it does offer some amount of savings that then could be applied to other areas like spending, including potentially helping maybe with some of the Medicare cuts. So that’s something in the mix to look for.

Rovner: Yeah. Something that actually is proceeding on a separate track, right? We don’t expect that to be folded into the appropriations — unless we do. My impression was that was proceeding on its own, at least for the moment.

Karlin-Smith: I think it was proceeding on its own, but there’s been talk of could they fold it into any deal that struck to fund the government, because I think the likelihood that it really does fully clear both the House and Senate on their own is small.

Rovner: Yes, it is an election year. It is harder for Congress to get anything done. Speaking of which, on the campaign trail, the Iowa caucus is next week. Boy, that sort of snuck up on us. Former President [Donald] Trump still seems very likely to win, and he’s once again vowing to undo the Affordable Care Act, which, by the way, hit an all-time enrollment record of 20 million this week. And open enrollment isn’t even quite over. Tami, do we know what Trump would do instead? That seems to be the part. He doesn’t ever say.

Luhby: No. It’s pretty much the same plan that he probably has from 2016 and 2017, which we never really fully learned about. So, no, it’s just going to be replaced with a “better plan” because, in his view, Obamacare is failing, and as we know, [Florida Gov.] Ron DeSantis also jumped on the same bandwagon, saying that he would actually also come up with a better plan, but he needs a few months to think about it.

Rovner: Because it’s always been right about to happen, of course.

Luhby: Well, as you may have heard, health care is complicated.

Rovner: And we’ll see something in two weeks.

Luhby: Right. Along with his block grant proposal for Medicaid that he mentioned at last night’s CNN debate.

Rovner: Yes. I was sort of taken by the comments of how they would fix health care in that debate, because Nikki Haley says, “We can fix it with tort reform and transparency.”

Luhby: Transparency. Yes.

Rovner: Right. Which are nice things, and as we say, almost every week, Congress is working on those things, but they are not going to solve what ails the health care system. All right, let us turn to abortion. Remember last week when I said we were still waiting to hear from the Supreme Court on the emergency petition from Idaho regarding the conflict between its state abortion ban and the federal Emergency Medical Treatment & Active Labor Act, EMTALA?

Well, on Friday, the court not only took the case, it overturned the stay of Idaho’s ban. So, at least for now, doctors cannot even provide abortions in medical emergencies unless the woman is at immediate risk of death. Alice, I assume that gives us a hint of where the court might be going with this case, and I imagine also that similar case out of Texas.

Ollstein: Yeah. So again, with the Supreme Court, you kind of have to read the tea leaves and make educated guesses. They’re obviously very secretive. But people who are following this case closely that I’ve spoken to, they think that both the stay of the lower-court ruling and the fact that they took this case at all is the sign that they’re really gunning for ruling on the side of the state abortion restrictions. Because this is really about the state-federal clash. When state abortion bans run into federal protections for patients in emergency circumstances, and which will prevail in that circumstance. So they didn’t have to take this case. The thinking was there is eventually going to be a circuit split on this issue between the 9th Circuit and the 5th Circuit. But the 9th Circuit hasn’t had a chance to rule yet. And so they could have waited, let this play out, allowed the 9th Circuit to hear the case and issue a decision, that would’ve probably punted this case until after the election. So it’s really interesting that they instead wanted to swoop in, allow Idaho to leapfrog the 9th Circuit, and also insert themselves into this really politically volatile case, and now they’re poised to issue a ruling right before the 2024 election that could have major implications for the whole country.

Rovner: They’re going to hear the mifepristone case before this summer too, right?

Ollstein: Absolutely. And so even people who had sort of assumed on the mifepristone case like, “Oh, the Supreme Court’s going to kind of punt. They’re going to dismiss on standing.” Now, because of how aggressive they’re being in this other case, I have experts telling me, “Well, now I’m not so sure about the mifepristone case. Maybe they don’t care about optics as much as they used to.”

Rovner: Well, also, I think this is this Supreme Court’s theme, of “let states do whatever they want.” Even though federal law is supposed to trump state law, they seem to be reversing that in a rather aggressive fashion.

Ollstein: Yes. A big theme is definitely skepticism of federal rulemaking power. This falls under that same category as well.

Rovner: Well, speaking of federal rulemaking power, those who follow abortion policy in D.C. know that every time an administration changes parties, the so-called Mexico City policy that bans funding to international groups that support abortion rights gets either canceled or restored, depending on which party is in power. Well, now we have another policy that seems to be flip-flopping every time an administration changes. It was a rule first issued at the end of the George W. Bush administration. The so-called conscience rule made it easier for medical professionals and others in health care to decline to provide care that violates their religious or moral beliefs. So not just abortion but transgender care, in some cases, just treating people with AIDS. The Obama administration scaled back the Bush rule, and then the Trump administration broadened it. Then it got blocked by the courts, and now the Biden administration has formally rolled back the Trump changes that never really took effect. Alice, where are we with this?

Ollstein: Like you said, this is a back-and-forth, and I think this is why a lot of the questions being asked of candidates on the campaign trail right now, related to abortion, are the wrong questions. They keep getting asked about what kind of bills they would sign. That’s not the question. The question is what would they do administratively, which they could do so much. They could undo this. They could reverse all kinds of things. I follow the Title X stuff. I follow the Mexico City policy on restrictions on international spending on reproductive health. There’s just so much, obviously — FDA regulation of abortion pills — but these are the things we should be focused [on], not a bill that Congress has shown itself unable to pass even with one-party control of Congress.

Rovner: Nikki Haley keeps correctly saying there aren’t 60 votes for anything in the Senate related to abortion.

Ollstein: Right. But then, she also is saying that to mean a future Republican president couldn’t really do much, and that part is not true. They could do a lot.

Rovner: Exactly. Well, moving on, it’s January, and state legislatures are coming back into session. And we’re seeing some pretty eye-popping bills introduced in Florida, where abortion rights supporters just secured enough signatures to get a referendum protecting abortion rights on the 2024 ballot. Republican state Rep. David Borrero introduced a bill that would not only ban abortion, it would classify it as a third-degree felony with penalties of up to 10 years in prison. It also seeks to reach anyone outside the state who makes, sells, or mails abortion pills if they are, quote, “likely to be used in Florida.” The bill also defines personhood as beginning at the moment of fertilization, which would, among other things, make most birth control illegal and give fetuses constitutional rights. Alice, this bill is obviously not likely to pass, but legislators are playing the long game here by trying to make these things look sort of not out of the ordinary, right?

Ollstein: Yeah, the pill one, I think, is more the one to watch there. I’m curious if other states try to do that as well. Obviously, that runs into legal concerns about regulating interstate commerce, et cetera. But I think that we’ve seen these sort of nation attempts to restrict the movement of both people and medications across state lines, since that is a huge way that people are managing to terminate pregnancies despite bans right now. And so I think there’s only going to be more and more activity in that area to try to close off those remaining outlets for people. But yes, on the personhood front, that’s something that states have been attempting to do for a long time now, obviously more recently. And I think there’s sort of a strategy of, “Let’s just put it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in everything we can. Let’s throw it in bills. Let’s throw it in amicus briefs.” And the hope is to eventually force this issue in court and to get a court to rule on whether the 14th Amendment covers fetuses, basically. Will that happen and when remains to be seen, but there’s definitely an effort to sort of seed it in the landscape.

Rovner: Sarah, this obviously — not so much the personhood part, although maybe that too — but trying to ban the movement of medication is something that clearly impacts the FDA. They seem to have been pretty quiet about this, but there’s an awful lot that seems to be sort of threatening the basic core procedures of what the FDA does. Are you hearing anybody whispering about this? Is there concern?

Karlin-Smith: I think the mifepristone case at the Supreme Court is a concern for people who watch FDA’s power and regulation, not just because of abortion but because it is seen as depending on how the court decides that case is something that really could touch on all of its regulatory authority as well. Certainly, this provision that Florida is trying to put in is really something where they seem like they’re effectively trying to regulate the abortion pill throughout the entire country and regulate manufacturers. So that would be concerning, again, if that somehow came to pass and was not struck down by courts, as Alice mentioned, for interstate commerce regulation, which is not some power that is usually given to the states, but so, in general, the abortion pill controversy makes anybody who’s impacted by the FDA regulation nervous.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, the Federal Trade Commission has entered the chat. This week, it barred a tech company from selling data on people’s visits to medical centers and other health facilities. This was not affecting abortion. They were actually just trying to help people figure out where people are and help them sort of get through their medical undertakings. But this seems like kind of a big deal enforcing privacy post-Dobbs. It’s the first one of these I’ve seen. Have you seen any of these, Alice?

Ollstein: I’m in the same camp as you. Yeah. This is sort of the first I’ve seen of this. But as has been the trend over the last couple of years, it’s a very “throw things against the wall and see what sticks” kind of environment, and so you can’t dismiss the outliers because the outliers can very quickly become the norm.

Rovner: This obviously was not a company that was trying to get women’s menstrual data and figure out whether they’re pregnant and whether they’re going to have an abortion. But there is a lot of concern that because there’s so much medical data floating out now in the metaverse, shall we say, that it would not be that hard to do that. And I guess the FTC is trying to plant a flag and say, “Mm-mm, don’t even try.” Although I’m sure people will …

Ollstein: Again, circling back to our previous theme, like, who a presidential administration installs at places like the FTC that you might not think that has anything to do with health care and abortion, but it certainly does. It certainly can. Same with DOJ, Labor Department. A lot of these things touch on reproductive health in ways that aren’t always obvious.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, turning to prescription drug news, the FDA has approved Florida’s request to import cheaper drugs from Canada. But, Tami, you wrote about this. This comes with a long list of caveats, right? It’s not like they just opened the borders and said, “OK, buy what you want.”

Luhby: No, and Florida has also put forth a fairly restricted proposal. It’s only going to be for people in their public payer program, people like inmates and people who are cared for by the county health systems and, later, Medicaid. And it’s also a pretty small list of drugs, drugs for HIV/AIDS and mental illness, and certain ones. But no, there’s a lot of hurdles before the state can actually start importing drugs. There’s going to likely be a lawsuit by PhRMA. They came out pretty strongly against it. They don’t want this, and Canada doesn’t necessarily want this. They said this in 2020 when the Trump administration first indicated that they were going to move in this direction, and then Health Canada on Friday put out a pretty strong statement saying they are clear in its position. “Bulk importation will not provide an effective solution to the problem of high drug prices in the U.S.” So there’s a long path before Florida will be able to actually see this and an even longer path before its general residents will see it. People may think, “Oh, I can go up to CVS now and order my Canadian version of the drug, which will be much cheaper.” And that’s not at all the case.

Rovner: Sarah, this has been going on for more than 20 years — I think I covered it first time in 1998 — because it’s really popular among Republicans and Democrats because it sounds so good. “We’ll just buy cheaper drugs from other countries where they have the same drugs, and they sell them for less money because they have price controls.” But Canada can’t even supply Florida, much less the rest of the country, right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think people, sometimes you look at Canada on a map geographically. It’s a very large area, but the population compared to the U.S. is much smaller. So the supply chain that’s feeding Canada is very different. And then you get into why HHS and FDA has usually pushed back against this idea is because they’re concerned about securing the supply-chain safety and making sure people are actually getting what they … think they’re getting and know how to use the drug. And what’s basically happened under starting the Trump administration and then Biden’s kind of continued it is they came up with a pathway to sort of make importation potentially possible. But they put in so many hoops that these states will have to go through and so many processes in place to ensure the safety of it that by the time Florida does all of this, and again, as Tami mentioned, FDA hasn’t cleared any specific drugs for Florida to import yet; each drug product still is going to have to go through a bunch of steps to get that OK. So by the time they do all of that, it doesn’t look like it’s going to save very much money. Florida’s estimating maybe not quite $200 million for the first year and about the same the second year. If you look at just their Medicaid spending in a year on outpatient drugs, it’s like $1.-something billion. So you can see how tiny a savings that is.

Rovner: Yes. This is one of those things that’s not been partisan. It’s always been sort of the FDA wanting to protect the integrity of the supply chain, whether it’s controlled by Democrats or Republicans versus Democrats and Republicans who would like to find a way to help their constituents get cheaper drugs.

Luhby: One thing also to note that’s going to be interesting, because there’ve been so many people involved in this, we saw Ron DeSantis say yesterday at the debate that he took credit for pushing the federal government and beating the federal government, I think he said, to be allowed to import drugs. But this is also going to be a talking point that Trump and Biden will also be able to say on the campaign. So basically, everyone is probably going to try to take credit for this.

Rovner: Right. Everybody’s going to take credit for something that’s probably only going to happen in a very small way, if it happens at all.

Luhby: If it all happens at all.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, also this week, drug maker Eli Lilly said it is setting up its own telehealth service to help patients access not only its soon-to-be blockbuster weight loss drug Zepbound but also other diabetes and migraine drugs, basically cutting out the doctor or at least cutting out the patient’s regular doctor, if they have one. Sarah, this feels to me like a really big sea change. Is the FDA going to let this happen? Is the AMA going to let this happen?

Karlin-Smith: It’s really interesting. I think the first headline of it makes it seem a little bit more extreme or maybe novel than once you actually look into the details because Lilly’s …

Rovner: Kind of like drug importation.

Karlin-Smith: Right. Although I think more patients maybe will actually be served by this program. But, basically, Eli Lilly is setting up a website that will then connect patients to outside telehealth companies that have the ability to prescribe the drug. Again, these telehealth companies are supposedly prescribing all different drugs, not just Eli Lilly products. The doctor’s supposed to make sure you actually qualify for the product, and so forth. And then Lilly also seems to have developed partnerships with a couple online pharmacy companies that could then directly mail you the product. So Eli Lilly is sort of helping facilitate these connections for patients. But I think probably to avoid various scrutinies by the federal government, they’ve tried to disconnect themselves a few steps, but certainly make the process of getting a drug and their drug easier for patients. Also helping ease the process of getting any copay support or coupons the company offers. So they seem to be kind of taking advantage of a trend that we’ve seen in other areas, with ADHD, like male sexual health products, and so forth, of people wanting to do this through telehealth. And so they’re trying to, I think, get at least a cut of it or at least help steer their product there. But there’s definitely going to be questions, I think, around how you handle advertising and other things for the government to look at.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s definitely a space that, now, we’re going to have to start watching as well as everything else. All right. Well, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” which is going to Olympic gold medalist gymnast Mary Lou Retton. Retton, who is now in her mid-50s, contracted a rare form of pneumonia, ended up in the hospital for a month, and became the subject of a crowdfunding effort launched by her daughter because she didn’t have health insurance. Retton, who has been very closed-mouthed about her illness and what happened to the half a million dollars the crowdfunding campaign raised, as is her right, did do an interview this week with the “Today” show on NBC in which she said she couldn’t afford health insurance because her preexisting conditions made it too expensive. For the record, if you’re uninsured, you can still sign up for an Affordable Care Act Plan in most states, and you can’t be charged more due to preexisting conditions. And there are still extra subsidies that we talked about earlier that were implemented during covid that makes insurance even more affordable. Why is it that people don’t know this yet?

Ollstein: Well, as we saw with record-breaking enrollment, a lot of people do know it, but the people who don’t are still loud.

Rovner: We’re 10 years into the ACA!

Ollstein: Yes. It’s funny. I mean, living in D.C. and doing this work, I always try to think about what of all of our reporting actually breaks through around the country. And it’s always interesting to see what does and what doesn’t.

Rovner: I used to stomp around the NPR newsroom when the ACA was just getting up and running, saying, “It is not my job to do the administration’s publicity. It’s really not my job.” But …

Luhby: Yeah.

Rovner: … they are still working on it.

Luhby: It also may be selective ignorance, because I’m sure if she actually asked anyone about health insurance or called any agent or insurer and said, “Well, I have this preexisting condition,” they may have said, “Well, on the ACA, it doesn’t matter anymore.”

Rovner: Yes. And that if she said she didn’t have the money after her divorce, it’s like those are the people who are eligible for big subsidies. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my interview with AMA President Jesse Ehrenfeld, and then we will come back and do our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast, in person here in our D.C. studio, Dr. Jesse Ehrenfeld, president of the American Medical Association. Dr. Ehrenfeld is an anesthesiologist, medical school professor, researcher on medical information technology, and director of a statewide health philanthropy in Wisconsin, among other activities. He’s an Afghanistan combat veteran twice over, as well as the first openly gay president of the AMA and a national advocate for LGBTQ+ rights. Dr. Ehrenfeld, thank you so much for coming in. You are a very busy person.

Jesse Ehrenfeld: Well, thanks for having me. It’s great to talk to you today.

Rovner: So I want to start on Capitol Hill, since we’re here in D.C.

Ehrenfeld: Sure.

Rovner: And Congress is coming back and working on a budget, or so we hear.

Ehrenfeld: We hope they’re working.

Rovner: 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?

Ehrenfeld: Well, it’s a big one for us. And, you know, it’s really painful that you turn the clock back, Jan. 1, and 3.37% Medicare cut to physician payments. It’s unconscionable. And so we’re optimistic that we can get a fix, hopefully retroactive, as the omnibus consolidation work goes forward, short of this Jan. 19 deadline coming up. But we can’t have it. 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. So, every other provider under Medicare is actually fighting for how many increase they’re getting while doctors are getting cut. So we’re hopeful that we can solve this, but it really is something that’s just urgent for us as an association.

Rovner: I thought we took care of this in 2015. I feel like it’s Groundhog Day. I covered it every year from about 2003 to about 2015, and then we solved it briefly.

Ehrenfeld: We solved one problem and replaced it with another, unfortunately. And the doomed SGR did die in 2015 — the unsustainable “sustainable growth rate” problem — that did lead to those year-end patches. And, unfortunately now, though, because of budget neutrality rules and other — we’ll call them “features” — of the program, we’re in the situation again. We do have optimism, though, that we might get some standing inflationary updates. There was the introduction of a bill last session. And we hope that that can be something that does move forward once we get through this time-sensitive issue to deal with the 3.37% cut.

Rovner: So I feel like the physician shortage is kind of like climate change. People have been warning about it for decades, and suddenly it’s here.

Ehrenfeld: It’s here.

Rovner: With people having to wait weeks or sometimes months to see a doctor. Obviously, like with climate change, it’s going to take a while to get out of the hole that we have dug. I know we’ve seen the establishment of several new medical schools, both allopathic and osteopathic, in the past decade. How soon might we be able to see some relief, and what more will it take beyond training more doctors?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re opening more medical schools, but we’re not actually training more doctors. And that’s the problem. We haven’t expanded GME [Graduate Medical Education] residency programs. And unfortunately, because, as you know, GME funding through the federal government is tied to a fixed cap, set in the 1990s by Medicare, we’ve opened all these new schools and the students don’t have a place to go to train. So that’s a problem that we need to solve. We’ve had a little tiny, tiny increase these past few years, a couple of hundred spots here and there. We need thousands more training spots open. We need the GME dollars to come from Medicare. We also need to solve some of the issues around how we get international medical graduates here and ready to practice in the U.S. Twenty-five percent of practicing physicians in the U.S. were trained abroad. Most people don’t know that. We already have a huge international workforce, but we do silly things, like we’ll let an international doctor train their residency here, and then we make them go away for two years to their home country before they can come back. There are H-1B visa waiver bills that are circulating around the Conrad 30 extension. We need to do those things as well. Unfortunately, as you’re aware, immigration reform is a challenging issue here in Washington. But there are commonsense solutions that have bipartisan support. And we’re hopeful that we can get some workforce pressure reductions, not just by expanding GME for U.S.-trained individuals, but also those international graduates.

Rovner: Yeah, I feel like people forget that immigration is about more than just people coming across the southern border. There are a lot of skilled-worker issues in the immigration debate.

Ehrenfeld: In lots of industries, health care, technology, other places as well.

Rovner: I know the rise — or should I say the “re-rise” — of prior authorization requirements from insurance companies is something that contributes to physician burnout and the physician shortage by driving doctors out of practice, just from frustration. The Biden administration has a new regulation to limit prior authorization in the pipeline. Assuming that that regulation is finalized soon, how close will that come to fully addressing the problem for your members?

Ehrenfeld: You know, we hope it’ll move the needle a little bit, but we need wholesale reform, and we need to do more than Medicare Advantage plans. Unfortunately, I hear every week from colleagues who are just at their wits’ end, and it’s frustrating. I see it with my own parents. I’m an anesthesiologist. I have a habit now, I ask my patients: “So how long did it take your surgery to get scheduled?” Eh, it’s a couple weeks or a month. I said, “And how long did it take for your insurance company to approve the procedure?” And it’s months. And often what they tell me is they approved it, and then they denied it after they approved it. And they have to go through all of this rigmarole that just doesn’t make sense.

Rovner: You think that Congress is going to need to step in at some point, or is this something that can be worked out?

Ehrenfeld: I think we’re going to have to have regulatory relief from Congress, and we’re pushing for that through our grassroots network. Certainly, we try to bring all the third-party payers together. We have a set of principles that, theoretically, third-party payers have agreed to, and yet they ignore them, and they continue to just harass patients, really to improve their bottom line, but not doing what’s in their best interests.

