The Host

Mary Agnes Carey
KFF Health News

@maryagnescarey

Read Mary Agnes' stories

Partnerships Editor and Senior Correspondent, oversees placement of KFF Health News content in publications nationwide and covers health reform and federal health policy. Before joining KFF Health News, Mary Agnes was associate editor of CQ HealthBeat, Capitol Hill Bureau Chief for Congressional Quarterly, and a reporter with Dow Jones Newswires. A frequent radio and television commentator, she has appeared on CNN, C-SPAN, the PBS NewsHour, and on NPR affiliates nationwide. Her stories have appeared in The Washington Post, USA Today, TheAtlantic.com, Time.com, Money.com, and The Daily Beast, among other publications. She worked for newspapers in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and has a master’s degree in journalism from Columbia University.

The Biden administration this week pleaded with states to slow the post-pandemic removal of beneficiaries from their Medicaid rolls, as government data shows more than a million Americans have lost coverage since pandemic protections ended in April. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court ruled Medicaid beneficiaries may sue over their care.

In an appearance at the U.S. Capitol, the outgoing chief of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rochelle Walensky, offered no revelations as House Republicans pressed her about the agency’s response to the covid-19 pandemic. And senators are pushing for action on drug pricing, with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) vowing to hold up nominations to press the Biden administration for drug pricing reform.

This week’s panelists are Mary Agnes Carey of KFF Health News, Rachel Cohrs of Stat, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, and Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel'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:

• Asking states to slow the pace of Medicaid disenrollment, Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra offered options intended to reduce the number of Americans who lose coverage due to bureaucratic hurdles, such as by allowing community organizations to help people get coverage reinstated. But those options are only guidance for Medicaid programs across the country, and nothing says that states — especially conservative ones that have rushed to trim the number of low-income and disabled people relying on the program — will adopt the administration’s suggestions.
• A deal in the Braidwood Management v. Becerra court case will preserve, for now, the mandate requiring insurance coverage of preventive services for all but the litigants. The threat of a court order halting that coverage mandate nationwide has contributed to growing concerns about the overuse of injunctions allowing a single judge to bring down an entire program or law.
• The Supreme Court ruled that a woman is entitled to sue over the nursing home care her husband received that was covered by Medicaid, setting a precedent that allows beneficiaries to pursue legal action over their care.
• This week, House Republicans pressed CDC Director Walensky about the agency’s response to the pandemic, but, producing few new details, the hearing mostly proved an attempt by Republicans to relitigate concerns over issues like gain-of-function research funding. And Ashish Jha, the White House’s covid coordinator, is preparing to step down without a successor, offering more fodder for the argument that the Biden administration is de-emphasizing covid policy.
• Reports of threats against an Alabama clinic that does not provide abortions illuminate the realities of the post-Dobbs era: Even the state attorney general has taken issue with the clinic’s efforts to provide non-abortion maternal health care — and 40% of Alabama counties already have no access to maternal care.
• And on Capitol Hill, Sanders — head of a key Senate health committee — has said he will hold up reviewing nominations in an effort to pressure the Biden administration to produce a comprehensive drug pricing plan. Meanwhile, another key Senate committee releases its proposal to rein in fees charged by pharmacy benefit managers.

Also this week, KFF Health News’ Julie Rovner interviews Dan Mendelson, chief executive of Morgan Health — the successor project to Haven Healthcare, a joint venture by Amazon, Berkshire Hathaway, and JPMorgan Chase that aimed in 2018 to disrupt how Americans get health coverage but quickly disbanded. Rovner and Mendelson discuss the role of employers in insuring American workers.

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

Mary Agnes Carey: The Washington Post’s “I Lost 40 Pounds on Ozempic. But I’m Left With Even More Questions,” by Ruth Marcus.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Stat’s “AMA Asks Doctors to De-Emphasize Use of BMI in Gauging Health and Obesity,” by Brittany Trang and Elaine Chen.

Rachel Cohrs: Politico’s “Thousands Lose Medicaid in Arkansas: Is This America’s Future?” by Megan Messerly.

Sandhya Raman: The Markup’s “Suicide Hotlines Promise Anonymity. Dozens of Their Websites Send Sensitive Data to Facebook,” by Colin Lecher and Jon Keegan.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Biden Admin Implores States to Slow Medicaid Cuts After More Than 1M Enrollees Dropped,” by Hannah Recht.
• Politico Magazine’s “This Alabama Health Clinic Is Under Threat. It Doesn’t Provide Abortions,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Slow Your Disenroll

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Slow Your Disenroll

Episode Number: 302

Published: June 15, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Mary Agnes Carey: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?”. I’m Mary Agnes Carey, partnerships editor at KFF Health News, filling in for Julie Rovner this week. I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, June 15, at 10:30 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We’re joined today by video conference by Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Good morning.

Carey: Rachel Cohrs of Stat.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Carey: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Good morning.

Carey: Later in the episode, we’ll have Julie’s interview with Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health. That’s the successor organization to the ambitious but ultimately unsuccessful effort by JPMorgan Chase, Amazon, and Berkshire Hathaway to remake employee health benefits. But first, let’s go to this week’s news. The Biden administration announced that more than a million Americans have lost their Medicaid coverage since early April as part of the ending of the covid public health emergency. Administration officials said that too many people were losing Medicaid due to red tape. About 4 in 5 people dropped so far either didn’t return paperwork to verify their eligibility or they omitted documents, according to federal and state data from 20 states. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary [Xavier] Becerra has sent a letter to state governors with some ideas on how to help stop this trend. What is he asking states to do?

Raman: So he gave states a few options. He said states could let Medicaid managed care organizations do a renewal on the beneficiaries’ behalf or let states kind of delay some of these cuts to allow for more outreach or let the community organizations in the state help individuals reinstate their coverage if they’ve fallen through some of the gaps here. But I think the thing to keep in mind is that all this is a guidance. All the Medicaid programs are different from each other. So while Becerra says that these are options, it doesn’t mean that any number of states will actually take on any of these opportunities to get more folks back into the program if they’re eligible.

Carey: To your point, some of the biggest drops in the enrollment in Medicaid have been in those more conservative states that are at political odds with the Biden administration. For example, in last week’s podcast, there was a lot of discussion about Arkansas and Indiana. For the panel, what are your thoughts on how state governments will respond to this guidance from HHS?

Ollstein: This is why there was so much anxiety last year when this was all being hashed out in the bill in Congress. Advocacy groups were sounding the alarm that there just weren’t enough guardrails to prevent this from happening. There were carrots; there were incentives for states to go slower and be more deliberate and careful in how they kick ineligible or, you know, can’t-determine-eligibility people off the rolls. But there weren’t a lot of sticks. There were carrots and not a lot of sticks. There weren’t a lot of penalties or repercussions for states that wanted to go as fast as possible and kick as many people off as possible, even if that meant folks falling through the cracks, which is what’s now happening.

Carey: So Sandhya sort of referenced this a moment ago. But I know, I mean, Medicaid is a shared federal-state program, but states, are they legally required to follow any of this guidance? I mean, what happens if a state just doesn’t do anything that’s in the letter? Does it matter?

Raman: I think the issue is that it doesn’t. I mean, there are some requirements that are applied to all programs if it’s in the Medicaid statute and sometimes when states do things that violate that and it ends up going to court. But I think anything here is they still have to follow what has been in the law that had said that after the public health emergency ended, that they could start slowly ripping people off the program. And that’s kind of the issue here.

Carey: Well, we’ll keep our eye on that one. And it sounds like another solution to find its way through the courts. Speaking of the courts, let’s move on to another major news development, and this one is regarding the preventive services coverage under the Affordable Care Act. It’s also known as the ACA. Texas conservatives that challenge the law’s preventive care mandate have reached a tentative compromise with the Justice Department that preserves free coverage for a range of medical services. Alice, I know you wrote about this agreement this week. Could you start us off and take us through the highlights?

Ollstein: Sure. So this was teased during oral arguments. The judges at the 5th Circuit [Court of Appeals] said explicitly, “Can’t you guys work something out?” And it turns out they could. So basically what the deal does is the Justice Department is agreeing not to enforce the preventive services mandate against the folks who are suing. So this is a group of conservative employers and some individual workers who say that the requirement to buy insurance that covers things like the HIV prevention drug PrEP violate their rights. And so the Biden administration is agreeing, OK, we won’t force you to buy the insurance that the law says you are required to buy. And in exchange, they agree not to push for the law to be frozen nationwide. So basically, everybody else’s insurance coverage gets to stay the same for now. There was a lot of anxiety about the nationwide injunction on the mandate that the lower judge ordered. So that is going to be on hold for now. The arguments on this case are going to drag on a lot longer, but this means that, for now, nationwide, the roles stay the same.

Carey: So how, if you know, how usual is this, in the middle of litigation, to come up with a deal that protects the people that are suing to stop a law, but it doesn’t affect the rest of the population, at least for now? I mean, is that unusual to kind of cut this kind of deal?

Ollstein: I think there has been a lot of debate recently about nationwide injunctions and the fact that some judges seem to like handing them out like candy. And just because of one person or a few people suing somewhere can bring down an entire law or program for the entire country. And there has been anxiety in the legal world about this getting kind of too common and out of hand. And so I think this is a sign that even very conservative judges like the ones on the 5th Circuit are looking for ways to rein it in and limit impacts.

Carey: Rachel, do you want to jump in? I see you nodding your head.

Cohrs: Yeah, it is just important to think about that trend, you know, as we see so many lawsuits play out. I know we’re seeing lawsuits over the Inflation Reduction Act as well. It’s a tactic that is being used. And I think if there is some more intention by DOJ to try to kind of limit the reach of these injunctions, then I think that is a really interesting trend, looking to other areas as well.

Carey: So that sounds like there’s no threat to the fall ACA enrollment season, that a ruling wouldn’t come before that enrollment season that could threaten preventive services for the entire ACA enrollment population and for those employer-sponsored plans as well.

Ollstein: So the 5th Circuit, after they blessed this deal officially, put out a briefing schedule that runs into November, so even after that, there could be more arguments, there could be an appeal up to the Supreme Court. So, yes, this is definitely running on into next year, if not longer.

Carey: OK. Well, the Supreme Court had a ruling this week that preserves Medicaid recipients’ right to sue , and policy watchers are saying that this is a major, major civil rights victory for Medicaid recipients. Before we were taping, we were chatting about it a little bit. Alice, fill us in here.

Ollstein: I mean, the specifics are that this is about a woman’s right to sue the state over the treatment of her husband in a nursing home. He was given chemical restraints, which is a horrible thing, if you look it up, that worsened his dementia. He was drugged, you know, in order to be easier to control, essentially, which is a very damaging practice. But that was sort of just the narrow issue at play. But this was seen as a major victory for any Medicaid beneficiary’s right to sue over not getting the care that they’re entitled to., and so this could have implications in the future for things like coverage of reproductive health services, including abortion, and other areas as well. So there was a lot of anxiety that this conservative Supreme Court majority would move to limit Medicaid beneficiaries’ rights to bring challenges. And that didn’t happen here.

Carey: It was a7-2 ruling, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Yeah. It wasn’t as close as people thought.

Carey: There you go. So let’s move our discussion from the courts to Capitol Hill. Outgoing Centers for Disease Control and Prevention director Rochelle Walensky appeared before a House panel this week to talk about her agency’s response to the covid pandemic. Rachel, you covered the hearing. What were your key takeaways?

Cohrs: I mean, I think my key takeaway is that Republicans are re-litigating some of these comments that were made in early 2021 and that there wasn’t a whole lot of new revelation that came out. Walensky was pretty well prepared to stay on topic. She kind of deflected questions about gain-of-function research at NIH [the National Institutes of Health, a separate division within HHS] and lawsuits around kind of how CDC officials interacted with social media networks and regarding vaccine misinformation. So, I mean, lawmakers brought those things up, and she didn’t really engage on that at all. But she really didn’t give a lot of ground. I mean, there were criticisms of comments she had made about vaccines preventing the spread of covid-19. And I think her position was that her comments were backed by science at the time, and that as the virus has mutated, the truth about covid has changed. So I think she was not apologizing. It was not really engaging with them. And I think it was just kind of this anticlimactic kind of end. I mean, there had been so much buildup. Lawmakers had been requesting her testimony for, like, two months, and it was over and I don’t think she suffered any really significant hits there.

Carey: Were there any sort of agreement on lessons learned from how the CDC and, more broadly, the Biden administration handled its response to the pandemic? I mean, are there lessons learned here? Is there any road map to doing things differently or better next time?

Cohrs: Well, one thing she did bring up was, she said that the CDC didn’t really have visibility into how many people who were hospitalized with covid were also vaccinated. And I think that led to kind of an interesting back-and-forth. I think Republicans were obviously implying that vaccines didn’t work as well as they were initially pitched to. But I think she pivoted that to saying that “CDC would love more data on this. We don’t have the authority to collect it. And doctors are putting all this information into electronic health records and it’s not making its way to public health departments.” And so I think that kind of fits into the administration’s asks for the pandemic preparedness legislation that Congress is kind of working through right now. So I think she pivoted that to ask for more authority for her agency, which I don’t know that Republicans will be particularly enthusiastic about. But I think that was an interesting back-and-forth where she did concede that they just didn’t have a whole lot of information in the moment.

Carey: Would state health departments have to direct hospitals to collect that and then share it with the federal government, if she’s saying she doesn’t have the regulatory authority to do it?

Cohrs: I’m not an expert in this area, I’ll say. But my understanding is that the CDC was collecting information and had to, like, have individual agreements with health departments on how that was going to be collected. They couldn’t mandate that. So I think it would just make it a lot faster and I think give CDC a lot more authority to compel states to report some of this information in real time.

Carey: Sure. No, I know, that’s been one of the most interesting things in watching and reporting and reading all the coverage of how so many things changed with the covid pandemic as [we] received new information. I mean, it was a place we hadn’t been before, but we might be back there again, so. There’s another high-profile covid official who’s stepping down. Dr. Ashish Jha is leaving his post. I think today is actually his last day as the White House covid-19 response coordinator. This departure was announced a while ago, and it’s not a surprise, especially with the end of the public health emergency. But what do these departures mean for the administration’s future plans to handle covid? I mean, what message does it send to the public with these two folks leaving at this time?

Ollstein: I think if folks are already primed to think this administration is not making it a priority, this is more fodder for that viewpoint. You know, you could also note that these folks have been serving a long time in a very difficult role and this is, you know, sort of natural turnover. But I think that, with all of the protections lifting right now, and hearing very little about covid at all from the administration — I mean, the president hasn’t talked about it publicly in months; he didn’t say anything on the day the public health emergency ended, which folks were a little upset about. So you could see this as more evidence that it might not be a priority for them going forward. You know, on the other hand, they are setting up this, like, permanent pandemic office in the White House, although it doesn’t have a leader yet. So it’s a little TBD.

Raman: With Jha, you know, we don’t have someone replacing him in the way we do with a lot of other positions. So it’s going to be the first time in 14 months now that he’s not there, but it’s also, there’s not someone else there. And if you’re quietly removing that role, it just is another layer of saying, you know, this is less of a priority compared to some of the other things as it gets phased out.

Cohrs: I was just going to pop in and say that I think there’s a really interesting opening for Mandy Cohen here at CDC. There is this vacuum of leadership here. You know, the White House hasn’t appointed anyone to fill that spot. Secretary Becerra really hasn’t shown any appetite in leading on covid, and Dr. Fauci is gone, Walensky’s gone — just so many of these, like, old-guard kind of the covid response in the Biden administration have turned over. And my colleague Helen Branswell had a great story, I think that was sharp about how, you know, Mandy Cohen really is prepared, unlike a lot of other CDC directors in the past, to navigate these political dynamics. And I think it is a recognition that the CDC is political and public health is now political, and they can’t ignore that any longer. So I will be curious to see if they elevate her to communicate some more of that information in the absence of Dr. Jha.

Carey: Sure. And can you just remind our listeners who Mandy Cohen is and why she’s expected to get this job, or be nominated for this job?

Cohrs: Yes, she’s a longtime federal and state health official. I think she was in North Carolina, and most recently she was at a ACO [accountable care organization] company working with another former Obama administration official. And the White House, I think — there’s been a lot of reporting; I don’t know that they have officially tapped her yet.

Carey: I don’t think that’s happened yet. No, that has not.

Cohrs: Right. But it doesn’t have to go through a confirmation process. So if they do choose to move forward, I think the process would move pretty quickly to have her in place. So that is what our reporting has shown. Many other outlets have reported the same thing. So I think that’s just kind of the expectation for who’s next in line.

Carey: Well, let’s move on to another topic that appears frequently on this podcast, abortion. It continues to be a major news story around the country. And I’d like to start our discussion with a story that Alice did for Politico Magazine. Here’s the headline: “This Alabama Clinic Is Under Threat. It Doesn’t Provide Abortions.” So, Alice, tell us why a clinic that doesn’t provide abortion is being threatened.

Ollstein: Yeah. So when abortion became illegal in Alabama from conception, with no exemptions for rape and incest, abortion clinics either closed their doors, some picked up and moved to other states, but some, like the one I profiled, West Alabama Women’s Center, decided to stay and pivot to nonabortion services. And they have found it’s still a very hostile landscape and they very well might go out of business themselves in the coming months. They’re running into legal threats. The state attorney general has suggested that he views the kind of abortion-adjacent care they provide, you know, such as letting people know what their options are in terms of ordering pills or traveling to another state — that he might consider that aiding and abetting an abortion under the state’s criminal law. And so they are bracing for that at all times. At the same time, they have also really struggled financially. Most of their revenue in the past was from abortions, and they mainly serve a population now that struggles to pay for services and is often uninsured. The state has not expanded Medicaid, and so lots and lots of low-income people are uninsured. And so it’s just showing that what it means to be under threat in the post-Dobbs era is really different than what it meant to be under threat in the pre-Dobbs era and just how sparse the health care landscape is at all. There are just so few providers, hospitals in these areas, lots of places going out of business. And if clinics like this and other red-state clinics can’t survive, there’s going to be a lot of health care consequences.

Carey: I think in your story you said that 40% of the state was considered a maternal health desert.

Ollstein: Yeah. Right. Which means no access in those counties. And even more of the state is considered low-access, and so people are really struggling to find anywhere to go. A lot of rural hospitals have closed entirely. A lot are on the brink of closure. Some have closed their maternal care units. And so there’s just fewer and fewer options, especially fewer and fewer options for people to feel safe going to if they have an abortion either out of state or at home with pills and need follow-up care. Folks are afraid to go to a regular provider or hospital over fear of being reported to law enforcement, which is actually happening in a lot of places.

Carey: We just talked about the South. Let’s move to the Midwest. In Ohio, voters are going to head to the polls in August to weigh in on a proposal that, if passed, would require at least 60% of voters to pass any amendment to the state’s constitution. And that’s up from the current requirement of a simple majority. There would also be new, higher requirements on the number of signatures needed to get a constitutional amendment on the ballot. A Republican lawmaker in favor of the changes said they were aimed at blocking an abortion rights question that abortion rights supporters had hoped to get on the November ballot. So that’s Ohio. So in Indiana, there’s a separate issue. A class-action lawsuit asserts that the state’s abortion ban violates Hoosiers’ religious freedom. That lawsuit, which was filed by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union], says that Indiana’s abortion ban violates a religious freedom law that was once championed by former Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, who we know served as vice president to Donald Trump and is now challenging former President Trump and other Republicans for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination. Thoughts from the panel on these developments?

Raman: I think what’s happening in Ohio is pretty interesting because, you know, we’ve had other states before kind of try to change the threshold for passing something by ballot. And a lot of times it’s not said explicitly, but advocates have said that it’s targeting some measure, whether it’s Medicaid expansion or something else. And here we have a representative and the secretary of state kind of being pretty clear that it is about abortion in this case. And I think it being the secretary of state is especially interesting, because the secretary of state is who is certifying ballot measures and who you would look to for being the person in charge of that and making sure, you know, the t’s are crossed, the i’s dotted. So what happens there will be pretty interesting because that’s kind of an unusual play. And already we’re looking at an August ballot versus traditionally the November ballot. And a lot of times when things are pushed for a different date versus, like, traditional election day, it’s kind of, see if we can get a different turnout or kind of discourage people that might vote one way or the other. So it’ll be interesting to see how this kind of plays out in August or if there are changes before then.

Ollstein: And as for Indiana, I mean, this is one of a bunch of cases around the country where religious people are challenging abortion bans as infringing on their beliefs and right to practice. It’s sort of flipping the assumption on its head. You know, you have a lot of religious support of abortion bans. And this is showing that there are folks on the other side as well within the faith community. And it’s especially interesting in Indiana because they’re challenging one law signed by Mike Pence — the state’s pre-Dobbs abortion ban — by using another law signed by Mike Pence, which is the state’s RFRA law [Religious Freedom Restoration Act], the religious freedom law, and saying that, you know, the state law imposes one particular religion’s view of when life begins and when abortion is or is not acceptable. And that’s not shared by all people of faith. And in Judaism, a child is not a child until it takes its first breath, and that conflicts with abortion bans that are much earlier in pregnancy that sort of posit that it is a child and a life before that. So this will be really interesting to watch.

Carey: Sure. We’ll be watching all these cases very closely. But we’re going to turn now to another topic that’s important to millions of Americans, and that’s the cost of prescription drugs. Sen. Bernie Sanders — he’s a Vermont independent who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, also known as the HELP Committee — he’s vowed not to move forward with any Biden administration health nominees, including the president’s pick to head the National Institutes of Health. That’s Dr. Monica Bertagnolli. Sen. Sanders is saying he’s going to keep this hold on until he sees a comprehensive plan from the White House on how to lower drug prices. What is he upset about specifically? And is he going to have other senators — have they joined him? Do you think that will be in the cards, or is this kind of a one-man band here?

Cohrs: My take on this is that he knows he can’t get the votes in Congress, so this is kind of his only option, is to try to pressure the administration to do it. And the only lever he has is nominees, so he’s using that. I don’t know how long he’ll hold out on this. I mean, it is — basically he’s arguing that the public has invested research dollars to help develop kind of the basic science that’s the foundation for a lot of important medications. And right now, the government isn’t really getting enough return on that investment. And there’s no requirement that companies that end up actually manufacturing these drugs and bringing them to market would price them in a fair, reasonable way. And so, I think his staff put out a report as well, with a release to the Post, making that argument, that the NIH could have leverage here if they chose to, and that in the past there have been clauses in contracts that could have given the government some leverage to go after these companies more aggressively but they’re just choosing not to. And so far, the Biden administration has shown no appetite to go after companies’ patents because of pricing issues. It’s never been done before. But I think, you know, Sen. Sanders realizes that he has an opening here, and he’s using the bully pulpit as much as he can. But I think ultimately I don’t see how this is resolved. And I think given that the Biden administration has overseen the passage of the most significant drug pricing reform in 20 years — which doesn’t fix all the problems, will say that. I think Sen. Sanders sent a letter about —

Carey: It’s in the Inflation Reduction Act, right?

Cohrs: Yes. Yes. The Inflation Reduction Act.

Carey: Which he voted for, OK.

Cohrs: Yes, he did vote for that. But I think there are outstanding issues about new medications especially that he’s trying to highlight here and saying, The problem isn’t fixed. We need to do more.

Carey: And so separately, a bipartisan group of Senate Finance Committee members have unveiled a proposal that they said would reform pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs. That’s another entity we talk a lot about on the podcast. And the belief is that this measure would lower the cost of drugs. Rachel, I know that you have been covering this plan. Can you tell us about it?

Cohrs: I don’t know that this would lower the cost of drugs necessarily, and I think it’s more limited than the lawmakers who are sponsoring it have claimed it is. I think the problem that it’s trying to solve is that the payments between drugmakers and PBMs, and PBMs and the insurance companies or the employees that they’re working for, have traditionally been tied to a drug’s price. And so, just kind of like the — if anyone’s familiar with the medical loss ratio from the Affordable Care Act — it’s a similar idea, that if the price is higher, then there’s a bigger piece of the pie for everyone, percentagewise. So this bill aims to delink some of the fees in contracts with PBMs from the price of drugs. Now, this doesn’t change the rebates that drugmakers and PBMs negotiate on themselves, doesn’t touch that at all. It’s just fees. So I think it’s kind of hard to know how these work. You know, we don’t have them. They’re not public, but I think they’re trying to get at regulating this space a little bit more and trying to align those incentives a little bit better to make sure PBMs aren’t preferring more expensive medications for their own gain.

Carey: And what’s been the response from the PBM industry?

Cohrs: It is pretty fresh, but I think in general they have argued that the reason for high prices is drugmakers, because they set the prices. And I think this has been a food fight that’s been going on for a very long time. But I think lawmakers are kind of coming around to the idea of doing some sort of reform to the PBM industry. We’ll just have to wait and see what that ends up looking like.

Carey: All right. Well, we’ll keep our eyes on that one as well. And that’s this week’s news. Now we’re going to play Julie Rovner’s interview with Dan Mendelson of Morgan Health, and then we’ll be back with our extra credits.

Julie Rovner: I am pleased to welcome to the podcast Dan Mendelson, CEO of Morgan Health, a new business unit of the financial services giant JPMorgan Chase. Morgan Health’s goal is to improve health care for the company’s more than a quarter of a million employees and dependents, as well as everyone else with employer-provided insurance. If that sounds familiar, that’s because Morgan Health is the successor organization to Haven Healthcare. That was the high-profile 2018 project of JPMorgan, Amazon, and Berkshire Hathaway to remake the U.S. health care system from the ground up, led by one of the nation’s leading health care thinkers, surgeon, author, and policy wonk Atul Gawande. Today, Gawande is running global health programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development. Haven is no more. And if you listened to our special 300th episode earlier this month, our experts came down pretty hard on employers’ contributions to fixing what ails the health care system. So I’ve asked Dan here to talk about what is going on. Welcome, Dan.

Dan Mendelson: My pleasure.

Rovner: So, Dan may not have as high a public profile as Atul Gawande, but he has broad and long experience in health policy, from overseeing federal health programs at the Office of Management and Budget during the Bill Clinton administration to founding and growing Avalere Health, a successful health care consulting and advisory group. Dan, why did this job appeal to you and what made you think you could succeed where so many have tried before and failed, including very recently?

Mendelson: Look, this is a collaborative effort, and we’re working closely with a whole range of stakeholders from insurers to providers. I mean, the work that we’re doing in Columbus, for example, is with a really innovative primary care practice called Central Ohio Primary Care that has broad experience in delivering value through accountable care models in Medicare. So, I’d say that our belief that we will succeed really comes from the fact that we’re taking a very collaborative approach with other stakeholders in the health care system.

Rovner: Let’s start at the very beginning. Why are employers interested in the nation’s health care system and how it works? For most of them, it’s not their main line of business.

Mendelson: Well, I’d say that employers feel an obligation to provide insurance for their employees, and it’s an important benefit, and it’s one that employees expect. And it’s also an opportunity for employers to provide for the health and well-being of their employees.

Rovner: So employers really did used to drive a lot of health care innovation, probably coming only after Medicare in terms of shifting actual health care delivery. But they seem to have taken a back seat lately. What changed?

Mendelson: Well, look, you know, you had employers really active in the quality movement, and NCQA came out of employer interest, for example. So there really was kind of a head of steam. But it did wane. And I think that anyone who’s looking at the scene sees that Medicare and Medicaid have made a lot of progress with respect to driving accountable care and quality, whereas, at this point, there’s really … most of what’s happening through employers is fee for service. And it’s really problematic in terms of driving the quality agenda.

Rovner: And NCQA, that’s …?

Mendelson: National Commission for Quality Assurance.

Rovner: Thank you. The National Commission for Quality Assurance. Yeah, which used to be a big deal. And you’re right, I think most of what we’re seeing is now going on in the Medicare and Medicaid space. I feel like, you know, the millions of people who have employer-provided insurance right now have three main problems: the increasing unaffordability of care, with large and growing deductibles and copays; the increasing time and effort it takes to figure out what is and isn’t covered, and fighting for things that aren’t covered to be covered sometimes; and the fragmentation of the delivery system, making what was already hard to navigate very nearly impenetrable for some people, including people who are sick. I assume you’re trying to address all of those.

Mendelson: Yeah, we’re focused on quality and improving the quality of services, for sure. We’re focused on affordability. And then the one that you didn’t mention is health equity, which is one of the most difficult aspects of health care in America today, and certainly our focus as well. I mean, we see inequity in the health care system in the employer space, as well as in Medicare and Medicaid. So that’s also a target for us.

Rovner: What kind of steps are you taking to fix some of these problems? I mean, I know it’s what people get frustrated most with. It’s, like, they have insurance, but they feel like they can’t use it very well.

Mendelson: Yes. So, the way that we’re structured, there are three things that we’re doing to address these issues. And I’d say that we see our efforts as very collaborative. So we don’t believe that we alone can fix these problems, but rather what we’re doing is really driving innovation and trying to get employers, more broadly, focused on innovation in health care. So there are three ways that we’re doing this. First is that we’re investing, from the JPMorgan Chase balance sheet, in innovative health care companies that are proven to drive quality, improve quality, reduce costs, and better health equity. So that’s the first piece. And we can talk a little bit about some of the investments that we’ve made in the first two years of our operation.

Rovner: Give me one example of a company that’s doing that that you’re investing in.

Mendelson: Yes. An example is apree health. apree is a company that offers a[n] accountable care product to employers. And we’re using apree in Columbus, where we have 40,000 employees and dependents, and we’re now offering their services to our employees as an option to drive better health care.

Rovner: What do you see as the biggest challenge in health care going forward, particularly from the employer point of view?

Mendelson: Well, look, we’ve talked about a number of the issues. I’d say that, you know, we’re focused broadly on accountable care — and “accountable care” meaning making sure that there is a focus on quality and cost that is being held by an organization that can really take responsibility for care. So, to me, it’s really about alignment of incentives and making sure that those incentives are aligned not only in the employer sector but also across in the public programs.

Rovner: So you’re involved in private equity and, you know, the track record of private equity in health care, which was supposed to be an effort to get incentives aligned, hasn’t always worked out so well. I mean, in a lot of cases we’ve seen private equity just sucking money out of the health care system rather than putting it back in.

Mendelson: Look, as an investor, what we’re focused on is finding companies that are driving innovation and helping them succeed. And we’re putting our capital behind these companies, but we’re also really spending the time with them to make sure that they can be effective. And so, you know, we’ve done five investments over the course of two years, and they’re not only in accountable care, but also making sure that there’s good primary care in the system, driving better digital care, shifting expensive care from inpatient and outpatient settings into the home. So these are all facets of how employer-sponsored health care needs to be improved, and that’s the focus of our investing.

Rovner: So what does it look like when you get it all fixed?

Mendelson: When we get it all fixed …? I mean, look, I think we’re going to be at this for quite some time. But it’s really important for employers to articulate their needs and to make sure that those who are offering insurance for their employees are actually being attentive to not only cost but also quality and health equity. And I think that the facet that we’re really looking for is to make sure that health care improves and that these improvements are coming along not only in the public programs but also in the employer sector.

Rovner: Dan Mendelson, thank you so much for joining us.

Mendelson: My pleasure.

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

Ollstein: Sure. I chose a piece in Stat by Brittany Trang and Elaine Chen. It’s called “AMA Asks Doctors to De-Emphasize Use of BMI in Gauging Health and Obesity.” I’ve heard in the medical community there has been a lot of discussion about moving away from using the BMI [body mass index] to evaluate people’s health. It was created to track population-level statistics and was never intended to be used to gauge individual health. It was not invented by someone with a medical background at all. And so people have been saying that, you know, it’s inaccurate and it leads to a lot of stigma. And so it’s interesting to see that sort of bubble up to this very mainstream, leading health care organization saying, “Look, you can’t just rely on the BMI. You also have to look at all these other factors.” Because extremely fit NFL players have really high BMIs, you know. You can’t — someone’s size does not necessarily determine their health. You can have people of all sizes be healthy or unhealthy. So this was encouraging to see.

Carey: Great. And for folks interested in more on that, we have a lot of coverage on that at kffhealthnews.org, so check that out. Rachel, why don’t you go next?

Cohrs: Sure. My piece this week is by one of Alice’s colleagues in Politico, Megan Messerly, and the headline is “Thousands Lose Medicaid in Arkansas: Is This America’s Future?” And she kind of got out beyond the Beltway and just spent some time in Arkansas really talking to everyday people who were having trouble staying on Medicaid. And I think it’s easy to get caught up in just talking about numbers and talking about policies and all of that. But I think she really brought to life the issues and the barriers that some people are facing in Arkansas, which really is the center of these disenrollments that we’re seeing right now. So I think it was really timely, really well done, very much put the human face on both the people who are getting disenrolled, but also kind of some of the on-the-ground efforts to stop that from happening and just kind of the challenges that they are working on with these compressed timelines. I thought it was really well done.

Carey: Yeah, it’s a great story. Sandhya.

Raman: My extra credit this week is called “Suicide Hotlines Promise Anonymity. Dozens of Their Websites Send Sensitive Data to Facebook.” It’s by Colin Lecher and Jon Keegan for The Markup in partnership with Stat. And I thought this was just a really interesting piece that investigated whether crisis center websites that were using Meta Pixel, which is like a piece of code that tracks user behavior for advertising that a lot of sites use — and just, like, the worry here is sharing sensitive information to Facebook, especially when it is personally identifiable. And with the crisis center, it’s much, much more sensitive data than, you know, maybe, like, shopping habits. And so they looked at data from 186 local call center websites. And I will let you read to see how many of them were using this.

Carey: Mine is from Ruth Marcus at The Washington Post. And it’s called “I Lost 40 Pounds on Ozempic. But I’m Left With Even More Questions.” In this article, she talks about her lifelong struggle to lose weight, to keep it off, but how those pounds always find their way back. And Marcus explores the history and the science behind the weight loss drugs. And she also takes on societal debate over obesity itself: Do we think of it as a personal failing, or is it a disease, a chronic condition whose underpinnings are in genetics and brain chemistry? It is a great read. All right. That’s our show for the week. And as always, if you enjoy the podcast, you can subscribe wherever you get your podcasts. We’d appreciate it if you left a review; that helps other people find us too. Special thanks, as always, to the amazing Francis Ying, our producer. You can email us with your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @maryagnescarey.

Carey: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Carey: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

Carey: And Sandhya.

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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.

A final deal cut between President Joe Biden and House Republicans extends the U.S. debt ceiling deadline to 2025 and reins in some spending. The bill signed into law by the president will preserve many programs at their current funding levels, and Democrats were able to prevent any changes to the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

Still, millions of Americans are likely to lose their Medicaid coverage this year as states are once again allowed to redetermine who is eligible and who is not; Medicaid rolls were frozen for three years due to the pandemic. Data from states that have begun to disenroll people suggests that the vast majority of those losing insurance are not those who are no longer eligible, but instead people who failed to complete required paperwork — if they received it in the first place.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico, Lauren Weber of The Washington Post, and Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Lauren Weber
The Washington Post

@LaurenWeberHP

Read Lauren's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Lawmakers and White House officials spared health programs from substantial spending cuts in a last-minute agreement to raise the nation’s debt ceiling. And Biden named Mandy Cohen, a former North Carolina health director who worked in the Obama administration, to be the next director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Though she lacks academic credentials in infectious diseases, Cohen enters the job with a reputation as someone who can listen and be listened to by both Democrats and Republicans.
• The removal of many Americans from the Medicaid program, post-public health emergency, is going as expected: With hundreds of thousands already stripped from the rolls, most have been deemed ineligible not because they don’t meet the criteria, but because they failed to file the proper paperwork in time. Nearly 95 million people were on Medicaid before the unwinding began.
• Eastern and now southern parts of the United States are experiencing hazardous air quality conditions as wildfire smoke drifts from Canada, raising the urgency surrounding conversations about the health effects of climate change.
• The drugmaker Merck & Co. sued the federal government this week, challenging its ability to press drugmakers into negotiations over what Medicare will pay for some of the most expensive drugs. Experts predict Merck’s coercion argument could fall flat because drugmakers voluntarily choose to participate in Medicare, though it is unlikely this will be the last lawsuit over the issue.
• In abortion news, some doctors are pushing back against the Indiana medical board’s decision to reprimand and fine an OB-GYN who spoke out about providing an abortion to a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio. The doctors argue the decision could set a bad precedent and suppress doctors’ efforts to communicate with the public about health issues.

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News senior correspondent Sarah Jane Tribble, who reported the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a patient with Swiss health insurance who experienced the sticker shock of the U.S. health care system after an emergency appendectomy. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want 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: The New York Times’ “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt,” by Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg.

Jessie Hellmann: MLive’s “During the Darkest Days of COVID, Some Michigan Hospitals Made 100s of Millions,” by Matthew Miller and Danielle Salisbury.

Joanne Kenen: Politico Magazine’s “Can Hospitals Turn Into Climate Change Fighting Machines?” by Joanne Kenen.

Lauren Weber: The Washington Post’s “Smoke Brings a Warning: There’s No Escaping Climate’s Threat to Health,” by Dan Diamond, Joshua Partlow, Brady Dennis, and Emmanuel Felton.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

KFF Health News’ “As Medicaid Purge Begins, ‘Staggering Numbers’ of Americans Lose Coverage,” by Hannah Recht.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Debt Deal Leaves Health Programs (Mostly) Intact

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Debt Deal Leaves Health Programs (Mostly) IntactEpisode Number: 301Published: June 8, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?”. I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We are taping this week from the smoky, hazy, “code purple” Washington, D.C., area on Thursday, June 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. We are joined today via video conference by Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Lauren Weber, of The Washington Post.