Rovner: So I want to talk a little bit about physician autonomy. Since the overturn of Roe v. Wade, we’ve seen an increasing level of what I call legislators practicing medicine. Now we have the Supreme Court …

Ehrenfeld: It’s OK if they have an MD.

Rovner: [laughs] That’s true. Now we have the Supreme Court — none of whom have an MD as far as I know — about to decide whether doctors facing women with pregnancy emergencies should obey state abortion bans, the federal EMTALA law, 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 decision, the Dobbs decision, came out, we have been working with all of our state and federation partners to try to help physicians navigate this. And I can tell you, 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 is 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: You’re younger than I am, but when I was growing up and covering this, the AMA didn’t want to talk about abortion because it was controversial. And now, certainly in the last five or 10 years, the AMA has come out. 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: Well, you know, look, 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: So 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. How big a priority is this for the AMA, and what are you doing to fight the sort of “pushing against” scientific discourse?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we will always stand up for science. And it’s so important that as an association we do that. 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 — you know, an important part of the Affordable Care Act, right? Making it basically zero out-of-pocket cost for many Americans — those things are 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: What about doctors who are pushing things that you know to be not helpful?

Ehrenfeld: We call them out, and we would encourage others to call them out. If somebody is trying to sell something that’s inappropriate or do something that doesn’t follow the evidence, we need to call it for what it is, which is inappropriate.

Rovner: It’s not just legislators who want to practice medicine these days. We also have the rise of artificial intelligence, which I know promises both huge advances …

Ehrenfeld: I’m real, by the way.

Rovner: [both laugh] Yes, I can attest that you’re real. At least you seem real. But, obviously, our artificial intelligence can portend huge advances and also other issues, not all of which are good. How is the AMA trying to push the AMA more towards the former, the good things, and less towards the latter, the unintended consequences?

Ehrenfeld: Well, we’re really excited about it. I’m excited about it. I have an informatics background. So, you know, I believe that there is so much power that these technologies and tools can bring, but we need to make sure that the technology is an asset, not a burden. And we have all lived through the painful rollout of electronic health records where that just was not the case. So we did survey — we do routine surveys, data that’s a nationally representative sample — in August of this year, it’s on our website. An equal number of physicians are excited about AI as they are terrified about AI, anxious, concerned, right? And we need to make sure that we have the right regulatory framework. We’re very appreciative of the ONC [Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology] rule that came out, out of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services], at the end of last year. Certainly, the Biden administration’s, whole of government’s approach we think is important, but that is no substitution for regulation. And we need to make sure that we have appropriate regulation. The FDA doesn’t have the framework that they need. The system set up in the ’60s and ’70s for drugs and biologics and devices hasn’t held up. So we know that there have to be changes. We just need to make sure that those changes only let safe and effective algorithms, AI tools, AI-powered products come to the marketplace.

Rovner: Dr. Ehrenfeld, that’s all the time we have. Thank you so much for joining us.

Ehrenfeld: Oh, thanks for having me. It’s been a treat.

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. Tami, why don’t you go first this week?

Luhby: OK. Well, my extra credit is titled “Most People Dropped in Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Never Tried to Renew Coverage, Utah Finds,” by KFF Health News’ Phil Galewitz. And as many of our podcast listeners know, states are reviewing the eligibility of their residents in Medicaid and terminating the coverage of those they deem ineligible. Roughly 14.4 million people have been disenrolled. And the big question is, what has happened to them? Did they return to Medicaid? Did they find coverage elsewhere, or did they become uninsured? And that’s the question that many actually Medicaid directors have been unable to answer.

So Phil’s story looks at a first-of-its-kind study conducted in October by Utah’s Medicaid agency. And in Utah, 94% of those disenrolled were dropped for procedural reasons, such as not returning their paperwork, rather than being deemed ineligible. And the study found that 57% of respondents did not attempt to renew their Medicaid coverage. Thirty-nine percent shifted to employer plans, and 15% signed up for Affordable Care Act coverage. So they remained insured, but 30% became uninsured. The story also shows that many Medicaid enrollees said that they had trouble reapplying for Medicaid coverage. They didn’t get the documents. They didn’t have the necessary paperwork. They couldn’t get their questions answered. And these are all things that we’ve heard about anecdotally, but the Utah study and Phil’s story actually put some numbers to it. And interestingly, Utah officials also confirmed that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is conducting two audits of the state’s Medicaid unwinding. So we’ll see what happens and what we find out from Utah may inform us about what’s happening in the rest of the country.

Rovner: Yes, we have noted before that HHS has been very close-mouthed about how it is trying to get states to maintain coverage for these people who are, if not eligible for Medicaid anymore, eligible for something else. Alice, you have kind of a related story, so why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Yeah, I have something from our own Rachel Cohrs at Stat. It’s called “Texas Taxpayers Wanted to Help the Poor Get Health Care. Instead They’re Funding a Medical School at a Wealthy University.” It’s a great accountability story about how taxpayers were convinced to put up tens of millions of dollars that they thought was going to provide care for very poor people in the area around Austin, Texas. And instead, basically, none of that money is going to … directly to provide that care to people. And instead, it’s gone to build fancy buildings at this medical school, and overhead, and recruiting faculty. And the school and hospital insist that all of this trickles down eventually to patients. But it’s not what taxpayers feel they were promised. And so they’re getting upset about that.

Rovner: It is a very nice medical school. Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I looked at a New York Times story from Christina Jewett and Benjamin Mueller, “The F.D.A. Warned an Asthma Drug Could Induce Despair. Many Were Never Told,” and it’s about Singulair, a now generic asthma medicine. Over 20 years after it was first approved, FDA added what’s known as its strictest warning, a black box warning, warning of very serious mental health side effects, including suicidal thoughts. And The New York Times investigation seems to have found out that really these messages are not reaching doctors. They’re not reaching patients, or parents, and many young kids who are taking this medicine. And that has led to many ill effects, including some very young people who have died by suicide. And it’s a really good dive into the challenges that FDA faces and kind of translating their regulatory action into something that then gets communicated to a doctor, and then a doctor translates to a patient. In many ways, it’s not that surprising a story to me because I think it’s kind of well known that not a lot of people read drug labels and then certainly not on an individual level, but even on a doctor level. And I think a lot of the risk-benefit conversations that FDA envisions happen between doctors and patients before people take drugs don’t actually happen in the real world. I once actually had a doctor who told me, “This medicine has a box warning, but don’t worry about it.” Which I always find as a pretty funny story as a drug reporter. And it just also raises a lot of issues, this story, about how drugs are studied on children and what’s done to make sure that as a drug goes generic, the safety is still being monitored, and somebody is responsible again for ensuring people are aware of new safety updates. So it’s a really good dive. I think the thing I was most struck by, though, is I think the solutions perhaps here are not ones that would be very popular in the U.S., which is that by design, the FDA does not regulate the practice of medicine. And, in most cases, I don’t think Americans would want FDA pushing the boundaries much further to get at the safety hurdles this story maybe flags.

Rovner: Yeah. More along our theme of the federal government and its role in society. Well, my extra credit this week is actually a collection of stories. It’s sparked by the headline on this month’s issue of Consumer Reports, which is “How to Eat Less Plastic.” The first story is from CNN reporting on a study in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences called “Bottled Water Contains Thousands of Nanoplastics So Small They Can Invade the Body’s Cells, Study Says.” And it basically says that plastic sheds just like skin cells do. So anything you eat or drink that’s stored or wrapped in plastic is going to get into whatever it is you’re putting into your body. If that’s not enough to give you pause, my second story is from ScienceAlert, which is a website, called “It Turns Out Paper Straws Might Pose a Serious Problem Too.” And it’s about a study that found that many paper straws contain those forever chemicals we keep hearing about, called PFAS, which, of course, are also in many plastics. Finally, if that’s not enough plastic for you, here’s a story from The Washington Post called “How Plastic Hides in Supposedly Eco-Friendly Laundry Products.” Basically, those laundry sheets that can replace the use of all those plastic bottles that we keep seeing ads for? Apparently, even many of those sheets that claim to be, quote, “plastic-free” contains something called polyvinyl alcohol, which is, you guessed it, a plastic that’s been found in drinking water and breast milk. I think the message here is everything you do is probably bad for you in some way, so be humble and do the best you can.

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, my fellow happy Michigan Wolverine this week, 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 and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sarah, where are you these days?

Karlin-Smith: I’m trying to be places, but then it’s hard to be at all of them. So mostly Twitter and Bluesky, @SarahKarlin or @sarahkarlin-smith.

Rovner: Tami?

Luhby: The best place to find me is cnn.com.

Rovner: There you go. Alice.

Ollstein: Still on X @AliceOllstein, 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).

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.

Even without covid dominating the headlines, 2023 was a busy year for health policy. The ever-rising cost of health care remained an issue plaguing patients and policymakers alike, while millions of Americans lost insurance coverage as states redetermined eligibility for their Medicaid programs in the wake of the public health emergency.

Meanwhile, women experiencing pregnancy complications continue to get caught up in the ongoing abortion debate, with both women and their doctors potentially facing prison time in some cases.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• As the next election year fast approaches, the Biden administration is touting how much it has accomplished in health care. Whether the voting public is paying attention is a different story. Affordable Care Act enrollment has reached record levels due in part to expanded financial help available to pay premiums, and the administration is also pointing to its enforcement efforts to rein in high drug prices.
• The federal government is adding staff to go after “corporate greed” in health care, targeting in particular the fast-growing role of private equity. The complicated, opaque, and evolving nature of corporate ownership in the nation’s health system makes legislation and regulation a challenge. But increased interest and oversight could lead to a better understanding of the problems of and, eventually, remedies for a profit-focused system of health care.
• Concluding a year that saw many low-income Americans lose insurance coverage as states reviewed eligibility for everyone in the Medicaid program, there’s no shortage of access issues left to tackle. The Biden administration is urging states to take action to help millions of children regain coverage that was stripped from them.
• Also, many patients are all too familiar with the challenges of obtaining insurance approval for care. There is support in Congress to scrutinize and rein in the use of algorithms to deny care to Medicare Advantage patients based on broad comparisons rather than individual patient circumstances.
• And in abortion news, some conservative states are trying to block efforts to put abortion on the ballot next year — a tactic some used in the past against Medicaid expansion.
• This week in health misinformation is an ad from Florida’s All Family Pharmacy touting the benefits of ivermectin for treating covid-19. (Rigorous scientific studies have found that the antibacterial drug does not work against covid and should not be used for that purpose.)

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Jordan Rau about his joint KFF Health News-New York Times series “Dying Broke.”

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

Julie Rovner: Business Insider’s “‘I Feel Conned Into Keeping This Baby,’” by Bethany Dawson, Louise Ridley, and Sarah Posner.

Joanne Kenen: The Trace’s “Chicago Shooting Survivors, in Their Own Words,” by Justin Agrelo.

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Work for Insurers, Deciding if They’ll Pay for Care,” by Patrick Rucker, The Capitol Forum; and David Armstrong and Doris Burke, ProPublica.

Sandhya Raman: Roll Call’s “Mississippi Community Workers Battle Maternal Mortality Crisis,” by Lauren Clason.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Stat News’ “Humana Used Algorithm in ‘Fraudulent Scheme’ to Deny Care to Medicare Advantage Patients, Lawsuit Alleges,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.
• USA Today’s “Cigna Denied a Lung Transplant for a Cancer Patient. Insurer Now Says That Was an Eerror.’ By Ken Alltucker.
• Politico’s “Conservatives Move to Keep Abortion off the 2024 Ballot,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly.
• The New York Times’ “Why Democracy Hasn’t Settled the Abortion Question,” by Kate Zernike.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: 2023 Is a Wrap

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: 2023 Is a WrapEpisode Number: 327Published: Dec. 21, 2023

[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, Dec. 21, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this, so here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Rovner: And Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Jordan Rau, co-author of a super scary series done with The New York Times about long-term care. It’s called “Dying Broke.” But first, this week’s news. I thought we would try something a little bit different this week. It just happened that most of this week’s news also illustrates themes that we’ve been following throughout the year. So we get a this-week update plus a little review of the last 12 months, since this is our last podcast of the year. I want to start with the theme of, “The Biden administration has gotten a ton of things done in health, but nobody seems to have noticed.”

We learned this week that, with a month still to go, Affordable Care Act plan sign-ups are already at historic highs, topping 15 million, thanks, at least in part, to extra premium subsidies that the administration helped get past this Congress and which Congress may or may not extend next year. The administration has also managed to score some wins in the battle against high drug prices, which is something that has eluded even previous Democratic administrations. Its latest effort is the unveiling of 48 prescription drugs officially on the naughty list — that’s my phrase, not theirs — for having raised their prices by more than inflation during the last quarter of this year, and whose manufacturers may now have to pay rebates. This is something in addition to the negotiations for the high-priced drugs, right, Rachel?

Cohrs: Yeah, this was just a routine announcement about the drugs that are expected to be charged rebates and drugmakers don’t have to pay immediately; I think they’re kind of pushing that a little further down the road, as to when they’ll actually invoice those rebates. But the announcement raised a question in my mind of — certainly they want to tout that they’re enforcing the law; that’s been a big theme of this year — but it brought up a question for me as to whether the law is working to deter price hikes if these companies are all doing it anyway, so just a thought.

Rovner: It is the first year.

Cohrs: It is. This started going into effect at the end of last year, so it’s been a little over a year, but this is assessed quarterly, so the list has grown as time has gone on. But just a thought. Certainly there’s time for things to play out differently, but that’s at least what we’ve seen so far.

Rovner: They could say, which they did this week, it’s like, Look, these are drugs because they raised the prices, they’re going to have to give back some of that money. At least in theory, they’re going to have to give back some of that money.

Cohrs: In Medicare.

Rovner: Right. In Medicare. Some of this is still in court though, right?

Cohrs: Yes. So I think at any moment, I think this has been a theme of this year and will be carrying into next year, that there are several lawsuits filed by drugmakers, by trade associations, that just have not been resolved yet, and I think some of the cases are close to being fully briefed. So we may see kind of initial court rulings as to whether the law as a whole is constitutional. It is worth noting that most of those lawsuits are solely challenging the negotiation piece of the law and not the inflation rebates, but this could fall apart at any moment. There could be a stay, and I expect that the first court ruling is not going to be the last. There’s going to be a long appeals process. Who knows how long it’s going to take, how high it will go, but I think there is just a lot of uncertainty around the law as a whole.

Rovner: So the administration gets to stand there and say, “We did something about drug prices,” and the drug companies get to stand there and say, “Not yet you didn’t.”

Cohrs: Exactly. Yes, and they can both be correct.

Rovner: That’s basically where we are.

Cohrs: Yes.

Rovner: That’s right. Well, meanwhile, in other news from this week and from this year, the Federal Trade Commission, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services are all adding staff to go after what Biden officials call “corporate greed” — that is their words — in health care. Apparently these new staffers are going to focus on private equity ownership of health care providers, something we have talked about a lot and so-called roll-ups, which we haven’t talked about as much. Somebody explain what a roll-up is please.

Kenen: Julie, why don’t you?

Rovner: OK. I guess I’m going to explain what a roll-up is. I finally learned what a roll-up is. When companies merge and they make a really big company, then the Federal Trade Commission gets to say, “Mmm, you may be too big, and that’s going to hurt trade.” What a roll-up is is when a big company goes and buys a bunch of little companies, so each one doesn’t make it too big, but together they become this enormous — either a hospital system or a nursing home system or something that, again, is not necessarily going to make free trade and price limits by trade happen. So this is something that we have been seeing all year. Can the government really do anything about this? This also feels like sort of a lot of, in theory, they can do these things and in practice it’s really hard.

Cohrs: I feel like what we’ve seen in this space — I think my colleague Brittany wrote about kind of this move — is that the corporate structures around these entities are so complicated. Is it going to discourage companies from doing anything by hiring a couple people? Probably not. But I think the people power behind understanding how these structures work can lay the groundwork for future steps on understanding the landscape, understanding the tactics, and what we see, at least on the congressional side, is that a lot of times Congress is working 10 years behind some of the tactics that these companies are using to build market power and influence prices. So I think the more people power, the better, in terms of understanding what the most current tactics are, but it doesn’t seem like this will have significant immediate difference on these practices.

Kenen: I think that the gap between where the government is and where the industry is is so enormous. I think the role of PE [private equity] in health care has grown so fast in a relatively short period of time. Was there a presence before? Yes, but it’s just really taken off. So I think that if those who advocate for greater oversight, if they could just get some transparency, that would be their win, at the moment. They cannot go in and stop private equity. They would like to get to the point where they could curb abuse or set parameters or however you want to phrase it, and different people would phrase it in different ways, but right now they don’t even really know what’s going on. So, even among the Democrats, there was a fight this year about whether to include transparency language between [the House committees on] Energy and Commerce and Ways and Means, and I don’t think that was ever resolved.

I think that’s part of the “Let’s do it in January” mess. But I think they just sort of want not only greater insight for the government, but also for the public: What is going on here and what are its implications? People who criticize private equity — the defenders can always find some examples of companies that are doing good things. They exist. We all know who the two or three companies we hear all the time are, but I think it’s a really enormous black box, and not only is it a black box, but it’s a black box that’s both growing and shifting, and getting into areas that we didn’t anticipate a few years ago, like ophthalmology. We’ve seen some of these studies this year about specialties that we didn’t think of as PE targets. So it’s a big catch-up for roll-up.

Rovner: Yeah, and I think it’s also another place that the administration — and I think the Trump administration tried to do this too. Republicans don’t love some of these things either. The public complains about high health care costs. They’re right; we have ridiculously high health care costs in this country, much higher than in other countries, and this is one of the reasons why, is that there are companies going in who are looking to simply do it to make a profit and they can go in and buy these things up and raise prices. That’s a lot of what we’re seeing and a lot of why people are so frustrated. I think at very least it at least shows them: It’s like, “See, this is what’s happening, and this is one of the reasons why you’re paying so much.”

Kenen: It’s also changing how providers and practitioners work, and how much autonomy they have and who they work for. It’s in an era when we have workforce shortages in some sectors and burnout and dissatisfaction. There are pockets at least, and again, we don’t really know how big, because we don’t have our arms around this, but there are pockets; at least we do know where the PE ownership and how they dictate practice is worsening these issues of burnout and dissatisfaction. I’m having dinner tomorrow night with a expert on health care antitrust, so if we were doing this next week, I would be so much smarter.

Rovner: We will be sure to call on you in January. Workforce burnout: This is another theme that we’ve talked about a lot this year.

Kenen: It’s getting into places you just wouldn’t think. I was talking to a physical therapist the other day and her firm has been bought up, and it’s changing the way she practices and her ability to make decisions and how often she’s allowed to see a patient.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, another continuing theme. Well, yet another big issue this year has been the so-called Medicaid unwinding, as states redetermine eligibility for the first time since the pandemic began. All year, we’ve been hearing stories about people who are still eligible being dropped from the rolls, either mistakenly or because they failed to file paperwork they may never have received. Among the more common mistakes that states are making is cutting off children’s coverage because their parents are no longer eligible, even though children are eligible for coverage up to much higher family incomes than their parents. So even if the parents aren’t eligible anymore, the children most likely are.

This week, the federal government reached out to the nine states that have the highest rates of discontinuing children’s coverage, including some pretty big states, like Texas and Florida, urging them to use shortcuts that could get those children’s insurance back. But this has been a push-and-pull effort all year between the states and the federal government, with the feds trying not to push too hard. At one point, they wouldn’t even tell us which states they were sort of chiding for taking too many people off too fast. And it feels like some of the states don’t really want to have all these people on Medicaid and they would just as soon drop them even if they might be eligible. Is that kind of where we are?

Raman: You can kind of look to see the tea leaves at what some of these states are. The states that the health secretary wrote to, that have 60% of the decline in the kids being disenrolled, align pretty well with the states that have not expanded Medicaid. So they’re already going to have much fewer people enrolled than states where the eligibility levels are a lot more generous. So it’s not surprising, and some of these states have been just a little bit more aggressive from the get-go or said that they wanted to do the eligibility redeterminations a lot faster than some of the other states that wanted to take the longer time, reevaluate different ways to see if someone was still eligible, whether they were maybe getting SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program] benefits or other things like that. So it’s not surprising.

Rovner: You mean do it more carefully.

Raman: Yeah, yeah, so I think that the letter is one step, but if those states are really going to take up implementing these other strategies to kind of decrease that drop-off, unclear, just because they have been pretty proactive about doing this in a quick process.

Rovner: I also noticed that the states that the HHS secretary wrote to kind of tracked with the states that didn’t expand Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act, but interestingly, that meant that there would’ve been fewer parents who were eligible in the first place. So there shouldn’t have been as many children cut off, because there weren’t as many parents who ever got onto Medicaid in those states, which is why it made me raise my eyebrows a little bit. Again, I think this is something that we shall continue to follow going into next year.

Kenen: But we should also point out that even the more pro-Medicaid, liberal states have not done a great job with unwinding. It’s been bumpy pretty much across the board. It’s been very problematic. It’s a clumsy process in a normal year, and trying to catch up on three years’ worth — this is a population where people’s income varies a lot. Are you just over the line? Are you just under the line? It’s fluctuating, the eligibility changes. But you try to do three years at once after all the chaos, with political undercurrents such as the nonexpansion states, and it makes it harder and messier.

Rovner: Which was predicted and came true. So yet another theme from this year is what I’m calling the managed care backlash redux. In the late 1990s, when lots of people were herded into managed care for the first time, there were lots of horror stories about patients being denied care, doctors being put through bureaucratic hoops, unqualified people making medical decisions. There’s a bipartisan bill that almost came to fruition in 2001 for what was called a patient’s bill of rights, but it was pushed off the agenda by 9/11. Most of the protections in that bill, however, were eventually included in the Affordable Care Act.

So now it’s 2023, and lo and behold, those same issues are back. A top issue for the American Medical Association this year is reining in prior authorization requirements, which require doctors to actually get permission before their patients can get recommended care. In one particularly painful story recently, a woman who’d been approved for a lung transplant had her surgery canceled by her insurer, literally on the way to the OR [operating room]. Later, and not coincidentally after a public outcry, the insurer, Cigna, called the whole thing, quote, “An error.” So she did finally get her lung transplant. Joanne, you covered the patient’s bill of rights fight with me back in the day. Most things that are being complained about now are now illegal. So why are we seeing so much of it again?

Kenen: Because there’s confusion about — patients don’t know what their rights are. All of us are savvy and all of us have had something in our own insurance that we don’t understand, or maybe we end up navigating it, but it’s not ever easy. Things like prior authorization — they say, “Well, we have to make sure people are getting appropriate care.” There is an element of truth there; there is overuse in American health care. There are people who get things they don’t really need or should try something less intrusive and less expensive first. So you have this genuine issue of overtreatment, back surgery being the classic example. Many people will do just as well with physical therapy and things like that than they will with an $80,000 operation. In fact, they might do better with the PT and not with the $80,000 operation.

So is there any validity to the idea of making sure people get appropriate care? Yes, but they say no to stuff that they should be covering. That’s clear, and that patients don’t always know what the right pathway is, because doctors also have incentives, or just the way they’re trained and the way they look at their — surgeons like to cut. It’s what they’re trained to do. They trained for years. So it’s really complicated, because there’s this collision between overuse and overtreatment and overcharging and all the over, over, over stuff that comes from the provider world and the no, no, no, no, no, no, no, “you can’t have that” stuff that comes from the insurer world, sometimes appropriately, but often not appropriately.

Rovner: Then I guess you load onto that the private equity and now the providers whose overlords are in it to make a profit. Then you have sort of private equity butting heads with insurance, which is one of the reasons I think we are sort of ending up here. But it certainly does feel very reminiscent of things that I’ve been through before. We’re seeing yet a similar story with Medicare Advantage, which is the private Medicare managed care program that now enrolls more than half of the Medicare population and makes lots of money for its private insurance companies that offer them.

Rachel, your colleagues wrote about a Humana algorithm that was being used to deny care after a patient had received it for, quote-unquote, “an average period of time, regardless of the patient’s condition,” meaning that if patient is sicker than average, they were saying, “Too bad, we’re only going to give this to you for 18 days because that’s what the average patient needs. If you need more, sorry about that.” So Congress is now trying to get into the act, trying to ensure that Medicare patients, who tend to vote in disproportionate numbers, get their needed care. The insurance industry is pushing back against the pushback. What’s the outlook for Congress actually getting something done on this issue? I’ve heard a lot of talk. I haven’t seen a whole lot of action.

Cohrs: Yeah, I mean certainly there has been talk — and just to point out that the Humana lawsuit is related to the UnitedHealth Group lawsuit that we saw earlier; it’s the same company making the algorithm. Bob and Casey’s reporting was just more focused on UnitedHealth Group, because they got internal documents showing the correlation between the quote-unquote “recommendation” of this algorithm and care decisions and denials and people being cut off from their rehab services. So I think certainly, I think there has been a lot of outcry. We’re seeing this play out in the legal system beforehand. This is an issue that we’ve discussed as well.

Are we going to regulate through the courts, because everything else is too slow? I think AI is certainly a hot topic on the Hill at the moment, and there is lawmaker interest, but this is just a very complicated space. Lawmakers, though they might try their best, are not the most tech-savvy people. These are very powerful interests that I would imagine would oppose some of these regulations if they were to actually materialize. So, there’s nothing imminent. Certainly if we see these lawsuits keep piling up, if we see discovery, if we see some more examples of this happening where other companies are using the algorithms as well, a groundswell — as you mentioned, Medicare patients are an important constituency — I think we could see some action, but it’s not looking imminent at this time.

Kenen: The other thing is there’s been a number of reports from a number of media outlets, Stat and others, that these algorithms are being used without any people to work with them. Like, OK, here’s this algorithm and it’s doing these batches of like, I’m going to say no to 50,000 people in 20 seconds. I’m exaggerating a little bit there, but yes, is there legitimate questions about what is appropriate treatment? Yes.

Or you hear these stories about people told, “You can’t have this drug; you have to have that drug at first,” but they would try that drug and it didn’t work for them, and there’s just no way of — the reason we have five or six similar drugs is that in some cases, those slight differences, people respond differently, mental health being a huge example of that, right? Where it could be very hard to get people on the right drugs, if person A doesn’t respond the same way as person B, even if they have the same condition. But 50,000, I don’t know if that’s the right number, but I think I remember reading one where it was 50,000 going through an algorithm. That’s not appropriate use; that’s mass production of saying no to some legitimate needs.

Rovner: Sandhya, I see you nodding there. I know that this is something that’s kind of bipartisan, right? Members of Congress get complaints about Medicare, which is something that they do, members of Congress, oversee. It is a government program, even though these are being run by private companies. I’m sort of wondering when this is going to reach a boiling point that’s going to require something to be done.

Raman: I think with some of these issues that we face that are kind of evergreen here, there has been a bipartisan push to find kind of ways to reform the prior authorization process. We’ve had people as different as Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) say they want reform, or Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) is very different from Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and they’ve both said that, similar things that …

Rovner: Some of the most conservative and the most liberal members of Congress.

Raman: Yeah, so we’ve got a broad stretch, but I think at the same time, if you look at some of the other things that we have to deal with here — Congress is out for the year, but for next year, we are fairly behind in that we have a long list of things that need to be extended by mid-January. Then we have just funding all of HHS and a number of other government things by early February. So getting something from start to finish next year, which is also an election year, is going to be tough. So I think that there’s interest there, but I don’t know that getting something hashed out is going to be the easiest next year of all years.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s fair to say that Congress took an incomplete in most subjects this year. Well, finally this week, the topic that I think has been in every podcast this year, which is abortion. One of the threads that has wound through this year’s coverage is the strong support for abortion rights from voters, even in red and red-ish states. This year, Ohio voters affirmed a right to abortion, twice actually; there was a technical vote back in the summer. And in Virginia, Democrats flipped the legislature by running against Republican promises to impose a compromise 15-week ban, which apparently did not seem to be a compromise to most of the voters. That was after a half a dozen states voted in favor of the abortion rights position in the 2022 midterms. So this week we have a pair of stories, one from Politico and one from The New York Times, about how anti-abortion forces are working to keep future abortion-related questions off of the ballot in states where there’s still that possibility, including Florida, Missouri, Arizona, and Nevada.

One Republican Missouri lawmaker said that the right to life, quote, “should not be taken away because of a vote by a simple majority,” which frankly felt a little breathtaking to me. He has filed a bill that would require ballot measures to pass not just statewide, but with a majority in more than half of the state’s congressional districts. So basically in the really red parts of the states, a majority there would also have to vote for this. These people are getting very creative in their attempts to stop these votes from happening, maybe because they don’t think they can win them if it’s just straight up or down.

Raman: I think one thing to look at is kind of how we see some of these similar tactics in the same way that we saw with Medicaid. When Medicaid expansion started winning on different ballots, there were states that tried to put in measures to kind of tamp that down, saying, “You need a higher threshold,” and maybe that doesn’t pass, but still putting in different tactics to reduce the likelihood of that passing. I think that’s kind of what we’ve been seeing here, whether or not it’s Ohio trying to change its threshold, or we’ve had states say that even if something passed, let’s try to tear that back so that it doesn’t actually get implemented, or ahead of the ones for next year, let us find tactics to reduce the likelihood they’ll get the signatures to be on the ballot or reduce the likelihood of it passing by changing the language or pushing for challenging the language.

So there’s kind of what we saw right after the Dobbs decision, which was just a very “throw spaghetti at the wall, see what sticks,” just kind of ramp up things and see what will work, given that the last — all of the elections that we’ve had post-Dobbs have been in the favor of abortion rights. Even when we’ve tried to pass an anti-abortion measure, it’s not passed at the ballot. In the stories that you mentioned, there was another quote that stuck out to me, where they’d also mentioned that maybe this should not be subject to majority vote, I think in the Politico piece as well. So I think that’s something that is interesting that I haven’t really seen vocalized before, that this should be done in a different manner rather than this is how the majority of people feel one way or the other.

Rovner: Yeah, it felt so ironic because when in the Dobbs decision, Justice [Samuel] Alito wrote, “Well, now we’re turning this back to the states to be decided by their voters.” Well, here are their voters deciding, and it turns out the anti-abortion side don’t like the way the voters are voting, so they’re going to try to not have the voters vote, basically. We will see how this one all plays out. The other continuing story this year is women being prosecuted basically for bad pregnancy outcomes. Last week we talked about the case of Brittany Watts, an Ohio woman who was sent home from a hospital emergency room twice, had a miscarriage, and this week had formal charges filed against her for, quote, “abusing a corpse.” This case hasn’t gotten nearly the attention of the case of Kate Cox, the Texas woman whose fetus was diagnosed with fatal defects and who filed suit to be allowed to have an abortion.

She eventually had to go to another state, and that was even before the permission that had been granted by a lower-court judge was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court. It may be at least in part because Brittany Watts is black, or that she didn’t put herself out in public the way Kate Cox did, but this is a way that prosecutors can punish women even in states where abortion remains legal. Remember Ohio voted twice this year to keep abortion legal, and this wasn’t even an abortion; it was a miscarriage. The medical examiner determined that the fetus was already dead when it passed. What are the prosecutors trying to do here? We talk about chilling effects. This is kind of the ultimate chilling effect, right?

Raman: It really is, because here we have someone that was not, as you said, seeking an abortion. She miscarried, and I think that she was 21 weeks and five days pregnant, and then they had the 21-week cutoff. So it gets sent into really murky waters here because I’m not sure what they’re going for, kind of picking this case to prosecute and go with. We’ve had this happen before where people have self-managed or miscarried, and then they’ve ended up being prosecuted. But at this point, I’m not sure why they’re making a case out of this particular woman, kind of dragging this into the debate.

Rovner: Yeah, there was a famous case in Indiana — 2013, may have been even before that — a pregnant woman who tried to kill herself and failed to kill herself, but did kill her fetus, and she was put in jail for several years. There have been, at least there was sort of the question there, were you trying to self-abort at that point? But there was nothing here. This was a woman with a wanted pregnancy whose pregnancy ended via natural circumstances, which happens, I think we’ve discovered now, a lot more than people realize.

I think people don’t talk about unhappy pregnancy outcomes, so people don’t realize how common they actually are. But I wonder — and I’ve been saying this all year — again, if women are fearing prosecution, even women who want babies, they may fear getting pregnant. I’ve seen some stories about more permanent types of birth control happening because women don’t want to get pregnant, because they don’t want to end up in a place where their health is being risked or they’re trying to get health care they need and their doctor or they could be facing prison time.

Kenen: And in this case, she had gone to the hospital. It’s complicated. She went in and out of the hospital. She went to the ER; they sent her home. I think then once they sent her home another time, she left against medical advice, but she wasn’t trying to get an abortion. She was having pregnancy complications. It’s documented. She was in and out of medical care. Pregnancies can fail, and early, the first trimester, it’s a very high rate. It’s less common later on, but it still happens. There are times when an early miscarriage, you might not even know that it’s a miscarriage. It’s early. You don’t know what’s even going on with your own body, or you’re not certain. So she didn’t know what to do at home when she did miscarry. It seems very punitive. Did she behave in an absolutely ideal, textbook-perfect, the way you wish she might have? But she did what she could do at the time.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s hard to know what to do. Well, we will watch this case, I think, even though it’s not, as I say, it’s not getting quite the attention of some of the other cases. Our final this week in health information of 2023 goes to an ad that came to my email from the All Family Pharmacy in Boca Raton, Florida. The headline is “Miracle Drug Ivermectin for Covid-19 Could Save Lives,” and it claims that, quote, “a growing body of evidence from dozens of studies worldwide demonstrates ivermectin’s unique and highly potent ability to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 replication and aid in the recovery from covid-19.”

That sounded not quite right to me, so I looked up some of the studies that they cited and found that most had been thoroughly debunked, that ivermectin is not really good treatment for covid-19. I even found one study from an open-access journal that had to publish a correction, noting that two of its authors were paid consultants to ivermectin manufacturers, though they had failed to disclose that conflict. Meanwhile, if you don’t want ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, which the All Family Pharmacy also sells, they will also sell you semaglutide, which is the scientific name of the hard-to-get weight loss drug Ozempic. And they say their price even includes a doctor consult. I will post the links in the show notes. All right, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my interview with Jordan Rau about his long-term care financing series. Then we’ll come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome to the podcast my KFF Health News colleague Jordan Rau. I asked Jordan to join us to talk about his latest project, “Dying Broke,” done in partnership with The New York Times. It’s about the growing expense of long-term care and the declining ability of Americans to pay for it. Jordan, welcome to “What the Health?”

Jordan Rau: Glad to be here, Julie.

Rovner: So I want you to start with the 30-second elevator pitch about what you found working on this, for two years?

Rau: Just about. The big-picture view is that when you’re elderly, if you need long-term care, by which we’re talking about nonmedical things, like personal aides, if you need help in your daily activities going to the bathroom or eating or such, or if you have a cognitive impairment like dementia, it’s exceedingly expensive, except if you are destitute. The private market solutions, which are long-term care insurance, really don’t work, and most people don’t hold it. The government solution, which is Medicaid, is only available to you once you’ve exhausted just about all of your assets and have very low income. And that’s led the vast majority of people out on their own financially to either rely on themselves or their family or other people to take up the burden. And that burden is significant for the children of older people.

Rovner: So it’s not just nursing home care that costs more than all but the richest can afford; assisted living and home care, which people assume are going to be a lot cheaper and that maybe their retirement savings will cover — they’re also increasingly out of reach. Why has the price of long-term care gone up so much faster than Americans’ retirement savings?

Rau: All of medical inflation has gone up enormously, but I think a lot of it is that there’s so little regulation on prices. There’s frankly no regulation on prices of assisted living, and you don’t have a large payer that can control prices. That’s one of the good things about Medicare, is that they set their own prices and that’s helped keep prices down. That’s why it’s less expensive for Medicare to send someone to a nursing home than for someone to pay out-of-pocket. But there’s none of that. So the prices have just gone where they’ve gone, and now you have a scarcity of workers as well. So that’s driving up wages.

Rovner: People who’ve been socking away money and thinking they’re going to be able to pay for this themselves get kind of a rude awakening when they need, and it’s not — as you say, it’s not even medical long-term care; it’s just help with activities of daily living.

Rau: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think one of the problems is that people assume they have the best-case scenario when they’re envisioning their retirement. They’re going to be off golfing, they’re going to be playing around with their grandkids, they’re going to be taking trips. The fact is, you’re very likely — if you live well into your 80s and 90s, as many people do — to not be able to live independently anymore, to need help with at least a little bit of things, and in worst-case scenario everything. People just don’t expect that that’s going to happen.

Rovner: So why do so many Americans still not know that Medicare doesn’t pay for long-term care? I feel like I’ve been saying this since 1980-something.

Rau: I wonder how much of it would’ve been different if they had decided to name Medicaid something that isn’t so close to Medicare. Maybe that would’ve helped, but realistically, everyone I think has a sense. Well, first of all, who’s paying attention to this stuff when you’re in your 30s and 40s, right? You’re not thinking about what’s going to happen to you in the 60s. And then I think that people just don’t expect that this is going to happen to them, and Medicare has a well-earned reputation as being pretty comprehensive. It doesn’t cover certain things, and there is a “donut hole” situation, so you’ve got to get supplemental. But people know that for the most part, it’s covered. And people don’t understand that long-term care, the nonmedical side, is — not just here, everywhere — it’s the backwater of health care. It’s not even considered health care in some ways.

So you just assume — I mean, I would assume, right, if Medicare is going to cover my heart transplant, why would I not think that it’s going to cover someone to come to my house a couple hours a day to help me with stuff or to put me in an assisted living facility if it covers nursing home care? It’s such a complicated, Byzantine system. You and I, we’ve been doing this probably combined, well, I don’t want to say how long, but it’s been a long time, and it’s hard for us to untangle exactly what is covered and what overlaps with what and what are the eligibility rules. So to expect a regular person, who isn’t paid to do this 50 hours a week, to know it is highly unrealistic.

Rovner: Yeah, and I was going to say the fact that Medicare actually has a home care benefit and it has a nursing home benefit; they’re just super limited. I think that sort of adds to the confusion too, doesn’t it?

Rau: Yeah. Well, even Medicare is confused about its home care benefit, right? There’s the whole Jimmo case and a whole debate about what you need to qualify for it.

Rovner: So listeners will know that long-term care and our country’s complete lack of a long-term care policy is a pet issue of mine and has been since I started writing about it in 1986. It isn’t like the government hasn’t tried to do something. There was the ill-fated Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act in 1988 that ended up getting repealed. There were efforts to subsidize private long-term care insurance in the 1990s that didn’t really go anywhere, and there was the CLASS [Community Living Assistance Services and Supports] Act that was briefly part of the Affordable Care Act when it passed in 2010, only to be abandoned as financially unfeasible. Why has this been such a hard issue to address from a policy point of view?

Rau: The one-word answer obviously is money. It’s incredibly expensive. So to have that type of lift, it would be to expand either Medicaid or Medicare or to create a new program; would be inordinately expensive. But beyond that, I think basically, to do this, you either have to tag on something to one of those existing programs, which is a major expansion, or you have to have a mandatory insurance program. It could be a public one; it can be a private one. I think that it’s hard because it’s not universal. Auto insurance — everybody drives, right? So if you say, OK, you all know you’re going to drive, and people know like, Oh, I may get into an accident. So then you have a functioning insurance market.

Health insurance, sort of the same thing. Everyone knows that they’re going to need health insurance maybe next year. So that’s an easier sell. Even that, right, with the Affordable Care Act — that passed by just one vote. That was a heavy lift. So here you’re saying, here’s something that you may need but you very well may never tap. By the way, we want you to pay for it now or buy into it now, and it’s not relevant for your life until 30 years. I just think that’s a hard sell politically to the population, to the political system. It’s a hard sell.

Rovner: So if there was just one message that you hope people take away after reading this exhaustive series, what do you think it should be?

Rau: Printing the series out and frame it and put it on your wall would be my main message. But I would say that this stuff is so unpredictable that you really have to have some flexibility in your expectations and planning, because you can’t plan to not get early-onset dementia. You can’t plan to need help. So I think that you need to — people obviously need to have as much of a cash cushion as they can, and they need to bone up on this before it’s a crisis, because by the time it’s a crisis — and this is a problem, right, with health insurance too. By the time you’ve got the emotional and health issues, to throw on top of it a bureaucratic sort of financial issue is just so hard for most people to juggle. So there isn’t an easy solution, but it is important for people to realize that this is as much of a risk as smashing your car into a telephone pole and that you cannot have one answer.

Your answer cannot be like, “Oh, well I’m just going to stay in my house, because you may not be able to stay in your house.” Or your answer can’t be, “Well, I’m going to go into a fancy assisted living facility with a great chandelier and great food,” because unless you save an inordinate amount of money, even if you go in there, you may not be able to afford to stay there. So it’s really a recognition that you can’t really concretely plan for this, but you may very well not be able to live independently if you are lucky enough to live into your eighth and ninth decade.

Rovner: Great. Jordan Rau, anything I didn’t ask?

Rau: Never. Never, Julie.

Rovner: Jordan Rau, thank you so much for joining us.

Rau: Great to see you.

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

Cohrs: Sure. The story I chose is in ProPublica. The headline is “Doctors With Histories of Big Malpractice Settlements Work for Insurers, Deciding If They’ll Pay for Care,” by Patrick Rucker at The Capitol Forum and David Armstrong and Doris Burke at ProPublica. I think this article very much fits into the larger theme we were talking about earlier about insurance denials. This was pretty shocking still to me, of these instances of doctors with big malpractice settlements that had been disciplined by medical boards failing up essentially and getting jobs. If they can’t practice anymore, then they’re getting jobs in insurance companies instead, deciding whether a much larger volume of patients get care. So I think it was just a fascinating, really well-done investigation. It sounded like it was really difficult to match up all the records with the lawsuits and the settlements, and there aren’t necessarily databases that exist of what doctors work for insurance companies. So it was just really well done and just a really important space that we’ll continue to talk about.

Kenen: That was a great piece. These doctors are making $300,000 to $400,000 a year, these people who failed up, as Rachel just put it. Yeah.

Rovner: Yeah. That’s the perfect phrase. Sandhya.