Lauren Weber: Hi.

Rovner: And Jessie Hellmann, of CQ Roll Call.

Hellmann: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’s Sarah Jane Tribble about the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month.” This month is about the sticker shock of the American health care system experienced by residents of other countries. Before we get to this week’s news, I hope you all enjoyed our special panel of big health policy thinkers for our 300th episode. If you didn’t listen, you might want to go back and do that at some point. Also, that means we have two weeks of news to catch up on, so let us get to it. We’re going to start this week, I hope, for the last time with the fight over the debt ceiling. Despite lots of doubts, President Biden managed to strike a budget deal with House Republicans, which fairly promptly passed the House and Senate and was signed into law a whole two days before the Treasury Department had warned that the U.S. might default. The final package extends the debt ceiling until January 1, 2025, so after the next election, which was a big win for the Democrats, who don’t want to do this exercise again anytime soon. In exchange, Republicans got some budget savings, but nothing like the dramatic bill that House Republicans passed earlier this spring. So, Jessie, what would it do to health programs?

Hellmann: The deal cuts spending by 1.5 trillion over 10 years. It has caps on nondefense discretionary funding. That would have a big impact on agencies and programs like the NIH [National Institutes of Health], which has been accustomed to getting pretty large increases over the years. So nondefense discretionary spending will be limited to about 704 billion next fiscal year, which is a cut of about 5%. And then there’s going to be a 1% increase in fiscal 2025, which, when you consider inflation, probably isn’t much of an increase at all. So the next steps are seeing what the appropriators do. They’re going to have to find a balance between what programs get increases, which ones get flat funding — it’s probably going to be a lot of flat funding, and we’re probably at the end of an era for now with these large increases for NIH and other programs, which have traditionally been very bipartisan, but it’s just a different climate right now.

Rovner: And just to be clear, I mean, this agreement doesn’t actually touch the big sources of federal health spending, which are Medicare and Medicaid, not even any work requirements that the Republicans really wanted for Medicaid. In some ways, the Democrats who wanted to protect health spending got off pretty easy, or easier than I imagine they expected they would, right?

Hellmann: Advocates would say it could have been much worse. All things considered, when you look at the current climate and what some of the more conservative members of the House were initially asking for, this is a win for Democrats and for people who wanted to protect health care spending, especially the entitlements, because they — Republicans did want Medicaid work requirements and those just did not end up in the bill; they were a nonstarter. So, kind of health-care-related, depending on how you look at it, there was an increase in work requirements for SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], which is, like, a food assistance program. So that will be extended to age 55, though they did include more exemptions for people who are veterans —

Rovner: Yeah, overall, that may be a wash, right? There may be the same or fewer people who are subject to work requirements.

Hellmann: Yeah. And all those changes would end in 2030, so —

Weber: Yeah, I just wanted to say, I mean, if we think about this — we’re coming out of a pandemic and we’re not exactly investing in the health system — I think it’s necessary to have that kind of step-back context. And we’ve seen this before. You know, it’s the boom-bust cycle of pandemic preparedness funding, except accelerated to some extent. I mean, from what I understand, the debt deal also clawed back some of the public health spending that they were expecting in the billions of dollars. And I think the long-term ramifications of that remain to be seen. But we could all be writing about that in 10 years again when we’re looking at ways that funding fell short in preparedness.

Rovner: Yeah, Joanne and I will remember that. Yeah, going back to 2001. Yeah. Is that what you were about to say?

Kenen: I mean, this happens all the time.

Weber: All the time, right.

Kenen: And we learn lessons. I mean, the pandemic was the most vivid lesson, but we have learned lessons in the past. After anthrax, they spent more money, and then they cut it back again. I mean, I remember in 2008, 2009, there was a big fiscal battle — I don’t remember which battle it was — you know, Susan Collins being, you know, one of the key moderates to cut the deal. You know, what she wanted was to get rid of the pandemic flu funding. And then a year later, we had H1N1, which turned out not to be as bad as it could have been for a whole variety of reasons. But it’s a cliche: Public health, when it works, you don’t see it and therefore people think you don’t need it. Put that — put the politics of what’s happened to public health over the last three years on top of that, and, you know, public health is always going to have to struggle for funds. Public health and larger preparedness is always going to happen to have to struggle for funds. And it would have, whether it was the normal appropriations process this year, which is still to come, or the debt ceiling. It is a lesson we do not learn the hard way.

Weber: That’s exactly right. I’ll never forget that Tom Harkin said to me that after Obama cut, he sacrificed a bunch of prevention funding for the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] in the ACA [Affordable Care Act] deal, and he never spoke to him again, he told me, because he was so upset because he felt like those billions of dollars could have made a difference. And who knows if 10 years from now we’ll all be talking about this pivotal moment once more.

Rovner: Yeah, Tom Harkin, the now-former senator from Iowa, who put a lot of prevention into the ACA; that was the one thing he really worked hard to do. And he got it in. And as you point out, and it was almost immediately taken back out.

Weber: Yeah.

Kenen: Not all of it.

Weber: Not all of it, but a lot of it.

Kenen: It wasn’t zero.

Rovner: It became a piggy bank for other things. I do want to talk about the NIH for a minute, though, because Jessie, as you mentioned, there isn’t going to be a lot of extra money, and NIH is used to — over the last 30 years — being a bipartisan darling for spending. Well, now it seems like Congress, particularly some of the Republicans, are not so happy with the NIH, particularly the way it handled covid. There’s a new NIH director who has been nominated, Dr. Monica Bertagnolli, who is currently the head of the National Cancer Institute. This could be a rocky summer for the NIH on Capitol Hill, couldn’t it?

Hellmann: Yeah, I think there’s been a strong desire for Republicans to do a lot of oversight. They’ve been looking at the CDC. I think they’re probably going to be looking at the NIH next. Francis Collins is no longer at NIH. Anthony Fauci is no longer there. But I think Republicans have indicated they want to bring them back in to talk about some of the things that happened during the pandemic, especially when it comes to some of the projects that were funded.

Kenen: There was a lull in raising NIH spending. It was flat for a number of years. I can’t remember the exact dates, but I remember it was — Arlen Specter was still alive, and it … [unintelligible] … because he is the one who traditionally has gotten a lot of bump ups in spending. And then there was a few years, quite a few years, where it was flat. And then Specter got the spigots opened again and they stayed open for a good 10 or 15 years. So we’re seeing, and partly a fiscal pause, and partly the — again, it’s the politicization of science and public health that we did not have to this extent before this pandemic.

Rovner: Yeah, I think it’s been a while since NIH has been under serious scrutiny on Capitol Hill. Well, speaking of the CDC, which has been under serious scrutiny since the beginning of the pandemic, apparently is getting a new director in Dr. Mandy Cohen, assuming that she is appointed as expected. She won’t have to be confirmed by the Senate because the CDC director won’t be subject to Senate approval until 2025. Now, Mandy Cohen has done a lot of things. She worked in the Obama administration on the implementation of the Affordable Care Act. She ran North Carolina’s Department of Health [and Human Services], but she’s not really a noted public health expert or even an infectious disease doctor. Why her for this very embattled agency at this very difficult time?

Kenen: I think there are a number of reasons. A lot of her career was on Obamacare kind of things and on CMS kind of quality-over-quantity kind of things, payment reform, all that. She is a physician, but she did a good job in North Carolina as the top state official during the pandemic. I reported a couple of magazine pieces. I spent a lot of time in North Carolina before the pandemic when she was the state health secretary, and she was an innovator. And not only was she an innovator on things like, you know, integrating social determinants into the Medicaid system; she got bipartisan support. She developed not perfect, but pretty good relations with the state Republicans, and they are not moderates. So I think I remember writing a line that said something, you know, in one of those articles, saying something like, “She would talk to the Republicans about the return on investment and then say, ‘And it’s also the right thing to do.’ And then she would go to the Democrats and say, ‘This is the right thing to do. And there’s also an ROI.’”. So, so I think in a sort of low-key way, she has developed a reputation for someone who can listen and be listened to. I still think it’s a really hard job and it’s going to batter anyone who takes it.

Rovner: I suspect right now at CDC that those are probably more important qualities than somebody who’s actually a public health expert but does not know how to, you know, basically rescue this agency from the current being beaten about the head and shoulders by just about everyone.

Kenen: Yeah, but she also was the face of pandemic response in her state. And she did vaccination and she did disparities and she did messaging and she did a lot of the things that — she does not have an infectious disease degree, but she basically did practice it for the last couple of years.

Rovner: She’s far from a total novice.

Kenen: Yeah.

Rovner: All right. Well, it’s been a while since we talked about the Medicaid “unwinding” that began in some states in early April. And the early results that we’re seeing are pretty much as expected. Many people are being purged from the Medicaid rolls, not because they’re earning too much or have found other insurance, but because of paperwork issues; either they have not returned their paperwork or, in some cases, have not gotten the needed paperwork. Lauren, what are we seeing about how this is starting to work out, particularly in the early states?

Weber: So as you said, I mean, much like we expected to see: So 600,000 Americans have been disenrolled so far, since April 1. And some great reporting that my former colleague Hannah Recht did this past week: She reached out to a bunch of states and got ahold of data from 19 of them, I believe. And in Florida, it was like 250,000 people were disenrolled and somewhere north of 80% of them, it was for paperwork reasons. And when we think about paperwork reasons, I just want us all to take a step back. I don’t know about anyone listening to this, but it’s not like I fill out my bills on the most prompt of terms all of the time. And in some of these cases, people had two weeks to return paperwork where they may not have lived at the same address. Some of these forms are really onerous to fill out. They require payroll tax forms, you know, that you may not have easily accessible — all things that have been predicted, but the hard numbers just show is the vast majority of people getting disenrolled right now are being [dis]enrolled for paperwork, not because of eligibility reasons. And too, it’s worth noting, the reason this great Medicaid unwinding is happening is because this was all frozen for three years, so people are not in the habit of having to fill out a renewal form. So it’s important to keep that in mind, that as we’re seeing the hard data show, that a lot of this is, is straight-up paperwork issues. The people that are missing that paperwork may not be receiving it or just may not know they’re supposed to be doing it.

Rovner: As a reminder, I think by the time the three-year freeze was over, there were 90 million people on Medicaid.

Kenen: Ninety-five.

Rovner: Yeah. So it’s a lot; it’s like a quarter of the population of the country. So, I mean, this is really impacting a lot of people. You know, I know particularly red states want to do this because they feel like they’re wasting money keeping ineligible people on the rolls. But if eligible people become uninsured, you can see how they’re going to eventually get sicker, seek care; those providers are going to check and see if they’re eligible for Medicaid, and if they are, they’re going to put them back on Medicaid. So they’re going to end up costing even more. Joanne, you wanted to say something?

Kenen: Yeah. Almost everybody is eligible for something. The exceptions are the people who fall into the Medicaid gap, which is now down to 10 states.

Rovner: You mean, almost everybody currently on Medicaid is eligible.

Kenen: Anyone getting this disenrollment notification or supposed to receive the disenrollment notification that never reaches them — almost everybody is eligible for, they’re still eligible for Medicaid, which is true for the bulk of them. If they’re not, they’re going to be eligible for the ACA. These are low-income people. They’re going to get a lot heavily subsidized. Whether they understand that or not, someone needs to explain it to them. They’re working now, and the job market is strong. You know, it’s not 2020 anymore. They may be able to get coverage at work. Some of them are getting coverage at work. One of the things that I wrote about recently was the role of providers. States are really uneven. Some states are doing a much better job. You know, we’ve seen the numbers out of Florida. They’re really huge disenrollment numbers. Some states are doing a better job. Georgetown Center on Health Insurance — what’s the right acronym? — Children’s and Family. They’re tracking, they have a state tracker, but providers can step up, and there’s a lot of variability. I interviewed a health system, a safety net in Indiana, which is a red state, and they have this really extensive outreach system set up through mail, phone, texts, through the electronic health records, and when you walk in. And they have everybody in the whole system, from the front desk to the insurance specialists, able to help people sort this through. So some of the providers are quite proactive in helping people connect, because there’s three things: There’s understanding you’re no longer eligible, there’s understanding what you are eligible for, and then actually signing up. They’re all hard. You know, if your government’s not going to do a good job, are your providers or your community health clinics or your safety net hospitals — what are they doing in your state? That’s an important question to ask.

Rovner: Providers have an incentive because they would like to be paid.

Kenen: Paid.

Weber: Well, the thing about Indiana too, Joanne, I mean — so that was one of the states that Hannah got the data from. They had I think it was 53,000 residents that have lost coverage in the first amount of unwinding. 89% of them were for paperwork. I mean, these are not small fractions. I mean, it is the vast majority that is being lost for this reason. So that’s really interesting to hear that the providers there are stepping up to face that.

Kenen: It’s not all of them, but you can capture these people. I mean, there’s a lot that can go wrong. There’s a lot that — in the best system, you’re dealing with [a] population that moves around, they don’t have stable lives, they’ve got lots of other things to deal with day to day, and dealing with a health insurance notice in a language you may not speak delivered to an address that you no longer live at — that’s a lot of strikes.

Rovner: It is not easy. All right. Well, because we’re in Washington, D.C., we have to talk about climate change this week. My mother, the journalist, used to say whenever she would go give a speech, that news is what happens to or in the presence of an editor. I have amended that to say now news is what happens in Washington, D.C., or New York City. And since Washington, D.C., and New York City are both having terrible air quality — legendary, historically high air quality — weeks, people are noticing climate change. And yes, I know you guys on the West Coast are saying, “Uh, hello. We’ve been dealing with this for a couple of years.” But Joanne and Lauren, both of your extra credits this week have to do with it. So I’m going to let you do them early. Lauren, why don’t you go first?

Weber: Yeah, I’ve highlighted a piece by my colleague Dan Diamond and a bunch of other of my colleagues, who wrote all about how this is just a sign of what’s to come. I mean, this is not something that is going away. The piece is titled “Smoke Brings a Warning: There’s No Escaping Climate’s Threat to Health.” I think, Julie, you hit the nail on the head. You know, we all live here in Washington, D.C. A lot of other journalist friends live in New York. There’s been a lot of grousing on Twitter that everyone is now covering this because they can see it. But the reality is, when people can see it, they pay attention. And so the point of the story is, you know, look, I mean, this is climate change in action. We’re watching it. You know, it’s interesting; this story includes a quote from Mitch McConnell saying [to] follow the public health authorities, which I found to be quite fascinating considering the current Republican stance on some public health authorities during the pandemic. And I’m just very curious to see, as we continue to see this climate change in reality, how that messaging changes from both parties.

[Editor’s note: The quote Weber referenced did not come from McConnell but from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, a Democrat, and would not have warranted as much fascination in this context.]

Kenen: But I think that you’ve seen, with the fires on the West Coast, nobody is denying that there’s smoke and pollutants in the air — of either party. You know, we can look out our windows and see it right now, right? But they’re not necessarily accepting that it’s because of climate change, and that — I’m not sure that this episode changes that. Because many of the conservatives say it’s not climate change; it’s poor management of forests. That’s the one you hear a lot. But there are other explain — or it’s just, you know, natural variation and it’ll settle down. So it remains to be seen whether this creates any kind of public acknowledgment. I mean, you have conservative lawmakers who live in parts of the country that are already very — on coasts, on hurricane areas, and, you know, forest fire areas there. You have people who are already experiencing it in their own communities, and it does not make them embrace the awareness of poor air quality because of a forest fire. Yes. Does it do what Julie was alluding to, which is change policy or acknowledging what, you know, the four of us know, and many millions of other people, you know, that this is related to climate change, not just — you know, I’m not an expert in forestry, but this is not just — how many fires in Canada, 230?

Rovner: Yeah. Nova Scotia and Quebec don’t tend to have serious forest fire issues.

Kenen: Right. This is across — this is across huge parts of the United States now. It’s going into the South now. I was on the sixth floor of a building in Baltimore yesterday, and you could see it rolling in.

Rovner: Yeah. You have a story about people trying to do something about it. So why don’t you tell us about that.

Kenen: Well it was a coincidence that that story posted this week, because I had been working on it for a couple of months, but I wrote a story. The headline was — it’s in Politico Magazine — it’s “Can Hospitals Turn Into Climate Change Fighting Machines?” Although one version of it had a headline that I personally liked more, which was “Turn Off the Laughing Gas.” And it’s about how hospitals are trying to reduce their own carbon footprint. And when I wrote this story, I was just stunned to learn how big that carbon footprint is. The health sector is 8.5% of greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, and that’s twice as high as the health sector in comparable industrial countries, and —

Rovner: We’re No. 1!

Kenen: Yes, once again, and most of it’s from hospitals. And there’s a lot that the early adopters, which is now, I would say about 15% of U.S. hospitals are really out there trying to do things, ranging from changing their laughing gas pipes to composting to all sorts of, you know, energy, food, waste, huge amount of waste. But one of the — you know, everything in hospitals is use once and throw it out or unwrap it and don’t even use it and still have to throw it out. But one of the themes of the people I spoke to is that hospitals and doctors and nurses and everybody else are making the connection between climate change and the health of their own communities. And that’s what we’re seeing today. That’s where the phenomenon Laura was talking about is connected. Because if you look out the window and you can see the harmful air, and some of these people are going to be showing up in the emergency rooms today and tomorrow, and in respiratory clinics, and people whose conditions are aggravated, people who are already vulnerable, that the medical establishment is making the connection between the health of their own community, the health of their own patients, and climate. And that’s where you see more buy-in into this, you know, greening of American hospitals.

Rovner: Speaking of issues that that seem insoluble but people are starting to work on, drug prices. In drug price news, drug giant Merck this week filed suit against the federal government, charging that the new requirements for Medicare price negotiation are unconstitutional for a variety of reasons. Now, a lot of health lawyers seem pretty dubious about most of those claims. What’s Merck trying to argue here, and why aren’t people buying what they’re selling?

Hellmann: So there’s two main arguments they’re trying to make. The primary one is they say this drug price negotiation program violates the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits the government from taking private property for public use without just compensation. So they argue that under this negotiation process they would basically be coerced or forced into selling these drugs for a price that they think is below its worth. And then the other argument they make is it violates their First Amendment rights because they would be forced to sign an agreement they didn’t agree with, because if they walk away from the negotiations, they have to pay a tax. And so it’s this coercive argument that they are making. But there’s been some skepticism. You know, Nick Bagley noted on Twitter that it’s voluntary to participate in Medicare. Merck doesn’t have a constitutional right to sell its drugs to the government at a price that they have set. And he also noted — I thought this was interesting — I didn’t know that there was kind of a similar case 50 years ago, when Medicare was created. Doctors had sued over a law Congress passed requiring that a panel review treatment decisions that doctors were making. The doctors sued also under the Fifth Amendment in the courts, and the Supreme Court sided with the government. So he seems to think there’s a precedent in favor of the government’s approach here. And there just seems to be a lot of skepticism around these arguments.

Rovner: And Nick Bagley, for those of you who don’t know, is a noted law professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in health law. So he knows whereof he speaks on this stuff. I mean, Joanne, you were, you were mentioning, I mean, this was pretty expected somebody was going to sue over this.

Kenen: It’s probably not the last suit either. It’s probably the first of, but, I mean, the government sets other prices in health care. And, you know, it sets Medicare Advantage rates. It sets rates for all sorts of Medicare procedures. The VA [U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs] sets prices for every drug that’s in its formulary or, you know, buys it at a negotiated —

Rovner: Private insurers set prices.

Kenen: Right. But that’s not government. That’s different.

Rovner: That’s true.

Kenen: They’re not suing private insurers. So, you know, I’m not Nick Bagley, but I usually respect what Nick Bagley has to say. On the other hand, we’ve also seen the courts do all sorts of things we have not expected them to do. There’s another Obamacare case right now. So, precedent, schmecedent, you know, like — although on this one we did expect the lawsuits. Somebody also pointed out, I can’t remember where I read it, so I’m sorry not to credit it, maybe it was even Nick — that even if they lose, if they buy a extra year or two, they get another year or two of profits, and that might be all they care about.

Rovner: It may well be. All right. Well, let us turn to abortion. It’s actually been relatively quiet on the abortion front these last couple of weeks as we approach the one-year anniversary of the Supreme Court striking down Roe v Wade. I did want to mention something that’s still going on in Indiana, however. You may remember the case last year of the 10-year-old who was raped in Ohio and had to go to Indiana to have the pregnancy terminated. That was the case that anti-abortion activists insisted was made up until the rapist was arraigned in court and basically admitted that he had done it. Well, the Indiana doctor who provided that care is still feeling the repercussions of that case. Caitlin Bernard, who’s a prominent OB-GYN at the Indiana University Health system, was first challenged by the state’s attorney general, who accused her of not reporting the child abuse to the proper state authorities. That was not the case; she actually had. But the attorney general, who’s actually a former congressman, Todd Rokita, then asked the state’s medical licensing board to discipline her for talking about the case, without naming the patient, to the media. Last month, the majority of the board voted to formally reprimand her and fine her $3,000. Now, however, lots of other doctors, including those who don’t have anything to do with reproductive health care, are arguing that the precedent of punishing doctors for speaking out about important and sometimes controversial issues is something that is dangerous. How serious a precedent could this turn out to be? She didn’t really violate anybody’s private — she didn’t name the patient. Lauren, you wanted to respond.

Weber: Yeah, I just think it’s really interesting. If you look at the context, the number of doctors that actually get dinged by the medical board, it’s only a couple thousand a year. So this is pretty rare. And usually what you get dinged for by the medical board are really severe things like sexual assault, drug abuse, alcohol abuse. So this would seem to indicate quite some politicization, and the fact that the AG was involved. And I do think that, especially in the backdrop of all these OB-GYN residents that are looking to apply to different states, I think this is one of the things that adds a chilling effect for some reproductive care in some of these red states, where you see a medical board take action like this. And I just think in general — it cannot be stated enough — this is a rare action, and a lot of medical board actions will be, even if there is an action, will be a letter in your file. I mean, to even have a fine is quite something and not it be like a continuing education credit. So it’s quite noteworthy.

Rovner: Well, meanwhile, back in Texas, the judge who declared the abortion pill to have been wrongly approved by the FDA, Trump appointee Matthew Kacsmaryk, is now considering a case that could effectively bankrupt Planned Parenthood for continuing to provide family planning and other health services to Medicaid patients while Texas and Louisiana were trying to kick them out of the program because the clinics also provided abortions in some cases. Now, during the time in question, a federal court had ordered the clinics to continue to operate as usual, banning funding for abortions, which always has been the case, but allowing other services to be provided and reimbursed by Medicaid. This is another of those cases that feels very far-fetched, except that it’s before a judge who has found in favor of just about every conservative plaintiff that has sought him out. This could also be a big deal nationally, right? I mean, Planned Parenthood has been a participant in the Medicaid program in most states for years — again, not paying for abortion, but for paying for lots of other services that they provide.

Kenen: The way this case was structured, there’s all these enormous number of penalties, like 11,000 per case or something, and it basically comes out to be $1.8 billion. It would bankrupt Planned Parenthood nationally, which is clearly the goal of this group, which has a long history that — we don’t have time to go into their long history. They’re an anti-abortion group that’s — you know, they were filming people, and there’s a lot of history there. It’s the same people. But, you know, this judge may in fact come out with a ruling that attempts to shut down Planned Parenthood completely. It doesn’t mean that this particular decision would be upheld by the 5th Circuit or anybody else.

Rovner: Or not. The same way the mifepristone ruling finally woke up other drugmakers who don’t have anything to do with the abortion fight because, oh my goodness, if a judge can overturn the approval of a drug, what does the FDA approval mean? This could be any government contractor — that you can end up being sued for having accepted money that was legal at the time you accepted it, which feels like not really a very good business partner issue. So another one that we will definitely keep an eye on.

Kenen: I mean, that’s the way it may get framed later, is that this isn’t really about Planned Parenthood; this is about a business or entity obeying the law, or court order. I mean, that’s how the pushback might come. I mean, I think people think Planned Parenthood, abortion, they equate those. And most Planned Parenthood clinics do not provide abortion, while those that do are not using federal funds, as a rule; there are exceptions. And Planned Parenthood is also a women’s health provider. They do prenatal care in some cases; they do STD [sexually transmitted disease] treatment and testing. They do contraception. They, you know, they do other things. Shutting down Planned Parenthood would mean cutting off many women’s access to a lot of basic health care.

Rovner: And men too, I am always reminded, because, particularly for sexually transmitted diseases, they’re an important provider.

Kenen: Yeah. HIV and other things.

Rovner: All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Sarah Jane Tribble, and then we will be back with our extra credits. We are pleased to welcome back to the podcast Sarah Jane Tribble, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” story. Sarah, thanks for coming in.

Sarah Jane Tribble: Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient is a former American who now lives in Switzerland, a country with a very comprehensive health insurance system. But apparently it’s not comprehensive enough to cover the astronomical cost of U.S. health care. So tell us who the patient is and how he ended up with a big bill.

Tribble: Yeah. Jay Comfort is an American expatriate, and he has lived overseas for years. He’s a former educator. He’s 66 years old. And he decided to retire in Switzerland. He has that country’s basic health insurance plan. He pays his monthly fee and gets a deductible, like we do here in the U.S. He traveled last year for his daughter’s wedding and ended up with an emergency appendectomy in the ER [emergency room] at the University of Pittsburgh in Williamsport.

Rovner: And how big was the ultimate bill?

Tribble: Well, he was in the hospital just about 14 hours, and he ended up with a bill of just over $42,000.

Rovner: So not even overnight.

Tribble: No.

Rovner: That feels like a lot for what was presumably a simple appendectomy. Is it a lot?

Tribble: We talked to some experts, and it was above what they had predicted it would be. It did include the emergency appendectomy, some scans, some laboratory testing, three hours in the recovery room. There was also some additional diagnostic testing. They had sent off some cells for a diagnostics and did find cancer at the time. Still, it didn’t really explain all the extra cost. Healthcare Bluebook, which you can look up online, has this at about $14,000 for an appendectomy. One expert told me, if you look at Medicare prices and average out in that region, it would be between $6,500 and $18,000-ish. So, yeah, this was expensive compared to what the experts told us.

Rovner: So he goes home and he files a claim with his Swiss insurance. What did they say?

Tribble: Well, first let me just say, cost in the U.S. can be two to three times that in other countries. Switzerland isn’t known as a cheap country, actually. Its health care is —

Rovner: It’s the second most expensive after the U.S.

Tribble: Considered the most expensive in Europe, right. So this is pretty well known. So he was still surprised, though, when he got the response from his Swiss insurance. They said they were willing to pay double because it was an emergency abroad. Total, with the appendectomy and some extra additional scans and so forth: About $8,000 is what they were willing to pay.

Rovner: So, double what they would have paid if he’d had it done in Switzerland.

Tribble: Yeah.

Rovner: So 42 minus 8 leaves a large balance left. Yeah. I mean, he’s stuck with — what is that — $34,000. He’s on the hook for that. I mean, it’s better than having nothing, obviously, but it’s a lot of money and it’s really striking, the difference, because, you know, in Switzerland, they’re very much like, we would pay this amount, then we’ll double it to pay you back. And he still has this enormous bill he’s left paying. He’s on a fixed income. He’s retired. So it’s quite the shock to his system.

Rovner: So what happened? Has this been resolved?

Tribble: Let me first tell you what happened at the ER, because Jay was very diligent about providing documents and explaining everything. We had multiple Zoom calls. Jay’s wife was with him, and she provided the Swiss insurance card to UPMC. Now, UPMC had confirmed that there was some confusion, and it took months for Jay to get his bill. He had to call and reach out to UPMC to get his bill. He wants to pay his bill. He wants to pay his fair share, but he doesn’t consider $42,000 a fair share. So he wants to now negotiate the bill. We’ve left it at that, actually. UPMC says they are charging standard charges and that he has not requested financial assistance. And Jay says he would like to negotiate his bill.

Rovner: So that’s where we are. What is the takeaway here? Obviously, “don’t have an emergency in a country where you don’t have insurance” doesn’t feel very practical.

Tribble: Well, yeah, I mean, this was really interesting for me. I’ve been a health care reporter a long time. I’ve heard about travel insurance. The takeaway here for Jay is he would have been wise to get some travel insurance. Now, Jay did tell me previously he had tried to get Medicare. He is a U.S. citizen residing in Switzerland. He does qualify. He had worked in the U.S. long enough to qualify for it. He had gone through some phone calls and so forth and didn’t have it before coming here. He told me in the last couple of weeks that he now has gotten Medicare. However, that may not have helped him too much because it was an outpatient procedure. And it’s important to note that if you have Medicare and you’re 65 in the U.S., when you go overseas, it’s not likely to cover much. So the takeaway: Costs in the U.S. are more expensive than most places in the world, and you should be prepared if you’re traveling overseas and you find yourself in a situation, you might consider travel insurance anyway.

Rovner: So both ways.

Tribble: Yeah.

Rovner: Americans going somewhere else and people from somewhere else coming here.

Tribble: Well, if you’re a contract worker or a student on visa or somebody visiting the U.S., you’re definitely [going to] want to get some insurance because, wherever you’re coming from, most likely that insurance isn’t going to pay the full freight of what the costs are in the U.S.

Rovner: OK. Sarah Jane Tribble, thank you very much.

Tribble: Thanks so much.

Rovner: OK, we’re back, and it’s time for our extra credit segment. That’s where we each recommend a story we read this week that 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. Lauren and Joanne, you’ve already given us yours, so Jessie, you’re next.

Hellmann: Yeah. My extra credit is from MLive.com, an outlet in Michigan. It’s titled “During the Darkest Days of COVID, Some Michigan Hospitals Made 100s of Millions.” They looked at tax records, audited financial statements in federal data, and found that some hospitals and health systems in Michigan actually did really well during the pandemic, with increases in operating profits and overall net assets. A big part of this was because of the covid relief funding that was coming in, but the article noted that, despite this, hospitals were still saying that they were stretched really thin, where they were having to lay off people. They didn’t have money for PPE [personal protective equipment], and they were having to institute, like, other cost-saving measures. So I thought this was a really interesting, like, a local look at how hospitals are kind of facing a backlash now. We’ve seen it in Congress a little bit, just more of an interest in looking at their finances and how they were impacted by the pandemic, because while some hospitals really did see losses, like small, rural, or independent hospitals, some of the bigger health systems came out on top. But you’re still hearing those arguments that they need more help, they need more funding.

Rovner: Well, my story is also about a hospital system. It’s yet another piece of reporting about nonprofit hospitals failing to live up to their requirement to provide, quote, “community benefits,” by our podcast panelist at The New York Times Sarah Kliff and Jessica Silver-Greenberg. It’s called “This Nonprofit Health System Cuts Off Patients With Medical Debt.” And it’s about a highly respected and highly profitable health system based in Minnesota called Allina and its policy of cutting off patients from all nonemergency services until they pay back their debts in full. Now, nonemergency services because federal law requires them to treat patients in emergencies. It’s not all patients. It’s just those who have run up debt of at least $1,500 on three separate occasions. But that is very easy to do in today’s health system. And the policy isn’t optional. Allina’s computerized appointment system will actually block the accounts of those who have debts that they need to pay off. It is quite a story, and yet another in this long list of stories about hospitals behaving badly. OK, that is our show for this week. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me, at least for now. I’m still there. I’m @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann

Rovner: Lauren.

Weber: @LaurenWeberHP

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, Stitcher, 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.

How should journalists cover political candidates who make false claims about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines? That question will need to be answered now that noted anti-vaccine activist Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has officially entered the 2024 presidential race.

Meanwhile, South Carolina has become one of the last states in the South to pass an abortion ban, making the procedure all but impossible to obtain for women across a broad swath of the country.

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

Panelists

Rachel Cohrs
Stat News

@rachelcohrs

Read Rachel's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Republican lawmakers and President Joe Biden continue to bargain over a deal to avert a debt ceiling collapse. Unspent pandemic funding is on the negotiating table, as the White House pushes to protect money for vaccine development — though the administration has drawn criticism for a lack of transparency over what would be included in a clawback of unspent dollars.
• In abortion news, South Carolina is the latest state to vote to restrict access to abortion, passing legislation this week that would ban abortion after six weeks of pregnancy — shortly after pregnant people miss their first period. And Texas is seeing more legal challenges to the state law’s exceptions to protect a mother’s life, as cases increasingly show that many doctors are erring on the side of not providing care to avoid criminal and professional liability.
• Congress is scrutinizing the role of group purchasing organizations in drug pricing as more is revealed about how pharmacy benefit managers negotiate discounts. So-called GPOs offer health care organizations, like hospitals, the ability to work together to leverage market power and negotiate better deals from suppliers.
• Lawmakers are also exploring changes to the way Medicare pays for the same care performed in a doctor’s office versus a hospital setting. Currently, providers can charge more in a hospital setting, but some members of Congress want to end that discrepancy — and potentially save the government billions.
• And our panel of health journalists discusses an important question after a prominent anti-vaccine activist entered the presidential race last month: How do you responsibly cover a candidate who promotes conspiracy theories? The answer may be found in a “truth sandwich.”

Also this week, Rovner interviews KFF Health News senior correspondent Aneri Pattani about her project to track the money from the national opioid settlement.

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’ “Remote Work: An Underestimated Benefit for Family Caregivers,” by Joanne Kenen

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Reuters’ “How Doctors Buy Their Way out of Trouble,” by Michael Berens

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “In the ‘Wild West’ of Outpatient Vascular Care, Doctors Can Reap Huge Payments as Patients Risk Life and Limb,” by Annie Waldman

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The New York Times’ “Heat Wave and Blackout Would Send Half of Phoenix to E.R., Study Says,” by Michael Levenson

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• KFF Health News’ “Abortion Bans Are Driving Off Doctors and Closing Clinics, Putting Basic Health Care at Risk,” by Julie Rovner.
• Stat’s “House Panel Takes First Steps Toward Reining In Hospitals With ‘Site-Neutral’ Changes,” by Rachel Cohrs.
• Vice’s “ABC News and CNN Manage to Demonstrate Exactly What Not to Do With Robert F. Kennedy Jr.,” by Anna Merlan.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: When an Anti-Vaccine Activist Runs for President

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: When an Anti-Vaccine Activist Runs for President

Episode Number: 299

Published: May 25, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?”. I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 25, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. Today we are joined via video conference by Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode we’ll have my interview with KFF Health News’ Aneri Pattani about her project tracking where all of that opioid settlement money is going. But first, this week’s news. I suppose we have to start with the debt ceiling again, because how this all eventually plays out will likely impact everything else that happens in Washington for the rest of the year. First of all, as of this taping, at 10 o’clock on Thursday morning, there’s still no settlement here, right?

Ollstein: There is not. And depending who you listen to, we are either close or not close at all, on the brink of disaster or on the brink of being all saved from disaster. There’s a lot of competing narratives going around. But yes, as of this taping, no solution.

Rovner: I want to do a spreadsheet of how often the principals come out and say, “It was productive,” “It’s falling apart,” “It was productive,” “It’s falling apart.” I mean, it seems like literally every other time, particularly when Speaker [Kevin] McCarthy comes out, it was either “very productive” or “we’re nowhere near.” That seems to have been the gist for the past two weeks or so. Meanwhile, it seems like one thing Republicans and Democrats have at least tentatively agreed to do is claw back something like $30 billion in unspent covid funds. But, not so fast. The New York Times reports that the Biden administration wants to preserve $5 billion of that to fund the next generation of covid vaccines and treatment and another $1 billion to continue giving free covid vaccines to people without insurance. I feel like this is the perfect microcosm of why these talks are almost impossible to finish. They’re trying to negotiate a budget resolution, an omnibus spending bill, and a reconciliation bill all at the same time, with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head and a long holiday weekend in between. Somebody please tell me that I’m wrong about this.

Ollstein: Well, Congress never does anything unless there’s a sword of Damocles hanging over them and a vacation coming up that they really want to go on. I mean, do they ever make it happen otherwise? Not — not in our experience. But I do want to note that it is interesting that the Biden administration is trying to fight for some of that covid funding. Meanwhile, what they’re not reportedly fighting for is some of the other public health funding that’s at risk in that clawback, and I reported last week that some of Biden’s own health officials are warning that losing those tens of billions of dollars could undermine other public health efforts, including the fight against HIV and STDs [sexually transmitted diseases]. We have syphilis at record rates right now, and public health departments all around the country are counting on that money to preserve their workforces and do contact tracing, etc. And so that is another piece of this that isn’t getting as much attention.

Cohrs: There has been this ongoing fight between the White House and Republicans over covid money and how it’s being spent, for years at this point. And the White House has never really been fully transparent about exactly what was going to get clawed back. The Appropriations Committee was the one who actually put out some real information about this. And I think that trust has just been broken that the money is used where it’s supposed to be. I mean, even for the next-generation research project [Project NextGen] — I mean, they launched that like a couple of months ago, after Republicans had already threatened to take the money back. So I think there are some questions about the timing of the funding. [White House COVID-19 Response Coordinator] Ashish Jha said they didn’t know they had leftovers until recently, but I think this has just really turned into a mess for the White House, and I think the fact that they’re willing to offer some of this money up is just kind of a symbol and just a “ending with a whimper” of this whole fight that’s been going on for two years where they’ve been unsuccessful in extracting any more money.