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Mississippi Community Workers Battle Maternal Mortality Crisis,” and it’s from my colleague at Roll Call Lauren Clason. This story also illustrates a combination of themes from this year. It touches on some of the maternal health inequities, the racial inequities, and rural health inequities, and how politics kind of comes into all of that. Mississippi Black women die at a rate four times higher than white women, and the state also leads in infant mortality rates nationwide. At the same time, it’s also a nonexpansion state for Medicaid. So Lauren went to Mississippi to look at some of the community and state-led groups that are trying to reduce these inequities that are caused by the different racial, socioeconomic, and access factors that are happening at the same time that an increasing number of hospitals are closing in the state.

Rovner: Also another really good story. Joanne?

Kenen: The theme of the day is yearlong, or decades-long in some cases, but ongoing health stories that have dominated the year. Another one that we didn’t touch on today but clearly is an ongoing multiyear health crisis is gun violence, which is a public health problem as well as a criminal justice problem. The Trace did a fantastic end-of-year project by Justin Agrelo. It’s called “Chicago Shooting Survivors, in Their Own Words.” They worked with both people who had survived shootings as well as people who had lost family members to shootings, and they worked with them about how to write and tell stories.

These five stories are in these people’s own words, and it was partnered with a bunch of other Chicago-based publications. They’re very powerful. In the introduction, they wrote that the Chicago media has been really good about trying to cover every homicide but that these people end up being defined by their death, not everything else about their life. These essays, they didn’t just talk about grief, which is obviously a huge — grief and trauma — but also the lives, not just the deaths. It’s really, really worth spending some time with.

Rovner: Yeah, and we haven’t talked as much as we probably should have about gun violence, but we will put that on the list for 2024. My extra credit this week is from Business Insider. It’s called “I Feel Conned Into Keeping This Baby.” It’s by Bethany Dawson, Louise Ridley, and Sarah Posner. It’s about an anti-abortion group that promised pregnant women financial support for their babies if they agreed not to get an abortion. But even though the women signed contracts, the group, called Let Them Live, did not provide the aid promised. Apparently they promised more money than they could raise in contributions. Now, I have heard of pregnancy crisis centers promising things like diapers and formula, but this group said it would help with groceries and rent and other significant expenses until it didn’t. Apparently the small print in the contract said the benefits could be reduced or stopped at any time. This was supposed to help answer the criticism that anti-abortion groups don’t actually care about the women, particularly after they give birth, except maybe promising things that you can’t deliver isn’t the best way to do that.

OK. That is our show for this week and for this year. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review; that helps other people find us, too. Special thanks, as always, to our technical guru, Francis Ying, and our editor, Emmarie Huetteman. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and @julie.rovner at Threads. Sandhya, where are you on social media these days?

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

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X, @rachelcohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @joannekenen1 on Threads. I’m occasionally on X — or, as you all know, I’ve been calling it Y — @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in 2024. Until then, have a great holiday season, and 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.

With other GOP presidential candidates following Donald Trump’s lead in calling for an end to the Affordable Care Act, Democrats are jumping on an issue they think will favor them in the 2024 elections. The Biden administration almost immediately rolled out a controversial proposal that could dramatically decrease the price of drugs developed with federally funded research dollars. The drug industry and the business community at large are vehemently opposed to the proposal, but it is likely to be popular with voters.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court hears arguments in a case to decide whether the Sackler family should be able to shield billions of dollars taken from its bankrupt drug company, Purdue Pharma, from further lawsuits regarding the company’s highly addictive drug OxyContin.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Anna Edney of Bloomberg News, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Rachana Pradhan of KFF Health News.

Panelists

Anna Edney
Bloomberg

@annaedney

Read Anna's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Rachana Pradhan
KFF Health News

@rachanadpradhan

Read Rachana's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The ACA may end up back on the proverbial chopping block if Trump is reelected. But as many in both parties know, it is unlikely to be a winning political strategy for Republicans. ACA enrollment numbers are high, as is the law’s popularity, and years after a failed effort during Trump’s presidency, Republicans still have not unified around a proposal to replace it.
• Democrats are eager to capitalize on the revival of “repeal and replace.” This week, the Biden administration announced plans to exercise so-called “march-in rights,” which it argues allow the government to seize certain patent-protected drugs whose prices have gotten too high and open them to price competition. The plan, once largely embraced by progressives, could give President Joe Biden another opportunity to claim his administration has proven more effective than Trump’s heading into the 2024 election.
• The Senate voted to approve more than 400 military promotions this week, effectively ending the 10-month blockade by Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama over a Pentagon policy that helps service members travel to obtain abortions. At the state level, the Texas courts are considering cases over its exceptions to the state’s abortion ban, while in Ohio, a woman who miscarried after being sent home from the hospital is facing criminal charges.
• Meanwhile, the Supreme Court soon could rule on whether EMTALA, or the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, requires doctors to perform abortions in emergencies. And justices are also considering whether to allow a settlement deal to move forward that does not hold the Sacker family accountable for the harm caused by opioids.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a lawsuit filed by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton accusing Pfizer of failing to end the covid-19 pandemic with its vaccine.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’ sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg,” about his investigation into hospitals suing their patients for unpaid medical bills.

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

Julie Rovner: The Wisconsin State Journal’s “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs,” by David Wahlberg.  

Anna Edney: Bloomberg News’ “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own,” by Madison Muller.  

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “New Abortion Restrictions Pose a Serious Threat to Fetal Surgery,” by Francois I. Luks, Tippi Mackenzie, and Thomas F. Tracy Jr. 

Rachana Pradhan: KFF Health News’ “Patients Expected Profemur Artificial Hips to Last. Then They Snapped in Half,” by Brett Kelman and Anna Werner, CBS News.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• Bloomberg News’ “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way,” by Anna Edney and Riley Griffin.
• Ars Technica’s “Texas Sues Pfizer With COVID Anti-Fax Argument That Is Pure Stupid,” by Beth Mole.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health Law 

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Democrats See Opportunity in GOP Threats to Repeal Health LawEpisode Number: 325Published: Dec. 7, 2023

[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 reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, Dec. 7, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today, we are joined via video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Rovner: Anna Edney of Bloomberg News.

Anna Edney: Hello.

Rovner: And my KFF Health News colleague Rachana Pradhan.

Rachana Pradhan: Good morning, Julie.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with Dan Weissmann, host of our sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan’s been working on a very cool two-part episode about hospitals suing their patients that he will explain. But first, this week’s news. So now that former President [Donald] Trump has raised the possibility of revisiting a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, all of the other Republican presidential wannabes are adding their two cents.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis says that rather than repeal and replace the health law, he would “repeal and supersede,” whatever that means. Nikki Haley has been talking up her anti-ACA bona fides in New Hampshire, and the leading Republican candidate for Senate in Montana is calling for a return to full health care privatization, which would mean getting rid of not only the Affordable Care Act, but also Medicare and Medicaid.

But the Affordable Care Act is more popular than ever, at least judging from this year’s still very brisk open enrollment signups. Alice, you wrote an entire story about how the ACA of 2023 is not the ACA of 2017, the last time Republicans took a serious run at it. How much harder would it be to repeal now?

Ollstein: It would be a lot harder. So, not only have a bunch of red and purple states expanded Medicaid since Republicans took their last swing at the law — meaning that a bunch more constituents in those states are getting coverage they weren’t getting before and might be upset if it was threatened by a repeal — but also just non-Medicaid enrollment is up as well, fueled in large part by all the new subsidies that were implemented over the last few years. And that’s true even in states that resisted expansions.

DeSantis’ Florida, for instance, has the highest exchange enrollment in the country. There’s just a lot more people with a lot more invested in maintaining the program. You have that higher enrollment, you have the higher popularity, and we still haven’t seen a real replacement or “supersede” plan, or whatever they want to call it. And folks I talk to on Capitol Hill, Republican lawmakers, even those that were pretty involved last time, do not think such a plan is coming.

Rovner: It did get asked about at the “last” Republican presidential primary debate last night, and there was an awful lot of hemming and hawing about greedy drug companies and greedy insurance companies, and I heard exactly nothing about any kind of plan. Has anybody else seen any sign of something that Republicans would actually do if they got rid of the Affordable Care Act?

Pradhan: No. There was a time, immediately after the ACA’s passage, that health care was a winning political issue for Republicans, right? It was multiple election cycles that they capitalized on Obamacare and used it to regain House majorities, Senate majorities, and the presidency eventually. But that has not been true for multiple years now. And I think they know that. I think establishment Republicans know that health care is not a winning issue for the party, which is why Democrats are so eager to capitalize on this reopening of ACA repeal, if you will.

Rovner: What a perfect segue, because I was going to say the Biden administration is wasting no time jumping back into health care with both feet, trying to capitalize on what it sees as a gigantic Republican misstep. Just this morning, they are rolling out new proposals aimed at further lowering prescription drug prices, and to highlight the fact that they’ve actually gotten somewhere in some lowering of prescription drug prices.

Now they would like to make it easier to use government “march-in rights,” which would let the government basically tell prescription drug companies, “You’re going to lower your price because we’re going to let other people compete against you, despite your patent.” They’re also doing, and I will use their words, a cross-government public inquiry into corporate greed in health care. Now, some of these things are super controversial. I mean, the march-in rights even before this was unveiled, we saw the drug industry complaining against. But they could also have a real impact if they did some of this, right? Anna, you’ve watched the drug price issue.

Edney: Yeah, I think they definitely could have an impact. This is one of those situations with the march-in rights where we don’t have any clue on where or how exactly, because we haven’t been told that this drug or this class of drugs are kind of what we’re aiming at at this point. It sounds like maybe there’s a little bit more of the plan to be baked, but I am sure there are a lot of progressives, particularly, who had pushed for this that, over the years, who are very excited to even see it mentioned and moving in some sort of way, which hasn’t really happened before.

And, clearly, the Biden administration wants to, like you said, capitalize on health care being part of the campaign. And they’ve done a lot on drug prices, at least a lot in the sense of what can be done. There’s negotiation in Medicare now for some drugs. They kept insulin for Medicare as well. So this is just another step they can say, “We’re doing something else,” and we’d have to see down the line exactly where they’d even plan to use it.

And, of course, as pharma always does, they said that this will hurt innovation and we won’t get any drugs. Not that things have been in place that long, but, clearly, we haven’t seen that so far.

Rovner: Yes, that is always their excuse. I feel like this is one of those times where it doesn’t even matter if any of these things get done, they’re putting them out there just to keep the debate going. This is obviously ground that the Biden campaign would love to campaign on — rather than talking about the economy that makes people mostly unhappy. I assume we’ll be seeing more of this.

Edney: Yeah. Your food prices and other things are very high right now. But if they can talk about getting drug prices lower, that’s a totally different thing that they can point to.

Ollstein: And it’s an easy way to draw the contrast. For people who might be apathetic and think, “Oh, it doesn’t matter who wins the presidential election,” this is an area where the Biden administration can credibly claim, based on what Trump recently said, “This is what’s at stake. This is the difference between my opponent and me. The health care of millions is on the line,” which has been a winning message in past elections.

And what’s been really striking to me is that even talking to a bunch of conservatives now, even though they don’t like the Affordable Care Act, they even are starting to argue that full-scale repeal and replace — now that it’s the status quo — that’s not even a conservative proposal.

They’re saying that it’s more conservative to propose smaller changes that chip around the edges and create some alternatives, but mainly leave it in place, which I think is really interesting, because for so long the litmus test was: Are you for full repeal, root and branch? And we’re just not really hearing that much anymore — except from Trump!

Rovner: The difficulty from the beginning is that the basis of the ACA was a Republican proposal. I mean, they were defanged from the start. It’s been very hard for them to come up with a replacement. What it already is is what Mitt Romney did in Massachusetts. Well, let us turn to the other big issue that Democrats hope will be this coming election year, and that’s abortion, where there was lots of news this week.

We will start with the fact that the 10-month blockade of military promotions by Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is over. Well, mostly over. On Tuesday, the Senate approved by voice vote more than 400 promotions that Tuberville had held up, with only a few four-star nominees still in question. Tuberville’s protests had angered not just Senate Democrats and the Biden administration, who said it was threatening national security, but increasingly his own Senate Republican colleagues.

Tuberville said he was holding up the nominations to protest the Biden administration’s policy of allowing active-duty military members and their dependents to travel out of state for an abortion if they’re stationed where it’s illegal, like in, you know, Alabama. So Alice, what did Tuberville get in exchange for dropping his 10-month blockade?

Ollstein: So, not much. I mean, his aim was to force the Biden administration to change the policy, and that didn’t happen — the policy supporting folks in the military traveling if they’re based in a state where abortion is banned and they need an abortion, supporting the travel to another state, still not paying for the abortion itself, which is still banned. And so that was the policy Tuberville was trying to get overturned, and he did not get that. So he’s claiming that what he got was drawing attention to it, basically. So we’ll see if he tries to use this little bit of remaining leverage to do anything. It does not seem like much was accomplished through this means, although there is a lot of anxiety that this sets a precedent for the future, not just on abortion issues, but, really, could inspire any senator to try to do this and hold a bunch of nominees hostage for whatever policy purpose they want.

Rovner: I know. I mean, senators traditionally sit on nominees for Cabinet posts. And the FDA and the CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] didn’t have a director for, like, three administrations because members were angry at the administration for something about Medicare and Medicaid. But I had never seen anybody hold up military promotions before. This was definitely something new. Rachana, you were going to add something?

Pradhan: Oh, I mean, I was just thinking on Alabama specifically. I mean, I don’t claim to know, even though there was rising anger in Sen. Tuberville’s own party about this move. I mean, I’m not saying I know that this is a factor or not, but in Alabama, regardless of what he tried to do, I think that the attorney general in Alabama has made it clear that he might try to prosecute organizations that help people travel out of state to get abortions.

And so, it’s not like this is only the last word when you’re even talking about military officers or people in the military. Even in his home state, you might see some greater activity on that anyway, which might make it easier for him to honestly, in a way, give it up because it’s not the only way that you could presumably prosecute organizations or people who tried to help others go out of state to access abortion.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s important to say that while he irritated a lot of people in Washington, he probably had a lot of support from people back home in Alabama, which he kept pointing out.

Ollstein: Right. And I saw national anti-abortion groups really cheering him on and urging their members to send him thank-you letters and such. And so definitely not just in his home state. There are conservatives who were backing this.

Rovner: Well, moving on to Texas, because there is always abortion news out of Texas, we have talked quite a bit about the lawsuit filed by women who experienced pregnancy complications and couldn’t get abortions. Well, now we have a separate emergency lawsuit from a woman named Kate Cox, who is currently seeking an abortion because of the threat to her health and life.

Both of these lawsuits aren’t trying to strike the Texas ban, just to clarify when a doctor can perform a medically needed abortion without possibly facing jail time or loss of their medical license. Alice, I know the hearing for Kate Cox is happening even now as we are taping. What’s the status of the other case? We’re waiting to hear from the Texas Supreme Court. Is that where it is?

Ollstein: Yeah. So oral arguments were the other day and a bunch of new plaintiffs have joined the lawsuit. So it’s expanded to a few dozen people now, mostly patients, but some doctors as well who are directly impacted by the law. There was some interesting back and forth in the oral arguments over standing.

And one of the things the state was hammering was that they don’t have standing to sue because they aren’t in this situation that this other woman is in today, where they’re actively pregnant, actively in crisis, and being actively prevented from accessing the health care that they need that their doctor recommends, which in some circumstances is an abortion. And so I think this is an interesting test of the state’s argument on that front.

Rovner: Also, the idea, I mean, that a woman who literally is in the throes of this crisis would step forward and have her name in public and it’s going to court in an emergency hearing today.

Ollstein: Right, as opposed to the other women who were harmed previously. By the time they are seeking relief in court, their pregnancy is already over and the damage has already been done, but they’re saying it’s a threat of a future pregnancy. It’s impacting their willingness to become pregnant again, knowing what could happen, what already happened. But the state was saying like, “Oh, but because you’re not actively in the moment, you shouldn’t have the right to sue.” And so now we’ll see what they say when someone is really in the throes of it.

Rovner: In the moment. Well, another troubling story this week comes from Warren, Ohio, where a woman who experienced a miscarriage is being charged with “abuse of a corpse” because she was sent home from the hospital after her water broke early and miscarried into her toilet, which is gross, but that’s how most miscarriages happen.

The medical examiner has since determined that the fetus was, in fact, born dead and was too premature to survive anyway. Yet the case seems to be going forward. Is this what we can expect to see in places like Ohio where abortion remains legal, but prosecutors want to find other ways to punish women?

Ollstein: I mean, I also think it’s an important reminder that people were criminalized for pregnancy loss while Roe [v. Wade] was still in place. I mean, it was rare, but it did happen. And there are groups tracking it. And so I think that it’s not a huge surprise that it could happen even more now, in this post-Roe era, even in states like Ohio that just voted overwhelmingly to maintain access to abortion.

Pradhan: Julie, do we know what hospital? Because when I was looking at the story, do we know what kind of hospital it was that sent this person away?

Rovner: No. The information is still pretty sketchy about this case, although we do know the prosecutor is sending it to a grand jury. We know that much. I mean, the case is going forward. And we do know that her water broke early and that she did visit, I believe, it was two hospitals, although I have not seen them named. I mean, there’s clearly more information to come about this case.

But yeah, Alice is right. I mean, I wrote about a case in Indiana that was in 2012 or 2013, it was a long time ago, about a woman who tried to kill herself and ended up only killing her fetus and ended up in jail for a year. I mean, was eventually released, but … it’s unusual but not unprecedented for women to be prosecuted, basically, for pregnancy loss.

Ollstein: Yeah, especially people who are struggling with substance abuse. That’s been a major area where that’s happened.

Pradhan: I would personally be very interested in knowing the hospitals that are a part of this and whether they are religiously affiliated, because there’s a standard of care in medicine for what happens if you have your water break before the fetus is viable and what’s supposed to happen versus what can happen.

Rovner: There was a case in Michigan a few years ago where it was a Catholic hospital. The woman, her water broke early. She was in a Catholic hospital, and they also sent her home. I’m trying to remember where she finally got care. But yeah, that has been an issue also over the years. Well, meanwhile, back here in Washington, the Supreme Court is likely to tell us shortly, I believe, whether the 1986 Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, known as EMTALA, requires doctors to perform abortions in life-threatening situations, as the Biden administration maintains.

Alice, this case is on what’s known as the “shadow docket” of the Supreme Court, meaning it has not been fully briefed and argued. It’s only asking if the court will overturn a lower court’s ruling that the federal law trumps the state’s ban. When are we expecting to hear something?

Ollstein: It could be after justices meet on Friday. Really, it could be whenever after that. As we’ve seen in the last few years, the shadow docket can be very unpredictable, and we could just get, at very odd times, major decisions that impact the whole country or just one state. And so, yes, I mean, this issue of abortion care and emergency circumstances is playing out in court in a couple different states, and the federal government is getting involved in some of those states.

And so I think this could be a big test. Unlike a lot of lawsuits going on right now, this is not seeking to strike down the state’s abortion ban entirely. It’s just trying to expand and clarify that people who are in the middle of a medical emergency shouldn’t be subject to the ban.

Rovner: It’s similar to what they’re fighting about in Texas, actually.

Ollstein: Yeah, exactly. And this is still playing out at the 9th Circuit, but they’re trying to leapfrog that and get the Supreme Court to weigh in the meantime.

Rovner: Yeah, and we shall see. All right, well, while we’re on the subject of “This Week in Court,” let us move on to the case that was argued in public at the Supreme Court this week about whether the Sackler family can keep much of its wealth while declaring bankruptcy for its drug company, Purdue Pharma, that’s been found liable for exacerbating, if not causing much of the nation’s opioid epidemic.

The case involves basically two bad choices: Let the Sacklers manipulate the federal bankruptcy code to shield billions of dollars from future lawsuits or further delay justice for millions of people injured by the company’s behavior. And the justices themselves seem pretty divided over which way to go. Anna, what’s at stake here? This is a lot, isn’t it?

Edney: Yeah. I mean, it’s interesting how it doesn’t exactly break down on ideological lines. The justices were — I don’t want to say all over the place, because that sounds disrespectful — but they had concerns on many different levels. And one is that the victims and their lawyers negotiated the settlement because for them it was the best way they felt that they could get compensation, and they didn’t feel that they could get it without letting the Sacklers off the hook, that the Sacklers basically would not sign the settlement agreement, and they were willing to go that route.

And the government is worried about using that and letting the Sacklers off the hook in this way and using this bankruptcy deal to be able to shield a lot of their money that they took out of the company, essentially, and have in their personal wealth now. And so that’s something that a lot of companies are, not a lot, but companies are looking to hope to use the sign of bankruptcy protection when it comes to big class-action lawsuits and harm to consumers.

And so I think that what the worry is is that that then becomes the precedent, that the ones at the very top will always get off because it’s easier to negotiate the settlement that way.

Rovner: We’ll obviously have to wait until — as this goes a few months — to see the decisions in this case, but it’s going to be interesting. I think everybody, including the justices, are unhappy with the set of facts here, but that’s why it was in front of the Supreme Court. So our final entry in “This Week in Court” is a twofer. It is also “This Week in Health Misinformation.”

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has filed suit against Pfizer for allegedly violating Texas’ Deceptive Trade Practices Act because its covid vaccine did not, in fact, end the covid epidemic. Quoting from the attorney general’s press release, “We are pursuing justice for the people of Texas, many of whom were coerced by tyrannical vaccine mandates to take a defective product sold by lies.” It’s hard to even know where to start with this, except that, I guess, anyone can sue anyone for anything in Texas, right?

Edney: Yeah, that’s a very good point. The entire concept of it feels so weird. I mean, a vaccine doesn’t cure anything, right? That’s not the point of a vaccine. It’s not a drug. It is a vaccine that is supposed to prevent you from getting something, and not everybody took it. So that feels like the end of the story, but, clearly, the attorney general would prefer attention, I think, on this, and to continue to sow doubt in vaccines and the government and the Food and Drug Administration seems to be maybe more of the point here.

Rovner: I noticed he’s only suing for, I think, it’s $10 million, which is frankly not a ton of money to a company as big as Pfizer. So one would assume that he’s doing this more for the publicity than for the actual possibility of getting something.

Pradhan: Yeah, I think Pfizer’s CEO’s annual salary is more than the damages that are being sought in this case. So it’s really not very much money at all. I mean, more broadly speaking, I mean, Texas, Florida, I think you see especially post-public-health-emergency-covid times, the medical freedom movement has really taken root in a lot of these places.

And I think that it just seems like this is adding onto that, where doctors say they should be able to give ivermectin to covid patients and it helped them and not be at risk of losing their license. And that’s really kind of an anti-vaccine sentiment. Obviously, it’s very alive and well.

Rovner: We are post-belief-in-scientific-expertise.

Edney: Well, I was going to say, I appreciated The Texas Tribune’s story on this because they called out every time in this lawsuit that he was twisting the truth or just completely not telling the truth at all in the sense that he said that more people who took the vaccine died, and that’s clearly not the case. And so I appreciated that they were trying to call him out every time that he said something that wasn’t true, but was just completely willing to put that out in the public sphere as if it was.

Rovner: There was also a great story on Ars Technica, which is a scientific website, about how the lawsuit completely misrepresents the use of statistics, just got it completely backwards. We’ll post a link to that one too. Well, while we are talking about drug companies, let’s talk about some drugs that really may not be what companies say they are.

Anna, you have a new story up this week about the Pentagon’s effort to ensure that generic drugs are actually copies of the drugs they’re supposed to be. That effort’s running into a roadblock. Tell us a little about that.

Edney: Yeah, thanks for letting me talk about this one. It’s “The Pentagon Wants to Root Out Shoddy Drugs. The FDA Is in Its Way.” So the FDA is the roadblock to trying to figure out whether the drugs, particularly that the military and their family members are taking, work well and don’t have side effects that could be extremely harmful. So what’s going on here is that the Defense Department and others, the White House even, has grown skeptical of the FDA’s ability to police generic drugs, largely that are made overseas.

We did some analysis and we found that it was actually 2019 was the first time that generic drug-making facilities in India surpassed the number of those in the U.S. So we are making more, not just active ingredients, but finished products over in India. And the FDA just doesn’t have a good line into India. They don’t do many unannounced inspections. They usually have to tell the company they’re coming weeks in advance. And what we found is when the Defense Department started looking into this, they partnered with a lab to test some of these drugs.

They got some early results. Those results were concerning, as far as the drug might not work, and also could cause kidney failure, seizures. And even despite this, they’ve been facing the FDA around every corner trying to stop them and trying to get them not to test drugs. They say it’s a waste of money, when, in fact, Kaiser Permanente has been doing this for its 12.7 million members for several years.

And it just seems like something is going on at the FDA and that they don’t want people to have any questions about generic drugs. They really just want everyone to accept that they’re always exactly the same, and they even derail the White House effort to try to look into this more as well. But the Pentagon said, “Thank you very much, FDA, but we’re going forward with this.”

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, I could see that the FDA would be concerned about … they’re supposed to be the last word on these things. But, as you point out and as much of your reporting has pointed out over the last couple of years, the FDA has not been able to keep up with really making sure that these drugs are what they say they are.

Edney: One thing I learned that was interesting, and this is that in Europe, actually, there’s a network of 70 labs that do this kind of testing before drugs reach patients and after they reach patients. So it’s not a totally unusual thing. And for some reason, the FDA does not want that to happen.

Rovner: Well, finally on the drug beat this week, CVS announced earlier that it would overhaul its drug pricing to better reflect how much it pays for the drugs, all of which sounds great, but the fact is that how much CVS pays for the drugs doesn’t have all that much effect on how much we end up paying CVS for those same drugs, right? They’re just changing how they get the drugs from the manufacturers, not necessarily how they price it for the customers.

Pradhan: I think my main question would be, what does that mean for a patient’s out-of-pocket cost for prescriptions? I don’t know how much of this has to do with … for CVS as the pharmacy, but we have CVS Caremark, which is a major PBM, and how this affects the pricing models there. And PBMs, of course, have been under scrutiny in Congress. And there’s outside pressure too, right? The story that you highlighted, Julie, talks about Mark Cuban’s affordable-drug effort. And so, yeah, I don’t know. I mean, I think it sounds good until maybe we see some more details, right?

Rovner: I saw one story that said, “This could really help lower drug prices for consumers,” and one that said, “This could actually raise drug prices for consumers.” So I’m assuming that this is another one where we’re going to have to wait and see the details of. All right, well, that is this week’s news.

Now we will play my interview with Dan Weissmann of the “Arm and a Leg” podcast, and then we will come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast Dan Weissmann, host of KFF Health News’s sister podcast, “An Arm and a Leg.” Dan has a cool two-part story on hospitals suing patients for overdue bills that he’s here to tell us about. Dan, welcome back.

Dan Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: So over the past few years, there have been a lot of stories about hospitals suing former patients, including a big investigation by KFF Health News. But you came at this from kind of a different perspective. Tell us what you were trying to find out.

Weissmann: We were trying to figure out why hospitals file lawsuits in bulk. Investigative reporters like Jay Hancock at KFF [Health News] have documented this practice, and one of the things that they note frequently is how little money hospitals get from these lawsuits. Jay Hancock compared the amount that VCU [Health] was seeking from patients and compared it to that hospital system’s annual surplus, their profit margin, and it looked tiny. And other studies document essentially the same thing. So why do they do it?

And we got a clue from a big report done by National Nurses United in Maryland, which, in addition to documenting how little money hospitals were getting compared to the million-dollar salaries they were paying executives in this case, also noted that a relatively small number of attorneys were filing most of these lawsuits. Just five attorneys filed two-thirds of the 145,000 lawsuits they documented across 10 years, and just one attorney filed more than 40,000 cases. So we were like, huh, maybe that’s a clue. Maybe we found somebody who is getting something out of this. We should find out more.

Rovner: So you keep saying “we” — you had some help working on this. Tell us about your partners.

Weissmann: Oh my God, we were so, so lucky. We work with The Baltimore Banner, which is a new daily news outlet in Baltimore, new nonprofit news outlet in Baltimore, that specializes in data reporting. Their data editor, Ryan Little, pulled untold numbers of cases, hundreds of thousands of cases, from the Maryland courts’ website and analyzed them to an inch of their life and taught us more than I could ever have imagined.

And Scripps News also came in as a partner and one of their data journalists, Rosie Cima, pulled untold numbers of records from the Wisconsin court system and worked to analyze data that we also got from a commercial firm that has a cache of data that has more detail than what we could pull off the website. It was a heroic effort by those folks.

Rovner: So what did you find? Not what you were expecting, right?

Weissmann: No. While Rosie and Ryan were especially gathering all this data and figuring out what to do with it, I was out talking to a lot of people. And what I found out is that in the main, it appears that frequently when these lawsuits happen and when hospitals file lawsuits in general, they’re not being approached by attorneys. They’re working with collection agencies. And most hospitals do work with a collection agency, and it’s essentially like, I put it like, you get a menu, oh, I’m having a hamburger, I’m going to pursue people for bills.

Like, OK, do you want onions? Do you want mustard? Do you want relish? What do you want on it? And in this case, it’s like, how hard do you want us to go after people? Do you want us to hit their credit reports — if you still can do that, because the CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] has been making regulations about that — but do you want us to do that? How often can we call them? And do you want us to file lawsuits if we don’t get results? And so that is essentially in consultation with the hospital’s revenue department and the collection agency, and it’s a strategic decision between them.

That was what we found out through talking to people. What Rosie and Ryan turned up, and the data we had from the folks in New York backed up, is that, surprisingly, in the three states that we looked at, there’s just so much less of this activity than we had expected to find. In Maryland, Ryan sent me a series of emails, the first saying, like, “I’m not actually seeing any this year. That’s got to be wrong. They must be hiding them somewhere. I’m going to go investigate.” And a week later he was like, “I think I found them, and then we’ll go run some more numbers.”

And then a week later, after going to the courthouse and looking at everything you could find, he was like, “No, actually Maryland hospitals just do not seem to be suing anybody this year.” And we had expected there to be fewer lawsuits, but zero was a surprise to everybody. In New York, we appear to have found that two of those three law firms handling all those cases are no longer handling medical bill cases. And in Wisconsin, final numbers are still being crunched. Our second part will have all those numbers.

The Banner is coming out with their numbers this week. But Scripps News and us are still crunching numbers in Wisconsin. But what was the biggest shocker was, I can just tell you, there were so many fewer lawsuits than we had expected, and many of the most active plaintiffs had either cut the practice entirely, like filing zero lawsuits or filing hardly any. One of the things that a lot of these reports that look at across a state, like in New York and the Maryland report, note, and that we found in Wisconsin too, is that most hospitals don’t do this.

Noam Levey at KFF [Health News] found that many hospitals have policies that say, “We might file a lawsuit,” and some larger number of hospitals file some lawsuits. But in all these cases where you’re seeing tons of lawsuits filed, the phenomenon of suing people in bulk is actually not business as usual for most hospitals. That is driven by a relatively small group of players. There was a study in North Carolina by the state treasurers, obviously and Duke University, that found 95% of all the lawsuits were filed by just a few institutions.

The New York people found this. We’ve seen it in Wisconsin. So I mean, it’s another very interesting question when you’re looking at why does this happen. It’s like it’s not something that most institutions do. And again, in Wisconsin, we found that most of the players that had been the most active had basically stopped.

Rovner: Do we know why? Is it just all of the attention that we’ve seen to this issue?

Weissmann: Probably the answer is we don’t know why. Our colleagues at The Banner called every hospital in Maryland and were not told very much. We emailed all the hospitals in Wisconsin that we could that we had seen dramatically decrease, and nobody came to the phone. So we don’t really know.

But it does seem like, certainly in Maryland and New York, there were these huge campaigns that got tons of publicity and got laws changed, got laws passed. And there has been attention. The reports that Bobby Peterson put out in Wisconsin got attention locally. Sarah Kliff of The New York Times, who’s been writing about these kinds of lawsuits, has written multiple times about hospitals in Wisconsin. So it seems like a good first guess, but it’s a guess. Yeah.

Rovner: Well, one thing that I was interested that you did turn up, as you pointed out at the top, hospitals don’t get very much money from doing this. You’re basically suing people for money that they don’t have. So you did find other ways that hospitals could get reimbursed. I mean, they are losing a lot of money from people who can’t pay, even people with insurance, who can’t pay their multi-thousand-dollar deductible. So what could they be doing instead?

Weissmann: They could be doing a better job of evaluating people’s ability to pay upfront. The majority of hospitals in the United States are obligated by the Affordable Care Act to have charity care policies, financial assistance policies, in which they spell out, if you make less than a certain amount of money, it’s a multiple of the federal poverty level that they choose, we’ll forgive some or all of your bill. And, frequently, that number is as much as four times the federal poverty level. They might knock 75% off your bill, which is a huge help.

And as a guy that I met noted, using data from KFF, 58% of Americans make less than 75% of the federal poverty level. That is a lot of people. And so if you’re chasing someone for a medical bill, they might very well have been someone you could have extended financial assistance to. This guy, his name is Nick McLaughlin, he worked for 10 years for a medical bill collections agency. Someone in his family had a medical bill they were having a hard time paying, and he figured out that they qualified for charity care, but the application process, he noted, was really cumbersome, and even just figuring out how to apply was a big process. And so he thought, I know that chasing people for money they don’t have isn’t really the best business model and that we’re often chasing people for money they don’t have. What if we encourage hospitals to be more proactive about figuring out if someone should be getting charity care from them in the first place?

Because, as he said, every time you send someone a bill, you’re spending two bucks. And you’re not just sending one bill, you’re sending like three bills and a final notice. That all adds up, and you’re manning a call center. You’re spending money and you’re missing opportunities by not evaluating people. Because while you’re asking about their income, you might find out they’re eligible for Medicaid, and you can get paid by Medicaid rather than chasing them for money they don’t have.

And two, they might update their insurance information from you and you can get money from their insurance. You can extend financial assistance to somebody, as you said, who has a deductible they can’t pay, and they might actually come to you for care that you can unlock money from their insurance if they’re going to come to you because they’re not afraid of the bill.

I should absolutely say, while Nick McLaughlin is selling hospitals on the idea of adopting new software, which is a great idea, they should do that, they should be more proactive, an entity called Dollar For, a nonprofit organization out of the Pacific Northwest that’s been doing work all over the country, has been beating the drum about this and has a tool that anybody can use.

Essentially, go to their website, dollarfor.org, and type in where you were seen and an estimate of your income, and they will tell you, you’re likely to qualify for charity care at this hospital, because they have a database of every hospital’s policy. And if you need help applying, because some of these applications are burdensome, we’ll help you. So this exists, and everybody should know about it and everybody should tell everybody they know about it. I think the work they’re doing is absolutely heroic.

Rovner: Well, Dan Weissmann, thank you so much for joining us. We will post a link to Dan’s story in our show notes and on our podcast page.

Weissmann: Julie, thanks so much for having me.

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

Edney: Sure. This is from my colleague Madison Muller, “Tallying the Best Stats on US Gun Violence Is Trauma of Its Own.” And I thought she just did such an amazing job with this story, talking to Mark Bryant, who helped start an organization, Gun Violence Archive, which is essentially the only place that is trying to tally every instance of gun violence.

And because of a lot of the restrictions that the NRA has helped get into government regulations and things, some of them which are more recently loosening, but because of those in the past, this is really the only way you could try to look up these statistics. And he’s just given the last decade of his life, with no breaks, trying to do this and his health is failing. And I thought it was just a really poignant look at somebody who has no skin in the game, but just wanted the right information out there.

Rovner: Yeah, obviously this is a big deal. Alice.

Ollstein: I did an op-ed that was published in Stat by a group of fetal medicine specialists who are writing about how their work is being compromised by state abortion bans right now. They were saying these are very risky, high-stakes procedures where they perform operations in utero, latent pregnancy usually, and it’s an attempt to save the pregnancy where there is a big risk. But with all of these, there are risks that it could end the pregnancy, and now they’re afraid of being prosecuted for that.

And they describe a bunch of challenging situations that, even without these bans are challenging, things where there’s twins and something to help one could harm the other twin, and this could all affect the health and life of the parent as well. And so they’re saying that they’re really in this whole new era and have to think about the legal risks, as well as the medical and bioethical ones that they already have to deal with.

Rovner: I’ve reported about this over the years, and I can tell you that these are always really wrenching family decisions about trying to desperately save a pregnancy by doing this extraordinarily difficult and delicate kind of procedure. Rachana.

Pradhan: My extra credit is a story from our colleague Brett Kelman, who worked on this investigation with CBS News. It is about a type of artificial hip known as Profemur that literally were snapping in half in patients’ bodies. I told Brett earlier this week that I was cringing at every line that I read. So if folks want to get a really, frankly, pretty gruesome, awful story about how people around the country have received these artificial hips, and the fact that they broke inside their bodies has really caused a lot of damage.

And, frankly, I know we talked about the FDA, but also this story really sheds light on how the FDA has dropped the ball in not acting with more urgency. And had they done that, many of these injuries likely would’ve been avoided. So, I urge everyone to read it. It’s a great story.

Rovner: It is. I also flinched when I was reading a lot of it. Well, my story is from the Wisconsin State Journal by David Wahlberg, and it’s called “Dane, Milwaukee Counties Stop Making Unwed Fathers Pay for Medicaid Birth Costs.” And while I have been covering Medicaid since the 1980s, and I never knew this even existed, it seems that a handful of states, Wisconsin among them, allows counties to go after the fathers of babies born on Medicaid, which is about half of all births — Medicaid’s about half of all births.

Not surprisingly, making moms choose between disclosing the father to whom she is not married to the state or losing Medicaid for her infant is not a great choice. And there’s lots of research to suggest that it can lead to bad birth outcomes, particularly in African American and Native American communities. I have long known that states can come after the estates of seniors who died after receiving Medicaid-paid nursing home or home care, but this one, at the other end of life, was a new one to me.

Now, I want to know how many other states are still doing this. And when I find out, I’ll report back.

OK, that is our show. As always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcast. We’d appreciate it if you left us a review. That helps other people find us too. Thanks, as always, to our tireless tech guru, Francis Ying, who’s back from vacation. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org, or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Anna?

Edney: @anna_edneyreports on Threads and @annaedney on X.

Rovner: Rachana.

Pradhan: I’m @rachanadpradhan on X.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: I’m @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).

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.

Former president and current 2024 Republican front-runner Donald Trump is aiming to put a repeal of the Affordable Care Act back on the political agenda, much to the delight of Democrats, who point to the health law’s growing popularity.

Meanwhile, in Texas, the all-Republican state Supreme Court this week took up a lawsuit filed by more than two dozen women who said their lives were endangered when they experienced pregnancy complications due to the vague wording of the state’s near-total abortion ban.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine, Victoria Knight of Axios, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The FDA recently approved another promising weight loss drug, offering another option to meet the huge demand for such drugs that promise notable health benefits. But Medicare and private insurers remain wary of paying the tab for these very expensive drugs.
• Speaking of expensive drugs, the courts are weighing in on the use of so-called copay accumulators offered by drug companies and others to reduce the cost of pricey pharmaceuticals for patients. The latest ruling called the federal government’s rules on the subject inconsistent and tied the use of copay accumulators to the availability of cheaper, generic alternatives.
• Congress will revisit government spending in January, but that isn’t soon enough to address the end-of-the-year policy changes for some health programs, such as pending cuts to Medicare payments for doctors.
• “This Week in Medical Misinformation” highlights a guide by the staff of Stat to help lay people decipher whether clinical study results truly represent a “breakthrough” or not.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News’ Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest “Bill of the Month” feature, about a woman who visited a hospital lab for basic prenatal tests and ended up owing almost $2,400. If you have an outrageous or baffling medical bill you’d like to share with us, you can do that here.

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

Julie Rovner: KFF Health News’ “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get,” by Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, and Samantha Liss.

Joanne Kenen: KFF Health News’ “She Once Advised the President on Aging Issues. Now, She’s Battling Serious Disability and Depression,” by Judith Graham.  

Victoria Knight: Business Insider’s “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God,” by Lauren Vespoli.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: ProPublica’s “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It,” by Maya Miller and Robin Fields.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Progressive and Anti-Abortion? New Group Plays Fast and Loose to Make Points,” by Darius Tahir.
• ProPublica’s “Some Republicans Were Willing to Compromise on Abortion Ban Exceptions. Activists Made Sure They Didn’t,” by Kavitha Surana.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on Agenda

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Trump Puts Obamacare Repeal Back on AgendaEpisode Number: 324Published: Nov. 30, 2023

[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, Nov. 30, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So, here we go.

We are joined today via video conference by Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios News.

Victoria Knight: Hello, everyone.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with my colleague Rachana Pradhan about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month’s patient fell into an all-too-common trap of using a lab suggested by her doctor’s office for routine bloodwork without realizing she might be left on the hook for thousands of dollars. But first, this week’s news — and last week’s, too, because we were off.

Because nothing is ever gone for good, the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare is back in the news, and it’s coming primarily from the likely Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump. Just to remind you, in case you’ve forgotten, Trump, during his presidency, even in the two years that Republicans controlled the House and the Senate, was unable to engineer a repeal of the Affordable Care Act, nor did his administration even manage to unveil an alternative. So what possible reason could he have for thinking that this is going to help him politically now?

Knight: My takeaway is that I think it’s a personal grudge that former President Trump still has, that he failed at this. And I think, when you talk to people, he’s still mad that Sen. John McCain did his famous thumbs-down when the rest of the Republican Party was on board. So I’m not sure that there is much political strategy besides wanting to just make it happen finally, because upset it didn’t happen.

Rovner: Is this part of his revenge tour?

Knight: I mean, I think somewhat. Because if you ask House Freedom Caucus people, they will say, “Yeah, we should repeal it.” But if you ask some more moderate Republican members, they’re like, “We’ve already been through that. We don’t want to do it again.” So I don’t think the Republican Party on the Hill has an appetite to do that, even if Congress goes to Republicans in both chambers.