Rovner: And yeah, I was just going to say, the White House keeps asking for more money and then they keep, quote-unquote, “finding money” to do things that are really important. Sarah, I wanted to ask you, how freaked out is the research establishment and the drug industry at whether, you know, will they or won’t they actually pony up money here?

Karlin-Smith: I think this could be pretty problematic because some of the type of companies that get this funding — some of them might be in a position to do this on their own, but others would essentially — you know, there isn’t necessarily a market for this without the government support, and that’s why they do it. That’s why the U.S. created this BARDA [Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority], which kind of funds this type of pandemic and other threats research. And so I think there are companies that definitely wouldn’t be able to continue without this money, because some of it is for things that we think we might need but don’t know if we definitely will. And so you don’t necessarily want to make the investment in the same way you know you need cancer drugs or something like that.

Rovner: We will see how this plays out. Perhaps it will be played out by next week or perhaps they will find some sort of short-term patch, which is another tried-and-true favorite for Congress. All right. Let’s turn to abortion. Last week, the North Carolina Legislature overrode the Democratic governor’s veto to pass a 12-week ban. This week was the South Carolina Legislature’s chance to say, “Hold my beer.” Alice, what happened in South Carolina, and what does it mean for availability of abortion in the whole rest of the South?

Ollstein: The governor is expected to sign this new restriction into law. Like many other GOP-led states. South Carolina was expected to quickly pass restrictions last year as soon as Roe v. Wade was overturned, but they got into fights within the Republican Party over how far to go, whether to have exceptions, what kind of exceptions, etc. It was the classic story we’ve seen play out over and over and over where, while Roe v. Wade was still in place, it was very easy for people to say, “I’m pro-life, I’m against abortion,” and not have to make those difficult, detailed decisions. So, yes, this could have a big impact, you know, especially with Florida moving for a much stricter ban. You know, the whole region is becoming more and more unavailable, and people are going to have to travel further and further.

Rovner: And South Carolina ended up with one of these six-week, quote-unquote, “heartbeat bills,” right?

Ollstein: That’s right.

Rovner: So it’s sort of shutting off yet another state where abortion is or really could be available. There’s more abortion-related court action, too. This week, in Texas, eight more women who experienced dangerous pregnancy complications joined a lawsuit seeking to force just a clarification of that state’s abortion ban that they say threatened their lives. One of them, Kiersten Hogan, had her water break prematurely, putting her at risk of infection and death, but says she was told by the hospital that if she tried to leave to seek care elsewhere, she could be arrested for trying to kill her baby. Four days later, the baby was born stillborn. Yet sponsors of the state’s abortion bill say it was never intended to bar, quote, “medically necessary abortions.” Why is there such a disconnect? And Texas is hardly the only place this is happening, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. Situations like this are why people are arguing that the whole debate over exceptions is sort of a fig leaf. It’s papering over how these work in practice. You can have exceptions on the book that say “life-threatening situations, medical emergencies,” etc. But because doctors are so afraid of being charged with a crime or losing their license or other professional repercussions, that’s just creating a huge chilling effect and making them afraid to provide care in these situations. A lot of times the state law also contradicts with federal law when it comes to medical emergencies, and so doctors feel caught in the middle and unsure what they’re supposed to do. And as we’re seeing, a lot of them are erring on the side of not providing care rather than providing care. So this is playing out in a lot of places. So I’m interested to see if this informs the debate in other states about whether to have these exceptions or not.

Rovner: And I get to promote my own story here, which is that we’re seeing in a lot of states either doctors leaving or doctors deciding not to train in states with abortion bans because they’re afraid of exactly those restrictions that could land them, you know, either in court or, even worse, in jail. We’ve long had abortion care deserts. Now we could see entire women’s health care deserts in a lot of these states, which would, you know, hurt not just the people who want to have abortions, but the people who want to get pregnant and have babies. We will continue to watch that space. Well, meanwhile, in West Virginia, another court case, filed by the maker of the generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone, could turn on a recent Supreme Court decision about pork products in California. Can somebody explain what one has to do with the other?

Karlin-Smith: There is basically a ruling that the Supreme Court issued the other week in a California case where the state was regulating how pigs were treated on farms in California. And the court basically allowed the law to stand, saying, you know, it didn’t interfere with interstate commerce. And the people who are protesting GenBioPro’s suit in West Virginia are basically saying that this, again, is an example where West Virginia’s regulation of the abortion drug, again, doesn’t really impact the distribution of the drug outside of the state or the availability of the drug outside of the state, and so this should be allowable. Of course, GenBioPro and the folks who are protesting how West Virginia is curtailing access to the suit are trying to argue the same ruling helps their cause. To me, what I read — and it seems like the comparison works better against the drug company, but it always is interesting to see this overlapping — you know, the cases you don’t expect. But I also, I think, when this ruling came out, saw somebody else making another argument that this should help GenBioPro. So it’s very hard to know.

Rovner: If it’s not confusing enough, I’m going to add another layer here: While we’re talking about the abortion pill, a group of House Democrats are reaching out to drug distribution company AmerisourceBergen, following reports that it would decline to deliver the pill to pharmacies in as many as 31 states, apparently fearing that they would be drawn into litigation between states and the federal government, the litigation we’ve talked about now a lot. So far, the company has only said that it will distribute the drug in states, quote, “where it is consistent with the law.” In the end, this could end up being more important than who wins these lawsuits, right? If — I think they’re the sole distributor — is not going to distribute it, then it’s not going to be available.

Ollstein: It also depends on the — at the 5th Circuit, and that will go back to the Supreme Court, because if it’s not an FDA-approved drug, then nobody can distribute it. That’s the ultimate controlling factor. But yes, since they are the sole distributor, they will have a lot of power over where this goes. And when I was reporting on Walgreens’ decision, they were pointing to this and saying that their decisions, you know, depend on other factors as well.

Karlin-Smith: And there’s a lot of nuance to this because my understanding is AmerisourceBergen, they’re particularly talking about distributing it to pharmacies where you could — under this new FDA permission to let pharmacies distribute the drug, which in the past they hadn’t.

Rovner: And which hasn’t happened yet.

Karlin-Smith: Right. They haven’t actually gone through the process of certifying the pharmacies. So it’s like a little bit premature, which is why I think Walgreens realized they probably jumped the gun on making any decision because it couldn’t happen yet anyway. But AmerisourceBergen is still saying, “Oh, we’re giving it to providers and other places that can distribute the drug in some of these states.” So it’s not necessarily like the drug is completely unavailable. It’s just about ease of access, I think, at this point.

Rovner: Yeah, we’re not just in “watch that space”; now we’ve progressed to “watch all those spaces,” which we will continue to do. Well, while we were on the discussion of drug middlepeople, there’s a story in Stat about the Federal Trade Commission widening its investigation of pharmacy benefit managers to include group purchasing organizations. Sarah, what are group purchasing organizations and how do they impact the price of prescription drugs?

Karlin-Smith: So group purchasing organizations are basically where you sort of pool your purchasing power to try and get better deals or discounts. So like, in this case, one of the GPOs FTC is looking at negotiates drug rebates on behalf of a number of different PBMs, not just one PBM. And so, again, you know, the idea is the more people you have, the more marketing you have, the better discount you should be able to get, which is — I think some people have been a little shocked by this because they’re like, “Wait, we thought the PBMs were the ones that did the negotiation. Why are they outsourcing this? Isn’t that the whole purpose of why they exist?” Yeah, so FTC has sort of a broader investigation into PBMs, so this is kind of the next step in it to kind of figure out, OK, what is the role of these companies? How are they potentially creating bad incentives, contributing to increased drug pricing, making it harder for people to perhaps, like, get their drug at particular pharmacies or more expensive at particular pharmacies? Again, because there’s been a lot of integration of ownership of these companies. So like the PBMs, the health insurance, some of these pharmacy systems are sort of all connected, and there’s a lot of concern that that’s led to incentives that are harming consumers and the prices we’re paying for our health care.

Rovner: Yeah, there’s all that money sloshing around that doesn’t seem to be getting either to the drug companies or to the consumers. Rachel, you wanted to add something?

Cohrs: Sure. I think GPOs are more used with hospitals when they buy drugs, because I think PBMs — you think of, like, going to pick up your drug at the pharmacy counter. But obviously hospitals are buying so many drugs, too. And their, you know, market power is pretty dispersed across the country. And so they also are a big customer of GPOs. So I think they’re also trying to get at this, like, different part of the drug market where, you know, a lot of these really expensive medications are administered in hospitals. So it will be interesting. They’re certainly not very transparent either. So, yeah, interesting development as to how they relate to PBMs, but also the rest of — you know, encompassing a larger part of the health care system.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I have seen complaints from hospital systems that the GPOs require them to enter into contracts that make it very difficult for the hospital to pivot if, say, the GPO can’t supply them with a particular product or maybe it’s … [unintelligible] … and then they end up stuck in a situation where they should, in theory, be able to get a product from another supplier and they can’t. So there’s lots of different levels of, again, concern about potential bad behavior.

Rovner: Well, while we are on the topic of nerdy practice-of-medicine stuff, Rachel, you had a story on the latest on the, quote, “site-neutral” Medicare payment policy. Remind us what that is and who’s on which side, and wasn’t that one of the bills — or I guess that wasn’t one of the bills that was approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, right?

Cohrs: No, so “site neutral” is basically hospitals’ worst nightmare. It essentially makes sure that Medicare is paying the same amount for a service that a doctor provides, whether it’s on a hospital campus or provided in a doctor’s office. And I think hospitals argue that they need to charge more because they have to be open 24/7. You know, they don’t have predictable hours. They have to serve anyone, you know, regardless of willingness to pay. It costs more overhead. That kind of thing. But I think lawmakers are kind of losing patience with that argument to some degree, that the government should be paying more for the same service at one location versus another. And it’s true that House Republicans had really wanted an aggressive form of this policy, and it could save like tens of billions of dollars. I mean, this is a really big offset we’re talking about here, if they go really aggressively toward this path, but instead they weren’t able to get Democrats on board with that plan yet. I think the chair, Cathy McMorris Rodgers, and the ranking member, Frank Pallone, have said they want to keep working on this. But what they did do this week is took a tiny little part out of that and advanced it through the committee. And it would equalize payment for, like, drug administration in physician’s offices versus a physician doing it in the hospital, and the savings to the federal government on that policy was roughly $3 billion. So, again, not a huge hit to industry, but it’s, you know, significant savings, certainly, and a first step in this direction as they think about how they want to do this, if they want to go bigger.

Rovner: So while we’re talking about the Energy and Commerce Committee, those members, in a fairly bipartisan fashion, are moving a bunch of other bills aimed at price transparency, value-based care, and a lot of other popular health buzzwords. Sarah, I know you watched, if not all, then most of yesterday’s markup. Anything in particular that we should be watching as it perhaps moves through the House and maybe the Senate?

Karlin-Smith: Yeah. So there was — probably the most contentious health bill that cleared yesterday was a provision that basically would codify a Trump-era rule in Medicaid that the Biden administration has sort of tweaked a bit but generally supported that basically tweaks Medicaid’s “best price” rule. So Medicaid is kind of guaranteed the best price that the private sector gets for drugs. But drugmakers have argued this prevents them from doing these unique value-based arrangements where we say, “OK, if the patient doesn’t perform well or the drug doesn’t work well for the patient, we’ll kind of give you maybe even all your money back.” Well, they don’t want the Medicaid best price to be zero. So they came up with a kind of a very confusing way to tweak that and also as part of that to, you know, hopefully allow Medicaid to maybe even take advantage of these programs. And Rep. [Brett] Guthrie [(R-Ky.)], Rep. [Anna] Eshoo [(D-Calif.)] on the Democratic side, want to codify that. But a number of the Democrats pushed back and over worries this might actually raise prices Medicaid pays for drugs and be a bit more problematic. And the argument from the Democrats, the majority of Democrats on the committee who oppose it, were not completely against this idea but let it play out in rulemaking, because if it stays in rulemaking, it’s a lot easier to —er, sorry — as a rule, it’s already made.

Rovner: To fix it if they need to.

Karlin-Smith: Right. It’s a lot easier to fix it, which, as anybody who follows health policy knows, it’s not actually as easy as you would think to fix a rule, but it’s definitely a lot easier to fix a rule than it is to fix something codified in law. So that’s sort of a very wonky but meaningful thing, I think, to how much drugs cost in Medicaid.

Rovner: Last nerdy thing, I promise, for this week: The Biden administration says it plans to conduct an annual audit of the cost of the most expensive drugs covered by Medicaid and make those prices public in what one of your colleagues, Alice, described as a “name and shame” operation? I mean, could this actually work, or could it end up like other HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] transparency rules, either not very followed or tied up in court?

Karlin-Smith: Experts that my colleague Cathy Kelly talked to to write about this basically were not particularly optimistic it would lead to big changes in savings to Medicaid, basically. One of the reasons is because Medicaid actually gets pretty good deals on drugs to begin with. But that said, even, again, like I said, they’re guaranteed these really large rebates are the best price. But in exchange for that, they have to cover all drugs. So that’s where you start to lose some of your leverage. So the hope with some of this extra transparency is they’ll get more information to have, like, a little bit of additional leverage to say, “Oh, well your manufacturing costs are only this, so you should be able to give us an additional rebate,” which they can negotiate that. Again, I think people think there’ll be sort of maybe some moderate, if any, benefits to that. But some states have actually tried similar things in kind of similar “name, shame” affordability boards. And the drugmakers have basically just said, “No, we’re not going to give you any more discounts.” And they’re kind of stuck.

Rovner: “And we’re not ashamed of the price that we’re charging.”

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Rovner: “Or we wouldn’t be charging it.”

Karlin-Smith: So it’s a tough one, but there’s, like, an argument to be made that drugmakers just don’t want to be on this list. So maybe some of them will more proactively figure out like how to get their price point and everything discounts to a point where they at least won’t get on the list. So maybe, again, it might tweak things around the edges, but it’s not a big price savings move.

Rovner: And we shall see. All right. Well, this is — finally this week, it’s something I’ve wanted to talk about for a couple of weeks. I’m calling it the “How do you solve a problem like RFK Jr.?” For those of you who don’t already know, the son of the former senator and liberal icon Robert Kennedy has declared his candidacy for president. He’s an environmental lawyer, but at the same time, he’s one of the most noted anti-vaxxers, not just in the country but in the world. Vice has a provocative story — this actually goes back a couple of weeks — about how the media should cover this candidacy or, more specifically, how it shouldn’t. According to the story, ABC did an interview with RFK Jr. and then simply cut out what they deemed the false vaccine claims that he made. CNN, on the other hand, did an interview and simply didn’t mention his anti-vaccine activism. I am honestly torn here about how should you cover someone running for president who traffics in conspiracy theories that you know are not true? I realize here I am now speaking of a wider — wider universe than just RFK Jr. But as a journalist, I mean, how do you handle things that — when they get repeated and you know them to be untrue, at least in the health care realm?

Karlin-Smith: I mean, I really like the thing that Vice mentioned, and I think maybe Jay Rosen, who’s a journalism professor at NYU [New York University], he might be the person that sort of coined this, I’m not sure — this, like, “truth sandwich” idea, where you make sure you sort of start with what is true, in the middle you put the sort of — this is what the false claim of X person — and then you go back to the truth. Because I think that really helps people grasp onto what’s true, versus a lot of times you see the coverage starts with the lie or the falsehood. And I think sometimes people might even just see that headline or just see the little bit of what’s correct and never make it to the truth. And I understand some of the decisions by the news outlets that decided not to air these segments and just didn’t want to deal with the topic. But then I guess I thought they did make a good point that then you let somebody like Kennedy say, “Oh, they’re suppressing me, they’re deliberately hiding this information.” So the Vice argument was that this truth sandwich idea kind of gets you in a better … [unintelligible]. And again, as journalists, our job is not to suppress what politicians are saying. People should know what these people claim, because that is what the positions they stand for. But it’s figuring out how to add the context and be able to, you know, in real time if you need to, fact-check it.

Rovner: I confess, over the years I have been guilty of the CNN thing of just not bringing it up and hoping it doesn’t come up. But then, I mean, it’s true, the worst-case scenario — probably not going to happen with somebody running for president — but I think we’ve discovered all these people running for lower offices, that they get elected, you don’t talk about the controversial things and then you discover that you have a legislator in office who literally believes that the Earth is flat. There are — can Google that. So if these things aren’t aired, then there’s no way for voters to know. Anybody else have a personal or organizational rule for how to handle this sort of stuff?

Ollstein: I think there can be smart decisions about when to let someone say in their own voice what they believe versus saying as the news organization, “In the speech, he spent X minutes advancing the discredited assertion of blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,” and not just handing over the platform for them to share the misinformation.

Rovner: Yeah, I just want the audience to know that we do think seriously about this stuff. We are not just as sort of blithe as some may believe. All right. Well, that is this week’s news. Now, we will play my interview with Aneri Pattani, and then we will come back with our extra credits. I am pleased to welcome back to the podcast my colleague Aneri Pattani, who is here to talk about her investigation into where those billions of dollars states are getting in pharmaceutical industry settlements for the opioid crisis are actually going. Aneri, I am so glad to have you back.

Aneri Pattani: Thanks so much for having me.

Rovner: So let’s start at the beginning. How much money are we talking about? Where’s it coming from, and where is it supposed to be going?

Pattani: So the money comes from companies that made, distributed, or sold opioid painkillers. So these are places like Purdue Pharma, AmerisourceBergen, Walgreens, and a bunch of others. They were all accused of aggressively marketing the pills and falsely claiming that they weren’t addictive. So thousands of states and cities sued those companies. And rather than go through with all the lawsuits, most of the companies settled. And as a result, they’ve agreed to pay out more than $50 billion over the next 15 or so years. And the money is meant to be used on opioid remediation, which is a term that means basically anything that addresses or fixes the current addiction crisis and helps to prevent future ones.

Rovner: So the fact is that many or most states — we don’t actually know where this money is going or will go in the future because that information isn’t being made public. How is that even legal, or, I guess it’s not public funds, but it’s funds that are being obtained by public entities, i.e., the attorneys general.

Pattani: Yeah, a lot of people feel this way. But the thing is, the national settlement agreements have very few requirements for states to publicly report how they use the money. In fact, the only thing that’s in there that they’re required to report is when they use money for non-opioid purposes. And that can be at most 15% of the total funds they’re getting. And that reporting, too, is on an honor system. So if a state doesn’t report anything, then the settlement administrators are supposed to assume that the state used all of its money on things related to the opioid crisis. Now, states and localities can enact stricter requirements. For example, North Carolina and Colorado are two places that have created these public dashboards that are supposed to show where the money goes, how much each county gets, how the county spends it. But honestly, the vast majority of states are not taking steps like that.

Rovner: So for people of a certain age, this all feels kind of familiar. In the late 1990s, a group of state attorneys general banded together and sued the tobacco companies for the harm their products had done to the public. They eventually reached a settlement that sent more than $200 billion to states over 25 years, so that money is only just now running out. But it didn’t all get used for tobacco cessation or even public health, did it?

Pattani: No. In fact, most of it didn’t get used for that. The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which has been tracking that tobacco settlement money for years, found that about only 3% of the money goes to anti-smoking programs a year. The rest of it has gone towards plugging state budget gaps, infrastructure projects like paving roads, or, in the case of North Carolina and South Carolina, the money even went to subsidizing tobacco farmers.

Rovner: Great. Given the lessons of the tobacco settlement, how do the attorneys general in this case try to make sure that wasn’t going to happen? I mean, was it just by requiring that that non-opioid-related money be made public?

Pattani: So they have added some specific language to the settlements that they point to as trying to avoid, you know, the, quote, “tobacco nightmare.” Essentially, the opioid settlements say that at least 85% of the money must be spent on opioid remediation. Again, that term — that’s like things that stop and prevent addiction. And there’s also a list included at the end of the settlement, called Exhibit E, with potential expenses that fall under opioid remediation. That’s things like paying for addiction treatment for people who don’t have insurance or building recovery housing or funding prevention programs in schools. But the thing is, that list is pretty broad and it’s nonexhaustive, so governments can choose to do things that aren’t on that list, too. So there are guidelines, but there’s not a lot of hard enforcement to make sure that the money is spent on these uses.

Rovner: So, as you’ve pointed out in your reporting, it’s not always simple to determine what is an appropriate or an inappropriate use of these settlement funds, particularly in places that have been so hard-hit by the opioid crisis and that it affects the entire economy of that state or county or city. So tell us what you found in Greene County, Tennessee. That was a good example, right?

Pattani: Yeah, Greene County is an interesting place. And what I learned is happening there is actually, you know, repeating in a lot of places across the country. So Greene County, it’s an Appalachian county, it’s been hard-hit. It has a higher rate of overdose deaths than the state of Tennessee overall or even the country. But when the county got several million dollars in opioid settlement funds, it first put that money towards paying off the county’s debt. And that included putting some money into their capital projects fund, which was then used to buy a pickup truck for the sheriff’s office. So a lot of folks are looking at that, saying, “That’s not really opioid-related.” But county officials said to me, you know, this use of the money makes sense, because the opioid epidemic has hurt their economy for decades; it’s taken people out of the workforce, it’s led to increased costs for their sheriff’s office and their jail with people committing addiction-related crimes, it’s hurt the tax base when people move out of the county. So now they need that money to pay themselves back. Of course, on the other hand, you have advocates and people affected by the crisis saying, “If we’re using all the money now to pay back old debts, then who’s addressing the current crisis? People are still dying of overdoses, and we need to be putting the opioid settlement money towards the current problem.”

Rovner: So I suppose ideally they could be doing both.

Pattani: I think that’s the hard thing. Although $54 billion sounds like a lot of money, it’s coming over a long period of time. And so at the end of the day, it’s not enough to fund every single thing people want, and there is a need for prioritization.

Rovner: So I know part of your project is helping urge local reporters to look into where money is being used in their communities. How is that going?

Pattani: It’s going well. I think it’s important because the money is not only going to state governments, but to counties and cities too. So local reporters can play a really big role in tracking that money and holding local officials accountable for how they use it. So I’m trying to help by sharing some of the national data sets we’re pulling together that can be used by local reporters. And I’ve also hopped on the phone with local reporters to talk about where they can go to talk to folks about this or finding story ideas. Some of the reporters I’ve spoken with have already published stories. There was one just a week ago in the Worcester Telegram from a student journalist, actually, in that area —

Rovner: Cool.

Pattani: — so there’s a lot of good coverage coming.

Rovner: I’m curious: What got you interested in pursuing this topic? I know you cover addiction, but this is the kind of reporting that can get really frustrating.

Pattani: It definitely can. But I think it’s what you said: As someone who’s been covering addiction and mental health issues for a while, kind of focusing on some of the problems and the systemic gaps, when I learned that this money was coming in, it was exciting to me too, like, maybe this money will be used to address the issues that I’m often reporting on, and so I want to follow that and I want to see if it delivers on that promise.

Rovner: So what else is coming up in this project? I assume it’s going to continue for a while.

Pattani: Yes. So this will be a yearlong project, maybe even more, because, as I said, the funds are coming for a long time. But essentially the next few things I’m looking at, I have a big data project looking at who sits on opioid settlement councils. These are groups that advise or direct the money in different states and, you know, may represent different interests. And then we’re going to be looking at some common themes in the ways different states are using this money. So a lot of them are putting it towards law enforcement agencies, a lot of them are putting them toward in-school prevention programs, and taking a look at what the research tells us about how effective these strategies are or aren’t.

Rovner: Well, Aneri Pattani, thank you so much, and we will post links to some of Aneri’s work on the podcast homepage at kffhealthnews.org and in this week’s show notes. Thanks again.

Pattani: Thank you so much.

Rovner: OK, we’re 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, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I looked at a piece in The New York Times called “Heat Wave and Blackout Would Send Half of Phoenix to E.R., Study Says,” by Michael Levenson. And it’s just really sort of a horrifying piece where researchers were sort of able to model the impact of the growing frequency of heat waves due to climate change, and obviously, the U.S. had some electric grid stability issues, and just the disconnect between the amount of hospital beds and people that would be able to care for people in a very hot city due to, you know, heat waves without being able to access air conditioning and other cooling methods. And the amount of people that would be hospitalized or die or just wouldn’t have a hospital bed. The one thing I did think was sort of positive is the piece does have some suggestions, and some of them are fairly simple that could really change the degrees in cities in relevant ways, like planting more trees in particular areas, and often this affects sort of — the poorest areas of cities tend to be the ones with less trees — or, you know, changing colors or the material on roofing. So as much as sometimes I think climate change becomes sort of such an overwhelming topic where you feel like you can’t solve it, I think the one nice thing here is it does sort of show, like, we have power to make the situation better.

Rovner: We can perhaps adapt. Alice.

Ollstein: I picked a upsetting piece but really good investigation from Reuters by Michael Berens. It’s called “How Doctors Buy Their Way out of Trouble.” It’s about doctors who are charged federally with all kinds of wrongdoing, including operating on patients who don’t need to be operated on for profit and having a pattern of doing so. And it’s about how often these cases settle with federal prosecutors and the settlement allows them to keep practicing, and the settlement money goes to the government, not to the victims. And often the victims aren’t even aware that the settlement took place at all. And new patients are not aware that the doctor they may be going to has been charged. And so it’s a really messed up system and I hope this shines a light on it.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: All right. So mine is from ProPublica, and the headline is, “In the ‘Wild West’ of Outpatient Vascular Care, Doctors Can Reap Huge Payments as Patients Risk Life and Limb,” by Annie Waldman. And I think I found this story timed really well kind of as lawmakers do start to talk a little bit more about incentives for patients to be seen in a hospital versus in more physician offices. And certainly there are cost reasons that that makes sense for some procedures. But I think this story does a really good job of kind of following one doctor, who I think, similar to kind of the story Alice was talking about, you know, was taking advantage of these inflated payments that were supposed to incentivize outpatient treatment to perform way more of these procedures than patients needed. And so I think it’s just important, a cautionary tale about the safeguards that could be necessary, you know, if more of this care is provided elsewhere.

Rovner: Yeah, I think these two stories are very good to be read together. My story this week is from our fellow podcast panelist Joanne Kenen for KFF Health News. It’s called “Remote Work: An Underestimated Benefit for Family Caregivers,” and it’s about how the U.S., still one of the few countries without any formal program for long-term care, that most of us will need at some point, has accidentally fallen into a way to make family caregiving just a little bit easier by letting caregivers do their regular jobs from home, either all the time or sometimes. While many, if not most, employers have policies around childbirth and child care, relatively few have benefits that make it easier for workers to care for other sick family members, even though a fifth of all U.S. workers are family caregivers. More flexible schedules can at least make that a little easier and possibly prevent workers from quitting so that they can provide care that’s needed. It’s no substitute for an actual national policy on long-term care, but it’s a start, even if an accidental one. OK, that is our show for this week. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. And next week is our 300th episode. If all goes as planned, we’ll have something special, so be sure to tune in. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still there. I’m @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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 fate of the abortion pill mifepristone remains in jeopardy, as an appellate court panel during a hearing this week sounded sympathetic to a lower court’s ruling that the FDA should not have approved the drug more than two decades ago. No matter how the appeals court rules, the case seems headed for the Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, in the partisan standoff over raising the nation’s debt ceiling, a key sticking point has emerged: whether to add a work requirement to the state-federal Medicaid program. Republicans are adamant about adding one; Democrats point out that, in the few states that have tried them, red tape has resulted in eligible people wrongly losing their health coverage.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call, Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post, and Victoria Knight of Axios.

Panelists

Sandhya Raman
CQ Roll Call

@SandhyaWrites

Read Sandhya's stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Victoria Knight
Axios

@victoriaregisk

Read Victoria's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• Hopes among abortion rights advocates for continued access to mifepristone dimmed as the three judges on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals signaled they are skeptical of the FDA’s decades-old approval of the drug and of the Biden administration’s arguments defending it. Lawyers debated whether the Texas doctors challenging the drug had been harmed by it and thus had standing to sue. If the original ruling effectively revoking the drug’s approval is allowed to stand, the case could open the door to future legal challenges to the approval of controversial drugs.
• Two more states in the South are moving to restrict abortion, further cutting access to the procedure in the region. In North Carolina, a new Republican supermajority in the state legislature enabled the passage this week of a new, 12-week ban, as lawmakers in South Carolina consider a six-week ban.
• In Congress, the top Senate Republican said he will not back one senator’s months-long effort to hold up Pentagon nominations over a policy that supports troops and their dependents who must travel to other states to obtain an abortion.
• Envision Healthcare — which spent big in 2019 to fight legislation prohibiting some surprise medical bills — has filed for bankruptcy protection more than a year after the law took effect and cut into its bottom line. But a federal lawsuit from a group of emergency room physicians against Envision may move forward. The lawsuit claims the private equity-backed company is in violation of a California law banning corporate control of medical practices, and it could carry major consequences for the growing number of practices backed by private equity firms across the country.
• Monica Bertagnolli has been nominated to lead the National Institutes of Health. Currently the director of the National Cancer Institute, she will need to be confirmed by the Senate, which hasn’t confirmed an NIH chief since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders’ stewardship of a key health committee is causing delays on even bipartisan efforts.

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 “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann E. Marimow.

Victoria Knight: The New York Times’ “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners,” by April Rubin.

Rachel Roubein: CBS News’ “Thousands Face Medicaid Whiplash in South Dakota and North Carolina,” by Arielle Zionts of KFF Health News.

Sandhya Raman: CQ Roll Call’s “A Year After Dobbs Leak, Democrats Still See Abortion Driving 2024 Voters,” by Mary Ellen McIntire and Daniela Altimari.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

KFF Health News’ “ER Doctors Vow to Pursue Case Against Envision Despite Bankruptcy,” by Bernard J. Wolfson.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: The Abortion Pill Goes Back to Court

Episode Number: 298

Published: May 18, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 18, 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 Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Hi. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: Victoria Knight of Axios.

Victoria Knight: Hi. Good morning.

Rovner: And Sandhya Raman of CQ Roll Call.

Sandhya Raman: Hi, and good morning, everyone.

Rovner: Lots and lots of health news this week, so we will dive right in. We’re going to start with abortion because there is so much breaking news on that front. On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held a hearing on the Biden administration’s appeal of a Texas ruling that the FDA was wrong when it approved the abortion pill mifepristone more than 22 years ago. The panel, which was randomly chosen from an already pretty conservative slate there in the 5th Circuit, appeared to be even more anti-abortion than most of the judges on that bench. So, Sandhya, you listened to this whole thing. What, if anything, did we glean from this hearing?

Raman: I think we gleaned a lot of things and a lot of things I think we have predicted from the start. I think going into this, looking at the various judges’ records, they have ruled on anti-abortion cases in the past in the favor of that. You take that in with a grain of salt. And from watching the arguments, it seemed like they were fairly skeptical of the challenge and FDA’s approval of mifepristone and the subsequent regulations. You could kind of see through the questioning the kinds of things that they were asking and just pretty skeptical of just a lot of the things that were being said by DOJ [the Department of Justice] and by Danco there yesterday. So —

Rovner: Yeah, we should say that the lawyer for the FDA had one sort of round of presentation and questions. And then the lawyer from Danco, the company that makes mifepristone, had another. And they were pretty tough on both of them.

Raman: Yeah, and I thought it was interesting because when we were listening to the arguments, the DOJ lawyer and the Danco lawyer were kind of arguing a lot of the time just that there shouldn’t be standing, that there isn’t necessarily proof in any of the filings that any of the doctors that that were suing have really had harm due to the FDA’s role. It was kind of down the road. I think one thing that Harrington, the judge for the DOJ, had said, that was the FDA approving a drug does not mean that anyone has to prescribe it, it does not mean anyone has to take it, that the fact that if you were treating someone after the fact, that’s a few steps down the line. And so that was kind of like a messaging thing that they were doing kind of over and over again. And then when we got to the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing the conservative doctors, Erin Hawley had said, you know, they are affected both physically and she said emotionally, which was interesting, kind of looking at that. And so it’ll depend on how the judges rule. I think that there were definitely some signs throughout the arguments about this not being as unprecedented and that the FDA is not untouchable in terms of the courts weighing in on regulation.

Rovner: If you were just listening to it, you didn’t sort of know all of this. And remember, these were two Trump-appointed judges and a George W. Bush-appointed judge who has a history of ruling in favor of anti-abortion efforts. But they were saying that, “Well, people sue the FDA all the time. You know, what’s the difference here?” Well, the difference here is nobody has ever sued the FDA saying that they were wrong to approve something 20 years ago. Nobody’s ever tried to get a drug taken off the market that way. There’s obviously lots of litigation against the FDA for the way it does some of its thing. I mean, it’s often little things and then people sue each other with the FDA caught in the middle — drugmakers and lots of patent suits. I was surprised that the appeals court judges took issue with what everybody I think acknowledges is a correct claim that this is unprecedented and this could open the door to other challenges to other drugs for any reason — you know, someone doesn’t like them. I mean, these doctors are not saying that they’ve prescribed this drug and women have taken it and had bad reactions. They’re saying that possibly, if someone takes it and has a bad reaction, that they would have to treat that person and that that would harm their conscience, even though, as the lawyers made it clear, no one has ever forced these doctors to take care of anyone against their conscience because there are already laws that protect against that. So it was very roundabout in a lot of ways.

Raman: I think one thing that they had mentioned was that, you know, some of the cases cited in the filings were, you know, someone had taken an imported version of a mifepristone, not the one that Danco made, and then someone else had been recommended not to take the drug but still took the drug and then had side effects related to that. But there is another thing that kind of stuck out to me, was when Judge [James] Ho had asked would the FDA adhere to whatever the final court decision was? And that was a little striking to me. And then the FDA had said, you know, we will. And they cited that they had signed an affidavit last year saying that they’re going to agree to whatever the final decision is. But there were a lot of parts of the case that were just very unusual compared to the other cases that I have watched on this or any other part of health care, I think.

Rovner: Although in fairness to the judges, I mean, there was — a lot of legal experts were saying that the FDA does have enforcement authority to determine what it’s going to enforce and what it isn’t. And Justice [Samuel] Alito, when he actually challenged the Supreme Court’s stay of the original ruling — Justice Alito questioned about whether FDA would even follow if this drug was deemed unapproved. So that’s at least been coming up as a discussion. Let’s move on because it could be weeks or even months before we hear back from this panel, and we will obviously keep watching it. There’s been plenty of action in the states, too, this week — not that surprising because it’s May and lots of state legislatures are wrapping up their sessions for the year. But we should point out that particularly North and South Carolina are acting on abortion because they’ve been two of the last states in the South where abortion had remained both legal and pretty much broadly available. That’s changing as of this week, though, isn’t it?

Roubein: That’s changing in North Carolina, for sure, after this week. The Republicans there have supermajorities as of April; a Democrat in the House switched to the Republican Party. And what they did there is they overrode a veto from Democratic Gov. Roy Cooper. And this new bill, which the main provisions go into effect July 1, will restrict abortions at 12 weeks in pregnancy. And now in South Carolina, it’s still a little bit to be determined. The House passed a bill last night which would restrict abortions after fetal cardiac activity’s detected — roughly six weeks. Now they’re sending that bill back to the Senate, which had already passed it. But they made some changes. And it’s not clear whether some of the Republican female senators who oppose a near-total ban will be in favor of these changes. So that one’s a bit up in the air.

Rovner: And obviously, the 12 weeks in North Carolina is going to be important because there are a lot of women coming from other states now to North Carolina and clinics are getting backed up. It is a time thing for women to sort of be able to get themselves together, often get child care, get time off from a job, have to find a hotel in most cases, and go to another state. So it’s going to turn out to be an issue.

Roubein: I think one of the provisions abortion rights groups are pointing to there is, because this is a 12-week ban, so roughly 90% of abortions are allowed to continue, but what Democrats really pointed out was that the bill requires an in-person visit 72 hours before obtaining an abortion. So that could kind of restrict people, as you mentioned, Julie, from being able to take that time and come in from out of state in North Carolina, which has become a destination for abortions.

Rovner: All right. Well, I want to circle back to something that’s been going on for a while in the U.S. Senate. We talked about it back in March. Alabama Republican Sen. Tommy Tuberville is single-handedly holding up many military promotions to protest a Biden administration policy that allows members of the military in states with abortion bans both time off and travel funds to obtain an abortion in another state. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin says that this — the delayed promotions — is starting to impact the nation’s readiness. Is there any resolution to this in sight? It’s now been going on for, what, a month and a half.

Raman: I think that, you know, we’re getting somewhat closer to it, but it’s hard to tell. I mean, we’ve had Mitch McConnell say that he’s not supporting what Tuberville is doing with the blockade of military nominations, so that could be a little bit more pressure compared to anyone else in the caucus putting that pressure. But I think the other thing that had come up is that there had been a report this week that the administration was going to delay on deciding if Space Force Command was going to move from Colorado to Alabama because of Tuberville. And so I think that, if that is the case — two different pressure points — there might be movement. But it’s been happening for a long time. We’ve had hundreds of nominees delayed. And I think the pushback has not necessarily been fully partisan. Even before we had McConnell speak out, we’ve had other members of — Republican senators kind of say, you know, this is maybe not the best move to do this, so —

Rovner: I mean, given how important Republicans take the military, I get why he’s doing this. It’s a pressure point because it’s a DOD [Department of Defense] policy. But still, it looks funny for a Republican to be holding up something that’s really important to the military.