Kenen: Trump never came up with a health plan and repeal died in the Senate, but remember, it was a struggle to even get anything through the House, and what the House Republicans finally voted for, they didn’t even like. So I don’t know if you call this a revenge tour, but it’s checking a box. But I think it’s important to remember that if you look closely at what Republican policies are, they don’t call it repeal, they don’t say, “We are going to repeal it.” That didn’t go so well for them, and it probably cost them an election.

But they still do have a lot of policy ideas that would water down or de facto repeal many key provisions of Obamacare. So they haven’t tried to go that route, and I’m not sure they would ever try a full-out repeal, but there are lots of other things they could do, some of which would have technical names: community rating and things like that, that voters might not quite understand what they were doing, that could really undermine the protections of Obamacare.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was going to say the Republican Party, in general, this has been the running joke since they started “repeal and replace” in 2010, is that they haven’t had the “replace” part of “repeal and replace” at all. Trump kept saying he was going to have a great plan, it’s coming in two weeks, and, of course, now he’s saying he’s going to have a great plan. We’ve never seen this great plan because the Republicans have never been able to agree on what should come next. Aside from, as Joanne says, tinkering around with the Affordable Care Act.

Kenen: Some of that tinkering would be significant.

Rovner: It could be.

Kenen: I mean there are things that they could tinker that wouldn’t be called repeal, but would actually really make the ACA not work very well.

Rovner: But most of the things that the Republicans wanted to do to the ACA have already been done, like repealing the individual mandate, getting rid of a lot of the industry-specific taxes that they didn’t like.

Kenen: Right. So they ended up getting rid of the spinach and they end up with the stuff that even Republicans, they might not say they like the ACA, but they’re being protected by it. And the individual mandate was the single-most unpopular, contentious part of the law and even a lot of Democrats didn’t like it. And so that target of the animus is gone. So by killing part of it, they also made it harder to do things in the future. They could do damage, though.

Rovner: Yeah. Or they could take on entitlements which, of course, is where the real money is. But we’ll get to that in a minute. Sarah, we have not seen you in a while, so we need to catch up on a bunch of things that are FDA-related. First, a couple of payment items since you were last here. The FDA has, as expected, approved a weight loss version of the diabetes drug Mounjaro that appears to be even more effective than the weight loss version of Ozempic. But insurers are still very reluctant to pay for these drugs, which are not only very expensive, they appear to need to be consumed very long-term, if not forever. Medicare has so far resisted calls to cover the drugs, despite some pressure from members of Congress, but that might be about to change.

Karlin-Smith: I think Medicare is getting a lot of pressure. They’re going to have to probably re-look at it at some point. What I found interesting is recently CMS [the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] regulates other types of health plans as well, and in the ACA space they seem to be pushing for coverage of these obesity drugs. And I think they’re thinking around that. They note that the non-coverage allowance for these ACA plans was based on … they were following what Medicare was doing and there’s some acknowledgment that maybe the non-Medicare population is different from the Medicare population. But I think it’s also worth thinking about some of their other reasoning for coverage there, including that these drugs are different than some of the older weight loss drugs that provided more minimal weight loss, had worse side effects, and it came at a time when weight loss was seen as more of a cosmetic issue. So if that ACA provision rule goes through, I think that does help the case for people pushing for coverage in Medicare Part D of these drugs.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean this seems to be one of these “between a rock and a hard place” … that the demand for these drugs is huge. The evidence suggests that they work very well and that they work not just to help people lose weight, but perhaps when they lose weight to be less likely to have heart attacks and strokes and all that other stuff that you don’t want people to have. On the other hand, at the moment, they are super expensive and would bankrupt insurance companies and Medicare.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I mean, we’ve seen this before where people worry there’s a new class of expensive drugs that a lot of people seem like they will need and it’s going to bankrupt the country, and oftentimes that doesn’t happen even whether it is, in theory, more coverage to some extent. We saw that with hep C. There was a new class of cholesterol drugs that came out a few years ago that just haven’t taken off in the way people worried they would. Some of these obesity drugs, they do work really well, not everybody really tolerates them as well as you would think. So there’s questions about whether that demand is really there. Sen. [Bill] Cassidy [R-La.] has made some interesting points about “Is there a way to use these drugs initially for people and then come up with something more for weight maintenance that wouldn’t be as expensive?”

Rovner: We should point out that Sen. Cassidy is a medical doctor.

Karlin-Smith: But I think the pressure is coming on the government. Recently, I got to hear the head of OPM [Office of Personnel Management], who deals with the insurance coverage for federal government employees, and they have a really permissible coverage of obesity drugs. Basically, they require all their health insurance plans to cover one of these GLP-1 drugs, and they have some really interesting language I’ve seen used by pharmaceutical companies to say, “Look, this part of the federal government has said obesity is a disease. It needs to be treated,” and so forth. So I don’t think the federal government is going to be able to use this argument of, “This is not a medical condition, and these are expensive, we’re not going to cover it.” But there’s definitely going to be tensions there in terms of costs.

Rovner: Well, definitely more to come here. Meanwhile, CMS is also looking at changing the rules, again, for some pharmacy copay assistance programs, which claim to assist patients but more often seem to enrich drug companies and payers. What is this one about? And can you explain it in English? Because I’m not sure I understand it.

Karlin-Smith: So most people, when you get a prescription for a drug, have some amount of copay, so your insurance company pays the bulk of the cost and you pay maybe $10, $20, $30 when you pick up your prescription. For really high-cost drugs, pharmaceutical companies and sometimes third-party charities often offer copay support, where they will actually pay your copay for you.

The criticism of these charities and pharma support is that it lets the companies keep the prices higher. Because once you take away the patient feeling the burden of the price, they can still keep that higher percentage that goes to your health plan and into your premiums that you don’t think about. And so health insurance companies have said, “OK, well we’re not going to actually count this coupon money towards your copay, your out-of-pocket max for the year, because you’re not actually paying it.”

So that doesn’t end up doing the patient much good in the end because, while you might get the drug for free the first part of the year, eventually you end up having to pay the money. The courts have weighed in, and the latest ruling was that the effect of it was essentially telling CMS, “You need to re-look at your rules. We don’t think your logic is consistent,” and they seem to potentially suggest that CMS should only allow copay accumulators if there’s a cheaper drug a patient could take.

So, basically, they’re saying it’s unfair to put this burden on patients and not let them benefit from the coupons if this is the only drug they can take. But if there’s a generic drug they should be taking, that’s the equivalent then, OK, insurance company, you can penalize them there. But interestingly, CMS has basically pushed back on the court ruling. They’re asking them for basically more information about what they’re exactly directing them to do and signaling that they want to keep their broader interpretation of the law.

It’s a tricky situation, I think, policy-wise, because there’s this tension of, yes, the drug prices are really high. The insurance companies have a point of how these coupons create these perverse incentives in the system, and, on the other hand, the person that gets stuck in the middle, the patient is not really the fair pawn in this game. And when talking about a similar topic with somebody recently, they brought up what happened with surprise billing and they made this parallel of we need to think about it as, OK, you big corporate entities need to figure out how to duke out this problem, but stop putting the patient in the middle because they’re the one that gets hurt. And that’s what happened in surprise billing. I’m not sure if there’s quite that solution of how you could do that in this pharmaceutical space though.

Rovner: I was just going to say that this sounds exactly like surprise billing, but for prescription drugs. Well, while we are talking about Capitol Hill, let’s turn to Capitol Hill, where the big news of the week is that House Republican conservatives, the so-called Freedom Caucus, have apparently agreed to abide by the deal they agreed to abide by earlier this year. At least that’s when it comes to the overall total for the annual spending bills. Then-Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy’s attempt to adhere to that deal is one of the things that led to his ouster. The conservatives had wanted to cut spending much more deeply than the deal that was cut, I think it was in May. Although I feel compelled to add: Cutting the appropriations bills, which is what we’re talking about here, doesn’t really do very much to help the federal budget deficit. Most of the money that the federal government spends doesn’t go through the appropriations process. It’s automatic, like Social Security and Medicare.

But I digress. Victoria, what prompted the Freedom Caucus to change their minds and what does that portend for actually getting some of these spending bills done before the next cutoff deadline, which is mid-January?

Knight: I mean, I think it’s the Freedom Caucus just facing reality and that it’s really hard to do budget cuts, and a lot of these bills, the cuts are very deep. For the Labor-HHS bill, which is the bill that funds the Department of Health and Human Services, the cut is 18%. To the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention], 12% to the department itself. Those are really big cuts. And all the bills, you look at them, they all have really deep cuts.

The agriculture bill has deep cuts to the Department of Agriculture that some moderate Republicans don’t like. So all of the bills have these issues, and so I think they’re realizing it is just not possible to get what they want. Some of them didn’t vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act, which was the deal that former Speaker McCarthy did with the debt limit that set funding levels. So they’re not necessarily going back on something that they voted for.

Rovner: They’re going back on something that the House voted for.

Knight: Yeah. So yeah, I think they’re just realizing the appropriations process, it’s difficult to make these deep spending cuts. I’ve also heard rumors that there might still be a big omnibus spending bill in January. Despite all this talk of doing the individual appropriations bills, I’ve heard that it may end up, despite all the efforts of the Republican Caucus, it may end where they have to just do a big bill because this is the easiest thing to do and then move on to the rest of the business of Congress for the next year. So we’ll see if that happens. But I have heard some rumors already swirling around that.

Rovner: I mean the idea they have now “agreed” to a spending limit that should have been done in the budget in April, which would’ve given them several months to work on the appropriations bills coming in under that level. And, of course, now we’re almost three months into the new fiscal year, so I mean they’re going to be late starting next year unless they resolve this pretty soon. But in the meantime, one thing that won’t happen is that we won’t get a big omnibus bill before Christmas because the deadline is now not until January, and that’s important for a bunch of health issues because we have a lot of policies that are going to end at the end of the year. Things like putting off cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, which a lot of people care about, including, obviously, all the doctors. Is there a chance that some of these “extender provisions” will find their way onto something else, maybe the defense authorization bill that I think they do want to finish before Christmas?

Knight: Yeah, I think that’s definitely possible. I’ve also heard they can retroactively do that, so even if they miss the deadline, it will probably be fixed. So it doesn’t seem like too big a worry,

Rovner: Although those doctor cuts, I mean, what happens is that CMS pens the claims, they don’t pay the claims until it’s been fixed retroactively. They have done it before, it’s a mess.

Kenen: And it’s bad for the doctors because they don’t get paid. It takes even longer to get paid because they’re put in a hold pile, which gets rather large.

Rovner: It does. Not that the defense bill doesn’t have its own issues around defense, but while we’re on the subject of defense, it looks like Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville might be ready to throw in the towel now on the more than 400 military promotions he’s been blocking to protest the Biden administration’s policy allowing members of active-duty military and their dependents to travel to other states for an abortion if it’s banned where they are stationed. This has been going on since February. My impression is that it’s his fellow Republicans who are getting worried about this.

Kenen: Yeah. They’re as fed up as the Democrats are now. Not 100% of them are, but there’s a number who’ve come out in public and basically told him to cut it out. And then there are others who aren’t saying it in public, but there are clearly signs that they’re not crazy about this either. But we keep hearing it’s about to break. We’ve been hearing for several weeks it’s about to be resolved, and until it’s resolved, it’s not resolved. So I think clearly there’s movement because the pressure has ramped up from his fellow Republicans.

Rovner: Well, to get really technical, I think that the Senate Rules Committee passed a resolution that could get around this whole thing-

Kenen: But they don’t really want to, I mean the Republicans would rather not confront him through a vote. They’d rather just stare him down and get him to pretend that he won and move on. And that’s what we’re waiting to see. Is it a formal action by the Senate or is there some negotiated way to move forward with at least a large number of these held-up nominations.

Rovner: It’s the George Santos-Bob Menendez health issue. In other words, they would like him to step down himself rather than have to vote to take it down, but they would definitely like him to back off.

Kenen: I mean, not confusing anybody but they’re not talking about expelling her from the Senate. They’re [inaudible] talking about “Cut this out and let these people get their promotions,” because some of them are very serious. These are major positions that are unfilled.

Rovner: Yes, I mean it’s backing up the entire military system because people can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go and the people who are going to take their place can’t move on to where they’re supposed to go, and it’s not great for the Department of Defense. All right, well, while we are on the subject of abortion, at least tangentially, the Texas Supreme Court this week heard that case filed by women who had serious pregnancy complications for which they were unable to get medical care because their doctors were afraid that Texas’ abortion ban would be used to take their medical licenses and/or put them in jail.

Kenen: For 99 years!

Rovner: Yeah, the Texas officials defending against the lawsuit say the women shouldn’t be suing the state. They should be suing their doctors. So what do we expect to happen here? This hearing isn’t even really on the merits. It’s just on whether the exceptions the lower court came up with will be allowed to take effect, which at the moment they’re not.

Kenen: The exception-by-exception policy, where things get written in, is problematic because it’s hard to write a law allowing every possible medical situation that could arise and then that would open it to all other litigation because people would disagree about is this close to death or not? So the plaintiffs want a broader, clearer exception where it’s up to the doctors to do what they think is correct for their patients’ health, all sorts of things can go wrong with people’s bodies.

It’s hard to legislate, which is OK and which isn’t. So the idea of suing your doctor, I mean, that’s just not going to go anywhere. I mean, the court is either going to clarify it or not clarify it. Either way, it’ll get appealed. These issues are not going away. There’s many, many, many documented cases of people not being able to get standard of care. Pregnancy complications are rare, but they’re serious and the state legislatures have been really resistant so far to broadening these exemptions.

Rovner: It’s not just Texas. ProPublica published an investigation this week that found that none of the dozen states with the strictest abortion bans broadened exceptions even after women and their doctors complained that they were being put at grave risk, as Joanne just pointed out. When we look at elections and polls, it feels like the abortion rights side very much has the upper hand, but the reverse seems to be the case in actual state legislatures. I mean, it looks like the anti-abortion forces who want as few exceptions as possible are still getting their way. At least that’s what ProPublica found.

Kenen: Right. One of the other points that the ProPublica piece made was many of these laws were trigger laws. They were written before Roe was toppled. They were written as just in case, if the Supreme Court lets us do this, we’ll do it. So they were symbolic and they were not necessarily written with a lot of medical input. And they were written by activists, not physicians or obstetricians.

And the resistance to changing them is coming from the same interest groups that want no abortions, who say it’s just not ever medically necessary or so rarely medically necessary, and it is medically necessary at times. I mean, there are people who, and this line saying, “Well, if you’re in trouble, you can’t have an abortion. But if you’re close to death you can,” that can happen in split seconds. You can be in trouble and then really be in real trouble. You can’t predict the course of an individual, and it’s tying the hands for physicians to do what needs to be done until it might be too late.

Knight: I think a lot of them don’t realize, until it starts happening, how many times it is sometimes medically necessary. It’s not even that a woman necessarily wants to get an abortion, it’s just something happens, and it’s safer for her to do that in order to save her life.

Karlin-Smith: And you’ve seen in some of these states, sometimes Republican women prominently coming out and pushing for this and trying to explain why it’s necessary. In some cases, they also have made the argument, too, that sometimes to preserve a woman’s fertility, these procedures are necessary given the current situations they face.

Kenen: There was a quote in that ProPublica story, and it’s not necessarily everybody on the anti-abortion rights side, but this individual was quoted as saying that the baby’s life is more important than the mother’s life. So that’s a judgment that a politician or activist is making. Plus, if the mother dies, the fetus can die too. So it doesn’t even make sense. It’s not even choosing one. I mean, in many cases if the pregnant person dies, the fetus will die.

Rovner: Well, finally this week, I want to give a shout-out to a story by my KFF Health News colleague Darius Tahir, who, by the way, became a father this week. Congratulations, Darius. The story’s about a group called the Progressive Anti-Abortion Uprising that purports to be both anti-abortion and progressively leftist and feminist. One of its goals appears to be to get courts to overturn the federal law that restricts protests in front of abortion clinics. The Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, known as FACE, is I think the only explicitly abortion rights legislation that became law in the entire 1990s, which makes you wonder if this group is really as leftist and feminist as it says it is, or if it’s just a front to try and go after this particular law.

Kenen: It sets limits of where people can be and tries to police it somewhat. But in Darius’ story, his reporting showed that they did, at least some of them, had ties to right-wing groups. So that they’re calling themselves leftist and progressive … it’s not so clear how accurate that is for everybody involved.

Rovner: Yeah, it was an interesting story that we will link to in the show notes. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation,” and it’s good news for a change. I chose a story from Stat News called “How to Spot When Drug Companies Spin Clinical Trial Results.” It’s actually an update of a 2020 guide that STAT did to interpret clinical trial results, and it’s basically a glossary to help understand company jargon and red flags, particularly in press releases, to help determine if that new medical “breakthrough” really is or not. It is really super helpful if you’re a layperson trying to make sense of this.

OK that is this week’s news, and I now will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Rachana Pradhan, and then we will come back with our extra credits.

I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Rachana Pradhan, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” installment. Always great to see you, Rachana.

Rachana Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

Rovner: So this month’s patient fell into what’s an all-too-common trap. She went to a lab for routine bloodwork suggested by her doctor without realizing she could be subjected to thousands of dollars in bills she’s expected to pay. Tell us who she is and how she managed to rack up such a big bill for things that should not have cost that much.

Pradhan: So our patient is Reesha Ahmed. She lives in Texas, just in a suburb of the Dallas-Fort Worth area, and what happened to Reesha is she found out she was pregnant and she went to a doctor’s office that she had never gone to before for a standard prenatal checkup, and she also had health insurance. I want to underscore that that is an important detail in this story. So the nurse recommended that Reesha get routine blood tests just down the hall in a lab that was in the adjoining hospital. And it was routine. There was nothing unusual about the blood tests that Reesha received. So what she was advised to do is after her checkup, she was told, “Well, here’s the bloodwork you need, and just go down the hallway here, into the hospital,” to get her blood drawn.

Rovner: How convenient, they have their own lab.

Pradhan: Exactly. And Reesha did what she was told. She got bloodwork done. And then, soon after that, she started getting bills. And they first were small amounts, like there was a bill for $17, and she thought, “OK, well that’s not so bad.” Then she got a bill for over $300 and thought, “That’s unusual. Why would I get billed this?” Then came the huge one. It was over $2,000. In total, Reesha’s overall lab work bills were close to $2,400 for, again, standard bloodwork that every pregnant woman gets when they find out that they’re pregnant. And so she, needless to say, was shocked and immediately actually started trying to investigate herself as to how it was possible for her to get billed such astronomical amounts.

Rovner: And so what did she manage to find out?

Pradhan: She tried taking it up with the hospital and her insurance company. And she just got passed around over and over again. She appealed to her insurance. They denied her appeal saying that, “Well, this bloodwork was diagnostic and not preventive, so it was coded correctly based on the claim that was submitted to us,” and the hospital even sent her to collections for this bloodwork. Unfortunately for Reesha, this pregnancy ended in a miscarriage, and so it was particularly difficult. She was dealing with all the emotional, physical ramifications of that, and then on top of that, having to deal with this billing nightmare is just a lot for any one person to handle. It’s too much, honestly.

Rovner: So we, the experts in this, what did we discover about why she got billed so much?

Pradhan: You can get bloodwork at multiple places in our health system. You could get it maybe within a lab just in your doctor’s office. You can go to an outside lab, like an independent commercial one, to get bloodwork done and you can sometimes get labs within a hospital building. They may not look any different when you’re actually in there, but there’s a huge difference as to how much they will charge you.

Research has shown that if a patient is getting blood tests done, things that are relatively routine and just as a standalone service, hospital outpatient department labs charge much, much more. There’s research that we cite in the story about Reesha that … she lives in Texas … bloodwork in Texas, if it’s done in a hospital outpatient department is at least six times as expensive compared to if you get those same tests in a doctor’s office or in an independent commercial lab.

Rovner: To be clear, I would say it’s not just bloodwork. It’s any routine tests that you get in a hospital outpatient department.

Pradhan: That research, in particular, was looking at blood tests actually, in particular, just any lab work that you might get done. So the conclusion of that is really that there’s no meaningful quality difference. There’s really no difference at all when you get them in a doctor’s office versus a hospital or a lab, and yet the prices you pay will vary dramatically.

Rovner: Yeah, there should be a big sign on the door that says: “This may be more convenient, but if you go somewhere else, you might pay a lot less and so will your insurance.” What eventually happened with Reesha’s bill?

Pradhan: Well, eventually, the charges were waived and zeroed out and she was told that she would not have to pay anything and all the accounts would be zeroed out to nothing.

Rovner: Eventually, after we started asking questions?

Pradhan: Yes. It was a day after I had sent a litany of questions about her billing that they gave her a call and said, “You now won’t have to pay anything.” So it’s a big relief for her.

Rovner: Obviously this was not her fault. She did what was recommended by the nurse in her doctor’s office, but there are efforts to make this more transparent.

Pradhan: Yeah. I think in health care policy world, the issue that she experienced is a reflection of something called site-neutral payment, which essentially means if payment is site-neutral for a health care provider, it means that you get a service and regardless of where you get that service, there is no difference in the amount that you are paying. There are efforts in Congress and even in state legislatures to institute site-neutral pay for certain services.

Bloodwork is one that is not necessarily being targeted, at least in Congress. But I will say, I think one of the big takeaways about what patients can do is if they do get paperwork from your doctor’s office saying, “OK, you need to get some blood tests done,” you can always take that bloodwork request and get it done at an independent lab where the charges will be far, far less than in a hospital-based lab, to avoid these charges.

Rovner: Think of it like a prescription.

Pradhan: Exactly. It might not be as convenient in that moment. You might have to drive somewhere, you can’t just walk down a hallway and get your blood tests and labs done, but I think you will potentially avoid exorbitant costs, especially for bloodwork that is very standard and is not costly.

Rovner: Yet another cautionary tale. Rachana Pradhan, thank you very much.

Pradhan: Thanks for having me, Julie.

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

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a ProPublica piece by Maya Miller and Robin Fields, “Insurance Executives Refused to Pay for the Cancer Treatment That Could Have Saved Him. This Is How They Did It.” And it tells the story of a Michigan man who had cancer, and the last resort treatment for him was CAR-T, which is a cellular therapy where they basically take some of your cells, reengineer them, and put them back into your body, and it is quite expensive and it can come with a lot of expensive side effects as well.

FDA considers it a drug, and Michigan state law requires cancer drugs be covered. The insurance company of this man, basically on a technicality, denied it, describing it as a gene therapy, and he did die before he was able to fully push this battle with the insurance company and get access to the treatment and so forth. But I think the piece raises these broader issues about [how] few states are able to proactively monitor whether insurance plans are properly implementing the laws around what is supposed to be covered and not covered.

Few people really have the knowledge or skill set, particularly when you’re dealing with devastating diseases like cancer, which are just taking all of your energy just to go through the treatment, to figure out how to fight the system. And it really demonstrates the huge power imbalances people face in getting health care, even if there are laws that, in theory, seem like they’re supposed to be protected.

I also thought there’s some really interesting statistics in the story about, yes, even though the price tag for these products are really expensive, that the health insurance company actually crunched the numbers and found that if they shifted the cost to premiums in their policyholders, it would lead to, like, 17 cents a month per premium. So I thought that was interesting, as well, because it gives you a sense of, again, where their motivation is coming from when you boil it down to how the costs actually add up.

Rovner: And we will, I promise, talk about the growing backlash against insurance company behavior next week. Victoria.

Knight: So my extra-credit article is a Business Insider story in which I’m quoted, but the title is “Washington’s Secret Weapon Is a Beloved Gen Z Energy Drink With More Caffeine Than God.” And it basically talks about the phenomenon of Celsius popping up around the Hill. So it’s an energy drink that contains 200 milligrams of caffeine. It tastes like sparkling water, it’s fruity, but it’s not like Monster or Red Bull. It tastes way better than them, which I think is partly why it’s become so popular.

But anyways, I’ve only been on the Hill reporting for about a year and in the past couple months it has really popped up everywhere. It’s all around in the different little stores within the Capitol complex, there’s machines devoted to it. So it talks about how that happened. And I personally drink almost one Celsius a day. I’m trying to be better about it, but the Hill is a hard place to work, and you’re running around all the time, and it just gets you as much caffeine as you need in a quick hit. But the FDA does recommend about 400 milligrams a day. So if you drink two, then you’re not going over the recommendation.

Rovner: Well, you can’t drink anything else with caffeine if you drink two.

Knight: That’s true. And I do drink coffee in the morning, but it has some funny quotes to our members of Congress and chiefs of staff and reporters about how we all rely on this energy drink to get through working on the Hill.

Rovner: I just loved this story because, forever, people wonder how these things happen in the middle of the night. It’s not the members, it’s the staff who are going 16 and 20 hours a day, and they’ve always had to rely on something. So, at least now, it’s something that tastes better.

Knight: It does taste better.

Rovner: That’s why it amused me, because it’s been ever thus that you cannot work the way Capitol Hill works without some artificial help, shall we say. Joanne.

Kenen: We used to just count how many pizza boxes were being delivered to know how long a night it was going to be. I guess now you count how many empty cans of Celsius.

Knight: Exactly.

Rovner: I personally ran more on sugar than caffeine.

Kenen: OK. This is a piece by Judy Graham of KFF Health News, and the headline is “A Life-Changing Injury Transformed an Expert’s View on Disability Services.” And it’s about a woman many of us know, actually Julie and I both know: Nora Super. I’ve known her for a long time. She’s an expert on aging. She ran one of the White House aging conferences. She worked at Milken for a long time. She worked at AARP for a while.

She’s in her late 50s now, and in midlife, she started having really severe episodes of depression, and she became very open about it, she became an advocate. Last summer, she had another episode and she couldn’t get an appointment for the treatment she needed quickly enough. And while she was waiting, which is the story of American health care right now, and while she was waiting for it, she did try to take her own life. She survived, but she now has no sensation from the waist down.

And her husband is a health economist, and I should disclose, my former boss at one point, I worked for and with Len for two years, Len Nichols. So this is a story about how she has now become an advocate for disability. And this is a couple with a lot of resources. I mean both knowledge, connections, and they’re not gazillionaires, but they have resources, and how hard it has been for them even with their resources and connections. And so now Nora who, when she’s well, she’s this effervescent force of nature, and this is how she is turning — her prognosis, it could get better, they don’t know yet — but clearly an extraordinarily difficult time. And she has now taken this opportunity to become not just an advocate for the aging and not just an advocate for people with severe depression, but now an advocate for people with severe disability.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, it’s everything that’s wrong with the American health care system, and I will say that a lot of what I’ve learned about health policy over very many years came from both Len Nichols and Nora, his wife. So they do know a lot. And I think what shocked me about the story is just how expensive some of the things are that they need. And, again, this is a couple who should be well enough off to support themselves, but these are costs that basically nobody could or should have to bear.

Kenen: Even … it was just a lift to get her into their car, just that alone was $6,500. And there are many, many, many things like that. And then another thing that they pointed out in the article is that most physicians don’t have a way of getting somebody from a wheelchair onto the examining table other than having her 70-year-old husband hoist her. So that was one of the many small revelations in this story. Obviously, it’s heartbreaking because I know and like her, but it’s also another indictment of why we just don’t do things right.

Rovner: Yes. Where we are. Well, my story is yet another indictment of not doing things right. It’s by my colleagues Katheryn Houghton, Rachana Pradhan, who you just heard, and Samantha Liss, and it’s called “Medicaid ‘Unwinding’ Makes Other Public Assistance Harder to Get.” And it’s just an infuriating story pointing out that everything we’ve talked about all year with state reviews of Medicaid eligibility, the endless waits on hold with call centers, lost applications, and other bureaucratic holdups, goes for more than just health insurance. The same overworked and under-resourced people who determine Medicaid eligibility are also the gatekeepers for other programs like food stamps and cash welfare assistance, and people who are eligible for those programs are also getting wrongly denied benefits.

Among the people quoted in the story was DeAnna Marchand of Missoula, Montana, who is trying to recertify herself and her grandson for both Medicaid and SNAP (food stamps), but wasn’t sure what she needed to present to prove that eligibility. So she waited to speak to someone and picking up from the story, “After half an hour, she followed prompts to schedule a callback, but an automated voice announced slots were full and instructed her to wait on hold again. An hour later, the call was dropped.” It’s not really the fault of these workers. They cannot possibly do what needs to be done, and, once again, it’s the patients who are paying the price.

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 this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. Also, as always, you can email us your questions or comments. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, for now, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Joanne.

Kenen: I’m mostly at Threads, @joannekenen1. Occasionally I’m still on X, but not very often, that’s @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Sarah.

Karlin-Smith: I am @SarahKarlin, or @sarahkarlin-smith, depending on the platform.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: I am @victoriaregisk [on X and Threads]. Still mostly on X, but also on Threads at the same name.

Rovner: We’re all trying to branch out. We will be back in your feed next week. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
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.

Congress narrowly avoided a federal government shutdown for the second time in as many months, as House Democrats provided the needed votes for new House Republican Speaker Mike Johnson to avoid his first legislative catastrophe of his brief tenure. But funding the federal government won’t get any easier when the latest temporary patches expire in early 2024. It seems House Republicans have not yet accepted that they cannot accomplish the steep spending cuts they want as long as the Senate and the White House are controlled by Democrats.

Meanwhile, a pair of investigations unveiled this week underscored the difficulty of obtaining needed long-term care for seniors. One, from KFF Health News and The New York Times, chronicles the financial toll on families for people who need help for activities of daily living. The other, from Stat, details how some insurance companies are using artificial intelligence algorithms to deny needed rehabilitation care for Medicare patients.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico Magazine, and Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Congress passed a two-part continuing resolution this week that will prevent the federal government from shutting down when the current CR expires Nov. 18 at 12:01 a.m. The new measure extends some current spending levels, including funding for the FDA, through Jan. 19. The rest of federal agencies, including most of the Department of Health and Human Services, are extended to Feb. 2.
• House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) has said he wants to use the next two months to finish work on individual appropriations bills, none of which have passed both the House and Senate so far. The problem: They would deeply cut many popular federal programs. They also are full of changes to abortion restrictions and transgender policies, highlighting the split between the GOP caucus’ far-right wing and its more moderate members.
• In the wake of abortion rights successes in passing abortion rights ballot initiatives, new efforts are taking shape in Ohio and Michigan among state lawmakers who are arguing that when Dobbs turned this decision back to states, it meant to the state legislatures — not to the courts or voters. Most experts agree the approach is unlikely to prevail. Still, it highlights continuing efforts to change the rules surrounding this polarized issue.
• Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) — who was the only remaining Republican presidential candidate pushing for a national, 15-week abortion ban — suspended his campaign last week. He, along with former Vice President Mike Pence, who bowed out of the race at the end of October, were the field’s strongest anti-abortion candidates. This seems to suggest that the 15-week ban is not drawing voter support, even among Republicans. Meanwhile, former President Donald Trump, the GOP’s front-runner by miles, continues to be willing to play both sides of the abortion debate.
• Amid increasing concern about the use of artificial intelligence in health care, a California class-action lawsuit charges that UnitedHealth Group is using algorithms to deny rehabilitation care to enrollees in its Medicare Advantage program. The suit comes in the wake of an investigation by Stat into insurer requirements that case managers hew to the AI estimates of how long the company would pay for rehabilitation care, regardless of the patient’s actual medical situation.
• More than 10 million people have lost Medicaid coverage since states began reviewing eligibility earlier in the year. Advocates for Medicaid patients worry that the Biden administration has not done enough to ensure that people who are still eligible for the program — particularly children — are not mistakenly terminated.

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’ “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts,” by Amy Maxmen.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The New York Times’ “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead,” by Jack Healy.

Rachel Cohrs: Stat’s “UnitedHealth Pushed Employees to Follow an Algorithm to Cut Off Medicare Patients’ Rehab Care,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.

Joanne Kenen: ProPublica’s “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards,” by Isabelle Taft, Mississippi Today.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Facing Financial Ruin as Costs Soar for Elder Care,” by Reed Abelson, The New York Times, and Jordan Rau.
• JAMA Internal Medicine’s “Excess Death Rates for Republican and Democratic Registered Voters in Florida and Ohio During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” by Jacob Wallace, et al.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Congress Kicks the (Budget) Can Down the Road. Again.

[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, Nov. 16, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast, and things might’ve changed by the time you hear this. So here we go.

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

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins University and Politico Magazine.

Joanne Kenen: Hi everyone.

Rovner: No interview this week, but more than enough news, so we will get right to it. So the federal government is not going to shut down when the current continuing spending resolution expires at 12:01 a.m. Saturday. In basically a rerun of what happened at the end of September, new House Speaker Mike Johnson ended up having to turn to Democrats to pass another CR. This one extends a bunch of federal programs until Jan.19 and the rest of them until Feb. 2. Most of HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] is in the latter category, but the FDA, because it’s funded through the Department of Agriculture, its spending bill would be in the group that’s funded only through Jan. 19. Don’t worry if you don’t remember that.

The stated goal here is to use the next two months, minus what’s likely to be a sizable Christmas break, to finish work on the individual appropriation bills, of which exactly zero of 12 have passed both the House and Senate and been sent to the president. Meanwhile, in just the last week, House Republicans have been unable to pass any of the individual appropriations they have brought to the floor and a few haven’t been able to even get to the floor. Yesterday, Republican leaders pulled the plug on the rest of the week’s floor schedule, literally in the middle of a series of votes on the HHS spending bill. So Democrats are not going to bail them out on these individual bills the way they have on the relatively clean continuing resolutions because the individual bills include very deep spending cuts and lots of abortion and transgender and other culture wars riders. So what exactly do they think is going to change between now and the next deadline?

Ollstein: Well, there’s been a lot of chatter about how cranky members of Congress have gotten because they worked 10 weeks in a row. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without destroying each other, but there it is. And so there’s the hope that when they come back …

Rovner: Yes, there were threats of physical violence this week.

Ollstein: And allegedly some actual physical violence. Most of us work 10 weeks in a row without assaulting our colleagues, but we are not members of Congress. So the idea is they could take some time to cool off and come back and be more collaborative, but really this is a problem the Republican Caucus has not been able to solve. You have dissent on the right of the caucus and the sort of more moderate left or more left side of the caucus. You have moderate members who are worried about getting reelected in districts that voted for [President Joe] Biden who are not wanting to vote for these spending bills that are full of anti-trans and anti-abortion provisions, which you could easily picture that being used against them in campaign ads. And then you have folks on the far right in the Freedom Caucus who are sort of tanking these individual bills to protest the overall trajectory of spending and the overall process. So this is not going away anytime soon. And, like you said, Democrats are not bailing them out here.

Cohrs: One other point I wanted to make, sorry, Julie, on the deadlines is that for people who are interested in health policy and PBM [pharmacy benefit manager] reform and DSH [Medicaid’s Disproportionate Share Hospital] cuts, all of those. Those all have a Jan. 19 deadline. So those will come with the first round. So I think for the people out there who are worried about those policies, community health centers, extenders, that will happen with the first deadline even though the full Labor, HHS preparations aren’t until the second one.

Rovner: Yeah, these continuing resolutions do carry some of these extraneous, what we like to call “extender,” provisions that would otherwise have expired. And so they’ll keep them going for another couple of months and keep lobbyists busy wringing their hands and keep all of our inboxes full of emails of people warning of terrible things that will happen if these programs aren’t continued. But I want to go back to the underlying problem here, though, is that first of all, the conservative Republicans say they want to put the budget on a different trajectory. Well, discretionary spending, which is what we’re talking about here with the 12 spending bills, is a tiny portion of what makes up the budget and the budget deficit. So even if they were to cut all of these programs as dramatically as they like, they wouldn’t have much of an impact on the overall budget. I’m sort of mystified that people don’t keep pointing that out.

Ollstein: Well, and they’re also cutting things that won’t save money. I mean, they wanted to cut things like IRS enforcement, which would lose money because then the IRS wouldn’t be going after wealthy tax cheats and recouping that government spending. And so some of this is ideological. They’re going after health care programs that support LGBT people, for instance, and that doesn’t save that much money. But there’s been a lot of speeches from Republicans railing against the substance of the programs and calling them “woke” and inappropriate and such. And so, yes, some of this is fiscal, but a lot of it is also ideological.

Kenen: Yeah, it’s a relatively small portion of federal dollars, but a relatively large portion of culture war.

Rovner: Yes, I think that is a very good way to put it because, of course, it’s a place where they can put culture war things because they have to come up every year. But yeah, I think that’s why we end up fighting over this. All right, well this fight has been put off until 2024, although it’ll be the first thing when we get back.

Kenen: Yeah. And nothing’s really going to change except maybe cooler heads prevail. Anyone see any cooler heads around there? They may come back a little bit more personally tolerant when they’ve had some time off over the holidays. But the basic ideological and political alignment and the loggerheads, it’s like the only thing that changes between November, December, and January is it’s colder here then.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s exactly correct. Yeah. The far right of the House Republican Caucus is going to have to realize that there is a Senate and there is a president and they all get a say in what these final bills look like too. So they can’t just dictate we’re going to make all these cuts and, if not, we’re going to close down the government, unless that’s what they decide to do.

Kenen: But I think they skipped that session in their orientation.

Rovner: Yeah. Apparently.

Kenen: They’re not finding, “OK, where’s the compromise? What do we really, really, really want? And what are we willing to trade that for?” They’re not doing that. If you give and take, everybody gets some victory, and you have to identify what victory you can get that satisfies you. But there’s no sign of any kind of realistic grasp that this is divided government.

Rovner: Right. And they yet to figure that out. All right, well let us turn to abortion, where there is always news. We are going to start in Ohio, where last week voters, by a pretty healthy margin, approved a ballot measure to enshrine abortion rights in the state constitution. Now, though, some anti-abortion lawmakers in Ohio say, “Never mind, we can overrule that.” Really, Alice?

Ollstein: So there are efforts going on in both Ohio and Michigan to block, undo, undermine what voters voted for in these referenda and, based on talking to sources, it seems like neither of these really have legs. They’re sort of seen as just messaging. But I think that even the attempt to try to undermine or undo what voters overwhelmingly approved is telling and interesting. And, of course, it builds on all of the attempts leading up to the votes that we saw from these same forces to try to change the rules, make it more difficult. So I think when state legislatures around the country come back into session in January, we’re going to be watching closely to see if they pass things that aim to block these votes. So definitely something to keep an eye on.

Rovner: I did see that this speaker of the Ohio House has poured at least some cold water on this effort. The argument had been from some of these lawmakers that because the Supreme Court gave this decision back to the states, that means only state legislatures and not the courts and not the voters directly. Am I interpreting that right?

Kenen: Yeah, the speaker was pretty firm. He said … what did he say? It was “Schoolhouse Rock”? He basically said that the voters, they matter.

Rovner: Yeah.

Ollstein: And what’s interesting is that the court that they want to cut out of this in Ohio is very conservative. And so this isn’t like, “Oh, we want to block these liberal activist judges from weighing in here.” This is “We want to keep this solely in the hands of the legislature and not have, really, courts have a role in it at all,” although the courts are very conservative and tilt in the anti-abortion direction anyway, which I think is notable.

Rovner: We’ll definitely watch that space in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes. Well, elsewhere, in Alabama, in a story that I didn’t think got the coverage it deserved, the Justice Department is joining a case brought by an abortion fund and some former abortion providers about whether the state might be able to prosecute them for helping women travel to obtain an abortion in another state. Department of Justice says, “Of course, states can’t prevent people from traveling to other states for things that are legal in another state, but not in their state. Otherwise, very few people would be able to go to Las Vegas.” But the state attorney general has yet threatened to try to prosecute, has he not?

Ollstein: Yeah, so this is happening in a few states, but it’s sort of come to a head in Alabama in terms of treating groups that either provide material support for people to travel across state lines for an abortion or even just information, even just “Here’s a clinic that you can call in this other state.” Not even a formal referral, medical referral, but just information about where to go. The attorney general has threatened to consider that kind of a criminal conspiracy to violate Alabama’s abortion ban.

So this is an interesting test, and I think it may — like the travel bans we’ve been seeing proposed and even implemented in some cities, states, et cetera. They’re sort of trying a bunch of different things. But these are basically impossible to enforce. And so, really, what’s happening here is an attempt to undo some of the chilling effect of these laws. Right now, people are so afraid of being charged with criminal conspiracy that they’re holding off on, even providing publicly available information that’s likely protected by the First Amendment. And so they’re hoping that a court ruling saying “You do have the right to at least discuss this and even give people support to travel” will undo some of that chilling effect. And yeah, I think that’s sort of the key here.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, moving on to Texas, where a lot of these other travel bans have been tried, at least in some cities and counties, we want to go back to that case where a half a dozen women who couldn’t get care for pregnancy complications, because of the state’s abortion ban, sued. Well, now there are 22 plaintiffs in that case, including two doctors and a then-medical student who discovered her fetus’s lethal abnormalities at an 18-week scan. The Texas Supreme Court is supposed to hear this case later this month, but, Alice, this could really end up before the U.S. Supreme Court, couldn’t it? This is the concern of women who are not trying to have abortions. They were basically trying to complete pregnancies and have had things go terribly wrong. And, as you just said, doctors are afraid to treat them for fear that they’re going to be prosecuted.

Ollstein: Yeah. And so this is where state abortion bans are running up against federal protections for … you have to treat a patient who comes in who’s experiencing a medical emergency. This is the EMTALA, a federal law, and these things are in conflict. Anti-abortion groups and advocates say that they are not, and that medical care in these situations is already protected. But as we’ve seen with this chilling effect, doctors are afraid to act in these situations and they’re telling patients to go away and come back when things are more dire. And that, in some cases, in these plaintiff’s cases, has led to pretty permanent damage, damage to their future fertility, threats to their lives. And so these cases are not seeking to get rid of the abortion bans entirely, as some other lawsuits are, but they are seeking to really make clear, because it’s not clear to medical providers right now, make clear what is allowed in these really sensitive and precarious medical situations.