Raman: Earlier this year, I think it was last month, you know, the Senate had done their procedural vote on a Tuberville resolution on something that was kind of similar, when they had the VA [Department of Veterans Affairs] rule that allows them to provide abortions for, you know, the Hyde exceptions, so rape, incest, life of the mother. And, you know, that didn’t pass on a procedural vote. So maybe something like that could be, like, a bargaining point. But it would require Democrats to say, “Yes, we do want to vote on this.” And I think that the last comments that Tuberville had even said were that, you know, “Until this policy is gone, I don’t want to waiver.” So it might not be a solution, but it could be something.

Rovner: Well, speaking of things that are proving difficult to resolve, let’s talk about the debt ceiling talks. As of today, Thursday, there’s no agreement yet, although President Biden is going to cut his overseas trip short after Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned that the so-called x-date, when the Treasury can no longer pay its bills, could really happen as soon as June 1. One of the big sticking points appears to be work requirements for programs aimed at low-income Americans, which Republicans are demanding and Democrats are resisting. Welfare, now called Temporary Aid to Needy Families, already has work requirements, as does SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], the current name for food stamps, which leaves Medicaid, which has been a particular sticking point over the last few years. I guess we were all right back in February when Biden and the Republicans seemed to take Medicare and Social Security off the table, and we all predicted the fight would come down to Medicaid. So here we are, yes?

Knight: Yep, we’re at Medicaid. But it does seem like we’re really going back and forth on it. I think the sentiment at first was kind of that this would be the first thing to fall out of a potential deal between Democrats and Republicans because Democrats are really opposed to this. But I don’t know. This week, President Biden made some comments that were a little confusing. It kind of made it sound like he was potentially open to the idea. And then the White House kind of walked that back this week and sent some press releases out that were like, We don’t want to touch Medicaid. And then I believe it was sometime yesterday, on Wednesday, the president said, “Maybe, but nothing of consequence,” when talking about work requirements. And Congress is leaving today. So I think it’s kind of still up in the air, but the door still seems to be open, I guess is kind of the takeaway.

Rovner: There seems to be some concern from Democrats on Capitol Hill that President Biden may give too much away in trying to avoid a debt default. I mean, he’s already sort of after, you know, “We will not negotiate on the debt ceiling, we will not negotiate on the debt ceiling” — I mean, the administration says they’re negotiating on the budget, but they’re negotiating on the debt ceiling, right?

Knight: Yeah. I mean, and it seems that President Biden, the administration, may be open to budget caps as well or cutting spending. And that was kind of something that it seemed like Democrats at first were not open to doing at all. I talked to some appropriators this week, and they’re pretty upset about — Democratic appropriators — they’re pretty upset because they want the debt ceiling and appropriations to be a separate process, and they’re being tied together right now. Yeah, I think they’re somewhat concerned with how the president is negotiating right now.

Rovner: Well, it’s May 18. There’s been no talk yet of a temporary — although I assume at some point we’re going to say, let’s just extend this out a few days, and let’s extend it out a few more days, and we’ll extend it out a few more days. So obviously, we will watch this space. So the mifepristone case is not the only judicial news this week. In that other case out of Texas, challenging the preventive health services part to the Affordable Care Act, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals — lots of news out of New Orleans this week — temporarily stayed the ruling by Judge Reed O’Connor that the ACA unconstitutionally deputized the U.S. Preventive Health Services Task Force from deciding which preventive services should be provided without copays. Long sentence. I hope it makes sense. Reed O’Connor, of course, being the judge who tried unsuccessfully to declare the entire ACA unconstitutional in 2018. What happens now in this case? Nothing changes until it gets resolved, right?

Roubein: Right. Right now I think that just through that, this means that insurers will be required to continue covering services recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force without cost sharing in care.

Rovner: And that includes PrEP for HIV, which is what’s really at issue with these doctors who are suing the FDA — or actually I guess they’re suing HHS [the Department of Health and Human Services] in general — saying that they don’t want to be required to provide these drugs.

Roubein: Yeah, it does include PrEP.

Rovner: So that will continue. I imagine that will also find its way to the Supreme Court. Finally, in not really judicial but court-related news, Envision, the private equity-backed physician staffing firm, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy this week, presumably because the emergency room physician practices it owns can no longer send patients most surprise medical bills. ER bills were among the most common types of surprise bills, when patients would specifically take their emergency to an in-network hospital, only to find that the doctors in the emergency room were all out of network. Is this one small step towards taking some of the profit motive out of health care? I don’t see anybody, like, shedding a lot of tears for Envision declaring bankruptcy here.

Raman: I think the second part, that the lawsuit by the ER doctors against Envision, despite them filing for bankruptcy, is going forward is interesting, and it seems unusual to me, because they’re not asking for monetary damages, but they want, like, a legal finding that the way that the company’s business structure — ownership of the staffing groups — is illegal, and if, like, winning that would ban the practice in the state of California. And so I think if you’re looking at it in terms of, like, things that would happen over the course of time, policywise, that could be something interesting to kind of watch there.

Roubein: I just wanted to hearken back real quick to, like, 2019. In the middle of the surprise billing debate, Envision and another major doctor staffing firm spent significant sums of money to try and sway the surprise billing legislation that the House and the Senate were hashing out.

Rovner: Yeah, they made CNN and MSNBC very rich with their ads.

Roubein: Millions of them.

Rovner: In the ’90s, I covered, you know, this whole corporate practice of medicine thing because I think it’s every state has a law that says that corporations can’t practice medicine; only licensed health professionals can practice medicine. So I’ve always wondered about, you know, what this lawsuit is about anyway. How are these companies actually getting away with doing this? And the answer is maybe they’re not or maybe they won’t. It’s going to be interesting. There’s now so much profit motive and private equity in health care because there’s a lot of money to be made that it’s, I think somebody is actually starting to, you know, call on it. We will definitely see how this plays out. We may not have a “This Week in Private Equity” anymore. Well, let us go back to Capitol Hill, where we finally have a nominee to head the National Institutes of Health, current National Cancer Institute chief Monica Bertagnolli, who is also, ironically, a cancer patient at the moment, although her prognosis is very good, we are told. There hasn’t been a confirmed head of the NIH since Francis Collins stepped down at the end of 2021. Congress hasn’t had to confirm a new head of the NIH since before the passage of the Affordable Care Act. I imagine that Dr. Bertagnolli is going to have to navigate some pretty choppy confirmation waters, even in a Senate where Democrats are nominally in the majority, right?

Knight: Yeah, I spent some time talking to HELP [Health, Education, Labor and Pensions] Committee Republicans last week and this week, and they definitely have some things they want to see out of a new NIH director. They’re definitely concerned about gain-of-function research, potential funding of that type of research, which is supposed to, hypothetically, make viruses more virulent. So several of them said, you know, “We don’t want to see the agency funding that kind of research,” or, “We want restrictions around that kind of research.” They also are concerned with the agency giving a grant to an organization called EcoHealth, which was supposed to have done research in Wuhan that was around gain-of-function-type things. And I think they also, in general, are just concerned with how the NIH and the CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] responded to the covid pandemic, and they aren’t happy with some of the decisions they made, what they felt like were mandate — top-down mandates. And so I do think we will see, if we actually get a HELP confirmation hearing any time soon, we’ll see — I think it’s going to be pretty contentious possibly. And as you referenced, I kind of looked into this when I was writing my story, and there really has not been a contentious hearing in a long time. Francis Collins went through a unanimous voice vote when he was confirmed. And then the two previous NIH directors, they kind of sailed through their HELP confirmation hearings. And if you think about it, Francis Collins also has served under both Republican and Democratic presidents. And I wonder if we are coming to a point where that won’t happen anymore with NIH directors.

Rovner: Back when I first started covering the NIH, it was contentious because they were talking about fetal tissue research and stem cell research and stuff that was really controversial. But then Newt Gingrich, when he became speaker of the House, declared that, you know, he wanted the 21st century to be, you know, the century of biomedicine. And he vowed to double the funding for the NIH, which the Republicans did, you know, with the Democrats’ help. So NIH has been this sacred cow, if you will, bipartisanly for at least two decades. And now it’s sort of coming back to being a little bit controversial again. In talking about the debt ceiling and possible budget cuts, I mean, NIH has usually been spared from those. But I’m guessing that if there’s budget caps, NIH is going to be included in those places where we’re going to cut the budget, right?

Knight: Yeah, absolutely. I have been talking to a Republican House appropriator over the NIH. Robert Aderholt told me that, yes, they expect a cut in their budget because Defense and NIH, Labor, HHS are usually the biggest bills. And he told me Defense probably isn’t getting cut very much, so we’re expecting to get cut. So obviously, you know, it’s a messaging bill in the House, but I think the expectation is that they’re going to propose that. The Senate seemed pretty set on keeping NIH funding what it was. They had an NIH appropriations hearing recently. So, I mean, there’s going to be some difference between those two chambers. But I think it does seem likely, especially with all the debt ceiling stuff, that cuts are possible.

Rovner: So that’s NIH. In the meantime, now we have an opening at the CDC because Rochelle Walensky announced her resignation. Have we heard any inklings about who wants to step into that very hot seat?

Roubein: I can point to some reporting from my colleagues at the Post, Dan Diamond and Lena H. Sun. At the time, the day that Walensky announced that she’d be stepping down June 30, they had wrote that White House officials had, you know, been preparing for a little while for a potential departure and had begun gauging interest in the position. And some people that Dan and Lena named that the administration had approached is former New York City Health Commissioner Dave A. Chokshi, former North Carolina Health Secretary Mandy Cohen, and the California health state secretary. Now, we don’t know ultimately what the White House, President Biden, is going to do. I do think it’s worth pointing out that the new CDC director won’t have to be Senate-confirmed; that was passed in the big sweeping government funding bill, that a CDC director would need to be confirmed, but starting January 20, 2025. So, you know, sounds like something, you know, Democrats might have been interested in doing, kind of pushing that out. So, yeah.

Rovner: The CDC is, you know, sort of the one big Department of Health and Human Services job that does not come up for Senate confirmation. Obviously, that is being changed, but it’s not being changed yet. Well, both of these confirmations, mostly the NIH one at this point, comes up before the Senate HELP Committee, Victoria, as you pointed out. Chairman Bernie Sanders there is having — what shall we call them? — some growing pains as chairman of a committee with a heavy legislative workload. What’s the latest here? He’s still kind of working on getting some of these bipartisan bills through, isn’t he?

Knight: Yeah, there is a little bit of a snafu at a recent HELP Committee hearing where Ranking Member Bill Cassidy was not happy that Sen. Sanders was bringing up some amendments that he wasn’t aware of or that they had kind of agreed to table at some point and then he brought them back up during a hearing or during a markup, and so they ended up having to delay the markup itself and do it the next week. And these were bipartisan bills. So it was really just a process issue; it wasn’t so much the subject of the bills. And they kind of worked it out and were able to pass the bills out of the committee, or most of the bills out of the committee, the next week after that happened. So I think that Sen. Sanders is figuring out how to run the HELP Committee. What I’ve kind of heard is that he is somewhat more interested in labor issues than health, and so his focus is not maybe as much on health. And I think you can see that sometimes. Also, when you talk to Sen. Sanders, he’s very much a big-picture guy and isn’t so much in the process weeds often, whereas Sen. Cassidy loves the process.

Rovner: So we’re noticing.

Knight: Yeah, Sen. Cassidy loves the process. So they’re an interesting duo, I think.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, I was interested that this week, you know, Sen. Sanders was among those there reintroducing the “Medicare for All” bill that obviously has no future in the immediate future. But at the same time, community health centers are up for reauthorization this year. And that has always been a pet issue, even when he was House member, you know, Rep. Sanders. This is one of the issues that I know he cares a lot about. And now he’s in charge of making sure that it gets reauthorized. So he’s got sort of these competing big-picture stuff and, not smaller, but smaller than the big-picture stuff that he really cares about. I’ll be curious to see what he’s able to do on that front. I assume there’s no word on that yet, even though the authorization ends Sept. 30, right?

Raman: The sense that I’ve gotten from talking to folks is that community health centers is higher up the totem pole than some of the other issues on the must-pass list. I mean, we still have to deal with the debt ceiling and everything related there. But I think that there has been a little bit more progress then. I mean, this week, at least in the House, Energy and Commerce had marked up their bill that had community health center funding in there. So I think there’s a little bit more push on that end because they’re, you know, fairly bipartisan, have seen interest across the board on that. So I think that they are making some progress there. It’s just that there’s so many other factors right now, and that makes it pretty tricky.

Rovner: The ironic thing about Congress — it’s summertime when everybody else sort of kicks back. — that’s when Congress kicks into gear. So a lot, I imagine, is going to happen in June and July. All right. That is this week’s news. Now it is time for our extra credit segment. That’s when we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at kffhealthnews.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Victoria, why don’t you go first this week?

Knight: Sure. My extra credit this week is called “World Health Organization Warns Against Using Artificial Sweeteners.” It was published in The New York Times. Basically, the WHO said this week that artificial sweeteners aren’t effective in reducing body fat and could actually increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. They looked at the available evidence, and it’s just a set of guidelines that they’re issuing. It’s not binding to anything. You know, every country can kind of make their own decision based on this. But I think it was an interesting marker. If you look at the influx of all these artificial sweeteners over time that have kind of become a mainstream part of our diet, they’re available in a bunch of different things that you can get at the store, and people often turn to them when they’re trying to reduce sugar. And now this large body is saying they may actually worsen your health, not help you, and not even reduce fat. So I think that was just kind of interesting. The FDA did not respond to The New York Times’ request for the story, so I’m not sure their stance on this, but just something to note.

Rovner: I was interested that the WHO did that. It seemed sort of very not WHO-ish, but also interesting. Sandhya, why don’t you go next.

Raman: All right, so my extra credit this week is called “A Year After Dobbs Leak, Democrats Still See Abortion Driving 2024 Voters.” And it’s from my colleagues “What the Health?” alum Mary Ellen McIntire and Daniela Altimari. And they take a look at how Democrats are kind of seeing how abortion messaging isn’t fading a year after — almost — the Dobbs decision, are kind of doubling down on focusing on that. President Biden and Vice President Harris were both at the EMILYs List gala this week honoring Nancy Pelosi. And it also comes amid a lot of the state action we talked about earlier of a lot of abortion bans going into place. And so they have a good look at that that you can read.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit is called “Thousands Face Medicaid Whiplash in South Dakota and North Carolina,” by Arielle Zionts from KFF Health News. And she takes a look at the unwinding of keeping people on the Medicaid program, particularly in South Dakota and North Carolina, where the dynamic is really interesting, because both states have recently passed Medicaid expansion. So officials are kind of going through the Medicaid rolls beforehand. So some people who could be eligible soon may be getting kicked off, only to need to reapply, or officials need to tell them that they can reapply. So I thought it was a really interesting look on how this is playing out.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. I mean, talk about head-explodingly confusing for people; it’s like, “You’re not eligible now, but you will be in three weeks. So just kind of sit tight and don’t go to the doctor for the next couple of weeks,” basically where they are. Well, my story is from The Washington Post, and it’s called “A 150-Year-Old Law Could Help Determine the Fate of U.S. Abortion Access,” by Dan Diamond and Ann Marimow. And it’s about the Comstock Act, which we have talked about before. It’s a Reconstruction-era law pushed through Congress by an anti-vice crusader, Anthony Comstock, who I learned this week was not actually a member of Congress. He was just an interested party. The law purports to ban the mailing of all sorts of lewd and lascivious items, including those intended to be used for abortion. Abortion opponents are trying to resurrect the law, which has never been formally repealed. But it turns out that Comstock wasn’t actually all that anti-abortion. In a newly resurrected interview that Comstock did with Harper’s Weekly in 1915, he said he never intended for the law to interfere with the practice of medicine by licensed doctors, including for abortion. Quote, “A reputable doctor may tell his patient, in his office what is necessary, and a druggist may sell on a doctor’s written prescription drugs which he would not be allowed to sell otherwise.” That’s how Comstock is quoted as saying. Um, wow. It’s just another weird twist in an already very twisty story. But let’s keep track of the Comstock Law going forward. All right. That is our show for this week. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m still there. I’m at @jrovner. Sandhya?

Raman: @SandhyaWrites.

Rovner: Rachel.

Roubein: @rachel_roubein.

Rovner: Victoria.

Knight: @victoriaregisk.

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, Stitcher, 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 partisan fight in Congress over how to raise the nation’s debt ceiling to prevent a default has accelerated, as the U.S. Treasury predicted the borrowing limit could be reached as soon as June 1. On the table, potentially, are large cuts to federal spending programs, including major health programs.

Meanwhile, legislators in two conservative states, South Carolina and Nebraska, narrowly declined to pass very strict abortion bans, as some Republicans are apparently getting cold feet about the impact on care for pregnant women in their states.

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

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

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

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The United States is approaching its debt limit — much sooner than expected. And it is unclear how, or if, lawmakers can resolve their differences over the budget before the nation defaults on its debts. Details of the hastily constructed House Republican proposal are coming to light, including apparently inadvertent potential cuts to veterans’ benefits and a lack of exemptions protecting those who are disabled from losing Medicaid and nutrition benefits under proposed work requirements.
• A seemingly routine markup of a key Senate drug pricing package devolved this week as it became clear the committee’s leadership team, under Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), had not completed its due diligence to ensure members were informed and on board with the legislation. The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee plans to revisit the package next week, hoping to send it to the full Senate for a vote.
• In more abortion news, Republican lawmakers in North Carolina have agreed on a new, 12-week ban, which would further cut already bare-bones access to the procedure in the South. And federal investigations into two hospitals that refused emergency care to a pregnant woman in distress are raising the prospect of yet another abortion-related showdown over states’ rights before the Supreme Court.
• The number of deaths from covid-19 continues to dwindle. The public health emergency expires next week, and mask mandates are being dropped by health care facilities. There continue to be issues tallying cases and guiding prevention efforts. What’s clear is the coronavirus is not now and may never be gone, but things are getting better from a public health standpoint.
• The surgeon general has issued recommendations to combat the growing public health crisis of loneliness. Structural problems that contribute, like the lack of paid leave and few communal gathering spaces, may be ripe for government intervention. But while health experts frame loneliness as a societal-level problem, the federal government’s advice largely targets individual behaviors.

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

Julie Rovner: The Washington Post’s “Dog-Walking Injuries May Be More Common Than You Think,” by Lindsey Bever.

Joanne Kenen: The Atlantic’s “There Is No Stopping the Allergy Apocalypse,” by Yasmin Tayag.

Rachel Cohrs: ProPublica’s “This Pharmacist Said Prisoners Wouldn’t Feel Pain During Lethal Injection. Then Some Shook and Gasped for Air,” by Lauren Gill and Daniel Moritz-Rabson.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Wall Street Journal’s “Patients Lose Access to Free Medicines Amid Spat Between Drugmakers, Health Plans,” by Peter Loftus and Joseph Walker.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• The New York Times’ “Surgeon General: We Have Become a Lonely Nation. It’s Time to Fix That,” by Vivek H. Murthy.
• “What the Health?” podcast, July 7, 2022: “A Chat With the Surgeon General on Health Worker Burnout.”
• KFF Health News’ “After Idaho’s Strict Abortion Ban, OB-GYNs Stage a Quick Exodus,” by Sarah Varney.
• Politico’s “‘You Can’t Hide Things’: Feinstein, Old Age and Removing Senators,” by Joanne Kenen.

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: Health Programs Are at Risk as Debt Ceiling Cave-In Looms

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Health Programs Are at Risk as Debt Ceiling Cave-In Looms

Episode Number: 296

Published: May 4, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, May 4, 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 Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Joanne Kenen: Hey, everybody.

Rovner: Rachel Cohrs of Stat News.

Rachel Cohrs: Good morning.

Rovner: And Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico.

Ollstein: Hello.

Rovner: So plenty of news this week. We’re going to dive right in. We’re going to start again this week with the nation’s debt limit, which Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen warned this week could be reached as soon as June 1. That’s a lot earlier than I think most people had been banking on. And if Congress doesn’t act to raise it by then, the U.S. could default on its debts for the first time in history. Do we have any feel yet for how this gets untangled now that we know — I think there are, what, eight days left where both the House and the Senate will be in session?

Ollstein: You said it caught all of us by surprise. It seems to have caught lawmakers by surprise as well. They seem to have thought they had a lot more time to fight and blow smoke at one another, and they really don’t. And there has not been a clear path forward. There are efforts to get Mitch McConnell more involved. He has sort of said, “Ah, you people figure this out. You know, whatever House Republicans and the White House can agree on, the Senate will pass.” And he’s been trying to stay out of it. But now both Republicans and Democrats want him to weigh in. He’s seen as maybe a little more reasonable than some of the House Republicans to some of the players, and so —

Rovner: He may be one of the few Republicans who understands that it would be very, very bad to default.

Ollstein: Right. You have a lot of House Republicans saying it wouldn’t be so bad — the tough medicine for Washington spending, etc. So, you know, if I were to bet money, which I wouldn’t, I would bet on some sort of short-term punt; I mean, we’re really coming up to the deadline, and that’s what Congress loves to do.

Rovner: Yeah, I do too.

Kenen: I agree with Alice. You know, I think if the deadline had been a couple of months from now — they really didn’t want to do a punt. I mean, I think they wanted to walk up to the cliff and cut some kind of deal at the last hour. But I think this caught everybody off guard, including possibly Janet Yellen. So I think it’s much more likely there’ll be a short-term postponement. I think the Democrats would like to tie it to the regular budget talks for the end of the fiscal year. I’m not sure the Republicans will consider September 30 short-term. It might be shorter than that. Of course, we could have another one. But I think Alice’s instincts are right here.

Rovner: Yeah, I do too. I mean, the best thing Congress does is kick the can down the road. They do it every year with all kinds of things. Sorry, Rachel, I interrupted you.

Cohrs: Oh, no, that’s all right. I was just going to flag that the date to watch next week is May 9, when I think they’re all supposed to kind of get in a room together and start this conversation. So I think we’ll hopefully have a readout. I don’t know that they’re going to solve everything in that meeting, but we’ll at least get a sense of where everyone’s coming from and just how acrimonious things really are. So, yeah, those will kick off in earnest.

Rovner: Yeah. Well, one thing the Democrats are talking about is a discharge petition in the House, which is a rarely successful but not all that little-used way to bring a bill to the floor over the objections of the party in charge. Is there any chance that this is going to work this time?

Kenen: That’s one reason the Republicans might not want an extension, because they probably couldn’t do it in the next two or three weeks. There’s a slight chance they could do it in early to mid-June. The Democrats need five Republicans to sign on to that. I would think that if any Republicans are willing to sign on to that, they’re not going to say it in public, so we won’t know who they are, but the chances of it working improve if there’s an extension; the chances of it working are still not great, but I don’t think it’s impossible. I do not think it’s impossible, because there are Republicans who understand that defaulting is not a good idea.

Rovner: This has been painted this week as, Oh, this is a secret idea. It’s like, it’s not, but the actual discharge petition, you get to sign it not anonymously, but no one knows who’s signing on. It’s not like co-sponsoring a regular bill.

Kenen: But stuff gets out. I mean, there’s no such thing as a secret on the Hill.

Rovner: But technically, when you sign it, it’s not an obvious public thing that you’re supporting it, so we will — we’ll have to see. Well, we know that Republicans are demanding deep, in some cases very deep, cuts to federal spending with their bill to raise the debt ceiling. We’re finding out just how deep some of the cuts would be. One possible piece of fallout I think Republicans didn’t bargain for: They say they intended to exempt veterans from the cuts, but apparently the bill doesn’t actually do that, which has already prompted cries of outrage from very powerful veterans groups. This is the danger of these really broadly written bills, right, is that you can sort of actually accidentally end up sweeping in things you didn’t mean to.

Cohrs: Right. Well, this bill came together very quickly, and Kevin McCarthy was dealing with a lot of competing factions and trying to make everyone happy on issues like energy credits, that kind of thing. And obviously this didn’t get attention before. And I think that that’s just kind of a symptom that isn’t infrequent in Washington, where things come together really quickly, and sometimes there are some unintended consequences, but I think that’s one of the functions of kind of the news cycle in Washington especially, is to bring attention to some of these things before they become law. So the rhetoric has been very fiery, but again, there’s a possibility that it could be worked out at a later date if for some reason the final deal ends up looking something like the Republican bill, which is not necessarily the case.

Rovner: Once upon a time — and we’ll talk about this next — we had something called regular order, where bills went through the committee process, there was a committee report, and people had time to look at them before they came to the floor. And now it’s sort of like a fish. If you leave it out too long, it’s going to start to smell. So you got to catch it and pass it right away. Well, before we get to that, another change that those people who wrote the Republican bill probably didn’t intend: The requirement for states to institute work requirements for those who get Medicaid and/or food stamps — something that states cannot opt out of, we are told — does not include exemptions for people with disabilities. In other words, they would be required to work if they are of the age. Even those who’ve been getting, you know, disability benefits for years would have to be recertified as quote “unfit to work” by a doctor, or else they would have their benefits terminated. I would imagine that states would be among those joining the uproar with this. They have enough to do with redeterminations right now from people who got on Medicaid during the pandemic. The last thing they need is to have to basically redetermine every single person who’s already been determined to have a disability.

Kenen: And it’s a burden for the disabled too, even if the states are willing to do it. Bureaucracies are hard to deal with, and people would get lost in the shuffle. There’s absolutely no question that disabled people would get lost in the shuffle given the system they’ve set up.

Ollstein: Yes, this is a perfect example of how people fall through the cracks, and especially because a lot of the mechanisms that states set up to do this, we’ve seen, are not fully accessible for people with disabilities. Some of them have audio-only options. Some of them have online-only options. It’s very hard for people to — even if they know about it, which they might not — to navigate this and become certified. And so there is a fair amount of data out there that the projected savings from policies like work requirements don’t come from more people working; they come from people getting kicked off the rolls who maybe shouldn’t be, should be fully eligible for benefits.

Kenen: And it’s not just physical disability. I mean, there’s all sorts of developmental disabilities — people who really aren’t going to be able to navigate the system. It’s just — it may not be what they intended, it may be what they intended, who knows. But it’s not a viable approach.

Rovner: Yeah. Meanwhile, even if the Democrats could sneak a bill out of the House with a little bit of moderate Republican support, there’s no guarantee it could get through the Senate, where West Virginia’s Joe Manchin says he supports at least some budget cuts and work requirements and where the absence of California’s Dianne Feinstein, who is 89 and has been away from Washington since February, trying to recover from a case of shingles, has loomed large in a body where the elected majority only has 51 votes. Joanne, you wrote about the sticky problem of senators of an advanced age. Feinstein is far from the first, but is there anything that can be done about this when, you know, one of our older senators is out for a long time?

Kenen: There is no institutional solution to an incapacitated senator. And in addition to the magazine piece I wrote about this yesterday for Politico Magazine, I also wrote about last night in Politico Nightly sort of going back to the history until the 1940s. I mean, there have been people, a handful, but people out for like three or four years. The only tool is an expulsion vote, and that is not used. You need two-thirds vote, and you can’t get that. It was used during the Civil War, where there were I think it was 14 senators from Confederate states who didn’t sort of get that they were supposed to leave once the Civil War started, so they got expelled. Other than that, there’s only been one case, and it was for treason, in the 1790s. So they’re not going to start expelling senators who have strokes or who have dementia or who have other ailments. That’s just not going to happen. But that means they’re stuck with them. And it’s not just Feinstein. I mean, there have been other impaired senators, and there will be more impaired senators in the future. There’s no equivalent to the 25th Amendment, for which the vice president and the cabinet can remove a president. The Senate has no mechanism other than behind-the-scenes cajoling. And, you know, we have seen Dianne Feinstein — she didn’t even announce she wasn’t running for reelection until other people announced they were running for her seat. But it’s like 50-50 Senate — if it’s 47-53 and one is sick, it doesn’t matter so much. If it’s 50-50 or 51-49, it matters a lot.

Rovner: Yeah, and that’s what I was going to say. I mean, you and I remember when Tim Johnson from South Dakota had, what was it, an aneurysm?

Kenen: I think he had a stroke, right?

Rovner: Yeah. It took him a year to come back, which he did eventually.

Kenen: Well, we both covered Strom Thurmond, who, you know, was clearly not —

Rovner: —he was not all there —

Kenen: — situational awareness for quite a few years. I mean, it was very clear, you know, as I mention in this story, that, you know, instead of the staff following his orders, he was following the staff’s orders and he was not cognizant of Senate proceedings or what was going on.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s for sure.

Kenen: But there also are some who are really fine. I mean, we know some who are 80, 88 — you know, in their 80s who are totally alert. And so an age cutoff is also problematic. That doesn’t work either.

Rovner: Right. Ted Kennedy was, you know, right there until he wasn’t. So I’m amazed at the at how some of these 80-something-year-old senators have more energy than I do. Well, elsewhere on Capitol Hill, we talked about the bipartisan drug price bill last week in the Senate that was supposed to be marked up and sent to the floor this week, which did not happen. Rachel, how did what should have been a fairly routine committee vote get so messed up?

Cohrs: Yeah, it was a — it was a meltdown. We haven’t seen something like this in quite a — a couple of years, I think, on the Hill, where Chairman Bernie Sanders’ first major, you know, health care markup. And I think it just became clear that they had not done due diligence down the dais and had buy-in on these bills, but also the amendment process, which sounds like a procedural complaint but it really — there were some substantive changes in these amendments, and it was obvious from the markup that senators were confused about who supported what and what could get the support of the caucus. And those conversations in the Lamar Alexander, you know, iteration of this committee happened before. So I think it, you know, was a lesson certainly for everyone that there does need to be — I don’t know, it’s hard to draw the line between kind of regular order, where every senator can offer an amendment, and what passes. And it’s just another symptom of that issue in Congress where even sometimes popular things that an individual senator might support — they could pass on their own — that throwing off the dynamics of packages that they’re trying to put together. So I think they are hoping to give it another shot next week after a hearing with executives from insulin manufacturers and pharmacy benefit managers. But it was pretty embarrassing this week.

Rovner: Yeah. I was going to say, I mean normally these things are negotiated out behind the scenes so by the time you actually — if you’re going to have a markup; sometimes markups get canceled at the last minute because they haven’t been able to work things out behind the scenes. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Bernie Sanders has not been chairman before of a major legislative committee, right? He was chairman of the Budget Committee, but they don’t do this kind of take up a bill and make amendments.

Kenen: I don’t remember, but he was a lead author of the bipartisan veterans bill. So he has — it’s probably his biggest legislative achievement in the Senate. And that was a major bipartisan bill. So he does know how these things work.

Rovner: Right. He knows how to negotiate.

Kenen: It just didn’t work.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this came as a surprise — a committee like this that’s really busy with legislation and that does legislation that frequently gets amended and changed before it goes to the floor. I am told he was indeed chairman of Veterans’ Affairs, but they don’t do as much legislation as the HELP Committee. I think this was perhaps his first outing. Maybe he learned some important lessons about how this committee actually works and how it should go on. All right. Rachel, you said that there’s going to be a hearing and then they’re going to try this markup again. So we’ll see if they get through this in the May work period, as they call it.

Kenen: Maybe they’ll come out holding hands.

Rovner: I want to turn to abortion. It seems that maybe, possibly, the tide in states is turning against passage of the broadest possible bans. In the same day last week we saw sweeping abortion restrictions turned back, though barely, by lawmakers in both South Carolina and Nebraska. And in North Carolina, where Republicans just got a supermajority big enough to override the state’s Democratic governor’s veto, lawmakers are now looking at a 12-week ban rather than the six-week or total ban that was expected. Alice, is this a trend or kind of an anomaly?

Ollstein: Every state is different, and you still have folks pushing for total or near-total bans in a lot of states. And I will say that in North Carolina specifically, a 12-week ban will have a big impact, because that is the state where a lot of people throughout the entire South are going right now, so they’re getting incoming folks from Texas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Louisiana. So it’s one of the sort of last havens in the entire southeast area, and so even a restriction to 12 weeks, you know, we know that the vast majority of abortions happen before that point, but with fewer and fewer places for people to go, wait times are longer, people are pushed later into pregnancy who want to terminate a pregnancy sooner. And so it could be a big deal. This has also been kind of a crazy saga in North Carolina, with a single lawmaker switching parties and that being what is likely to enable this to pass.

Rovner: Yeah, a Democrat turned Republican for reasons that I think have not been made totally clear yet, but giving the Republicans this veto-proof majority.

Kenen: They’ve got the veto-proof majority. I did read one report saying there was one vote in question. It might be this lawmaker who turned, whether she’s for 12-week or whether she’s for 15 or 20 or whatever else. So it’ll certainly pass. I don’t have firsthand knowledge of this, but I did read one story that said there’s some question about they might be one short of the veto-proof majority. So we’ll just have to wait and see.

Rovner: Yeah, North Carolina is obviously a state that’s continuing. So my colleague and sometime podcast panelist Sarah Varney has a story this week out of Idaho, where doctors who treat pregnant women are leaving the state and hospitals are closing maternity wards because they can no longer staff them. It’s a very good story, but what grabbed me most was a line from an Idaho state representative who voted for the ban, Republican Mark Sauter. He told Sarah, quote, “he hadn’t thought very much about the state abortion ban other than I’m a pro-life guy and I ran that way.” He said it wasn’t until he had dinner with the wife of a hospital emergency room doctor that he realized what the ban was doing to doctors and hospitals in the state and to pregnant women who were not trying to have abortions. Are we starting to see more of that, Alice? I’ve seen, you know, a few Republicans here and there saying that — now that they’re seeing what’s playing out — they’re not so sure these really dramatic bans are the way to go.

Ollstein: Yeah, I will say we are seeing more and more of that. I’ve done some reporting on Tennessee, where some of the Republicans who voted for the state’s near-total ban are expressing regret and saying that there have been unintended consequences for people in obstetric emergency situations. You know, they said they didn’t realize how this would be a chilling effect on doctors providing care in more than just so-called elective abortion situations. But it does seem that those Republicans who are speaking out in that way are still in the majority. The party overall is still pushing for these restrictions. They’re also accusing medical groups of misinterpreting them. So we are seeing this play out. For instance, you know, in Tennessee, there was a push to include more exceptions in the ban, alter enforcement so that doctors wouldn’t be afraid to perform care in emergency situations, and a lot of that was rejected. What they ended up passing didn’t go as far as what the medical groups say is needed to protect pregnant people.

Rovner: It’s important to point out that the groups on the other side, the anti-abortion groups, have not backed off. They are still — and these are the groups that have supported most of these pro-life Republicans who are in these state legislatures. So were they to, you know, even support more exemptions that would, you know, turn them against important supporters that they have, so I think it’s this —

Ollstein: —right—

Rovner: —sort of balancing act going on.

Ollstein: Plus, we’ve seen even in the states that have exemptions, people are not able to use them in a lot of circumstances. That’s why you have a lot of pro-abortion rights groups, including medical groups, saying exemptions may give the appearance of being more compassionate but are not really navigable in practice.

Rovner: Right. I mean, we’ve had all these stories every week of how near death does a pregnant woman have to be before doctors are not afraid to treat her because they will be dragged into court or put in jail?

Ollstein: Right.

Rovner: So this continues. Well, the other big story of the week has to do with exactly that. The federal Department of Health and Human Services has opened an investigation into two hospitals, one each in Missouri and Kansas, that federal officials say violated the federal emergency medical care law by refusing to perform an abortion on a woman in medical distress. If the hospitals don’t prove that they will comply with the law, they could face fines or worse, be banned from participation in Medicare and Medicaid. I can’t help but think this is the kind of fight that’s going to end up at the Supreme Court, right? I mean, this whole, if you have a state law that conflicts with federal law, what do you do?

Ollstein: Yeah, we’re seeing that both in the EMTALA space [Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act] and in the drug space. We’re seeing a lot of state-federal conflicts being tested in court, sort of for the first time in the abortion question. So we also, in addition to these new federal actions, you know, we still have cases playing out related to abortion and emergency care in a few other states. So I think this will continue, and I think that you’re really seeing that exactly the letter of the law is one thing, and the chilling effect is another thing. And how doctors point out if a lot of these state abortion bans are structured around what’s called an affirmative defense, which means that doctors have to cross their fingers and provide the care and know that if they get sued, they can mount a defense that, you know, this was necessary to save someone’s life. Now, doctors point out that a lot of people are not willing to do that and a lot of people are afraid to do that; they don’t have the resources to do it. Plus, in the medical space, when you apply for licenses or things in the future, it doesn’t just say, “Were you ever convicted of something?” It says, “Were you ever charged with something?” So even if the charges are dropped, it still remains on their record forever.

Rovner: Yeah, and they have malpractice premiums. I mean, there’s a whole lot of things that this will impact. Well, I want to talk about covid, because we haven’t talked about covid in a couple of weeks. It is still with us. Ask people who went to the big CDC conference last week; I think they’ve had, what, 35 cases out of that conference? Yet the public health emergency officially ends on May 11, which will trigger all manner of changes. We’re already seeing states disenrolling people for Medicaid now that they’re allowed to redetermine eligibility again, including some people who say they’re still eligible, as we talked about a little bit earlier. We’re also seeing vaccine mandates lifted. Does this mean that the pandemic is really over? It obviously is a major signal, right, even if covid is still around?