Rovner: Yeah, I keep hearing a lot of the anti-abortion forces saying, “Well, it’s not technically an abortion in these cases. If it’s an ectopic pregnancy or something or the woman’s water has broken early and she’s going to get septic.” And it’s like, “Except that medically, yes, they are. A termination of pregnancy is termination of pregnancy.” And that’s why the doctors are saying, “You can call this anything you want. We’re the ones who are going to get thrown in jail and lose our medical licenses.” All right. Well, before we move on, I want to talk some abortion politics. Sen. Tim Scott of South Carolina, who had been the only Republican presidential candidate strongly pushing for a federal 15-week abortion ban, suspended his campaign this week after what happened in Virginia last week, which we talked about at some length. When Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin tried to win back the state legislature for Republicans by promising to sign his own 15-week ban and lost spectacularly. Where does that leave Republicans on abortion going into 2024? Obviously, the 15-week ban as a compromise doesn’t seem to be flying.

Ollstein: No, it’s certainly not. And Tim Scott and Mike Pence were some of anti-abortion groups’ favorite candidates who were saying what they wanted to hear, and both of their campaigns have now ended. And so, meanwhile, you have the people who have been a little more squishy, from anti-abortion advocates’ perspective anyways, like Nikki Haley and [former President Donald] Trump himself, doing the best. DeSantis also sort of middling right now on the downward trajectory, seemingly.

Rovner: DeSantis, who signed a six-week ban in Florida.

Ollstein: Exactly, but was also kind of unclear about what he would do as president, which the anti-abortion groups did not like. It’s interesting, maybe telling, that the people who were sort of the staunchest anti-abortion voices have not seemed to do well in this moment, but let’s be real. Trump is the far-and-away front-runner here. It’s most important to examine Trump. And he’s sort of trying to have it both ways. He’s both touting his anti-abortion bona fides by talking about appointing the justices to the Supreme Court that overturned Roe v. Wade, taking credit for that. And at the same time sort of pushing this line of, “Oh, we’ll strike some sort of compromise.” He really talks up exemptions for rape and incest, which, by the way, a lot of anti-abortion groups don’t want those. And so he’s sort of speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but, at least according to the polls, it seems to be working.

Rovner: Yeah, maybe that’s the answer for Republicans is tell everybody what you think they want them to know. I guess we will see going forward. Well, I want to move on. I’m calling this next segment, “Getting Old Sucks: Ask Me How I Know.” I want to start with a joint project that KFF Health News has out this week with The New York Times called “Dying Broke.” It’s about, and stop me if you’ve heard me say this before, the fact that the U.S. has no policy to help pay for long-term care, save for Medicaid, which only pays if you basically bankrupt yourself and your family.

There is a lot in this series, and I highly recommend it, but one of the things that jumped out to me is that the cost of long-term care has risen so much faster than incomes that even if you started saving for retirement in your 20s — I started saving for retirement in my 20s — you’d still be unlikely to have enough to self-insure for long-term care when you’re 75 or 80. Joanne, you’ve spent as much time as I have, probably more, writing about our lack of a long-term care policy. Anything jump out at you from this project?

Kenen: It was a terrific, terrific story, and it brought to life that even people who are definitely what you would think of as economically comfortable, it’s not enough. It’s just the luck of the draw, right? I mean, if you die fast, you can at least leave money to your kids. If you die slow, you can’t. It was a really good story. But what I always am left with when I read these stories is it doesn’t make a difference. Congress does not want to deal with this. Julie and I actually did a panel for a health group a few weeks ago, and one of the state … someone from California came up to talk about us and asked, “Why doesn’t the United States have a long-term care policy? I’m going to change that.” And we were trying to be polite, but it was like, “OK, good luck with that.” And this is not a partisan issue. Republicans and Democrats both get old and Republicans and Democrats both end up needing long-term care, whether it’s in the nursing home or assistance in your own home. Republicans and Democrats both get Alzheimer’s and other forms of dementia. They both get disabled. And we have a government that just plugs up its ears because it costs so much money and it’s an entitlement and they just don’t even want to deal with it. And generation after generation, it’s a disaster. It’s inhumane.

Rovner: And, of course, there was this brief effort in the Affordable Care Act with the CLASS Act that everybody was very excited …

Kenen: To nibble around the edges of it. The CLASS Act was good, but it wasn’t even solving the problem.

Rovner: And it went away because they discovered that even that was going to be too expensive. It could not be self-sustaining. And that’s been the problem with the private long-term care insurance market too, that you basically can’t get private long-term care insurance anymore because insurers cannot afford to sell it. They lose too much money on it, and therefore it would be too expensive if they actually charged what they needed to to even break even.

Kenen: Right. And there is an idea circulating, but it’s not getting any traction. It’s circulated in the past too, a joint approach, a reinsurance approach, that you’d try to strengthen the private long-term care insurance market, which is very broken. You’d try to fix that, but you wouldn’t expect the private insurance market to do the whole problem, so that there’d be reinsurance from the government. So for people who had maybe, I don’t know exactly how it works, say a year or two of expenses that private insurance would kick in and we would make that market work better and be there when you needed it. But then if you were somebody who had multiple years and you exhausted that benefit, there would be a backup entitlement.

Rovner: But I’ve heard this talked about for at least 10 years, and it’s never gone anywhere.

Kenen: It’s revived and it’s not getting … I don’t think it has a sponsor in this Congress. It did in the last Congress. There’s no discussion. There’s no … a lot of people think that Medicare actually pays for nursing homes, and then that’s a pretty big surprise because it only pays for very limited … it pays, like if you have surgery and you need some rehab at a nursing home for, what is it? Is it 12 weeks? I forget what it is, but it’s short-term. It’s a couple of months. It’s not dementia care. And even the other thing is when you read about the cost of long-term care, that’s just the room and board, that doesn’t include your doctors’ bills, your medication, clothing, personal aide, because people who are complicated and need a lot of care often need a personal aide in addition to the staff. It’s just a phenomenal amount of money. My kids don’t understand when I say we need to save money, they say, “Don’t you have enough?” And no, nobody has enough. Bill Gates has enough.

Rovner: Yeah, Warren Buffett has enough. Well, so, as I mentioned, one of the big problems with long-term care is that there’s essentially no private insurance for it anymore because it’s so expensive and because so many people end up needing it. That’s very different from Medicare Advantage, where insurers are and have been making lots of money providing benefits that would otherwise be paid for by the federal government. But Rachel, some of your colleagues have discovered that, and in at least some cases, those insurers are making all that money because they’re denying care to patients who need it. This is your extra credit this week, but I want you to talk about it now.

Cohrs: I’ll talk about it early. Yes. So my colleagues, Casey Ross and Bob Herman have been digging into the role of algorithms in insurance decisions for the past year. And they just released a new story this week about — with internal documents of a subsidiary called naviHealth of UnitedHealth — showing that the company was instructing managers to keep care timelines for a really expensive rehab that older people, I think, need after having injuries or something like that within 1% of the time that this algorithm was predicting, regardless of what their actual human doctors were saying. And truly, the stories behind these care denials are just really horrifying … of somebody who had a knee surgery and was expected to slide on their butt down the stairs because they weren’t paying for rehab. Families who’ve had to pay tens of thousands of dollars out of their own pocket after this care was denied because they saw that their loved one clearly needed money, and there was a class-action lawsuit filed, then after the story was published, by people who had deceased relatives who had UnitedHealthcare MA plans, and were denied rehab and later died. And so I think it’s just really eye-opening as to the actual instructions by managers inside the company saying that this is your expectation, and if you’re not keeping coverage care rehab timelines within this 1% margin, then you aren’t performing up to our standards.

Rovner: So this is basically AI being used to deny care. We keep talking about AI and health care. This is it, right? This is an algorithm that says, “Person who goes into rehab with these kinds of problems should only need 19 days.” And if you need more than that, tough. That’s essentially what’s going on here, right?

Cohrs: And the lawsuit did highlight as well that when people did appeal, they won most of the time, but most people didn’t appeal, and the company knew that. And so I think that was also part of the lawsuit that came up. It’s hard to prove intent with these things or what is a denial based on an algorithm? But I think this lays out the case in as explicit terms as we’ve ever seen from the internal side.

Rovner: It does. All right, well let us move on from Medicare to Medicaid, the unwinding — involving reviewing everyone on the program to make sure they’re still eligible now that the pandemic emergency has expired — continues with more than 10 million people now having lost their coverage, according to the tracker being updated by my KFF colleagues. And state Medicaid directors are predicting a year-over-year decrease in enrollment of 8.6%, which is pretty dramatically large. We also know that more than 70% of those being disenrolled may in fact still be eligible, but the state was unable to locate them or they didn’t file the right paperwork. Ironically, even with a much smaller caseload, state Medicaid spending is likely to rise because the additional payments that were provided by the federal government also expired at the end of the public health emergency. So states are basically having to pay more per enrollee than they were paying even when they were leaving everybody on the rolls. Advocates have been complaining all year that the Biden administration isn’t doing enough to ensure that states aren’t tossing people off who should still be covered. Has anything changed on that front? I know that the administration is sort of caught between this rock and a hard place. They don’t want to come out guns blazing and have states saying that they’re making this politicized. On the other hand, the numbers are getting pretty big and there’s increasing evidence that a lot of the people who are being relieved of their coverage should still have it.

Ollstein: Including a lot of children who absolutely did not do anything wrong in this situation. And so it kind of reminds me of some stuff during covid, where the Biden administration did not want to get into a public fight with GOP-controlled states and was trying to negotiate behind the scenes to get the policies they wanted to protect people. But at the same time, not wanting that open confrontation means that a lot of this is continuing to go on unchecked. And so the data is coming out showing that a lot of people who are losing coverage are not reenrolling in other coverage. Some are, but a lot are not. And so I think now that we’re getting, going to get into Obamacare open enrollment, I think that’ll be really key to see — can we scoop up a lot of these newly uninsured people?

Rovner: And we did, we saw the administration put out a press release saying that the early part of open enrollment has seemed very large, much larger-than-expected enrollment. And you kind of wonder, I’m kind of wondering, how many of those people were people who got kicked off of Medicaid. And, of course, we know that when people got kicked off of Medicaid, they were supposed to be steered to the Affordable Care Act, for which they would’ve obviously been eligible. But I’m wondering whether some of those people didn’t get steered and now that they’re seeing that enrollment is open, it’s like, “Oh, maybe I can get this.” I have not seen anybody answer that question, but it’s certainly a question in my mind.

Cohrs: Right. And coverage is more affordable as well because subsidies from the covid-era spending bills do extend through 2025. But again, people might see increases in costs once those end, if Congress doesn’t extend them. So even if we do see some people moving from Medicaid to ACA enrollment, then there’s a chance that they could see spikes in a pretty short amount of time.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ll be curious to see as open enrollment continues, whether they can break down where some of those people are coming from. All right, now it is time for “This Week in Health Misinformation.” I have chosen a KFF Health News story, which is also my extra credit this week, from science journalist Amy Maxmen, called “How Lawmakers in Texas and Florida Undermine Covid Vaccination Efforts.” It seems that in Texas health departments and other organizations funded by the states are now prohibited from advertising or recommending covid vaccines or even saying that they are available, unless that’s in conjunction with telling them about other vaccines that are available, too. In Florida, as we have talked about here before, the health department has issued specific guidance recommending against the new covid vaccine for children and teens and now men under the age of 40. Unless you think this hasn’t had any impact before the vaccines were available, Democrats and Republicans were dying of covid in roughly equal proportions in Florida and Ohio, according to a study published earlier this summer in the journal JAMA Internal Medicine.

But by the end of 2021, which was the first full year that covid vaccines were widely available, Republicans had an excess death rate of 43% higher than Democrats. So medical misinformation has consequences. All right, 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. Rachel, you’ve done yours already. Alice, why don’t you go next?

Ollstein: Sure. So I have a very depressing one out of The New York Times by Jack Healy and it’s called “They Wanted to Get Sober. They Got a Nightmare Instead.” And it is about these fraudulent, scammy addiction treatment facilities in Arizona, but it notes that they do exist in other states as well, that have been bilking the state Medicaid program for just millions and millions and millions of dollars and providing inadequate or nonexistent treatment to really vulnerable people in need, with very deadly consequences. And the places profiled in this piece really went after Native American folks specifically. So very sad report, but it sounds like more attention on this is leading to the state cracking down on places like this. So, hopefully, we’ll make some progress there.

Rovner: Yeah, quite a story, Joanne.

Kenen: This is a story, part of an ongoing series from Mississippi Today, in conjunction with ProPublica’s local reporting network: “Mississippi Jailed More Than 800 People Awaiting Psychiatric Treatment in a Year. Just One Jail Meets State Standards.” It’s by Isabella Taft. In Mississippi, if you’re unfortunate enough to have such serious mental illness that a court orders you to have treatment and there’s no room in a state hospital, they put you in jail while you wait for a room in state hospitals. And sometimes they’re housed in these facilities or rooms that are meant for people with severe mental illness, but they’re awful. And sometimes they’re just housed with a regular prison population. And the sheriffs say, “Wait a minute, it’s not really our problem to be housing … state hospitals have to fix this.” And they have a point! But in the meantime, that’s who they have. That’s where they end up. They end up in these jails, these local jails, and the sheriffs are responsible. And only one hospital meets the state certification for what these people need.

And some of these stays. They’re not like two days, they can be prolonged. There’ve been a lot of deaths, there’ve been a lot of suicides. It’s a really pretty disturbing situation. It’s sort of the mental health crisis and the mental health provider shortage and countrywide really writ large among some of the most vulnerable people.

Rovner: All right, well, we’ve had four grim extra credits this week, but they’re all good stories. 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 this week to Zach Dyer for filling in as our technical guru while Francis [Ying] takes some much-deserved time off. We’re going to take next week off, too, for the Thanksgiving holiday. As always, you can email us your comments or questions or your suggestions for our medical misinformation segment. We are at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can still find me at X, @jrovner, or @julierovner at Bluesky and Threads. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein on X, and at AliceMiranda on Bluesky.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: I’m @rachelcohrs on X and rchohrsreporter on Threads.

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen on X, and I’m increasingly switched to Threads at @joannekenen1.

Rovner: We will be back in your feed in two weeks. Until then, be healthy.

Credits

Zach Dyer
Audio producer

Stephanie Stapleton
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

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

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

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Money talks.

The United States faces a serious shortage of primary care physicians for many reasons, but one, in particular, is inescapable: compensation.

Substantial disparities between what primary care physicians earn relative to specialists like orthopedists and cardiologists can weigh into medical students’ decisions about which field to choose. Plus, the system that Medicare and other health plans use to pay doctors generally places more value on doing procedures like replacing a knee or inserting a stent than on delivering the whole-person, long-term health care management that primary care physicians provide.

As a result of those pay disparities, and the punishing workload typically faced by primary care physicians, more new doctors are becoming specialists, often leaving patients with fewer choices for primary care.

“There is a public out there that is dissatisfied with the lack of access to a routine source of care,” said Christopher Koller, president of the Milbank Memorial Fund, a foundation that focuses on improving population health and health equity. “That’s not going to be addressed until we pay for it.”

Primary care is the foundation of our health care system, the only area in which providing more services — such as childhood vaccines and regular blood pressure screenings — is linked to better population health and more equitable outcomes, according to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, in a recently published report on how to rebuild primary care. Without it, the national academies wrote, “minor health problems can spiral into chronic disease,” with poor disease management, emergency room overuse, and unsustainable costs. Yet for decades, the United States has underinvested in primary care. It accounted for less than 5% of health care spending in 2020 — significantly less than the average spending by countries that are members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, according to the report.

A $26 billion piece of bipartisan legislation proposed last month by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, and Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) would bolster primary care by increasing training opportunities for doctors and nurses and expanding access to community health centers. Policy experts say the bill would provide important support, but it’s not enough. It doesn’t touch compensation.

“We need primary care to be paid differently and to be paid more, and that starts with Medicare,” Koller said.

How Medicare Drives Payment

Medicare, which covers 65 million people who are 65 and older or who have certain long-term disabilities, finances more than a fifth of all health care spending — giving it significant muscle in the health care market. Private health plans typically base their payment amounts on the Medicare system, so what Medicare pays is crucial.

Under the Medicare payment system, the amount the program pays for a medical service is determined by three geographically weighted components: a physician’s work, including time and intensity; the practice’s expense, such as overhead and equipment; and professional insurance. It tends to reward specialties that emphasize procedures, such as repairing a hernia or removing a tumor, more than primary care, where the focus is on talking with patients, answering questions, and educating them about managing their chronic conditions.

Medical students may not be familiar with the particulars of how the payment system works, but their clinical training exposes them to a punishing workload and burnout that is contributing to the shortage of primary care physicians, projected to reach up to 48,000 by 2034, according to estimates from the Association of American Medical Colleges.

The earnings differential between primary care and other specialists is also not lost on them. Average annual compensation for doctors who focus on primary care — family medicine, internists, and pediatricians — ranges from an average of about $250,000 to $275,000, according to Medscape’s annual physician compensation report. Many specialists make more than twice as much: Plastic surgeons top the compensation list at $619,000 annually, followed by orthopedists ($573,000) and cardiologists ($507,000).

“I think the major issues in terms of the primary care physician pipeline are the compensation and the work of primary care,” said Russ Phillips, an internist and the director of the Harvard Medical School Center for Primary Care. “You have to really want to be a primary care physician when that student will make one-third of what students going into dermatology will make,” he said.

According to statistics from the National Resident Matching Program, which tracks the number of residency slots available for graduating medical students and the number of slots filled, 89% of 5,088 family medicine residency slots were filled in 2023, compared with a 93% residency fill rate overall. Internists had a higher fill rate, 96%, but a significant proportion of internal medicine residents eventually practice in a specialty area rather than in primary care.

No one would claim that doctors are poorly paid, but with the average medical student graduating with just over $200,000 in medical school debt, making a good salary matters.

Not in It for the Money

Still, it’s a misperception that student debt always drives the decision whether to go into primary care, said Len Marquez, senior director of government relations and legislative advocacy at the Association of American Medical Colleges.

For Anitza Quintero, 24, a second-year medical student at the Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine in rural Pennsylvania, primary care is a logical extension of her interest in helping children and immigrants. Quintero’s family came to the United States on a raft from Cuba before she was born. She plans to focus on internal medicine and pediatrics.

“I want to keep going to help my family and other families,” she said. “There’s obviously something attractive about having a specialty and a high pay grade,” Quintero said. Still, she wants to work “where the whole body is involved,” she said, adding that long-term doctor-patient relationships are “also attractive.”

Quintero is part of the Abigail Geisinger Scholars Program, which aims to recruit primary care physicians and psychiatrists to the rural health system in part with a promise of medical school loan forgiveness. Health care shortages tend to be more acute in rural areas.

These students’ education costs are covered, and they receive a $2,000 monthly stipend. They can do their residency elsewhere, but upon completing it they return to Geisinger for a primary care job with the health care system. Every year of work there erases one year of the debt covered by their award. If they don’t take a job with the health care system, they must repay the amount they received.

Payment Imbalances a Source of Tension

In recent years, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which administers the Medicare program, has made changes to address some of the payment imbalances between primary care and specialist services. The agency has expanded the office visit services for which providers can bill to manage their patients, including adding non-procedural billing codes for providing transitional care, chronic care management, and advance care planning.

In next year’s final physician fee schedule, the agency plans to allow another new code to take effect, G2211. It would let physicians bill for complex patient evaluation and management services. Any physician could use the code, but it is expected that primary care physicians would use it more frequently than specialists. Congress has delayed implementation of the code since 2021.

The new code is a tiny piece of overall payment reform, “but it is critically important, and it is our top priority on the Hill right now,” said Shari Erickson, chief advocacy officer for the American College of Physicians.

It also triggered a tussle that highlights ongoing tension in Medicare physician payment rules.

The American College of Surgeons and 18 other specialty groups published a statement describing the new code as “unnecessary.” They oppose its implementation because it would primarily benefit primary care providers who, they say, already have the flexibility to bill more for more complex visits.

But the real issue is that, under federal law, changes to Medicare physician payments must preserve budget neutrality, a zero-sum arrangement in which payment increases for primary care providers mean payment decreases elsewhere.

“If they want to keep it, they need to pay for it,” said Christian Shalgian, director of the division of advocacy and health policy for the American College of Surgeons, noting that his organization will continue to oppose implementation otherwise.

Still, there’s general agreement that strengthening the primary care system through payment reform won’t be accomplished by tinkering with billing codes.

The current fee-for-service system doesn’t fully accommodate the time and effort primary care physicians put into “small-ticket” activities like emails and phone calls, reviews of lab results, and consultation reports. A better arrangement, they say, would be to pay primary care physicians a set monthly amount per patient to provide all their care, a system called capitation.

“We’re much better off paying on a per capita basis, get that monthly payment paid in advance plus some extra amount for other things,” said Paul Ginsburg, a senior fellow at the University of Southern California Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics and former commissioner of the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

But if adding a single five-character code to Medicare’s payment rules has proved challenging, imagine the heavy lift involved in overhauling the program’s entire physician payment system. MedPAC and the national academies, both of which provide advice to Congress, have weighed in on the broad outlines of what such a transformation might look like. And there are targeted efforts in Congress: for instance, a bill that would add an annual inflation update to Medicare physician payments and a proposal to address budget neutrality. But it’s unclear whether lawmakers have strong interest in taking action.

“The fact that Medicare has been squeezing physician payment rates for two decades is making reforming their structure more difficult,” said Ginsburg. “The losers are more sensitive to reductions in the rates for the procedures they do.”

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).