Kenen: It means it’s legally over. It doesn’t mean it’s biologically over. But it is clearly better. I mean, will we have more surges next winter or over some kind of holiday gathering? You know, it’s not gone and it’s probably never going to be gone. However, we also don’t know how many cases there really are because not everybody tests or they don’t realize that cold is covid or they test at home and don’t report it. So the caseload is murky, but we sure note that the death toll is the lowest it’s been in two years, and I think it’s under 200 a day — and I’d have to double check that — but it’s really dropped and it’s continuing to drop. So even though there’s concern about whether we still need some of these protections, and I personally think we do need some of them in some places, the bottom line is, are people dying the way they were dying? No. That is — you know, I’ve watched that death toll drop over the last couple of weeks; it’s consistent and it’s significant. And so we should all be grateful for that. But whether it stays low without some of these measures and access to testing and access to shots and — and people are confused, you know, like, Oh, the shots aren’t going to be free or they are going to be free or I don’t need one. I mean, that whole murkiness on the part of the public — I mean, I have friends who are quite well aware of things. I mean, I have friends who just got covid the other day and, you know, said, “Well, you know, I’m not going to — I’m not really, really sick, so I don’t need Paxlovid.” And I said, “You know, you really need to call your doctor and talk about that.” So her doctor gave her Paxlovid — so she actually had a risk factor, so, two risk factors. So it’s not over, but we also have to acknowledge that it’s better than many people thought it would be by May 2023.

Rovner: Yeah, I know. I mean, the big complaints I’m seeing are people with chronic illnesses who worry that masks are no longer required in health care facilities, and that that seems to upset them.

Kenen: I mean, I think if you were to ask a doctor, I would hope that you could ask your doctor to put on a mask in a certain situation. And that doesn’t work in a hospital where lots of people around, but the doctors I’ve been to recently have also worn masks and —

Rovner: Yeah, mine too.

Kenen: Luckily, we do know now that if you wear a good mask, an N95, properly, it is not perfect, but you still can protect yourself by wearing a mask. You know, I take public transport and I wear masks in public transport, and I still avoid certain settings, and I worry more about the people who are at risk and they don’t understand that the shots are still free; they don’t know how to get medication; they don’t — there’s just a lot of stuff out there that we have communicated so poorly. And the lack of a public health emergency, with both the resources and the messaging — I worry about that.

Rovner: And as we pointed out, people losing their health insurance, whether, you know —

Kenen: That’s a whole other —

Rovner: Yeah, rightly or not. I mean, you know, whether they’re no longer eligible.

Kenen: Most are, but they’re still, you know — falling through the cracks is a major theme in American health care.

Rovner: It is. Well, finally this week, the U.S. surgeon general, Vivek Murthy, wants us to be less lonely. Really. The health effects of loneliness have been a signature issue for Dr. Murthy. We talked about it at some length in a podcast last summer. I will be sure to add the link to that in the show notes. But now, instead of just describing how loneliness is bad for your health — and trust me, loneliness is bad for your health — the surgeon general’s office has issued a new bulletin with how Americans can make themselves less lonely. It’s not exactly rocket science. It recommends spending more time in person with friends and less time online. But does highlighting the issue make it easier to deal with? I mean, this is not one of the traditional public health issues that we’ve talked about over the years.

Ollstein: I’m very interested to see where this conversation goes, because it’s already sort of feeling like a lot of other public health conversations in the U.S. in that they describe this huge, existential, population-level problem, but the solutions pushed are very individual and very like, you have to change your lifestyle, you have to log off, you have to join more community groups. And it’s like, if this is a massive societal problem, shouldn’t there be bigger, broader policy responses?

Kenen: You can’t mandate someone going out for coffee —

Ollstein: —exactly—

Kenen: —three times a week. I mean, this one —

Ollstein: Exactly. You can’t boostrap loneliness.

Kenen: This one, I think — I think it validates people’s feelings. I mean, I think people who are feeling isolated —I mean, we had loneliness before the pandemic, but the pandemic has changed how we live and how we socialize. And if — I think it’s sort of telling people, you know, if you’re feeling this way, it is real and it’s common, and other people are feeling that way, too, so pick up the phone. And maybe those of us who are more extroverted will reach out to people we know who are more isolated. So, I mean, I’m not sure what HHS or the surgeon general can do to make people spend time with one another.

Ollstein: Well, there are structural factors in loneliness. There are economic factors. There is, you know, a lack of paid time off. There are a lack of public spaces where people can gather, you know, in a safe and pleasant way. You know, other countries do tons of things. You know, there are programs in other countries that encourage teens, that finance and support teens forming garage bands, in Scandinavian countries. I mean, there are there are policy responses, and maybe some of them are already being tried out at like the city level in a lot of places. But I’m not hearing a lot other than telling people to make individual life changes, which may not be possible.

Rovner: But although I was going to point out that one of the reasons that this is becoming a bigger issue is that the number of Americans living alone has gone up. You know, and again, Joanne, this was way before the pandemic, but it’s more likely — people are more in a position to be lonely, basically. I mean, it’s going to affect a larger part of the population, so —

Kenen: And some of the things that Alice suggested are policies that are being worked on because of, you know, social determinants and other things: recreation, housing. Those things are happening at both the state and federal level. So they would help loneliness, but I don’t think you’re going to see them branded as a loneliness — national loneliness program. But, you know, the demographics of this country — you know, families are scattered. Zoom is great, you know, but Zoom isn’t real life. And there are more people who are single, there are more people who are widowed, there are more people who never married, there are more people who are divorced, the elderly cohort. Many people live alone, and teens and kids have had a hard time in the last couple years. So I think on one level it’s easy for people to make fun of it because, you know, we’re coming out of this pandemic and the surgeon general’s talking about loneliness. On the other hand, there are millions or tens of millions of people who are lonely. And I think this does sort of help people understand that there are things to be done about it that — I don’t think individual action is always a bad thing. I mean, encouraging people to think about the people in their lives who might be lonely is probably a good thing. It’s social cohesion. I mean, Republicans can make that case, right, that we have to, you know, everybody needs to pick up a telephone or go for a walk and knock on a door.

Rovner: Yeah, they do. I mean, Republicans are big on doing things at the community level. That’s the idea, is let’s have government at the lowest level possible. Well, this will be an interesting issue to watch and see if it catches on more with the public health community. All right. 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 KFF Health News and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Rachel, why don’t you go first this week?

Cohrs: My story is in ProPublica and the headline is “This Pharmacist Said Prisoners Wouldn’t Feel Pain During Lethal Injection. Then Some Shook and Gasped for Air,” by Lauren Gill and Daniel Moritz-Rabson. And I think it’s just a story about this ongoing issue of expert testimony in criminal justice settings. And obviously these are really important questions about medications that, you know, are used for lethal injections and how they work and just how, you know, people are responding to them in the moment. And I mean, it’s just such an important issue that gets overlooked in the pharmaceutical space sometimes. And yeah, I think it’s just something that is very sobering, and it’s just a really important read.

Rovner: Yeah. I mean, there’s been a lot about doctors and the ethics of participating in these. This is the first time I’ve seen a story about pharmacists. Joanne?

Kenen: Well, I saw this one in The Atlantic. It’s by Yasmin Tayag, and I couldn’t resist the headline: “There Is No Stopping the Allergy Apocalypse.” Basically, because of climate change, allergies are getting worse. If you have allergies, you already know that. If you think you don’t have allergies, you’re probably wrong; you’re probably about to get them. They take a little while to show up. So it’s not in one region; it’s everywhere. So, you know, we’re all going to be wheezing, coughing, sneezing, sniffling a lot more than we’re used to, including if you were not previously a wheezer, cougher, or sniffler.

Rovner: Oh, I can’t wait. Alice.

Ollstein: So I have a piece from The Wall Street Journal called “Patients Lose Access to Free Medicines Amid Spat Between Drugmakers, Health Plans,” by Peter Loftus and Joseph Walker. And it is some really tragic stories about folks who are seeing their monthly costs for medications they depend on to live shoot up. In one instance in the story, what he has to pay per month shot up from 15 to more than 12,000. And so you have the drugmakers, the insurance companies, and the middlemen pointing fingers at each other and saying, you know, “This is your fault, this is your fault, this is your fault.” And meanwhile, patients are suffering. So, really interesting story, hope it leads to some action to help folks.

Rovner: I was going to say, maybe the HELP Committee will get its act together, because it’s trying to work on this.

Ollstein: Yeah.

Rovner: Well, my story is from The Washington Post, and it’s called “Dog-Walking Injuries May Be More Common Than You Think,” by Lindsey Bever. And it’s about a study from Johns Hopkins, including your colleagues, Joanne, that found that nearly half a million people were treated in U.S. emergency rooms for an injury sustained while walking a dog on a leash. Not surprisingly, most were women and older adults, who are most likely to be pulled down by a very strong dog. The three most diagnosed injuries were finger fractures, traumatic brain injuries, and shoulder injuries. As a part-time dog trainer in my other life, here are my two biggest tips, other than training your dog to walk politely on a leash: Don’t use retractable leashes; they can actually cut off a finger if it gets caught in one. And never wrap the leash around your hand or your wrist. So that is my medical advice for this week. And 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me, as long as Twitter’s still there. I’m @jrovner. Joanne?

Kenen: @JoanneKenen.

Rovner: Alice.

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Rachel.

Cohrs: @rachelcohrs.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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.

If Congress fails to raise the nation’s debt ceiling in the next few months, the U.S. could default on its debt for the first time in history. Republicans in Congress, however, say they won’t agree to pay the nation’s bills unless Democrats and President Joe Biden agree to deep cuts to health and other programs. Among the proposals in a bill House Republicans passed April 26 is the imposition of new work requirements for adults who receive Medicaid.

Meanwhile, many of the states passing restrictions on abortion are also passing bills to restrict the ability of trans people to get health care. The two movements — both largely aimed at conservative evangelicals, a key GOP constituency — have much in common.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KFF Health News, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, Shefali Luthra of The 19th, and Sarah Karlin-Smith of the Pink Sheet.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Shefali Luthra
The 19th

@Shefalil

Read Shefali's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Republican-controlled House’s proposal to raise the debt ceiling contains enough politically poisonous measures that the plan is a non-starter in the Senate. They include substantial funding cuts to major federal health programs, including the FDA and the National Institutes of Health — cuts that would force the federal government to cut back on grants and other funding.
• The proposal would also impose work requirements on adults enrolled in Medicaid — which covers low-income and disabled Americans, as well as pregnant women — and in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which helps needy families buy food. Under the plan, the government would save money by cutting the number of people helped. But most beneficiaries cannot work or already do so. Experience shows the change would mostly affect people who struggle to report their work hours through what can be complicated online portals.
• Multiple congressional committees have released plans to fight high drug costs, promoting efforts to explore how pharmacy benefit managers make decisions about cost and access, as well as to encourage access to cheaper, generic drugs on the market. And during congressional testimony this week, the administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, said the agency would no longer issue warnings to hospitals that fail to comply with a law that requires them to post their prices, but instead would move directly to fining the holdouts.
• Also in news about cost-cutting legislation, a plan to address an expensive glitch in Medicare payments to hospital outpatient centers and physician offices is gaining steam on Capitol Hill. Hospital consolidation has helped increase costs in the health care system, and lawmakers are eager to keep health spending under control. But the hospital industry is ramping up advertising to make sure lawmakers think twice before legislating.
• In abortion news, it will likely be at least a year before the Supreme Court rules on whether the abortion pill mifepristone should remain accessible. Some justices suggested in last summer’s Dobbs decision, which overturned abortion rights, that they would leave further abortion questions to the states, yet the nation is finding that overturning a half-century of legal precedent is messy, to say the least. Meanwhile, reporting and polling are revealing just how difficult it is for doctors in states with abortion bans to determine what constitutes a “medical emergency” worthy of intervention, with a grim consensus emerging that apparently means “when a woman is near death.”

Also this week, Rovner interviews Renuka Rayasam, who wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature, about a pregnant woman experiencing a dangerous complication who was asked to pay $15,000 upfront to see one of the few specialists who could help her. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want 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: The Nation’s “The Poison Pill in the Mifepristone Lawsuit That Could Trigger a National Abortion Ban,” by Amy Littlefield.

Shefali Luthra: The Washington Post’s “The Conservative Campaign to Rewrite Child Labor Laws,” by Jacob Bogage and María Luisa Paúl.

Jessie Hellmann: Politico’s “Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States. It’s Not Even Close,” by Colin Woodard.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: The Wall Street Journal’s “Weight-Loss Drugmakers Lobby for Medicare Coverage,” by Liz Essley Whyte.

Also mentioned in this week’s episode:

• In Oklahoma, a Woman Was Told to Wait Until She’s ‘Crashing’ for Abortion Care,” by Selena Simmons-Duffin.
• Anti-Trans Bills Have Doubled Since 2022. Our Map Shows Where States Stand,” by Annys Shin, N. Kirkpatrick, and Anne Branigin.

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Dancing Under the Debt Ceiling

KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health?’

Episode Title: Dancing Under the Debt Ceiling

Episode Number: 295

Published: April 27, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at KFF Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 27, at 10 a.m. As always, news happens fast — really fast this week — and things might have changed by the time you hear this. So here we go. We are joined today via video conference by Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Good morning.

Rovner: Sarah Karlin-Smith, the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: And Shefali Luthra of The 19th.

Shefali Luthra: Hello.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we’ll have our KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” interview with Renuka Rayasam. This month’s patient had a happy ending medically, but a not-so-happy ending financially. But first, the news. We’re going to start this week with the budget and, to be specific, the nation’s debt ceiling, which will put the U.S. in default if it’s not raised sometime in the next several weeks, not to panic anyone. House Republicans, who have maintained all along that they won’t allow the debt ceiling to be raised unless they get spending cuts in return, managed to pass — barely — a bill that would raise the debt ceiling enough to get to roughly the middle of next year. It has no chance in the Senate, but it’s now the Republicans’ official negotiating position, so we should talk about what’s in it. It starts with a giant cut to discretionary spending programs. In health care that includes things like the National Institutes of Health, most public health programs, and the parts of the FDA that aren’t funded by user fees. I mean, these are big cuts, yes?

Hellmann: Yeah, it’s about a 14% cut to some of these programs. It’s kind of hard to know exactly what that would mean. But yeah, it’s a big cut and there would have to be, like, a lot of changes made, especially to a lot of health care programs, because that’s where a lot of spending happens.

Rovner: Yeah, I mean, sometimes they’ll agree on cuts and it’ll be like a 1% across the board, which itself can be a lot of money. But I mean, these are, these are sort of really deep cuts that would seriously hinder the ability of these programs to function, right?

Karlin-Smith: NIH for a number of years was operating on only getting budget increases that were not keeping up kind of with inflation and so forth. And they just finally, over the last few years, got back on track. Even though their budget seemed like it was going up, really, if you adjusted for inflation, it had been going down. And then when you have an agency like FDA, which, the line is always that they do an incredible amount of work on really a shoestring budget for the amount they regulate, so they never get — NIH sometimes gets, you know, that bipartisan popularity and does get those bigger increases back, and they never really get those big increases, so I think it would be harder for them also to get that back later on if they did get such big cuts.

Hellmann: There are like also a lot of health programs that just operate on flat funding from year to year, like Title X.

Rovner: Yeah, the family planning program.

Hellmann: And so obviously, like HHS said last year, We are only able to fund a certain number of providers, like, less than previously, because of inflation, and stuff like that. So obviously if you take a 14% cut to that, it would make it even harder.

Rovner: All right. Another major proposal in the package would institute or expand work requirements for people on food stamps and on Medicaid. Now, we’ve had work rules for people on welfare since the 1990s, but most people on Medicaid and food stamps, for that matter, either already work or can’t work for some reason. Why are the Republicans so excited about expanding or instituting work requirements?

Hellmann: I think there are a few reasons. No. 1, it’s a big money saver. The CBO [Congressional Budget Office] came out with their analysis this week showing that it would save the federal government about $109 billion. A lot of that would be shifted to the states because the way the bill is written, states would still be allowed to cover these individuals if they can’t prove that they’re working. But they’d have to pick up the costs themselves, which, I’ve seen experts questioning if that would really happen, even in states like, you know, New York and California, who probably wouldn’t want these people to lose coverage. But I think an argument that you hear a lot too, especially during the Trump administration when they were really pushing these, is they say that work is what provides fulfillment and dignity to people. Former CMS [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services] administrator Seema Verma talked about this a lot. The argument I heard a lot on the Hill this week is that Medicaid and other — SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program], TANF [Temporary Assistance for Needy Families], programs like that — trap people in poverty and that work requirements will kind of give them an incentive to get jobs. But as you said, like, it wouldn’t apply to most — you know, most people are already working. And most people who lost coverage under some of the previous iterations of this just didn’t know about it or they were unable to complete the reporting requirements.

Rovner: And to be clear, the CBO estimate is not so much because people would work and they wouldn’t need it anymore. It’s because people are likely to lose their coverage because they can’t meet the bureaucratic requirements to prove that they’re working. Shefali, you’re nodding. We’ve seen this before, right?

Luthra: I was just thinking, I mean, the savings, yes, they come from people losing their health insurance. That’s very obvious. Of course, you save money when you pay for fewer people’s coverage. And you’re absolutely right: “This will motivate people to work” argument has always been a little bit — complicated is a generous word. I think you could even say it’s a bit thin just because people do already work.

Rovner: And they — many of them work, they don’t earn enough money, really, to bring them out of poverty. And they don’t have jobs that offer health insurance. That’s the only way they’re going to get health insurance. All right. Well, where do we go from here with the debt ceiling? So now we’ve got this Republican plan that says work — everybody has to work and prove that they work and we’re going to cut all these programs — and the Democrats saying this is not a discussion for the debt ceiling, this is a separate discussion that should happen down the road on the budget. Is there any sign that either side is going to give here?

Hellmann: It doesn’t seem like it. Democrats have been saying, like, this is a non-starter. The president has been saying, like, we’re not going to negotiate on this; we want a clean increase in the debt ceiling, and we can talk about some of these other proposals that you want to pursue later. But right now, it seems like both sides are kind of at a standstill. And I think Republicans see, like, passing this bill yesterday as a way to kind of strengthen their hand and show that they can get all on the same page. But I just do not see the Senate entertaining a 14% cut or, like, Medicaid work requirements or any of this stuff that is just kind of extremely toxic, even to some, like, moderate Democrats over there.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this is going to go on for a while. Well, so at this high level, we’ve got this huge partisan fight going on. But interestingly, this week elsewhere on Capitol Hill things seem surprisingly almost bipartisan, dare I say. Starting in the Senate, the chairman and the ranking member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Democrat Bernie Sanders and Republican Bill Cassidy, announced that they’ve reached agreement on a series of bills aimed at reining in prescription drug costs for consumers, including one to more closely regulate pharmacy benefit managers and others to further promote the availability of generic drugs. Sarah, we’ve talked about the target on the backs of PBMs this year. What would this bill do and what are the chances of it becoming law?

Karlin-Smith: So this bill does three things: One is transparency. They want to pull back the cover and get more data and information from PBMs so that they can better understand how they’re working. So I think the idea would then be to take future policy action, because one of the criticisms of this industry is it’s so opaque it’s hard to know if they’re really doing the right thing in terms of serving their customers and trying to save money and drug prices as they say they are. The other thing is it would basically require a lot of the fees and rebates PBMs get on drug prices to be given back directly to the health plan, which is sort of interesting because the drug industry has argued that money should be given more directly to patients who are paying for those drugs. And when that has scored by the CBO, that often costs money because that leads to PBMs using less money to lower people’s premiums, and premiums are subsidized from the government. So I’m curious if the reason why they designed the bill this way is to sort of get around that, although then I’m not sure exactly if you get the same individual … [unintelligible] … level benefit from it. And then the third thing they do is they want to eliminate spread pricing, which is where — this is really a pharmacy issue — where PBMs basically reimburse pharmacies less than they’re charging the health plans and, you know, their customers for the drug and kind of pocketing the difference. So I think, from what I’m seeing on the Hill, there’s a ton of momentum to tackle PBMs. And like you said, it’s bipartisan. Whether it’s this bill or which particular bills it’s hard to know, because Senate Finance Committee is sort of working on their own plan. A number of committees in the House are looking at it, other parts of the Senate. So to me, it seems like there’s reasonable odds that something gets done maybe this spring or summer on PBMs. But it’s hard to know, like, the exact shape of the final legislation. It’s pretty early at this point to figure out exactly how it all, you know, teases out.

Rovner: We have seen in the past things that are very bipartisan get stuck nonetheless. Well, across the Capitol, meanwhile, the House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at bipartisan issues in health care, including — as they are in the Senate — how to increase price transparency and competition, which also, I hasten to add, includes regulating PBMs. But, Jessie, there was some actual news out of the hearing at Energy and Commerce from Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, who runs the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs. What did she say?

Hellmann: So they’ve instituted two fines against hospitals that haven’t been complying with the price transparency requirements. So I think that brings the number of hospitals that they’ve fined to, like, less than five. Please fact-check that, but I’m pretty sure that I can count it on one hand.

Rovner: One hand. They have, they have actually fined a small number of hospitals under the requirement. Yeah. I mean, we’ve known — we’ve talked about this for a while, that these rules have been in effect since the beginning of 2022, right? And a lot of hospitals have just been not doing it or they’re supposed to be showing their prices in a consumer-understandable way. And a lot of them just haven’t been. And I assume CMS is not happy with this.

Hellmann: Yeah, so Brooks-LaSure said yesterday that CMS is no longer going to issue warnings for hospitals that aren’t making a good-faith effort to comply with these rules. Instead, they’ll move straight to what’s called the corrective action phase, where basically hospitals are supposed to, like, say what they’re going to do to comply with these. And after that, they could get penalized. So we’ll see if that actually encourages hospitals to comply. One of the fines that they issued is like $100,000. And so I think some hospitals are viewing this, you know, as a cost of doing business because they think it would cost them more to comply with the price transparency rules than it would to not comply with them.

Rovner: So transparency here is still a work in progress. There’s also a fight in the House over the very wonky-sounding site-neutral payment policy in Medicare, which, like the surprise bill legislation from a few years back, is not so much a partisan disagreement as a fight between various sectors in the health care system. Can you explain what this is and what the fight’s about?

Hellmann: So basically hospital outpatient departments or, like, physician offices owned by hospitals get paid more than, like, independent physician’s offices for providing things like X-rays or drug administration and stuff like that. And so this is —

Rovner: But the same care. I mean, if you get it in a hospital outpatient or a doctor’s office, the hospital outpatient clinic gets paid more.

Hellmann: Yeah. And there’s not much evidence that shows that the care is any different or the quality is better in a hospital. And so this has kind of been something that’s been getting a lot of attention this year as people are looking for ways to reduce Medicare spending. It would save billions of dollars over 10 years, I think one think tank estimated about 150 billion over 10 years. It’s getting a lot of bipartisan interest, especially as we talk more about consolidation in hospitals, you know, buying up these physician practices, kind of rebranding them and saying, OK, this is outpatient department now, we get paid more for this. There are fewer independent physician’s offices than there used to be, and members have taken a really big interest in how consolidation increases health care prices, especially from hospitals. So it does seem like something that could pass. I will say that there is a lot of heat coming from the hospital industry. They released an ad on Friday last week warning about Medicare cuts, so, they usually do whenever anyone talks about anything that could hurt their bottom lines. Very generalist ad and kind of those “Mediscare” ads that we’ve been talking about. So it’ll be interesting to see if members can withstand the heat from such a powerful lobbying force.

Rovner: As we like to say, there’s a hospital in every single district, and most of them give money to members of Congress, so anything that has the objection of the hospital industry has an uphill battle. So we’ll see how this one plays out. Let us turn to abortion. The fate of the abortion pill mifepristone is still unclear, although the Supreme Court did prevent even a temporary suspension of its approval, as a lower court would have done. Now the case is back at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which has swiftly scheduled a hearing for May 17. But it still could be months or even years before we know how this is going to come out, right, Shefali?

Luthra: It absolutely could be. So the fastest that we could expect to see this case before the Supreme Court again, just — what from folks I’ve talked to is, I mean, we have this hearing May 17, depending on how quickly the 5th Circuit rules, depending on how they rule, there is a chance that we could see if we get, for instance, an unfriendly ruling toward mifepristone, the federal government could appeal to the Supreme Court this summer. We could see if the Supreme Court is willing to take the case. The earliest that means that they would hear it would be this fall, with a decision in the spring a year from now, but that would be quite fast. I think what’s striking about it is that we may all recall last year, when the Supreme Court issued its decision in the Dobbs case, they said this will put the issue of abortion back in the hands of the states, out of the judiciary, we will no longer be involved. And anyone at the time could have told you there’s no way that this would happen because it is too complicated of an issue, when you undo 50 years of precedent, to assume there will be no more legal questions. And here we are. Those critics have been proven right, because who could have seen that, once again, we’d have the courts being asked to step in and answer more questions about what it means when a 50-year right is suddenly gone?

Rovner: Indeed. And of course, we have the … [unintelligible] … This is going to be my next question, about whether this really is all going to be at the state level or it’s going to be at the state and the federal level. So as red states are rushing to pass as many restrictions as they can, some Republicans seem to be recognizing that their party is veering into dangerously unpopular territory, as others insist on pressing on. We saw a great example of this over the weekend. Former vice president and longtime anti-abortion activist Mike Pence formally split on the issue with former President Trump, with Pence calling for a federal ban and not just leaving the issue to the states. Nikki Haley, the former governor of South Carolina and the lone woman in the Republican field so far, managed to anger both sides with the speech she made at the headquarters of the hard-line anti-abortion group the Susan B. Anthony List. Haley’s staff had suggested ahead of time that she would try to lay out a middle ground, but she said almost nothing specific, which managed to irritate both full abortion abolitionists and those who support more restrained action. Is this going to be a full-fledged war in the Republican Party?

Luthra: I think it has to be. I mean, the anti-abortion group is still very powerful in the Republican Party. If you would like to win the nomination, you would like their support. That is why we know that Ron DeSantis pursued a six-week ban in Florida despite it being incredibly unpopular, despite it now alienating many people who would be his donors. This is just too important of a constituency to annoy. But unfortunately, you can’t really compromise on national abortion policy if you’re running for president. A national ban, no matter what week you pick, it’s not a good sound bite. We saw what happened last year when Sen. Lindsey Graham put forth his national 15-week ban: Virtually no other even Republicans wanted to endorse that, because it’s a toxic word to say, especially in this post-Dobbs environment, especially now that we have all of this polling, including NPR polling from yesterday, that showed us that abortion bans remain quite unpopular and that people don’t trust Republicans largely on this issue. I think this is going to be incredibly interesting because we are going to eventually have to see Nikki Haley take a stance. We will have to see Donald Trump, I think, frankly, be a bit more committal than he has been, because meanwhile, he has lately told people publicly that he would not issue any federal policy, would leave this up to the states, we also know that he has said different things in other conversations. And at some point those conflicts are going to come to a head. And what Republicans realize is that their party’s stance and the stance they need to take to maintain favor with this important group is just not a winning issue for most voters. People don’t want abortion banned.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a real problem. And Republicans are seeing they have no idea how to sort of get out of this box canyon, if you will. Well, back in the states, things seem to be getting even more restrictive. In Oklahoma this week NPR has another of those wrenching stories about pregnant women unable to get emergency health care. This time, a woman, a mom of three kids already with a nonviable and cancerous pregnancy who was told literally to wait in the hospital parking lot until she was close enough to death to obtain needed care. And that case turned out not to be an outlier. A quote-unquote “secret shopper” survey of hospitals in Oklahoma found that a majority of the 34 hospitals contacted could not articulate what their policy was in case of pregnancy complications or how they would determine if the pregnant person’s life was actually in danger. I can’t imagine Oklahoma is the only state where this is the case. We have a lot of these bans and no idea where sort of the lines are, even if they have exceptions.

Luthra: We know that this is not isolated to Oklahoma. There is a lawsuit in Texas right now with a group of women suing the state because they could not access care that would save their lives. One of those plaintiffs testified in Congress about this yesterday. Doctors in virtually every state with an abortion ban have said that they do not know what the medical exceptions really are in practice other than that they have to wait until people are on death’s door because there isn’t — medical emergency isn’t really a technical term. These bills, now laws, were written without the expertise of actual physicians or clinicians because they were never really supposed to take effect. This really has been just another example of a way that the dog chased the car and now the dog has the car.

Rovner: And the dog has no idea what to do with the car. Well, meanwhile, in Iowa, the attorney general has paused the state’s policy of paying for abortions as well as emergency contraception for rape victims. This is where I get to rant briefly that emergency contraception and the abortion pill are totally different, that emergency contraception does not cause abortion — it only delays ovulation after unprotected sex and thus is endorsed for rape victims in Catholic health facilities across Europe. OK, end of rant. I expect we’re going to see more of this from officials in red states, though, right, with going — not just going after abortions, but going after things that are not abortion, like emergency contraception.

Luthra: And I mean, if we look at what many of the hard-line anti-abortion groups advocate, they don’t just want to get rid of abortion. They specifically name many forms of hormonal contraception, but specifically the emergency contraception Plan B, and they oppose IUDs [intrauterine devices]. It would just be so, so surprising if those were not next targets for Republican states.

Rovner: So abortion isn’t the only culture war issue being fought out in state legislatures. There’s also a parallel effort in lots of red states to curtail the ability of trans people, mostly but not solely teenagers, to get treatment or, in some cases, to merely live their lives. According to The Washington Post, as of the middle of this month, state legislators have introduced more than 400 anti-trans bills just since January. That’s more than the previous four years combined. Nearly 30 of them have become law. Now, I remember in the early aughts when anti-gay and particularly anti-gay marriage bills were the hot items in red states. Today, with some notable exceptions, gay marriage is as routine as any other marriage. Is it possible that all these attacks on trans people, by making them more visible, could have the same effect? In other words, could this have the opposite effect as the people who are pushing it intended? Or am I just looking for a silver lining here?

Luthra: I think it’s too soon to say. There isn’t incredible polling on this issue, but we do know that in general, like, this is not an issue that even Republicans pick their candidates for. It’s not like they are driven to the ballot box because they hate trans people this much. I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there is a backlash, just because what we are hearing is so, frankly, horrific. What I have been really struck by, in addition to the parallels to anti-gay marriage, have been the ways in which restrictions on access to health care for trans people really do parallel attacks to abortion in particular, thinking about, for instance, passing laws that restrict access to care for minors, passing laws that restrict Medicaid from paying for care, that restrict how insurance covers for care. It’s almost spooky how similar these are, because people often think minors are easier to access first. People often think health insurance is an easier, sort of almost niche issue to go for first. And what we don’t often see until afterward is that these state-by-state laws have made care largely inaccessible. The other thing that I think about all the time is that these are obviously, in both cases, forms of health care restriction that are largely opposed by the medical community, that are often crafted without the input of actual medical expertise, and that target health care that does feel incredibly difficult to extricate from the patient’s gender.

Rovner: Yeah. The other thing is that people are going from state to state, just like with abortion. In order to get health care, they’re having to cross state lines and in some cases move. I mean, we’re starting to see this.

Luthra: The high-profile example being Dwyane Wade, formerly of the Miami Heat, moving away from Florida because of his child.

Karlin-Smith: The other thing, Julie, you were saying in terms of how optimistic to be, in terms of maybe the other side of this issue sort of pushing back and overcoming it, is that Politico had this good story this week about doctors in states where this care is perfectly legal and permissible but they’re getting so many threats and essentially their health care facilities feel that they’re so much in danger that they are concerned about how to safely provide and help these people that they do want to help and give care, while also not putting their families and so forth in danger, which perhaps also has a parallel to some of how there’s tons of, like, constant protests outside abortion clinics. And people have volunteered for years just to kind of escort people so they can safely feel comfortable getting there, which of course is, you know, can be very traumatic to patients trying to get care.

Rovner: Yeah, the parallels are really striking. So we will watch that space too. All right. That is the news for this week. Now, we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Renuka Rayasam. Then we will come back and share our extra credit. We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Renuka Rayasam, who reported and wrote the latest KFF Health News-NPR “Bill of the Month” story. Renu, welcome to “What the Health?”

Renuka Rayasam: Thanks, Julie. Thanks for having me.

Rovner: So this month’s patient was pregnant with twins when she experienced a complication. Tell us who she is, where she’s from, and what happened.

Rayasam: Sure. Sara Walsh was 24 weeks pregnant with twins — it was Labor Day weekend in 2021 — and she started to feel something was off. She had spent a long time waiting to have a pregnancy that made it this far — eight years, she told me. But instead of feeling excited, she started to feel really nervous and she knew something was off. And so on Tuesday, she went to her regular doctor. And then on Wednesday, after that Labor Day, she went to her maternal fetal specialist, who diagnosed her with a pretty rare pregnancy complication that can occur when you have twins, when you have multiple fetuses that share blood unevenly through the same placenta. And it’s called twin-to-twin transfusion syndrome. And, you know — and this was Wednesday — she went into the office in the morning and she waited a long time for the doctor to kind of come back with the results, she and her husband, and just kind of spent the morning sort of back-and-forth between her maternal fetal specialist and her OB-GYN. And they told her she needed to get treatment immediately, that if she didn’t have treatment that she could lose one or both twins, she herself could even die. She needed to keep her fluid intake low. So they referred her to a specialist about four hours away from where she was. She was in Winter Haven, Florida, and they referred her to a specialist near Miami. And the specialist there apparently does not contract with any private insurance. And so that afternoon, hours after her diagnosis, she was packing her bags; she was getting ready to go, figuring out a place to stay, a hotel room and all that. And she gets a call from the billing office of this specialist in Coral Gables, Florida, near Miami. And they said, “Listen, we don’t contract with private insurance. You have to pay upfront for the pre surgical consultation for the surgery and then the post-surgical consult. And you need to have that money before you show up tomorrow in our office at 8 a.m.”

Rovner: And how much money was it?

Rayasam: About $15,000 in total for the consultations and the surgery itself. She told me she burst into tears. She didn’t want to lose these twins. She wasn’t given any option of shopping around for another provider. And she spent some time trying to figure out what to do. She couldn’t get a medical credit card because I guess there’s a 24-hour waiting period and she didn’t have that long. And so finally, her mother let her borrow her credit card. She checked into a hotel at midnight and at 8 a.m. the next morning she handed over her credit card and her mother’s credit card before she could have the procedure — before she could even see the doctor, I should say.

Rovner: And the outcome was medically good, right?

Rayasam: Yeah. The provider who did her surgery is a pioneer in this field. And that was why those doctors sent Sara to this provider, Dr. Ruben Quintero. He came up with this staging system that helps assess the symptom’s severity and even pioneered the treatment for it. But he sort of used all that to kind of say, OK, you have to pay me; I’m not even going to deal with insurance in this case. And so that afternoon, it was that Thursday, the day after she was diagnosed, she had a procedure, it went well, she had a couple of follow-ups in the following weeks. And then five weeks later, she delivered premature but otherwise healthy twin girls.

Rovner: So is that even legal for a doctor to say, “I’m not even going to look at you unless you pay me some five-figure amount”?

Rayasam: Generally, no. We have the federal No Surprises Act, as you know, and that’s meant to do away with surprise billing. But that was really designed for kind of inadvertent medical bills or surprises. Things get really complicated when there’s this appearance of choice where, you know, she had time to call the insurer, she had time to call the provider. It wasn’t as if she was unconscious and sort of rushed to the nearest doctor. Technically, she had a choice here. She could have chosen not to get the procedure. She could have gone to a different state. But obviously, those are not real choices in her situation when she needed the procedure so urgently. And so in those cases, you know, the billing experts I spoke with said this is a real loophole in federal billing legislation and state surprise billing legislation because the bill wasn’t a surprise. She knew how much to expect upfront. And that’s what makes this situation tricky.

Rovner: And she knew that the doctor wasn’t in network.

Rayasam: Absolutely. She knew the doctor wasn’t in network, and she knew how much she had to pay, and she willingly forked over the money, of course, as anyone would have in that situation or tried to in that situation.

Rovner: So after the fact, she went back to her insurance company to see if they could work something out, since it was pretty much the only place she could have gone at that point to get the treatment. But that didn’t go so well.

Rayasam: That didn’t go so well, and it’s one complication in this story that I myself don’t know what to make of, but the provider does not contract with any insurer, I should say. But he did take her insurance card and — or, the billing person did — and they say that they bill as a courtesy to the patient. So they file the paperwork for the patient. They say, “OK, your insurer will reimburse you. We’re going to provide all the paperwork.” In Sara’s case, it took a long time for this doctor and his practice to get Blue Cross Blue Shield the paperwork they needed to kind of pay for her claim. And in addition to that, they didn’t really send over the right paperwork right away. So it took a long time. And eventually she got only $1,200 back and she ended up paying far more than that out-of-pocket.

Rovner: And of course, the next obvious question is, doesn’t her insurance have an out-of-pocket maximum? How did she ever end up spending this much?

Rayasam: That’s a great question. We reached out to her insurer, and they didn’t really give us much of an explanation, but they, you know, on their billing statements and what they said to her was, “Hey, you went willingly out of network; this doesn’t qualify you for those out-of-pocket maximums.” They didn’t give us an explanation as to why. This seems to be a classic case of where those maximums should apply. But like I said, I think, you know, she had very little recourse. She tried to appeal the bills. She’s, you know, been on the phone with her insurer multiple times. The thing that makes this story more complicated is that it’s such a rare procedure and there aren’t that many providers in the country that even perform this procedure. So at first she was having to struggle with billing codes and all that with her insurance, so a lot of the people she was dealing with on the insurance side were really confused. It wasn’t something that they had a playbook for, knew what to do with, and that’s what made this a little bit more complicated.

Rovner: So what’s the takeaway here? I mean, obviously this was a rare complication, but if you multiply the number of rare complications of different things, you’re talking about a lot of people. Is there any way to get around this? I mean, it sounds like she did everything she could have in this case.

Rayasam: She did. In this case, it turns out there was another provider in Florida. There was no way for her to know that. Neither her OB-GYN nor the maternal fetal specialist told her about this other provider. I found out about it. I called around and did the reporter thing. And there are now four providers in Florida that will treat this. But of course, you know, if I was a patient, I wouldn’t shop around and risk my pregnancy either. So it’s unfortunate, in this case, there’s not much a person can do other than make sure that they’re keeping all the paperwork. And, you know, one thing that one of the billing experts I spoke with told me is that when you pay upfront, it makes things a lot harder. And in this case, like I said, she didn’t have a choice. But if there’s ever a way to get the bill on the back end, then there’s more of an incentive for the provider and the insurer to work together to get paid. But once the provider was paid, the insurer is not going to rush to reimburse the patient.

Rovner: And the provider is not going to rush to help the insurer figure out what to do. Ah well, another cautionary tale. Renu Rayasam, thank you so much.

Rayasam: Thank you.

Rovner: OK, we’re 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, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: Sure. I took a look at a story in The Wall Street Journal, “Weight-Loss Drugmakers Lobby for Medicare Coverage. Adding Ozempic, Mounjaro to federal plans could stoke sales.” It really documents well sort of the range of lobbying organizations and groups and where they’re sort of putting money to try and get Medicare to shift its policies and cover treatments for obesity, which was something that in the early creations of Part D was banned. And I think largely at that time it was because weight loss was seen as more of a cosmetic treatment than something that impacted health in the same way we appreciate now.

Rovner: And also, there wasn’t anything that worked.

Karlin-Smith: Right. The things that prior to this, the things that were available at different times were not very effective and in some cases turned out to be fairly unsafe. And of course, now we have treatments that seem to work very well for a number of people, but there’s a fear of just how much money it would cost Medicare. So the other interesting thing in this story is they talk about some lawmakers in Congress thinking about ways to maybe narrowly start opening the floodgates to access by potentially maybe limiting it to people with certain BMIs [body mass indexes] or things like that to maybe not have the initial cost hit they might be concerned about with it.

Rovner: And of course, whether Medicare covers something is going to be a big factor in whether private insurance covers something. So it’s not just the Medicare population I think we’re talking about here.

Karlin-Smith: Right. There’s already I know lobbying going on around that. My colleague wrote a story a few weeks ago about Cigna sort of pushing back about having those drugs be included potentially in, like, the essential health benefits of the ACA [Affordable Care Act]. So it’s going to be, yeah, a broader issue than just Medicare.

Rovner: Yeah, it’s a lot. I mean, I remember when the hepatitis C drugs came out and we were all so, you know, “Oh my God, how much this is going to cost, but it cures hepatitis C.” But I mean, that’s not nearly as many people as we’re talking about here. Jessie, why don’t you go next?

Hellmann: My stories from Politico. It’s called “Gun Violence Is Actually Worse in Red States. It’s Not Even Close.” It takes a weird twist that I was not expecting. Basically, the premise is about how gun deaths are actually higher in areas like Texas and Florida. They have higher per capita firearm deaths, despite messaging from some Republican governors that it’s actually, like, you know, cities like Chicago and New York that are like war zones, I think it’s the former president said. The author kind of makes an interesting argument I didn’t see coming about how he thinks who colonized these areas plays into kind of like the culture. And he argues that Puritans like had more self-restraint for the common good. And so areas like that have less firearm deaths where, you know, the Deep South people were — had like a belief in defending their honor, the honor of their families. So they were kind of more likely to take up arms. Not sure how I feel about this argument, but I thought it was an interesting story and an interesting argument, so —

Rovner: It is. It’s a really good story. Shefali.

Luthra: My story is from The Washington Post. It is called “The Conservative Campaign to Rewrite Child Labor Laws.” It’s a really great look at this Florida-based group called the Foundation for Government Accountability, which, despite its innocuous-sounding name, is trying to help states make it easier to employ children. This is really striking because we have seen, in states like Arkansas, efforts to make it easier to employ people younger than 16 in some cases, which is just really interesting to watch in these states that talk about protecting children and protecting life to, to then make it easier to, to employ kids.

Rovner: And in dangerous profess — in dangerous jobs sometimes. I mean, we’re not talking about flipping burgers.

Luthra: No, no. We’re talking about working in, like, in meat plants, for instance. But I think what’s also interesting is that this same organization that has made it easier to employ children has also tried to fight things like anti-poverty and try to fight things like Medicaid expansion, which is just sort of, if you’re thinking about it from an access-to-health standpoint, like, anti-poverty programs and Medicaid are shown to make people healthier. It’s sort of a really interesting look into a worldview that in many ways uses one kind of language but then advance the policy agenda that takes us in a different direction.

Rovner: Maybe we should go back to to Jessie’s story and depend on who settled that part of the country. We shall see. Speaking of history, my story’s from The Nation, and it’s called “The Poison Pill in the Mifepristone Lawsuit That Could Trigger a National Abortion Ban,” by Amy Littlefield. And it’s about the Comstock Act, which is a law from the Victorian era — it was passed in 1873 — that banned the mailing of, quote, “lewd materials,” including articles about abortion or contraception. A lot has been written about the Comstock Act of late because it was used to justify part of the opinion in the original mifepristone case out of Amarillo. But what this article makes clear is that reviving the law is actually a carefully calculated strategy to make abortion illegal everywhere. So this is not something that just popped up in this case. It’s a really interesting read. OK, that is our show. As always. if you enjoyed 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me, at least for now. I’m @jrovner. Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: I’m @SarahKarlin.

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann.

Rovner: Shefali.

Luthra: @Shefalil.

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

Credits

Francis Ying
Audio producer

Emmarie Huetteman
Editor

To hear all our podcasts, click here.

And subscribe to KFF Health News’ ‘What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, 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
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s 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.

Several states have begun the herculean task of redetermining how many of an estimated 85 million Americans currently receiving health coverage through the Medicaid program are still eligible. To receive federal covid-19 relief funds, states were required to keep enrollees covered during the pandemic. As many as 15 million people could be struck from the program’s rolls — many of whom are still eligible, or are eligible for other programs and need to be steered to them.

Meanwhile, the trustees of the Medicare program report that its Hospital Insurance Trust Fund should remain solvent until 2031, three years longer than it projected last year. That allows lawmakers to continue to put off what are likely to be politically unpleasant decisions, although they will eventually have to deal with Medicare’s underlying financial woes (and those of Social Security).

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Alice Miranda Ollstein of Politico, Amy Goldstein of The Washington Post, and Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Panelists

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Amy Goldstein
The Washington Post

@goldsteinamy

Read Amy's Stories

Rachel Roubein
The Washington Post

@rachel_roubein

Read Rachel's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Medicaid “unwinding” is likely to strip health coverage not just from millions of people who are no longer eligible for the program, but also from millions of people who still are. States are supposed to take their time reevaluating eligibility, but some are rushing to disenroll people.
• Another complication in an already complicated task is that many Medicaid workers hired during the pandemic have never actually redetermined Medicaid eligibility for anyone, because states had been required to keep people who qualified on the program.
• Grimly, some of the extra years of solvency gained in the Medicare Hospital Insurance Trust Fund are a result of pandemic deaths in the 65-and-older population.
• The Department of Health and Human Services has issued payment rules for Medicare Advantage Plans for 2024. The agency ended up conceding at least somewhat to private plans that for years have been receiving more than they should have from the U.S. Treasury. The new rules will work to shrink those overpayments going forward, but not try to recoup those from years past.
• The situation with “first-dollar coverage” of preventive services by commercial health plans is becoming a bit clearer following last week’s decision in Texas that part of the Affordable Care Act’s preventive services mandate is unconstitutional. Judge Reed O’Connor (who in 2018 ruled the entire health law unconstitutional) issued a nationwide stay on coverage requirements from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, saying it is a volunteer organization not subject to the oversight of the Health and Human Services secretary. The federal government is already appealing that ruling.
• But O’Connor’s decision is not quite as sweeping as first thought. He banned required coverage only of the task force’s recommendations made after March 23, 2010 — the day the ACA was signed into law. Earlier recommendations stand. O’Connor also did not strike preventive services recommended by the Health Resources and Services Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, since those agencies are overseen by an official appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
• In abortion news, the liberal candidate for a Supreme Court seat in Wisconsin, Janet Protasiewicz, defeated her conservative opponent to switch the majority on the court from 4-3 conservative to 4-3 liberal. That ideological shift is likely to preserve abortion rights in the state, and possibly stem the ability of the GOP legislature to continue to draw maps that favor Republicans.
• Meanwhile, states in the South are continuing to pull back on abortion access. The Florida legislature is moving rapidly on a bill that would ban the procedure after six weeks of pregnancy, while in North Carolina, a single legislator’s switch from Democrat to Republican has given the latter a supermajority in the legislature large enough to override any veto of the Democratic governor, Roy Cooper.

Also this week, Rovner interviews Daniel Chang, who reported and wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” feature about a child who had a medical bill sent to collections before he started to learn to read. If you have an outrageous or exorbitant medical bill you want 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: New York Magazine’s “The Shared Anti-Trans and Anti-Abortion Playbook,” by Irin Carmon.

Alice Miranda Ollstein: The Los Angeles Times’ “Horrifying Stories of Women Chased Down by the LAPD Abortion Squad Before Roe vs. Wade,” by Brittny Mejia.

Rachel Roubein: KHN’s “‘Hard to Get Sober Young’: Inside One of the Country’s Few Recovery High Schools,” by Stephanie Daniel of KUNC.

Amy Goldstein: The Washington Post’s “After Decades Under a Virus’s Shadow, He Now Lives Free of HIV,” by Mark Johnson.

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• Stat’s “Denied by AI: How Medicare Advantage Plans Use Algorithms to Cut Off Care for Seniors in Need,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman.
• ProPublica’s “How Cigna Saves Millions by Having Its Doctors Reject Claims Without Reading Them,” by Patrick Rucker, Maya Miller, and David Armstrong.
• The Atlantic’s “There’s No Such Thing as a Casual Interaction With Your Doctor Anymore,” by Zoya Qureshi.
• Politico’s “Democrats Want to Restore Roe. They’re Divided on Whether to Go Even Further,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Megan Messerly.

Click to Open the Transcript

Transcript: The ‘Unwinding’ of Medicaid

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The ‘Unwinding’ of MedicaidEpisode Number: 292Published: April 6, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser Health News. And I’m joined by some of the best and smartest health reporters in Washington. We’re taping this week on Thursday, April 6, 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: Good morning.

Rovner: Rachel Roubein of The Washington Post.

Rachel Roubein: Good morning.

Rovner: And we welcome back to the podcast, after a bit of a break, Amy Goldstein, also of The Washington Post.

Amy Goldstein: Good to be back.

Rovner: Later in this episode, we will have the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month” interview, with my colleague Daniel Chang. This month’s patient had a medical bill sent to collections before he was old enough to read. Impressive. But first, this week’s news. We’re going to start this week with Medicaid. During the pandemic, as most health policy nerds know, the federal government required states to keep anyone who qualified for the Medicaid program on the rolls, even if they became ineligible. But as of April 1, last week, states were free to start, quote, “unwinding” that Medicaid coverage. Now, states are facing the daunting task of determining who’s still eligible for the program and who can be removed and how those who are losing that Medicaid coverage can be steered to other programs, which they might be eligible. This is, to quote then-Vice President Biden when the ACA got passed, a BFD. So, what are some of the potential problems here? We’re talking about a lot of people, right, Amy? You wrote about this.

Goldstein: We are talking about a lot of people. It’s unclear how many people are going to lose Medicaid. But if you go by the Biden administration’s estimates, they’re thinking perhaps 15 million people out of 85 million people who are on Medicaid. So that’s a lot of low-income people who could end up without insurance or scrambling to see if they can find other insurance if they know to do that. And obviously, Medicaid is a joint federal-state enterprise, and states are the ones that carry it out. States set their eligibility rules to a large extent, and states have each had to write and submit to the federal government a plan for how they’re going to go about this unwinding. And the issue is that, with so many different plans, there are some things that CMS, Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, want states to do — for instance, to try as much as possible to check whether people are eligible by trying to match up with other records, say, from food stamps or wage records that the states might have.

Rovner: So basically, don’t count on them responding to a letter that says you need to reestablish your eligibility for this program.

Goldstein: Exactly. But how assertively states are going to 1) do that, and secondly, how hard they’re going to try to reach people in how many different ways — time will tell.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve noticed. I mean, some states are doing things like sending out special colored envelopes. It’s Easter week; we’ve got robin’s-egg blue envelopes. I think that was Massachusetts. Somebody’s sending out pink envelopes and magenta envelopes. But, you know, Alice, you covered when they were doing the Medicaid work requirements, and Arkansas discovered that the problem wasn’t so much that people weren’t working; it’s that people literally had trouble navigating the reporting system. And that’s kind of what we’re looking at writ large here, right?

Ollstein: Yeah. And the people who are most likely to be flagged for removal, they could be very low income. They could have unstable housing, move around a lot, stay with family. They might not receive mail at the address that was on file a few years ago. They might not have reliable phone or internet access to be reachable in those ways. So, as Amy said, it really makes a difference how much and what kind of an effort states make to let people know this is even happening. Because as we saw with work requirements and even just, like, the regular pre-pandemic periodic Medicaid eligibility checks, people fall through the cracks all of the time for reasons that are not their fault at all. And so, with this all happening at once, with so many more people than normal, the risk of that just grows.

Goldstein: And if I could just throw in one more complicating factor: If you think about what’s happened to workforces over the pandemic, a lot of the Medicaid agencies in the states have lost workers, and there are shortages in a lot of places. And people who’ve been hired in the last couple years have never had to do renewals or, as the lexicon goes, redeterminations before. So what’s going on inside the places where these decisions are going to have to get made for all these people is a bit of a problem in many, many states.

Roubein: I think how I’ve been sort of thinking about it in my mind is there’s 1) that issue of ensuring people who are still eligible don’t lose coverage. And then there’s the other issue of people who aren’t eligible for Medicaid anymore, but having states and navigators and groups help them find coverage elsewhere, whether that’s on the exchange, or some people might actually be now eligible for employer insurance. And some of that breakdown from that 15 million from that Department of Health and Human Services report — they had projected 6.8 million will lose Medicaid coverage despite being still eligible and that roughly 8.2 million people expected to leave the program because they’re no longer eligible for the program.

Rovner: And before somebody writes me and asks … [unintelligible] … I know states weren’t absolutely required to keep these people on the rolls, but they were required to keep these people on the rolls if they wanted the extra pandemic money. So every state did it. So every state basically has this task ahead of them to try to figure out how it works, and we shall keep tabs on this. I want to turn to Medicare. Last week, we got the annual report of Medicare’s trustees, which found, a little unexpectedly I think, that the program’s Hospital Insurance Trust Fund should continue to be able to pay all of its bills until 2031. That’s three years longer than it was projected to last year. Kind of grimly, apparently some of the improvement is due to many older people on Medicare dying during the covid pandemic. But this also does take some pressure off of lawmakers to fix what ails Medicare financially, right? They tend to only act when it’s within this four- or five-year window.

Ollstein: I would say yes and no. I haven’t seen a huge shift in the talk on Capitol Hill in response to this report. It’s only pushing back the deadline a few years. And it’s true, Congress only acts when there’s an imminent crisis and sometimes not even then. But I think the people really saying, “Hey, we need to do something,” are not going to stop saying that because of this.

Rovner: I’m going to put that on a T-shirt: Congress only acts when there’s an imminent crisis and sometimes not even then.

Roubein: Oh, yeah. I mean, I think that’s frustrated budget experts because Congress isn’t particularly doing anything in terms of financial solvency. And I mean, it’s really political, as we’ve seen — Biden during his State of the Union and how he got Republicans to talk about basically his ad-libbed Medicare conversation. But it’s kind of this tradition.

Rovner: “We’re not going to touch Medicare or Social Security.”

Roubein: Yeah. Off the table, this kind of tradition of “Mediscare.” No one wants to kind of be putting their foot out there with a proposal that would change Medicare.

Goldstein: This looming insolvency of Medicare is not at all a new problem. And ducking the problem is not a new phenomenon. Julie, you may remember, along with me, in the late 1990s, as a result of the big Balanced Budget Act of 1997 — this goes back a way — Congress created a bipartisan commission on the future of Medicare, and it was led by members of Congress. It was a big deal, it got a lot of attention, and it tried for many, many, many months to map out the future of Medicaid. And in the final analysis, it just dissolved in disagreements.

Rovner: Yeah, Medicare, not Medicaid,

Goldstein: Yes, Medicare.

Rovner: They did recommend a drug benefit that did eventually come to pass, but —

Goldstein: That’s right. But that was not the solvency solution.

Rovner: No, it was not. And I will say, my bookcase here at home is littered with reports of these various commissions that Congress punted to. It’s like, well, you guys solve it. And of course, no one ever has. We are still at this. But obviously this year, Rachel — you kind of hinted at this — some of this is going to come to a head because it’s part of the debt ceiling debate, that Congress is going to have to do something about the debt ceiling, lest the U.S. actually default on its debt. Republicans want to have spending cuts as part of this. They had said they wanted to do something about Medicare as part of this. Is there any update on that debate? We still seem to be in the “after you, Alphonse” portion of this, with both Biden saying he’s ready to talk to the Republicans and Republicans saying they’re ready to talk to Biden and nobody really talking to each other yet.

Roubein: Yeah, I mean, I think both sides are pretty dug in here at the moment. McCarthy a month or two ago had said no cuts to Medicare and Social Security. And Kevin McCarthy, I think it was the end of last month, had demanded a meeting with Biden. And then, you know, kind of the Biden team came back and said, “OK, well, we put out a budget. So, you know, Republicans need to produce their budget document.” And, you know, that’s kind of the political argument that we’ve been hearing for a little while here.

Rovner: Well, to paraphrase Alice, this crisis is about to get imminent, but not quite.

Goldstein: Before we leave Medicare, let me just make a couple more points. One is that this affects hospital care. So it’s not all parts of Medicare. And when the insolvency date comes — as you say, now projected to be 2031 — it’s not as if the program is going to be unable to pay any of its bills. This year its trustees said that it’s going to be able to pay 89% of the hospital benefits to which Medicare are entitled. The other point is, I mean, there’s a long-standing reason why politicians have been reluctant to fix something despite the many, many, many years of cries of, “We better fix it soon because it’s going to be harder to fix the longer we wait.” And that is that, older Americans — I mean, to state the obvious — are a very active voting bloc and they do not like the prospect of federal benefits being eroded. So there is politics behind why both parties have been reticent.

Rovner: Yes, there’s four ways to make Medicare solvent. You can pay providers less, which is what they usually end up doing, and they fight back. You can make the benefits less, either by having people wait longer to get on them or having to pay more for them. Or you can require the taxpayers to pay more money. So everything is kind of unpleasant here. And I think that’s why Congress would just as soon not do this. But while we still have Medicare teed up, we talked at some length a few weeks ago about Medicare Advantage plans, the private alternative to the government fee-for-service Medicare, and how those plans are technically being overpaid, which has prompted quite the TV advertising campaign from the plans, which I suspect very few people understand. There’s just all these sort of old people saying, “They’re going to cut our Medicare.” So the Department of Health and Human Services finally issued its Medicare Advantage payment rule for next year, and it appears to split the difference, stopping plans from continuing to overstate how sick their patients are, which is what’s responsible for a lot of the overpayments. But it limits the ability of the government to look back to recoup some of those overpayments that have been made. Is that basically a one-sentence explanation of what they’ve done here?

Roubein: The industry waged a pretty fierce battle here, but they phased in their plan. So essentially the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services had proposed switching to a more updated coding system, which included eliminating approximately 2,000 codes. And insurers claimed that this could lead to substantial pay cuts. The administration fiercely disputed that. But they did, as you say, kind of split the difference, in terms of saying, “OK, well, we’re going to phase in these changes over three years,” which CMS officials and other experts have said is something that they kind of tend to do when there is controversial policy.

Rovner: Right. When they don’t want to irritate anybody too much, although I did notice that there’s also some rules about deceptive advertising for Medicare Advantage plans. So maybe it’ll make me stop screaming at the TV when these ads come on. Moving along, last week we were able to bring you the breaking news about the preventive care ruling out of Texas from federal District Judge Reed O’Connor. What else have we learned since those first breaking hours? I know the decision doesn’t cover preventive care recommended by groups that report directly to someone in the federal government who is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate — at least it doesn’t at the moment. But it only limits preventive care that’s recommended by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. But it could still be expanded at the appeals level, right?

Goldstein: That’s right. This affects a lot of people: everybody with private health insurance, which is estimated by federal health officials to be about 150 million people. It’s not killing all free preventive services. It’s ending the mandate that they’re provided at no cost to consumers for those preventive services that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force has either defined or updated since the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2010. So that leaves intact a few important categories of things: 1) earlier preventive services, like mammograms, which were required to be covered for free before, are still intact. It also leaves intact services that are required by two different parts of HHS. Within HRSA [Health Resources and Services Administration], they have jurisdiction over women’s health services, so that’s why things like contraception are not touched by — at the moment, as you say — by this court ruling. And similarly, an advisory body to the CDC, which has jurisdiction over vaccinations, whether it’s childhood vaccinations, covid vaccinations — so those aren’t touched. But what’s happened in the past week is, predictably, the day after Judge O’Connor — who, as I’m sure you discussed last week, was the same judge who a few years ago held that the entire ACA was unconstitutional and was ultimately overruled by the Supreme Court — anyhow, O’Connor last week said this applies nationwide, not just to places where the plaintiffs are. And the next day, the Biden administration, the Justice Department, very quickly filed a notice of appeal. It was one paragraph. It wasn’t laying out the appeal, but it was getting on the record that the administration is going to appeal to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is a conservative circuit based in New Orleans that hasn’t been entirely friendly to the ACA in the past. What the administration did not yet do is say that it wants to stay the judge’s ruling, but it’s very likely that that’s going to be requested as well.

Rovner: Even if the judge’s ruling doesn’t get stayed, it’s likely to have very little immediate impact, right? Because insurance contracts are already kind of set for the year. If insurers wanted to stop covering this — and they’re probably not going to stop covering it — but if they wanted to make it — institute copays or say this is part of your deductible — they’re likely not to do that until the next plan year, right? Alice, I see you nodding.

Ollstein: Yeah, but that isn’t uniform. So the folks I talked to said that, while most plans are baked in for the year and what we really should be looking for is when the new 2024 things start coming out in the summer into the fall, that’s what we should be watching in terms of, you know, what could change there. But that isn’t uniform. It’s possible that some plans could change earlier. There are all different kinds of possibilities, but I was kind of surprised to see the Biden administration not rush to file an appeal right away. They filed a notice of appeal, but they haven’t actually filed the appeal yet or asked for the stay, but I think that is stemming from this not being seen as an imminent threat to people’s health coverage. The piece of it I’ve really been interested in is the impact on HIV and STDs, because, like Amy said, a lot of the basic cancer screenings and other things will continue to be protected in some form because they were recommended prior to 2010. But a lot of the STD and HIV stuff is a lot more recent, so it’s a lot more vulnerable to being rolled back, and plans and employers — for a lot of these things — covering preventive services for free with no out-of-pocket costs is good; it’s really cheap to cover and it prevents a lot of expensive care down the road. But that’s sort of less true with some of these things. PrEP, the HIV prevention drug, is really expensive. A lot of the lab costs for STD testing are still expensive. And so you could see folks’ plans and employers wanting to save money by shifting some of those costs to patients. And public health experts are worried about that.

Rovner: I think another quirk of this that we didn’t realize right away is what the decision says is that it only affects USPSTF rulings that were made after the date that the Affordable Care Act was signed, March 23, 2010. But what that ends up doing is leaving in effect prior recommendations that are not necessarily up to date. So you could end up rolling back to things that medical experts no longer think is the appropriate interval or type of preventive service being required. And then, of course, you have the insurers who are going to be required to put out their bids for next year in the coming months. Now, this is not the first time insurers have had to stab in the dark at what they think the rules are going to be and how much they’re going to want to charge for that. So we’re having yet another round of insurers kind of having to throw their hands out and throw darts against the wall, right?

Goldstein: Yes. And this — Alice mentioned employers are a big constituency in this. There is some survey evidence, I mean not terribly systematic survey evidence, but a little bit of survey evidence that was done last fall with this case pending, that showed that most insurers, a high, high proportion of insurers, wanted to keep these benefits. So that may influence, as you’re saying, Julie, what the bids come in looking like while this is all still kind of murky.

Rovner: Yeah, we know it’s popular and we know in most cases it’s relatively cheap. So one would assume that this decision might not have too much impact, although as I sort of alluded to, and I haven’t heard whether this is happening yet, the plaintiffs could also appeal because they didn’t get everything they wanted. They also wanted to have the women’s health stuff out of HRSA and the immunization stuff out of CDC stayed as, you know — or the requirements gotten rid of, and the judge did not do that. So one presumes they could also appeal and we would see what happens at the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. But I think everybody assumes at this point that it’s going to end up at the Supreme Court, yes? I see nods all around. Oh, boy. I can’t wait. All right. Well, let’s turn to abortion. The big abortion news this week comes from Wisconsin in a race for state Supreme Court, of all things, which was supposed to be nonpartisan or technically was nonpartisan. Still, the strong showing by the judge who was associated with the liberal side of the ledger could have some major impact, right? This was expected to be a very close race, and it really wasn’t.

Ollstein: No, it wasn’t close at all. The progressive candidate really took it away, and the campaign really heavily focused on abortion. This is because the state’s ban, which has been in place, you know, since long before Roe was enacted, is likely to come before the court. But the implications go way beyond that. This could change how the legislature makeup is in the future because of challenges to the gerrymandered state maps. That could, you know, open the door to Medicaid expansion and all kinds of other things, you know, related to abortion, related to all kinds of things. Because right now, you know, you have a Democratic governor who is on his second term who can’t really do very much because of the state legislature. So this could have tons and tons of repercussions going forward in Wisconsin.

Rovner: And we should point out, because I meant to say, this election flipped the state Supreme Court from 4-3 conservative to 4-3 liberal.

Roubein: It was really interesting because you saw the liberal candidate, Janet Protasiewicz, really leaning into abortion rights. And, you know, obviously she’s a judge, but in multiple ads from her campaign it said, you know, women should have the freedom to make their own decisions on abortion. That was a quote from the ads. And now, you know, kind of, she was … [unintelligible] … from the other side, like, can she be impartial when she rules? And, you know, she said like, “No, I have not promised any of these major groups, Emily’s List, etc., that are backing me, how I will rule.” But, you know, we did see the judge, as she called it, her personal beliefs and be really open about that.

Rovner: And her opponent was also pretty open about it, too. He was a very conservative guy who was pretty much promising to go down the line with what the conservatives wanted. Alice, you were about to say something.

Ollstein: Yeah, well, it’s been fascinating now that we’re a day out from the election results. There is sort of a freakout going on on the right about it and about what it means for abortion specifically. And you’re seeing a lot of very prominent people on the right publicly saying, “We have a message on abortion that voters don’t like and we need to change it right now.” People are saying that the right needs to moderate and stop pushing for near-total bans with no exceptions, which is going on in a lot of states right now. That debate was already happening on the right, but I think this just pours fuel on it. I think with the Florida governor about to be confronted with whether or not to sign a six-week ban, this really is going to squeeze a lot of people.

Rovner: Yes, I feel very smug about my extra credit story from last week, which was the Rebecca Traister long read in New York Magazine about how Democrats have underestimated how winning an issue abortion may be. And I saw her sort of also smugly tweeting late Tuesday night. It’s like, “See, I’m telling you this.” While the Upper Midwest may be getting more supportive of abortion rights, also this week Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer formally signed the repeal of the state’s nearly hundred-year-old pre-Roe ban. But in the South, the trend is going the other way, as you mentioned, Alice. Florida’s legislature is moving quickly on a six-week abortion ban, while in North Carolina a Democratic state legislator who ran on abortion rights is switching parties, giving the Republicans there a supermajority that will let them override the Democratic governor’s vetoes. Are we looking at, fairly imminent, abortion being unavailable throughout the South?

Roubein: I think Florida, North Carolina, Nebraska is also considering a similar limit — were all states that in the two months after Roe v. Wade was overturned — were states that saw an increase in abortions. I think North Carolina is particularly interesting because in early February all the Democrats had signed on to a bill to codify Roe v. Wade. But I was reporting at the time with my colleague Caroline Kitchener on this, and she talked to one of the Democrats there, who said, well — after he signed on to it — like, “Well, that doesn’t preclude me from voting for abortion restrictions.” He had said this is, quote, “This is still the first quarter.” So I think even before we saw the state Democrat switch to Republican, you know, what happened in North Carolina where there is a Democratic governor was an open question even beforehand.

Rovner: Yeah, this reminds me of Virginia trying to expand Medicaid, and there’s constantly this sort of one member, another member. I mean, it literally didn’t happen until the last vote allowed it to happen, I think.

Ollstein: Yeah. I mean, this also really puts a spotlight on the tactic of doing a ballot referendum on abortion, because —

Rovner: That was my next question, Alice.

Ollstein: Ta-da.

Rovner: Tell us about your story about that.

Ollstein: The relation to this is, yes, you have a lot of Republican lawmakers and some Democrats, or some former Democrats, as we’ve seen, who are moving very aggressively to continue to pass abortion restrictions, whether it’s total bans or something short of that. But the referendums often show that that doesn’t necessarily reflect all of the Republican electorate, which is not always aligned with their representatives on this issue. And based on the results of the six referendums last year in which the pro-abortion-rights side won all six out of six, folks are hoping to get that going in more states this year, and it’s already underway — not as much in the South, and not every state can do a referendum legally. It varies state to state what the rules are, but where it’s possible, people are trying to do it. My story this week reported on an internal fight on the left about how to go about it. So most of the referendums that are moving forward in these red and purple states right now, trying to get on the ballot in the next few years, say that basically they would only restore the protections of Roe v. Wade, so only protect abortion up to the point of fetal viability. And you have a lot of folks — you know, medical groups, activists — saying, Why are we doing that? Why are we sort of pre-compromising? We keep seeing over and over at the ballot box this is a winning issue; why aren’t we being bold? Like the right is going for total bans. Why aren’t we going for total legalization? But the folks who want the viability limit in there are saying, Look, we want to put something forward that we know is going to pass. We’ve done research and focus groups and polling. You know, this is the way we think is smartest to go. Plus, you know, the vast majority of abortions take place prior to viability anyways. And right now we have no abortion at all. So isn’t legalizing most better than nothing? And so it’s a really interesting debate.

Rovner: It’s literally the mirror image of the debate that’s going on on the right, which has been happening over the years. It’s just that it’s all kind of, you know — now that we’re in this sort of odd place — it’s all magnified. So, you know, the right is trying to decide between do we restrict abortion a little or do we just allow, you know, the end of Roe v. Wade and states to make up their mind? Or do we go for a national ban? Where the left is saying, do we just want to bring things back to where they were when we had Roe, or do we want to go further and allow and basically have public funding and sort of other things to assure what they call reproductive justice? So obviously, this fight is going to continue on both sides.

Goldstein: Let me just say that this tension between the electorate and lawmakers in fairly conservative states is a real echo of what has happened over the years with Medicaid expansion, when there have been several states in which legislators were really dug in that they weren’t going to expand Medicaid under the ACA, and public ballot initiative and it expanded. So it’s sort of turning to the exact same tactic.

Rovner: That’s right. And again, in a lot of these Republican states, the voters were very happy to expand Medicaid. So that, yes, we’ve seen this particular book before. Well, before we go, there were a couple of stories that got kicked over from last week when we had our breaking news. But I really wanted to mention about artificial intelligence in health care or at least in health insurance. One story from ProPublica details how the health insurance giant Cigna is using an algorithm to reject thousands of claims for care that’s kind of between cheap and very expensive, and then letting medical director physicians basically batch-approve those rejections on the theory, likely correct, that even if most of the care is medically appropriate, most people won’t bother to appeal a bill of just a couple of hundred dollars and will just pay it. The other story, from Stat News, is kind of strikingly similar. It’s about a Medicare Advantage plan that’s using AI to pinpoint the exact moment it can stop paying for some care, particularly expensive care, in a hospital or nursing home. Now, it would appear that the Medicare Advantage case is more egregious because it seeks to actually cut off care, where Cigna is just denying payment after the fact. But it seemed to make it pretty clear that while a) it might improve care and save money, sometimes it’s just saving money for people other than the patients, right? That’s what it certainly looks like in these cases.

Ollstein: I mean, as we’ve seen with other uses of algorithms, algorithms reflect the values of the people creating the algorithms. And you say, “Oh, it’s a robot, it’s completely impartial.” Why are there racial discrimination implications then? But we do keep seeing this and it’s like, it was created by humans, it’s going to have human failings and require oversight and accountability mechanisms.

Rovner: Yeah. And finally, one more story from the “be careful what you wish for.” There’s a story in The Atlantic this month about the downside of telehealth that at least some of us saw coming. Now that doctors can charge for and be reimbursed for virtual care by video, more and more doctors are starting to charge for other forms of communication that used to be free, like telephone calls and emails. Now, lawyers have long charged for phone calls advising clients. I always kind of wondered why doctors didn’t. I guess I have my answer now. Is this another case of anything — that any technology that’s good is probably also going to have its downsides?

Goldstein: Well, it’s also a reflection that fewer and fewer doctors work on their own. They’re working for health systems that have the bottom line in mind, which is not to say they only have the bottom line in mind, but they’re less autonomous in terms of their pricing policies.

Rovner: And yeah, are being asked to see more patients, so it takes more time to actually, you know — one of the interesting things in this in the story was that a phone call may only be five minutes for you, but it’s probably 20 minutes for your doctor who has to go make a notation in your chart and maybe call in a prescription. And it’s more than just the quick phone call for the doctor. I think this is something that used to be a courtesy and now it’s just a charge. All right, well, that is this week’s news. Now we will play my “Bill of the Month” interview with Daniel Chang and then we’ll come back with our extra credit. We are pleased to welcome to the podcast Daniel Chang, who reported and wrote the latest KHN-NPR “Bill of the Month.” Daniel, welcome to “What the Health?”

Daniel Chang: Hi, Julie. I’m glad to be here.

Rovner: So this month’s patient wasn’t even old enough for kindergarten when he got a medical bill sent to collection for care he didn’t even receive. Who is this kid? Why did he need medical care? And this is very impressive, I’ve got to say.

Chang: So, at the time — this happened last Memorial Day weekend — Keeling McLin was his name, and he was 4 years old. And according to his mom, Sara McLin, who’s a dentist in central Florida, she had just finished cooking something on the stove and Keeling had gotten up to get something. And on his way down he put his hand on the hot stove. That was pretty painful, from what she described. And so she took him to the emergency room for care.

Rovner: First she took him to urgent care, right?

Chang: Well, it was a stand-alone emergency room, so it’s one of those hybrid ones, I guess you might call it. No inpatient, of course.

Rovner: And therein is about to be our problem. So Mom did everything right here, right? She made sure that she went to a facility in her network, and then they sent her off to another hospital. But the problem is, where is the first visit, right?

Chang: Correct. The first visit was a problem. It was part of the HCA system. And they didn’t have, I guess, the resources there to treat Keeling’s burn. So they referred him to a HCA hospital with a burn center, which was about a 90-minute drive away from the stand-alone ER.

Rovner: And they managed to deal with the burn, right? The kid’s OK.

Chang: They did. He’s OK. It turned out to be not as bad as suspected. And Sara McLin told me that they drained his blisters, wrapped his hand, and sent her home with instructions on how to care for it. And she didn’t think about it again.

Rovner: Until she got the bill.

Chang: Exactly.

Rovner: This gets pretty Kafkaesque, doesn’t it? What were the bills here?

Chang: So, the first bill that she received was from the physician provider group; Envision Healthcare employed the physician in the stand-alone emergency room. That bill was for about $72. She called her insurer, which was UnitedHealthcare, and they told her that — essentially not to worry about it. And the bill itself is labeled as a surprise out-of-network bill, although when I reached out to Envision Healthcare, they said that it was not, it was part of her cost sharing. In any case, that bill didn’t cause her any problems. Shortly after that, she got a bill from the stand-alone emergency room, and this bill was considerably higher, although her share was about $129. But the reason that she was a little confused about this is because she said that the physician at the stand-alone emergency room told her, “You know what, this won’t even count as a visit because we can’t do anything for him.” So she left with that thought. And later on she said she wished she had gotten that in writing, but that was the problem bill.

Rovner: Yes. So what eventually happened?

Chang: So what eventually happened is that the bill was in Keeling’s name and it did not include his mom or his dad on there. It was just simply to Keeling. And for reasons that HCA didn’t explain, and we can’t explain, Envision got his insurance information correct, but HCA had him as an uninsured person responsible for his own bills. And it’s odd because his date of birth is on that bill. And you would think that somewhere along the line someone would catch that. But they didn’t. And so what happened is that Sara fell into this sort of twilight zone where she couldn’t speak to anyone about the bill because it wasn’t in her name. And so, according to her conversations with folks at HCA and later at Medicredit, they couldn’t talk to her because her name wasn’t on the bill. So this was the one thing that she was trying to get resolved. And she tried for months and got nowhere, which is when she reached out to us.

Rovner: And as you point out, that Medicredit is the collections agency, right? This 5-year-old’s bill got sent to collections.

Chang: That’s correct. That just kind of compounded the frustration because Sara had worked for a couple of months to get HCA to add her name onto the bill. And she had even written them a letter, she says, and they told her they were going to do it and she was waiting for the bill. But then the next letter she got was from the collection agency, for the same amount and with the same problem. Her name wasn’t on the bill. So when she called the collection agency to try to dispute the bill, they told her, “Sorry, we can’t talk to you. You’re not the authorized representative on this bill.”

Rovner: It feels like the biggest problem here is not so much that mistakes happen. They do. Obviously, they’ve happened a lot in our “Bill of the Month” series. But they are so very hard to fix — I mean, even when you say, “Look, this is a 5-year-old.”

Chang: I agree. It sounded so frustrating. And I think, ultimately, of course, that’s why she reached out to us. But she tried repeatedly and not only did she tell me this, but the bills that she provided to us had a lot of her handwritten notes in the margins and the dates that she had spoken to individuals. And it just — it’s really hard. None of the experts that we spoke with could understand why HCA couldn’t just simply fix this before they sent it to collections. And HCA acknowledged the error, and they apologized to her. And they ultimately canceled the debt. But the system clearly doesn’t seem to work in favor of patients when you have these sort of odd complications that really they didn’t have anything to do with what she owed or what they said she owed; it was all a matter of identification.

Rovner: So is there anything she could have done differently? I’m not saying, you know — she obviously couldn’t prevent the mistake from being made. But was there some better way for her to try to navigate this?

Chang: You know, neither the insurer or the providers gave us an explanation of what she could have done differently or what individuals who find themselves in a similar position could do. And so I think she did everything that she reasonably could, short of perhaps hiring an attorney? I’m not sure; maybe that would have worked, but you shouldn’t have to go to that length and that cost just to get your name on your minor child’s bill so that you can take care of it and speak to the people who say you owe them the money. It’s just — it’s crazy.

Rovner: And she’s a dentist, so she’s a health care professional. She obviously had some, you know, knowledge of the system and how it works. And even she had trouble —

Chang: That’s correct.

Rovner: — getting it done. So I guess basically the lesson is, watch your bills closely and be ready to take action.

Chang: And potentially, when I think about this situation, ensuring perhaps that the stand-alone ER had all of the information, but I can also see where she was told that, “Look, this doesn’t even count as a visit. We couldn’t treat him here. You’ve got to take him to the burn center. We won’t count this as a visit.” I think she left comfortable in that knowledge, only to realize later that, oops, it wasn’t that way. Yeah.

Rovner: Get it all in writing.

Chang: Yes.

Rovner: Daniel Chang, thank you so much.

Chang: You’re very welcome. Thanks for having me on.

Rovner: OK, we’re 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 khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Alice, why don’t you go first this week?

Ollstein: Sure. So I picked a really fascinating history piece from the LA Times by Brittny Mejia, and it’s about what law enforcement’s role was pre-Roe v. Wade in cracking down on illegal abortions. All abortions were illegal. And it just really vividly describes how cops would conduct raids on doctors who were operating clandestinely and performing abortions, you know, the tactics they would use. It was just really fascinating. And so I think it’s worth resurfacing this history, thinking, OK, so abortion is illegal again; what does enforcement look like? What could enforcement look like? And this is a very disturbing picture of what it used to look like.

Rovner: Amy, you have a story that’s kind of related to Alice’s story, also looking at history, but updated.

Goldstein: That’s right. I chose a story by my colleague at the Post, Marc Johnson, with the headline, “After Decades Under a Virus’s Shadow, He Now Lives Free of HIV.” And it’s an interview with one of only five people in the world who’ve had stem cell transplants that have cured them of cancer but also gotten rid of any evidence of HIV in their bodies. And it’s not a hugely long story, but it’s just a beautiful trajectory reminding us of what the early bad world of AIDS was, with this individual’s friends dying all around him in San Francisco, to the decades when he was on a lot of AIDS drugs, and suddenly being unexpectedly liberated from all that. It’s a good read.

Rovner: Yeah, it is. Rachel.

Roubein: My extra credit is titled “‘Hard to Get Sober Young’: Inside One of the Country’s Few Recovery High Schools,” by Stephanie Daniel of KUNC. And basically it takes the reader inside a Denver recovery high school, which mixes high school education with treatment for drug and alcohol addiction. And so this high school in Colorado — it’s one of 43 nationwide, and she kind of details the history of recovery high schools, which, the first one opened up in Silver Spring, Maryland, in 1979. And she also kind of goes through what I thought was interesting, which was kind of, the challenges of recovery high schools, most being publicly funded charter or alternative schools, and they have a higher ratio of mental health and recovery personnel, so there’s really not a ton of them nationwide.

Rovner: I had never heard of them until I saw this story. It was really interesting. Well, for the second week in a row, my story is from New York Magazine. It’s by Irin Carmon, and it’s called “The Shared Anti-Trans and Anti-Abortion Playbook.” And she points out that not only are there many of the same people fighting abortion who are also fighting trans health care, but there’s also a similarly long-term strategy, as Irin wrote. They’re focusing on youth first, because they understand that it’s much harder to convince the public to restrict the lives of adults. As someone who’s spent years covering the fight over whether or not teen girls should be able to access sex education, birth control, or abortion, it does feel familiar. OK, that is our show for this week. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. Also, as always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth@kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Rachel?

Roubein: @rachel_roubein.

Rovner: Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein.

Rovner: Amy?

Goldstein: @goldsteinamy.

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 KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) said he decided to introduce a bill in the House late last week after KHN’s reporting revealed what he called a “shocking loophole.”

“The ability of fraudsters to continue billing Medicare for services is outrageous,” Doggett said. “This is an obvious correction that is needed to safeguard our system. Wherever there are large amounts of government money available, someone tries to steal it.”

KHN found a laundry list of weaknesses that allows people accused or convicted of fraud to easily sidestep bans imposed by federal officials. Among those gaps is the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ lack of authority to deny or revoke National Provider Identifier, or NPI, numbers after federal regulators have prohibited a person or business from receiving payments from government programs.

Doctors, nurses, other practitioners, and health businesses use the unique, 10-digit NPI numbers to bill and file claims with insurers and others, including Medicare and Medicaid.

Taking away the NPI would “be equivalent of prohibiting a practitioner from practicing in total,” Dara Corrigan, director of CMS’ Center for Program Integrity, wrote in an email response to questions about KHN’s investigation. CMS declined to comment on Doggett’s proposed legislation.

The bill, HR 1745, would give CMS the authority to deactivate NPIs tied to anyone convicted of waste, fraud, or abuse and whose name appears on the exclusions list kept by the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The proposed law would also require CMS to implement recommendations that the inspector general has made to improve NPI reporting and provider transparency.

“This strikes me as what should be an easy bipartisan measure,” Doggett said, adding that he had presented the bill in a face-to-face meeting with Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee. Doggett also alerted that panel’s health subcommittee chair, Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.).

“They both talk about the need to eliminate fraud, and this is one modest but important way to do it,” Doggett said. Neither Smith’s nor Buchanan’s offices responded to requests for comment.

The OIG declined to comment.

Former Justice Department officials told KHN that repeat violators are savvy and find ways to circumvent the system. KHN examined a sample of 300 health care business owners and executives who are among more than 1,600 on the OIG’s exclusion list since January 2017. Journalists reviewed court and property records, social media, and other publicly available documents.

KHN found:

• Eight people appeared to be serving or served in roles that could violate their bans.
• Six transferred control of a business to family or household members.
• Nine had previous, unrelated felony or fraud convictions, and went on to defraud the health care system.
• And seven were repeat violators, some of whom raked in tens of millions of federal health care dollars before getting caught by officials after a prior exclusion.

Doggett’s bill is “a pretty smart step in the right direction in fixing this issue,” said John Kelly, a former assistant chief of health care fraud at the Department of Justice who is now a partner for the law firm Barnes & Thornburg. Kelly had previously recommended that NPIs should be “essentially wiped clean” when a person is on the exclusions list.

Kelly, who confirmed that Doggett’s office reached out to him after KHN’s investigation was published in December, said taking the NPI number away “certainly doesn’t eliminate all risk” but it’s a move “in the right direction.”

“If you want to bill Medicare, you have to have a valid NPI,” Kelly said.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s 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.

Medicare Advantage, the private-sector alternative to original Medicare, now enrolls nearly half of all Medicare beneficiaries. But it remains controversial because — while most of its subscribers like the extra benefits many plans provide — the program frequently costs the federal government more than if those seniors remained in the fully public program. That controversy is becoming political, as the Biden administration tries to rein in some of those payments without being accused of “cutting” Medicare.

Meanwhile, President Joe Biden has signed a bill to declassify U.S. intelligence about the possible origin of covid-19 in China. And new evidence has emerged potentially linking the virus to raccoon dogs at an animal market in Wuhan, where the virus reportedly first took hold.

This week’s panelists are Julie Rovner of KHN, Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times, Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call, and Joanne Kenen of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico.

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Joanne Kenen
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and Politico

@JoanneKenen

Read Joanne's stories

Margot Sanger-Katz
The New York Times

@sangerkatz

Read Margot's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The Biden administration recently changed the formula used to calculate how much the federal government pays private Medicare Advantage plans to care for patients with serious conditions, amid allegations that many of the health plans overcharge or even defraud the government. Major insurers are making no secret about how lucrative the program can be: Humana recently said it would leave the commercial insurance market and focus on government-funded programs, like its booming Medicare Advantage plans.
• The formula change is intended to rein in excess spending on Medicare — a huge, costly program at risk of insolvency — yet it has triggered a lobbying blitz, including a vigorous letter-writing campaign in support of the popular Medicare Advantage program. On Capitol Hill, though, party leaders have not stepped up to defend private insurers as aggressively as they have in the past. But the 2024 campaign season could hear the parties trading accusations over whether Biden cut Medicare or, conversely, protected it.
• The latest maternal mortality rates released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention show the problem continued to worsen during the pandemic. Many states have extended Medicaid coverage for a full year after women give birth, in an effort to improve care during that higher-risk period. But other problems limit access to postpartum care. During the pandemic, some women did not get prenatal care. And after the fall of Roe v. Wade, some states are having trouble securing providers — including one rural Idaho hospital, which announced it will stop delivering babies.
• The federal government will soon declassify intelligence related to the origins of the covid pandemic. In the United States, the fight over what started the pandemic has largely morphed into an issue of political identity, with Republicans favoring the notion that a Chinese lab leak started the global health crisis that killed millions, while Democrats are more likely to believe it was animal transmission tied to a wet market.
• And in drug price news, Sanofi has become the third major insulin maker (of three) to announce it will reduce the price on some of its insulin products ahead of a U.S. government policy change next year that could have cost the company.

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

Julie Rovner: Vice News’ “Inside the Private Group Where Parents Give Ivermectin to Kids With Autism,” by David Gilbert

Jessie Hellmann: The Washington Post’s “Senior Care Is Crushingly Expensive. Boomers Aren’t Ready,” by Christopher Rowland

Joanne Kenen: The New Yorker’s “Will the Ozempic Era Change How We Think About Being Fat and Being Thin?” by Jia Tolentino

Margot Sanger-Katz: Slate’s “You Know What? I’m Not Doing This Anymore,” by Sophie Novack

Also mentioned on this week’s podcast:

• Coverage by KHN’s Fred Schulte on Medicare Advantage: https://khn.org/news/author/fred-schulte/
• The New York Times’ “Biden Plan to Cut Billions in Medicare Fraud Ignites Lobbying Frenzy,” by Reed Abelson and Margot Sanger-Katz
• The CDC’s “Maternal Mortality Rates in the United States, 2021,” by Donna L. Hoyert

Click to open the transcript

Transcript: The Policy, and Politics, of Medicare Advantage

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: The Policy, and Politics, of Medicare AdvantageEpisode Number: 290Published: March 23, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser 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 23, at 10:30 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 Margot Sanger-Katz of The New York Times.

Margot Sanger-Katz: Good morning, everybody.

Rovner: Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hello.

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

Joanne Kenen: Hi, everybody.

Rovner: So a happy 13th birthday to the Affordable Care Act, which President Obama signed just a couple of hundred feet from where I am sitting now. But there’s lots of other health news, so we’re going to dive right in. I want to start this week with Medicare Advantage, the private Medicare alternative that now enrolls more than half of all Medicare beneficiaries. If you watch cable TV or pretty much any TV at all, you have likely seen the dueling ads. They’re part of a multimillion-dollar lobbying campaign, like this ad from the Better Medicare Alliance, made up of mostly Medicare Advantage insurers.

Excerpt from ad set in a bowling alley:Bowler 1: They might cut Medicare Advantage.Bowler 2: C’mon!Bowler 1: They’re talking about it in Washington.Bowler 2: Cut Medicare Advantage? Higher premiums? With inflation already so high?Bowler 3: That’s nuts!

Rovner: Or this one from the consumer advocacy group Protect Our Care.

Excerpt from ad: Insurance companies are lying to America’s seniors about cuts to Medicare Advantage benefits. Experts agree what they are saying is just plain false. Health insurance companies are simply trying to stop cuts to their sky-high profits, CEO salaries, and bonuses.

Rovner: I swear, Margot, I pulled the clip from that first ad before you also used it in your excellent story published Wednesday. So — and I know this is a hugely complicated issue that we’re going to try to take apart at least a little bit — but, who’s right here? Those who are saying that Medicare Advantage is about to be cut or those who were saying not really.

Sanger-Katz: I think actually they are both a little bit right. The Biden administration has made a very technical change to the formula that pays these private plans extra money when they sign up patients who have serious medical diagnoses. And this is, of course, a response to an earlier problem. It used to be Medicare Advantage plans — those are the private plans that are an alternative to the government Medicare program. It used to be that they just got a flat fee for everyone that they signed up. That was about what it costs on average to take care of someone in Medicare. And what happened is that the plans then had a huge incentive to only sign up healthy people. And so that’s what they tried to do. And they marketed to healthy people by doing things like including gym benefits in the health insurance plan or this famous, and perhaps apocryphal, example of, you know, locating the enrollment office on the third story of a building with no elevators so only people who could get up the stairs would be able to sign up for the plan. And so, there was this policy response where it said, well, you know, sicker people are more expensive to take care of, and we want these plans to not just be cherry-picking all of the healthiest people. And so they created this system that basically pays extra to the plans. If you have congestive heart failure, if you have cancer, or if you have diabetes, then your health plan gets, like, a little bonus. But what we have seen over the course of the life of this program is that this has created enormous incentives for the plans to diagnose their customers with as many diseases as possible, regardless of the strength of the evidence that they have. And there is a whole industry of data-mining operations that go through people’s medical records, of home health agencies that go into people’s homes just to diagnose them with more illnesses. And there are just absolutely widespread — from, like, every possible authoritative source that you can think of — allegations of overcharging of the federal government through this program and also of fraud. Not every insurance plan in the country in this program has been accused of fraud, but quite a lot of them have, including most of the largest players. And they are facing lawsuits in federal court for basically scamming Medicare by saying that their people are too sick.

Rovner: So I want to go back to the beginning or, really, the middle. Medicare has offered beneficiaries the option of enrolling in a private managed-care plan instead of what’s known as traditional Medicare, where patients can go to just about any doctor or hospital, pretty much from the inception of the program and pretty broadly since the Reagan administration in the early 1980s. They were originally called Medicare risk plans. Health plans almost exclusively, HMOs, said they could provide the same care more efficiently by, quote, “managing care,” and could still make a profit even if the government paid them 5% less than the average patient in traditional Medicare in that area. So it was a good deal all around. The plans were making money. The government was saving money. Yeah, that was a very long time ago. Since then, Congress has significantly raised what it pays the plans with the stipulation that they use the excess funds to either reduce premiums or add benefits, mostly dental, vision, and hearing care. Still, however, a lot of insurers are, to use a technical term, raking it in. In fact, Humana last month announced that it was going to pull out of the commercial insurance market in order to concentrate on its much more lucrative Medicare Advantage business. So, how are these companies both providing more benefits and making big profits? I know that fraud is part of it. Jessie, where’s all this money coming from?

Hellmann: Like Margot said … I think a lot of it has to do with the upcoding that they do. They’re just able to find all of these diagnoses from their enrollees, either through chart reviews … some have done home health visits where they send in people to interview patients and ask about their health history without really providing any care. So that’s another way. And it’s just become, like, a really lucrative business practice for them. But like Margot said, they’ve just been facing more and more scrutiny and lawsuits over the way that they do this.

Rovner: They deny care, too, right? That has been a long-standing issue that people who go into these plans and then get sick sometimes have trouble getting the care that they need.

Hellmann: Medicare Advantage plans do something called prior authorization, where they require providers submit requests for something to be covered before they’ll pay for it. They do this with a lot of more costly things, like imaging or like nursing home stays, which are obviously very expensive. And so if they can deny these claims and maybe get a beneficiary to do something that is cheaper before moving onto these more costly things, then that obviously saves some money. But that’s something else that the Biden administration has been looking more closely at. They’ve proposed a few rules that would just say that Medicare Advantage plans have to cover things that are covered by Medicare. They can’t just deny care for something based on their own proprietary models of deciding whether something is medically necessary or not.

Kenen: It’s complicated because sometimes there are patients that ask for things that they actually don’t need. You know, something they have seen on TV or they heard their neighbor had or whatever, and that [there’s] actually something more conservative [that can be done]. Back surgery is the famous example. You know, sometimes physical therapy and other treatments will do better than an $80,000 back surgery. But there’s a difference between saying, “Let’s try something else first,” and times when somebody is really sick and needs an expensive drug, they may have already tried a cheaper drug in another health plan the year before. It’s very hard to untangle, you know, when “no” is appropriate because we have overtreatment in this country. But the problem here is that sometimes “no” it’s completely inappropriate, and the insurer is not paying for something that the patient expected to get when they signed up for a health plan to take care of their health.

Rovner: And we should point out this is true in all managed-care plans, not just in Medicare Advantage plans.

Kenen: Yes.

Rovner: So before we move on, I want to give a shoutout to my KHN colleague Fred Schulte, who has been on the Medicare Advantage fraud trail like a dog with a bone for more than a decade now. We will link to some of his award-winning work in our show notes. Anyway, now the Biden administration, Margot, as you said, is trying to crack down on the, if not outright fraud, at least the manipulation of payments, which will also, at the same time, save the Medicare trust fund a lot of money. In the past, though, even small changes to Medicare Advantage, because it is so popular, have been met with a lot of pushback from members of Congress in both parties. But that’s not really happening this time, is it?

Sanger-Katz: Yeah, This has, I think, been the biggest surprise and the most interesting part of reporting on this story. Historically, Medicare Advantage is about half of Medicare’s enrollment, as in these plans. If you survey seniors who have these plans, they tell you that they really love them. And notwithstanding all the stuff we just talked about, I think they are popular by most people who use them. In part, it’s because they get these extra benefits. They have lower premiums. You know, they get some goodies that they wouldn’t get with regular Medicare. And in Congress, the preponderance of members of Congress have signed letters indicating that they support, I think, what they call a stable policy-and-rate environment for the plan. So last year, 80% of members of the House of Representatives signed such a letter. That’s just, I mean, you don’t see 80% of members of the House of Representatives agreeing on practically anything — and a majority of senators as well. And I think everyone’s expectation, including me, is that when these people signed this letter and said, you know, this is important and my constituents care about it, that they would have the back of the plans and that it would be hard for regulators to be aggressive in trying to change anything about this program because there would be such a big political outcry. And, in fact, what’s happened is they have really started cracking down. They started with some of these smaller regulations. And then the one that they did, it was kind of hidden in a technical way, but it had a really big impact. They changed this whole formula and they basically said, hey, plans, like, you can no longer get these extra payments for a lot of the diseases that they were very commonly making money for diagnosing people for. And all of a sudden, you know, this support on the Hill just kind of dissolved. And that is very much in the face of this huge lobbying effort. You know, Julie, you mentioned the television commercials, but the plans also mobilize their customers to call their members of Congress to contact the White House. Something like 142,000 calls and letters have been submitted to members of Congress and the White House. The proposal itself, there’s the formal comment process — in a normal year [it] gets like a couple of hundred comments, mostly from various stakeholders in the Medicare system. This year there was an organized letter-writing campaign and 15,000 comments were submitted on this rate notice. So we just see this environment in which the public has been activated. Lobbyists are going crazy. The CEO of United[Healthcare], the largest health insurer in the country, was making the rounds on the Hill, talking to members of Congress. And yet … and yet there’s really no one in Congress who’s standing up and screaming and yelling about how terrible this is. I mean, I shouldn’t say no one. There are a few individual members of Congress, Republicans, who have been highly critical of this and who have pointed out that this move is potentially inconsistent with President [Joe] Biden’s promise to never cut Medicare, which is a key campaign message for him going into his reelection. But the leaders in Congress, the heads of committees, the really prominent members, and certainly leading Democrats have not said those kinds of things. There were letters that came out very late in the process, really in the last week or so, from Republicans in House and Senate committees of jurisdiction that you might have expected to be these angry, partisan, like, “how dare you do this to Medicare Advantage?” kind of letters. And they were not those kinds of letters. They weren’t critical, but they were very polite and they were very technical. They’re, like, could you please answer the following 10 very technical questions about this tiny little detail of the formula? So it’s clear … they are concerned and they are providing oversight. And I don’t think that they are enthusiastically embracing these changes. But at the same time, I think they are not carrying water for the insurance industry and making it very politically difficult for the Biden administration to make these changes.

Rovner: I feel like the Humana announcement actually sent quite a message that says, wow, we can make a lot more money from Medicare than we can make from the commercial market.

Kenen: Well, I think that’s true. I mean, one reason so many seniors are in Medicare Advantage, and do like it, is that they get an incredible deluge of marketing. I mean, the companies went in here, they saw that it was a business opportunity. They have marketed themselves very aggressively. People get dozens and dozens of letters saying, “Apply for this plan” or “We’ll give you this. We’ll give you that.” So the market is there. But I also think there’s a political dynamic that’s bubbled up recently that’s different. There’s been a fight every year about Medicare Advantage payments. It hasn’t been as grassroots; it hasn’t gotten as much attention. But there’s been a fight. I mean, every year the administration puts out their formula. Every year the industry fights it back. You know, there’s some kind of compromise. The industry doesn’t get hit as much as it would have. It’s part of the game, right? I mean, that’s how payment rules are made in Washington. But something has changed here that Biden quite successfully, at the State of the Union, really put the Republicans on the hot seat in terms of protecting Medicare and Social Security. And they’ve flipped it. Because the Republicans are better at language. You know, if this was a Republican rule, they would be calling it the “Protect America’s Seniors From Fraudulent Insurers” rule. You know … the Democrats just don’t do that.

Rovner: We should point out that it was the Republicans who named it Medicare Advantage — renamed the whole Medicare private plan program.

Kenen: Right. But just as … Biden’s politically great moment at the State of the Union making the Republicans promise not to touch Medicare, the Republicans have flipped it, because now they’re accusing Biden of attacking Medicare in a different way. And, you know, Medicare was this hot political issue in campaigns in the late Nineties and the early 2000s. It was replaced by a 10- to 15-year fight about what became the Affordable Care Act and repealing it and all that. And then there was this political vacuum in 2022, and in 2020, after the Republicans failed to repeal the ACA, we sort of had a — not health slogan-free, but it was on the back burner and …

Rovner: We had a reset. Well, we did have a pandemic.

Kenen: We had the pandemic, but — and that was politicized — but the traditional health care fight is reemerging. The traditional partisan health care fight is … both sides have accused the other over the year of “Mediscare.” This is the platform for that fight that I think we will continue to see going into 2024. I mean, it will evolve. I mean, this particular rule will get settled. But, you know, you’re sort of seeing who is the champion of Medicare, which Republicans, years ago, when Paul Ryan, when he was the budget chair of the House and the speaker of the House, he really wanted to significantly transform Medicare in ways that made it very different than the Medicare as it existed for them, Republicans, who are “saving Medicare.” For the Democrats, it was “Republicans are privatizing and destroying Medicare.” This is just Chapter 9,000. It’ll morph again between now and November 2024, but it’s begun.

Sanger-Katz: I think the politics of this are interesting and I think kind of unsettled. I’m very curious to see how this plays out in the campaigns. I do think that there is an available argument for Republicans to make that this change, which does take money out of the pockets of these plans and which potentially could mean that beneficiaries are going to end up with a little bit less generosity, because when those plans make less money, maybe they’re not going to give you as many extra goodies or lower your premium by as much. We don’t know that, but it’s certainly possible.

Rovner: In 1997, they cut payments for what was then Medicare Plus Choice, I think, Medicare Part C. And that’s exactly what happened. They cut all the extra benefits and people threw a fit, and they ended up having to put a lot of the money back.

Sanger-Katz: But in the Affordable Care Act, they cut a lot of the money and the benefits just kept growing. So we don’t know how the plans are going to absorb this change. But anyway, I think there is this available attack line for Republicans. Biden said he’s not going to cut Medicare. Look what he did. He’s cut Medicare. He’s taken all this money out of Medicare and it’s causing your premiums to go up. On the other hand, I do think there is this opportunity for Biden to say, “We reduced fraud; we improved the health of the Medicare trust fund.” And I think a lot of Republicans are actually committed to both of those things. I think they care about program integrity. They care about the fiscal future of the program. And so it’s all just a little bit scrambled. This almost feels more like something you might see in a Republican administration than a Democratic one.

Rovner: I was just saying, Jessie, is there any inclination on the Hill to do anything about this, or do you think they’re just going to either talk about it or not talk about it, as it were?

Hellmann: I haven’t heard anything about any potential action on the Hill. There’s just been letters sent asking questions, or some Republicans have sent letters saying, “We don’t like this.” But I don’t know that there’s enough support in both the Senate and the House to override this. And they are talking more about, like, the health of the Medicare trust fund. And some of the rules proposed by the administration could help strengthen that a little bit. It’s not going to solve all of its problems. But to go in and meddle with what the administration is doing to help the trust fund a little bit, while Congress is having more and more debates about helping the trust fund, I don’t know if that would be a good look.

Kenen: You could still have a policy compromise on, like, anti-fraud policy and still have a political fight. “We saved it!” “No, we saved it!” Oh, they … it’s way too soon to know what issues are going to dominate 2024 and what issues attract sustained attention from a public that doesn’t sustain attention to much of anything anymore. But right now, this is certainly a trial balloon for 2024. And I can see it. I can see that. I can see working out some kind of compromise on the actual technical issues and still having a political fight.

Rovner: Well, we’re going to move on because we’re clearly not gonna settle this today. But I hope people at least got a flavor for really how complicated this is, both, you know, technically and politically. I want to turn to something else that’s complicated: That’s reproductive health. And by that I mean much more than abortion and birth control. A new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that maternal mortality, the death rate for people when they are giving birth or in the weeks immediately after, rose by more than a third in 2021 compared to 2020. And African American women, even those with higher incomes, were 2½ times more likely to die during or just after childbirth than white women. Certainly, the pandemic had something to do with this. It disrupted medical care for just about everybody, and pregnant women who got covid had a higher risk of severe illness or death. But this is really just a continuation of a trend that’s been troubling health experts for several years now. Joanne, you’re our public health expert here. Why has this been so difficult to address?

Kenen: I mean, I think some of it is the two things that Julie said for 2020. I mean, you know, there was all this fear that the vaccines could hurt pregnant women. Actually, it was covid that hurt pregnant women and their babies. So, hopefully, we’re over the worst of that. And people weren’t going in for good prenatal care. So that was a factor. But this is a really sustained problem, and we’ve begun to take some steps. Most states are now extending Medicaid coverage postpartum for six months or a year under Medicaid. I think that when many of us, including me, when I first heard about these problems with maternal mortality, I was thinking about giving birth. I was thinking about hemorrhage and things that happen in the delivery room or right after, when, in fact, it’s really the full year after. There is high risk for everything. And that’s where a lot of the disparities in our system … the states that don’t have Medicaid, the states that  …

Rovner: Didn’t expand Medicaid.

Kenen: … didn’t extend Medicaid, you know, or there aren’t … most of them are now expanding it for women in this category, or beginning to. So that might help. I mean, the disparities throughout the health care system, this is not just an income thing. In all economic strata, the racial disparities in maternal mortality exist. And then I just found out something recently that really shocked me. I’ve done some work over the past six months writing about domestic violence as a public health problem, and I’ve moderated two panels, just like in the last 10 days on it. And most states do not count homicide, suicide, and overdose as part of the maternal mortality figures. So if you think these figures are bad, it’s way worse, because pregnancy and postpartum are all so high risk for all of those things. But since the OB-GYNs actually review these maternal mortality cases, they’re not reviewing those other three categories. So as bad as it is, it shocked me to realize what we’re looking at and being horrified by isn’t even the full picture.

Rovner: Wow. So, well, here’s where reproductive health writ large and abortion policy cross in ways that may be unexpected to lawmakers who voted for their states’ bans, but not to anybody who’s studied health policy. In Idaho, a rural hospital has announced it will no longer deliver babies, forcing women seeking labor and delivery care to travel nearly 50 miles. Why? Because the hospital, Bonner General Health in Sandpoint, says it cannot keep enough health professionals, both OB-GYNs and pediatricians, to safely run a maternity ward. Why not? Well, Idaho’s, quote, “legal and political climate,” says the hospital from its press release, quote: “The Idaho legislature continues to introduce and pass bills that criminalize physicians for medical care nationally recognized as the standard of care.” Margot, your extra credit this week is about something similar, but in Texas. So why don’t you do it now?

Sanger-Katz: Yes, I wanted to recommend this article from Sophie Novak in Slate called “You Know What? I’m Not Doing This Anymore.” And her piece profiles a whole bunch of nurses and doctors who work in OB-GYN care in Texas who are quitting or leaving or who are considering not taking jobs that they might otherwise have taken. And I think we don’t have real data on these trends, and I’m always a little bit worried about these kinds of stories that, you know, you can always find five or six or seven or 10 doctors who are unhappy or who say that they might quit. There was a lot of those stories, like, when Obamacare passed, all these doctors are going to retire early because they don’t like the rules. I think that turned out to be more marginal than we might have expected based on that coverage. But I still think that this story is telling these stories of these providers, and I think it’s pointing to something that is a real risk and is potentially a real trend, which is if you are someone who is in the business of caring for women through pregnancy and childbirth, and you feel like you cannot do the things that you were trained to do, that there is potential criminal liability for you in providing the care that your patients need, if you’re having to watch your patients suffer through needless harm or medical risk because you can’t provide an abortion when one is medically indicated without facing that kind of legal risk. I do think that there is a real risk that these people are not going to want to practice in those states. They would rather go to a place where they have a little bit more autonomy and a little bit less concern about prosecution. And what that means is that the women left behind in these states, however you feel about abortion, may not have access to as many health care providers, and they are going to continue to have pregnancies and births and need that kind of support. And I think that is a very interesting and troubling dynamic that I think could have very large reverberations and could, of course, make the trends that Joanne was just talking about, you know, even more concerning and lead to even more disparities. Because, of course, it is a lot of the states that are banning abortion are states that have these kind of poor, minority communities who are already facing a lot of the maternal mortality. We see in the existing data it’s increasing in a kind of across-the-board way, but there are some places where it’s worse than other places. And a lot of the worst places for maternal and fetal mortality are these same places that are banning abortion and where they may be at risk of losing some of the providers that can help ameliorate the problem.

Rovner: And it’s not just losing the providers, it’s replacing the providers who do get old enough and retire or who leave, because we’re seeing medical students, fourth-year medical students, say they’re loath to apply for residencies in some of these states, partly because they’re worried about their training, but partly because, you know, if they’re women, they may need this care at some point or they may have family members who will come with them who need this care at some point. And because, for the most part, where you do your residency tends to be where you end up practicing. So, I mean, we didn’t see it so much in this year’s match, but I’m wondering whether this is going to be an issue, too. There’s some big, important academic training centers in some of these states with bans. I’m thinking, you know, Vanderbilt comes to mind immediately in Tennessee. I think this is another thing that was perhaps unexpected, although if you thought about it hard, you could have predicted it.

Kenen: I mean, pregnancy is complicated. A century ago, women commonly died in pregnancy. And we live in an era where it’s safer than it had been, but we forget it can still be risky. And wanted pregnancies, very much wanted pregnancies, can go wrong. And I’ve experienced … I mean, I have two kids, but I experienced that, and I needed emergency medical care and I was able to get it. I needed emergency medical care more than once, and I was able to get it.

Rovner: And I remember visiting you when you were on bed rest.

Kenen: Right? It was one of my few fun nights on bed rest, when Julie and Joanne Silberner brought me dinner. We had a picnic, right? In bed, right? But, you know, I never had to deal with anything except the grief of losing a pregnancy. So, you know, it was a very much wanted pregnancy, and I didn’t have to worry about anything being withheld from me. I had a lot of things go wrong a lot of times. But, you know, I was really lucky to end up with the family I have. When I read these stories, and I go back and think, what if I had to deal with infection? What if I couldn’t get that care? And we’re just not thinking this assumption, by mostly male lawmakers, that it’s not a huge medical thing. Pregnancy changes your body, everything about your body, it’s not just cosmetic. There are lots and lots of risk factors, before and after. That [has] sort of just been glossed over as, oh, it’s not a problem. And it is a problem. And one reason we’re going to see this shift in medical practice is because they understand it’s a problem. I mean, you read these stories about these doctors, and we’ve talked about them every week, and our listeners have heard them and read them, about doctors who are watching a patient with a serious infection, until she is getting close enough to die that they can treat her, but not so close to dying that they lose her. And you hear the anguish.

Rovner: That’s why I was so taken by that line in the press release from the hospital in Idaho, which is that doctors don’t want to possibly be criminalized for what is considered the standard of care. They’re being asked to basically choose between perhaps getting sued or put in jail and what they vowed to do to care for their patients. And it’s really hard. It’s not really that much of a surprise that people are going to leave or not go there. All right. Well, we will definitely come back to this, too. I want to talk about covid briefly. Jessie, the president signed the bill passed by Congress to declassify intelligence on the origin of covid. Do we have any idea when that’s going to happen? How soon? And do we get to see this, too? Or just the members of Congress?

Hellmann: The director of national intelligence is supposed to declassify this information 90 days after the law is passed. After that, I’m not entirely sure if it’s just for Congress or it’s for the public, to be honest.

Rovner: We will see. I was amused that, right after this happened — because now we have all this talk that, you know, “Oh, absolutely” or not, absolutely it was a lab leak, but “more likely it was a lab leak.” Now we have new evidence suggesting that it may, in fact, have started in the Wuhan wet market, after all, jumping from something called raccoon dogs? Now, I consider myself something of an animal expert here. I have never heard of a raccoon dog.

Sanger-Katz: They’re really cute. I was enjoying looking at all the photographs of them.

Rovner: Are we going to now go back to the “OK, maybe it really did come from the market”? I-I-I …

Kenen: What I’m about to say is an oversimplification, but if you’re a Republican, you think it’s a lab leak. And if you’re a Democrat, you think it’s a raccoon dog. And that is an oversimplification. And one of the things that drives me crazy is that the potential for lab leaks exists and lab safety is an issue that should be bipartisan. There have been lab leaks in the U.S., there have been lab leaks elsewhere in the world. And that doesn’t mean this came from a lab leak, but lab leaks are a thing. And we want to make them not a thing. But again, there are many lessons we should be able to take from the pandemic; that’s one of them. Like, OK, maybe this wasn’t a lab leak, maybe this was the Wuhan animal market, but let’s take this as a moment to think about how we can protect ourselves from a future lab leak. You know, we may never conclusively know. Even the raccoon dog thing is still a theory. I mean, there’s evidence behind that theory, but the scientific establishment has not said, OK, this is it. There’s still debate. The science world tends to think it’s zoonotic, that it’s from an animal, but it’s not over yet. And again, the politicization is preventing good public policy.

Rovner: If only someone could turn that fight into something. And as I quoted Michael Osterholm last week as saying, “It doesn’t matter which one it was, because we have to be ready for both of them in a future pandemic.”

Kenen: Exactly. And we’ll probably have both. I mean, we may not have a pandemic from a lab leak, but is it possible that somebody, somewhere, or some community will be hurt from a lab leak? Yes, it is. And we need to mitigate that. Is it possible we have another zoonotic infection? I mean, there’s two Marburg outbreaks in Africa right now. I mean, that’s from animals. And there’s two of them going on. It’s an obscure disease. It’s worse than Ebola. It doesn’t spread as fast, but we have zoonotic infections way more often than the average American realizes.

Sanger-Katz: And also just one more thing, which is we still had and have a global pandemic that has caused enormous suffering and death and fear around the world. And in some ways, I feel like this obsession with like whose fault it is is a distraction from what can we do to prevent such a thing from happening in the future and really looking at, like, what was done appropriately and inappropriately in terms of the covid response? Pinning this down seems … it seems academically interesting to me. It seems useful to know. I think, as you guys have said, you’ve got to be ready for both things anyway. But it also feels like a little bit of a sideshow sometimes when the reality is: Covid came for us. It wasn’t a near-miss where looking at the origin is the whole story. It’s also everything that came afterwards is really important, too.

Rovner: Yes, absolutely. Well, finally this week, one more update. On last week’s podcast,while we were discussing Novo Nordisk following Eli Lilly’s lead in announcing insulin price cuts, I wondered aloud how long it would be before the third company in the triumvirate that controls most of the diabetes drug market, Sanofi, would follow suit. As it turned out, the answer was a couple of hours. In a press release that came out Thursday afternoon, Sanofi said it would cut the price of its most popular insulin product by 78% and ensure that people with health insurance pay no more than $35 a month for their insulin. But I’m thinking this fight is not completely over; now that the three big companies have voluntarily said we’ll lower our prices on some of our insulins, Congress is still going to want to do something about this, right?

Hellmann: Yeah. Sen. [Chuck] Schumer said last week that he still wants Congress to address this issue. He still wants to cap the cost of insulin because, like you said, there are still insulin products that some of these companies offer that don’t fall under these announcements.

Rovner: Drug prices will continue to be a top-of-mind issue, I suspect. All right. Well, that’s as much news as we have time 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 khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Margot, you’ve already done yours. Joanne, why don’t you go next?

Kenen: It’s a piece in The New Yorker, and I’m not sure how she pronounces her name. I think it’s Jia Tolentino. If any of you know, please correct me. But the story is called “Will the Ozempic Era Change How We Think About Being Fat and Being Thin?” I mean, this is a diabetes drug that is being used off-label for weight loss, quite widely to the point that there’s a shortage for people who have diabetes; they are having trouble getting it. It does help people lose weight and it’s become very much in demand because it does help you lose weight. And there are a few others in this class. So, the question she poses: This is a metabolic disorder, it’s not just a willpower issue, and will this help us get to that point? … It was a really good, interesting article, and I still ended up with a lot of questions about long-term safety, about do you have to take it forever and how much, and what happens if you don’t? It’s treating obesity rather than thinking about how to prevent obesity, which is a better — you know, too late for some millions of Americans, but there is generations to come. So but it was an interesting, provocative landscape piece.

Hellmann: My story is from The Washington Post. It’s called “Senior Care Is Crushingly Expensive. Boomers Aren’t Ready.” It’s just a story about how expensive long-term care could be, especially if you need really specialized care. One of the people interviewed for this story would have to pay about $72,000 a year to stay in an assisted-living facility. This person has Alzheimer’s and so they just need a little more help than someone else might. And they talk a lot about how Medicaid will cover some of this care, but only if you spend all of your life savings. And obviously, Medicare doesn’t really cover stays in assisted-living facilities either. I know we talked in email about how perennial this issue is. It’s something that was an issue 20 years ago. People are warning: We need to fix this problem.

Rovner: More than that. When I first joined CQ in 1986, it was the first big story I wrote, about what are we going to do about long-term care for the baby boomers? Here we are almost 40 years later, still talking about the same thing.

Hellmann: Yeah, I guess the answer is nothing.

Rovner: Not much has happened.

Kenen: Yeah, what’s happened is we’ve shifted more and more of it onto families.

Rovner: Yeah, that’s true.

Kenen: More complicated care for longer.

Rovner: My extra credit this week is a truly terrifying piece from Vice News called “Inside the Private Group Where Parents Give Ivermectin to Kids With Autism,” by David Gilbert. And the headline says most of it. What it doesn’t say is that when you give horse wormer to kids — and this group actually advises the use of the paste that’s given to horses — they’re going to have adverse reactions. The kids, not the horses, including headaches, stomachaches, blurry vision, and more. But the administrators of this group insist that the side effects aren’t because the children are being administered something that can kill people in the wrong dosages, but because the medication is, quote, “working.” They also say it can cure a whole host of other disorders from Down syndrome to alopecia. It is quite the story. You really do need to read it.

OK. That is our show for this week. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — at kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I am @jrovner. Margot?

Sanger-Katz: @sangerkatz

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann

Rovner: Joanne.

Kenen: @JoanneKenen

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 KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

The Host

Julie Rovner
KHN

@jrovner

Read Julie's stories.

Julie Rovner is chief Washington correspondent and host of KHN’s 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.

This week, the eyes of the nation are on Texas, where a federal judge who formerly worked for a conservative Christian advocacy group is set to decide whether the abortion pill mifepristone can stay on the market. Mifepristone is half of a two-pill regimen that now accounts for more than half of the abortions in the United States.

Meanwhile, Novo Nordisk, another of the three large drug companies that dominate the market for diabetes treatments, has announced it will cut the price of many of its insulin products. Eli Lilly announced its cuts early this month. But the push for more affordable insulin from activists and members of Congress is not the only reason for the change: Because of quirks in the way the drug market works, cutting prices could actually save the companies money in the long run.

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

Panelists

Jessie Hellmann
CQ Roll Call

@jessiehellmann

Read Jessie's stories

Sarah Karlin-Smith
Pink Sheet

@SarahKarlin

Read Sarah's stories

Alice Miranda Ollstein
Politico

@AliceOllstein

Read Alice's stories

Among the takeaways from this week’s episode:

• The federal judge examining the decades-old approval of mifepristone could issue a decision at any time after a hearing largely behind closed doors, during which he appeared open to restricting access to the drug.
• Democratic governors seek to counter the chill of Republican states’ warnings to pharmacies about distributing mifepristone, and a separate lawsuit in Texas seeks to set a precedent for punishing people who aren’t medical providers for assisting someone in obtaining an abortion.
• In pandemic news, Congress is moving forward with legislation that would force the Biden administration to declassify intelligence related to the origins of covid-19, while the editor of Cochrane Reviews posted a clarification of its recently published masking study, noting it is “inaccurate” to say it found that masks are not effective.
• Top federal health officials sent an unusual letter to Florida’s surgeon general, warning that his embrace of vaccination misinformation is harmful, even deadly, to Americans. While covid vaccines come with some risk of negative health effects, contracting covid carries a higher risk of poor outcomes.
• Novo Nordisk’s announcement that it will cut insulin prices puts pressure on Sanofi, the remaining insulin maker that has yet to adjust its prices.
• The Veterans Health Administration will cover Leqembi, a new Alzheimer’s drug. The decision comes as Medicare considers whether it will also cover the drug. Experts caution that new drugs shaking up the weight-loss market could prove costly for Medicare.
• Washington is eyeing changes to federal rules that would affect the practice of medicine. One change would force health plans to speed up “prior authorization” decisions by health insurers and increase transparency around denials, which supporters say would help patients better access needed care. Another proposal would ban noncompete clauses in contracts, including in health care. Arguments for and against the change both cite the issue of physician burnout — though they disagree on whether the ban would make the problem better or worse.

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

Julie Rovner: “Tradeoffs” podcast’s “The Conservative Clash Over Abortion Bans,” by Alice Miranda Ollstein and Dan Gorenstein

Alice Miranda Ollstein: Politico’s “Sharpton Dodges the Spotlight on Latest Push to Ban Menthol Cigarettes,” by Julia Marsh

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Allure’s “With New Legislation, You Can Expect More Recalls to Hit the Beauty Industry,” by Elizabeth Siegel and Deanna Pai

Jessie Hellmann: The New York Times’ “Opioid Settlement Hinders Patients’ Access to a Wide Array of Drugs,” by Christina Jewett and Ellen Gabler

Also mentioned in this week’s podcast:

• CQ Roll Call’s “Noncompete Rule Puts Doctors, Hospitals at Odds,” by Jessie Hellmann
• Cochrane’s “Statement on ‘Physical Interventions to Interrupt or Reduce the Spread of Respiratory Viruses’ Review,” by Karla Soares-Weiser, editor-in-chief
• The “Osterholm Update” podcast’s “Truth in the Midst of Political Theater,” by Michael Osterholm and Chris Dall
• Stat’s “Denied by AI: How Medicare Advantage Plans Use Algorithms to Cut Off Care for Seniors in Need,” by Casey Ross and Bob Herman

click to open the transcript

Transcript: Judging the Abortion Pill

KHN’s ‘What the Health?’Episode Title: Judging the Abortion PillEpisode Number: 289Published: March 16, 2023

[Editor’s note: This transcript, generated using transcription software, has been edited for style and clarity.]

Julie Rovner: Hello and welcome back to KHN’s “What the Health?” I’m Julie Rovner, chief Washington correspondent at Kaiser 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 16, 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: Good morning.

Rovner: Jessie Hellmann of CQ Roll Call.

Jessie Hellmann: Hello.

Rovner: And Sarah Karlin-Smith the Pink Sheet.

Sarah Karlin-Smith: Hi, Julie.

Rovner: So, we have more than enough news. Let us get right to it. We will start this week with abortion. And, of course, that means we will start in Texas. On Wednesday, federal District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk held a four-hour hearing in Amarillo on a lawsuit charging that the FDA wrongly approved the abortion pill mifepristone back in the year 2000 and that he, Judge Kacsmaryk, should substitute his legal judgment for the FDA’s medical judgment and order the FDA to take it off the market. What was said at the hearing? Well, we don’t really know because only 18 reporters were allowed in. They weren’t allowed to take any electronic devices in with them. And there’s no audio and no transcript. But, Alice, I know you’ve been trying to follow this from afar, like I have. What do we know about what happened and when might we expect a ruling?

Ollstein: So we can expect a ruling literally at any time. Hopefully not while we are taping right now. The judge did say that he would rule as soon as possible, although with four hours of oral arguments to sift through, that could take a bit of time. I always bank on a Friday evening news dump, because that’s when it tends to happen.

Rovner: I keep reminding people that’s when the ACA [Affordable Care Act] ruling came down.

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: Came down on the Friday before Christmas at 7:30 at night.

Ollstein: Exactly. Thankfully, some great reporters were able to make it and provided us with some updates about this. It was really fascinating. The judge definitely, as we anticipated from his record of working for conservative, explicitly anti-abortion organizations before he was confirmed to this judgeship, he did seem open to taking the steps that the challengers were asking for in restricting access to this medication. I think the question really is whether he is going to go for a full ban or — what a lot of the questions during oral arguments centered around — was around rolling back more recent FDA rules that allowed people to get the pills by telemedicine, by mail delivery. And so there is some question as to … if going all the way back to a 20-year-old FDA approval and overturning it is a bridge too far. Maybe these more recent agency rules are sort of more justifiable in having the court go after them. So, we’re all just on high, high alert, refreshing pages over here.

Rovner: Yeah. Once again, remind us of why this could have national impact, this one judge in Amarillo, Texas?

Ollstein: Yeah. So these anti-abortion medical groups incorporated in Amarillo specifically so that they could get in front of this judge who has a record of being an abortion opponent. And so this is an example of “judge shopping,” which is an increasingly common practice. So this could have national implications because it’s going after the federal regulations around these pills. Really, this will mainly impact blue and purple states, where the pills are still legal and still used today. A bunch of states have already banned them and put restrictions on all forms of abortion or just the pills. And so this really will squeeze states where their use is protected.

Rovner: And I think abortion rights organizations are freaked out because everybody thinks, well, it’s just one judge. You’ll go up to the next level and you’ll get it, you know, you’ll get it stayed. Except in this case, the next level is the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, which is just as conservative. And we seem to do a lot of anti-abortion rulings. And then if you go above the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, you’re at the Supreme Court, which just overturned Roe v. Wade. So if this judge rules for the plaintiffs in this case, there’s not a lot of hope, I guess, from the abortion rights side that anything could be overturned, right?

Ollstein: It also gets into really interesting stuff about what is on the labels of these different drugs. Pro-abortion rights and other medical groups have been pushing the FDA to officially add miscarriage management to the label of mifepristone, so that if it is banned in this case, people can still access it for that. That has not happened. It is used for miscarriage management off-label. That is the real risk of people losing access; they’re not just for abortion. Again, there are two pills that have been used for abortions together for the past 20 years, and the other one, misoprostol, there could be restrictions put on it through this case, but because it officially is labeled and marketed for non-abortion purposes, it’s harder to ban.

Rovner: It’s a stomach ulcer drug.

Ollstein: Exactly.

Rovner: All right. Well, assuming that the pill is not pulled from the market, the squabble over whether pharmacies will stock it continues. As we discussed at some length last week, Walgreens caved to threats of prosecution from Republican attorneys general and waffled on whether they’ll sell the pills, even in some states where abortion remains legal. Now, a group of Democratic governors are not so subtly urging seven other national pharmacy chains to pay no attention to those Republican attorneys general threats. Have we heard from any of the other pharmacy chains about whether they will or won’t sell mifepristone in the wake of Walgreens getting raked over the coals by both sides?

Ollstein: Total radio silence. And I think that the backlash to Walgreens is the reason for that. I think they saw what happened. They saw Walgreens getting really slammed from both sides. You know, you have anti-abortion folks slamming Walgreens for saying they’ll sell the pills anywhere in the country. And you have pro-abortion rights people mad at Walgreens for saying that they won’t sell them in some places. So it’s kind of a no-win situation. And the other pharmacies, I’m sure, are looking at that and saying, why would we stick our necks out getting certification from the drugmakers to sell the pills in the first place? It’s going to still take a while and who knows what could happen by the? And so why would we prematurely come out and say what we’re doing when we have no idea?

Rovner: Yeah, and I remind people for the millionth time that it’s not that Walgreens was going to stop selling them. None of the pharmacies have started selling them yet because it was only in January that FDA said for the first time that they could, which, as Alice points out, may be one of the things that this judge in Texas rolls back, if he doesn’t try to roll back the entire approval of the pill. One more on abortion: Also in Texas, the ex-husband of a woman who got an abortion last summer is suing three of her friends for, quote, “wrongful death” for allegedly helping her obtain abortion medication. His evidence largely comes from screenshots from a group chat, raising more calls for better privacy protections for electronic information. Meanwhile, it’s not even totally clear that the abortion was illegal last July, because there was some legal back and forth about whether Texas’ trigger law abortion ban was actually triggered when Roe was overturned the month before. If the ex-husband wins this suit, though, I’m wondering how much of a reaction there is going to be to nonmedical providers being found liable for damages. He’s suing them for $1,000,000. We keep hearing about this, but to my knowledge, it hasn’t actually happened yet, that nobody’s been convicted, I don’t think anywhere of, you know, abetting someone having an abortion, particularly a nonmedical provider.

Karlin-Smith: And then I mean, it seems like, again, it’s designed to have these chilling effects on people and get people to think twice before they do things they otherwise would. And I know this story raises the issue of whether there’ll be more pressure on tech companies to encrypt all data and messages, which would be interesting to see, you know, how companies react going forward. But we already know that …

Rovner: How the tech companies react.

Karlin-Smith: Right. I think we already have seen that doctors who take oaths and hold certain ethical standards to protect people’s health and life have felt like they’ve been put in very challenging situations between the law and what the best care they normally provide for their patients with abortion. So if doctors feel this way, if regular people feel like they’re also going to be on the hook for something, I would be more concerned, in the sense that regular people would feel even less protected. The medical providers, which tend to work for companies that have, you know, lawyers to help them guide them through their decision-making. And, you know, they have various types of insurance as well to help them through this stuff. So it does seem like it could have a big chilling effect if this ex-husband wins in any way.

Rovner: Yes. I mean, the point here is to just further isolate women who are pregnant and don’t want to be, for whatever reason, from reaching out, not just to medical providers, but to their friends, or at least, I guess, reaching out in some way other than in person. We will see how this one plays out. All right. Well, let’s talk about covid, which we haven’t done for a while. First, the reignited fight over the lab leak versus wet-market-origin theory. I have studiously tried to steer away from this because the one thing just about every expert agrees on is that we will probably never know for sure where covid-19 came from. And to quote Michael Osterholm, the esteemed epidemiologist at the University of Minnesota, we have to be prepared for the future for both events: another spillover event and for the lab leak. Still, the House moved forward with a bill this week, already passed by the Senate the week before, to require the declassification of some intelligence related to covid’s origins. Jessie, you covered it. What would the bill do? And is … do we think the president is going to sign this?

Hellmann: So the president hasn’t said yet if he will veto it, but if he does, it would be his first time vetoing something, if I’m not mistaken. So it could be a bad look if he does decide to make that decision. It passed the House 419 to 0. There were 16 non-voting members. It passed the Senate unanimously a few weeks ago, so I can’t imagine that he would veto it. And, basically, what the bill does, it would require the director of national intelligence to declassify information on covid-19 origins within 90 days and send the declassified report to Congress. It’s not clear how much that will illuminate. There’s so many questions about this. The intelligence community is still pretty divided on this issue, despite the Department of Energy, intelligence community saying a few weeks ago that they think it could have arose from a lab leak, though they said that with low confidence. So, it’s not really clear what information we’ll get from this.

Rovner: And this is just basically Congress saying, well, we don’t know, but we want to know what you know.

Hellmann: Yeah.

Rovner: Is that basically where we are?

Hellmann: Exactly. And there’s also, like, a lot of hearings going on right now in Congress where they’re starting to bring people and talk about this. And I think last week, or was it this week, a select committee had a closed meeting with the Department of Energy about their report. So there’s definitely a lot of interest in this.

Rovner: We will definitely see how this plays out. Well, another thing, we are still fighting about, three years in, the efficacy of masks. A couple of weeks ago, the gold-standard scientific organization, the Cochrane Review[s], put out a meta-analysis of mask studies conducted over the years that concluded there was not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that masks help stop the spread of respiratory illnesses. Well, as so often happens with conditional findings like those, mask opponents immediately trumpeted that the study shows that masks don’t work, which is not what the study showed. Now, in a fairly rare step, the editor of the Cochrane Review herself has posted a clarification of the summary of the study, which we will post in the show notes, but I will quote from it: “Commentators have claimed that a recently updated Cochrane Review shows that, quote, ‘Masks don’t work,’ quote, which is an inaccurate and misleading interpretation.” So what’s that line again? A lie travels around the world before the truth can even get out of bed. Is that where we are with masks now? We’ve gotten to the point where there’s this huge belief that masks don’t work. And the fact is, like the origin of covid, we don’t actually know.

Karlin-Smith: I think that the “don’t actually know” is maybe not the best way to put it. There are things we do know, and that’s some of what, you know, has tried to be clarified in the past week or so from this, although there is that ultimate question of: Is it too little, too late, and are people already sort of set in their views? And that’s the sort of thing for different types of researchers to figure out in terms of how you convince people of various evidence and stuff. But, you know, I think one line that stuck out to me is, in The New York Times piece, trying to dissect the nuance of this review. And it is really nuanced and you really have to appreciate those nuances. You know, they say is what we learn from the Cochrane Review is that particularly before the pandemic, distributing masks didn’t lead people to wear them. And thus, if a mask is going to work, but you don’t wear it, it’s not going to work. And you know, people who have been sort of anti-mask to some degree have said, well, but that does show masks don’t work, because if we can’t get people to wear masks, what does it matter? Of course, for people that want to wear a mask or, you know, are comfortable wearing a mask, there’s also plenty of evidence that shows well-fitting, quality masks will block covid. So you shouldn’t think on an individual level, “Let me throw away my N95. It’s not doing me any good.” It certainly is doing you good. And we have, you know, laboratory research and other research to prove that. So, you know, The New York Times did a really good job of dissecting what was really studied, how much was studied, pre-covid, post-covid, what they looked at, and to try and help people understand where we’re at, which is definitely, again, that there can be benefits to wearing masks. There are differences in population benefits versus individual benefits. And when you think about the population benefits, too, sometimes I think you also have to think about even small, subtle benefits on a population level can make a big difference. So even if mask-wearing isn’t the be-all and end-all some people maybe want you to think about, but it helps lower transmission and lowers cases on a population level, you know, that can translate to hundreds of thousands or even millions less cases, which can then lead, you know, to whatever corresponding number of deaths. So I think it’s also thinking about that, you know, something doesn’t have to be 100% effective in stopping transmission to be really valuable on a societal level.

Rovner: They could have summarized it as “Masks don’t work if people don’t wear them, and it’s hard to get people to wear them.” That would have been accurate. Right?

Karlin-Smith: But the other question is: How do we figure out how to get people to wear them if they do work?

Rovner: Well, but that’s not what this study was about.

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Ollstein: I found this whole reaction really depressing. And it’s been huge on Capitol Hill. It’s been coming up at all of these hearings with Republican members citing this and flatly declaring that it shows that masks don’t work, using it to go after officials like CDC Director [Rochelle] Walensky and excoriate her for recommending masks. And it just feels like we’ve learned nothing. Like Sarah was saying, we have not learned the difference between individual and population-level benefits. Everything is so black and white. Either something is completely effective or completely ineffective. There’s no nuance around reducing risk, and everyone keeps talking about how the next pandemic is inevitable. And it just feels like we absolutely have not learned anything from this one.

Rovner: Yeah, if you’d asked me three years ago where we would be in three years, this is not the place I would have predicted. Speaking of covid misinformation, this week the directors of the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention took the rare step of writing a joint letter to Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo — I assume that’s how he pronounces his name — warning that his claims that the covid vaccine is causing an upswing in adverse events are, quote, “incorrect, misleading and could be harmful to the American public.” Sarah, I’ve never seen a joint letter from the FDA and the CDC, certainly not to a state official. I mean, they must have been very unhappy about this.

Karlin-Smith: Yeah, I think it was a unique step. But also, Robert Califf at the FDA has made going after what he calls, you know, scientific misinformation, a key part of his commissionership. He often makes the claim that he feels like misinformation is what is killing so many Americans. So it wasn’t surprising in the sense that he felt the need to publicly respond in this way, particularly when you have an individual of such high stature in the state making claims that he feels are potentially dangerous to people. And a lot of what the Florida surgeon general said, again, has a little nugget of truth, but has largely been debunked in the way he’s framing it. So, yes, we do know there is some risk of these myocarditis, these negative heart effects from these covid mRNA vaccines. But we also know that getting covid actually poses a higher risk of these heart events. So it’s a trade-off that most people argue you would prefer to go with the vaccine than that. And so, the fact that, you know, you have such a high-level health official in a state perpetuating anti-vaccine sentiments, I think is why you see Califf and Walensky really feeling like they had to respond, though I’m a little bit perplexed as to why they decided to do it at this particular moment. But I think it’s because he actually addressed them first with a letter. But, you know, this surgeon general has been doing this for a while now.

Rovner: He’s been the surgeon general for a while, and he’s been saying things outside the mainstream, shall we say, for a while. Well, I want to turn to drug prices because there’s a lot of news there, too. Another one of the big three diabetes drugmakers, Novo Nordisk, has followed Eli Lilly’s lead in announcing it will slash the cost of many of its insulin products by up to 75%. First question, how much pressure will this put on Sanofi, the last of the drug companies that dominate the diabetes drug market? Are they almost inevitably going to follow?

Karlin-Smith: I think most people think it is inevitable, although maybe not for the reasons we’re all thinking. Some of it is just that peer pressure. But a big thing that sort of comes out in this: Sean Dickson, to give him credit, at West Health was sort of the first person I saw point this out. There’s changes in the law related to Medicaid rebates and what these companies will essentially, you know, the discounts they have to give Medicaid coming up, that when you raise your prices faster than inflation, because these insulin products have had their prices raised so much over the years, they were going to have to start owing the government money soon for their drugs instead of the government reimbursing them. So that’s seen as really probably one of the key reasons why these changes are happening when they’re happening, which is not to, like, take any credit away from all the advocates who have pushed for lower insulin prices over the years. Certainly, this law and regulation that was passed was designed, in fact, to motivate companies to do this. So, you know, there’s a cynical way of looking at it, and there’s another way of working at it. But, you know, I do think most people expect Sanofi to follow through, particularly if they think it’s going to impact their formulary placement, in terms of how they compete with these products. But then also just, you know, from a PR perspective, it’s not going to look good for them to be that last holdout.

Rovner: But this sort of leads to my next question. I haven’t seen anybody mention this yet, but I can’t help but think that particularly Lilly and Novo Nordisk are happy to cut the prices on insulin and get lots of good press, as you point out, because both of them are sitting on giant blockbuster drugs to treat obesity. Novo already has FDA approval for Wegovy, which is the same drug as its diabetes drug Ozempic, just in a larger dose. While Lilly already has the diabetes drug Mounjaro, whose clinical trials for obesity have shown it may be even more effective than Wegovy in helping people lose weight. Am I missing something here, or are these companies about to make a killing on other drugs?

Karlin-Smith: No, I mean, that’s one point. And I think, you know, Novo Nordisk is more reliant on insulin and diabetes products in general than Eli Lilly and Sanofi, which have broader profiles. But one thing to note is most of the insulin drugs that are getting list price cuts are older insulin. So, you know, Novo Nordisk notably did not cut the price of one of their newer insulins … in their announcement this week. So again, you have to look at which particular products they’re cutting and why. But there’s big concern about how the use of some of these diabetes medicines to treat obesity will impact budgets because such a large percentage of the U.S. population is overweight.

Rovner: You’re just getting to my next question.

Karlin-Smith: That’s what … I assumed you were thinking of this Medicare issue. Right now Medicare does not cover drugs for weight loss, but the thought process is, if they change that, because these drugs are much more effective than prior weight loss drugs have been, you know how will Medicare pay for these? So that’s another big drug pricing debate coming down the pike.

Rovner: I was just going to say, I mean, this is the thing that I’ve been thinking about, you know, and I guess the complication with Medicare … there’s a piece in the New England Journal of Medicine this week by a bunch of drug price researchers that said, well, maybe the cost-benefit for Medicare wouldn’t be quite as good as it would be for the younger population, because obesity is not such a factor for shortening your life if you’re over 65 than if you’re under 65. But as others point out, it’s unlikely that private insurers are going to start covering this medication if Medicare doesn’t. So you’ve got this sort of place where you’ve got these very promising drugs that are currently very expensive, many in the neighborhood of $1,300 a month, which is not what most people can afford, if insurance isn’t covering it. But the promise of working … and you’ve got all these rich people buying it from heaven-knows-what doctor. So there is actually a shortage. But this is expensive enough that if they can’t push the price down, it has the potential to really impact the entire cost of the health care system. Right?

Karlin-Smith: Right. I’ve seen people writing about this the way we were talking about the Alzheimer’s drugs if Medicare was decided to cover it for all patients who qualify for Alzheimer’s, some of the drugs that came out, how they would essentially have to raise premiums and the implications there. They remind me also of, a number of years ago now, when some new cholesterol-lowering medicines came out that were really pricey. And what would happen to Medicare if they got prescribed and used widely? That, of course, didn’t happen. In part, perhaps, because payers curtail these to some degree. This is going to become a really interesting public discussion because the costs issue, but it’s also sort of about how we think about obesity and weight loss. And for a long time, there’s been sort of a stigma attached to weight loss and weight loss products and people not thinking about it as a medical condition, something where you really need to try other things before you get a medicine or get a medical procedure. It’s sort of a personal failure, a cosmetic issue, issues of self-control … and the fact that these drugs are much more successful than previous weight loss medicines, which tended to not help people lose very much weight and had a lot more side effects, some of them were fairly dangerous.

Rovner: And got pulled off the market.

Karlin-Smith: Right.

Ollstein: For killing people.

Karlin-Smith: You’re going to confront a lot of issues head-on in figuring out how to deal with this, because it’s not just about price. It’s sort of thinking about what we consider a disease and what we’re willing to treat as a medical condition.

Rovner: Yeah, I think this is going to be a really big debate going forward. Well, you mentioned Alzheimer’s. And speaking of Alzheimer’s, the Veterans [Health] Administration has announced that it will offer patients with Alzheimer’s disease, that newest Alzheimer’s drug, Leqembi, is that how you pronounce it? It received accelerated approval from the FDA in January. That means more evidence needs to be presented to assure its safety and efficacy. Sarah, is this drug really better/safer than Aduhelm, which it’s a chemical cousin of, right? And that’s the one that we had all the fighting over last year. So what do we think Medicare is going to do with this drug?

Karlin-Smith: So we do have some evidence that this drug does seem to be an improvement over Aduhelm, even though Leqembi only got an accelerated approval so far from the FDA. FDA is already evaluating the drug for full approval because in that interim between when they filed the accelerated approval, they actually pretty much wrapped up a Phase 3 clinical trial that looked at outcomes and did show some benefit on cognition and so forth. There’s certainly a debate out there as to how meaningful that benefit was, but they have shown a hard clinical benefit in trials, not just changed a laboratory marker that is predictive of Alzheimer’s. So that is significant for the company. But it’s just that FDA and then I think CMS hasn’t really considered that further data yet. And so I think there is a good chance that if FDA grants the drug full approval, which I think is pretty likely, will reconsider it, and they maybe were just sort of buying them some time because, again, it is going to be a bit of a challenge to figure out how to operationalize this. The VA, if you compare to Medicare, I was looking yesterday, you know, the VA probably has a few hundred thousand people that might qualify for this drug versus Medicare potentially has upwards of 6 million or so forth. So the different budget process and the VA also has more ability to negotiate drug prices with the company than Medicare does right now for this particular product.

Rovner: So very first-world problems. We finally have drugs to treat things that we’ve been trying to treat effectively for a long time, except that we can’t afford them. So we’re going to … I imagine this debate is going to also continue. Well, finally this week, I wanted to talk briefly about the practice of medicine and the role of the federal government, even though that’s sort of what we’ve been talking about this entire time. Jessie, you wrote about the Biden administration’s rules barring noncompete clauses in employment this week. Obviously, this is something that transcends health care. Apparently, even Starbucks doesn’t want its trained baristas going to work for local competitors. But how does this affect health care?

Hellmann: Yeah, so from what I’ve heard, noncompetes are really rampant in the health care. Especially between physicians and group practices in hospitals. So I’ve seen a lot of doctors submitting comments to the FTC telling them, and some of these is begging them to finalize this rule. There have been … the American Academy of Family Physicians has come out really strongly in favor of the rule. Basically, the argument is that it contributes to burnout, when doctors can’t leave jobs they’re unhappy in. And it also contributes to workforce shortages. If you’re in a noncompete agreement saying that you can’t work at a competitor within a 10- or 20-mile radius and you’re really unhappy in your job, but you might feel compelled to just go work somewhere else. On the other side, you have the American Hospital Association coming out really forcefully against this rule, which is not a good sign and, obviously, very powerful in Washington. And they’re kind of using the covid pandemic as the impetus to try to block this, arguing that providers are really burned out right now. People are leaving the workforce. We really can’t afford to lose people at this time to competitors, and this will make it harder for us to retain and recruit workers. Both sides are making the same arguments in different ways.

Rovner: We’ll wait on these rules. Well, the other big intra-health care dispute that federal officials are being asked to weigh in on is prior authorization. That’s when insurers make it cumbersome for patients to get care their doctors want them to have. The idea is to prevent doctors from providing unnecessary or unnecessarily expensive care. But doctors say it just throws up barriers that make it harder even to get fairly typical care and puts patients at risk by delaying their treatment. I honestly thought this got taken care of in the Affordable Care Act, which incorporated the provisions of the patients’ bill of rights that Congress had been arguing about for the entire decade leading up to the ACA. But now the Biden administration has proposed rules that would require insurers to at least respond faster to prior authorization requests, although that wouldn’t start until 2026. This is actually one of the American Medical Association’s top issues. Is this just another example of people who are not doctors trying to practice medicine, i.e., the insurance companies, and does the federal government really have a role in all of this?

Karlin-Smith: I think this is a tough issue because usually the insurance companies do have doctors that are trying to make these decisions. What you see are doctors actually in medical practice, not an insurance company, complaining about as they’re often not the peers that they say they are. So, you know, you might have a cardiologist making a decision regarding a prior authorization that relates to something in the orthopedic field. So there’s questions about whether the people that really have enough knowledge are making the calls.

Rovner: Or, God forbid, they have nurses making these calls, too.

Karlin-Smith: But it’s one of these issues that’s really tough because there is a sort of in some cases, I think, a need and a reason to have prior authorization. And it can be useful because not all doctors are willing to, you know, maybe try the cheapest alternative for patients when one does exist. There are some, you know, to use the term, sort of, “quacks” out there that sometimes recommend things that the medical establishment overall would agree you shouldn’t be using on patients. But it’s just that the way this is, like, in the real world, it’s sort of gotten out of control, I guess, in some ways. The best way … where legitimate medical care is being denied, patients are going through prior authorization for refills of prescription drugs they clearly have benefited from and have been on for years. So it’s a tricky situation because there is certainly, for the government, an economic reason to have some degree of prior authorization. It’s just figuring out how to get the good out of it, where it actually can benefit and help, even both protect patients financially and medically without hurting patients, and particularly patients that don’t understand how to navigate the system and push back against bad decisions on prior auth.

Hellmann: There is also a really interesting story in Stat this week about the role of artificial intelligence and algorithms in making some of these decisions. So I do have questions about that. It does seem like I have been hearing more and more from doctors lately about how burdensome prior auth has been. I did a story a few months ago about prior authorization requirements for opioid treatment programs, and providers are saying it takes a long time to get approval. Sometimes you get denials for seemingly no reason, like people who need opioid treatment. Some of these people are really vulnerable, and once you decide you need care, you kind of want to get them at that moment. And they might not want to go through an appeals process. And that’s something that the administration has acknowledged is an issue, too. They say that they’re going to look at it.

Rovner: I remember when most of the health beat was actually refereeing these disputes between pieces of the medical establishment, so … there are other things that the administration is busy with in the health care realm. Well, that is the news for this week. Now it is time for our extra-credit segment — that’s where we each recommend a story we read this week we think you should read, too. As always, don’t worry if you miss it. We will post the links on the podcast page at khn.org and in our show notes on your phone or other mobile device. Sarah, why don’t you go first this week?

Karlin-Smith: I took a look at a story in Allure magazine: “With New Legislation, You Can Expect More Recalls to Hit the Beauty Industry.” And it’s a good explainer on modernizations to FDA’s regulations of cosmetics that passed in the end of the year in Congress. It’s the first overhaul since World War II. They say it gives the FDA some pretty big new authorities, like they can mandate the recall of a beauty product if it’s contaminated. Before they basically just had to beg companies to voluntarily do that, which in many cases companies don’t want products that might harm people to be on the market. But sometimes for whatever reason, they might not move as you want. And so it’s important for FDA to have that authority. You know, it also will do things like disclose common allergens to protect people, gives FDA a lot of new funding to help implement this. You know, I think it’s a pretty big consumer bill and it was kind of like an interesting thing to look at a different part of health policy we don’t often talk about. One thing that the story brings up that’ll be interesting to see and I know has been sort of a tension with leading up to whether this law would ever get passed, was how small companies will be able to handle this, and will it put basically small beauty out of business over big companies that know how to handle FDA and its regulations? So we’ll look to see what happens to your smaller cosmetic brands moving forward.

Rovner: Indeed. Jessie.

Hellmann: My extra credit is a story from The New York Times called “Opioid Settlement Hinders Patients’ Access to a Wide Array of Drugs.” And this is an angle I hadn’t really thought about: That $21 billion opioid settlement came with an agreement that distributors place stricter limits on drug suppliers to individual pharmacies and scrutinized their dispensing activity. But it doesn’t just apply to opioids. It applies to all controlled substances. So we’re seeing medications like Xanax and Adderall get caught up in this. And pharmacies are saying, like, it’s making it hard for them to fill prescriptions for patients and some of whom have had them for a really long time. And I don’t know, like, if anyone else has heard about the Adderall shortage — I don’t know if you would classify this as a shortage — but it’s an angle that I hadn’t really thought of. Like, it might not just be supply-chain issues.

Rovner: Yeah, I’ve heard about the Adderall shortage. I mean, I think there’s been a lot of coverage of that. So, yeah, I thought that was a really interesting story, too. Alice.

Ollstein: Yes. I chose a story by my colleagues up in New York, my colleague Julia Marsh, which is about the debate in New York over a flavored-cigarette ban and how it is dividing the civil rights community. And so, you have some civil rights leaders saying that we should ban menthol cigarettes because they have caused a lot of health harms to the Black community. They have long been marketed in ways that target the Black community. They’re in some ways more addictive than non-flavored tobacco. So they’re in support of this ban. And then you have Al Sharpton and some other civil rights leaders on the other side warning that such a ban and the enforcement of such a ban will lead to more police interaction with the Black community, more targeting, and potentially more deaths, which is what we’ve seen in the past. And so a fascinating piece about some …

Rovner: Deaths from law enforcement. Not from cigarettes.

Ollstein: Exactly. Well, yes, it’s kind of “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” on this issue. But a fascinating look at this and what could be a preview as the debates around this at the national level ramp up. So we’ve already seen this happen in California and some other states. Now, the debate is really hot in New York, but it could indicate some of the arguments we might hear if it really moves forward at the national level.

Rovner: Well, my extra credit this week is the latest episode of our competitor podcast “Tradeoffs,” which you really should also listen to regularly, by the way. It’s called “The Conservative Clash Over Abortion Bans,” and it’s actually by Alice here. And it’s a really close look at those exceptions to abortion bans, like for life or health. That’s something that we’ve talked about quite a bit here, except this looks at it from the viewpoint of how it’s dividing the anti-abortion community, which is really interesting. So, super helpful. Everybody listen to it. Thank you, Alice. OK. That is our show for this week. 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 ever-patient producer, Francis Ying. As always, you can email us your comments or questions. We’re at whatthehealth — all one word — @kff.org. Or you can tweet me. I’m @jrovner. Alice?

Ollstein: @AliceOllstein

Rovner: Sarah?

Karlin-Smith: @SarahKarlin

Rovner: Jessie.

Hellmann: @jessiehellmann

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 KHN’s What the Health? on Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Stitcher, Pocket Casts, or wherever you listen to podcasts.

KHN (Kaiser Health News) is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues. Together with Policy Analysis and Polling, KHN is one of the three major operating programs at KFF (Kaiser Family Foundation). KFF is an endowed nonprofit organization providing information on health issues to the nation.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).